Author: Brent Baxter

The Insanity of Gun Violence

There is a saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Some have critiqued writers who have overused this cliche while still hoping to appear as being insightful to their readers. And yet in times like these, what more are we left with?

It has happened again. There has been another mass shooting in the United States. The news is still unfolding, but what is known is that this is already the worst shooting event in recent U.S. history. As a nation, we will endeavor to learn more about those individuals who died. We will analyze the shooter and the details of how this unfolded. And inevitably we will wonder about the motive and what signals were missed.

There will be prayers for those who have been wounded and killed. Lord, have mercy. We will hope for healing. Christ, have mercy. We will call out for peace and understanding. Lord, have mercy.

Our politicians, many of whom are supported by guy lobbyists, will do and say all those things public figures might say after these events. They will attempt to rally us by making bold statements that we will not live in fear.

In the midst of this, there will be a debate. It will be divisive, and it will hardly be about creating a better future. There will be those who talk about individual rights and the second amendment. The other side will bring facts and figures about how gun control saves lives. But in the face of the N.R.A.’s consolidated power to control the narrative and the religious-like intensity of its devotees, those seeking change will acquiesce.

In time, our emotions will recede, and we go back to our lives. We will forget until the next time. And when the next time comes, it all starts to seem ordinary. Lord, have mercy.

This is the script that has played out time and time again, over and over. It is insanity. We have become nearly numb to it all. We should all be ashamed. We all own this uniquely American madness, and it is time to take stock of our priorities.

To the individuals who are praying; your prayers are appreciated, but your actions are required.

To the politicians who are asking for God’s blessings; you can start by withdrawing your gun lobby money and donating it to a charity. Until then, your actions and statements lack integrity.

To the devotees of the Second Amendment who say that the right to bear arms is an inalienable American right; just stop. Own your part in the morally bankrupt position that guns and so-called freedoms are a higher priority than the lives of those who have been, and will be, lost. Quit hiding behind your civil religion and using mental illness as a scapegoat.

To the folks who take the tack to say that owning a gun is about the sport and further double-down by saying only guns can stop guns; you lost me at “sport.” Assault rifles were made for one purpose, and it should never be confused with a sport. We have deployed militarized police forces in the name of securing the myth of security, and yet we shrug when violence continues to beget violence.

It is time to rewrite this script. It is time to stop the insanity.

I reject any argument that our society is somehow made better by the presence of guns. I reject the notion that this is what our country’s founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment. I reject the N.R.A. and the gun lobbyists’ stranglehold on this nation. I reject that we should wait to talk about gun violence until we have passed through some period of mourning. I reject this American insanity and gun violence.

Find out who represents you in Congress, call them, write them, and demand that they engage in this conversation. The majority of Americans support stricter gun laws, we must insist that our members of Congress represent us and not the gun lobbyists.

When Discernment Looks Like Dissent

In his book Integrity, Stephan L. Carter explores the topic of integrity and what it might mean for an individual to act with integrity. Carter’s definition, which is deceptively simple, is that integrity is an action that requires three distinct steps. The first step, which I will paraphrase, is to discern a well-informed stance or belief. The second step is to then act in ways which are consistent with these discerned beliefs, “even at personal cost.” And the third and final step is to state these beliefs and how they inform your actions. Carter concludes that the individual who lives a life consistent with this definition of integrity is leading an integral life.

It is perhaps easy to accept Carter’s technical definition of integrity and find little to fault. However, the implementation of such a framework is not far from controversy. Discernment necessarily requires the individual to be judgemental and designate “right” from “wrong,” which presents us with a bit of a dilemma. What happens, and further who is “right,” when being integral requires nonconformity to accepted norms? Or put differently, is it better for the individual who is living an integral life to follow the rules and laws of government and society, or to act in consistency with their beliefs? Carter digs deep and concludes that indeed living an integral life is not always about following the rules, and in fact at times acting with integrity may require rules to be broken.

Given this, how, or perhaps where, do we locate integrity in the issue confronting us following President Trump’s speech which has purposefully forced us into a cultural debate? On the one side, we have devotees of patriotism and civil religion demanding proper respect for an object and practice that symbolizes a victory over conflict earned through the sacrifice of many. On the other are individuals who see the promise of freedom and equality not yet fulfilled. Who is more integral? Those who have discerned that their beliefs dictate that standing in respect for the flag and anthem? Or perhaps those who have discerned that it is necessary to act in the only way possible and draw attention to a broken system?

