Compassion on the Decline Among College Students

A new study finds that today’s college students are not as empathetic as college students of the 1980s and ’90s.

University of Michigan researchers analyzed data on empathy collected from almost 14,000 college students over the last 30 years.

“We found the biggest drop in empathy after the year 2000,” said Sara Konrath, a researcher at the U-M Institute for Social Research.

“College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago, as measured by standard tests of this personality trait.”

If the data in this research is accurate enough to extrapolate across college students in general, then I consider myself really blessed to have served alongside some of the most compassionate people during my seven years on staff as the college pastor at Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles. So in my own experience this research doesn’t match my reality, but then again I was serving as a college pastor where students were striving to serve God and to serve others in a myriad of ways.

In this 30 year study, researchers have hypothesized several reasons why they think college students in the last 10 years are less compassionate, and less able to empathize, than those students in previous decades.

  1. “The increase in exposure to media during this time period could be one factor,” Konrath said.
  2. The recent rise of social media may also play a role in the drop in empathy, suggests O’Brien.  “The ease of having ‘friends’ online might make people more likely to just tune out when they don’t feel like responding to others’ problems, a behavior that could carry over offline,” he said.
  3. College students today may be so busy worrying about themselves and their own issues that they don’t have time to spend empathizing with others, or at least perceive such time to be limited,” O’Brien said.“College students today may be so busy worrying about themselves and their own issues that they don’t have time to spend empathizing with others, or at least perceive such time to be limited,” O’Brien said.

One of the questions that I asked in the recent post, Technology: Connected, Yet Lonelier Than Ever, was:

I wonder if technology and social media has compressed our relationships into a process that we can barely recognize?

So on the one hand, there is something cool and convenient with clicking a button online that brings us into contact with a person. But on the other hand, the ease and convenience has disconnected us from the process of relationship making.

Has all the technology relationally disconnected us in a sense, replacing the processes (befriending, getting to know each other, sharing life, etc), where instead we just value the end results (number of followers, blog traffic, etc.)

Can social media allows us to keep others at an arm’s length from one another? This can definitely happen in real life as well, but I wonder if social media can exacerbate the bystander effect when it comes to empathizing with others and being compassionately involved? (For a look at some of the more infamous examples of this effect, check out 10 Notorious Cases of the Bystander Effect.

Of course, I could now show you all the wonderful examples of where people have used social media as a means to demonstrate compassion to others. Think of the earthquake in Haiti. The floods in Nashville. The protests in Iran. Etc. Etc.

I guess the question for researchers (and for us) is, are we able to move beyond showing our compassion to others through a click of the button (though there is nothing wrong with that and I hope people keep doing that), and move into situations that may demand more of us than clicking buttons and counting followers?

Maybe this is why each of us plays a various role in the body of Christ? When the body of Christ is working together harmoniously (some online getting involved, others ‘on the ground’ in person involved, others sending money and resources, etc.) it is an unstoppable force.

{ 8 comments }

The Continuing Work in Haiti

by Rhett Smith on June 1, 2010

This last February I had the opportunity to travel to Haiti with Adventures in Missions and some really amazing people. You can read some of the posts that I wrote about that experience here. I was hoping to get back to Haiti by this point, but I had to decline a chance to head back there this last week…but some great people did get to go, and I want you to get a glimpse of what they have been up to.

I received this note from Mark Oestreicher:

we’re launching the church to church partnership program. it’s an opportunity for american churches to have a 1:1 partnership with a haitian church for prayer, encouragement, assistance and trips (to bring people to haiti to help in rebuilding). we have about 1000 haitian pastors in a database now, and will be working to pair up those who show a great desire to serve their communities. part of this effort (and what would be wonderful if you could mention) is that we’re trying to raise $35,000 to fund the salaries of 3 haitian church leaders who will run this program from the haitian side (bringing oversight, administration, communication and accountability).

Here are some links to see what they are up to/and what they have been up to and how you can help out.

The Giving Project
Facebook Group
Twitter Feed

{ 1 comment }

One of the topics that has been of great interest to me as of late is the idea of self-differentiation (differentiation of self). It has great interest to me in interpersonal relationships, and it has been really intriguing to me in terms of church leadership. There are lots of ways to talk about differentiation, but ultimately it is one’s ability to “stand on one’s own two feet”, rather than be emotionally fused, or enmeshed with others (i.e. relationships, families, congregations, church staffs, etc.).

