Amin Maalouf - In the Name of Identity

I just read a book by Amin Maalouf called "In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong." Maalouf says that identity is constructed via a series of allegiances or associations with others, forming groups. (e.g. American, white, male, Southern Baptist, UNC Alumnae, Durham Residents, etc.) Often, society demands that you reduce your identity to a single allegiance, e.g. race, nationality, religion, etc. This depends on the historical context, but when that identity relationship that you have is persecuted, you tend to either resist violently, or to hide that aspect of your identity and do harm to yourself. Think Muslim terrorists and homosexuals in America, respectively. As a result, the compartmentalized notions of identity can be shown to have influence in everything from Apartheid to genocide, with all of its ugliness. 

I have been pondering this, wondering what it means for our primary identities to be found in Christ. Does this truth reject Maalouf's claim, in that we are all one in Christ Jesus? Or is our oneness a unity that accepts diversity, such that, though there is no male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free (Gal. 3:8), the Jew is embraced in his Jewness and the female in her femininity? What would that look like played out in the way that we understand the Church and the world? Do we allow for diversity within the Church, or are we conforming to a cookie-cutter model of Church, which could arguably result in either violent resistance or sublimation and hiding of identity such that true unity is prevented and undermined? 

It has definitely been food for thought. 

Upon Further Review. . .

I finished reading Jesus for President a couple weeks ago, but I've been meaning to write my final opinion on the book. I put down the book with mixed feelings - on one hand I really felt inspired and affirmed in some of the things that I believe, but on the other I felt guilty about not being "set apart" enough and buying into what America is selling me. I wanted to take time to really consider this conviction because Claiborne's ideas about the life of a follower of Christ are really radical to the average American Christian, and I didn't want to dismiss these ideas simply because they are new and scary and pretty much mean I'm currently a total failure. Upon further review, however, I feel pretty secure in saying that, while the ideas and lifestyles presented in Jesus for President are virtuous and make sense in light of our calling to be "not of the world", they are not for everyone and I am not living in sin if I don't ride a bike everywhere, grow my own food, and live with twenty other people.

There are a lot of good points made in the book that have helped to really consider the ramifications of my actions. What are my actions saying when I buy cheap stuff made by foreign workers that live and work in awful conditions so I can save a couple cents? How can I support war and the military when we are called to be peacemakers and supposed to be loving our neighbors? If I believe that God created the world and called us to be stewards of it, why don't I care more about sustaining it and making more eco-conscious decisions? It's these little aspects of my life that I was really challenged about, and makes me reconsider my motivations behind the decisions that I make.

One of the things I didn't really care for was the over-emphasis on the soft, hippie, lovey-dovey portrayal of Jesus. I feel like much of the recent Christian movement, led by guys like Piper and Driscoll, has been about portraying Christ as a powerful and sovereign dude that is not to be messed with. This re-emasculation of Jesus has been, in my opinion, long-overdue and a more accurate description of the nature of Christ, and so it was a little weird for them to dwell on the softer portrayal - it seemed a little out of touch, or something like that. Claiborne took a very passive and monastic approach to dealing with people and culture. As I said I think it works for some and in some situations but not for all.

I think that's all I'm going to write for now. I would definitely recommend that everyone read it and consider it. I think it leads to really good and creative discussion about what our lives should look like.

I haven't been very tenacious about reading recently, but I did recently purchase a collection of short stories by Flannery O'Connor called " A Good Man is Hard to Find" and I've been slowly working my way through that. If you've never read anything by her, you owe it to yourself to. Especially the story that the collection is named after, it is amazing.

Power of Acquaintance

So remember those connectors I was talking about? Those people who do an amazing job of networking with tons of people. The trick is not that these people have some special gift to have 1,000 best friends that they know and love. Connectors remember names and characteristics about people. They really do care for and want to know these people, but they don’t know them like best friends. It is impossible to know so many people as best friends

The interesting point made in the book was that it is these “acquaintances” and not good friends that give you power. It is having a large network of acquaintances in good standing that will get you a job. He even presented research to prove his point. In surveys it was amazing to me to see how most people get their job, not through submitting a resume cold, but through a personal contact. Even on top of that the percentages showed in astounding fashion that those personal contacts usually did not come from good friends but from acquaintances. This makes some statistical sense. You have many many more acquaintances that would consider mentioning your name during an interview and hiring process and only a few “good friends”. However that doesn’t change the fact that having many acquaintances can be beneficial.

Malcolm says that the close you are to the connector, the more acquaintances you have, and so the more power you have to do things and make things happen.

Food for thought.

