Philosophy of Communication

I touched on this topic briefly in an earlier post talking about the stories we tell ourselves. This post is a short expansion on some of the principles illustrated in that article.


Multiple Creative Commons attributions

Psychology has found people tend to fall into one of three primary ways of processing information: visual, kinesthetic and auditory. Thinking may be in pictures, feeling and physical sensations, or language and sounds. As individuals, we may use more than one of these ways, but typically we each have one that predominates. We perceive reality and conceive thoughts primarily through one of these three modes. It is the means by which we construct in our heads a model of the world. It impacts how we learn, how we create and how we communicate.

Most of what we call Wester Civilization is passed down through just one of these mechanisms: the auditory channel. This is done through oral histories and these abstract symbols called letters and numbers. They are often supplemented by diagrams and drawings, but the primary content is via words. Spoken and written language is the main way information is passed from individual to individual.

Taking these two things together, communication involves converting a rich internal model, in any one of three ways of thinking, into words and transmitting those words to someone else via some mechanism. That mechanism may be voice or hand written or printed or a blog. Then someone has to take those words and convert them to their own internal model, possibly using a different mode of thought than the first person.

In this process, the originator may very well have to take a concept that they feel or visualize and convert it to words. These words have multiple and varied meanings which overlap with different words and their subtle shades of meaning. The speaker (or writer) goes through a process to select what they believe to be the appropriate words to convey their internal model. This is an act of interpretation. The hearer (or reader) then takes those words, with possibly a different set of meanings and tries to construct their own mental model in possibly a different way of thinking. This is also an interpretive act.

There are many things that impact the way individuals may interpret words on both sides of the conversation. A few of the things that may impact it are: different social, economic and cultural backgrounds, different native languages, current emotional state, educational background, political and religious beliefs, time in history and intentional duplicity.

When I think about what goes on in this process, I'm amazed anything resembling communication happens at all.

My Litmus Test

In this election year, as in every one, we all make our list of issues by which to measure candidates and decide who will receive our vote. Some of the important issues this election cycle, in no particular order, include the overall economy, governmental spending and debt, foreign policy, jobs, national security, energy and personal freedoms. However, my first and foremost criteria when judging a candidate's credentials is their stand on abortion. They must not support killing children in the womb. They must protect life from the point of conception. If they are not unequivocal on this point, then no other policy issues matter. That's not to mean the other issues don't matter, just that this one out-ranks all the other's combined in importance. If there are multiple candidates that are equivalent on this issue, only then do other ones come into play in the selection process.

Some may consider my criteria unreasonable. That's fine. I don't really care. I must answer to God, not them. I believe this issue is more important to His heart than the others and so I must align my beliefs and actions accordingly. He creates life.^[1] He dances with joy over us.^[2] He knows us and forms us in the womb.^[3] He desires the children to come to Him.^[4] Harsh judgement awaits those who cause little ones to stumble.^[5] And He removes societies who destroy their children.^[6]

In the last 39 years, we have killed 54 million American citizens.^[7] Stop a minute and let that number soak in. That's equivalent to the states of California (37m), Oregon (4m), Washington (7m), Nevada (3m) and Utah (3m) combined.^[8] That's over 40 times the U.S. dead from all our wars since 1775 combined (1.3m).^[9] Look what we did when an enemy killed 3,000 on September 11, 2001.^[10] Look what we did when an enemy killed 2,400 on December 7, 1941.^[11] As a nation we rose up and put an end to the perpetrators. And yet we do little when four orders of magnitude more people are slaughtered. And not just people, but infants. The most weak and vulnerable among us. As a nation, we stand condemned before God. All we can do is repent, align ourselves with His kingdom principles and beg for His mercy.^[12]

---

1. Genesis 1:26ff; Revelation 4:11

2. Proverbs 8:31

3. Psalm 139:13ff

4. Luke 18:16

5. Mark 9:42

6. Leviticus 18:21, 24; Jeremiah 32:26ff

7. LifeSiteNews

8. U.S. states by population

9. United States military casualties of war

10. September 11 attacks

11. Attack on Pearl Harbor

12. 2nd Chronicles 7:14; Psalm 32:5

Our stories

I recently ran across a brief blog post enumerating some hints at effective leadership. The last two items were:

• Entertain more than one interpretation about any situation.
• What story are people telling about me?

In an equally brief blog post, here is a minor expansion of the list.

On a human level, I think there are four important stories to think about:

1. What is the other person's story about me?
2. What is my story about the other?
3. What is my story about myself?
4. What is their story about themselves?