We are all susceptible to being fused with others, but pastoral leadership can have the inherent danger where pastors often get their sense-of-self from others (i.e. congregants, staff, etc.). rather than being differentiated. Pastors receive much validation from activities such as sermons, late night visits, crisis intervention, counseling, etc., and if one isn’t careful, they can soon find themselves dependent upon these activities, and the affirmation they receive from them. How many pastors have preached a sermon, and at the end of the sermon they receive lots of praise, but they spend all day thinking about that one person who was critical of it?

I’m a pastor’s kid, and I have worked in the church for the last 15 years as well, so this is a topic that I am beginning to look more seriously at. Unfortunately, it wasn’t until I began my work as a therapist that I have begun to see more clearly the toxic situation that is set up in many church leadership structures.

A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix by Edwin Friedman is a book that I think all pastors and ministry leaders should read. He talks extensively about differentiation in leaders and I found this one excerpt particularly insightful:

I wrote above that one outstanding characteristic with families that endure and perhaps even grow from crisis is the presence of a well-differentiated leader. Now I want to add that the factor which is almost always present in relationship systems that are deeply disturbed, if not disintegrating, is a conflict of will.

For example, one will find in almost every family experiencing the severest emotional symptoms (such as suicide, schizophrenia, psychosis, anorexia, abuse) and sometimes the most debilitating physical symptoms (such as multiple sclerosis, coronary conditions, persistent gastrointestinal problems, even cancer) a deep, abiding conflict of will within the family–sometimes blatantly contentious and sometimes subtly masked by charm or passive obstinacy. Similarly, such conflict is always present in the failure of teachers, counselors, clergy, and consultants to make headway against the riptide of resistance that run counter to their intent. It goes without saying that when continued efforts by CEO’s, managers, and administrators are producing little or no progress, they are probably swimming against a tide.

How, then, does one go with the flow and still take the lead? Answer: by positioning oneself in such a way that the natural forces of emotional life carry one in the right direction. They key to that positioning is the leader’s own self-differentiation, by which I mean his or her capacity to be a non-anxious presence, a challenging presence, a well-defined presence, and a paradoxical presence. Differentiation is not about being coercive, manipulative, reactive, pursuing or invasive, but being rooted in the leader’s own sense of self rather than focused on that of his or her followers. It is in no way autocratic, narcissistic, or selfish, even though it may be perceived that way by those who are not taking responsibility for their own being. Self-differentiation is not ‘selfish.’  Furthermore, the power inherent in a leader’s presence does not reside in physical or economic strength but in the nature of his or her own being, so that even when leaders are entitled to great power by dint of their office, it is ultimately the nature of their presence that is the source of their real strength. Leaders function as the immune systems of the institutions they lead–not because they ward off enemies, but because they supply the ingredients for the system’s integrity.

Much of what I have said about leadership can be summarized in the following chart:

POORLY DIFFERENTIATED LEADERSHIP

  • focuses on pathology
  • is obsessed with technique
  • works with symptomatic people
  • betters the condition
  • seeks symptomatic relief
  • is concerned to give insight
  • is stuck on treadmill of trying harder
  • diagnoses others
  • is quick to quit difficult situations
  • is made anxious by reactivity
  • has a reductionist perspective
  • sees problems as the cause of anxiety
  • adapts toward the weak
  • focuses empathically on helpless victims
  • is more likely to create dependent relationships

WELL DIFFERENTIATED LEADERSHIP

  • focuses on strength
  • is concerned for one’s own growth
  • works with motivated people
  • matures the system
  • seeks enduring change
  • is concerned to define self (take stands)
  • is fed up with the treadmill
  • looks at one’s own stuckness
  • is challenged by difficult situations
  • recognizes that reactivity and sabotage are evidence of one’s effectiveness
  • has a universal perspective
  • sees problems as the focus of preexisting anxiety
  • adapts toward strength
  • has a challenging attitude that encourages responsibility
  • is more likely to create intimate relationships

