Reading the News in a Post-Truth Society

 

Reading the News in a Post-Truth Society

reflections by troy cady

    Recently, a friend asked me what news sources I access. In light of all the big changes happening in our country these days (I live in the United States), I thought it was a wise question. And I realized, almost as soon as I read the question, that I don’t have an easy answer to it. That’s not because I don’t strive to remain informed. It’s because we live in a post-truth society.

    Every year the editors of the Oxford Dictionary select a “Word of the Year.” In 2016, the word was post-truth. According to the dictionary’s website: “Post-truth is an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.’” It has become associated especially with the phrase “post-truth politics.

    In light of that, HOW we read the news and seek truth matters a great deal. It is not just a question of WHAT sources we access.

    I will be the first to say that I am still learning how to make wise choices in my news-reading habits and, over the years, there have been times when I’ve been mistaken in my interpretation of certain news features. I suppose that is the first thing to remember:

  

We are all human and sometimes we get it wrong.

This calls for humility.

 

     This is to say: when I read the news, I try to respect my own limitations. I try to remind myself that there may be important factors I am missing. And: I am not a professional journalist; thus, I lack the training and experience to discern which investigative paths are best to take in every situation when seeking to gain the full picture on a story. The problem is not so much the lack of access to information; indeed, in our current day it could be said that we are flooded with too much information. The problem is knowing how to “connect the dots,” so to speak, to make sense of it all.

    This is why “opinion, emotion, and personal belief” (as the definition above states) can be so dangerous. In light of the plethora of information streams we could access, we tend to select those that provide justification for our opinions, emotions, and beliefs. And we tend to feel threatened by information that challenges those dynamics. So, we go searching for someone to tell us what we want to hear.

    Scientists and journalists refer to this as “confirmation bias.” It is the idea that our interpretation of facts is colored with a bias that simply seeks to confirm what we already want to be true, regardless of whether our interpretation coincides with reality. I can’t help but feel that, in a post-truth society, we tend to read (and write about) the news with a confirmation bias more than we would like to admit. Lest we demonize one another for doing this, though, I think it is important to remember that, probably, most people who read the news with a confirmation bias simply do so because it makes them feel that they are not alone and that they are not losing their mind. It’s only natural.  In light of this:

 

I treat almost everything I encounter on social media

as extremely biased.

    I don’t trust any of it, really. That’s why I rarely click “share” on any given social media post.[1] I never want to be part of spreading misinformation or disinformation, both of which are incredibly destructive.

    Truth-seeking takes time. Because misinformation can be disseminated very quickly now, and because it occurs in such high volume, truth-finding has become extremely difficult. With the advent of artificial intelligence and other forms of computer-generated content, we need to be especially careful about what we are taking on-board and sharing with others. That is because the content generated in this way is not ideologically neutral. In some instances, these technologies learn what you want to hear to keep you engaged, so it will feed you an endless supply of content to do just that. The goal is engagement because there is power in controlling our culture’s attention. It is a way to shape reality according to a group’s own preferences. Because of this, we can expect those with totalitarian agendas to exploit this technology.

    It behooves us to practice a healthy measure of doubt: we need to ask ourselves who is presenting the information and we need to consider why they are presenting it, not to mention what information they have chosen to include. Before drawing any conclusions, we also need to take into account additional perspectives that might be important. What details may have been left out? What background might be missing? The problem is: 

 

We don’t know what we don’t know.

The only way to know more is to slow down

to ask questions and find out.

 

    With that in mind, below I will share 1) what news sources I regularly access, and 2) what I do to deepen my understanding of what has been reported. After that, in the spirit of full disclosure, I will share with you 3) my own bias when it comes to the interpretive process, and 4) what I seek to do to mitigate the negative effects of that bias in my desire to work for the common good.

    First, I will take numbers 1 and 2 together as I cite 1) news sources I use and as I offer some notes on 2) other important materials I access to help me interpret the news wisely. In the following, I will reference examples that apply to current news.

 

My news sources and other materials I rely upon

My internet browser is set to open up to BBC News. I trust their reporting because they offer a global perspective.

    When I am in the car, I listen to NPR partly because it also gives me some local news. As I listen, however, I try to keep in mind that they are left-leaning in their presentation. Still, they offer important perspectives because they make a point to amplify voices we might not otherwise hear. I will share more later on why I feel that is important, in case that gives you pause.

    When I want to fact-check what I have encountered on the BBC or heard on NPR, I go to primary sources. For example, in the aftermath of the inauguration, both the BBC and NPR reported on various executive orders signed by the current administration. To check their reporting, I accessed the White House website myself and I actually took time to read the executive orders.[2]

    In this instance, concerns were raised about the legality and/or constitutionality of some of the orders. So, I need to have enough familiarity with the Constitution to know what questions may be pertinent to the matter at hand. In case this sounds overwhelming, take comfort: you don’t need to be a constitutional scholar to discern this. You simply need to be prepared to listen for the questions that are being asked as the public and/or Congress debates the merits of the proposal/order. This is why it is important to have an awareness of one’s own biases because it opens us up to consider what other perspectives we may be missing.

    For this reason: 

I recommend that every United States citizen

take some time to read the Constitution

and have a copy at-hand for reference.

 

    One other document I will mention that is important for us to be aware of is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is an important document because sometimes countries are led by certain people who commit significant human rights violations. The UDHR mobilizes the global community in holding malicious actors like this accountable, since the leaders of oppressive regimes try to hide behind the laws of their own land as a way of providing justification for their atrocities.[3] 

    In addition to this, my friend Brian Newman (who has training in professional journalism) also recommends checking stories on Reuters and the Associated Press. I do that from time to time, as well, when I want to make sure certain facts are being reported accurately. Those two news agencies have world-leading journalists of the finest standards who are very well-connected and have easy access to well-regarded authorities when they are writing their stories. With good reason, many news outlets rely upon Reuters and/or AP for their own reporting. If you see a citation of either of those two agencies in a story, you can be fairly confident it is trustworthy.

