A Critique of Conferences

Recently I listened to a conference speech online. Well, I listened to half of it. It was too boring to finish. The topic was trustworthiness. One of the points made over and over was that if you say you’re going to do something then you should actually do it. Wow! What an epiphany!

I thought, “Is this speech being give to a bunch of twelve year olds?” But no, it was being given to adults. And I thought more, “Do the people in the audience feel as though their intelligence is being insulted? They should.” The whole speech was delivered as though it was either being given to stupid adults or to inexperienced kids.

I’m usually not a fan of conferences. I don’t want to be mistaken as an ungrateful complainer though. I appreciate the amount of work that goes into organizing a conference, and I would never suggest that the organizers’ hard efforts are a waste of time (well, maybe I would). I also know that a lot of people really love conferences and truly benefit from them, and, not everyone thinks like me. In fact, I am in the minority it would seem. I understand the perceived importance of conferences. I understand people want to get together once and awhile, people who ordinarily don’t see each other, and remind themselves why they’re doing what they’re doing and why they need to help each other. I’ve met some great peoconference 001ple at conferences; people who I continued to work with for years afterward. I understand the leadership wants conferences to set the direction for the organization, and motivate the people, and cast vision and all that stuff.

However, I’m still not a fan. There are few things more boring and pointless than sitting in a chair for three hours listening to a speech you’ve heard a hundred times already. I don’t need to listen to a lecture given by someone who has no experience in what I’m doing. I certainly don’t want to spend three or more days at a conference, away from my work and home, lying every time someone asks me about how great the conference is, pseudo-enthusiastically yelling “Hallelujah!” every time a speaker does so, and then walk away from the whole thing feeling emptier than when I showed up.

When I think of conferences I’m often reminded of a scene from the film Waterworld. The earth is covered with water, but there’s a little girl with a tattoo on her back with instructions to find dry land. Problem is, no one can read the instructions. The bad guys, called “Smokers”, capture the girl. The Smokers live on a big oil tanker and how they get it around is by rowing — hundreds of men sticking long oars out the sides and rowing, just like with the old wooden ships. The leader of the Smokers gives an inspiring speech, holding up the girl in front of everyone, proclaiming that they will find the land and create a great future, etc… After the speech the rowers are so hyped that they get to work immediately and exuberantly. Meanwhile, the leader, still not knowing how to read the instructions, in private with his closest advisors is asked, “So which way we rowin’?” and he replies, “I don’t have a g–d–n clue. Don’t worry, they’ll row for a month before they figure out I’m fakin’ it.”

I’m not suggesting that leaders in conferences are “fakin’ it”. But, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve come out of a conference hearing attendees proclaiming all the great things they’re going to do after being so encouraged by the conference speakers, and then never doing anything. I remember driving home from a three day Christian men’s conference, my intelligence freshly insulted, and my passenger, a railroad worker, declared, “I’m going to plant a church when I get home!” And I just smiled and thought, “No, you’re not.” Because anyone making a major decision like that, in an emotionally charged atmosphere such as a conference, is never thinking straight. And he never did plant that church.

The more honest attendees will be more level-headed, or even discouraged. I’ve known several people, who were already doing some kind of ministry, come out of a Christian conference feeling small and unimportant. I’ve heard laments like, “My ministry is hard work, and I wish I would have been able to meet people at the conference who were going through the same struggles I am, so that I could have talked with them and gotten to know them. But there was no time for that. Instead we just listened to grand speeches which included things like the leader yelling, ‘This is just the beginning!!’ over and over. What’s the point in that?”

My last article, Andragogy (Adult Learning), points out how adults, when attending a class or a conference, are not interested in generalities. They want specific teaching which directly relates to what they’re doing in life. They also don’t want to just sit and listen to a lecturer without having their own life experience and knowledge taken into account. What adult wants to sit and listen to a lecture that would better be delivered to a group of twelve year olds? Adults need to engage and speak and share. I know from personal experience that I would much rather sit in a small group setting, where everyone can participate, than sit in a large conference setting where you just, well, sit.

Predisposed to Rule

crownA question often asked about the Adam and Eve story is: Why did they fall? And why so quickly? If all was perfect and wonderful, why did they fall at all?

The answer usually given revolves around free will. God wanted them to truly love Him, and they couldn’t do that without free will. Okay, fine, they did have free will. But that doesn’t answer the question of why they chose to fall.

Free will is like gravity. Gravity is a powerful force in the universe, and it effects everything. But, when compared to other forces, gravity is relatively weak. Free will is like that – it is a force in your life, but it is weak compared to other forces in your life.