….Leadership that is rooted in a sense of presence can also be misconstrued as a justification for passivity–for avoiding getting your feet wet, for just being, ‘nice so everyone will love or respect you.’  It can also lead to mistaken notions that data and method are unimportant, that the bottom line does not matter, or that outcome is irrelevant and the approach, therefore, impractical.  Leadership through self-differentiation is not easy; learning techniques and imbibing data are far easier.  Nor is striving or achieving success as a leader without pain: there is the pain in isolation, the pain of loneliness, the pain of personal attacks, the pain of losing friends.  That’s what leadership is all about. (pp. 230-233)

{ 4 comments }


[image by Jesse Millan]


In the last year I have blogged on the topics of ambient intimacy/ambient awareness, as well as some of the discussion involving the use of technology in fostering intimacy. I was a big fan of this topic, and a believer in the use of technology in fostering intimacy. Especially how the sharing of minor details in our life online can create a sense of belonging and togetherness.

I have experienced in my own life how the sharing of myself online via Twitter, Facebook, my blog, etc. have brought me closer to those I am contact with online. Numerous are the times that I have been able to sit down at coffee with someone I met online, and it felt like we had been friends for a long time because we knew so much about each other through our online sharing.

But can technology and social media create intimacy? That I am no longer sure of.

What has me thinking about this recently is this excerpt from David Schnarch’s Passionate Marriage where he talks about the pitfalls of other-validated intimacy in marriages (versus self-validation which is central to one achieving a healthy level of differentiation). Here is what Schnarch says:

3. Other-validated intimacy is inherently limiting because it leads to self-presentation rather than self-disclosure. When you need a reflected sense of yourself and acceptance/validation from your partner, your most important priority becomes getting the response you want. To accomplish this less than virtuous goal, you start misrepresenting, omitting, and shading information about who you really are (self-presentation), rather than disclosing the full range of yourself (intimacy). Self-presentation is the opposite of intimacy; it is a charade rather than an unmasking.

Self-presentation is one way we adapt to our partner’s differences in order to reduce our anxiety. Unfortunately, it never provides the security and acceptance we crave, because we know our partner never really knows us. Attempts to cajole someone into making us feel secure only make us insecure, the same way trying to protect ourselves through other-validated intimacy offers no real protection at all. Self-presentation creates an inherent paradox that sets the typical marital squirrel cage spinning. And as you’ll see in a few minutes, self-presentation brings us one step closer to emotional gridlock.
Passionate Marriage: Keeping Love & Intimacy Alive in Committed Relationships (David Schnarch)

Social media is a great tool for other-validation intimacy, or why else would people obsessively track their blog stats, Twitter follower numbers and number of Facebook fans? It’s a form of other-validating intimacy. It’s a way that one seeks affirmation and validation. And have you ever seen more low-level anxiety in people than when they begin to worry about their online persona and statistics? I’ve noticed it in myself.

But is it intimacy, or is it really self-presentation? How much do we omit things about us when we create our online persona for others to see?

I would argue that even the people that present themselves, and come across to others as humble, authentic and “real” are still using a form of self-presentation since it’s something they have created on their own. It’s what they want others to see of them. But it may really not be what others truly see. We are rarely completely honest with ourselves, because we are often unaware and blind to our own shortcomings and issues. That’s why true intimacy in a relationship involves the unmasking of ourselves, often by the other we are in relationship with. True intimacy involves conflict and pushing through anxiety. It involves being able to stand on our own two feet, rather than constantly needing the propping up of ourselves by our partner.

Social media allows us to create a reflected sense of ourselves through the mirroring of online affirmation we receive from others. True intimacy in a relationship doesn’t allow us to create a reflected sense of ourselves, but requires us to see and been seen for who we truly are. Blemishes and all.

I think even those that attempt to be real online can/are still masquerading behind a created sense of self that is fueled by online other validation. I sometimes wonder about those who are constantly talking about the need to be real, or authentic. That can be as much a distorted sense of self as those they castigate.

When this makes sense, you will slowly begin to see the powerful drive that allows technology to fuel so many online affairs and inappropriate relationships.

Perhaps I’m writing this post because I first noticed it in myself. Becoming aware is the first step. It is only when we are aware, that then can we take action to live more healthy lives online.

