One Small Step For Humankind ... One Giant Leap for Individualism

First of all, I have to admit that the launch of the rocket by Space X (link) is exciting and offers a lot of potential for new science and learning as well as might provide some significant cost savings when it comes to space exploration.  All of these things are good but I worry that they come at a price to our collective being as humanity.  The article I cited above has a great quote "It's fine to rely on partners, but that's not where the greatest nation in the world wants to be."  I find this sentiment to be troubling.  Is our individualism what really makes us great as a nation.  Is it really the fact that we can "go it alone" a sign that we truly are #1 in the world. My worries about private companies engaging in space flight is that it runs the risk of privatizing the knowledge that we can gain from such an experience.  Do we really want the symbol planted on Mars if/when the first humans land there to be a corporate logo?  I am not opposed to the idea of companies finding ways to make a profit through space exploration and travel, but I do worry that if it is done solely with private dollars and private backing that ultimately the gains no longer are public but also held in private.  It is probably overly romantic of me, but I have always loved that fact that some of our last frontiers of exploration, namely space and Antarctica have been held, not privately by companies or even nations, but have been seen more as a resource of all humanity.  I want to be excited about the potential offered by private companies but I worry that all of us seems to feed into the individualistic psyche of our nation.

Guns Don't Kill People, Robert's Rules Kill People

In the wake of General Conference there has been a lot of talk among United Methodist about the failings of Robert's Rules of Order.  The general feeling is that Robert's Rules are often abused by those who know them and work to create winners and losers when it comes to debate rather than working towards the unity of the greater whole.  While not the only victim of blame in the wake of General Conference, Robert's Rules receive what I believe is an undo share of the criticism and hear is why.

1) It really is akin to blaming the gun for killing the person instead of the person firing it.  Not only that, unlike a gun, whose sole purpose is to fire, Robert's Rules is a tool whose purpose is orderly discussion, productive debate, and working towards the unity of the greater whole.

2) We are talking about a convention with close to 1,000 voting delegates, I am not sure there is any system of governance for such a meeting that would not fall into similar challenges.

3) The formality of Robert's Rules is NOT meant to shackle debate or to oppress voices it is meant to encourage debate and allow for voices to be heard.

Instead of blaming the weapon, this is a great time to ask ourselves what caused Mom to be pointing it at Dad in the first place.  Why do we feel the need to use rules as weapons of division rather than as tools of unity?

I am a huge fan of working to reach a consensus and I am a strong believer in the work that the Holy Spirit can do in a gathering of people.  But NO model exists that will change people's minds and force consensus.  I was a part of a group of seven that needed to a consensus on who was to represent the group to a larger meeting.  Three of us believed that we really were the best person to represent the group (ten years later I am willing to admit I might have been wrong on my beliefs at the time).  We spent hours debating the process and ultimately came to a conclusion that I should represent the group but I do not believe we really reached consensus (that everyone thought I was actually the best person for it).  Even with the consensus I believe there is a chance that others may have felt like "losers" despite the fact that without a vote we could not point to clear winners and losers.

The problem with winners and loser is not Robert's Rules, it is each of us.  It starts with the fact that each of us generally thinks we are right about something (if we thought we were wrong we would likely try and come up with a different idea).  We then usually look for any tools we can to make sure the right decision is the one that is made ... or keep people from making a wrong decision.  I think this comes from a lack of trust.  I see this in myself a lot.  It is easy to look over matters and feel like I know what the best solution to a problem is and then grow frustrated if others do not see it that way.  The next step is to start thinking about how to change their minds, to fix things, or otherwise move things in the direction I want them to go.  Robert's Rules can be great for that.  A person who is knowledgeable about Robert's Rules as many more tools at their disposal than someone who does not.  The problem does not lie with Robert's Rules, it lies with each of us, failing to trust the wisdom of a greater body.  I know that the body is not always wise in its decisions, but maybe we need to think more about what that means, then blaming Robert's Rules for getting us there, because after all, if they are really causing harm, Robert's Rules makes it pretty easy to set them aside if that would be better for the group.

