October 2009 Archives

Although I had read The Jesus I Never Knew in high school, I recently felt compelled to rediscover the man I claim to base my life upon. As I had anticipated I found quite a lot that I admired, but even more that made me feel uneasy about this man. Below are a few of these things:

Jesus was surprisingly effected by people, he wept when people were sad, and told people that they were the spawn of Satan when they were acting selfishly. He was moved by compassion, and overwhelmed by people to the point of needing to escape from the masses on a regular basis. I often act (if not at times actually think) that I would be more spiritual if I held back the tears and anger and objectively, wisely approached each situation with the slight grace of detachment. Jesus' personality challenges the conception of detached grace with a picture of complete emotional involvement.

He came across to his culture as a complete revolutionary scorning fame, family, and property. He said things like "who are my mother, sisters, and brothers" and frequently told people "not to tell" when he healed their diseases. In a Christian culture that affirms stability and traditional family values, I wonder how Jesus would appear to us today. Would he be that crazy activist that is threatening our tradition?

Jesus repeatedly resisted the temptation to be the kind of Messiah who people wanted and would recognize. In the wilderness he was given the opportunity to turn stones into bread and care for those in need, and the opportunity to gloriously pronounce his divinity through angelic visitation. He said no. He decided to go the hard route of being mistaken, misunderstood, and rejected. I often wish for a messiah that no one could deny. I wouldn't feel quite so crazy. I must really not grasp what is so profound about the freedom of choice that risks in the face of doubt.

This one is really nuts, but strangely alluring when you think about it. Our hope rests on a man

"whose message was rejected and whose love was spurned, who was condemned as a criminal and given the sentence of capital punishment."

When you think about it, it is a little weird to think that the symbol of the cross- complete social rejection and physical suffering whose redemption was not unanimously recognized- encapsulates our faith. What do I do with this man who turns my ideas of success upside down?

He is extraordinary, and I love him......and he makes me uncomfortable.

After coming across a reading list that our president had constructed for himself and our staff in time magazine six months ago, I thought it would be very cutting edge of me to begin reading along with the leaders of our nation. I began with, and have just finished Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. The two claims of the book are that

"Seemingly small features of social situations can have massive effects on people's behavior; nudges are everywhere, even if we do not see them. Choice architecture, both good and bad, is pervasive and unavoidable, and it greatly affects our decisions. the second claim is that libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron."

The book addresses many aspects of our social lives, from our eating habits, to our energy use, to organ donation and shows how little adjustments to context, presentation, and default options can positively or negatively effect the choices we make. Simple things like making us aware of how our energy use compares to our more efficient neighbors can substantially reduce our consumption, to more serious decisions of changing the default of organ donation to automatic consent (that requires opting out of instead of into) enable us to save thousands of lives.

The method is not a paternalistic mandate that requires legislation but is a creative way of actually increasing our capacity to chose in ways we really desire to (libertarianism). Of course the libertarian part of me easily conjures up images of politicians trying to manipulate my choices, but after a few examples, I am encouraged that the current administration might be taking a more holistic psychological view of effecting change in our society. Leaving people to chose for themselves might seem "American", but we often don't chose how we actually desire to. I don't know if changing the default option on a person's retirement account to having to opt out rather than opt in where the employer matches one's contributions, is any more controlling than having the default position be no to require no savings and so no employer contribution.

I suppose for some it might come down to wanting to have the freedom to be able to consume as much as they want, save the least that they can, and not contribute toward the common good. It sure seems like too many of us already have taken advantage of this freedom and need all the help we can to choose differently.