Pressing Hot Buttons Through Christ

Acclaimed negotiator and Harvard Law School professor Roger Fisher had a thought experiment where the nuclear codes of the United States should not be located in a suitcase handcuffed to an aid. Rather, they should be surgically embedded into the chest of the aid. The aid would carry around a knife. To access the codes, the President must cut open the chest of the aid. Fisher thought that if the President was unwilling to kill one person then the President had no right to launch a bomb to kill millions.

Clever. So clever in fact that Fisher wrote, “‘When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, ‘My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button.’”

We talk about things in our society as being “hot button” issues. Our language gives us the sense that humans are so easily triggered that if we were to push them we would become hot. I wonder if part of our problem is not the issues we discuss, but that we image being so easily set off that it is like pushing a button. If we are going to stick with the button metaphor, perhaps we can take a page from Roger Fisher’s book - move the location of the button.

Can you imagine the hot buttons of your life being embedded in the heart of another? Could you imagine embedding the hot buttons of your family behind your heart? Could we create the conditions such that we are aware of the costs of pressing the button before the button is pressed?

Perhaps that is what Bonhoeffer was getting at in the book Life Together where he says, “Jesus Christ stands between the lover and the others he loves.” and “Because Christ stands between me and others, I dare not desire direct fellowship with them.” The idea being that ever Christian relationship always is mediated by Christ who stands between the two people. And so when I look at the face of the other, I see Christ first. And when they look at me, they see Christ first.

What if we understood the the “hot button” always resides on the other side of Christ. That we have to hurt, remove or even kill and “go through” Christ in order to press the hot buttons. Would we be willing to press the button knowing it comes at the harm of Christ?

What Marty McFly Has To Do With Jesus Christ

Marty McFly is a character in the "Back to the Future” movies. When I watched these movies as a kid I really thought he was a moron. I mean really, who gets all in a tizzy and looses all sense of self when called a chicken? It was a clever device for to move the character along in the movies but he seemed really over the top as a human being.

But maybe not.

Recently Hidden Brain had a podcast called “Made of Honor”. It explores cultures called “honor cultures”. These are the places in the world where ones honor and reputation are at the very center of one’s life. It is the defense of that honor that dictates behavior that seems irrational. McFly’s behavior may be over the top, but it makes rational sense in an honor culture. At its best, honor culture can spur acts of bravery and courage. It can ensure that the weak are defended and the integrity of a community/family/person are upheld in the face of a threat. At its most unhealthy, honor culture can lead to spirals of violence, systemic power structures, and rationalizations that justify all sorts of unethical behavior. The McFly family is steeped in honor culture values, which get him into all sorts of trouble while also is a contributor of his motivation.

Jesus was one who was also steeped in honor culture, you don’t have to go far into Biblical studies to learn about how the honor/shame culture influenced behavior. To be very reductionist: one avoided shame and tried to gain honor. It might be thought of as a bank account. Where one wanted to accumulate honor (credit) while avoiding shame (debts). This is not a “bad” culture, but it can influence and even condone harmful things.

Jesus, born and raised in the honor culture of his time, teaches a different culture. Specifically, Jesus teaches a “dignity” culture. Where honor cultures circle around protecting honor, dignity cultures circle around the worth of every person. In an honor culture, children can be dismissed since they have little honor. In dignity cultures, children cannot be dismissed because every person is a child of God. Dignity cultures uphold the dignity of those “caught in the very act of adultery”. It upholds the dignity of sinners and tax collectors. It speaks out against those who take advantage of others (Mark 5:25-29) or are stumbling blocks (Romans 14:13). Dignity cultures are scandalized when an innocent victim is killed. Dignity cultures take seriously that some lives need to be protected because those lives are more at risk for harm.

Dignity cultures can be threatening to honor cultures (which contributes to why Christianity is counter cultural), because dignity cultures do not keep score of where honor is. The hierarchy of honor is broken in dignity cultures. In dignity cultures people are asked to sometimes look the fool (1 Cor. 1:23) and forgive seven seven times seven times. Dignity cultures can be threatening to honor cultures because we loose all sense of who "has merit” and who “has earned” what. We loose who is of value and who is not - because we come to see that all people have dignity.

The problem with dignity cultures is not they go too far, but that often those who live in dignity cultures do not go far enough and fall back into a version of honor culture. When we reserve dignity for some and refuse the same dignity to others, we are using dignity language to reinforcing honor culture.

"Reading the Statisticians of Our Predicament Rather Than the Prophets of Our Deliverance"

R.R. Reno

Give and Take is a conversation podcast that can be very heady and wonky for those who love theology. Frankly, the people on this podcast are too smart for me to always follow and I am humbled every time I listen - I just am not as smart as I want to think that I am.

Recently, Scott Jones (the host) had a conversation with R. R. Reno (AKA Rusty). I was introduced to R. R. Reno in Seminary via a book he wrote called In the Ruins of the Church. When I heard this podcast, I wanted to just jot down a few great ideas that came from this conversation, so that I don't forget them. I hope these notes are as inspiring to you as there are for me. 

Among the gems that I found in this conversation was the idea that too much of our time is spent reading the statisticians of our predicament rather than the prophets of our deliverance. I am aware of how much I spend reading about the "predicament" we are in. I know that it is critical to diagnose the illness before treatment can begin. It seems clear to me that too many of us (self included) are parsing diagnostic words but few prophets are discussing what the treatment is for such ills. 

We are not able to listen to these prophets for at least two reasons. First is human nature. Prophets call us to account and call us to change. Humans have done a very good job at killing prophets in our world; this is an ancient problem.

The other reason we don't listen to prophets sharing solutions feels newer. We may not listen to the prophets of our deliverance because we do not have consensus on what the problem is. 

Moses was a prophet and he was not killed by his people. Why? Perhaps it is because there was a consensus on what the problem was - the people were enslaved. There was a deep agreement that slavery is the "predicament" and so it is easier to hear the prophet who is speaking deliverance to that predicament.

I grow frustrated about how much time I spend on understanding the predicament, I also know that until there is a sense of what the "problem is" we will never be able to hear the prophet lead us toward the path of healing.

"Think with your eyes and feel with your ears"

Malcolm Gladwell was on "Late Show" with Stephen Colbert not long ago. Colbert asked Gladwell why he was making a podcast when he is more than able to sell books and is quite popular in the world of popular writing. In response, Gladwell cited his friend Charles (I cannot catch the last name) who said, "you think with eyes and feel with your ears." 

There is a little back and forth here between the two while Gladwell attempts to make his overall point but here is the interview in full to consider:

While Colbert has a point that there are times that we "feel" deeply when we read a book or a poem. I would argue that the times we are emotionally moved by a text is when we allow it to "speak" to us and we "hear it" in our souls. However, Gladwell's point is getting at there is so much conveyed in sound that is lost on a page. You don't catch the nuances that come though when someone is speaking about something that is at their core. Sure you can read a sermon, but it is much different to hear a sermon.

For instance, this is the video clip of the moment that Gladwell mentions that will forever be remembered from Colbert's previous interview: 

Notice Munoz's voice and pauses and pacing and tone. There is an emotion and a feeling that one cannot get by just reading the transcripts. 

At risk of sounding like a technology curmudgeon, when we prefer to use text over voice as a primary communication then we need to understand what we are loosing. The gains in productivity we may get in "texting" another are perhaps by way of sacrificing the emotional connection we build when we talk to one another. 

I am not sure how one would go about tracking if the rise of text communication is inversely related to the decline of empathy but there are interesting studies that explore the decline of empathy.

We may be getting smarter but we may also getting "the feels" less often.