The Social Media Challenge, Part 1, "The Motive"

So I just read an article. I'll give you my take on it, but first, here's the link. For the non internet savvy, click the blue word back there. It'll take you somewhere else...

Go ahead and take a minute to read it. You never know. I might just lie about what I think or what it's even about to throw you off. I'm sneaky like that...

Ok, for those that took time to read the article, here's my personal summary:

We've been told for the last 10-15 years that an ideal candidate for hire in just about any career path is the ability to multitask, and at increasingly higher levels. Juggle your responsibilities, all at the very same time, and you get more done that way, right? Wrong, according to this most recent in a slew of studies about the mental effects of multitasking.

Here is what multitasking doesn't actually do:

• Doesn't help you focus
• Doesn't help you ignore irrelevant info
• Doesn't improve your memory
• Doesn't help switch between tasks more quickly
• Doesn't help switch between tasks more quickly
• Doesn't help switch between tasks more quickly (the third time shows it was intentional)

Check this quote out from the article. This sums it up best for me:

"They couldn't help thinking about the task they weren't doing," Ophir said. "The high multitaskers are always drawing from all the information in front of them. They can't keep things separate in their minds."

The only thing that high levels of multitasking seems to accomplish is to prevent us from relating to the world around us (which requires focus, ignoring TONS of irrelevant info, memory, and switching to doing something else). This has me remembering a commercial I saw from a cable company... The only reason that commercial was even funny was that I live with a televisaphonernetter. If you don't understand that term, it's because you didn't click the blue link back there. Just sayin'...

So here's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking I'm going to be challenging myself and, well, the rest of the world, to a Social Media Challenge. Details to follow, but it's going to involve logging out of all social media platforms for 1 entire week. Now right away, I know that causes a panic for some people. My televisaphonernetter included. Right away, when I told her what I was thinking, she responded with, "Yeah, I won't be taking that challenge." Now understand, she's a self-employed professional wedding photographer in Charlotte (with a snazzy website if I do say so myself), and social media is her primary form of communication for business. That, I understand. But for the vast majority of us, social media plays a minuscule role in our work lives. So the question is, do you still have the remaining brain capacity to relate to the world around you without social media distraction?

We'll be in touch. Keep an eye out for Part 2, the "The Method"

Rob Bell Ruined My Evening...

I find myself haunted tonight. But it's not by any of the unfortunate folks at peopleofwalmart.com (beware if you click, you may end up haunted too). And it's not because I went out and rented Saw 17: Jigsaw goes to Cancun. It's because I finished reading a book, and something the author wrote caught me off guard. Almost like a sucker-punch of the soul.

The book is Velvet Elvis. The author is Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Church. Now this particular entry isn't going to be a book review. That may come later. This is about just one statement that is still rocking my world. Before I get to what he said, let me go back briefly to explain why this book even found itself on my shelf.

I serve as an assisting pastor in a church, and as such I have friends that are pastors also. One of them asked me, "What do you think about the Emerging Church Movement?" I had never heard the term. The tone of the question was negative and almost indignant, so I asked about it. They hooked me up with a few websites, and I was intrigued, because from the Evangelical mainstream voice, the Emerging Church was almost being labeled as a threat, and Rob Bell was one of their chief "heretics." I watched a few anti-videos on YouTube and was even more intrigued, so I did what anyone in my position ought to. I bought his books. Velvet Elvis was one of the books. After all, you can only learn so much from spliced text with musical backgrounds on YouTube. For a people as opinionated as the church seems to be, we should have to be the most well-read community on the face of the planet... I digress...

The statement is in the last chapter. I'll give it to you plain:

"Most of the messages we receive (as Christians) are about how to make life easier. The call of Jesus goes the other direction: it's about making our lives more difficult. It is going out of our way to be more generous and disciplined and loving and free. It is refusing to escape and become numb to and check out of this broken, fractured world." (emphasis added)

I can't get past that last statement, because it's right where I live. Even as a pastor, even having gone to Bible College, I find myself more interested in finding varied ways (TV, video games, heck even social media) to escape from the world around me because in a not-so-small way, I've lost the faith to believe that God can make a difference in that world using my life. That's hard to admit, but I knew at once I had to admit it. I have to own it. I have to throw up my hands and say, "You're right, God, that's me. I checked out." I can't tell you why. I can't even tell you what I'm going to do next. But at least I know where I am, and that's a start.

The position I'm in has the words of Debbye Graafsma , renowned worship song writer and Christian counselor, echoing in my heart. She has said that life isn't about success, it's about congruency. It's about being the same, inside and out. It's about letting what is at the core of who you were created to be set the pace for the person you appear to be, not the opposite way around.

I know where I am. But I know where I want to be, and I'm taking the first steps in that direction. I'm not writing this to try and tell anyone how to get there themselves. Rather, I'm writing to invite other people along who may find themselves on the same point of the map that I am: checked out, numb, and not even knowing how they got there, but wanting to go back.

If anyone has been down this road, I'd welcome your comments and contributions. I'm sure a lot of other people would too.

A Christian Perspective on S.909, The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act

I know that I'm not a consistent blogger. I also don't consider myself to be a political person. Certain topics trigger my interest more than others, but for the most part I tend to lay low and just let the politicians play their games without a whole lot of spectating or commentary.

