Why I'm Unfriending Facebook (even for a time)

I'm unfriending Facebook. This may be for a time, and it may be for good.  That decision will come later.  For the time being, however, I'm leaving Facebook.  Why I'm leaving will take some explanation.

I don't know when it happened, but there was a decided shift in our culture. Somewhere along the line we confused disagreement with dislike, and we substituted debate for hatred.  In the wider culture, if someone disagreed, it was a sign the person didn't like the other person.  To engage in debate is now considered hatred, and, depending upon the topic, it's labeled as "hate speech" and can be a crime.

Facebook was different.  It was originally set up by college students for college students.  In the very early days (before I joined), it was a place for upcoming graduates to connect with employers.  It was a tool that was later replaced by LinkedIn (and others) as a method of networking.

It evolved from there to chronicle the lives of students (and maybe even record what the students couldn't remember).  This may not have been the healthiest of uses, and it was quickly replaced by likes of SnapChat and other, seedier, social media outlets.

Its further evolution took it into, what I term, a "Wild West college" phase; this was a time when Facebook was a place with few rules and lots of debate. Unlike the university system, honest debate happened. Sometimes it got ugly, but it was more open and honest.

As time went on, some of the culture's views on debate crept in.  I saw it from the faith community first. Disagreement on some theological issues was viewed as "unloving" or "divisive".  Disagreements were to be discounted; outright heresy was was to be ignored.  The only acceptable answers to anything theological was to praise the comment, regardless of its theological value.  Even a non-like on a re-post must be an indication of divisiveness.

Next, I saw this creep into social topics. It seemed the only topics and views allowed were those championed by the editorial board of the New York Times.  To disagree meant you must be one of a host of "-ophobe's".

My comments, and my responses to others' comments, have damaged relationships.  It's not that it was my goal, but it's the way of our society; to disagree with a comment apparently means I hate the person. My real-life relationships are more important to me than my online presence.

I'm unfriending Facebook, at least for a time.

Care for Creation

I've been thinking much lately about how Christianity and care for the environment tie together. I've been contemplating this idea for some time, long before I learned anything about the ministry Care of Creation.

Oh, sure, I've cared about creation for a long time now. But most of my caring ended at the interesting and tasty flavors created by combining creation in dishes.

Scripture seems to be pretty forceful about our stewardship. This has to include care for the environment. I'm not referring to the hyper-environmentalism I see in some (don't worry, I won't mention Al Gore by name). There is a point that we are called to steward.

Stewardship has a very different connotation, I think, than environmentalism. One is care, but in a responsible way. The latter is a full-force worship of the land and all contained within it. Stewardship is a care for the balances within our earth, including human's needs, sustainability and long-term viability.

The more I study and contemplate, the more I am realizing we are called to care for the earth. Not in the way many with other motives promote it, but in a balanced, God-honoring way.

My two cents.

Simplicity of Faith

I am beginning to appreciate mass transit. I still find it somewhat inconvenient, but letting someone else do the driving allows me time to do other things. Sometimes, it's getting my day organized. Other times, it's catching up on my reading. And other times, it's spending time reflecting.

Today was a reflection day. I spent a few minutes reading Acts 2. I was especially struck by verse 46, and especially the statement, "and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart..." Two comments struck my by this verse. First is "simplicity of heart," and second is "breaking bread."

I will address the second comment first. The new church met daily, and it revolved around a meal. They ate a meal, in common, EVERY DAY. This served two functions. First, the young believers came together to learn from each other in a casual, friendly setting. Second, they learned to serve one another, going from home to home, sharing a meal. Instead of meeting once a week, maybe twice, they met every day. Instead of meeting for an hour, they reclined at each other's tables for prayer, praise, teaching and encouragement. This is a much different model from today.

My second observation was around the comment, "simplicity of heart." The young Christians had one main love, and that was a love and respect for their God. It played out in their simple faith. My struggle is keeping my faith pure and simple. It's so easy to complicate it with logic and reason, or with blind mysticism. The young believers knew what they believed, mostly based on what they witnessed, and that was enough. I am not discounting, science, logic and reason, as they are necessary for many aspects of life, but I can't let it cloud my simple faith. Instead, science and reason should enhance and magnify my simplicity of heart.

To live in such a place is an amazing place. To have a simple faith; that at the same time allows for amazing discovery through science, logic and reason; is an amazing place. Also, to have strong fellowship with others, to the point that meals are shared on a regular basis, is an incredible way to live.

Socialism

The more I contemplate it, I am more convinced that socialism is, perhaps, a perfect economic system. All have everything in common. Power no longer falls in the hands of a few, but it is shared among all. No one is lacking, none is wasteful.

There is only one problem I see with socialism. It demands perfection from all. Those with less cannot demand more without giving back. Those with more cannot withhold. Those of inferior intelligence need to yield to those with superior intelligence. Those with superior intelligence cannot use the power contained within their knowledge.

Alas, therein lies the weakness in socialism. History confirms that humans are not perfect, but are far from it. The next best solution is an economic system that rewards good performance and punishes poor performance (or lack of performance).

That said, I like to imagine a church that operates under a purer economic system. I like to picture a church that, out of selflessness, cares for the poor and the widowed. A picture a church that, while not rewarding sloth, cares for the needy. I envision a leadership praised for it's humility and servanthood, not it's craftiness and scheming. Maybe, just maybe, that's the radical idea that's lacking today, and maybe this model of church will turn the Western church upside down.