    The only drawback to Reuters and AP is that they are, comparatively speaking, considered to feature “short-form” reporting. In other words, they provide good summaries of current events that give trustworthy accounts of who, what, where, and when. Depending on the story, they will also answer the “how” question and, in a very limited way, they may offer some inklings as to “why” a certain thing has happened, though this would be done sparingly and cautiously. They tend to just stick to what they can know and prove, rather than offering analysis as to why something has happened.  

    For more in-depth reporting and analysis, Brian recommends looking at long-form journalism (like the kind you might encounter in Foreign Affairs magazine, for example). This form of journalism is important because it introduces you to the larger issues at stake and the key questions that are being asked. It avoids reductionism, which is imperative if we are to think well about complex issues.

    This is where it gets to be complicated because, depending on the issue at hand, one might need to read in-depth in a wide variety of fields, which most people don’t have time to do. The important thing to keep in mind is that well-informed analysis of almost any controversial news story requires reporting that has been peer reviewed and enjoys a consensus among experts in the field who are also aware of alternative perspectives.

 

News sources I avoid…and why

In light of my notes above, I refrain from taking in news from certain “popular” channels such as Fox News, CNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, or CBS. One reason I have less trust in these mainstream sources is because they are for-profit entities. That is to say, they are businesses whose primary goal is profitability via the means of entertainment. Because these news outlets are considered to be entertainment, they can get away with a lot of error in their journalism.

    For example, in the midst of the 2020 presidential election, Fox News spread misinformation about certain voting machines. The company who provided these voting machines (Dominion) sued Fox for this false reporting and Fox settled the case for a significant sum of money while also issuing a statement about the lies they spread.[4]

    To be honest, it astounds me that anyone would continue to trust Fox as a reliable source again. One would expect that making up a lie like that would seal the end of such an outlet but, instead, they have continued to thrive. It makes me wonder: how can this be?

    I think it is because they are in the business of keeping their audience entertained by providing a steady stream of stories and analysis that reinforces a particular worldview and supports certain political commitments that a significant number of people would like to come to fruition. We need to keep in mind that every minute of every program we are watching on stations who have adopted this kind of pseudo-journalistic approach is crafted very meticulously under the guidance of producers who have one goal: retain viewership and make money…or get cancelled. Lest you think I am just picking on Fox News, please keep in mind that other alternatives on the left or right of the political spectrum operate under the same premise.

    Simply put, it is dangerous because these sources are controlling the public discourse on questions that require a depth of understanding which biased outlets driven by popularity, money, and power cannot possibly provide. If you do choose to tap into these streams, I plead with you to remind yourself every five minutes or so that what you are taking in is, essentially, just entertainment. Their goal is to keep you engaged, even if it means sacrificing empathy on the altar of mere consumerism.

 

What about live coverage?

Having said that, from time to time these news sources can provide good coverage of events that are occurring live. If you are viewing such coverage, however, I encourage you to be aware of all the analysis and interpretation these sources will add to their coverage and, as far as you are able, apply good critical thinking habits to what you are hearing.

    This is why I value NPR’s format, by the way. For important live coverage, they tend to delay their analysis and limit commentary to matters of clarification for their listeners. For example, during the inauguration ceremony, NPR just aired the ceremony itself and offered no analysis whatsoever while the event was happening. The only time the radio hosts added commentary was to explain something the listener might not understand or describe something verbally that the listener would need to know because of the audio format of the coverage. They adopted this approach, too, for the impeachment trial in 2021.

    In that same vein, some people really value tuning in to C-SPAN when Congress is in session. That is a good option because it is simply a broadcast of the gathering without all the commentary and analysis.

    I like to think of live coverage like that of NPR or C-SPAN as “primary source material,” simply because one has the chance to be exposed to what is actually happening without it being filtered through any kind of politicking.

    This is why I rarely tune in to coverage by some of the other major outlets I mentioned above. They almost always add analysis because, remember, their goal is to feed their audience what they want to hear so their audience stays tuned…so the producers can make more money. The money-making and power-seeking cycle is relentless and pervasive. It is precisely the way our post-truth society has been created. 

 

Thoughts on podcasters and pundits

Along these same lines, I also refrain from listening to podcasters, You Tube celebrities, famous radio personalities, and political pundits. These are influencers who know they can easily be “cancelled” if they do not tell their audience what they want to hear. The model is susceptible to the same flaw that characterizes the major networks, only on a smaller scale.

    Recently, however, I have made one exception to this guideline. I have found the daily briefings by Heather Cox Richardson to be helpful, well-informed, and trustworthy. She always cites her sources and offers much-needed historical perspective in her analysis. Having said that, I do keep in mind that she is a left-leaning analyst. I don’t read everything she offers, but I take a peek, say, once every few weeks.

    This also isn’t to say that I don’t listen to podcasts. When I do, the podcast tends to be on a very specific topic that helps me dig deeper. I think of it as the audio equivalent to long-form journalism. In any case, I am very careful about what I listen to and it tends to be on a very specific subject. For example, some time ago I listened to a limited series on the intersection of creativity and faith. Another podcast I took in dealt with the prevalence of toxic masculinity among evangelicalism in the United States; it was very well-researched and made important historical connections. In any case, you can see by these two examples that I never listen to podcasts that are merely offering commentary/analysis of current news trends.

    Along the same lines, I have found that books and audiobooks are good ways to gain perspective on what is happening in society. Again, you could think of this as long-form perspectives that draw on primary source materials. 

If there is a rule to my approach to news consumption,

it is that slower is better.

 

    This rule ensures that I am being conscientious and doing what I can to compensate for the possibility of issues and questions that may be blind spots for me.

    In light of that, I would now like to address how I understand my own bias in reading/interpreting the news and what I practice to limit the negative effects of that bias. 

 

My biases and what I do to compensate for them

First, my interpretation of current events is colored by an ever-evolving understanding of what it means to live a life that reflects the qualities I observe in the person and work of Jesus. Because I have come to understand Jesus as someone who spoke truth to power and aligned himself with the marginalized, I am particularly sensitive to the way political movements contribute to the suffering of marginalized people (or, conversely, how such movements may contribute to their flourishing).