I simply can't be silent about this subject, however, because the rest of the Christian Church is voicing a seemingly noble but ultimately ignorant view on this bill and I simply can't let it be the only voice coming from our paradigm. Initially, I bought into the emails that circulated about how devastating the bill could be in the future. Then I read the bill itself. Wouldn't you know, the emails ended up being completely bogus and my perspective on the bill radically changed.

Let's start at the beginning, shall we? S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law by President Obama last week. The church is in uproar over the bill, using the following rationale, quoted from an email that circulated:

"A bill now before Congress would criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a "hate crime" punishable by a hefty fine and time in prison. This dangerous legislation would take away our freedom of speech and freedom of religion."

Let me first state that this blog is not intended to post any kind of position on homosexuality or personal or religious views of homosexuality. I am specifically targeting the above perspective on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I am not targeting any organizations or individuals specifically.

If you haven't read the bill yet, here's a link to the text version.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text

Read it. Please. Seriously. I'll wait for you..........

Ok, now that you've read it, let's talk about the Christian Email claims about the bill, and match them up with what the bill actually says.

• Makes speech from the pulpit concerning homosexuality as sin a hate crime...

But check out the language of the actual bill:

"Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person..." (emphasis added)

I see bodily injury, not speech as being the crime. Furthermore, to avoid confusion about speech vs bodily injury, the act has the following language (which you READ ALREADY, right?)

"(1) The term "bodily injury" has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;"

In other words, words aren't enough. Hurt feelings aren't a crime in and of themselves. Emotional or Psychological harm are not grounds for prosecution. Only bodily harm substantiates a valid use of Hate Crimes. Well, actually, that isn't completely true:

"The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence."

Oh no, maybe this is the loophole on which fellow Christians base this other claim:

• "This dangerous legislation would take away our freedom of speech and freedom of religion."

Maybe this is a good point to bring up an important exegetical strategy that we as Christians feel is important to employ when reading the Bible: let's examine the context surrounding the above language in the bill.

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. (4) FREE EXPRESSION.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs."

Please, if you didn't catch it, read that last part again and ask yourself this question: According to the Act, are the freedoms of speech and religion restricted or reinforced?

So let's get to the skinny, Minnie. Here is a good running list of things that are prohibited through the newest rendition of the 1994 Hate Crimes Bill:

• Punching a Norwegian in the nose because of his national origin
• Throwing a stick of dynamite at a lesbian couple because of their sexual orientation
  
• Ejecting a Christian from the passenger seat of your car off a bridge because they believe in Jesus as a religion
  
• Shooting a Muslim with a Bee-Bee gun because he prays 5 times per day as part of his religion
  
• Running a man over with an H2 because all men are dogs, and his gender is male
  
• Lighting someone with down's syndrome on fire because of their unusually pleasant disposition, because of their disability
  

I know that the examples are less than polite, but in the world we live in, you're going to need to move past that. After all, worse things than the above listed actually happen. That's why legislation like this is needed. Sick people commit crimes against others that are motivated by hate based on national origin, gender, religion, disability, gender identity and sexual orientation. If we don't face the world we live in, we can never hope to influence it.

More importantly than the above list of atrocities, here's a list of what is explicitly protected based on the language of the bill that passed:

• Speaking about the Biblical view of Homosexuality
• Belonging to any religious organization that takes a stance against same sex marriage
• Telling someone who maintains an alternative gender identification that you disagree with their view of human identity creation.
• Calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from a church pulpit.

You probably noticed the last one seemed similar to the email claim from the beginning. Good eye. You should join a slow-pitch softball league.

One common thing I hear in response to my position is: "Why do we have to have separate legislation protecting homosexuals or muslims, since they're already protected from bodily injury as citizens of the US?" Here's the simple answer ... the gay and lesbian communities, along with many other groups, are more prone to be targeted for violent crimes as a result of the lifestyle they maintain. Separate legislation is needed to increase consequences because the motive of hatred is more heinous than others. Different motive = different crime = different consequence. It works that way for manslaughter vs first degree murder vs second degree murder, etc. Why wouldn't it work for acts of hate motivated violence? I would encourage all believers to read Exodus and Leviticus to see how this kind of rationale was used in the Law (Torah) that our Constitution was modeled after.

Here is my simple conclusion: the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act doesn't make preaching on the subject of homosexuality wrong, it makes acts of hate motivated violence (hate crimes) illegal, and extends the definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by sexual or gender differentiation and identification.

Also, to anyone that might respond by saying that "This is the first step in a slippery slope...", please acknowledge that your logic is only valid when you can succinctly identify all of the proceeding steps of the slippery slope and then follow that with historical evidence that those steps are both plausible and probable. If you can't do that, stop using that philosophical model.

Ignorance is ugly, no matter whose mouth it proceeds out of. I'm not taking up an issue with Christians or Right-Wing Conservative GOP supporters. I am taking up an issue with the recklessness with which we as the Church of Jesus Christ circulate nonsense emails or speak publicly in an attempt to promote our political agendas or scare trusting followers into getting involved in a protest that they don't even understand.

Read legislation, not just emails. Learn first, don't just react. Speak out of understanding, not misguided fervor. Take your call as an advocate of Jesus, The Truth, seriously.