Agree/disagree with the following statement: “What I believe is correct because it’s what I was taught growing up”.

Chances are, most of us would disagree.  It doesn’t make us sound very independent, and it’s not very sexy.

How about this one: “What I believe is correct because my friends agree with me”.

Again, this statement wouldn’t exactly paint us as the rugged protagonist willing to risk all for the truth.

Alright, last one: “My beliefs are correct because I have objectively explored all possibilities and judiciously selected only what resonates most with my mind, body and spirit”.

OK, that one’s sort of wordy, but we’d probably take this one above the other two.  I know I would.

However, let’s find out whether our beliefs actually hold up to our ideals.

Think of your favorite sports team.  Did you choose them because they really are the best team in the league?  Maybe they have the most energy-efficient stadium?  Or perhaps because their fans are the kindest?

Likely not (Philly fans, that last one’s an enthusiastic “no”).  You probably support them because you grew up near them.  Or your parents supported them.  Maybe you have a cousin who played for them (GO PREDATORS!).  Or you discovered a random Yankees jersey in your closet one day, and figured it would save on fan gear.

Seems a bit arbitrary, doesn’t it?  Well, no matter – it’s sports.  But what happens when we extend this concept to other spheres?

Think about the college/school you went to.  Your religion or spirituality.  Who you voted for in the USA election, or would have voted for.  Can you really say that you made all these choices without any outside influence?

I somehow doubt many of us are proud of our colleges because they’re really the most academically rigorous higher education institution out there. I don’t think that we were all magically born into families who just happened to share our spiritual beliefs.  And I have a hunch that many of us did not make our presidential pick based on information from watching all 3 presidential debates, exploring the websites and policies of all the candidates, and reading news sources from every leaning across the spectrum.

“Well”, you say, “I don’t need to.  I’m right”.  That’s funny, because that’s exactly what the person across the tracks from you ALSO said.

To clarify, this is not a reprimand for having an upbringing or current circumstances.  Those are rather difficult things to avoid.  However, I do want to make the point that, more often than we’d like to think, we have a tendency to believe things simply because it is convenient to do so.

This is not only a problem because it’s just kinda pathetic – it actually makes us less effective as human beings, both individually and in groups. You can check out the science behind this in a Scientific American article.  I had a rude awakening to this myself when I took my little Canadian Mennonite self to a huge secular college in the angriest city in the USA (that’s a fact, btw).  Coming in with preconceived notions about everything from economic policy to the LGBT community to yoga, I realized (after a few years) that there is a lot that I did not know. And, in an unexpected turn of events, there still is.

I don’t have the time, and you don’t have the attention span, to give you the complete memoirs of my college experience.  At least not in this article.  But I would like to suggest two things that I think will help keep us more honest:

1.  Deliberately seek to hear from people who think differently than you.  Bonus points if you don’t come in with your holster, at least initially.  There’s a time for grungy facebook thread debates, but so often I’ve observed those go down a vortex of death simply because neither side has any idea where the other is actually coming from.  I kinda wish that people donned inflatable sumo suits when they debated so that it would be acknowledged that we’re all human beings.  So let’s put faces to our foes.  Read their blogs.  Get news from more than just The New York Times or FOX.  In many cases I think the amount of grace we have for people is directly tied to how well we actually know them.
2. Focus on facts rather than the fanfare around them.  It’s amazing how many of us will agree with someone’s opinion simply because they dress well, or articulate it well, or post a funny GIF with it.  In our age of infotainment, it’s almost becoming passe to go to websites like snopes.com or politifact.com to look up whether something is true or not.  I have a whole separate teaching on this crucial concept which can be found here.  In short, look before you “like” and BEWARE THE MEMES.  I think John Adams put it best when he chose to go against popular opinion to defend the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, making the following statement during the trial: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence”.

So, let’s remember, truth is not a coward.  We don’t need to be surrounded by people who agree with us all the time.  To put it in pastorly terms, Bill Johnson said: “a Gospel that doesn’t work in the marketplace, doesn’t work”.  And in Adele terms: “Hello from the other side”.  Let’s come alongside people who admit to being on the same journey we’re all on – the journey towards truth.  Because together, I think we’re gonna get there faster.