{ 23 comments }

I recently just finished a really great book by Ronald Rolheiser, The Restless Heart: Finding Our Spiritual Home in Times of Loneliness. In one section of the book Rolheiser writes about a conversation he had with a nun. In that conversation the nun said the following:

“my vocation is, at each moment, to make the person in front of me the most important person in my life!”

I’ve been thinking a lot about what the nun said to Rolheiser, and wondering if I do that myself with those I encounter. We have all experienced (at least I hope so) what it feels like when someone is really paying attention to us…free of distraction. We have that feeling as if everything else has fallen away (all the noises, background conversations, etc.), and we become, if only for a moment, the most important thing to that person.

It sounds easy, but this is not easy to do. We live in a culture that finds it very hard to focus on the people directly in front of us. We are always wondering about who is texting/calling us as our phone vibrates in our pocket. We are wondering what latest news has come across the wire. We stare past people in church, wondering if someone more exciting is available to talk to during greeting time.

There is no secret formula to making the person in front of us the most important person at that moment.  But I think it involves several things (that I know of), and probably lots of other things (that I’m unaware of).  Here are some things/reminders that I try to keep in mind:

  1. Cutting out distractions.  When I’m with people, I try to limit, or eliminate the distractions so that that person in front of me becomes the most important person to me.  For me that means turning off my phone/closing my laptop/turning off the TV or radio during conversations with others.  This was/is a difficult practice.

  2. Reminding myself that my encounters with others are a gift–it is a divine encounter, not experienced elsewhere.  I love Martin Buber’s I-Thou relationship, and how Aubrey Hodes summarizes some of it here: When a human being turns to another as another, as a particular and specific person to be addressed, and tries to communicate with him through language or silence, something takes place between them which is not found elsewhere in nature. Buber called this meeting between men the sphere of the between.

  3. We have a better sense of self, and who we “truly” are when it is reflected back through another person, rather than through a self-construct we have built ourselves.  We often spend countless hours constructing another self (via technology, superficial relationships, lies, degrees, awards, money, fame, etc.), but someone we truly devote our energy, focus and time to (as if they are the most important person) can truly liberate us in many ways.  I think we often avoid doing this practice for out of fear that we may be exposed.

  4. To be truly present to another person I think requires the practice of “simply noticing.” I’m currently in a course/coaching program that trains therapists, executives and other professionals to be better at their craft, and one of the things that has resonated with me is this concept.  “To simply notice is to be aware–to pay attention.  Simply noticing has nothing to do with asking yourself why you are the way you are, although these answers may become obvious to you as you learn to simply notice your being you. (Taming Your Gremlin by Rick Carson, pp. 26).  The more I “simply notice” and pay attention to what is going on around me, the more I able to focus myself on those that I encounter.  I think we spend a lot of time unaware of our behavior, and not noticing how we interact.  I’m trying to change that in my own life.

These are some things/reminders that I keep in mind as I try to practice the vocation of making the person in front of me the most important person.

Have you found anything helpful to you as you try to do this in your own life?

{ 3 comments }


[image by izzymunchted]


Coming to Grips With Our Limits
Something that I have noticed in our culture, and in my own life, is a certain restlessness that often keeps us from truly putting all our energy and focus towards one thing. Instead, we find ourselves with our hands in all sorts of things, and spread way too thin.

I think we do this for a couple of reasons: 1) We are afraid to commit to one thing. Even two things. What if this doesn’t pan out? What if I miss out on what is happening over there? This is often driven by fear. 2) We never truly acknowledge our limitations. We think/and are told we can do anything and everything. But that is not true. We have limits.

A couple of weeks ago I found myself feeling spread way too thin, and at the end of each day, always feeling like there was more I should have done. I sat down to my computer and decided to open up Excel and make a more scheduled calendar for myself so that I could accomplish all that I wanted to do each day. But I kept running into a problem. There were not enough hours in the day. I had hit a limit, and no matter how creatively I arranged the excel sheet, that limit wasn’t budging. Something was going to have to give. It was a humbling experience to come up to my own limits (not the first, nor last time), and I realized I needed to acknowledge them, make changes, and become more focused on a couple of things, rather than a million things.

