The Receptor Determines the Meaning

How do you hear this statement?

"Nothing is better than God!"

Let's say Mr. Theist heard this and gives a hearty "Amen!" because of a deep conviction that God holds supreme value.

But let's say Mr. Atheist heard this statement, and also gives a hearty "Amen!" because of a deep conviction that believing in nothing is better than believing in God. 

Interesting how a phrase could be interpreted to mean completely opposite things! Well, what did the one who communicated it mean? What was their intention when they said it? Was it more in line with Mr. Theist or Mr. Atheist? Or was it something else entirely?

The issue is how the receptor interprets it, because the receptor ends up determining the meaning, even if it's different from the communicator's original intention. 

Have you ever gotten into an argument (for example, with your spouse) because you heard something that was said and interpreted it in an offensive way, only to find out later that the original intention was not offensive at all? But because you interpreted it poorly, it got under your skin and blew up into a fight (by the way, this is TOTALLY hypothetical... I have NEVER done this... I'm only asking for a friend...*cough, cough*...🙄).

 

I have been preaching sermons since my early twenties, and it is fairly common for someone to come up to me after a sermon and say, "Wow that was really helpful when you said XYZ..." and they go on and on about something that I'm pretty sure I never said, or at least didn't mean to say. Or there have been times when someone heard me say something that really hacked them off, and again I don't know how they interpreted it the way they did, because I didn't intend it the way they took it.

Now, it's possible that I'm just a sucky communicator, so I'll take partial responsibility (However, I do know for a fact that this happens to many people who do some sort of public speaking). But the reality is we all have a complex set of filters and implicit biases for how we hear and interpret things. In other words, "the receptor determines the meaning" (1). This set of filters shows up in all our relationships. For example, people may have a set of filters that naturally gives them a bias toward negativity or positivity, which may become quite apparent after you spend some time with them. I'm guessing there's probably certain people you can't have certain conversations with because you know they are going to hear and interpret everything in a bad way and it's going to cause a fight. Then there are people who always assume the best and believe the best about you, and those are the people you feel safe with and can have deep, honest conversations with about anything.

There's quite a lot in the writings of the Apostle Paul that address the way we think about and interpret reality (For instance, see Philippians 4:4-8, Colossians 2:8, Romans 12:2,18, etc.). In 1 Corinthians 13 we are instructed that love "doesn't keep a record of wrongs" (vs. 5), which can also be translated "doesn't impute a wrong motive to another." In other words, if you are loving well, you don't assume the worst in people or project bad motives or ill intentions onto them. You don't rashly label people as "evil," even if they are capable of evil. Instead, you give them the very best benefit of the doubt that you can. Verse 7 adds that love always trusts, hopes, and perseveres. It doesn't give up and it doesn't fail (vs. 8), because love is the power that changes the world.

We live in a time where our implicit biases tend to make us quite polarized. We have filters that precondition us to hear things a certain way, and as the receptor to whatever information we are consuming, we have the power to make our own meaning out of it. It's very easy to demonize and accuse each other because of predetermined assumptions. I've done it and I've had it happen to me. It's probably a good time to step back and examine our own biases and ask ourselves what we're preconditioned to hearing, and what sorts of echo chambers we exist in. Maybe we should stop blaming the media or some other external force, and start taking responsibility for how we are choosing to think about and interpret reality.

Some people really react to the idea that they have implicit biases or filters. But it is a prideful ego that insists that one is a pure, unvarnished receptor of the truth at all times. It is also quite dangerous to trust your own judgment in such a way that you need no accountability or help from anyone else. That is a recipe for great self-deception, narcissism, and an inability to be corrected, which will stunt growth and maturity. As an individualistic society, we are conditioned to need no one else, and to believe we are self-made successes. A little humility would suggest we don't see the whole picture (see 1 Corinthians 13:12) and that we all have blind spots.