    Because of this, I refrain from news sources that seem to justify or minimize the harm that may have come to a certain marginalized group because of a particular political leaning or religious commitment. I have personally found that much of the right-wing media is complicit in this. Here I am thinking of Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, and Breitbart news. Additionally, much religious broadcasting (sad to say) falls into this trap, as well. As a pastor, I discourage folks from taking in news segments that are on televised religious programs.

    One special note I should also make about this deals with my theological training. Because of my studies in graduate school and seminary, I have become concerned about the ways in which certain segments of Christianity have become obsessed with viewing current events as if they are direct fulfillments of “end times prophecies.” Unfortunately, faulty interpretations of certain “prophetic” biblical texts[5] have led to this way of viewing current events. It is a direct result of a theological movement known as Dispensationalism, which did not appear on the scene of Christian thought until the mid-1800s.

    I have found in the past that many conservative religious broadcasts fall prey to interpreting current events in light of this particular theological stream. One big example of this is in the way they will present conflicts in the Middle East. When you are familiar with the tenets of Dispensationalism it is easy to recognize how their theological persuasion colors who they portray as “good” and who they portray as “evil.” I will speak below to how we can unlock our hearts and minds from this limited way of thinking when considering news concerning the Middle East.

    Another factor that inclines me to select some news sources over others deals with another aspect of my educational background. As someone who studied history in graduate school, I am particularly attuned to the ways in which current events may be viewed as echoes of our past. We are where we are today because previous generations laid the groundwork. Looking back to the past can offer us some much-needed perspective on what is happening now.

    In light of my note above about the Middle East, it is imperative that we gain a good understanding of the full history of that region beyond the history we know from the biblical text. Of course, the same holds true when thinking about other regions of the world. In particular, those of European descent have much to reckon with as the colonial period of Euro-centric expansion fomented incalculable harm upon the peoples of Africa, South America, North America, and Asia. Even the word “America” serves as a testament to how deeply entrenched European ideals are in how we view the histories of two entire continents in the Western hemisphere. This fact alone should give us pause whenever we are reading news presented through a Euro-centric cultural lens.     

    Because of this, I also try to be aware of the ways in which my own cultural background can limit my understanding. For example, I am a straight, white, middle-class married man with two kids living in an urban setting. I am fluent in only one language. I mention all this by way of saying that these factors can limit my ability to see life the way other people experience it. This is important as I consider how to respond to certain current events. In this way, I have come to believe that my ability to follow the Golden Rule[6] is directly related to the degree to which I am able to empathize with those who are not like me.

    For example, in the aftermath of the death of George Floyd, it was important for me to listen to the voices of Black leaders and pay attention to Black voices in the news media. In a similar way, as I hear the current news of the federal government’s suspension of DEI programs, it is important for me to listen to how minority groups are being affected. This is one reason I really appreciate the programming of NPR. They make it a point to feature certain “minority” voices and perspectives I might not otherwise hear.  

    As a straight, white, Christian, middle-class married man it behooves me to keep in mind that I enjoy a certain kind of power and privilege that other people do not have simply because they are a different gender, or have a different racial background, religious background, sexual orientation, or marital status.    

    In this regard, I will also sometimes seek out friends who have expertise in a given area to offer insight as to what is going on in the news. For example, when refugee resettlement was affected in 2017, I called up my friend Susan (who is the Executive Director of a non-profit resettlement service) to find out how her organization was experiencing the change. In a similar way, as current events touch on people who are Muslim or Jewish, I think of my friend Brian whose ministry involves peacemaking with Muslims, Jews, and Christians. I have another friend who is an epidemiologist whose insights I appreciated when the first Covid vaccine was being developed. Getting first-hand perspectives from people you trust who are experts in a given field can help you to avoid interpreting or responding to current events in ways that are unwise or hinder the common good. I should caution, however, that it is important not to base one’s perspective on mere anecdotal evidence but to check what you are hearing by taking into account what seems to be a broad consensus among other experts in the same field. In this light, it is always good to bring to bear primary sources, statistics (when possible), and reputable news sources, as we have already noted above. 

 

Concluding summary

The goal of all this is so that we may avoid taking in and spreading misinformation and disinformation. Given that we live in a post-truth society, it is imperative that we do what we can to ground ourselves in the truth. To pursue this, we need to be aware that many of the major media outlets in our society are in the business of entertainment. The bottom line is viewer retention and financial profit. Their power is rooted in claiming our attention and gaining our loyalty. This means we need to be careful about what news sources we regularly access, and we need to tap into primary sources as much as possible. We especially need to do this before we decide to share anything on social media.

    Further, we need to be aware when we are taking in analysis, opinion, and conjecture…and we need to avoid treating it like fact. We also need to be aware of our own biases and seek out the perspectives of others. This includes people who are part of any one of a number of minority groups in our society, such as racial (BIPOC[7]) and sexual minorities (LGBTQ+[8]). Additionally, when seeking out additional perspective, it may be helpful to consult someone you know who may have expertise in a particular field, whose insights coincide with a broad consensus of other experts.

    I hope this has been helpful. If so, I encourage you to share it with others. My heart’s desire is that we would know the truth because, as Jesus said, the truth will set us free.[9] Be loved, dear friends…because you are beloved.

 

 

 

 

Endnotes:

---

[1] The only time I “share” a social media post from someone else is when I am absolutely confident that the information is one hundred percent accurate. 

[2] You can also find a record of every executive order of every president, along with other documents of national importance that are public record at the Federal Register. The website for that is https://www.federalregister.gov/

[3] To find out how various countries vote on any matter in the United Nations, you can go here https://www.un.org/en/library/page/voting-information

[4] You can find AP’s coverage of this story at this link.

[5] Key “prophetic” texts include but are not limited to the following: Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, I & II Thessalonians, I Corinthians 15, and the Olivet Discourses of Matthew, Mark, & Luke.