Unfulfilled Desires
In Ronald Rolheiser’s phenomenal book, The Restless Heart, he says this:

“The Hebrew scriptures, for the main part, understand human nature to be so fashioned that it can never come to full satisfaction because human desires always outstrip a person’s actual accomplishment in this life….

Again, this hints at a reason for our loneliness, namely, our potentialities and desires are much greater than we can ever fulfill in a lifetime. Thus, we always feel somewhat unfulfilled because there are always spots inside of us that are empty….

Much of our rootlessness is caused by a lack of commitment and fidelity. Our lives are too much characterized by our refusal to commit ourselves permanently to anything, whether it be another person, a marriage, a religious vocation, or even just a certain job, a certain neighborhood, or a certain set of values. We all want to hang loose! and consequently our lives are too characterized by infidelity, broken promises, broken words, cheap commitments, and hastily drawn loyalties. It is not surprising we suffer from acute loneliness. (pp. 82, 83, 173)”

When Our Desires Come Into Conflict With Our Limitations
This is where the rubber meets the road. Each one of us has lots of things we want to do with our lives. There are lots of things we want to accomplish each day…but those desires, and our passions can often hit limits. Last year I wrote a post, Limits and Potential: Living Free Within That Tension, which was a reflection on this issue as formulated by Parker Palmer in the book, Let Your Life Speak: Listening for the Voice of Vocation. Palmer puts it this way:

“Everything in the universe has a nature, which means limits as well as potentials, a truth well known by people who work daily with the things of the world. Making pottery, for example, involves more than telling the clay what to become. The clay presses back on the potter’s hands, telling her what it can and cannot do–and if she fails to listen, the outcome will be both frail and ungainly. Engineering involves more than telling materials what they must do. If the engineer does not honor the nature of the steel or the wood or the stone, his failure will go beyond aesthetics: the bridge or the building will collapse and put human life in peril.

The human self also has a nature, limits as well as potentials. If you seek vocation without understanding the material you are working with, what you build with your life will be ungainly and may well put lives in peril, your own and some of those around you. “Faking it” in the service of high values is no virtue and has nothing to do with vocation. It is an ignorant, sometimes arrogant, attempt to override one’s nature, and it will always fail.”

God has created us with many desires and passions for our lives, but the reality is, is that on this side of heaven, many of them will not come to fruition. That feeling can leave us in a constant state of restlessness, unable to truly commit to anything permanent, therefore, leaving us constantly in a state of not acknowledging our limits, and with an inability to focus on anything for a long period of time.

Disciplining Our Focus

Most of us in fact, never “get it together!” We never get ourselves together. Instead we go through life frustrated and dissipated, letting our restless energies push us in one direction, then in another, never quite able to settle down, to figure out what we want to do, and never quite able to discipline ourselves enough to achieve the ends we were meant to attain.

In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa wrote about this inability of the human person to “get it together.” He compares the restless and lonely energies in our heart to a current in a stream:

Let us imagine a stream flowing from a spring and branching out at random into different channels. Now so long as it flows this way it will be entirely useless for the cultivation of the soul. Its waters are spread out too much; each single channel is small and meagre, and the water, because of this, hardly moves. But if we could collect these wanderings and widely scattered channels into one single stream, we would have a full and compact waterflow which would be useful for the many needs of life.

So too, I think of the human mind. If it spreads itself out in all directions, constantly flowing out and dispersing to whatever pleases the senses, it will never have any notable force in its progress towards the true Good. (Ronald Rolheiser, The Restless Heart, pp. 19-20)

{ 9 comments }

Technology: Connected, Yet Lonelier Than Ever

by Rhett Smith on April 22, 2010


[image by Bidrohi Hirok]


Technological Paradox
One of the glaring paradoxes in my use of technology/social media, is that it has both the ability to make me feel connected and intimate with others, while at the same time feeling isolated, alienated and lonely. I think that is why you have seen me struggle with my use of technology in some of my previous posts (here, here, here, etc.), especially as it relates to human relationships.