The reconciliation of these two is not trivial, and I find it troubling that Trump continues to use this narrative to divide us. Further, Trump’s insistence that this is all about one side of the argument, about respect for the symbols of a civil religion, lacks context and wrongly belittles the integrity of Colin Kaepernick, and those who have joined his cause, and why he chose to kneel. This is not leadership, is it bullying.

Aside from standing or kneeling, the critique of National Football League (NFL) players has included an assertion that players should just stick to football and not be political activists while on the job. Martin Luther, a bit of a nonconforming activist of his time and also an individual who strove to lead an integral life, has something to say about this and an individual’s baptismal vocation. The Evangelical Luthern Church in America (ELCA), has published a social statement called Church in Society: A Lutheran Perspective, which makes the following statement

One of the ways the Church participates in society is through its members. In dying to sin and rising with Christ in Baptism, Christians are called to “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:1-11). They fulfill their baptismal vocation in ordinary life as family members, friends, citizens, workers, and participants in voluntary associations. Since “daily life [is] the primary setting for the exercise of [the] Christian calling,” it is in that setting that Christians are to serve God and neighbor.

An integral life is one lived in the journey of discernment and played out in whatever vocation it is we perform. Lastly, Carter challenges us to not view our differences as dissent, but rather a necessary process that will inform our discernment, for we will not know if we are acting from “deep and steadfast principles until those principles are tested.”

The Future is What We Create

As if she has grown restless and feels the urgency to make her point, Mother Earth has forcefully besieged the United States in what I can only describe as a climate change truther campaign. Parched and sun-baked forests in the west are no match for the flames of fire. Storms fueled by warm ocean water are lining up across the Atlantic Ocean, as if on some tropical storm runway, with a one-way ticket to our eastern shores.

Earlier today, I reposted the image below on Facebook. I intended it to be a critique of our current leaders, and those in their mainly Christian base, who dismiss science and the impacts of human-created climate change.

Now fearing that I have once again fallen prey to the sharing economy of Facebook, herein lies the context which was missing from that earlier post.

First, and let me make this abundantly clear, I am in no way belittling any individual who feels inspired to pray. Prayer, and meditation, in general, is manifest in many forms and has tremendous value. Pausing for a few quiet moments in the dark before you sleep. Feeling moved by a passage in an inspirational book. Getting lost in your thoughts as you walk a wooded path. Prayer connects us, it grounds us, and it helps us to clarify our purpose. Honestly, I probably do not pray enough.

So why would I repost a social media meme that literally says don’t pray? Fair question, and perhaps if I were writing the caption for this image I would have worded it differently. Mine would say something like, “Prayer isn’t the only thing we need, get out and vote!”

We need to pray, and undoubtedly we need to meditate deeply on some significant issues these days. There are many in our nation, and in our world, who need help. Sometimes the severity of it all paralyzes us, and perhaps we feel that all we can do is pray. I would welcome the mediation which could calm the storms and douse the flames for good. But leaving these things just to prayer is stopping way short of what I believe is a Christian life. We are called to action, we are called to a Christian vocation, we are called to be the earthly body of God.

The human impact on Mother Earth is well documented. Because these facts are necessarily rooted in science, many of my fellow Christians reject it as fallible since science lacks a divine origin. This is to say nothing about how this stance is then extended into a political point of view that climate change specifically is just a liberal hoax.

Like science, theology is a human-made framework in which we seek to find an order for the things that are beyond our human capacity. If we reject science on the grounds of its human origins, then why would we not do the same with dogmatic theology? I believe that theology, like science, is only useful when we put it into action, we test it, and perhaps we even adapt it.

When I depart from Mother Earth, I would like to do so knowing that our children, and the generations who will follow, will not have to fear the storms and the fires. If all that was required was prayer, then I am confident that this would have been solved a long time ago. I believe that our core purpose is to be in a relationship with our environment and with each other. This is my Christian vocation. I am called to life-long education, to love others, to love Mother Earth, to pray, to advocate, and, when necessary, to vote for leaders who I believe will do the same. To do so, I must test theology with science, test science with faith, and then discern my response.

The future that I believe we are called create will require more than praying, but a quick prayer now and then certainly will not hurt either.

Building Relationships Online, Offline, or Both?

This is a piece that I wrote for The Congregational Resource Guide (CRG) Blog that was originally posted on January 2, 2012. The CRG recently announced that it will be closing and that some of its materials will be managed by either The Alban Institute or The Indianapolis Center for Congregations. Given the uncertainty of how or when the CRG content will be online again, I am reposting this piece here on my personal blog.

