Election Day Communion

Dan brought this to my attention, and after forwarding it to Michelle, I am happy to say we'll be doing Election Day Communion at Table of Grace. What a great idea! In summary, Election Day Communion is described on their web site as follows:

Let’s meet at the same table, 

with the same host, 

to remember the same things. 

We’ll remember that real power in this world — the power to save, to transform, to change — ultimately rests not in political parties or presidents or protests but in the life, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus. 

We’ll remember that, through the Holy Spirit, this power dwells within otherwise ordinary people who as one body continue the mission of Jesus: preaching good news to the poor, freeing the captives, giving sight to the blind, releasing the oppressed, and proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor (Luke 4:16-21). 

We’ll remember that freedom — true freedom — is given by God and is indeed not free. It comes with a cost and it looks like a cross. 

We’ll remember our sin and our need to repent. 

We’ll remember that the only Christian nation in this world is the Church, a holy nation that crosses all human-made boundaries and borders. 

We’ll remember that our passions are best placed within the passion of Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:2). 

We’ll remember that we do not conform to the patterns of this world, but we are transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2). 

We’ll remember that God’s strength is made perfect in weakness. 

And we’ll re-member the body of Christ as the body of Christ, confessing the ways in which partisan politics has separated us from one another and from God.

Great stuff, and we're proud to be a part of it! Go check out their web site. If you are in Jefferson City, you will be welcome to participate at Table of Grace (tentatively set for 6:00 pm - stay tuned). Or no matter where you are, no matter what your political beliefs, get your church involved!

Understanding each other

Yesterday I posted what I thought was a good working definition of "conservatives" and "liberals." The bottom line was basically this:

• Conservatism is about risk management - safety and to a lesser extent "efficiency" (productivity, return on investment, performance) are key to a conservative mindset.
• Liberalism is about effecting change - righting wrongs and experimenting to find better solutions are the core underpinnings of a liberal approach.

Note that this is not necessarily about political conservatism and liberalism, but more generally conservative and liberal "mindsets." There are lots of nuances, and one size certainly doesn't fit all, but I think from a psychological viewpoint this is a very workable approach.

So what?

Well, the thing that has me thinking is that much like the original essay from which I lifted these ideas, such an observation allows each of us, liberal or conservative, to at least understand where the other side is "coming from." And while we may not agree with their conclusions, perhaps - just perhaps - we can accomplish two things with that understanding:

1. We can make our case for whatever our stance is in a way that is better understood by "the other" (I am trying to be careful not to use words like "opposing side" or "versus").
2. We can account for and accommodate the concerns of the other viewpoint and communicate that. Appreciation of someone's concerns can go a long way toward engendering compromise and collaboration.

For a more conservative person, that could mean acknowledging that a problem does exist as seen from a liberal person's viewpoint. For someone of more liberal demeanor it requires thinking about and trying to come up with ways to mitigate the risk in proposals to right wrongs or otherwise make changes.

Take the inequality of wealth in this country, for example, a popular topic in these "occupied" times. I would think most (probably not all) people of a conservative mindset would recognize it is at least not very efficient to have a lot of extremely poor people, if for no other reason than that they are then a net drain on resources even outside of a welfare state (because you have to maintain a large police force, judiciary and prison system just to keep from becoming the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes). So just recognizing that is a first step toward having a dialogue with someone more liberal about what to do about it. Poverty is an inefficient and unsafe state in which to keep a lot of people, and hence can be seen as innately bad by conservatives. Now they have a starting point for agreement with a liberal - "Poverty is bad. I would like to help people to get out of it. But I am concerned about the costs and risks."

Similarly, from the liberal side, noting that a conservative is going to be worried about the unforeseen side effects of changes made to alleviate the problem of poverty is a step in the right direction. Raise the minimum wage? What if that causes employers to actually lay more people off and thereby worsen the problem? Have the government pay for more education to retrain people? How can we be sure those tax dollars are used in a way that actually increases their chances of employment and not just to help someone get a degree that allows them to use words like "ontological" and "dialectic" while standing in line at the unemployment office? Recognizing that any proposal for change carries risk, and realistically thinking about that risk and how to offset it can take you a long way toward reaching common ground with a conservative - "There have been many attempts to assist those in dire poverty rise above it, and many have failed and wasted money and other resources. I don't want to repeat that and want to share ideas that could be more effective. But I am most concerned about helping bring change about to make it happen."

Correcting problems while mitigating risk - that's all there is to it! But seriously, I think if each of us can first recognize what is our natural, psychological stance toward problems, and then validate the feelings of those who may see the world through the other filter, we can go a long way toward having conversations that address concerns from both. Perhaps not in national and international politics - I hold little hope for anything positive happening there for a long time. But at the local level - in government, in schools, in churches and charities - anywhere there are people who have different emphases - making sure that we account for both viewpoints could take us a far toward, if not avoiding conflict, then working through it.

Thoughts?

A good approach to defining "conservative" and "liberal"

It's an election year, which means I am on a news sabbatical and studiously avoiding anything to do with politics. It's the Tolstoyan in me. But the other day I read Steve Yegge's essay on the difference between conservatives and liberals in software development (it's long, and only worth it if you are a developer - if so, I recommend it). One of the things I took away from it was that I think Steve has formulated a good working model for what it means to be "conservative" vs. "liberal," whether that is measured on the political axis (as we usually think), or in software development, or religion, or philosophy, fiscal management, social mores, whatever. It's good enough that I've been thinking about it since and seeing different places in my life where I am liberal or conservative, and now have another tool about thinking about why.