Alienation
I’m currently reading The Restless Heart: Finding Our Spiritual Home in Times of Loneliness by Ronald Rolheiser. In chapter three he describes five types of loneliness that we experience (alienation, restlessness, fantasy, rootlessness and psychological depression), and he says this about alienation:

“Everyone is alienated; some more, some less. In extreme cases a person can be so alienated that he or she needs professional help. Usually, though not always, it is simply a question of pain and frustration being present in our lives because of the inadequacy of our interpersonal relationships…There is a powerful loneliness that comes from not being sufficiently connected to the soil, to the bread we eat.” (pp. 45-46)

This idea very much reminds me of a post by John Dyer back in March, How Roasting Coffee Helped Me Understand Technology and Theology. In that post John refers to the “device paradigm” as coined by the philosopher Albert Borgmann. John explains it this way:

As technological development progresses, we take basic life processes like getting food, making heat, and communicating, and we compress those processes down into what Borgmann calls a “device.” A device is a technology that makes the end result of a process available at the press of a button. For example, the process of gathering wood, starting a fire, and tending to it is compressed down into a box which makes heat come out whenever we need it. The process of killing and skinning an animal, planting and harvesting vegetables, preparing and cooking a meal is compressed into a drive through window. The process of going to a concert is compressed into an iPod, and so on.

This is all great except that a sneaky thing begins to happen as devices get smaller and more complex – we can no longer see the processes they perform. Over time, since the processes are hidden from us we stop valuing those processes. Eventually, our values shift to where we only appreciate the end result, and we almost shudder at the thought of going back to the process.

Borgmann argues that to experience the fullness of life we sometimes need to restore what he calls “focal things and practices” – those things that take time and work, but offer a richness not available from a device. For him, the process itself gives meaning and significance to the consummation.

Technology Compresses Our Relationships?
I wonder if technology and social media has compressed our relationships into a process that we can barely recognize?

So on the one hand, there is something cool and convenient with clicking a button online that brings us into contact with a person. But on the other hand, the ease and convenience has disconnected us from the process of relationship making.

Has all the technology relationally disconnected us in a sense, replacing the processes (befriending, getting to know each other, sharing life, etc), where instead we just value the end results (number of followers, blog traffic, etc.)

What we thought would help us feel connected, can actually work against us, making us feel lonely and more disconnected than ever. I have often felt this in my own life, and continue to wrestle with it…and will continue to wrestle with it since I do love technology. And I see this issue becoming more and more prevalent in my work as a therapist and pastor.

Staying Physically Grounded to People
One of the ways that I have tried to work against this paradox is to try and make in person contact with the people that I communicate with online. Connecting in person with those I communicate with online helps me value the relational process and the friendship itself, and can help prevent me from compressing it into an “easy” or “like” button. It keeps me grounded.

Obviously I cannot be friends in person with everyone that I’m friends with online, but I have also come to have different expectations and boundaries with friendships that lack a rootedness in offline life. With these new expectations and boundaries come new insight and understanding, and new depth into the loneliness I sometimes try to misguidedly alleviate through technology.

John Steinbeck, Technology and Alienation(Loneliness)
Rolheiser has a poignant excerpt from the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck that I think summarizes the idea that when we are disconnected to the process through the use of technology, we can sometimes be left feeling lonely:

The man sitting in the iron seat did not look like a man; gloved, goggled, rubber dust mask over nose and mouth, he was a part of the monster, a robot in the seat. The thunder of the cylinders sounded through the country, became one with the air and the earth, so that earth and air muttered in sympathetic vibration. The drive could not control it—-straight across country it went, cutting through a dozen farms and straight back. A twitch at the controls could swerve the car, but the driver’s hands could not twitch because the monster that built the tractor, the monster that sent the tractor out, had somehow got into the driver’s hands, into his brain and muscle, had goggled and muzzled him—-goggled his mind, muzzled his speech, goggled his perception, muzzled his protest. He could not see the land as it was, he could not smell the land as it smelled; his feet did not stamp the clods or feel the warmth and power of the earth. He sat on an iron seat and stepped on iron pedals. He could not cheer or beat or curse or encourage the extension of his power, and because of this he could not cheer or whip or curse or encourage himself. He did not know or own or trust or beseech the land. If a seed dropped did not germinate, it was nothing. If the young thrusting plant withered in drought or drowned in a flood of rain it was no more to the driver than to the tractor.