The Tipping Point

So my most recent book read was The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. It says #1 National Bestseller so it must be good. I picked up this book because it seemed to have a Discourse and Jargon feel to it. It is a theory about how little things can make a big difference. The theory discusses how trends, fashions, ideas, disease, and behavior usually gradually change wax and wane but in certain situations they reach a tipping point where the trend or idea becomes an epidemic and swings into exponential change. See the D and J? A theory that applies to many different areas of life… candy bars, and people.

The basic layout of the book is his discussion and proof of the inner workings of the 3 things that play a role in causing an epidemic. The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and The Power of Context.

The Law of the Few points out 3 categories on individuals that can be instrumental in creating an epidemic.
1. The Connector is a person that has a large network of people at his disposal. These people are fascinatingly proficient at developing acquaintances and so know many people. They also have the gift of connecting these people together. This person often is someone who has his feet in many circles and so can create a network that includes more than one “circle” of people. At a university this person may be in many different organizations, in the “real world” this person may have had a few different careers or multiple careers at one time. It is this person that allows word of mouth communication to explode. Malcolm’s theory is that word of mouth epidemics don’t occur from you telling 4 people and each of those 4 people telling 4 more themselves. This does develop growth, and rapid growth at that but he points out that if you tell 4 people that those 4 people will have more difficulty finding others to share the new information with. Especially at the next level the number of people in your “circle” that don’t have the information is declining and the information must make the leap from one “circle” to the next. A connector, with his characteristic involvement in many circles allows this explosion of information travel by involving many of his circles at one time. In order to create an epidemic you might need a connector or something that serves as one.
2. The Maven is another person that is needed to create an epidemic according to the author. “The word Maven comes from the Yiddish, and it means one who accumulates knowledge”. This is the second of the individuals Malcolm mentions. I think it should be the first. It is less exciting but maybe more instrumental in the beginning stages of a word of mouth epidemic. A Maven is a wealth of knowledge and an amazing teacher. A Maven is an information specialists ready and willing to share his knowledge with anyone who will listen. An epidemic needs this person to weed out the bad new products. An epidemic needs this person to qualify if the product is indeed what it is being hyped up to be. This is the person who knows movies, sees movies early, and wants to help you avoid wasting your money on a bad one. He also will eagerly take you to the best theater and help you find the best seat in that theater (because he knows this much about theaters) to watch the movie because he is that passionate about it. He also is usually correct. This person is essential to ensuring that only good information, good products, and good trends make it into word of mouth information that is going to be shared by connectors. Without mavens connectors and the rest of us would go around yelling wildly about anything and everything we heard. With mavens we are able to appropriately sift through and find the products and ideas that are worth their weight/wait.
3. The Salesman is the last of these crucial individuals that are mentioned. These are the people that can convince you that they have found something even better than sliced bread when all they have to show you is sliced bread. I don’t know if that makes since. This is the most main stream of the individuals to explain. You know those people who make everything sound like the best thing ever!!! They are often outspoken, friendly, personable, and sometimes lawyers.

The second section of the book lost a little steam for me. I was loving all this stuff about people and the characteristics and what made them essential to creating epidemics with information. The Stickiness Factor pretty much means the product actually has to be good. If a Maven tells you its good and you rightly believe him, and Connector tells all his friends, and an amazing Salesman convinces you to visit a restaurant and you go. The food and service still has to be good in order to secure your second visit. Your personal experience with a trend, product, or any information makes the final call. If the Law of the Few fall into line and the product doesn’t “stick” the tipping point will not be reached. Here he spends a looong time discussing the process by which Sesame Street and Blues Clues developed their programs in a way that would “stick”. The children would pay attention, the children would learn, and their parents would let them watch.

The final law of epidemics as described by Malcolm Gladwell is the Power of Context. The environment has to be right to reach a tipping point. The people have to be ready for a green restaurant in order for a green restaurant to work. The spread of STDs in northern urban areas in slower and more controlled during the winter because people don’t go out. The interesting issue here is that the author takes this another step. He suggest that action is a result of environment more that of personal character. Not sure I am completely in agreement with that but he does make a good point that environmental context does change how messages are shared and what effect they have.

The second half of the Power of Context discusses how the power of groups of people can be used to encourage the spread of an idea. In groups people are more passionate, they are able to make good decisions and then develop many positive conversations about the topic which turns them into focused and determined people. Look at third camp. In a small group of people ideas are taken form one person to a trusting group and very quickly turned into a passionate idea that those group members use in their lives and share with others. Taking a message, idea, or trend to the next level sometimes involves taking that idea to small groups of people and allowing the idea to percolate and emerge stronger than ever.

