I went along this morning to TGIF Cresta to hear Rendani Tshililo speak on African Traditional Religion. Unfortunately she was sick and couldn't make it (get better soon!) so Wendell Cantrell spoke on "Losing our minds." Wendell is the father of Honeyridge Baptist's pastor and is an American who's been in SA for around 8 months. Summary of his talk: first part - bad. Second part - good! (Or - first part I didn't agree with, second part I did. Is that the same thing?!).

Wendell's main concern is one which is cropping up more and more - the death of truth (hence the title of his talk: "Losing our minds"). He sees a world around him increasingly filled with TV and people losing touch with truth because of their immersion in entertainment. (My thoughts: we become consumers of media and not creators of art.) In my own life this was true the other night: do I watch "Prison Break" or do I practice cello? Do I consume, or do I produce? (Or do I practice cello and then watch Prison Break?! Somehow these little dilemmas have a way of sorting themselves out).

Apparently the word of the year for 2005 was "truthiness" - the general gist/direction of it is true (but may contain a heap of lies, just like those "Based on a true story" movies). (Hey, I thought the word of the year for 2005 was "podcast" but that's interesting in a way which may only become apparent on a second reading of this blog, and who has time for that?!).

But I can see Wendell's concern, and especially from a Christian worldview: the Gospel is Truth - and the truth sets us free (saves us?) - so if we're no longer paying attention to truth we're losing the Gospel.

I agree with him, but only to a point.

Technorati Tags: truth, Richard Rohr, South Africa, christianity, pigfest, modernism, ubuntu, church, TGIF

Wendell looks around him and is worried by a world which has shifted away from traditional values. It has shifted away from propositional truth. People don't read books any more. "We don't argue with propositions any more - we argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials."
"We have a bias against rationality."
"We've lost the art of debating."

He quoted from Oz Guiness: "Fit bodies, fat minds," saying that we've moved from an age of exposition to the age of entertainment. When we lived in the world of the printed word we had long attention spans. Now we can't get out people to sit still (as pastors). Don't go over time or people will get restless!

I disagree with pretty much everything he's said above. If you don't care, no problem - skip all this and get to the good stuff.

The world has shifted away from traditional values (what are those, anyway?!) because the world is changing. We've lived as Enlightened thinkers who've over-valued rationality for too long (or maybe for just long enough?) but the point is that we're shifting away from the Enlightenment/rationality worldview. We don't just live in our heads any more. Logic is no longer the standard by which we are measured. Dr Spock is no longer our hero! People don't connect with their heads - we connect with our hearts. That's why Oprah is so big; that's why Dr Spock doesn't have his own talk show.

For many centuries now we've separated all the spheres of our existence - and our knowledge - into different compartments. Science, biology, psychology, the mind, the emotions, church, family, mechanics, the universe etc etc. We've understood that to understand we must take something out of the whole, break it down into its component parts and understand how each part works. This is the greatest strength of modernity - reductionism - and also its greatest weakness. We now know that we can't understand a person by looking at them in isolation - we realise they grew up in a certain enviroment, we look at things which have shaped them, we look at how they relate to others, what they love doing and how they fit into society. This is the concept of Ubuntu which we are finally returning to (which is in direct conflict with the Modern - and Western - emphasis upon individualism): "I am a person because of other people." We've realised that everything works together - that somehow butterflies in Australia are linked to weather patterns in the States, that scientists are looking for the "theory of everything," that the way I treat someone in a certain situation has much wider implications, that mind/body/spirit are interlinked, that there is no division between the sacred and the secular.

This is why the world has shifted away from propositional truth - because truth doesn't exist in a vacuum. People understand that when you're engaging over truth you're not simply engaging over a proposition which somehow exists independently but you're engaging with the person speaking about the idea. And when you engage, the important thing is not so much the truth or falsehood of the proposition, but the fact that the relationship with the person you're debating with is preserved. This is the shift from mind to heart I was speaking about earlier - the shift from "truth is important" to "relationships are important." (Note that I'm not saying truth is not important - is it! and we need to be people of truth - what I am saying is that relationship is also important. We've all had times when we've chosen relationship over truth - just ask the married man for his response to "Honey, do these jeans make my bum look big?" What's more important - being right (and truthful) - or preserving the relationship?).