So what filters are in place, and does it allow for unpleasant truths or just the "truth" that we want to hear? Truth matters these days just like it always has, but we are having a hard time agreeing on what the truth even is or how we can know it. We can start with unclogging our own ears appropriately, and the humility to admit that we are not some pure, unvarnished receptor of the truth, but that all of us interpret and make meaning based on who we are and where we've come from. If you want to be really brave, honestly ask a friend or family member what they think about your filters and biases. That will likely help uncover some things that we aren't aware of or don't want to admit, which can sting a little. But it will ultimately move us toward greater self-awareness and a greater capacity for actually knowing the truth. 

We will always have biases and filters in place, and we will always ultimately determine  meaning based on our perceptions and interpretations. But if we know what our biases and filters are, and we are brutally honest about them, we will be less prone to self-deception and much more open to wisdom and truth. As people who ultimately determine meaning for our lives, we're not always going to agree or interpret reality the same way. But that doesn't mean we have to demonize each other or that we're actually as different as it may seem. 

What if we changed one of our fundamental assumptions to this: As humans, we have more in common than what makes us different. If we focus on what unites us rather than what divides us, maybe we can work together toward understanding and the common good. Maybe someone who annoys you and you think you have nothing in common with, is actually holding up a mirror to who you are, exposing your biases, and you don't like what you see. 

What if those things that you want to dismiss can be your greatest growth opportunities? What if, as someone who determines and interprets your own meaning, you can reject the normal rhetoric and have a profound impact for good progress and unity and collaboration rather than division? What if we truly believed that it's good to have some opposition to our viewpoints, to keep us accountable and help us check our predetermined assumptions? What if God and truth and reality are infinitely bigger than our current perception, and there is great wisdom to be found in loving and befriending our "enemies" (Matthew 5:43-48)? 

Notes:

(1) I first heard this phrase in the book, Communication Theory for Christian Witness by Charles H. Kraft.

The Gift of Self-Critique

Richard Rohr once said, "The ego hates losing-- even to God."

The ego, which is all about self-preservation, cannot take criticism... at all. Self-critique, or honest self-examination, is necessary for growth and maturity. The Psalmist prayed, "You delight in truth in the inward being" (Psalm 51:6). The ego presents a story that often blinds us to what is actually present in our deepest thoughts and beliefs.

To self-critique, self-examine, admit fault, and humbly own up to our limits and wrongs, will mean we can "repent" (Gk. = "change our minds") from ways that are doing harm to ourselves and others, and turn to ways that are life giving and beneficial. But to the ego, self-critique feels like an intolerable threat to our identity. It has to win and be right. People generally say they want the truth, but when the truth is hard to hear, the ego screams "No!"

As Jack Nicholson famously said in the movie A Few Good Men...

 

"You can't handle the truth!" 

In Romans 8, the Apostle Paul talks about the "realm of the flesh" as a way of living that cannot please God and a way that does not give life. The ego, or ego-centrism, is a close parallel in modern psychological terms to the “realm of the flesh” as Paul described it. It involves self-focused, fear-based, survivalist living, which defends the ego’s story of reality at any cost- even when it is completely untrue.

We as a society seem to have a serious inability to handle self-critique. It appears we are living by the survival mechanisms of the ego/flesh on steroids. We seem way more concerned about proving ourselves right than reflecting on how we may possibly be wrong, or at least limited, in our viewpoints.

There are clear signs everywhere that we are an ego-driven, survive-rather-than-thrive culture. It's visible in our politics, religion, and social lives. It's dualistic thinking on overdrive-- either/or, black and white, us vs. them, overly simplistic thinking that makes no room for nuance or complexity or context, but relishes in blanket statements and soundbites that fit into our Twitter feeds. Social media has, in many ways, helped reduce us to these ways of thinking.

I have at times (like most of us probably have) been seduced into the dualistic thinking that ultimately reduces people into simple either/or categories, rather than complex, unique individuals made in the image of God who come from a wide variety of different backgrounds and experiences. People can't be simplified into simple either/or blanket statement categories. It is spiritually, emotionally, and intellectually lazy to do so.

Ego-driven dialogue is not motivated to actually find solutions that are good for everyone, but to simply win over the other side, because winning is everything to the ego. Again, the ego hates losing-- even to God. It feels pretty good to win an argument. It strokes the ego story and makes us feel validated and affirmed. But I think we all know that sometimes even if we win, we lose.