A friend of mine recently asked me an important question regarding relationships in the context of our local congregations. He asked whether or not the focus of the individuals and leaders that collectively represent congregations shouldn’t be on building relationships offline before engaging social media to this end?

Setting aside the social media aspect for the moment, the question really boils down into two critical points for consideration. The first is finding a model that can best guide our relationships as individuals, leaders, and congregations. The second is to locate how we, as a community, can best embody this model.

For the Christian author and theologian Sallie McFague, these two points come together in her book Models of God in which she examines three models for God: God as mother, God as lover, and God as friend. Through these models, McFague explores God’s relationship with the world as creator, savior, and sustainer. The relationship of God as sustainer, as friend, is one in which we are invited into a collective relationship that is intended to be a partnership with God in caring for the needs of the world. McFague describes this model for friendship as inclusive, one that can be imagined as individuals standing “side by side, absorbed in some common interest.” God as friend and sustainer invites us to be in a community “which is a gathering of those committed to the vision of a healed, liberated world.” This is an important distinction from some of the more classical models of friendship which tend to be selective, exclusive, one-to-one and focused more on the needs of the individuals.

And how do we as a community fulfill this type of inclusive friendship? McFague suggests that it is when we openly invite others to join us at the table in the shared meal. Hospitality, in this meal, is not extended only to friends but to all. The shared meal is not unique to Christians as many religious traditions celebrate a shared meal: Muslim iftar, Hindu prashada, and Sikh langar to name a few. McFague suggests that through the shared meal we can begin to break down the fears we maintain of others, of the stranger. And furthermore that it is only by inviting the stranger into our community that we can truly begin to understand others and thus care for the needs of the world.

So back to my friend’s question, should this type of relationship precede our involvement with social media?

If you have been following along with me these past few months you will know that I’ve been thinking about social media as a framework, and as such there is no one size fits all approach. For this reason I feel that there is not a single answer to this question. However I’d like to suggest that we consider social media’s ability enhance our relationships. The type of friendship and relationship building suggested by McFague is applicable to all facets of life — both online or offline. Much like participating in the shared meal can enhance our relationships, social media is a means by which we can gather in community and extend our hospitality to others — including strangers. Social media does not replace our need to gather as a community, but in today’s context the opportunity exists to leverage social media to stand side by side with others, focused on a common vision to heal and liberate the world.

Minding the Mission by Being Relational on Social Mediae

This is a piece that I wrote for The Congregational Resource Guide (CRG) Blog that was originally posted on December 14, 2011. The CRG recently announced that it will be closing and that some of its materials will be managed by either The Alban Institute or The Indianapolis Center for Congregations. Given the uncertainty of how or when the CRG content will be online again, I am reposting this piece here on my personal blog.

The very first social statement adopted by the newly formed Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) in 1991 was The Church in Society: A Lutheran Perspective. The statement “sets forth affirmations and commitments to guide this church’s participation in society” by making three statements of commitment. The commitments dedicate the church to being an active participant in society through individual members, the broader institutions of the church, and to continually remain in dialog about relevant issues that impact the broader social context. In short, these commitments require the church to be in an engaged relationship with society.

But it is in the context of local congregations that these broad statements come into direct contact with our communities. What happens many times is that the missional nature of religion competes with the practical business of maintaining a congregation. In the book Open Source Church: Making Room for the Wisdom of All, author Landon Whitsitt presents a depiction of how this plays out. As needs arise, congregants with specific business and leadership skills are tapped to apply these same skills to a congregation. In time, Whitsitt observes, the daily life of congregations becomes less missional and more about finding the right operational approach. To put it another way, congregations become so focused on the transactions and policies of their daily business that they lose sight of their call to be in relationship with society.

This tension in congregations has existed before now, but in many ways it is being reshaped with the emergence of social media. It seems to me that many congregations and religious leaders are struggling as they attempt to find the right way to engage social media. I have observed the increasing number of lists that contain tips and “How To’s” aimed at raising a congregation’s social media profile. These articles typically embody a very businesslike, return on investment approach to social media. At the same time I have read the unmistakable lament among some religious leaders that social media is at the very least complicit in the breakdown of society’s attention span for all things important, including religion. These leaders tend to approach social media as a necessary evil in order to ensure that their message is heard by the flocks of distracted disciples.