Further study: Check out this video on the concept of “Bad Faith” which explains why we don’t like to be stretched.

One day the professor introduced us to an old movie called A Face in the Crowd starring Andy Griffith.  Griffith plays a bum-turned-celebrity, who at one point meets a faltering politician who requests help from Griffith to become successful.

Many of us would think that in order to make a successful political campaign, one should find the issues that are relevant to the nation and prescribe solutions for them; immigration, debt, etc (notwithstanding this year’s election).  However, Griffiths’ response was basically the opposite. He advises the politician to get a dog, because people like dogs.  He tells him to stop pressing his lips together because it makes him look like a sissy.  He tell him to go by the nickname “Curly” because the man is balding, and could use the humor.

Why, you may ask?  Griffith answers this by introducing the politician to a tweedledum former convict who has has hired to be his consultant.   Griffith says, “If this stupid guy doesn’t like my show, there’s something wrong with it.  How are you going to get this man, this bush monkey, to vote for you?…You need a whole new personality.”  The politician follows his advice, and what do you know?  Without changing a word of his beliefs, the politician suddenly becomes an overnight success.

The concept behind this something that Marshall McLuhan came up with in 1967, called “the medium is the message”.  The idea is that the form in which a message is delivered is more important than the actual message itself.  It’s like the saying “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it”.

Why does a picture on Instagram garner more interest than a post on facebook?  Because visuals are more interesting than words.

Why is the preamble to the Constitution treated like it’s straight from the mouth of God?  For one thing, it’s written in iambic pentameter – a Shakespearean type of poetry, which gives it rhythmic quality and lets it go down much easier.

Why did Freud refuse to listen to (most) music?  Because music manipulates us in ways that the mind can’t comprehend.  This is why I think why worship music is so popular, and why it never stops playing during the entire church service in some places – music is a drug that can pacify a congregation and allow us to accept whatever is being said…regardless of a Scripture’s actual context or relevant truth.

Why was Martin Luther successful in starting the Protestant Reformation, while Jan Hus a hundred years earlier was burned at the stake when they both had the same radical message?  For one thing, Luther had the advantage of the printing press, which allowed him to send his ninety-five theses to all of Europe within two months of him writing it.  Thomas Paine did the same thing with Common Sense in the American Revolution; as of today, in proportion to the USA’s population it still holds the record for highest sale and circulation of any book in American history.  Paine wasn’t even a Christian and published it anonymously, but because he quoted a lot of Scripture and structured it like a sermon, the Protestant colonies ate it up.

For another thing, in both the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution, there was some serious coloring-outside-the-lines, shall we say.  Luther called the Roman Papacy a “rotten paunch, crude ass and a fart-ass”, a “truth werewolf”, and a “toad-eater and a fawner”.  In the American Revolution, what we today call the “Boston Massacre” was really no more than a street-fight initiated by rowdy Bostonians throwing stuff at British soldiers and challenging them to fire.  Need proof?  John Adams himself defended the British soldiers during the trial, and got most of them exonerated.  However, Paul Revere’s famous engraving of British soldiers firing at “innocent, peace-loving bystanders” fueled the Patriot cause for “justice” against the British, leading to the First Continental Congress less than a year later.

Neither personal insults nor manipulation of truth is what I would call fair play.  Yet to many, Luther and the Patriots are basically divinity.  History is written by the victors.  It all makes sense now why Tony Kushner, who wrote Angels in America, said “Art that’s polite is not much fun.”

The point I’m getting at is that perhaps we need to ask ourselves if our idea of truth can really survive without a marketing strategy.  To me, I had always believed that truth doesn’t need gimmicks, advertising or photoshopping; that a product speaks for itself.  But now, as I watch the church commit ever-increasing resources to in-building coffee shops, before-service donuts, new color schemes, fancy media displays, better singers, hip young pastors, and “Christian entertainment” – I can’t help but wonder, is this all REALLY in the name of communicating that “Jesus is the only way”?  And if it needs all this outside help…can the message still really be about an omnipotent God?