Human Trafficking Texts in the New Testament: Acts 16 and John 4:Literary and Theological Connections

Our family was invited to attend church with some good friends this morning.  We enjoyed our experience getting to see a lot of people we get to see everyday at school.  In our Bible class this morning, the text was Acts 16.  My friend did a great job leading the conversation.  This gave me a great opportunity to retrieve my knowledge on Paul’s second missionary journey.  It is true, at least in my experiences that when reading the Bible new observations and connections frequently occur.  This morning was one such experience of a new observation and connection.

Paul’s encounter with Lydia the seller of purple and the slave-girl with the spirit of divination in Acts 16 is a text that has anchor points that usually take my attention to some of the obvious themes in the text (Paul’s first convert in Europe, Paul and Silas put in jail for causing an uprising, and late night singing that led to a jailbreak), but this morning my mind wondered down a slightly different path investigating more subtle details of this narrative.  I guess when I say “more subtle details” it is because I was taught this text multiple times with a focus on the latter themes that developed a particular lens or a model of prior knowledge (intentional Bayesian brain reference) that allowed me to continually read over some details and only focus on others.  This morning I found myself focusing on the lesser details that may actually be the more significant details than Paul and Silas’ song induced, divine jailbreak. 

So, Acts chapter 16 gets off to a distracting start, especially, if you have just finished reading chapter 15.  The few verses leading to chapter 16 is Luke, the writer of Acts, describing the relational split between Paul and Barnabas.   Probably providential, Paul decides to take Silas and pick up Timothy on the way and head in a different direction than Barnabas and a young John Mark.  Paul has his Macedonian vision redirecting his itinerary to Europe.  While in Europe, the sequence of events seems to loosely parallel a few events from Jesus’ ministry.  It is important to know that my mental anchor or “prior” was reading again the ways the slave-girl was being trafficked by the men in her life.  This is much more than a jailbreak text!

By way of an exegetical disclaimer, I am not suggesting that my thoughts and literary parallels in this essay are either original or necessarily required in reading Acts 16.  With that said, the scene in Acts 16 conjures up literary and contextual parallels with Jesus’ ministry and events in John 4 and Mark 5.  I will be toggling between Acts 16, John 4, and Mark 5 for the remainder of this essay.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Lydia Seller of Purple

Paul gets a divine redirection from a vision to travel to Europe.  We find out later it is because God has two particular women in mind for this redirection.  Lydia is already a believer, but God opens her heart and she and her family are baptized.  Undoubtedly, Lydia is already an influential and wealthy woman.  However, prior to Paul’s encounter with well-respected Lydia, he has a juxtaposing encounter with another kind of woman. 

The text says the slave-girl was under the spell of an evil spirit as well as the trafficking control of the men of power in her community.  What is interesting is the spirit of Python controlling this woman immediately identifies Paul, “These men are servants of the Most High God.” Apparently, the slave-girl persisted in following Paul and Silas around identifying them.  After much frustration, Paul casts the spirit out of the slave-girl.  This created a major

Oracle of Delphi

problem since this girl was bringing economic gain to the male power holders in the city.  As well-connected, powerful men often do, they conspire with the rulers of the city and have Paul and Silas beaten and thrown in jail. 

Side bar conversation, this is actually a great text on the power of God over the established powers of evil.  Time and again in this story, the power of God overwhelms the power of evil.  While it is exegetically consistent to identify this text as a baptismal text with Lydia and her family in the opening scene obeying the Gospel and being baptized and the closing scene a baptism of the Philippian jailer, there is another sub-narrative taking place as it relates to race, class, and gender.  The gender piece is of particular interest to me.  I will discuss later in the essay.  Also, don’t miss the metaphoric connection between the Philippian jailor’s attempted suicide, physical self-inflicted death, which leads to his baptism (spiritual death of self).  Theologically, baptism is not a work per se.  It is a spiritual suicide of sorts with the individual making the profession to no longer allow self to govern but to submit to the Savior for liberation from the enslavement to sin.

