We Have to Love Our Neighbor Because He is There

Quote

One of my favorite quotes from one of the most explosive chapters of any book of any author I have ever read.

“We make our friends; we make our enemies; but God makes our next-door neighbour. Hence he comes to us clad in all the careless terrors of nature; he is as strange as the stars, as reckless and indifferent as the rain. He is Man, the most terrible of the beasts. That is why the old religions and the old scriptural language showed so sharp a wisdom when they spoke, not of one’s duty towards humanity, but one’s duty towards one’s neighbour. The duty towards humanity may often take the form of some choice which is personal or even pleasurable. That duty may be a hobby; it may even be a dissipation… But we have to love our neighbour because he is there– a much more alarming reason for a much more serious operation. He is the sample of humanity which is actually given us. Precisely because he may be anybody he is everybody. He is a symbol because he is an accident.” – G.K. Chesterton, http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch14.html

Thus Spoke Science

Standard

So many seem to take “science” to mean the automatic and unquestioning acceptance of any opinion or assertion, however vague the evidence and obscure the authority, regarding physical phenomena. I know of no other way to take the sentiment that frequently pops up around the internet “science says” or “according to science” when people are discussing issues on which there is no scientific consensus or certainty (even a great consensus or near certainty only amounts to a probability) and about which the person understands little. What understanding they do have is based merely on what they briefly heard or read somewhere, lacks any nuance or context, and serves only to prompt the continual, smug appeal to an imagined authority “science”. I don’t think most people know what science is, how it works, or why.

Curtailing Facebook

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 9.23.13 AM
Standard

I recently went through my list of Facebook “friends” and changed about 900 of the 1000 or so into “acquaintances,” which — in theory — will keep all but the most important of their posts or activities from showing up in my news feed. I also went through and “unliked” nearly all of the hundreds of pages/causes that populate my feed with their updates (keeping but a small few that met criteria which I may discuss later).

This is the half-measure that I am going to try out in lieu of abandoning Facebook altogether. I’m not sure if it will work.

Here are some initial thoughts and reactions:

There’s Only So Much of Me to Go Around

The experience of the change immediately reinforced what I had begun to realize about Facebook specifically, as well as my life in general. Simply, I have a very finite amount mental/emotional/spiritual space, and it becomes cluttered more quickly than I ever expect.

Tools like Facebook give us the illusion, since we are able to make and manage more social connections, that our capacity to engage them (i.e., to care about them) has increased. It hasn’t.

Furthermore, we think that we can introduce, through use of tools like Facebook, thousands upon thousands of new connections, new bits of information, new stimuli and, yet, still selectively pay attention to, care about, respond to only those that are important — without any loss or negative impact. (It is not I, but those other fools that are affected by advertising.)

I have been noticing this in a variety of areas of my life, mostly in ways connected with technology. To use Covey’s classic imagery, we readily expand our sphere of concern far beyond our sphere of influence, which then contracts as a result. We are concerned about vastly more and, thus, concerned about each individual matter far less, and all the while, our ability and inclination to do much of anything about anything dwindles.

I tended to think that having a Facebook app on my phone, which is connected to 1000s of people and advertisers at all times, doesn’t affect me as long as I only open the app an appropriate amount of times throughout the day for an appropriate duration of time. I tended to think that having a streaming music service doesn’t negatively affect me or change how I think about or value music, as long as I don’t play it too much or play the wrong type of music.

I’m just not so sure about this any more. Inevitably, I find that Facebook and those thousands of connections have changed how I think, feel, react, and regard. Even when I close the browser or turn off the app, spiritually and emotionally the clutter remains.

I am more and more experiencing the truth of McLuhan’s insight: despite what we think, the medium is perhaps more potent than the message it mediates.

Nixing the Entertainment Fix

As said, I had played around with the idea of these and even more drastic measures regarding Facebook for a while. What I underestimated was how immediate and profound were the subjective effects of cutting a list of 1000 people down to 100 with whom I am making a conscious choice to engage.

