Traveling in Place

It's All About the Kids

My first foray into writing for public consumption came in the ninth grade, when I was chosen to be the editor of the junior high newspaper.  This monthly organ was typed out by our English teacher on an IBM Selectric and produced on the school mimeograph machine.  Being the editor afforded me the privilege of writing an opinion column.  In October, I penned a scathing denunciation of Halloween as a culturally sanctioned exercise in naked greed.  I did my best to communicate outrage by observing how awful it was that children of all ages were given an entire evening to go door-to-door asking – and expecting – handouts, not only from neighbors, but even from total strangers!  Quite the muckraker I was.

The column didn’t generate much interest.  The only positive feedback I received came from the father of a girl on whom I had a terrible crush.  He told me, in her hearing, that he appreciated the courage I had shown in plainly stating the unvarnished truth.  This didn’t win me any points with his daughter.  In fact, it probably settled once and for all that she would never go steady with me.

I’m not sure why I decided to trash Halloween.  As a younger child, after all, I looked forward to donning a costume and making the rounds to collect candy.  Maybe as a ninth-grader I was in a rush to grow up – to show some adult-style conviction about what I perceived as childish behavior.  By the time I had young children of my own, all that righteous indignation had dissipated.  Like other parents, I enjoyed watching my kids quiver with anticipation on that cool fall night, traipsing through the fallen leaves in their clever disguises, knocking on doors, yelling “Trick or treat!” and watching as little pieces of candy dropped into their open bags.  What I once called greed now looked like harmless fun.

More Reflection on Sandy

Updated 10/31/12

Superstorm Sandy tracked just far west enough to spare those of us in Central New York its worst effects.  High winds overnight ripped most of the remaining leaves off the trees, and a huge limb lies sprawled across my backyard.  But we never lost power, and life has gone on pretty much as normal.

Millions of others have not been so fortunate.

So far, 57 are confirmed dead from the storm, eight million people have lost power, and insurance companies are estimating total damage at between $10 and $20 billion.  Transportation across the Northeast is at a standstill.  Wall Street shut down for two days.  Lower Manhattan is flooded.  Sandy transformed the subway into a rushing underground river, and sent waterfalls rushing into the World Trade Center construction site.  Power transformers in New York and New Jersey exploded all Monday night, leaving behind an eerie darkness.  A fire in Queens completely destroyed 100 homes as firefighters, hampered by low water pressure, watched helplessly.  In New Jersey, people had to be rescued from the roofs of homes that are now mostly submerged.  Coastal towns and cities have been reduced to rubble.  Blizzard conditions raged across the Appalachian Mountains.

I repeat the sentiment I expressed early Monday.  There is nothing “good” about Sandy's destructive work.  But, as in all such circumstances, we are reminded of what is truly important.  We pull together to bind up wounds and provide assistance however possible.  This unprecedented storm has slammed into the most densely populated region of the country at the very time our politics has accentuated our divisions.  Just as we were on the verge of being torn apart politically, we were drawn together by this tragedy.  

In another week, I suppose, we could be right back where we were.  But even if that is the case, this moment gives us pause.  Tuesday morning, I witnessed the rising sun peaking through the breaking storm clouds to create a magnificently painted sky.  Hmm.

Copyright 2012 by J. Mark Lawson

A Storm Blows into Our Politics

Eight days out from the presidential election, nobody knows what the outcome will be. 

All the signs point to a very close decision, perhaps even a split between the popular vote and the Electoral College.  This level of uncertainty gives fits to “pollaholics” (a self-deprecating term recently used by columnist David Brooks). They sift through the data obsessively looking for the slightest hint of a pattern here, momentum there – some hidden piece of information that will unlock the mystery of this contest and dispel the rising anxiety.

Enter Hurricane Sandy, the superstorm that, at this moment, is barreling toward the East Coast threatening to wreak havoc over a wide swath of the Northeast including the New York metro area.  Forecasters warn of heavy damage from high winds and flooding that will likely lead to prolonged power outages – even through Election Day.  Here in Central New York, we’ll miss the brunt of Sandy’s wrath, but not before sustaining high winds Monday night and early Tuesday.  In addition to tree damage and downed power lines, the massive piles of leaves that have been raked to the curb for the Town to pick up will now be scattered in all directions, clogging sewer drains and making some neighborhood streets nearly impassible.

