I Had To Get A New Set Of Glasses

Without getting too bogged down in the details, I was having problems with the book they called The Bible.  Its local advocates claimed that God was somehow responsible for its contents and that He had chosen to reveal a part of Himself and of His will to people through it.  God did not appear be a very effective author because some parts of His book did not make sense to me.

The Bible claimed that God could not lie, yet certain of its passages contradicted what I knew for a fact to be true.  Other parts seemed to contradict one another.  If God can do anything, then how is it not possible that He might lie? 

Perhaps the most obvious example of The Bible's apparent flaws, to me anyway, was its claim that Jesus had said that it was more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35).  In my seventeen vast years of experience, I never had found that to be true.  I always enjoyed receiving gifts.  I found even a modest amount of pleasure in receiving clothes for Christmas or my birthday presents.  I certainly found that more satisfying than than giving away anything. 

My simple mind offered only three possible solutions to this dilemma:  (1) Jesus was wrong; (2) The Bible had not accurately recorded Jesus' words; or (3) there was a very slim chance that I might not be one hundred percent correct.  The last of those options was the least likely to apply because I was absolutely certain of what I had seen, heard, felt and known up to that point and all of those things screamed to me that this part of The Bible had to be wrong. 

I was troubled by the obvious limitations exhibited by any deity who was not be able to maintain the integrity of his own publication.  Since by definition an all powerful being could not be subject to limitations,  that lead me to focus my attention on the unlikely integrity of the book itself.  If God by definition was not fallible, then it was impossible for Him to author a flawed book.  If any portion of The Bible was unreliable, then I could perceive no way to have confidence in any of it. 

There are few events I am likely to remember until my dying day, but this almost certainly is one of them.  I was driving home from work one afternoon stewing over this dilemma when the thought occurred to me, "Why don't you try it and see what happens?" 

For perhaps the first time in my life, I acted on a good idea.  I gave and I liked it!  Giving did not have to mean that I had lost something.  Done with the proper attitude it could be a rewarding experience.  So I elected to give some more.  The results have far exceeded the pleasant feelings the practice generated.  The list of benefits is extensive and far exceeds the purpose of the present post. 

The primary point is that I actually had been wrong!  Me?  Of all people!  As absurd as it seemed at the time, what I knew I had seen, heard and experienced was not necessarily the most reliable source of information for making some decisions.  If this change of approach had been able to alter the results in one decision making area of my life, was there a chance that it might impact other areas as well?  My experience since that date suggests that the answer is yes!

I had been experiencing the world through lenses that were filtering what really existed and were allowing me to see less than the entire picture.  I did not know what I did not know.  This was my first step toward trying to identify and discard my self-limiting filters.  The process continues so long as I will remain active and attentive to it.

I Was Stuck On Stupid.

My mother did not tell me that story until I was much older.  I had no idea what was going on outside of the limited capacity any teenage boy can muster.  I did not know what Jesus himself had told my mother, so how could I care?   


What I did know was that I was terribly frustrated.  I wanted to be a good person.  I took no joy in harming others.  I was by nature empathetic.  At the same time I was naturally inclined to act in the most selfish manner available.  None of that made sense to me. 

The culture where I had grown up told me that good people obeyed the ten commandments.  I had no problem during my early teens with things like murder, adultery or worshiping grave images, but some of the lesser crimes on that list seemed unavoidable. 

The people at my church told me that Jesus had an important part to play in my well being and that he had died in my place.  Some well-meaning bozo showed me a place in The Bible where Jesus said I would obey his commandments if I loved him.  (John 14:15 and 23, perhaps.)  No matter how hard I tried, I could not follow his simple instructions. 

Like Bre'r Rabbit, I'd already stuck myself to this particular tar baby and there was no way of letting go.  I found it impossible to improve my performance and equally impossible to ignore my dilemma.  This thing was impossible to understand but equally impossible to ignore.  I was absolutely unable to avoid a handful of meaningless activities that, according to this Jesus, demonstrated my ingratitude for what he had done for me. 

How could any good person behave like that? 

Something had to give.  Nothing would.

"Glenn Beck is a racist."

       - All of Glen Beck's detractors every day since July 28, 2009 



"Barack Obama is a racist."

          - Glen Beck, July 28, 2009

I disagreed with Beck when he said that.  I still disagree with him.  But I have listened to Beck explain his position several times and I can understand (a) that he did not draw that conclusion without having some evidence to support it and (b) why he might have reached that conclusion.  I have no reason to believe that President Obama is a racist.  Even if he is one, what real difference would that make.  Would that totally discredit every other word the man said or every political or social idea he supported? 

I'm not really sure why Glen Beck's detractors in the media think he is a racist.  I honestly stopped listening to most of those people long ago.  I have listened to why some of my friends think Beck is a racist.  I can understand (a) that they did not draw that conclusion without having some evidence to support it and (b) why they might have reached that conclusion.  Even if he is one, what real difference would that make?  Would that totally discredit every other word the man said or every political or social idea he supported? 