He loved the land nor more than the bank loved the land. He could admire the tractor–its machined surfaces, its surge of power, the roar of its detonating cylinders; but it was not his tractor. Behind the tractor rolled the shining disks, cutting the earth with blades—-not plowing but surgery, pushing the cut earth to the right where the second row of disks cut it and pushed it to the left; slicing blades shining, polished by the cut earth. And pulled behind the disks, the harrows combining with iron teeth so that the little clods broke up and the earth lay smooth. Behind the harrows, the long seeders—-twelve curved iron peens erected a foundry, orgasms set by gears, raping methodically, raping without passion. The driver sat in his iron seat and he was proud of the straight lines he did not will, proud of the tractor he did not own or love, proud of the power he could not control. And when that crop grew, and was harvested, no man had crumpled a hot clod in his fingers and let the earth sift past his fingertips. No man had touched the seed, or lusted for the growth.

Man ate when they had not raised, had no connection with the bread. The land bore under iron, and under iron gradually died; for it was not loved or hated, it had no prayers or curses. (Excerpt from Grapes of Wrath in Rolheiser’s The Restless Heart, pp. 46-48)

Don’t let technology disconnect you from the relational process…

{ 13 comments }

Overlooking People in Ministry (for number’s sake)

by Rhett Smith on April 19, 2010

Unfortunately, one of the ministry lessons that has been drilled into my head over the years is that numbers matter. Specifically large numbers.

I was rarely asked by my supervisors how an event went, or what stories I could tell about the ministry. It always seemed to be about metrics…things that can be measured in numbers. And I get the need for metrics in ministry, (accountability, direction, etc.), but when did that dictate everything we do?

Usually the question was, “How many people showed up?”

Though I don’t believe numbers to be a great marker of life transformation, it’s hard to move beyond intellectually knowing that. So I would find myself questioning things that didn’t attract a significant number of people.

Fast forward…

Now that I’m a practicing therapist I never get questions about numbers.

First, therapy isn’t measured by numbers, but by change.

Second, there is the assumption in therapy that one person can change and have great affect on an entire system. One partner in a marriage can transform the marriage. One kid in a family can transform the family.

I’m being taught the transforming value of one person upon a system.

I wonder what ministry would look like if we approached the people we serve in the same way? That one person can transform a ministry. One person can transform a city. One person can transform the world.

Instead, I think too often in ministry we are taught the value of numbers at the cost of missing out on opportunities to minister to and disciple that one person.

{ 11 comments }


[image by Rojer]


One of the things that I have come to understand more clearly about marriage affairs, has come from a result of my continual growth as a therapist working with couples, and as a result of some great insight from some mentors and authors. And this is what I have learned:

Affairs often have less to do with the other person, than how the person feels, or is perceived in that relationship. That person they are having an affair with reflects something back to them that they like. There is something they like that they don’t feel they are getting in their current marriage. Often the person having an affair lacks a clear sense of self, or has little differentiation, therefore they need someone to reflect back to them a sense of self they don’t actually have themselves.

Author and therapist David Schnarch puts it this way:

When we have little differentiation, our identity is constructed out of what’s called a reflected sense of self. We need continual contact, validation, and consensus (or disagreement) from others. This leaves us unable to maintain a clear sense of who we are in shifting or uncertain circumstances. We develop a contingent identity based on a ‘self-in-relationship.’ Because or identity depends on the relationship, we may demand that our partner doesn’t change so that our identity won’t either. (Passionate Marriage, pp. 59)

So what does this have to do with social media?

I am finding that more and more people are finding their sense of self in their online social media persona. It is in their constructed online self that they maintain constant contact with, and in the process, reflects back to them a sense of self.

This is something I struggle with myself, and that is probably why I’m writing this. I caught myself last week asking my wife if she had read a certain blog post I had written. And when she said she hadn’t, I was thinking inside to myself, “Well, it was a good post, and lots of other people read it, and gave me good validation online.” I didn’t say that, but thought that. That’s when I knew I might have a problem.

There is nothing wrong with having an online persona. The problem is when we rely on that persona for our sense of self. The problem is when how we view our sense of self online is more attractive and gratifying to us than how we view our sense of self in our families, marriages and relationships. The problem is when your marriage seems like a lot of hard work, and it’s just easier to hop online, send out tweets, post blogs, and hit the Like button on Facebook versus engaging your spouse.