On a spiritual level, I think we also need to think about:

5. What is God's story about me?
6. What is God's story about them?

In our relationships, the more 1 and 3 align with 5 and the more 2 and 4 align with 6, the better off we'll be.

A Philosophy of History

There are multiple ways to understand history. Some cultures view history as a never cycle, continually going around and around. What has happened has happened multiple times in the past and will happen again multiple times in the future. Other societies see history as simply a collection of random events. There's no pattern or reason to what has happened or what will happen in the future. Still others understand history to be linear in nature where things get better and better over time. These views are humanity's attempt to understand its relationship to the rest of the universe. I submit that they are wrong, divorced as they are from the One who has revealed to us His purpose for creating the universe and His plans for its future. Where others see no overriding arch of story, Scripture tells us explicitly where we've come from and where we're going.

There are five classic "W" questions: who? what? when? where? and why? In the first verse, Genesis opens with answers to four of these questions.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. -- Genesis 1:1

• When: In the beginning
• Who: God
• What: created
• Where: the heavens and earth.

The rest of the Bible explains "why." Beyond the first first, the entirety of Scripture reveals the arch of the narrative from the beginning to the end of the beginning.

It starts with God creating a perfect place in which to meet on a daily basis the one creature He created in His image. There are at least three reasons He created mankind in His image. First, so He could walk with us in relationship, so we could have fellowship together. Second, so we could join with Him in rulership over the rest of creation; we are uniquely given authority over the rest of the universe to tend it and care for it. And finally, so there would be a frame into which He could place Himself when the time came to redeem us from our fallen state. He needed a creature that He could clothe Himself with when He became incarnate.

Genesis tells how He made a man and transformed him first into a family and then into a nation, Israel. He worked uniquely in this people group to create a culture through which He could reveal Himself. The whole Old Testament is the story of God working in people and nations as they interact with both Him and Israel to show who He is and the type of relationship He desires with people.

Like a fruit on a tree at the end of the growing season, when time was ripe, God took on flesh and came to live with us. Over the course of about 33 years, God, in the form of Jesus, showed us the heart of the Father. He showed us His compassion for the poor, the downtrodden, the hurting, the seeking. And He showed us His anger against those who would place barriers of various kinds for others to access Him. But His primary purpose was to reveal His love for each one of us. And He showed this by paying the ultimate price for us: He laid down His life for us.

However, He also demonstrated His power and authority by taking this life He laid down and picking it up again. Death could not hold Him. The grave had no power over Him. He then returned to His throne with the Father.

We're now in a temporary time where each one of us is given a free choice either to agree with His rule over creation or to reject it. Things will not always be as they are now. Just as there was a time ripe for His coming the first time, there is a season of growing that will culminate in the planet being ripe for His return. As the season progresses, the fruit of our choice to either accept or reject His leadership will mature. In this process, we're going to see an increased polarization between these two groups resulting ultimately in global conflict.

There will be fighting. There will be persecution. There will be war. There will be bloodshed.

When this conflict is at its height, when it's about to destroy everything, He will step in and put an end to it. And what an end it will be! When they see Him, every person will bow their knee. Some willingly as they have done even before that time. Others against their will, forced to acknowledge the powerlessness of their rebellion before Him.

He will restore justice. He will restore righteousness. He will restore creation to the original intent. We will walk with Him in unbroken fellowship, ruling and reigning over the earth with Him, according to His original design.

What is God's primary emotion?

I recently read an article that reminded me how important it is to think rightly of God and His relationship with us. If we don't have the proper understanding of how God perceives us, then we'll base our actions and reactions on wrong information and respond incorrectly. One method to analyze our thoughts surrounding our relationship with Him is to honestly ask ourselves:

What is God's primary emotion when He thinks of me?

When you read that question, what was your initial gut reaction before thinking about it? When you think about God, is He up in heaven upset at the last thing you did wrong? Is he merely putting up with you but would rather you weren't around? Is He ready to throw lightning bolts at you with the slightest provocation? Is He mad at you?

Or is He looking down on you, disappointed that you screwed up again? Does he focus on how you don't measure up to His standards? Does He wish you'd act better? Is He sad about you?

When I asked the question originally, I asked about His primary emotion. There are times when He is angry. There are times when He is sad. But I submit that neither of these are His primary emotions. Rather I believe He is mostly glad. Let's look at the reasons I come to this conclusion.