Jesus and the Samaritan Woman at the Well

In some ways, this parallels Jesus itinerary change in his travel from Judea back to Galilee by targeting Samaria in John 4.  From both the text and extra biblical evidence, we learn that Jews when taking that same route circumvent Samaria.  But in Jesus’ case, he has a particular woman in mind that compels him to break from the social and cultural norms of his day (Jews do not associate with Samaritans, especially, Samaritan women) to bring salvation to a lady that was trafficked by the men in her community. John’s description of Jesus’ conversation reveals this woman’s potential social utility among the men in her town, “The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus *said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” 19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.”

Back to Paul’s encounter with the slave-girl in Acts 16:16, we read in the text that this was a woman that was trafficked by the men in her town for economic gain.  She was inflicted with a spirit of divination as described by most major translations. After consulting the original language, the literal rendering should be “the spirit of Python”.  Thanks to my Bible scholar friend Dr. Curtis Elliott, he provided some useful context that the spirit of Python was closely connected to the priestesses that supported the pagan temples and priests of the Oracle of

Delphi.  These priestesses were ladies who possessed a prophetic spirit that was deployed after the temple frenzy of animal sacrifices and sexual orgies. 

Similarly, the Samaritan woman in John 4 quickly identified Jesus as a prophet.  Later in John 4 the woman proclaims, “27 At this point His disciples came, and they were amazed that He had been speaking with a woman, yet no one said, “What do You seek?” or, “Why do You speak with her?” 28 So the woman left her waterpot, and went into the city and *said to the men, 29 “Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?” 30 They went out of the city, and were coming to Him.”

Here are a few literary and theological connections to consider between the texts:

• ·      In both passages, there is a divine itinerary redirection. 
• ·      In both passages, the central character is a woman forced into a social caste system that renders her marginalized by the men in her community. 
• ·      In both passages, the women make identifying proclamations that reveal the presence of God. In both passages, the messenger of the Good News (Gospel) brings salvation to the ladies usurping the power structures of human trafficking. There are overt sexual overtones in the Samaritan woman and covert sexual connotations with the role of the slave-girl and her potential utility to Delphic temple practices with her spirit of Python.
• ·      In both passages, the messenger of the Good News is admonished and or punished.  Jesus is admonished by his disciples for his elicit encounter with a “dirty dog Samaritan women,” and Paul and Silas are beaten and put in prison.
• ·      Cure ball connection, in Mark 5 the man possessed with a legion of demons immediately recognizes Jesus and identifies him as “Son of the Most High God.” Jesus casts out the demons and sends them into a herd of swine.  Notice the literary connection between the slave-girl in Act 16 identifying Paul and Silas as servants of the Most High God and the demoniac identifying Jesus as the Son of the Most High God.

Conclusion:

The literary connections are interesting, but the theological connections are most important.  In all three passages, we see the power of God to bring about freedom from enslavement, value to the marginalized, destruction of systems of human trafficking that serve to lessen and devalue, and hope for the weak over the strong.  These are the same themes that resonate today.  It would seem that humanity has advanced beyond the systems of gendering for the purpose of trafficking and enslaving over the course of 2,000 years, and yet, we see some of the evil power structures at work today.  The difference, today we seem to be a bit more sophisticated in masking these systems.  Further, unlike Jesus and Paul, the Christian community today struggles with both identifying these evil power structures as well as not syncretizing with such structures.  This last statement requires some explanation.

At least in our culture, we continue to directly and indirectly support systems of economy that specialize in sexualizing our girls.  While today’s places of trafficking are not ancient pagan temples with priestesses serving as prostitutes and engaging in orgies of sin; instead, they are every major NFL stadium across our country.  I am thinking of the NFL environment in my own city that prominently features pole dancers and plenty of libations to keep the crowd in frenzy status.  The experts that specialize in fighting human trafficking tell us one of the biggest sporting events in our country for trafficking is Super Bowl weekend.