Instantly, the news feed is no longer a news feed. It is no longer a diversion that I can turn to for an entertainment fix. Suddenly it represents actions, needs, responsibilities, things that I do or don’t but ought to care about.

It is not that those 100 people (close friends, family members, etc) weren’t there before. They were there, but they were diluted in a sea of irrelevance presenting itself as news/content/entertainment to be consumed.

Removing the Soap Opera Effect

Now, I realize the tendency of the newsfeed of this supposed “social network” to simply become, for one, a source of diversion, of a quick entertainment fix, and also leads one to begin seeing all the people represented therein as the same. It starts with those who really are obscure to one’s concern (the celebrity stories, the friends of friends from whom one can never remember accepting a friend request, etc.). Then, it moves inward to those one is acquainted with but has no ongoing involvement. Finally, it proceeds to even those close family and friends that one would/should (if one could) care about/love/pursue/engage with for their own sake.

They all become simply content for my newsfeed — the characters that populate the soap opera that is always playing in an open browser tab and in the app on my phone.

Frog in the Pot

We know this. All these things are cliche, passé. We know, and we resolve to not be affected. But we are, and we persist! Thus, we must question whether we really knew or understood the implications of the situation in the first place.

As my father is so fond of referencing, this is truly a “frog in the pot” scenario. We continually look around and observe the pot, the water, and the increasing temperature, but insist that the heat is manageable now, and we’ll certainly jump out if it becomes otherwise. But, the whole point is precisely that from within the pot one has the worst vantage point on both the current and future state of affairs.

Good Servant, Bad Master

Of course, even what I have recently done has been but a half-measure. I am still, for now, on Facebook.There is a case to be made for such measures in such cases though.

Whether or not I perfectly interpreted the work or its implications, one of my takeaways from Neil Postman’s eye-opening book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology was the value in a seemingly arbitrarily holding oneself back from the “cutting edge” when it came to technology. It is not that there is some ultimately “right” or “safe” level of technology for a human person to inhabit (computers, pen and pencil, stone tablets, the spoken word). But if the concern is whether or not I am able to evaluate and manage the influence of technology on myself and my family, there is something to be said for intentionally staying behind the curve.

One primary danger of technology — any technology — is simply its initial novelty and the fascination that it engenders in a subject. At its introduction, a technology is a slippery thing to grasp. The new user and, even more so, the technology’s creator are in precisely the worst vantage point for evaluating the net usefulness of a technology and its effects on our way of viewing the world and other people, one’s information and values.

Thus, there is good reason to consider holding back, enforcing a certain distance from the “cutting edge,” using technologies that are now boring, or intentionally limiting or truncating the functionality of novel ones, however arbitrary and counter-productive such limitations might seem.

It has been said that technology makes a good servant, but a bad master. What we underestimate is how easily the former can shift to become the latter and how subtle the change can be.

“I understand the technologies I am using and I would know if I am being unduly influenced or changed by them,” says the frog swimming in an already-quite-warm stew.

Gaining Perspective

So this is my experiment with Facebook for now. It may be temporary, it may be a half-measure, it may not work. But I am reaching for perspective and space to evaluate such things. If greater cuts must be made, then so be it.

On a separate but not entirely unrelated note, you should check out Marc Barnes’ essay on “Modesty and Act” which explores what it means to be a subject, and how one’s ability to act/choose is affected by the world. It is a fascinating piece that digs into this question of our perception vs. the reality of whether (and to what degree) we are influenced by fashions, technology, and the opinions of others.

“Read C.S. Lewis’ Space Trilogy”

Standard
Our custom CS Lewis bumper sticker, urging all motorists to read his Space Trilogy.

Our custom CS Lewis bumper sticker, urging all motorists to read his Space Trilogy.

We actually had a custom bumper sticker made displaying the above exhortation and the names of the three books: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength.