[6] “…do to others what you would have them do to you.” Matthew 7:12

[7] This acronym stands for Black, Indigenous, People of Color.

[8] This acronym stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, and Queer.

[9] John 8:32

DJT and the KKK

A friend asked me the other day how I could possibly deduce that a man flying a swastika over his house in a wealthy suburb of Philadelphia recently was connected to the outcome of our country’s most recent presidential contest.

Since then, there has been a public Neo-Nazi demonstration in Columbus, Ohio (pictured here) which President Biden has publicly denounced but President-elect Trump has not. Meanwhile, in various places in Indiana (including Carmel, Westfield, and Fishers), the Ku Klux Klan have been distributing flyers (pictured above). The flyer portrays Uncle Sam giving the boot to some folks who have come to the United States from Latin America. In big, bold letters, the flyer reads: “LEAVE NOW. AVOID DEPORTATION.” In his right hand, Uncle Sam is holding a piece of paper that has a “Proclamation” on it. If you look carefully at the proclamation document, you can see it is dated January 20, 2025 (inauguration day). And the proclamation calls for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. So, Uncle Sam is asking for your help by reporting them to the proper authorities.  

This is why I see a connection between the recent spike in public activity among white supremacists and this year’s election outcome. It is because our President-elect has promised the very thing the flyer is talking about on “day 1” of his presidency.

This gives me chills since it is the sort of thing Nazi Germany did when they wanted to “cleanse” the land of its non-Aryan inhabitants. It is important to keep in mind that, at that time, the German government was able to do this because they enjoyed the cooperation of much of the general populace.

It is sobering to me to contemplate that this was done in the name of Christianity and with the full backing of the vast majority of churches. What gives me hope, however, is that there was an underground resistance movement of Christians during this time. One of the notable figures in this resistance was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, founder of the Confessing Church.

Prior to founding the Confessing Church, Bonhoeffer lived in America for a short time and was influenced by Adam Clayton Powell Sr., pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem (NYC), the largest Protestant church in the country at the time. Here Bonhoeffer heard “the Gospel of Social Justice” preached from the pulpit and he was moved by Christ’s call to rectify the injustices suffered by people in racial minorities.

Returning to Germany in 1931, Bonhoeffer taught systematic theology at the University of Berlin. But then Hitler rose to power in January 1933. In a radio broadcast two days after Hitler was installed as chancellor, Bonhoeffer went on record denouncing Hitler’s leadership and the Nazi party. He warned that German Christians were succumbing to idolatry by swearing allegiance to a leader (führer) who was really a “misleader” (verführer). Perhaps it is no surprise to hear that the signal was cut before he could finish the broadcast.

As you can well imagine, during this time the church in Germany was divided regarding the Nazi party. In the end, the Nazis managed to garner the support of around 80 percent of Germany’s pastors…with just a small minority standing in opposition.

Even if you are not familiar with his story, you can probably guess how it ends. Bonhoeffer was arrested in April 1943 and was hanged about 2 years later in Nazi Germany’s last push to wield their ugly, hate-filled power before the war was finally over.

Key to Nazi Germany’s power was the way the leaders were able to manipulate and guide the social imagination of the general populace. By creating a scapegoat for the country’s troubles, Germany’s new leaders united the people around the idea of a common “enemy within.” Together, they would purge the “poison” from their midst. By laying blame for their societal ills on the backs of others, they were able to nurture the hope of a new age for their fatherland and all those they deemed as true patriots. With the toxic power of a nationalistic mindset draped in the garb of Christian tradition and armed with the malice of scapegoating outsiders, the foundation was laid for a holy war...the Holocaust.

I tell that story because I find the parallels to our country's situation today to be quite striking and sobering. We have just elected a man who has the full-throated support of white supremacists, people who (mind you) invoke the cause of Christianity in their hateful ideology. Indeed, they are counting on the government’s resources and energy to implement their vision to “cleanse” our country of all those they detest. And it is not lost on me that about 80 percent of white evangelicals have given their implicit (if unconscious and unintended) support to this purge by casting their vote for Trump because he will continue to champion the pro-life cause.

In this way, the government and the church have conspired to create a scapegoat. That scapegoat is “the enemy within”...which includes not only those “outsiders” they would purge from our midst but also select “insiders” who do not share the social imagination of the looming power structure. On this front, it is important to keep in mind that the language of “the enemy within” (a phrase that Trump used with increasing frequency as the campaign season progressed) is received by white supremacists as a kind of code, mobilizing their ranks as a battalion in the righteous crusade to “make America great again.” That is why I believe we are witnessing a spike these days in public displays of blatant white supremacy. It is like the commander telling the troops to prepare for the attack. If this is not the intention, someone should tell the President-elect to stop using such an expression. It is the least we can do.

My friend Brian, who comes from a Jewish background and is a follower of Jesus, recently commented on our responsibility to say something when we see demonstrations like these. He has noted with great concern that neither Trump nor Vance have issued statements condemning the Neo-Nazi demonstration this past week in Columbus. When challenged about the views he expressed, my friend Brian replied: “I do not mean to paint all or even most people on the political right to defend or support such right-wing extremism. Sadly, at multiple rallies for Mr. Trump, there were chants of, ‘Jews will not replace us’ and symbols of hate toward Jews and Muslims. These were from a very small portion of the crowd. However, I did not observe anyone telling them to stop, or getting booed. Most people just ignored them. I cannot understand why these extremists cannot be openly condemned by public officials. I am a believer that we must ‘police our own’ and we are failing to do so.”

I think of my uncle Ivan when it comes to standing up to hateful bullies like these. Ivan was one of the many soldiers in WW2 who fought on D-Day. I cannot tell you how proud I feel just being part of his family and sharing the same last name as him. I can only imagine the horror he witnessed, the courage it took for him to charge that beach, and the endurance that was required to get him through it all…to see the light of another day.

