Adulting

Our education system is designed to develop people who can personally contribute to society, whether that contribution is manual labor, office work, retail, raising a family, educating others, enhancing society through the arts, running a business, and so on. It's not just to produce workers for jobs, but that each one who is able becomes capable of adding to society in a real way.

If we broke the process down to 5 basic steps, it might look like this:

1. Tools. The earliest stages of education are the acquisition of the basic tools of learning: letters, numbers, learning habits, and motor skills, for example. The goal here is to learn how to use the tools, but the tools are not usually being used for anything that contributes significantly to society or solves a social ill.
2. Exercises. Now that we have the tools, we take on exercises in order to use the tools. These are usually non-real problems - just exercises on a page. The solution for each question is already well-known, and you'll be graded by those already-known answers. In this stage, we are learning how to solve problems, but we're not faced with real ones. If we get the answer wrong, no one will lose a finger.
3. Word problems. We eventually graduate from exercises to word problems, which are real-world problems - things that could exist. But still these problems are already solved. We're not creating a new solution that will actually help someone. It is a realistic simulation, and we are preparing for that day when we'll be doing the same actions for problems not yet solved.
4. Thesis / project. This stage ventures into the territory of solving problems that have not yet been solved. No one has pre-worked this particular scenario, and our answers will be a new contribution, no matter how small. But this is a controlled environment and the risk is still pretty low. If we get the wrong answer, it's easily fixed.
5. Work. Now, we're doing what we've been building up to through the previous stages. These are new, real problems. But they also carry real consequences. Someone could lose a finger if we get these wrong. But now ... finally ... we're really contributing to the Common Good.

If we stop at Stage 1, no "work" gets done (other than learning itself).

If we stop at Stage 2, no useful work gets done.

If we stop at Stage 3, we feel accomplished, but the Common Good is still not yet served.

If we stop at Stage 4, perhaps others can learn from our labor, but we're still not directly doing "work."

Our goal is Stage 5. The other stages make little sense until we get to this stage. None of the previous stages are a destination for all who are able. (Note that good teachers are in Stage 5, not 4, but what is produced is the student, not the problems they solve.)

In today's terms, we call it adulting.

Now, make the following associations and then reread the 5 stages and the "if we stop at" statements:

1. Tools = Bible & prayer.
2. Exercises = Bible studies, Sunday school.
3. Word problems = theology, sermons, in-depth studies.
4. Thesis / project = church programs.
5. Work = walking daily as a disciplemaking follower of Jesus.

Too many Christians stop at Stage 3, and we too often settle for Stage 4. None of those stages are a destination - our goal is Stage 5.

In today's terms, we call it adulting.

Beyond Tolerance

On this side, there are those who cry for "Tolerance!" These are often those who live in some way that departs from a particular standard (a Biblical standard, a rigid religious standard, a self-righteous standard, a societal norm, etc.). They feel judged, and understandably don't want to be judged. They don't subscribe to that particular standard and are asking to not be held to that standard.

On the opposite side, there are those who see the word "tolerance" as a code word for "condone me with all of my sins." There are some things that are right and some things that are wrong, and whoever is wrong should not be condoned in their wrong-ness. Often, but certainly not always, these folks identify themselves as Christians.

So, let me focus in on the Christian response, without comment on how the rest of the world ought to respond.

Calmer Christians will add a caveat saying, "Of course, we ought to accept everyone as they are, but in no way condone any form of sin." That's rational and consistent. But I don't think it goes far enough. Nor do I think those who call for tolerance are going far enough, either!

Now it's beginning to sound like I'm about to skip merrily down the lane of full-on tolerance of anything and everything. Not at all. Here's my key issue - those who live in each of the far corners of this topic have a binary view of this issue. It's either tolerance of everything or horrible judgmentalism. You're either advocating everything or condemning others, with no other way to look at it. If those are the only two options, then we are stuck in an ugly dispute with no real resolution.

Jesus, the one who Christians are supposed to follow, did not teach us to be tolerant. But neither did He teach us to be judgmental. In other words, He didn't teach either of the binary choices, so there must be something else. Not a midpoint between the two, but something completely other.

In Luke 15, the Pharisees posed this issue with Jesus. He was hanging around sinners, and the religious leaders called Him on it because He sure looked like He was condoning their sin. But He wasn't judging these sinners, and He certainly wasn't condoning their sin. And yet He still loved spending time with them. He responded to the Pharisees with a triplet of parables teaching about the joy of finding what was lost - that was how He explained why He would hang around such "awful" sinners.

Jesus was practicing something far beyond tolerance. In some ways, He went much further than what those who want tolerance are asking for! He loved them. He spent time with them. He wanted them to be found, and so He sought them out. They were, in a sense, His goal. Tolerance is just putting up with something, but Jesus went far beyond merely putting up with sinners.

People get caught up in the question, "Should we be tolerant?", and I think that's not even the right question, because Jesus didn't act based on a tolerance scale. The questions He evokes are: Who should we love? Who should we spend time with? Who should we seek? Will our joy be in staying clear of what's lost or finding what's lost?