My wife and I love the Space Trilogy — and Archbishop Chaput does, too! It makes the list in his article, “Ten ways to deepen our relationship with God.”

The archbishop says, “By the way, if you do nothing else in 2014, read Tolkien’s wonderful short story, Leaf by Niggle. It will take you less than an hour, but it will stay with you for a lifetime. And then read C.S. Lewis’ great religious science-fiction trilogy — Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength. You’ll never look at our world in quite the same way again.” — ARCHBISHOP CHARLES J. CHAPUT, O.F.M. CAP. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/Interiorlife/il0142.htm

HuffPope

Standard
Huffington Post repeats and compounds their errors in reporting. The Pope said atheists/Catholics/everyone-ever “ARE redeemed” (not “will be redeemed,” which people then read as “will be saved”). There was no “break with tradition.” If Christ did indeed go to the Cross and rise after three days, he did so for everyone. All have sinned and need a savior. The invitation to know God, repent, and do good is extended to everyone. It is up to each to investigate that claim, come to know God if he is there, and if so, choose to follow to the best of their ability and knowledge.Hypocritical Christians and moral atheists are both still in danger but for very different reasons. The danger is more acute to the degree that they know and reject God.

Let not the shoddy reporting take away from the thrust of the original statement:

“[A]ll of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can…The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!…We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

I’ll reiterate as I said before: To my atheist/Non-Catholic/Non-Christian friends, I affirm and thank you for your good works. Keep at it. Let us meet each other there and talk fraternally of truth. I apologize for my hypocrisy and for that of my fellows.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Checkout Brandon Vogt’s analysis over at Strange Notions: Did Pope Francis Really Say All Atheists are Redeemed?

A Rant About Arguing (oy!….)

Standard

There are a lot of ways that we are called to endure injustice. Some of them we are more comfortable with than others.

One of them is how we conduct ourselves in discussion/debate with those we disagree. Principled people of any sort face the challenge today of a public that is, at large, irrational, illogical, prone to faction and lots of yelling. Catholics have the additional challenge of believing and proclaiming very unpopular Truths (perennially as well as currently).

The fact remains, if our reason for discussing/debating is something beyond ourselves – Truth, justice, the souls of the people involved vs our pride or self-satisfaction – then the greater part of discussion/debate, especially today, is charity, patience, and the willingness to suffer injustice. We must be willing to suffer injustice and misunderstanding rather than resort to angry shouting or other means (or memes) that defeat our purposes (and are not justified by them).

What does this look like in practice? Sometimes it means ostensibly letting other people “win” or get the upper hand. It means letting irrational, illogical, puerile, immature, and unfair comments roll off one’s back. It sometimes means sacrificing the argument to win the soul (theirs as well as ours).

We have to continually be realistic about our situation: 1) our beliefs are unpopular and misunderstood, 2) our culture is insane, and 3) the people we are talking to have been heavily influenced by said insanity (as have we). So we have to expect that anyone we talk to comes to the table with a bevy of misunderstandings, assumptions and prejudices about us and our ideas. Their heads are buzzing with witty “gotchas” and “slogans” that only apply to straw caricatures of us.

And you know what? The reverse is almost always true as well.

With all this in mind, we have to be ready to enter a discussion “wise as serpents, simple as lambs” (Matthew 10:6). We need to be bold and prepared, but ready to content ourselves with asking and listening when “telling” isn’t serving the end goal (even if it is making us feel good). We have to be ready to be misunderstood and expect to misunderstand (and patiently attend to the latter first). When the arguments of our opponents make no logical sense, we must help them to clarify and express them better – this is often a prerequisite for them to be able to see that there is a problem! We must be courageous, yes, but nevertheless patient and charitable at all times.

So be ready to “die to self” a bit when discussing/debating with other people. Scratch that. Don’t be “ready”. Expect to die to self. In fact, if your discussion, debate, and evangelization don’t involve “picking up your cross” in some way, you are probably doing it wrong.