It is important to remember that Ivan did not do this for himself. He did it for the sake of others. He did it because a power even greater than the white supremacists of Columbus held the fate of millions of people in their hands. And he did it because the Nazis had already sacrificed millions of beautiful souls on the altar of Christian nationalism, their vision of the ideal empire. I think of how Ivan would respond today if he were to witness the complacency of the new President-elect regarding the demonstration in Columbus. I can see in my mind’s eye the anger that would grow within him and the utter disgust he would express at such complacency. Is this why he risked his life on that fateful day in 1944? Certainly not! Someone should say something! Someone should do something! To do nothing, to say nothing, is to approve of it.

I think we fail to speak up because we ourselves benefit or, at the very least, are not affected when we remain silent. We are fond of invoking the familiar saying that describes the scenario of those in power coming to oppress various people groups while we fail to speak up…until they come for you and your own people group. It is a wonderful saying (I’m sure you’ve heard it) but the problem with it is that there is always one group that those in power do not come for: themselves. Those on the inside will never be adversely impacted by these oppressions because they are the oppressors (whether they realize it or not) through their action or their inaction. This is the problem with scapegoating: it fails to extract the poison of hate from the scapegoater. It always locates the problem outside oneself. So, the oppression just continues.  

How is it, though, that we fall for a tactic like scapegoating? I think it happens for good reasons. It is fueled by a hopeful picture of a better tomorrow, to be sure. The problem with the picture, however, is that it is too narrow. It leaves out the suffering that will be caused by our “good reasons.”

In this instance, it must be noted that the reason many people voted for Trump was because of his policies and promises that support the pro-life movement. I bring this up because I in no way wish to imply that those I know who are vocal advocates for pro-life legislation identify with hate groups like the KKK, the Proud Boys, or other white supremacist groups. On the contrary, it would be a sure bet to say otherwise. All of them, if asked, would unequivocally condemn them—of this I am sure. This is why what I want to say next to my pro-life friends is offered in the spirit of love…with gentleness, respect, and genuine care.

As you think about just what it means to be pro-life and how far-reaching such a posture extends, I am sure you can understand why I feel that this program of cleansing (which is dreamt about by white supremacists and will be carried out with government resources/personnel) is far from “pro-life.” And, if you feel otherwise, I encourage you to sit down with some of these immigrants and hear their stories first-hand. It would not take long to realize that these are people in need of compassion and care. Indeed, to help them by providing a safe haven from the terror they are fleeing is to be pro-life in the purest sense of that term.  

Now, I know this may feel upsetting to hear, so believe me when I say that I know what a difficult spot such a challenge puts us in. And believe me when I say I hear your concerns about the question of immigration itself. I know you are passionate about people living here legally. I know you are concerned about the toll the influx of immigrants is taking on our economy and public schools. I, like you, feel the emotional anxiety that comes with the change that comes with such demographic shifts, and I am aware of the potential of criminals to exploit such a vulnerable situation.  

I know all these things that are on your heart…AND I am asking you to trust that there is a better way than the white supremacist vision of mass deportation and detainment. As I think of “a better way,” I appeal to the witness of those heroes of the faith who have gone before us when they were faced with similar circumstances in which their country just wanted to purge the “outsiders” from their midst. In addition to Bonhoeffer, I think of Corie ten Boom, that great heroine of the church who risked her life to hide people who would otherwise have been arrested, detained, and, eventually, snuffed out. You may have even read her book, The Hiding Place, and been inspired by her bravery. And she was not the only one who did this. There are many stories like hers of bravery in the face of such challenges.

This is why I consider myself to be one of the few (20 percent) who object to the program of mass deportation/detainment. And I am writing this in hopes of encouraging my fellow “20 percenters” to stay the course. And I am writing this in hopes of explaining why, from the standpoint of my faith, I stand with the minority. I am writing to share why I feel it is not only legitimate to dissent…but entirely Christlike. And, so, I am writing to those in the 80 percent who also want to live a Christlike life…in hopes that I might be able to persuade you to open your hearts and change your mind regarding our country’s collective posture towards immigrants. I’m not asking you to regret voting the way you did. I’m simply asking you to take a stand against the cruel treatment that will surely come if we just stand by and do nothing.

So, in keeping with the open heart, this is also an invitation to all (no matter who you voted for) to share our resources and open our very homes (like Corrie ten Boom did) to provide shelter and safe haven for those who will be harassed and helpless by the powers that be should this planned purge come to pass. May we stand with the likes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Corrie ten Boom, dear friends. As it was with them, so may it be with us. Amen and amen.

…………………….

DJT and the KKK

reflections by rev. troy cady

.

.

.      

why nude art can be good for children

Nude Christ by Melanie Cooper Pennington

Recently, the principal of Tallahassee Classical School in Florida resigned in response to complaints submitted to the school board by at least one parent after a sixth-grade class was shown a picture of Michelangelo’s David sculpture as part of their curriculum. Apparently, the parent said the sculpture was “pornographic.”

Setting aside the fact that one would expect students at a classical academy to learn about classic art such as this, I am dumbstruck by the fact that so many Christians would applaud the school board’s discipline.

As an ordained minister who has studied childhood spiritual development by working with children and partnering with church-going families over several years, I would like to explain why I think it is GOOD for children to see (and have the chance to reflect upon) nude forms in art. My rationale is rooted in a variety of theological distinctives inherent in the Christian tradition.

First, Christian teaching holds that the human body is intrinsically good. This idea is rooted in the creation account itself and reaffirmed in Scriptures like Psalm 139:14, which declares that human beings are “fearfully and wonderfully made.”

Significantly, shame about the human body only enters the picture when the first human beings begin to doubt the goodness of God and the goodness of God’s creation. Prior to questioning such goodness, it is telling that (according to Genesis 2:25) the first human beings were “naked, and they felt no shame.” It is only after they gave in to the doubts sown by the serpent (who represents evil in the story) that they made coverings for themselves. (see Gen. 3:7)

Far from corrupting children, when we help children celebrate the human form appropriately, we are, in effect, cooperating with God in celebrating what God intended for our good.