Both approaches tend to miss the point that what we have in front of us is a huge opportunity to fulfill the mission. Social media is a framework within which we can enhance and extend our relationships with individuals that we know directly, as well as with broader groups of individuals in society. Even if we are never to meet all the individuals in our social media network face-to-face, the opportunity to connect and converse is unparalleled as compared to any other time in history.

In the Buddhist tradition, the pursuit of knowledge can many times take the form of question and answer. The goal, however, is not necessarily to know the right answer to the question, but rather what matters is the thought process by which one arrives at the answer. In like manner, I tend to think that there is not a single right way to use social media, but rather I am interested in the process of connecting and engaging through social media. Sure there are some mechanics involved as it is technology, but let’s not lose sight of the mission — being in an engaged relationship with society.

Framing Relationships Online

This is a piece that I wrote for The Congregational Resource Guide (CRG) Blog that was originally posted on November 17, 2011. The CRG recently announced that it will be closing and that some of its materials will be managed by either The Alban Institute or The Indianapolis Center for Congregations. Given the uncertainty of how or when the CRG content will be online again, I am reposting this piece here on my personal blog.

I have found it hard to miss the tension in the blogosphere as congregational leaders attempt to discern the pros and cons of social media. From what I’ve seen, there are some deep concerns that go right to the core of how social media are shaping us and our relationships.
Take, for example, the post by Laura Truax as she wrestled with the “foible” of un-friending former and current members of her congregation on Facebook. Her decision was driven by a desire to protect those individuals from the possibility of being witnesses to an emotionally charged online discussion over the topic of sexuality. Or a more recent piece by Gail Song Bantum, a pastor at a church in Seattle, that explores the issue of identity online, and if social media represents a true self or not. Her concerns appear to come out of her personal discernment process regarding how much social media should define our identity versus just being a tool or utility.

Have you noticed, or even felt, these emotions? Have you struggled with finding the “right” approach to engaging and maintaining relationships on social media? Or perhaps you have pondered the meaning of friendship online altogether? You are not alone.

Mark Vernon, a former priest in the Church of England, acknowledges the tension in our online relationships in his book The Meaning of Friendship. Vernon writes that “the anxiety stems from whether the virtual world is a good, safe and honest world in which to get to know and be known by another — or at least whether it is good, safe and honest enough.” Or, in other words, is social media a good framework for cultivating relationships?

To help unravel this question, Vernon turns to the philosopher Aristotle for some guidance. Aristotle concluded that there are really different categories of relationships that we might collectively refer to as friendship. In other words, Aristotle recognized that friendship is more of a framework rather than an absolute — there is no one size fits all.

In a prior post, I began to explore a framework of a different kind that also can inform our online relationships, and that is the emotional framework of trust. The trust framework puts an equal emphasis on both earning trust and giving trust, thus recognizing that trust requires a bilateral relationship between leader and follower.

I have to wonder how much of the tension around social media might be relieved if we acknowledge that it is a framework, and as such is a manifestation of the frameworks of friendship and trust. By doing so we allow ourselves to imagine it as a means by which we can enhance and extend our relationships across time and distance. Vernon concludes that this could serve to reduce “the fear that people are attempting to get to know each other via the one-dimensional medium of the screen, and are instead able to draw on what they know of their friends face-to-face.” And after all, isn’t that what friends are for?

There remains the broader question of how congregations engage in building relationships on social media, and this can undoubtedly benefit from this type of thinking — but that will have to be a topic for another day.

Managing Safe and Secure Congregational Computer Networks

This is a piece that I wrote for The Congregational Resource Guide (CRG) Blog that was originally posted on October 10, 2011. The CRG recently announced that it will be closing and that some of its materials will be managed by either The Alban Institute or The Indianapolis Center for Congregations. Given the uncertainty of how or when the CRG content will be online again, I am reposting this piece here on my personal blog.

In 40 Days and 40 Bytes, Aaron Spiegel, Nancy Armstrong, and Brent Bill refer to computer networks—and, by association, the Internet—as “a part of today’s techie society.” Their vision, when the book was published in 2004, was that computer networks would become increasingly essential for businesses and congregations alike, and how right they were.

Simple dial-up Internet access in congregational offices was at one time considered a luxury. However, with increased availability of affordable high-speed Internet and the changing landscape of our culture, congregational networks that are able to access the Internet have become a near necessity.

The transition to a networked congregation, however, is not completely free of pitfalls. The growth of wireless mobile computing devices has introduced a new era of networking. With these devices, the Internet is available at nearly any time and in any place. At the same time, the Internet continues to be a vast ocean of content, some of which could be considered unsavory or even illegal.