Don't get caught up in the tolerance debate, follower of Christ. Instead, follow Christ in this.

When you can't see eye to eye ...

The only thing wrong with people having a different opinion is that they don't have my opinion. Why can't we have the kind of variety that agrees entirely with me? Or why can't people come around to my way after I explain to them how logical my way is? (I don't argue with people ... I just give the more reasons to agree with me!)

When we are at loggerheads with one another, and it's clear that no one is going to budge, how do we find ways to communicate and cooperate? If the difference is over something minor (who's your favorite Royals player?), it's not usually that hard to enjoy one another's company. But when the difference is major (which way the TP roll goes, Marvel v. D.C., etc.), and the other one is just never going to come around, how do we keep from souring our relationships?

There are plenty of ways, books, and ideas, of course. Most of them are effective. The only problem is remembering to employ them in the heat of the battle. I offer the following ideas as one possible approach:

Identify the values that apply. Without judging, without comparing, without critiquing, list as many values that are in play with the issue at hand. For example,

• living within one's means
• truthfulness
• compassion
• building memories that last

Have each person contribute to the list, adding whatever seems relevant. By this, you will see what values the other is coming from, and often, that their values are valid and important. That helps you understand their view, their logic, and their conclusions. Perhaps there are ways to accommodate many of each other's values. This also helps you filter out what you're saying from stubbornness and what you're saying from your values.

Find as much common ground as you can. You'll have plenty of time to talk about where you differ. Start by talking about where you agree. It's amazing how effective this can be, whether the common area is big or small. I have found especially when talking to religious skeptics or politically enraged chatterboxes that identifying our common ground calms the discussion and opens up a more civil way to disagree. Be careful, you might end up appreciating the other person's perspective a little bit!

Don't dig in your heels until you're able to effectively state the other person's view. Way too often people dig in their heels to argue their opinion or their way before they even understand the other's point of view. That leads to either misrepresenting the other's view in order to maintain that dug in position, or realizing way too late that you're arguing the wrong fight. And then we usually just dig in further, because we're not humble enough to apologize. But if you wait until you can effectively restate the other's position so that they can say, "Yes, you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree," they will know that you're listening and that you respect them. You might even discover that you don't disagree as much as you thought.

One of the beautiful side effects of high school or college debate is that it trains you to argue both sides of an issue, regardless of what you actually believe. And to argue each side vigorously. That tempers dogmatism and requires you to consider respectable sources that don't echo your own view. In debate, you also need to identify the values that apply so that the conversation doesn't wander off into irrelevance. And there are even times when the best strategy is to find common ground on a specific issue (but usually for the purpose of finding a better area to clash, so don't take this analogy too far!).

Three simple things that we already know. We just don't remember them when the "other person" is being obstinate. But the more we practice these even with minor issues, the more habitual they become, and the better we will navigate potentially divisive conflict.

I don't always practice these, but when I do, the conversation is almost always dramatically better.

Your Voters' Guide

But not your normal voters' guide. I dare not.

Never before have I seen people in such inner turmoil about how to vote in the presidential election coming up in November. Without comment on any of the candidates, issues, concerns, or parties, it's safe to say that many are finding this the hardest voting decision they've had to make. Twin declarations of #NeverThisOne and #NeverThatOne in a two-party race cannot be reconciled. Then, some want to vote third party, but others protest that this is effectively voting for the major party candidate you are least like.

Some have the their minds made up and have no internal struggle. The data shows, however, that we have the greatest national dissatisfaction ever with this field of candidates.

I will not, however, give any advice on how to choose, except for these two often-overlooked attributes: wisdom and leadership style. These are biblical attributes of leaders in the Bible which we often ignore in favor of morals and policy (which are also valid voting issues). I urge you to consider wisdom and leadership style as foundational to how one will perform in office.

My voters' guide is not primarily about how to pick your candidate. My concern this year is greater. Not only have I never seen such internal struggle within people - neither have I seen such internal struggle within the Church. Because it so hard to decide, and there is so much at stake, the church is infighting like I've never seen before. Likely, there has been worse in our history, but not in my recollection.

Followers of Christ telling other followers of Christ, "How can you be a follower of Christ and vote for so-and-so?" The exact same phrase and attitude flying both left and right (and every other direction). Anger, damaged relationships, cold shoulders, questioning one's commitment to Jesus. This year's election runs the danger of creating new and deep schisms within the body of Christ.

I see a greater danger here than the "wrong person" getting elected. An irreparably damaged Church is far worse.

Let us disagree. That's fine. If you're struggling to support someone, and I'm struggling to support someone, shouldn't we expect us to have struggles between us? It is possible that there is no candidate that we can heartily endorse without major concerns, so let's not pretend like there is a single, cleanly righteous choice. You may conclude there is an obvious choice for you, but don't pretend like your candidate shouldn't give the Church grave concerns.

But please in this election season, remember that the Church has shown throughout history that we can be the Church effectively under any government and under any leader ... if we are not fighting among ourselves! But if we are fighting among ourselves, the greatest leader of the greatest government won't matter.