For example, take two men: one is an alcoholic who hasn’t had a drink in three days; the other has only tasted alcohol once and it nearly made him puke – he hates it. Lock both men in a room containing only a full bottle of whiskey. Both men have free will – they can both choose to drink or not to drink, but we all know which man will drink. One man is predisposed to drink while the other is not. The force predisposing the man to drink is stronger than his free will. That doesn’t mean he can’t choose not to drink; it just means he probably will choose to drink. That’s an imperfect example of course, but it helps us to understand why Adam and Eve chose to disobey God and eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

What was the Tree of Knowledge? Read 1 Kings 3:6-9:

“And Solomon said: ‘You have shown great mercy to Your servant David my father, because he walked before You in truth, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with You; You have continued this great kindness for him, and You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day. Now, O Lord my God, You have made Your servant king instead of my father David, but I am a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in. And Your servant is in the midst of Your people whom You have chosen, a great people, too numerous to be numbered or counted. Therefore give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil. For who is able to judge this great people of Yours?'”

Also read 2 Samuel 14:17; Deuteronomy 1:39; Hebrews 5:12-14. All these passages show us that a knowledge of good and evil (the ability to discern and judge between good and evil) is a sign of maturity and kingly rule.

Just as the alcoholic is predisposed to choose to drink, Adam and Eve were predisposed to choose to rule. It was not a bad thing for them to want to do this, God created them that way (Genesis 1:26). But, to rule requires wisdom – an ability to discern good from evil. Adam and Eve, at the beginning, were like little children and not ready to to rule fully (Deut. 1:39). God did start them on the path of rule in the confines of the garden, but they had to mature to a point where they could rule outside of the garden.

Enter the serpent. Who was this serpent? I believe it was simply Satan in his naturally created form. Not all angels look alike, it would seem, and not all angels resemble men. The Cherubim and Seraphim are mighty dragon-like angels (Seraphim means “fiery serpent” in Hebrew). Satan himself is called a dragon in the book of Revelation. And why was the serpent there? Well perhaps the serpent, not yet fallen himself, was sent to Adam and Eve to be a tutor, a teacher, to show them how to rule. This would mean that Adam, Eve, and Satan all fell into sin at the same time. There’s no biblical reason to believe that Satan and the angels existed for millions of years before the creation (if there was such a thing as “years” before the creation), and that at some point in that “before-time” Satan fell.

God told Adam and Eve to increase and multiply and to fill the whole earth. Perhaps they needed a tutor who was a crafty beast from the field/wilderness (outside of the garden) to teach them what the rest of the world was like. We don’t know how long the serpent spoke to Eve, but at some point in the conversation, I believe, Satan realized what God had planned for mankind (to rule) and he became jealous.

Satan did not fall because he wanted to be like God, he fell because he wanted to be like Adam. Adam fell because he wanted to be like God too quickly.

Notice that the worst of the punishments fell on the serpent (Gen. 3:14-19), which means that he was the most responsible for the fall. It also means that he was not in the same category as Adam and Eve. God promised salvation to Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:15b), but not to the serpent.

The serpent understood that to cause Adam and Eve to fall he would need to tempt them to enter into their rule prematurely. The Tree of Knowledge was off limits to Adam and Eve, but not permanently. They would, over time, mature into the ability to eat of it. But the serpent knew that they were predisposed to rule and that that force could be used to overcome their free will to simply obey God. And he was right.

Jesus was also tempted by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11) – and in the same way as Adam and Eve, although no longer in the safety of the garden but in the wilderness itself.

Jesus came to rule (Isaiah 9:6-7), and Satan offered Him a short cut. Jesus truly was tempted to give in to Satan. He desired what Satan was offering. Jesus was, too, predisposed to rule. But, being the first mature man, He did not give in and chose to obey God first. Jesus, being the second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45-49), obeyed God and made the way for all of us to be restored to our true purpose: to rule.

Adam and Eve’s great mistake then was not a desire to know good and evil, or a desire to be like God (those are good things), but rather, their great mistake was not trusting God and not obeying Him. Our predispositions may be stronger than our will, but our obedience to God must be stronger than all.

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” ~John 14:15

Christianity V. Mythology

skeletonsIf you read about or listen to the history of an organization, institution, nation, or religion, and it’s all great and glorious, without anything negative, and its failures are erased from memory, it is mythology.

“All secular societies have a skeleton in their closet. Even family genealogies usually omit the unpleasant ancestors and tell fairy tales in their stead.