Sandy throws more uncertainty into the presidential election.  Polling will effectively cease in the states affected.  Voting itself may actually suffer.  Campaign strategies will certainly be altered, both out of necessity and sensitivity to the victims of the storm. 

But more than uncertainty, this hurricane brings back perspective.  I would never wish a dangerous storm on anyone.  I don’t believe, like Pat Robertson, that storms like this are signs of God’s judgment.  Still, natural disasters remind us of what’s really important.  And Sandy is already revealing how small our politics have become.  All the petty issues, attacks and counter-attacks suddenly seem irrelevant.  So if anything good comes from Sandy, perhaps it will be to free us from the mire of negative politics just in time for the election. 

And before you ask – the answer is “no.” I don’t have any idea how that would affect the outcome next Tuesday. 

Copyright 2012 by J. Mark Lawson 

Hedgehogs and Foxes

Perhaps the coolest nerd in America today is Nate Silver, author of the highly acclaimed blog “fivethirtyeight.com,” which he launched in 2008.  It has since been incorporated into the website of the New York Times.  Silver is a statistician and a scientist.  His blog carefully examines polling and other empirical data to make informed predictions about electoral politics.  His forecasts have proven more accurate than those of any single polling organization, and his posts often bring a needed dose of reason into the frantic world of polling, especially during a presidential election campaign.

He recently published a fascinating book entitled, The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail – But Some Don’t.  It’s a fairly dense volume that closely examines the industry of making predictions in the fields of politics, economics, weather, seismology, and sports.  One of his basic premises is that the more precise a prediction, the more likely it is to be wrong.  Because vast amounts of information are more accessible today than ever, forecasters often erroneously assume that they have enough data to make bold predictions.  In fact, a lot of the information available to us is “noise” rather than “signal,” and the noise is selectively used to construct narratives that do not conform to reality.  Furthermore, forecasters prefer not to disclose the degree of uncertainty built into their models, for fear that consumers will mistake their honesty for lack of skill. 

Taking a cue from political scientist and psychologist Philip Tetlock, whose research in the 1990’s revealed that “experts” in various fields do no better at making predictions than had they flipped a coin or rolled the dice, Silver divides forecasters into two groups: “hedgehogs” and “foxes.”  (This distinction is inspired by a passage ascribed to the Greek poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.”)  Hedgehogs believe in big, overarching, governing principles that work much like laws of physics in determining human behavior.  They stick to their Big Idea and incorporate all new information into that original model.  They blame their mistakes on bad luck or unexpected circumstances, and they believe that the universe is an ordered system governed by a few simple principles.  Foxes, on the other hand, are always looking for lots of little ideas and many different solutions to a problem.  They are always adapting their view of the world as they receive more information, and are much more tolerant of complexity, ambiguity, and nuance.  They are not afraid of admitting when they are wrong. 

Intolerance of Tolerance

Eleven years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center – one of the pillars of the Civil Rights movement – launched a campaign against bullying in the public schools.  Their strategy was simple: encourage kids to eat lunch with other children they don’t know.  The idea is to promote better understanding and, in the process, diminish bullying behavior.  Thousands of schools across the country have adopted this strategy by setting aside October 30 as “Mix It Up Day.” 

We can debate the effectiveness of the approach.  (I can see how it could work very well in the primary grades, but I don’t know if requiring young teens to eat lunch with people they don’t know is going to break down barriers.) Yet even if you’re not sold on the strategy, you can hardly argue with the purpose.  Who would question the intent of trying to put an end to bullying?

The American Family Association, that’s who.  This conservative Christian evangelical outfit charges that “Mix It Up Day” is actually a veiled effort to “promote a homosexual agenda,” and has encouraged parents to keep their kids home on October 30.  AFA’s Bryan Fischer claims that “anti-bullying policies become a mechanism for punishing Christian students who believe that homosexual behavior is not something that should be normalized.” 

This is an example of why American Christianity is in trouble.

Assessing the Trends in American Religion

The Pew Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life just released the results of an extensive survey about religion in America.  It confirms trends that other researchers have been reporting.  Among the Pew findings:

20% of Americans are unaffiliated with any religion.  That’s up from 15% just five years ago.