My personal challenge, as I get ready for two large meetings is to think about how I can get past that desire to win and use Robert's Rules I believe they are intended to be used ... for the good of the body

I'm All a Twitter

So over the last several years I have been internally debating the merits of Twitter.  I created an account several years ago, @RevJeffOzanne, but have never really used it much.  Some of what I have been unsure about is what I might say on Twitter that I don't already say in other forms like Facebook, and if all my Twitter peeps are also on Facebook, am I just wasting my time/energy.  As I was watching General Conference (the quadrennial gathering of The United Methodist Church for all my non-UMC readers) I was following the Twitter feed for the event as well.  It was fascinating to be watching the dialogue that was occurring around General Conference and peoples thoughts and reactions to it.  Part of me was excited about the possibilities that such discussions created.  Here was a chance for many more voices to be added to the thousand people who were actually allowed to speak at General Conference.  Other parts of me were less excited ... here is why

• Twitter takes the snarkiness factor up a notch, or twelve.  I love snarkiness, I often engage in snarkiness, and I definitely have passed the time in meetings and events being snarky with the person next to me.  My concern however is that Twitter encourages our snarkiness at the expense of more constructive thinking.  We end up being snarky in the same forum we are trying to be serious in.  No one would stand up in a meeting and make a snark comment, but we offer them on Twitter in the same space we use to advocate for serious ideas and issues.  I feel like this confuses our communication.
• Twitter creates a second realm of discussion ... while it can bring more conversations out into the public (like allowing those of us not at General Conference to be a part of the debate) the forum that it creates is limited, despite Twitter having millions of users.  The fact that not everyone is one Twitter creates divides in the conversation between those in the know and those not.  The "Includer" in me worries about the exclusion that naturally occurs from this.
• Somethings take more than 140 characters to say ... though not this ... and short thoughts can limit rather than encourage debate.
  

I am sure these faults don't make Twitter irredeemable and worthless, but it makes we wonder how much our new mediums of communication have an effect on how we think and how we engage in conversations.  Comment sections on news articles, rather than fostering health dialogue become collecting areas for hateful opinions, bad logic, and untruths (if you disagree, feel free to comment below).  Maybe the great challenge of Twitter is to realize that because it is so easy to say things, we should say less instead of more ... (and I don't mean simply reduce the number of characters).

Christianity and Government

I have to start with a disclaimer ... I know this topic is covered in much better detail by others and I am going to do a poor job of citing any outside sources or necessarily creating new thoughts and opinions ... but this has been rolling around in my head for a week an I wanted to try and get it out on "paper" so to speak.

When I was younger ... don't actually remember when it was ... I decided I could not be President of the United States.  I disqualified myself from consideration because I would be unable to be an effective Commander-in-Chief.  I believed then, and I still believe today that Christian teaching (turn the other cheek, love your enemy) was clearly incompatible with the office of the President and the violence that the office is called to engage in, for the device of our country.

In Romans 13, Paul entreats all of us to be subject to authority and to government.  He makes the claim that all governments derive their power ultimately from God and they become violent (bearing the sword) instruments of God's wrath/judgment.  It is clear that Paul feels that the violence and punishment engaged in by the state is a way in which God's power is manifest in the world.

While I certainly agree that this is what Paul is saying in Romans, I struggle with it as being consistent with a larger Christian message.  As followers of a grace-filled God and as people who ultimately have ourselves fallen short of expectations, it is hard to see what seems to be a very violent and harsh form of justice to be something attributed to the same God of love we see in the Gospels and even in other places in Paul's letters.

The United Methodist Church is very clear in the Social Principles that we oppose violence in several forms that the government engages in.  One is war (which is clearly stated as incompatible with Christian teaching) and the other is the death penalty (which the UMC opposes).  While Paul may believe that God gives such authority and power to the state, the stance of the UMC is that we (as the state) should not use it.