Let us keep in mind that children do, indeed, reflect upon the mystery of the human body from a very early age. And it is better to help children wonder about the body in the open than to push it into the darkness where fear and shame tend to take over. Of course, the key is to do this appropriately.

You may well ask, then: what is appropriate and what is inappropriate?

Certainly, portrayals that are intended to objectify, degrade, victimize, and oppress human beings are to be rejected. Since the idea of “being made in God’s image” involves the act of exercising real autonomy over one’s own body, I hasten to add that any portrayals which violate the agency of the subject in question constitute one of the gravest evils (if not the greatest evil) in our society today. Here I refer to the preponderance of child pornography. This is a great evil, to be sure, because it preys upon the vulnerability of those who have little or no power to stand up for themselves when their agency has been violated.

This is precisely where the Christian story speaks so powerfully to this question, for Christianity teaches that God became one of us (a human being) in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Theologically speaking, this is referred to as “the incarnation.” Briefly, the incarnation says that God took on human flesh to redeem what God intended for good in the very beginning and to reassert the goodness of it all. For the Christian, the embodiment of the Divine in the incarnation proves to be the decisive moment that dignifies humanity, even as Christ takes upon himself the shame and humiliations we inflict upon ourselves.

In this light, it is noteworthy that the two key events in the Christ story (birth and death) are events in which God’s only Son identifies with us in our stripped form, completely naked, willing to be exposed and vulnerable before the religious powerbrokers (who had developed the habit of objectifying God) and the political overlords (who could degrade and victimize whomever they wished to oppress).

Indeed, it is striking to me that most portrayals of the birth and death of Christ take pains to cover up his nakedness. This is tragic because it is through the very self-exposure of God that we may behold the depth of God’s love for us by identifying with us in our own vulnerable exposures. Far from evil, it is through the nakedness of God in these key salvific moments that we return to the light of grace.

Let us remember that the Gospels affirm this portrait as the writers recorded the fact that the very last piece of Jesus' clothing was a loincloth which the soldiers removed from his body in a degrading game of chance. And it was this very ugliness and humiliation that the apostle Paul celebrated as a kind of subversive victory. Jesus went right to our deepest, darkest places of shame and ushered us into the light of affirming love by the very act of exposure.

For these reasons, I encourage parents and educators to be thoughtful about helping children reflect upon the human body through various art forms, including visual depictions of nudity. Far from being an anti-Christian phenomenon, I suggest such thoughtful engagement can help us more fully embody an intrinsically Christian ethic and mediate an encounter with the Divine through a celebration of all that is good and beautiful in the human form itself.

…………………………………

why nude art can be good for children
reflections by troy cady
.
.
.
*Photo: Nude Christ by Melanie Cooper Pennington