Thankfully, the message of the Bible still resonates today.  The same God that put on human flesh to rescue humanity from sin’s slavery continues to provide the same salvation given to two unlikely ladies in our text.  Similar to both ladies featured in Acts 16 and John 4, in the kingdom of God, gender is not an excuse to enslave, dehumanize, or marginalize.  While sin’s bent is to possess for the purpose of re-imaging humanity away from God’s original design, Jesus entered our world to restore humanities image to holiness and relationship with the Creator.  It is no coincidence Satan corrupted and confused Eve and Adam in the Garden for the purpose of trafficking humanity for sin.  That original spiritual trafficking continues today.  There is only one source of salvation and liberation. Jesus, Son of the Most High God!!

Stop losing sleep at night worrying about what others are thinking.........“The Stories We Weave In Our Minds Are Almost Always More Dramatic Than Reality Supports

We have all had the experience of walking into a crowded room or down our high school hallway at one time or another and notice a group of people that appear to be talking about us.  Uncertain if we are actually the subject of their conversations, we begin to imagine in our heads or at least start putting together an elaborate story of what they must be sharing.  Countless are the high school drama episodes I have mediated over the years that have their origins with, “She was talking about me behind my back!” or “I know that sub-tweet was about me.”

In many of these cases, the offense is rarely as bad as the social victim has imagined in their head.  In fact, the narrative constructed by the “person talked about” is almost always way more creatively negative than what actually is the case.  Of course, this often times leads to greater conflict and a deeper sense of hurt that requires more time to sort through to bring about conflict resolution.  While some may think this particular social tendency is gender specific, the cases over the years in my experience are about even.

There is something about a good story that draws us in and captivates our imagination.  In fact, if the story isn’t good enough we will intuitively make the story better by adding our own “sizzle.”  I suspect the relationships that fall into the neutral position do so because of one or both individuals in the relationship have construed their own narratives in their head that exasperate the initial conflict.  Unfortunately, there requires very little if any evidence for us to construct a narrative or interpretation of a social experience vis-à-vis “I heard my name being mentioned in a crowded room when I walked in,” for us to hold that narrative in our brains.  

In these cases, our brains are not great at doing social-CSI to uncover the facts of a particular social interpretation for validation prior to making up our own neural narrative (story making).  All we really need is a sound bite or two, a perceived stare, and some ambiguous body language and we have a full-blown drama script directing our actions.  To add insult to injury, the individual or individuals that are the characters in our story making that get our well intentioned stare-back, cheeky comment, and closed-off body language begin to develop their own dramatic story and there you have it a two-week long relational fracture that in some cases never really gets resolved and lead to inflammatory social media posts. 

There is power in a good story.  It is no coincidence that some of the best public speakers that hold our attention and bring us back for more are also great storytellers.   The reason we are attracted to a good story is because God made us with a brain that performs storytelling daily. 

Dr. Gazzaniga

In the 1980s, Dr. Gazzaniga added to decades of research on split-brain patients by identifying specific left and right hemisphere brain function.  Before going much further, it is important to dispel the neuromyth that some people are right brain or left brain dominant people.  The fact is we are both right and left brained dependent.  Connected by a large nerve bundle of white tissue, the corpus callosum facilitates the massive web of neural networks allowing the right and left hemispheres to talk to each other to perform important tasks.  Through the attempts to unlock the neurological mystery of epilepsy, brain researchers explored the practice of cutting the connecting corpus callosum tissue splitting the patients brains.  What they discovered is that they were able to localize the neural storms caused by seizures to one side of the brain providing some relief to the patients.  However, the predicted brain damage of the split-brain procedure did not render the impact originally imagined. 

The first patients in the 1950s that underwent this procedure experienced very little slippage in I.Q., perception, and brain function.  Over time through clever research methods, researchers discovered that split-brain patients were unable to perform certain tasks.  For example, the “Fork” experiment revealed that when the patient was given a picture of a fork using only their right hemisphere, they were unable to connect to the language center of the brain located in their left hemisphere.  The right hemisphere, which “saw” the fork, was unable to generate the language independent of the left hemisphere needed to “say” fork.  Ironically, the right hemisphere had control over the patient’s hand to “draw” fork upon command.  From this set of research, it was concluded the left hemisphere was the intellectual-word bank and it could be severed from the right side of the brain without significant I.Q. slippage.  And the right side was determined to be the visual-spatial expert, the artist.  The two worked in concert as “co-pilots” to accomplish our everyday tasks. 