The reality for congregations using wireless networks, also known as Wi-Fi, is that they are also a public space. As such, congregations frequently host visitors who carry computing devices (laptops, tablets, smart phones, etc.) that are hungry for network bandwidth. For a number of reasons, it may not be desirable to have all these devices connected to a congregational network.

By enabling the security features on your wireless router, network access to mobile devices can be limited and controlled. In general, there are two common types of wireless security—Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) and Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA). Both WEP and WPA are similar in that they will require a device to provide a password to connect to the wireless network.

Those wanting additional security beyond WEP or WPA may also disable the feature that broadcasts the presence of your wireless network. This will hide the network from those mobile computing devices that are constantly sniffing for wireless access. With broadcasting turned off, access will only be granted to those devices that know both the network identifier (commonly called the SSID) and the wireless security password.

But even when devices are legitimately connected to a network, it can be difficult to monitor these resources to ensure that they are used in ways that are consistent with the ministry of that congregation.

One solution to this problem is to implement some type of filter that will limit the Web content that is accessible from the network. For these situations, I’d recommend that you consider using the services of OpenDNS. The way this works is that your router will be configured to use the OpenDNS service as a means of connecting to any website on the Internet. The OpenDNS service can be configured to filter out a known set of websites based on content, or you can pick and choose what content is acceptable. You can also use the reporting feature to see what websites are visited most often from your network.

The OpenDNS knowledge base provides detailed instructions on how to set up several of the more popular router brands. While the service is not free for enterprise use, OpenDNS says that it offers a special price for non-profit organizations.

The Internet has become a key element in the ministry of congregations of all sizes. Maintaining a safe and secure computing network is the first step of many for congregations to consider as they begin to embrace the expanding world of networked computing.

Public Leader: Now More Than Ever

This is a piece that I wrote for The Congregational Resource Guide (CRG) Blog that was originally posted on August 15, 2011. The CRG recently announced that it will be closing and that some of its materials will be managed by either The Alban Institute or The Indianapolis Center for Congregations. Given the uncertainty of how or when the CRG content will be online again, I am reposting this piece here on my personal blog.

Over the past few years, the world has seen the unprecedented growth of social media and has watched as society has reoriented itself around the rituals of tweeting, friending, and liking. Social media are also shaping each of us in the way we communicate, the way we consume information, and the way we define our relationships. On Facebook, for example, the complex personal relationships of everyday life are now defined by one simple category–friend. So how do congregational leaders make sense of their webs of relationships when social media has become so entrenched in society?

Kelly Fryer draws attention to the complex issues at stake for ministry leaders in her blog post, “Pastors on Facebook: Get Real.” Her post questions pastors who elect to create two Facebook profiles–one for personal use and one for professional use. Fryer’s concern is that, in adopting this practice, pastors are not allowing themselves to develop authentic relationships with their parishioners.

Clark Olson-Smith responded to Fryer with his post, “Be real, and, if you want, be friends,” in which he tries to distinguish between being “real” and being “friends.” Olson-Smith raises two interesting points. First, he suggests that, since people enter into relationships differently in their “offline” lives, we should allow that they may enter into relationships differently in their “online” lives as well. Second, Olson-Smith questions if being friends with parishioners is really required for effective ministry—a question that has been asked in seminaries for many years before Facebook’s inception.

It’s becoming clear, however, that social media has elevated the challenges of being a public leader because of its sheer ubiquity. I decided to explore these challenges more deeply, so I interviewed five pastors who had created two Facebook profiles and were willing to talk about what led them to this decision.

While the details differed, the recurring themes of control and trust emerged again and again. These pastors were hesitant to bring all of their offline relationships together into one online space. With their reputations and, perhaps, their jobs at stake, could they risk one of their friends posting something that might jeopardize their relationship with a parishioner? Of course, creating two profiles does not guarantee that this won’t happen, but it does provide some level of control.

But what role does trust play in these relationships? Robert C. Solomon, professor of business and philosophy at the University of Texas, writes in Ethics, the Heart of Leadership that “leadership is an emotional relationship of trust.” While the role of the leader is typically to earn trust, the role of the led is to give trust. Accordingly, Solomon argues that “it is those who would follow, not those who would lead, who are the ultimate power in any leadership relationship.” If this principle translates to our online personas, we must consider how our attempts to control our social media (by maintaining two Facebook profiles, for example) may not engender the kind of relationship of trust required for effective leadership. Without this framework of trust, both leader and follower are left to struggle with the fear and doubt that can arise from issues of privacy and control.