So we find that our younger generations don't enjoy debate in the same way the older generations do. To these generations, attacking their ideas is the same as attacking them (in the same way as insulting their music is also insulting them). "Truth" for them doesn't exist in a series of propositions, but in relationship (which is what Jesus was saying all along, wasn't it?). God save us from reducing the Gospel to a series of propositions which we intellectually assent to! Young people don't care that you're right - they care that you like them (relationship) and only then care that you're right. (And, of course, that's a general statement to which there are many exceptions...but that doesn't mean it's wrong).

To reiterate, Wendell says, "We don't argue with propositions any more - we argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials." Does this make sense now, given the previous paragraph? Arguing about celebrities/commercials/TV shows allows a safe place for people to engage - to laugh and to connect - because they've both watched the show. It's great to talk about something which other people know about without the risk of having your own opinions ripped apart. (Of course we can't stop there - we still need to debate and engage with truth - I'm just pointing out that the starting point has moved from the head to the heart, from thought to relationship).

In response to, "We've lost the art of debating," I would question if we've ever had it - or at least within the last 20 years or so. Most people understand "debate" as "argument" (and in practice they often seem indistinguishable). In a debate both people engage over an idea for the sake of truth. In an argument someone tries to win. Unfortunately most debates are actually arguments - the aim of the debate is to prove the other person wrong, not to engage over the idea. Someone wins, someone loses. There's a story Richard Rohr tells of a Buddhist monastery in which the junior monk meets with the abbot every week - and asks anything he wants about the religion, the monastery, whaver - but the rule is that they both have to keep smiling through the whole exchange. When they stop smiling they know they've descended into the ego and lost the plot. So I'd like to rephrase Wendell's question as "We need to rediscover the art of debating."

I agree with him when he says we read less - although never before in the history of the world have so many books been printed! Our challenge is to get people reading again - and it's especially relevant given that Scripture is written (although it can be argued that the truth of Scripture only exists once it's been incarnated in the life of someone who lets it transform her). Although, young people now read a lot online (blogs, websites etc) and communicate in new ways - just yesterday I had a Skype group chat with 4 of my friends from Honeyridge - we were all talking at the same time and it was great!

When Wendell talks about our attention span decreasing, I disagree. Ever watched a teenager play a computer game? For hours? That's intense concentration. Or someone playing sport; or young girls sitting around a coffee table. They're able to engage for hours at a time - but that's because the way they communicate - and which things hold their attention - has changed. So why are we surprised when people don't concentrate when pastor stands up on Sunday morning to deliver his 40 minute sermon (which, by the way, has no interaction)?

I also laughed when I heard the title of Oz Guiness's "Fit bodies, fat minds." Writing out an American context (the fattest nation on earth) - fit bodies?! But his point is taken - we need to exercise our minds as Paul writes in the New Testament. But when chubby pastors throw around the phrase, "Physical exercise is of some value," to make their point about spiritual exercise being so much more important - that strikes me as incongruous.

My response to his following statement sums up my thoughts: "God says to love Him with all our heart, soul and mind so when we don't use our minds we're actually disobeying Him." Yes, Wendell is perfectly right, but he hasn't acknowledged that for that last 200 years or so we've elevated the mind so far above our heart and soul . Of course, coming from this skewed perspective (which seems "normal" to so many), when we start balancing ourselves out and putting more emphasis on heart and soul, many are going to scream "heresy!" because it seems that we're throwing out the mind - which is not the case at all.

Wendell said: "We seem to know everything about now but nothing about 6 years ago...or 60 years ago." My first thought was: is that not an American malady? I guess that's a South African thing as well...we're quite good at forgetting the past. What I really like, though, was his thoughts on the proliferation of entertainment: "It's muted our capacity for solitude and silence." I'm behind him 100% with this one! (In fact, I'm going on a silent retreat this weekend). Both solitude and silence are things that we're scared of and mostly flee from. I'd like to hear Wendell's suggestions on how we can recover these things.