By the 1980s we learned even more through split-brain research to better understand our biological bent for story telling.  Benedict Carey, in his book How We Learn: The Surprising Truth About When, Where, and Why It Happens, tells the story of Dr. Gazzaniga’s research.  Carey describes one of Gazzaniga’s experiments this way, “He flashed a patient two pictures: the man’s left hemisphere saw a chicken’s foot, and his right hemisphere saw a snow scene. (Remember, the left is where language skills are centered, and the right is holistic, sensual; it has no words for what it sees.)  Dr. Gazzaniga then had the man choose related images for each picture from an array visible to both hemispheres, say, a fork, a shovel, a chicken, and a toothbrush.  The man chose a chicken to go with the foot, and a shovel to go with the snow. So far, so good.”

What Dr. Gazzaniga discovered next helps explain the high school drama I described earlier. The man’s left hemisphere accurately made the connection between the chicken and the foot, and he had the words and a good explanation for making that connection.  Remember the man’s left hemisphere did not see the picture of the snow, only the shovel.  As it turns out, the man instinctively chose the shovel and it just so happened to be correct.  But when Gazzaniga asked for his explanation, the man responded, “The shovel is needed to clean up after the chicken.”  With an absence of evidence, the left hemisphere engages in story telling.  The man came up with his own story that explained the use of the shovel since his left hemisphere did not have a chance to see the picture of the snow scene.  Carey puts it this way, “The left hemisphere takes whatever information it gets and tells a tale to conscious awareness.  It does this continually in daily life, and we’ve all caught it in the act-overhearing our name being whispered, for example, and filling in the blanks with assumptions about what people are gossiping about.”  Succinctly put, our left hemisphere is more than an interpreter.  It’s a story maker.

In conclusion, the lesson learned is probably not a new piece of information.  Be careful jumping to conclusions, it may actually be all in your head.  This is not to say that there are never any cases of gossip or that the your assumptions are always wrong; however, my own experience tells me that more often than not our minds tend to weave a more elaborate and dramatic story in our head of what we are visually and socially experiencing than what reality fully supports.  In a more practical way, the last time you gave a speech and mispronounced a word or answered a question incorrectly in class causing some immediate embarrassment; resist the temptation of allowing your left hemisphere the opportunity of fixating on those events.  It may actually be the case that very few people caught the mispronunciation and most have already forgotten the wrong answer in class. 

Second application, Jesus’ ministry was full of great episodes of storytelling.  This just makes sense doesn’t it?  After all, He was present and involved when God created humanity and designed the complexities of our brains.  He already knew that we are a species that specialize in stories.  To my preacher friends, find good stories to augment your homiletics.  P.S.  A good rule to live by when deploying the art of storytelling in your sermons, make sure most of your stories are not centered around YOU!  lol

News Flash: Your Success is NOT because of You.": A modern day allegory that helps to illustrate the best love story every told.

(For copyright purposes I made this video from clips from footage provided by Ironman. The song Grace Flows Downs is performed by Christinia Nockles)


You need to watch the video prior to reading the blog. :) 


The popular worldview of Deism that flourished in the late 17^th and 18^th century espoused a view that God, the Supreme Being that created all things, got the universe and life started, set in motion the natural laws to govern creation, and then committed the ultimate act of abandonment.  Put differently, He got the earth spinning and walked away.  Interestingly, this was the dominant worldview of the framers of our Constitution of the United States.  It is a well-accepted belief that our framers were Christians.  And as much as Thomas Jefferson and others had a high tolerance for the Bible as well as citing the Bible in their works, there is very little to suggest they articulated key New Testament doctrines of salvation made possible by grace through faith, Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, or that salvation is made possible only through Jesus.  In other words, their deism allowed them to have plenty of intellectual room for the existence and role of God, but their deism lacked the personal intimate details of the same God that put on human flesh for the purpose of restoring them back into a right relationship with Himself. 