American Christians are sometimes the worst at fear-based ego thinking. I have heard more than enough about how we are now doomed, how our freedoms are going to suddenly disappear, how we're no longer going to be allowed to even practice Christian faith- all because of the results of an election. I hear fearful narratives all the time about how the church is losing its young people, how it’s failing in its mission, and how the nation is becoming less and less interested in a particular version of the Christian story that used to be mainstream, and how that means evil is winning. But is that the only way to interpret our present times?

It seems reasonable to me that Christians would be the ones who express an unshakable confidence in God's good plans, who are ready to rethink things when necessary (this is basic repentance), who engage in appropriate self-critique that challenges assumptions we've picked up along the way, and who continue to reimagine what God may be up to in the present time as he actively makes all things new (Rev. 21:5). Faith is not static certainty, but confidently trusting and following the One who is leading us forward into all truth (John 16:13). That means we will have to re-adjust sometimes. But rather than engaging in self-critique and listening to the prophetic tradition of the scriptures, many are simply doubling down on their right/left narratives, convinced that the other side is pure evil.

The prophets of Israel had a very specific function of critiquing their own tradition, their own people, their own identity group, and exposing idols. This practice of self-critique is unique to the Biblical tradition historically, and is crucial for any people group's survival. This was not an easy job for the prophets, for it set them up to receive all the lambasting violence of people who couldn’t handle any form of critique on their way of life. Prophets routinely exposed the idolatries of the day, which produced one of two responses: either humble repentance or angry violence. The prophets were regularly killed by mobs who couldn't hear the self-critique that laid their idols bare and exposed their sins.

Idols almost always start out as good things. I love the evolving story of the bronze snake in the Bible (see Numbers 21:4-9). What initially served as a life-saving, God-ordained gift, became an idol that had to be destroyed (2 Kings 18:4). We are tempted to do the same thing with our traditions. Something that was once life-giving and fruit-bearing for our lives easily becomes an idol that must be destroyed. Is it possible that American Christians have some idols that need to be destroyed?

Self-critique is a gift and a way forward, if we have the humility to actually hear it. Some scholars suggest Israel's ability (at least for a remnant of them) to self-critique both personally and nationally played a key role in surviving their exile to Babylon and maintaining their unique identity as a people. They had to rethink a lot of things, let go of certain expectations, and repent of previous ways of living. The words of the prophets were crucial for their survival. In the same way, Jesus followed the prophetic tradition and immediately called people to repent, to change their thinking and their current course, if they wanted to survive and receive the kingdom of God that he inaugurated in their midst. Unfortunately, many people of the time did not survive because they would not hear his critique and his warnings. They maintained their expectations and their path, which ended in horrific destruction in 70AD.

People of the time could not have imagined how different their Messiah would be than what they expected, even though he was in perfect fulfillment with the scriptures they knew. They needed a new set of lenses to reinterpret their story, and that required a willingness to let go of old assumptions and embrace the new reality unfolding before them. This can be a scary and immensely difficult thing to do- especially if we are out of practice- but Jesus is clear: we must be born again. We must become like children. We must be converted- again and again and again.

What an enormous gift it is to be able to hear prophetic self-critique and to respond, even as it grates against our established patterns, demands change, and often makes us quite uncomfortable. To despise needed critique and correction is dangerous and just plain stupid (see Prov. 6:23; 10:17; 12:1; 15:5-12). Prophetic words can really sting sometimes, but they are meant to bring rescue and salvation. Our egos are tricky, and we are easily prone to self-deception. The practice of self-critique, humble repentance, and listening to those who are different and wiser than us can counter that deception and keep us in check.

Basic humility would teach us that we don't see the whole picture, and that we can learn something from anyone, even our supposed "enemies." Political parties are not some pure, unvarnished version of the truth, but people side with them and defend them as if they are. Neither are our religious traditions or other ideologies perfect. No one gets everything right. We're human, and if we're unable to hear anyone challenge our present self-assured thinking, we'll likely dismiss it to our own folly and destruction.