Church > Church Services

Church > Church Services

pastoral reflections on a Sunday morning in January

by troy cady

.
.
The other day I was talking with a neighbor about the word “church.” As we sat at my desk together, I opened up my web browser and Googled the word “church.” I said, “Now, let’s look at the visual images that are associated with this word.”
.
And as we looked, I pointed out that almost all of them were a picture of a building and most of those did not even have any people in the picture whatsoever…just a building. A small percentage of the pictures portrayed people in a building…at a church service. And we noted that every single picture that came up in the first round of search results fit into one of these two types of images.
.
For the past 40 years, I estimate that I have spent 75 percent of my Sundays either going to church services or playing a role in the leadership of such.
.
In light of this, what I want to say on this Sunday morning may come as a surprise to you: I have come to the conclusion that church services often (but not always) get in the way of God’s people being the church. I know that will likely ruffle the feathers of many churchgoers who are reading this but bear with me as I try to explain my rationale.
.
In 2002, my family and I moved to Madrid to start a church. To do this, we developed a “launch plan” (that’s what we called it). It was an 18-month business plan that articulated how we would grow the church from 8 people in March 2002 to 150 people in September 2003. (And, yes: the document we developed to share the vision of this was a business plan, I’m embarrassed to say.)
.
In any case, September 2003 was identified as the “launch date.” This was the time we would say, “Hooray, we did it! We started a church!” It was the day we would hold our first church service, open to the public.
.
After just 9 months into this launch plan, we held some private “test services” before going public. Believe it or not, we were three months ahead of schedule when we began these test services…that’s how much the church had grown in that short time. Because of this, we had considered moving up the public “launch date” from September to Easter that year (which happened to be on April 20).
.
At any rate, the test services were an opportunity to gain momentum and build the core of the congregation so that, when the launch day hit, a sense of common vision and shared values would have been nurtured already by a large enough group of people.
.
To build up to these test services, however, we simply met in small groups (which we called “community groups”) to build relationships, worship together, grow spiritually, and reach out to others. In other words, all of our energy the first 9 months of “launching” this church went into helping our community group ministry flourish.
.
After 9 months of seeing our community groups flourish, we noticed a distinct shift as soon as we started testing out weekly services. From planning to execution, the services themselves took most of our mental and emotional energy, leaving little energy to invest in our community groups. So, it didn’t take long for the community groups to languish…but the real problem came when the weekly services did not flourish as we had expected, either.
.
So we began to ask ourselves, “What’s going on here? Why does it seem like the church has just picked up a heavy weight right as we are trying to gear up for takeoff?”
.
That’s when we realized that everything that really mattered about what we had in mind when it came to “being the church” had already been happening in our community groups. And thinking we needed to add something more to be a “legitimate” church ultimately seemed to devalue the rich and authentic experiences we had been having already through the community group network we had nurtured. It was as if we were saying, “We can’t really be a church if we don’t meet each weekend for a church service…can we?”
.
So, we asked ourselves, “What if we remove the ‘church service’ ingredient from the ‘church’ recipe and see what happens? If we didn’t have ‘church services’ to worry about, how would we go about embodying what it means to be God’s family?”
.
And that is what we did. We experimented. You could call it a little ecclesiastical improvisation. We decided that we would gather in a large group format just once a month while still emphasizing the weekly gathering of folks in the community group format. And what we discovered about what it means to be Jesus’ followers has changed my life and the lives of so many others since.
.
We found ways to worship that were diverse and fun, personalized and holistic. We learned what it means to truly be a family with one another, to take care of each other and really connect. Because our encounters with Scripture were rooted in interactive ways of engaging, our understanding of God and faith deepened significantly. We learned from one another and each person had regular opportunities to exercise their gifts from week to week. What’s more, our way of reaching out and sharing Jesus’ love with others was humanizing and playful.
.
Thus, we discovered first-hand that we were better able to embody the essence of what it means to be the church…without hosting weekly “church services.”
.
I wish I could say I stayed the course with this little improvisation since then. However, I didn’t. When my family and I moved back to the States in 2010, we ended up participating again in “church” as we typically think of it: an event-based place. This was not without good reason, to be sure…and, in many ways, the church we were part of was a blessing and a joy. My work with children was enriching and several people in the congregation served with heart-felt devotion and open-minded creativity. I thank God for those people.
.
But as time wore on, I began to see once again how “church services” often hindered us from experiencing what God desires for us to experience as a church family.
.
During this time, I recall looking across the congregation on many, many Sundays wondering what the point of it all was. As we sang together, it seemed like we were just going through the motions, mouthing the words, pleased mildly by the melodies. Our hearts were not in it. I remember feeling sad for the worship leaders who diligently prepared music for us to lift our hearts to the Lord and who often implored the congregation to really put their all into it…but the response was just, “Meh.”
.
And the same was true of the congregation’s response to the pastor’s preaching, despite the thoughtful and creative ways she went about proclaiming the gospel from week to week. To this day, I can easily say that Pastor Mandy is one of the best leaders I have ever had the honor of serving with. So, it makes my blood boil knowing the kind of criticism she faced week-in and week-out from so many people. Time and time again, her calls for deep, good change in the church just met with resistance.
.
The grace that could have redeemed all this was the tight-knit community that characterized the church. But, for too many people, that sense of community did not extend to them. I recall on several occasions talking with various long-time members when another person who had been attending for at least a couple of years would come up in the conversation—and the long-time member had no idea who I was talking about. And it wasn’t as though either of these people were only sporadic attenders; both of them were very regular. I wondered to myself, “How is it that two people who have been attending a small church like ours regularly for three years have never even said hi to each other? How is it that two people could literally sit 5 seats away from each other (in their "usual" spot on Sunday morning) week after week for years and not know each other's names?” It's sad: sometimes church services are the loneliest places to be in this world. Why is this, I have to wonder?
.
I am convinced it is because the “church-as-churchservice” paradigm makes it very easy for this to happen. The mindset is: “I saw the few people who are important to me, I’ve sung my songs, I’ve heard my nice sermon, I’ve had my cracker and grape juice, it was nice, I feel good now and…I’ll see you next week.” After more than 30 years of ministry in church settings, I am convinced that this is more normal for most churchgoers than many churchgoers care to admit.
.
And so, I have to ask myself, “What’s the point? If that is all that ‘church’ really is…why bother?” Is there no sense of reaching out, serving the common good, enfolding the marginalized in love? Where is the passion and creativity? Simply put, it is a failure of imagination.
.
On this front, I would like to say, however, that this church did get one thing right: each Saturday they hosted a food pantry to feed the hungry. And it is significant that one of the key leaders of the food pantry testifies to this day that Saturdays at the food pantry felt more like “church” to him than any other thing we did as a church. It is also very telling to me that most of the people who volunteered at the pantry over the years were NOT from the church, but rather from the neighborhood. Why would this be?
.
I suggest it is because the folks who served at the food pantry were really being the church. There was a sense of joy and life and family. Though no songs were sung on Saturday mornings, the atmosphere could be truly described as worshipful. And deep conversations often occurred that enriched our understanding of God and faith and life. And it was not uncommon to see one person praying with their arm around another person who was weeping, going through a hard time, in need of a friend. In short, we were being formed in Christlikeness. It is sobering to note on this front that most people who volunteered at the food pantry over the years…never stepped foot in the church building on a Sunday morning.
.
And I would say for good reason: they were already experiencing the essence of what it means to be the church without ever attending a church service.
.
So, what I first realized 20 years ago has come full circle to me. I am convinced that church services often (but not always, mind you) hinder many Christ-followers from really experiencing what it means to be the church.
.
And, so…the last four weeks, I have been practicing and inviting others to practice with me various ways of coming together as God’s family. We’ve feasted together and built relationships with lots of time to have informal conversation over a meal where each person brings something to contribute. We have told stories and listened to stories. We’ve enjoyed children in our midst. We’ve wondered about the presence of God in the stories we’ve heard and in the midst of our everyday life experiences. And we’ve served others together: yesterday, some of us spent a good portion of the day helping at a shelter for people experiencing homelessness.
.
One person who participated said afterwards, “That was so much fun, I almost feel guilty!” There was life in it, a sense of God’s goodness, a sense of loving our neighbors as ourselves.
.
Later, I was driving home with my “adopted aunt” Judy (as I like to call her). We carpooled together and when we got back to my place, we sat in the car for another hour…just talking and connecting. I shared with her some family challenges I’ve been facing lately and she listened like a good friend, offering words of encouragement and reassurance. It is with deep gratitude that I note our societal roles were reversed yesterday. I—an ordained minister—had the joy of being pastored by “aunt” Judy, a retired nurse.
.
And just the day before, I had the honor of spending three hours with a neighbor friend, reading from the Gospel of John, praying, and talking about…
…family trauma,
…how Jesus deconstructs our cherished paradigms of God, life, and others;
…the problem of violence in Scripture,
…the prejudice that seems to plague our society today, and
…the ministry of reconciliation.
.
And that was only SOME of what we talked about. My friend has grown accustomed to referring to these times we have together as “church.” And I think he is right: it is church—in our living rooms.
.
This is how more of the church should be, I feel. We should be serving together. We should really be in each other’s lives. We should dialogue and share perspectives and learn from one another. We should share food together and just enjoy playing together. We should tell stories and practice listening. We should rest together and be there for each other when we fall on hard times.
.
These days, then, my imagination is coming alive again and I am experiencing it as a deep, deep grace. I have hope. In my mind's eye, I can see a whole network of small faith communities like these popping up all over...communities where people from all kinds of different backgrounds can come together to live into the simple rhythms of…
…feasting
…wondering
…listening
…sharing, and
…renewing.
.
And I am happy to say that others are joining in this vision already, not just here where I live in Chicago but in other parts of the States, too…from Connecticut to North Carolina, Minnesota to California. We’re calling this network PlayWell Communities. We want it to feel playful, improvisational, personalized, and fluid.
.
We’re not calling it a church, by the way, because that word just has so much unhelpful baggage that comes with it. We’re describing it as a network of small “faith communities.” Regardless, we’re passionate about what it looks like to follow Jesus in our time and in the places we live. And we want to strip away anything that would weigh us down from living according to God’s “unforced rhythms of grace.” We want to live freely…free to imagine different ways of being formed as God's dearly beloved people.
.
If you’d like to know more about all this, let me know because I’d love to talk with you about it.
.
.
.