Unlike the preferred intellectual deistic worldview of the 18^th century, the Bible provides plenty of evidence that our Heavenly Father created with a purpose for relationship.  God did not leave the pinnacle of his creation, humanity, to be parented by a set of natural laws.  Instead, He created us for a love relationship.  “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.” The Psalmist describes a Heavenly Father that took a

personal interest in his own conception in Psalms 139:13-14.  The Old Testament profit Jeremiah speaks of the Heavenly Father’s love awareness of us before we were even formed in our mothers womb Jeremiah 1:5.  These two passages provide a picture of a Creator that is intimately involved in his creation.  


These are great passages to cite when families experience babies that are perfectly healthy and grow and develop without any issues.  But what about the families that experience the deep pain of miscarriage, stillbirths, or babies that will grow and live the rest of their lives with debilitating diseases?  Did God somehow mess up in the in vitro “knitting” process? Or, did God always intend, before conception, that a person would be born with significant challenges? I am treading lightly here because only by the grace of God have we been blessed with three healthy babies.  I cannot begin to understand the pain so many families have to experience. 

Where was God when Ricky Hoyt was strangled by his own mother’s umbilical cord while in vitro causing tremendous brain damage coupled with cerebral palsy?  The story of Ricky and his dad Dick is well documented by now.  I was first introduced to this story over ten years ago, and when I see footage of this father’s love for his son, I am still brought to tears.  For those who are unfamiliar with this family’s story, Ricky was rendered paralyzed and lacked the ability to communicate verbally.  At a young age with the help of computer technology, Ricky was able to talk to his father.  For years there were questions if Ricky even had the brain development to understand his parent’s attempts of communicating.  One morning Dick decided to take his son on a 5K jog pushing his son’s wheelchair the entire time.  After the run, Ricky communicated the message to his dad, “I have never felt more alive than when you took me on the run.”  This ignited an explosion of love in his dad’s heart that lead to intense training and Ironman triathlons and marathons for the next twenty-years. 

To me, this family’s story provides a much bigger narrative that helps to connect God’s desire to rescue us from our sin disease through the use of allegory and metaphor.  Ricky’s significant limitations provide another way of framing our spiritual limitations.  The idea that a person paralyzed with cerebral palsy could compete and finish an Ironman triathlon is the perfect definition of “impossible.”  Similarly, the idea that we could save ourselves from our sin disease through anything other than faith and God’s gracious gift of salvation is equally “impossible.”  And, yet, there remains a tendency for us to revert to a works-based relationship with Jesus.  A “boot-strap” theology that relies on individuals pulling themselves

up from their mistakes, mess-ups, and addictions, to somehow present themselves as fixed and healthy before God.  The “boot-strap” approach of Christianity may resonate with us Americans because we have a proud history of growing a nation from nothing to a global superpower.  American ingenuity is the false front that continually derails our faith dependence on Jesus.

The metaphor of Dick towing his son 2.4 miles in the ocean, carrying his son on his bike for 100 miles, and pushing his son 25 miles all in succession illustrates the way God sustains us in our life event.  Metaphorically, the footage of the Hoyt’s is the great reminder that just when we forget our spiritual limitations and lack of righteousness and begin thinking that somehow we are doing life on our own, achieving success through our own abilities, and bringing our own self-righteousness before God, we realize that God is doing ALL of the heavy lifting.  He is empowering us, sustaining us, blessing us, and most of all sharing His righteousness so that we may be presented clean and whole in His presence.  If there were ever a reminder of our human frailties when it comes to our own spiritual progress, this video is it. 