Here is where I get hung up ... if I am not comfortable being President because of my faith is it okay for me to be comfortable with someone else being it instead?  It feels like saying I oppose killing animals for food ... but if you do the butchering I am okay with eating it.  Am I asking to have my cake and eat it too?  I think Paul is struggling to see how government can function without the sword.  Would any of us pay taxes without that threat? (yes we are not threatened by the sword, but instead we would risk being placed in jail at gun point ... so is it really that different?)  Would we feel safe in our borders without an army to defend us?  If our Christian values really are opposed to violence and war, are we comfortable "outsourcing" those to people with different beliefs around these matters?  Are we called to live in a state that is almost by nature un-Christian (though instituted by God) ... or are we called to find new ways to create a government that actually reflect our values and perhaps seek to transform the world into something other than what it is today?

What do you think ... do Christian values undermine some of the fundamental aspects of government (need for the sword)?  Is it okay for Christians to be a part of such a government without seeking its change?  How do those values get balanced out?

Bow Ties are Cool

When I was in seminary I would jokingly invite people to sit with me at the "cool kids club."  Given my own shyness and geekyness it was far more an attempt at humor than an assertion of my own trendiness.  Simply by calling it the "cool kids club" I could not make it cool any more than repeatedly stating "bow ties are cool" makes that statement true.  (The use of Dr. Who in my example might be a further proof of my un-coolness ... or proof of how amazingly cool I am)  What brings all of this to mind is that yesterday I was reading yet another article about the demise of Facebook and how it is now clearly uncool.

I am not an expert on social media or social trends, but it feels like for at least a couple of years I have seen these stories about the decline of Facebook as if it is only a matter of time, and a short matter of time at that, before Facebook is too big, successful, evil, whatever to be cool and we must move on to something else.  I have seen several reasons expressed for why Facebook is/will be in decline.  The CNN article seems to imply that one of the declines of Facebook was when parents and shudder grandparents starting using Facebook.  Something cannot be cool if everyone is doing it!

What bothers me about all this is that as a society we place a ton of value on being cool and generally seem to define coolness in such a way that it is impossible for the public to be cool.  Why do we do this to ourselves?  Why do we chase after something that by definition we can almost never attain.  We fight against it ... I went to a school of non-conformists (we all seemed to fight conformity in the same ways).  Some people resist the pressure to be cool by being deliberately uncool ... in a way that is clear to be perceived by others as being cool.  I was fighting against the pressures to be cool by jokingly creating a "cool kids club" so that by definition myself and really anyone could be cool.  In the end I think we are longing for community and we are longing for connection.  Coolness is all about a desire by us to be loved by others and to be invited in to something greater than ourselves.  Maybe we would be better off if we worried less about trying to be cool ourselves and instead worried about making those around us feel cool and the world would be a better place.  Besides we all know that anyone who hangs out with cool people has got to be cool as well.

Corporate Ethics in an Embodied World

I will be the first to admit that I am one of the many people who is frustrated with the notion that corporations are people too ... or specifically that they are entitled to many of the same rights without many of the same responsibilities.  At the same time I understand that if we value many of our freedoms specifically speech and assembly, then we should want to give some rights to corporations.  For that reason I wanted to try and approach things from a different angle ... what does a world look like if we actually did think of corporations as people.

It seems to me that one of the jarring aspects of this idea is that corporations are so clearly not people ... lacking a body for one thing, but also in terms of a values.  Corporations are artificial constructs with clear purposes.  Those purposes can be good "make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world" would be a corporate purpose I am a big fan of.  Often when we think of corporate purposes it comes closer to ... maximize shareholder value (make money) while providing some sort of service.  We tend to ascribe higher purposes to humanity than simply maximizing shareholder value (would that be parents?).

How does this get changed if corporations are people?  For one it might change how we act towards corporations.  I have been guilty of hating corporations (something I try to never do with individuals).  I do not see business as a collection of individuals struggling to make money, provide and service, and get on with their lives.  Instead I find easier to think of them as faceless entities chasing the almighty dollar and can ascribe all sorts of unfair/cynical motives to their actions.  If we think of corporations as people it might change our expectations for them and our compassion for them.  I would hope in turn it might change how shareholders and board members think of the actions of the corporation.  If corporations become embodied instead of disembodied maybe it will be easier for corporations to act like people ... ethically and for the greater good.