the present

i want you to see kindness 

in these eyes, 

to know what it feels like 

to be heard— 

i want to be the kind of person 

who keeps silence, 

who knows how to hold tears 

 in the spirit of tenderness— 

let’s enter the silence together— 

i will be the one to remind you 

you are not alone 

i will be your friend—

i cannot take away your pain, 

the betrayals you have borne, 

the sense of abandonment—

i cannot erase the many years 

you waited for god to show up— 

i cannot answer the one prayer 

you have made countless times— 

i wish i could do all of this and more 

but i can’t 

this one thing i do know: 

i can take time to be with you, 

i can train my eyes to see you, 

i can offer a warm heart 

in a cold world— 

i can join you 

in whispering softly 

over the embers of faith— 

i will watch in wonder 

when the light quickens in you— 

i will be someone who notices 

the reflection of grace in your eyes— 

and i believe you 

will see it, too. 

…………………… 

the present 

by troy cady

on the 19th of January

One night you will sit down

in your favorite chair

at the end of a long drizzly day.

On the 19th of January

the afternoon’s gray will descend

quickly to evening’s black,

the warm lights in the living room

will embrace your soul,

dampened the past 22 hours

by the clouds of conflict

that seem to cover everything,

even the stars.

Still, you will pause to remember

the morning’s brief sanctuary

when you entrusted yourself

to the vulnerability of silence

and the ministry of compassionate listening.

And you will remember

the arrival of the early afternoon

when you relished a feast of prayerful reading

with the neighbor whose

friendly curiosity quickened

the child within

and renewed your love of holy writ.

And, as you pause to remember,

you will breathe again, happy,

at peace with the world,

covered in grace.

……………….

on the 19th of January

by troy cady

healing the disease of anger

Yesterday, I got to spend the morning with a friend. When we have the chance, we get together to pray, read Scripture and talk about it. I find these times to be refreshing because of their simplicity. We have no agenda beyond the practice of open and free dialogue.

My friend likes to read from the King James version of the Bible because he savors its lyricism. Yesterday, one of the portions we read was from the book of Proverbs. After reading the chapter, I asked my friend to share which proverb felt most important to him today. Because he is a father to three children, he selected the verses in the chapter that talked about parenting.

Then, I shared the proverb that felt important to me. It was this:

“Make no friendship with an angry man;
and with a furious man thou shalt not go:
lest thou learn his ways,
and get a snare to thy soul.” -Pr. 22:24-25

As we reflected on those verses, we talked about how it seems that our entire society has become tainted by incessant hostility and anger. The latter half of the proverb explains how anger has become so rampant: anger is contagious and, before you know it, you are held captive to it.

As we discussed this, I shared with my friend about a study that found that posts on social media that adopt a tone of outrage, anger and disdain tend to get more interactions than other posts. In a podcast I listened to recently called “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill,” host Mike Cosper notes that this is one reason the celebrity pastor Mark Driscoll so regularly unleashed angry rhetoric in his hour-long sermons. The team that managed his online presence discovered that when Driscoll used a hot-tempered style of preaching it garnered more hits on their website. So, it didn’t take long for Driscoll to adopt the "shock and awe" approach as his trademark style.

Rage is highly effective at getting attention, even though it is not very constructive. Though there is a place for righteous anger, when anger only begets more anger, it is an exercise in futility and increasing degradation.

I suppose that most people who are constantly angry feel that their anger is righteous…even when it isn’t. When our emotions are constantly whipped up in a spirit of fury, it is hard to be objective about the true state of our own heart. When confronted with our own anger, we are more prone to defend ourselves than take time to reflect, seek forgiveness for the hurt our anger has caused, and (most importantly) change course.

I do believe it is important to let yourself feel anger, but it is more important to listen to what your anger is trying to tell you. This is why I love the practice of spiritual direction so much. It provides a space for someone to safely listen to their own emotions. And what I have observed as I have sat with various folks in spiritual direction over the past two years is that underneath the anger there is a deep, deep sadness that longs to be acknowledged. Thus, addressing the sadness proves key to healing our woundedness that prompted the anger in the first place. Unless we can heal the wounds, we will never be able to satisfy our anger.

It comes as no surprise, then, that the remedy for anger is gentleness. We need quiet, gentle spaces to be present to our sadness. We need understanding and compassion. We need companionship.

The catch is: it feels counter-cultural to practice gentleness in a world beset by so much anger. It takes faith and courage to be gentle. It requires hope—a belief that the quiet spirit will ultimately be heard underneath the noise of all the shouting—a trust that gentleness will outlast all the outbursts.

This is an appeal to slow down. Take the time to listen. Have enough courage to be gentle. May we trust and hope in a different way. May we reflect on our own anger, asking what it wants to tell us…lest we keep spreading it around carelessly.

…………………………..

healing the disease of anger
reflections by troy cady
.
.
.
*Photo by Valeriia Miller via Unsplash. Creative Commons License.