Probably my favorite piece of footage from the video below is the joy experienced by Ricky when they finish this particular event.  It is as if Ricky himself swam the 2.4 miles, biked the 100 miles, and ran the 25 miles.  The look of accomplishment on Ricky’s face gets me every time.  This scene allegorizes what I think the scene will be in heaven.  I think there will be a sense of joy and completeness when we enter the presence of our Heavenly Father who created us, rescued us, and sustained us.  The power of this video and the Hoyt story as it relates to God’s love for us is there are characteristics of our Heavenly Father that we will never experience if we never have to experience tragedy.  Please, please, please do not interpret this short essay as a thorough answer to the heart-breaking questions that some parents will ask their entire lives regarding the loss of their children.  In fact, I have my own questions about tragedies I ask everyday.  And that will never change for me this side of heaven.  But, this video may open the aperture a little wider putting on full display that when we were powerless to rescue ourselves, God put on human flesh and in His son Jesus, made it possible for us to compete in our own life event. For most people, their life event will be full of heartache, pain, and tragedy.  But rest in the assurance, that when our tragedies occur and render us powerless, there is ONE who remains all powerful to draw closer than ever before to get us through it.  The beauty of this reality is that God just doesn't get us through, but He also demonstrates elements of his love that would never be experienced if not for a Heavenly Father that grieves with us for the sake of bring about heart healing.  

As you watch this video, try to see yourself in Ricky’s position.  You are so loved that your Heavenly Father is so compelled to do anything and everything to be back in relationship with you.  And if you happen to be living under the false impression that you are flourishing because of your own sweat equity, may the scenes of this video be a gentle reminder that on your best day in the presence of God you are completely powerless to even take care of your own basic needs.  However, you have a Creator that has promised to finish your race for you if only you are courageous enough to trust and believe.  Be confident in this, “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” Phil 1:6

"I don't mind debating issues because I am usually always right!": How neuroscience can help us make better decisions.

Psychologists have been interested for decades in two modes of thinking that have been termed System 1 and System 2.  Daniel Kahneman, psychologist and 2002 Nobel Prize winner, describes the significance of System 1 and System 2 thinking in his best-selling book Thinking, Fast and Slow.  This blog will rely on the research shared by Kahneman to help identify the brain processes taking place "under the hood" so to speak that have relevance in our decision-making.  I am most interested in how System 1 and System 2 operate in tandem in the ways we develop, maintain, and communicate our beliefs.  It may be surprising to know that some of our strongest held beliefs (theology) may in fact be a result of a dominant, territorial System 1 and a “lazy” System 2. 

 

We are learning from the neuroscience community that our brains are much more than a

2.2lb lump of tissue that serves as our command center for our bodies.  Parenthetically, the weight of the brains of a Sperm whale is about 15lbs and an elephant is 8.8lbs.  What separate the human brain from other species are the complexities of our brain and the benefits of having a networked “upper” and “lower” brain organ.  The upper brain is typically associated with executive function located in our highly developed frontal lobes.  Lower function is typically associated with automatic, instinctive action like fight or flight reaction and other basic survival actions.  In contrast, higher brain function allows humans to exercise abstract thinking, reasoning, and complex analysis that transcend basic animal instinct to hunt and survive. 

Here is a short list providing a simple explanation to illustrate the types of function in each System. 

Automatic activities attributed to System 1:

·      Detect that one object is more distant than another.

·      Orient to the source of a sudden sound.

·      Complete the phrase “bread and ……”

·      Make a “disgust face” when shown a horrible picture.

·      Detect hostility in a voice.

·      Answer to 2+2=?

·      Read words on large billboards.

·      Drive a car on an empty road.

·      Find a strong move in chess (if you are a chess master).

·      Understand simple sentences.

·      Recognize that a “meek and tidy soul with a passion for detail” resembles an occupational stereotype.

Highly diverse operations of System 2:

·      Brace for the starter gun in a race.

·      Focus attention on the clowns in the circus.

·      Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.

·      Look for a woman with white hair.

·      Search memory to identify a surprising sound.

·      Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.

·      Monitor the appropriateness of your behavior in a social situation.

·      Count the occurrences of the letter “a” in a page of text.

·      Tell someone your phone number.

·      Park in a narrow space (for most people except garage attendants).

·      Fill out a tax form.

·      Check the validity of a complex logical argument.