That is a short concise summary of the book. The fascinating things of the book came from the additional research, stories, and theories he used to highlight each of these main points and therefore his tipping point theory overall. That is what kept me reading. Hopefully that makes you interested in future posts as well.

Some Greek

Ok, so Clayton had asked me to tell you guys about the stuff on the trinity and incarnation I'd been thinking about last time we met, but I forgot. I have about 30 minutes before I leave for work, which wasn't enough time to stay for service, so I figured I would spend the time writing something productive.

The greek word used by the church fathers to describe the community found among the divine persons in the trinity was perichoresis (which in English can be roughly translated as interpenetration). Perichoresis exists in two forms - economic and ontological. Ontological perichoresis describes how the three persons of the trinity are made of the exact same substance and share the same being. The economic trinity refers to the fact that in everything that the persons of the trinity do, they act together. For example, consider creation. The Bible says Jesus created the world (John 1:1-3 “all things came into being through Him”, Colossians 1:16), it says the Father created the world (Genesis 1:1 “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”, Isaiah 42:5), and it says the Holy Spirit created the world (Job 33:4 “the Spirit of God has made me”, Genesis 1:2). In all things the trinity acts together.

The greek word used by the church fathers to describe the church is koinonia (which in English is something between community and communion). The church is the gathering of believers that share everything in common (Acts 4:23), that have the unity that Jesus and the Father share (John 17), and that are joined into one body (1 Corinthians 12, among other examples).

What I have only recently discovered that I find amazing is that two words are used by the church fathers to describe the union of the divine and human nature in Christ: koinonia and perichoresis. In other words, in Christ there is an interpenetration and communion of divine and human. What this means is that in Christ human community (koinonia) and divine community (perichoresis) are united and come together. Throughout the NT there are examples where believers are said to be "in Christ" and "Christ in me." Because we are in Christ, we can now partake of the redeemed human nature and share in the community and unity of God. I am still struggling to understand the exact balance between economic and ontological perichoresis through what the church fathers call the communication of attributes - clearly we don't become God, but in Christ a new human nature spreads to all of humanity, one that allows for fellowship with God (Romans 5).

So what's the point? 1) We tend to think of salvation in terms of forgiveness, but restoration to fellowship, communion, and unity with God are equally important components. 2) We tend to think of the gospel as the passion narrative, but in the NT angels announce the gospel of the birth of the messiah to shepherds. We need to rethink and reclaim the full extent of the gospel: incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. FInally, 3) we need to recognize that we can share communion and interpenetration with God, feeling His real presence in our daily existence, and his real communication and interaction with the boy of believers. This should dramatically change our daily religious consciousness.

Ok, so that's a bit of greek and patristics for you. I'm discovering a lot of this by reading Martin Chemnitz's The Two Natures of Christ. It's dense, but you could read it for more information.

turning the other cheek

I am currently reading Jesus for President, which was written by two dudes who live in Christian communes (or "intentional communities") named Shane Claiborne (author of Irresistible Revolution) and Chris Haw. Simply based on the fact that these guys live in communes you could probably guess that there ideas about Jesus and politics are pretty different from your average American Christian - and you would be correct. I'm probably close to half way through the book right now and I'm really enjoying it. I don't think I agree with everything that they're saying, but it is making me think and I appreciate that. I expect that I will have a lot more to say on the book in the coming weeks, but for now I wanted to focus on a specific passage that made me reconsider a pretty well-known part of Scripture.


The book talks a lot about how Jesus' methods of doing things were completely different from anything else - that his "kingdom's" focus was far different that any others. Specifically his reactions to injustice and violence. The book argues that Christ's method was neither passive nor vengeful, but an alternative "third way". The authors point to Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and the idea of "turning the other cheek" (Matt. 5:38-42):

"When hit on the cheek, turn and look the person in the eye (v. 39). In the orderly Jewish culture, a person would hit someone only with the right hand. In some Jewish communities, if you hit someone with the left hand, you could be banished for ten days. So a person would have to use a back slap to hit someone on the right cheek with the right hand. It's clear that Jesus described a backhand, like an abusive husband to a wife or a master to a slave. It was slap to insult, degrade, and humiliate, a slap meant not for an equal but for an inferior, to put someone in their place. But by turning the cheek, the other person said, 'I am a human being, made in the image of God, and you cannot destroy that.' Do not cower and do not punch back. Make sure the person looks into your eyes and sees your sacred humanity , and it will become increasingly harder for that person to hurt you." (Claiborne & Haw, pgs. 92-93)

It seems to me that most of the interpretation regarding this Scripture centers on meekly submitting to the assailant and allowing God to have His justice rather than you fighting back or seeking vengeance on your own. Claiborne and Haw's take on the passage is entirely different - there is a powerful dignity and boldness to be found within the victim's reaction. It is as though they are actively fighting back without violence and not simply allowing themselves to be passively tread upon.