He isn't mad. Jesus' paid the price for your sins, my sins and the sins of the whole world.^[1] God's wrath was poured out on Him on the cross.^[2] He took on the burden of your sin so you don't have to.^[3] There are limited cases where His anger is released, but He is patient and slow to anger.^[4] An example of this is in the future when all the nations are persecuting the church and the armies of the world are descending on Israel. At this point, we're told His jealous rage will cause massive loss of life as He comes to the defense of His people.^[5] But this is a limited event, not a typical occurrence.

He isn't sad. He is in control and will ultimately rule and reign.^[6] He knows the end from the beginning.^[7] He knows how history will turn out and He knows it is good.^[8] There's no reason, long term, for sadness. The things that cause sadness are when people reject Him and His gifts.^[9] He longs for relationship with others and their rejection of that relationship breaks His heart. But not all fall into this category, and He knows that the end for these who accept Him is righteous relationship with Him for eternity.^[10] Any sadness over those who reject Him is temporary, overcome by the joy from those who accept Him.

He is glad. When He formed you, He knew what He was doing^[11] and danced in joy when He created you.^[12] You are the apple of His eye.^[13] Jesus was anointed with joy by the Holy Spirit, more than any other^[14] and He went through what He did knowing the joy that His work would produce.^[15]

So, when you think about God, is He mad, sad or glad? Do you need to change your perspective of Him? How would a change of perspective change your relationship with Him?

---

1. 1st John 2:2; Hebrews 2:9

2. Romans 5:9; 1st Thessalonians 1:10, 5:9

3. 2nd Corinthians 5:21; 1st Peter 3:18

4. 2nd Peter 3:9

5. Revelation 19:11-21; Isaiah 63:1-6

6. Hebrews 1:8-9, 2:8; 1st Corinthians 15:20-28

7. Isaiah 46:10

8. Philippians 1:6

9. Matthew 23:37

10. Matthew 25:1-46

11. Psalm 139:13

12. Proverbs 8:30-31

13. Psalm 17:7; Zechariah 2:8

14. Hebrews 1:9

15. Hebrews 12:2

Will they come...

A couple months ago, my attention was brought to a news item^[1] involving the Presbyterian Church USA denomination. It reported about a congregation voting to leave the denomination over an issue they've recently been going through internal turmoil over: homosexuality. Further, this isn't the first denomination to struggle over the last several years with this issue and how to interpret scripture, with similar fractures.

One line in this articles jumped off the page at me:

Will they [gay people] try to come if First Presbyterian Church is considered an anti-gay church?
-- Robin Dailey

When I read this, several similar questions immediate came to mind:

• Will adulterers try to come if church is considered an anti-adulterer church?
• Will thieves try to come if church is considered an anti-theft church?
• Will liars try to come if church is considered an anti-lie church?

I want to address a three issues this quote raises in my thinking.

Is homosexuality is different than other sins?

Society has not viewed homosexuality the same way as other immorality. Going back several decades, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the psychiatric community, listed in their official diagnostics literature.^[2] I don't ever remember hearing about adultery or lying or any other activity society would generally consider immoral as being listed. We stigmatized it in its own category of badness, worse than other sins that are probably more mainstream.

However, now there are movements to normalize it. We see this both in society in general and within the church in particular. Certain groups desire to take it out of this special category of badness it has held and reframe it as good and moral. If we allow this, we're going from one extreme to another.

Both positions are out of whack.

It is not a mental disease. It is sin.^[3]

It is not good, moral and to be celebrated. It is sin.

As sin, shame is an appropriate response for those involved in it.

Look at this passage:

Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God.
-- Paul, writing to the Corinthians^[4]

Homosexuality, if unrepented of, excludes one from the God's kingdom. But it's no different than pre- or extra- marital sex. Or stealing. Or drunkenness. Or slander. When was the last time theft was considered a mental disease? When was drunkenness considered something to be celebrated and embraced? When was the last time a church split over the debate as whether slander was a good thing or not?

We need to be balanced in how we categorize this behavior. Yes, it's bad. But let's not stigmatize it worse than other sins. Yes it's bad. Let's not make it acceptable.

Is attendance more important than transformation?

The passage quoted above continues:

Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God. ... don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.
-- Paul^[5]

The quote from the article asked if homosexuals would want to come to church under some given circumstance. Frankly, this is an irrelevant question. The questioner has forgotten that the gathering known as "church" is for believers to come to for the purpose of corporately worshiping God and learning from His word. While unbelievers are certainly welcome, our weekly gatherings should not focus on making unbelievers comfortable. Instead, they should focus on the beautiful One worthy of worship and train those who believe in Jesus and His payment of our sins how to live transformed lives by His resurrection power.