Anyway, as much as I wasn't blown away by his introduction, his basic thought is: "We're losing the capacity to dialogue around ideas. So here's an idea which gives a space to this." And he begins to talk about "Conversational mealing" ("PigFesting" in the States - not a great cross-cultural name, so I'm going to stick with "conversational mealing"). It's an idea which creates space to dialogue about the ideas and the cultural issues of the day. Everyone meets for dinner and chats for a few hours. The idea is taken from the example of groups which William Wilberforce (the "Clapham Circle"), C.S. Lewis ("The Inklings") and Ben Franklin ("The Junto Society" - an "instrument for leading public opinion) set up - the first 2 having an apologetic and evangelical aim as well a goal of personal betterment.

I see the great advantage as simply connecting, as well as having a safe space for conversation (this would be really interesting to apply in a cross-cultural context). From the document he handed out:

4 core rules/philosophies:

• The topics of discussion are limited to theology, culture, political-economy, philosophy and history.
• All conversations are governed by "The Devil's Rule" which means that anyone can assume the devil's advocate position on any topic without announcing it.
• All participants are expected to honour one another above themselves - i.e. the Golden Rule prevails, and the point of the gathering is mutual improvement.
• All participants must indulge themselves - apathy about anything is out of order.

A moderator directs the conversation. He begins with an overview of the conversation tradition and principles, selects which participants will offer propositional statements (written down before the time), and offers contextual and concluding remarks. It must be a statement of belief that includes a basic rationale. The group interacts around it for 15 mins and the whole thing takes around 2 hours.

The dialogues are facilitated around the classical Greek method by asking how one defines their terms, how they know what they propose is true, and why it matters. The dialogue concludes with a social application dialogue - an invitation for people to highlight ideas for social action.

I like this! I've been looking for a good way to dialogue with my friends who aren't Christians without threatening them with the Inquisition ("No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"). I don't know if the structure is too rigid but from the PigFest blog they seem to think it's needed. They suggest wrapping up the evening like so:

Tikkun olam is a term that comes out of Jewish thought and means "restore all things" or "repairing the world." C.S. Lewis, through the voice of Mr. Beaver in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, said, "Aslan will put everything to rights." That is indeed what we believe Jesus began to do when he ushered in his Kingdom in the first century and even today he is accomplishing through his people.

As we gather for PigFests around the world, we seek to have a Tikkun Olam action from every discussion. During the last 15 minutes of the PigFest, each person will be invited to consider and propose practical applications from the discussions of the evening -- charting the course to the ways in which we can, together, help bring about this restoration, or "tikkun olam," as a consequence of our gathering.

Thanks, Wendell, for these ideas - and thanks for inspiring me to think more about the nature of truth and how we engage in it :)

How about this as an idea: instead of calling this thing a "Pigfest" how about "Varkfest"? It alliterates and is a bit more South African...

Posted by: Roger Saner 24 Feb, 2006 - 15:47:15

I finally confirmed that "truthiness" was *not* the word of the year last year - "podcast" is it. Check it out.

Posted by: Roger Saner 02 Mar, 2006 - 15:30:12

Although Wikipedia confirms the following:

"Truthiness" was selected by the American Dialect Society as the 2005 Word of the Year, and by the The New York Times as one of nine words that captured the spirit of 2005.

It also mentions that it is used in "...contemporary socio-political discourse" (not spiritual beliefs). What more would you expect of politicians...!

Posted by: lily 03 Mar, 2006 - 08:07:19

Oh good - I'm glad it was "word of the year" *somewhere*! Otherwise I might be tempted to think that Wendell was embracing the spirit of truthiness by telling us truthiness was word of the year.

Recite: ...and lead us to into temptation...

Posted by: Roger Saner 03 Mar, 2006 - 12:08:51

Hey Rog

I am typing this off-line :-)

Howdy? Just read your comments from Monday night. Thought they were really good - and insightful as always. Thanks for organising for us to go on mon night. i have to admit i thought Chappo might be this passionate 'i'm right, you're wrong' kind of guy. I'm glad i was wrong! I think he was really sincere and honest - even vulnerable about his fears. I think it's a lesson for us all as Christians. I'm starting to realise how little i learn or listen during sermons or talks unless i'm hearing about someone's life and how God has worked in the midst of confusion and hopes and dreams and fears. I hope that our Bible study will come to be more of a place where we can share who are and what we're struggling with.

will talk more later.

love
s

(received via email and posted here with the kind permission of Sarah herself)

Posted by: Sarah Andrews 09 Mar, 2006 - 13:06:38