“Christianity, on the other hand, took the unpleasantness for granted: in place of a pedigree from a mythical ancestor it put original sin inherited from Adam. And resolutely, it began in the midst of time, not in a mythical fog. Against all deathless myths and hopeless cycles the price of a living future is to admit death in our lives and overcome it. This is the supreme gift of Christianity; it showed that the fear of death need not force man into the narrow cycle of any given community. In place of pagan dividedness it created a universal pedigree for man that transcends all partial ends and beginnings, and measures history from the end of time.”*

* Excerpt from The Christian Future by Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, pg. 65

Some Atheist Brief Book Reviews

19280426All God Worshippers Are Mad 

A short and stupid book. I give it one star out of five because it was only $1.99 on Kindle. I can’t decide if the book was written for 12 year olds, or if it was written by a 12 year old. For example… His first argument against God is basically summed up as: “In order for God to create the space/time universe, God’s existence can’t depend on space/time. My human brain can’t comprehend that. Therefore there is no God. Booyah!”

11081433

Why I Believed 

He’s got a couple of decent Dostoevsky-type arguments against faith/God, but most of what he says follows a “I just don’t want to believe anymore” kind of thinking. Christianity is a faith which requires engagement. If you choose not to engage it you will grow cold towards it.

 

4420281Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes 

I’ll come back to this book for the language sections. Everett is a talented linguist. He had no business being a missionary though. I don’t think he ever fully understood what Christianity is. His descriptions of the faith show he never moved beyond a Sunday-school understanding of it.

 

24874812

God Needs to Go 

It’s hard to get into one of these books when it starts out with a straw-man argument; which this book does. In fact, this book is one straw-man after another — falsely representing Christianity and then attacking that false representation.

He makes a couple good points against prayer (or, what I would call the misuse of prayer).

Atheists often argue that morality is based on the evolved sense of the common good. While that might be true for economy, it is not true for morality. Morality is not the same across the world. A westerner being accepting of a transgender person is doing so because he believes it is loving to do so. That belief of loving acceptance stems directly from Christian morality. A Buddhist in Thailand who is accepting of a transgender person is not doing so out of love; his acceptance and noninterference is based on karmic justice. A Buddhist would be less inclined to help the poor for that very same reason, whereas a westerner would be more inclined to help the poor based on Christian morality.

The author states: “Except for certain religiously based societies, many of the secular nations display a sense of right and wrong that has allowed them advance in a positive way.” (page 23) “Certain religiously based societies” — every society is a religiously based society, including the ‘post-Christian’ west. A society’s morality is tied to its predominant religion. This is not hard to see. Western morality is based on Christianity, absolutely. If you don’t see that, you just need to do some travelling. A Buddhist nation’s morality is based on Buddhism. The same is true for Hindu and Muslim nations. If a person born and raised in a Buddhist nation becomes an atheist, his morality will still be based on Buddhism. (Although, Buddhism as a religion lacks the conditions to create atheists — which is a whole other interesting topic. Western atheism would not exist if it weren’t for Christianity.)

Then there are the usual arguments about slavery and God’s wrath and so forth. If you want to understand those issues in the Bible you have to understand two very important things: covenant and holiness. If you don’t get those two things, you won’t get the Bible.

And there are the attacks on biblical prophesy. Jesus said certain things about His return that supposedly didn’t happen. Well, there are plenty of books on eschatology to explain that. But if you’re not willing to study it out, then there’s nothing more to say. Reading Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:13-14 will get you well on your way to understanding what Jesus said when prophesying about Himself.

Use a Transformer

electricity-transformer-300x235If you live in the west and travel to the east, you have to be careful with the electrical devices you bring.

In the west, the voltage at an outlet is 120 volts, whereas in the east it will be 220 volts. If you plug your western electric razor in without an adaptor, you will fry your razor.

I like to use this illustration when teaching hermeneutics. You have to be careful when taking texts written thousands of years ago and applying them to today’s world.

All the so called “end-times” texts come to mind. When someone writes “the end of all things is at hand” two thousand years ago (1 Peter 4:7*), you don’t read that in 2015 and go out into the streets shouting the end is near.

You have to figure out what the original author meant by his words. What was coming to an end for him two thousand years ago? Then, once you’ve figured out his meaning, you can then apply the principles of what he was saying to your own time.

Sometimes you can take texts and plug them right in without the transformer (like with the wisdom literature), but the bible itself will teach you when and when not to do that.

And… just plain common sense.

*Also see: 1 Corinthians 10:11; James 5:7-9; 1 John 2:18; Hebrews 10:25; Jude 17-18.