This idea really struck me and i think it is a good lesson for the church as a whole. Especially within the culture, I think Christians have a tendency to stoop to either violence or passivity and fail to go that "third way". Often we either passively wait as culture passes us by and we are rendered totally irrelevant or we over-aggressively attack it back and completely alienate the people around us.

A specific example that comes to mind for me is the homosexual marriage debate. Obviously many Christians are very outspoken against anything having to do with homosexuals. There is a whole bunch of homophobia and aggressive verbal attacking that goes on from people claiming Christ. On the other end of the spectrum, there are the more "PC" Christians who, embarrassed by their more conservative brethren, are highly passive and willing to give into the marriage thing so that people aren't offended and turned away from the Gospel. I definitely fall more on the "PC" side of things, but as I've thought about it more and been confronted with this "third way" stuff, the more I believe that there is a way for traditional, God-ordained marriage to "turn its cheek" and show that it is sacred and created by God and that it is OK to stand up for marriage and kids having a normal mom and dad. It is also OK to offend some people (there are good and bad ways to do it) because the Gospel is offensive and Jesus was offensive - but He spoke the truth and stood up for the truth and he did it without being passive or violent.

Honestly, I don't know what taking the "third way" looks like in this particular situation (and many other situations) and it is oftentimes scary, but it is something that I'm going to try to work on.

The Ball is Rolling...

So, I guess I'll be the one to push it off since I'm and work and work is slow.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about evangelism lately. Mostly because I'm not really an "evangelist." I like to live like I have Jesus in my life, but I'm mostly scared to death to tell anyone that I have Jesus in my life. By "anyone," I mean people I don't know. I've always put a lot of emphasis on developing a relationship before I try to talk to them, but that turns out to me just never getting around to it.

My biggest problem is that I have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. I know how I feel about Jesus, but I don't know how to tell others about that. Clayton has recently challenged me to figure out how to say what it is about the gospel that has changed me. I must say that thinking about this has made me feel like I don't really understand. I know that Christ died beaten and scorned on a wooden cross for my sins, but why don't I act like it all the time?

I think this feeling of not fully grasping the gospel stems from my lack of making an effort to spread the gospel. I haven't been motivated enough to share the greatest news that could ever be told.

In an effort to understand how to talk to people, Clayton let me borrow a book called "Questioning Evangelism - Engaging People's Hearts the Way Jesus Did." It is written by Randy Newman and so far it has been really good. I've only gotten through a little more than the first chapter, but it has made me think a lot about how to bring a conversation around to the gospel. As you probably guessed, he suggests using questions to get people to open up and have a discussion instead of having an agenda or script. He also talks about answering questions with questions, which is what Christ did a lot. (Matt 22:17-20, Matt 12:9-12, Luke 20:1-8) The scripture references and the "real life" examples he uses are mostly from someone asking a question, but the motivation behind the question was to put him on the defensive and not really a sincere inquiry. Here is an example:

Accusatory tone: "Why do you still believe in God in light of people's dying of AIDS?"
-"How do you explain so many deaths?"

This response engages the person without you having to go into defense mode. Instead, it opens up a dialogue where you can see where the other person is coming from. We've talked about the pizza a lot in Thirdcamp and I think this questioning approach is a good way to get the conversation to a place where you can see which piece of the pizza the person in interested in.

I'm pretty excited about reading more about this approach and applying these things in the way I talk to people. Now that you all know where I'm at, I'd really appreciate any input or other book recommendations.

tomatoes on my sandwich,
Aaron

What is Third Camp?

"I desperately needed to find a 'third camp,' a group of Christians who had concern for justice in the world but who grounded it in the nature of God rather than in their own subjective feelings." -Tim Keller (The Reason For God: Introduction)

While reading the introduction to Tim Keller's book our bible study came across these words that tie together the desire Keller has and we have to live a life that is caring, compassionate, and appropriate in God's eyes. A life lived as a result of a changed heart through knowing God and the Gospel. The tasks of understanding and living a life that is a response and reminder of the life Jesus lived is a daunting one. We attempt to meet with each other and encourage each other through study of scripture, reading other books, and viewing everything in our lives as part of God's creation and a way to understand our relationship with Him.

This blog is another attempt to share with each other what we learn and experience day to day. A better, more technologically savvy way to attempt to grow together in our knowledge of our world and our God. We will write on books, art, scripture, and experiences that effect us. We will ask for comment, affirmation, and correction from each other.