For those who do not hold to this profession of faith, this will naturally be uncomfortable. In fact, in many cases it will be uncomfortable for those who do follow Jesus as the Holy Spirit shines His light on areas of our lives that need transformation. I don't think it's appropriate to water down the message of the cross in order to somehow hope to be more attractive to those engaged in sinful lifestyles. The increased holiness of God's called out ones should be the metric by which we measure success within the church, not attendance of unbelievers.

However, none of this is to imply we should ignore unbelievers. As believers, we are called to be involved in unbelievers' lives. We need to leave the church assembly and be salt and light in a bland, dark world. Just as Jesus set the example for us by being called a friend of sinners, we as His bride should likewise engage with those around us, meeting them where they are, supplying their needs as appropriate and pointing them to where forgiveness and transformation from a shame filled life can be found.

And that place is not a church building. That place is not a church meeting. That place is at the feet of Jesus.

Increased attendance at church should be due to people desiring transformed lives, not because we're making unbelievers comfortable by redefining sin as acceptable.

Is the church known by what it's for or what it's against?

Finally, the original quote framed the question as a negative. It asked if people would come based on what the church is against. There are many, many things to be against. But transformation does not come by being against something. Transformation comes by being for something.

In my study of motorcycle riding, I was taught to not look at an obstacle. If there is something in my path and I focus on it, I will surely hit it. Instead, I was taught to focus on where I want to go and I'll automatically follow that path. This is a transferrable concept. If in our spiritual lives we focus on the obstacles of sin and failure in our lives, we will surely continue in them. However, if we focus on the One who saves and His word, we will be drawn to the path He wants for us.

As the church, we must focus on living lives of increased holiness and sanctification. We must spend time in God's presence and allow the fire of His passionate love to transform our hearts and minds. Our lives should be robed in righteousness as we grow in the knowledge of Jesus and long for the day when we see Him face to face. Our focus should not be on the ills of society. Rather our focus should be on loving Him with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength and from that place before Him, loving those around us as He loves them.

A better question to ask:

Will they [sinners of any type] try to come if church is considered a place to receive love, forgiveness and transformation?

---

1. Springs congregation votes to divorce Presbyterian sect

2. Wikipedia article on homosexuality and psychology.

3. At least to the extent that sin in general is not a mental disease. An argument could be made that all sin is a type of mental disease (in the non-psychiatric sense), but that's a different discussion.

4. 1st Corinthians 6:9-10

5. 1st Corinthians 6:11,18b-19

Edit: fixed typo

Feel far from God?

I saw a sign outside a church recently: Feel far from God? Guess who moved? There's a popular teaching in Evangelical Christianity that basically says "If you feel far from God, it's you who moved."

This is not only a terrible guilt trip, it's also not always the case. Sometimes, yes, we do walk away from God. Sometimes this is intentional. We get mad at God or the church and decide it's not worth following Him anymore. We willingly, knowingly leave Him. Sometimes through inattention and laziness we simply slowly, quietly drift away from Him.

However, there are other cases.

First, I want to point out that just because we feel far from God, doesn't necessarily mean we are. Feelings are fickle and unreliable. When we feel far from God, we need to look to see if it's just a feeling or if it reflects reality. I'm reminded of the well known poem Footprints. The writer felt far from Jesus, but in fact He was carrying him in those very times he didn't feel His presence.

Next, When we continually, willfully sin He will draw away. This is to protect us. Just as light destroys dark, so will His holiness destroy us if we are dark with sin. In these cases, He will pull back so His glory does not undo our weak frames. He remembers we are dust and takes that into consideration in His dealings with us. There are some schools of thought that believe this is the true manifestation of Hell. The complete and utter lack of God's presence because He has completely withdrawn from a soul due to its repeated and continuous rejection of Him.

Finally, there are times where God pulls away, not due to our sin, but to increase our desire for His presence. This is typified in Song of Solomon 5:2-16 where the Bridegroom knocks on the door but leaves before the Bride has a chance to open the door. She immediately gets up to open the door. She wants and desires His presence with her, but He departs prior to her opening the door; just His scent is left behind on the latch. The purpose of this withdrawal is to increase her desire for Him and cause her to come follow Him. And it works. She leaves the comfort of her chamber and goes out searching for Him. Her search, driven by a deeper desire for Him, takes her to the very places that she refused to go earlier when He simply asked her to come with Him.