What does seem (to me) to make a difference is that, rather than engaging in an honest discussion about the very real political issues facing our country the people on both sides of all of those issues waste their time and ours bickering about things like this that might not exist and would not make any real difference if they did. 

Another thing I've noticed is that all the people who articulate a belief that one of those two men is a racists will defend the innocence of the other man with equal vigor.  A similar dynamic seems to be present with respect to almost every one of the issues (both the important and the not so important issues) that exhaust our nation's capacity to talk about our political and social differences.  We seem so intent on demeaning our opponents and defending the public figures who purport to reflect our existing thoughts and feelings that we have no mental and emotional energy left to contemplate the wisdom of our existing positions, much less how we came to land in those particular places. 
It seems to me that an open-minded person who is sincerely interested in discerning and understanding the truth of things would ask herself or himself a number of questions after making these observations.  Some of the more obvious questions might include:
 
How can two groups of people with no apparent learning disabilities with equal access to the same information draw such remarkably different conclusions? 
 
Does that apparent paradox reflect a healthy condition in our society? 
 
What, if any, conclusions could be drawn by the vehemence and polarization that seems rampant within our society? 
 
What if any of my existing perceptions and conclusions am I unwilling to relinquish in order to accurately and objectively divine the truthfulness of any of these issues or questions?  For that matter, can any person ever find the truth if he or she is not willing to abandon any existing conclusion, perception or fundamental assumption that refuses to yield to objective observation? 
 

Those last two might be the most important questions any person must ask upon realizing that he or she does not know what he or she does not know.  Those likely also are the two questions most neglected by every person who comes to that realization.

"Most people get their thinking in this generation like we tend to get colds,

through casual with complete strangers."

"We've got some world views, some philosophies we've got to get rid of. "
                                  
                           -  Stephen Mansfield, April 5, 2010



There is no way I can improve on that quote, but I will provide some information about its author.  Stephen Mansfield wrote the authorized biography of Derek Prince, perhaps the most important Bible teacher of the second half of the 20th Century.  Here is a link to his publisher's bio on him.  (How many people would have the guts to write books about the Faith of Barak Obama and about the Faith of George W. Bush?)  Here is a link to Stephen's website.

"How many of you would seek career counselling from an 18 or 20 year old?"

I was a middle aged man sitting with several hundred other people in a business seminar the first time I heard that question.  My initial reaction probably was not unique within the group.  "That might be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard."  The speaker paused while we swallowed the bait. 

"But that's exactly what most of you here in this room have done."  My immediate response to this was that I'd wasted my time and my money attending this stupid meeting.  The speaker probably noticed a similar look on many other faces throughout the crowd and smiled to herself as she watched the hook set deeply inside each of us. 

"Because that's how old most of you were when you decided what you wanted to do for a living or picked the major focus of your studies in college."  Netted!  "You either got a job or went to college to get the kind of job you wanted, and statistics tell us that most of you are doing pretty much the same sort of job now, no matter how many years have passed since then." 

"Some of you chose well.  Others made decisions you later wished you had not made.  Whichever decision you did make, you made it with all the wisdom, knowledge and experience of an 18 or 20 year old.  The good news today is that you don't have to live with that young person's decision any longer if you don't want to."  Ahhh, catch and release!

Just in case it's not obvious to you, the point of this entry is not that some of us made bad career moves when we were young.  The idea here is to demonstrate one peculiar dynamic of decision making: All decisions are based on incomplete information.  We might make as good a decision as we possibly can make and it might be based on all the information within our reasonable grasp at that time; but the mere passing of time always reveals additional information, some of which might have been helpful if we'd had access to it at the time we made the decision. 

Our ignorance at the time of any decision likely also will limit our capacity to pursue information from outside sources.  If we have no reason to believe or to expect a potential problem exists, what reason would we have to seek a solution to that problem. 

The simple point of this elementary exercise is to attempt to demonstrate the primary function behind this blog:  We don't know what we don't know.  We do have the option of continuing the learning process so that we can know more before the end of the day today than we did when we finally fell asleep yesterday.  We never will know everything, because something new will exist when tomorrow comes that did not exist today. 

This simple yet irrefutable dynamic will continue to impact our lives for so long as we live.  We never will escape it.  The instant after our deaths in this world, a new universe of information will come into being that will evade our consciousness for so long as time exists.

Please do not be discouraged.  That is not the end of this effort.  Only the beginning.  Many of us will not pursue knowledge, information or understanding if we do not perceive that we have a need.  So before beginning this adventure together, perhaps each of us should take a few moments to consider individually how what we did not know has impacted us in the past.  Do not limit yourself to your career.  Ask yourself how this might have affected every area of your life.  How has it influenced your relationships, your religious or political beliefs, the foods you eat, and your recreational activities. 

If your experience is anything like mine, the more you think about it the more obvious this will become to you: You don't know what you don't know!

Relax.  Let us embark on this adventure together, have some fun, and see if we cannot find some benefit from the process.