I know that some of this feels like wishful thinking ... but I don't wonder if the disembodied nature of corporations today in our collective perception is what makes it so much easier for them to be involved in terrible actions.  Corporate raiding takes on a whole new meaning.  Embezzlement also feels less like a victim-less crime.  Maximizing shareholder value can no longer be the soul purpose of a company ... any more than it is socially acceptable for people to live only for themselves with no concern for their neighbors.  What I think I am saying in all of this is ... maybe if we started treating corporations as people ... and ascribing humanity to them ... it might cause them to act more like people and with more humanity.  Just a thought

What Can We Do?

Just this week tragedy struck in the form of another high school shooting.  Every time we hear about this things we start to ask the questions ... how could this happen ... who is to blame ... what can we do to stop this?  Casting around for blame is easy.  We can ask where the parents were.  In the case of the shooting we can try and determine how the individual acquired a gun.  We usually wonder if there were some signs that we could have seen.  Was there a way teachers, friends, or anyone could have known things were about to become violent?  I was in high school when the shooting at Columbine took place.  I remember how things changed at the high school afterward.  Security was tightened, procedures were put in place to lock down the school and keep kids safe.  None of these things felt like they would really make a difference.  The fact of the matter is with that many children around it is impossible to keep everyone safe.

Marianne and I have been watching West Wing.  At one point on the show they talk about how the real nuclear threat from a terrorist organization is not the payload on some missile but a small device smuggled into DC or near some other target.  I like to think we have good security measures in place to keep our leaders safe, but against some threats it is easy to wonder how much can we really do.  As far as I know we never really had a good way to keep us safe from the Soviet threat, except mutually assured destruction.

When we are faced with threats, when we look at tragedies and wonder what went wrong, we want to believe there is something we can do to keep our children safe, to keep our leaders safe, to keep ourselves safe.  We cast about for answers, more gun control or more guns, better parenting, better support in schools.  We want to believe there is something we can do.

The scripture lesson for Sunday is Mark 8:31-38.  This is the first time in Mark that Jesus tells his disciples he is going to be killed.  Peter's response is one of shock, one of outrage.  I think we are like Peter.  Peter had grown up under the rule of the Romans.  He had probably seen friends, family members, or neighbors suffer under what was at times an oppressive rule.  I am sure he had felt powerless and wondered how his country could ever be free from the threat they faced.  Then he met Jesus.  Then he encountered this divine individual who could heal the sick, cast out demons, and perform all manner of miracles.  This was not an ordinary person, this was the Son of God.  If anyone could overthrow the Romans it had to be Jesus.  At least that is what he thought until Jesus said that he would fail, that the Romans would win, that even the Son of God could not defeat the might of Roman.

Like I said, we are like Peter, we want to believe in something that will keep us safe, something we can do to avert these tragedies and make everything better.  Like Peter I think we need to confront the fact that in the end that is impossible.  If, like God, we value free will, then it will always be possible for someone to find a way to cause harm, to hurt others, even to kill.  Jesus challenges us to think about this differently.  Jesus challenges us to realize that dying is not necessarily losing.  In fact sometimes living can be losing.  Jesus "loses" to the Romans because he refuses to play their game, because he refuses to believe that power, violence, and force are acceptable solutions.  He believes that is better to love and lose than to kill to win.

We cannot do something to guarantee that we will always be safe.  I knew people in high school that wore trench-coats like those that the shooters in Columbine wore.  I have friends who felt hurt, isolated, and alone in middle school and high school.  They never turned to violence, but I know there were days they thought about.  I know it sounds trite but I think if we just loved more it would make a difference.  I think it would help on the little things and ripple its way up to the big problems.  We cannot do something to keep us totally safe, but I would rather seek to love everyone and risk dying because of that then trusting no one ... because how else can we really be safe?