If you think I’m being overly dramatic, or exaggerating, then I wish you could sit down with me and the couples I work with. This is becoming a huge problem and only growing more.

Sometimes our sense of self is reflected in our work. Or our children. Or maybe even a hobby. Sometimes it’s in the continual feedback and validation that is delivered through an iPhone. There are all kinds of things that we get our sense of self from…but I’m just happening to notice more readily the trend of people being disengaged from their marriages because they like what they see of themselves more online. They like the reflected sense of self in their relationship with social media than in their marriage relationship.

{ 8 comments }


[image by sass_face]


Let me start this post with an example.  I’m the type of person who if I’m going to try and be disciplined about not eating junk food, then it’s much better I tell my wife if we just don’t buy and have junk food in the house, rather than me trying to monitor my intake on sheer discipline.  My failure rate increases exponentially when I know the junk food is accessible.

Sometimes it’s just better if something isn’t around.

That’s how I feel about technology sometimes.  When I lived in Guatemala for 3 months I didn’t have a phone/nor make a phone call in three months.  I didn’t watch TV.  I did send out a weekly email from a cybercafe.  Having limited access and forced boundaries helped me to experience life differently and experience freedom from technological bondage at that period in my life. It’s probably no surprise then that I see that period in my life as one of the most fruitful for me.  I really felt free to be alone with my thoughts, and to explore God’s direction for my life and vocation.  There were few distractions.

So why am I pondering this stuff right now?

Well, my Blackberry Pearl’s operating system finally died last Wednesday, giving me a JUM Error 102 that mockingly glared back at me from my screen.  My phone no longer worked and I felt my world slowly falling apart (okay, I’m being dramatic–but people feel this way when they forget their phone at home accidentally), but what was I going to do?  I couldn’t Twitter from my phone.  What if I needed to make that emergency phone call to my wife somewhere between the 6 miles from my work to our home?  Was I going to survive?  I took my phone immediately to the ATT store and decided that I would just use an old phone that I used to have for my private practice, rather than get a new phone.

Lest you think I’m being disciplined and brave, I actually have an upgrade on a new phone and I’m going to wait for the release of the new iPhone sometime this summer.  So my motives aren’t all pure.

But something happened over the last 5 days.  My trusty Pantech Slate phone and I didn’t really miss my Blackberry. And since I didn’t push any of my emails to my phone, we didn’t miss all the email distractions all day either.  And since I don’t find my new temporary phone that great online, I didn’t log onto Twitter of Facebook or any of the other online distractions that I used to use to keep me company.

I simply used my phone for phone calls and texts.  And wow, let me tell you, the noise was greatly reduced in my life.  And I discovered several things.

  1. I was definitely more present with family and friends.  I wasn’t looking at my phone as each email message came through.  Because there were none.
  2. I felt more focused at work and at home.  I was able to see tasks through, rather than being distracted all the time.
  3. I was able to reflect more thoughtfully on my life, and engage life more in depth.
  4. I found that people didn’t need me as much as I had assumed they did.  No one was out there saying, “Dang, I wish Rhett was tweeting more today.  We really miss him on Twitter.  What a loss for us!”
  5. I found that I had trained the distractions in my life.  They existed because I had allowed for them and created an environment for them. I trained people to expect an email message from me within like 5 minutes of sending it.  Crazy.
  6. I found I was as satisfied checking into Twitter, FB and email about two times a day.

We are all going to have excuses of why this isn’t realistic (my boss expects me to check email every minute–really, he/she does?), or why this is good for me, and not you.

And as I stated early on, I still want the new iPhone coming out this summer.  But if I go that route, I know that I’m going to have to take more drastic measures to reduce the noise in my life, so I can increase the connection with people.  The real, I’m here with you…present with you connection.  Not the we are Twitter and FB friends connection.

Because, honestly–I don’t trust myself with all the technological distractions around.  I need more strict boundaries.

Maybe I don’t push email to my phone anymore?  I don’t know.

I just know that a lot of technology is like junk food.  It feels good at the moment, but at the end of the day I don’t feel great and I slowly find myself more out of shape physically, spiritually, emotionally, etc.

{ 13 comments }