There are a few particular rules as it relates to the function and relationship of Systems 1 and Systems 2 that help explain why we do what we do sometimes.

First, System 1 remains in the “on” position taking the bulk of the work as long as System 2 permits.  Second, System 2 is considered to be “lazy” that is to say it prefers to let System 1 do the work since the operation of System 2 takes more energy and uses more of the brain’s network.  Third, when faced with difficult or complex questions, sometimes our brain would rather defer to System 1 with an easier answer rather than deploy System 2. 

As you can see from the list of System 1 and 2 functions, System 1 is our intuitive command center.  Imagine going to the Apple store for the specific purpose of buying the latest iphone because your old phone is broke.  In dealing with the sales staff, you realize the phone you really want is out of stock and needs to be ordered and will take a few weeks; however, if you would settle for a lesser model you could purchase a phone that is on the shelf.  This is similar to the way our brains make intuitive decisions as well as form opinions.  System 1 has a limited “stock” of options (i.e. well established beliefs, opinions, and intuitive feelings) along with limited brain function (i.e. does not enlist the help of specific brain networks that would allow for deeper thinking or even thinking that would overturn the System 1's “stock” of answers.) Remember, System 1 remains in the “on” position because it is the most efficient way for our brains to function. 

This helps to explain Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” factor.  Our brains, via System 1, have developed a quick acting, ready response to many of the decisions we make throughout our day.  Some refer to this as their gut feeling or their intuition.  It is important to know that I am not necessarily saying that some of the decisions we make are not accurate or even good when using only System 1.  I am saying that if not careful, our brains may settle for the “easier” less “critical” route in making discerning, analytical decisions.  Remember the number one rule of neuron relationship in our brains.  The more they fire together; the more they wire together.  Over time, this creates a super highway in our brain.  Using the metaphor of a super highway, our brains have a well-established road system that carries our thoughts through well-established mapping or network.  Put simply, a person that has always believed that a button down dress shirt should never be worn with jeans when prompted by the option of wearing a dress shirt this way, their System 1 will default to its “stock” answer which is “dress shirts never go with jeans.”  This becomes a “no brainer” because the information super highway carries the dress shirt/jeans decision very quickly through the mental map using deeply entrenched road systems to conclude the answer.  It may be said that since System 2 is never engaged on this decision, the chance of a different outcome let alone an honest debate with a fashion savvy expert is rendered useless.

Second, System 2 is “lazy” not wishing to be in the “on” position as long as System 1 is engaged.  There has to be a conscious decision to turn System 1 “off” and engage or switch to the “on” position System 2.  There is a built in weakness with System 2 that has to be mentioned.  Kahneman defines the term “Heuristic” as the simple procedure that helps find adequate, though often imperfect, answers to difficult questions.  He points out that this term comes from the same root as “Eureka.”  The implication of this relationship is that we may prefer making big life decisions never really engaging the brain System best equipped to arrive at the best decision.  The term “lazy” in this context is a preloaded term that explains that the human brain prefers efficiency instead of hard work. 

Put differently, “thinking hurts” because it takes more of the brain’s energy.  With survival being the brain’s primary goal, consuming energy and carefully budgeting the brain’s resources are vital. To understand this rule, think about the number of times a person would rather read a Cliff Note of a book instead of working through the actual book itself.  Think about the number of times a person would rather revert to “stock” positions on their political views instead of considering the argument that seem to challenge their ideology.  Think about the number of times people make purchase decisions based on very little relevant information about the product being purchased.  You get the idea?  Kahneman points out a very important characteristic of System 2, “System 2 is ultimately in charge with slowing down System 1 and impose logical analysis.”  Self-criticism is one of the functions of System 2; however, when it comes to our attitude and emotions System 2 makes for a better defense attorney than a prosecutor; an endorser rather than an enforcer.

This rule has implications in church work and the study of and use of Scripture that will be discussed later in this essay.