I am going to quote an extended block in the following. I am replicating this section here because (a) I want to remember it and be able to refer back to it, and (b) make it convenient to point to for others to read who aren't software developers, so they don't have to slog through the whole essay. I have emphasized a few places where I think it is summed up quite nicely.

So what's a Software Liberal slash Conservative? 

If you ignore specific real-world issues, and just focus on the underlying traits and values of real-world conservatives and liberals, it boils down to just a few themes. I'll argue that those underlying themes are also the basis for software politics.

It's easiest to talk first about conservatives, and then define liberals in terms of what conservatives are not. This is because conservatives tend to have a unified and easily-articulated value system, whereas liberals tend to be more weakly organized and band together mostly as a reaction to conservatism. This applies to both real-world and software-world politics. 

So we'll start with an operational definition of conservatism, from Jost et al.:

"We regard political conservatism as an ideological belief system that is significantly (but not completely) related to motivational concerns having to do with the psychological management of uncertainty and fear."

This theory is explored, re-tested and affirmed in a 2008 study from Carney et. al, "The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind". 

I hope you'll agree that this definition is minimally controversial. After all, the adjective "conservative" is more or less synonymous with caution and risk aversion. Financial conservatism is frequently (and intuitively) associated with age and with wealth. Companies tend to grow more conservative with age as they weather the storms of lawsuits, technical fiascoes, dramatic swings of public opinion, and economic downturns. We even have fables about ants and grasshoppers to teach us about conserving food for the upcoming winter. 

Conservatism, at its heart, is really about risk management. [emphasis mine - Jim]

Similarly, liberal views are often associated with youth, with idealism, with naivete. In the corporate world, we think of startups as being prototypically liberal -- in part because they're setting out to change the world in some way (and liberalism is traditionally associated with change), and in part because they have to go all-out in order to hit their scheduled funding milestones, which can justify cutting corners on software safety. 

Liberalism doesn't lend itself quite as conveniently to a primary root motivation. But for our purposes we can think of it as a belief system that is motivated by the desire above all else to effect change. [emphasis mine - Jim] In corporate terms, as we observed, it's about changing the world. In software terms, liberalism aims to maximize the speed of feature development change, while simultaneously maximizing the flexibility of the systems being built, so that feature development never needs to slow down or be compromised. 

To be sure, conservatives think that's what they're maximizing too. But their approach is... well, conservative. Flexibility and productivity are still motivators, but they are not the primary motivators. Safety always trumps other considerations, and performance [I would call this "efficiency" in a more general sense - Jim] also tends to rank very highly in the software-conservative's value system. 

The crux of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives in the software world is this: how much focus should you put on safety?

So, what do you think? Does this make sense? When modeled in this way, are you more of a conservative or a liberal? I have come to the conclusion that I am mostly a liberal (and in some parts of my philosophy a radical), while I have some places where I have some risk-aversion and hence more conservatism. It's a tension and a balance. As is most of life.

A few assumptions

As part of writing a paper for my MSR worship and music class I was tasked with describing the theological and biblical assumptions that underlie the approach to worship in our church. While I can't speak for our pastor Michelle (although I don't think she'd disagree, but would probably have additions), I came up with the following, which sums it up for me:


1. “God loves everybody. EVERYBODY. Even you.” – This includes those who society at large has reviled and rejected. This message is the absolute core of the church’s theology. If any other aspects of the faith are given short shrift, it is usually because this one trumps all.

2. “Everybody is welcome. EVERYBODY. Even you.” – The Litany of Welcome recited at the beginning of every service sums it up quite nicely:

You are Welcome Here 

Wide is God’s welcome, and you are welcome here
If you are young or old, you are welcome
If you have brown skin, black skin, white skin, yellow skin or red skin, you are welcome
If you are married or single, you are welcome
If you are gay or straight, you are welcome
If you cannot hear or see, you are welcome
If you are sick or well, you are welcome
If you are a man or a woman, you are welcome
If you are happy or sad, you are welcome
If you are rich or poor, powerful or weak, you are welcome
If you believe in God some of the time or none of the time or all of the time, you are welcome
You are welcome here.
Come with your gifts, your pain, your hope, your fears
Come with the traditions that have helped you and hurt you
Come with your experiences that have made you and broken you
Come and listen for the Sacred Spirit that calls you to love your neighbor wholeheartedly, to seek justice, create peace and practice compassion
You are welcome here.(adapted from Gordon Brown, Shaping Sanctuary: Proclaiming God’s Grace in an Inclusive Church)

Jesus mingled with, ate with, healed and befriended the people at the fringe of his society. We are called to do the same.

3. “We are God’s people, not God’s persons. People are better in community than apart.” – God wants us to be together to not just celebrate our joys but also to share our sorrows. In community it is harder to be resentful, depressed, lonely, or “off in the weeds.” When shared, burdens are lighter, celebrations happier.

4. “Communion is a sacrament, but it doesn’t just happen in the sanctuary.” – Every worship service is followed by (occasionally preceded by, and once a part of) a meal. Eating together at one long table, talking, laughing, crying, sharing – is what is truly meant by being in community.

5. “Children are not a distraction, they are part of us. To them belongs the kingdom of God.” – Children are “first-class citizens” of the church. The “children’s corner” is right up front, next to the pulpit. They gather up there and draw, play games, talk, make noise, run around and sometimes get really distracting. But they are a part of us all nonetheless, and they are part of the worship service with us, lighting the candle at the start, drawing art suggested by the children’s message, taking the offering, and always first in line for communion.