14% believe in God but have no religious affiliation.

6% describe themselves as atheists or agnostics.

32% of Americans under the age of 30 say they have no religion.

There is an inverse correlation between age and religious affiliation.  That is, the younger you are the less likely you are to belong to a religious community.  Here are the percentages of each generation who consider themselves unaffiliated:

34% of Younger Millennials (born 1990-94)

30% of Older Millennials (born 1981-1989)

21% of Gen Xers  (born 1965-1980)

15% of Boomers (born 1946-1964)

9% of the Silent Generation (born 1928-1945)

5% of the Greatest Generation (born 1913-1927)

Among those who claim a religious affiliation, 45% claim to attend services weekly, while 18% seldom or never attend services.  (Other reputable studies have concluded that only one in five Americans actually attend religious services on a weekly basis.)  Among all Americans, 29% seldom or never attend religious services, up from 25% in 2007.

Sheer Delight

I’ve been away from my blog for longer than usual because I’ve spent the last five days in retreat.  It is now an annual fall spiritual discipline from me to spend a long weekend at Brookside Trinity Retreat House located on the grounds of the Silver Bay YMCA on Lake George.  My retreats are very private.  Except for mealtimes and a communion service, I am in solitude.  I might spend an extended time in silent prayer, in meditation on the scriptures, in spoken prayer, or in reading.  And then, some of my solitude is experienced outdoors hiking in the woods, down streams to waterfalls, and up to mountain summits.  There are plentiful trails in the Lake George region, and the High Peaks are only an hour away.  During these excursions, I often burst into spontaneous psalmic praise for the glory of creation.

The new banner picture on this blog comes from an early morning hike last Friday up Mt. Van Hoevenberg.  Here are a few other pictures from other hikes over the weekend.  “Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart” (Psalm 37:4).  These photos are from moments of sheer delight when God fed my desire to thrill at the wonder of nature.

Jesus Married?

“So, Pastor, is it true?  Was Jesus really married?”

The question is usually asked with a grin or tongue firmly in cheek, but I can also tell that people are genuinely curious to know what I think about the latest sensational Jesus-discovery.  A fourth-century papyrus fragment contains the phrase, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’” It also contains the statement, “She will be able to be my disciple.”

I don’t doubt this tiny scrap is genuine, but it doesn’t prove anything other than that a group of fourth-century Coptic Christians believed that Jesus was married.  Karen King, the Harvard archeologist who presented the finding to the International Congress of Coptic Studies in Rome, maintains that the earliest claim that Jesus was not married came in about A.D. 200.  She may be right, but it is also the case that no written document claims Jesus was married until about the same time.  None of the four gospels of the New Testament say anything about it.  It seems extremely unlikely to me that, if Jesus had a wife, she would be completely absent from all of the most popular first-century writings about Jesus.  (I realize it has become fashionable to say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not chosen for their popularity, but for political reasons by a ruling class of Christian leaders who suppressed all other gospels.  This is pure nonsense.  Those four gospels were circulating among the churches by the end of the first century, before any leaders had even attempted to formulate a Christian canon.)

On the other hand, if someone were to uncover conclusive evidence that Jesus was in fact married, my faith would not in the least be affected.  Our Catholic brothers and sisters would be scandalized because Jesus’ celibacy is the basis of priestly celibacy in the Roman church.  That’s why a lot of stern articles have lately been written by Catholic teachers who are either trying to discredit the Coptic fragment or insist that it doesn’t mean anything.  But Jesus’ celibacy is not an article of faith for me.  Neither is the perpetual virginity of Mary.  The New Testaments says Jesus had brothers and sisters, and I believe it.  That Mary had sex with Joseph and gave birth to other children does not diminish in the least her importance to the Christian faith.  Similarly, normal human behavior like getting married would not make Jesus any less of a Messiah.

I personally don’t believe Jesus was married.  His decision to remain single was, to my mind, one of the ways he challenged the social mores of the day.  In ancient Judaism, single men and women were stigmatized, viewed with either suspicion or pity.  Yet Jesus seemed not to need the kind of public validation that came with taking a wife and having children.  Still, his marital status is not what makes him Savior. 

So was Jesus married?  I highly doubt it, but it’s really not all that important.

Copyright 2012 by J. Mark Lawson