Third, when faced with difficult or complex questions our brains would rather revert to an easier answer even at the expense of not answering the initial question presented.  This rule is an illustration of what has been previously explained in the relationships between System 1 and System 2.  Kahneman supports this position, “System 2 often follows the path of least effort and endorses a heuristic answer without much scrutiny of whether it is truly appropriate.  You will not be stumped, you will not have to work very hard, and you may not even notice that you did not answer the question you were asked.  Furthermore, you may not realize that the target question was difficult, because an intuitive answer to it came readily to mind.”  The practice of substituting an easier question for a difficult question is common strategy implemented by System 2.  Remember, thinking hurts and takes energy and resources that may be used for survival.  

The practice of substitution occurs all the time in churches and formation of doctrines.  I remember growing up thinking that the Bible was one big book of individual verses that may be lifted at will to prove a point. The use of chapters and verse designations added later in the translation process add to this practice.  The technical term for this type of biblical use is “proof-texting.”  In other words, if a person was inclined to hold the position that baptism is not an important part of the faith formation process, they may like to cite Luke 23:32-43 the thief on the cross narrative.  After all, Jesus chose to save at least one person without the use of baptism.  Therefore, it must be the case that baptism is not necessary.  Notice the substitution of a singular event in Scripture, that is not even a salvation text, for the much more difficult question of analyzing the broader scope of Scripture regarding the occurrences and frequency of baptism. 

Another favorite proof-texting error occurs with the use of 1 Corinthians 14:40, “But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.” This is the “stock” answer to anything in a church that may be different or a deviation from custom and heritage.  It is funny to think in my lifetime, to be more precise within the last twenty-years, there were church splits over the use of over-head projectors in lieu of using hymnals for church singing.  Did you notice I used “over-head projector” in that sentence.  My own kids have no concept of what that is since all they know are laptop projectors and Apple TV devices.  The point is that 1 Corinthians 14:40 was somehow used to suggest that using technology over hymnals would somehow be an infraction of 1 Corinthians 14:40 because technology is not decent or orderly. 

My favorite proof-text that was actually used against me on the discussion of whether or not

it is sinful for a Christian to consume alcohol is found in Habakkuk 2:15, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk.” This passage was cited to me as a scriptural command against drinking.  The person deploying this passage failed to cite the entire verse, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies!” This is humorous because not only did the individual substitute a host of scriptural references that condone alcohol and some that even present wine as a blessing from God for the quick win in an argument by citing part of one verse out of context, but he even reduced the proof-text even smaller or simpler to make his point.  There is no question to me what was actually taking place in this particular discussion.  My counterpart held to a very strong personal view about alcohol, which I respect.  It was much easier to lean on System 1 because at least his personal convictions could remain in tact at the end of the discussion. Plus, it would take a lot of critical analysis to work through the entire scope of scripture along with challenging self-views which is often more painful than doing the expository work.

In conclusion, knowing about System 1 and System 2 provides a framework to better understand some of the reasons why we make our decisions.  It is important to reiterate that just because our brains would prefer to take the path of least resistance does not necessarily mean we end up with wrong or even bad decisions.  It may be that this information is helpful in our own interpersonal communication.  There are reasons few major paradigm shifts or theological shifts occur at the proverbial office water-cooler.  More often than not, to engage in both personal and religious matters takes a lot of patience, time, and a lot of critical self-reflection.  Unfortunately, pastors and church bureaucracy have little built in time to give individuals the time needed to unlearn their long held beliefs in order to potentially relearn new ones.  It just may be that our ways of doing faith formation and discipleship in our churches fail to take into consideration one of the most important variables in the equation.  Our brains.  

This essay is not suggesting that we are to jettison our strongly held beliefs. Instead, take time to question and do the analysis needed to periodically run your own belief systems through the filter of objectivity.  This is best done by surrounding yourself with people you trust that hold a different view than you and are willing to give you their best reasons for disagreeing with you.  In turn, be willing to receive the best arguments that are contrary to your view and resist the temptation of substituting the simple answer for the complex answer.  Finally, take into consideration that the media specializes in targeting our System 1 functions, and they are winning in shaping our ideologues, our purchases, and our belief systems.