Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 09.04.2006 /
In his blog entry Understanding Lostness, Richard Pool posts some of the “Laws of Lostology” from John Kramp’s book Out of their faces and into their shoes.
Here are the first three Laws as described by Richard Pool:
Law #1: Being lost can be fun
Put simply, when we begin a conversation with a non-Christian on the basis of their awareness of a need for God, we’re being naïve. Many lost people are quite happy being lost. It’s not a big issue for them. It will therefore take time for them to see any need for God.
Law #2: No one gets lost on purpose
Either through carelessness, or miscalculation or preoccupation with other things, getting lost happens.
Law #3: It’s easy to get lost
Do nothing special and you will get lost every time. Lost happens. Lost is life’s default mode. (Out of their faces p27)
Richard’s blog entry goes on to list more laws. Richard ends his blog entry with:
Have a think about your response to these laws, I find them fascinating and helpful.
How about you? How do you find them?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
1Well as the author of a book called a.k.a. Lost it cetainly captured my attention.
I agree with many of Richards insights.
I still find it disturbing that we continue to serously use the term “lost” however - (imo)it is the equivalent of calling a black person the N word. And we justify it’s usage by referring to scripture which in the mind of the lost person serves only to exacerbate the problem - kind of like fundamentalist Christians used to do (maybe some still do) with the passage about Noah and the sons of Ham etc etc for justifying slavery
At Off The Map we’ve switched to calling them the people Jesus misses most
Comment by: Ir
2It seems to me that #2 and #3 are saying, by analogy that people who aren’t Christians aren’t Christians because of carelessness, miscalculation or preoccupation with other things and/or because they’re in ‘life’s default mode’.
I don’t think those things are true of all people who aren’t Christians.
Based on my experience, some people who aren’t Christians came to their viewpoint as intentionally as some people who are Christians did.
This leads me to wonder how much understanding the author really of ‘lost people’.
Comment by: David S
3I find the “laws” interesting but rather useless. They’re useless because they’re generically applicable. By that I mean you can take almost any position, merely assume it’s the “found” position, and then notice the laws will apply to anyone not in your decided “found” position. In short the “laws” can apply to just about any position so they aren’t useful. Essentially they’re just statements of bias against people not in whatever position is decided to be the “found” position. Jim nails it by commenting on the bias in the term “lost” itself.
A more useful set of “laws” might perhaps be a more objective discussion of how to recognize what is “lost” and “found” and how to stay “found”. I think such a discussion would involve advice about making rational decisions, following the best evidence, keeping conclusions tentative, not making decisions on emotion, avoiding blind faith, etc.
Comment by: Matt Casper
4I also dislike the “lost” epithet. It’s language used by Christians that helps them do what WAY too many of them like to do most: put themselves in a position of moral superiority and authority that allows them to cheapen the views and worth of people who aren’t Christians.
And it’s systemic: “axis of evil” is a term no rational person would use to describe other nations as it’s hateful, divisive, and judgmental and will only lead to conflict… but a crusading Christian with an agenda based on beliefs and not facts, a person who is driven above all by a need for power and by a need to be in a position of moral authority? Well it fits him just fine…
Even “non-believers” is part of this systemic semantic flaw: how about I describe Christians and othe people who believe in an invisible, all-powerful being as “non-reality livers” or “fantasists?” I don’t, but it’s 100% on par with “non-believer” and “lost.”
As an atheist, I can say I am 100% not lost: I know exactly what I am and where I am. I am a carbon-based life form. I live on one of billions of countless planets, which, due to its exact location in space and history, was perfect for life forms such as mine to evolve. When I die, I die. And I’m ok with that.
So ok, Christians, let’s not freak out here: I do have a sense of what’s right and wrong, even though I have no belief in any invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing God.
I base my sense of what’s right and wrong from the fact that–like the first cell splitting, like the manatee who looks after other manatees’ offspring, like the bird that will eat its sickly young to ensure the survival of its healthy young–I am genetically predisposed to further life.
Lost? Not by a long shot.
Matt Casper
Comment by: David S
5A few additional thoughts to my above post…
Advice such as keeping conclusions tentative and always rationally following the best evidence will allow you to recognize and correct if you happen to become lost. Richard’s “laws” merely assume you’re already “found” and just make fun of those not in your position. If you happen to be lost but don’t recognize it his “laws” will actually help you stay lost!
Comment by: David S
6Oops, they’re John Kramp’s laws not Richard’s laws.
Comment by: Ir
7David, I like your point in comment #5 that a person who has a worldview which encourages me to continue checking whether I’ve gone astray, will help me become found again; whereas one that assumes no further checking need be done once I consider myself to have entered the “found” category, is likely to help me stay lost, if I ever do get lost.
Comment by: Ir
8Matt, thanks for your comments. I agree that “non-believers” also indicates bias by making believers the reference point. Non-atheists often aren’t sufficiently aware of that, imo ;-)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
9I certainly discovered this to be true in my interactions with atheists
Comment by: Ir
10There’s often an assumption among non-atheists that being atheist is a pre-Christian state; that being Christian is a further stage of enlightenment beyond not being Christian.
But sometimes being atheist is a stage beyond being Christian, reached when a Christian reexamines what he/she believed.
That this - evidently - happens is theologically awkward and is not dealt with especially well by Christians, in my experience.
Comment by: Matt Casper
11Very true, that. I think the same goes for all believers, too. What THEY believe is better than what YOU believe, or don’t believe. And this simple flaw is a major source of all the world’s problems, which is part of why I have chosen atheism.
Being an atheist frees me from having to debate why my belief is better than others.
Come to think of it, it must be tough being a Christian or any kind of believer as you always find yourself not just trying to explain the unexplainable, but explain why your unexplainable is the “right” unexplainable…
Comment by: Mike O
12A couple of interesting observations from an evangelical Christian having just read the previous 11 posts all in one sitting.
1) There is a sense here that Christians make fun of or at least put themselves above non-Christians. Now go back and read the 11 posts again from a Christians perspective, and you’ll hopefully notice an intriguing similarity … non-Christians do the same thing when speaking freely amongst themselves. You see the Christian perspective as foolish and worthy of rejection out-of-hand. How is that not placing the Christian view on a lower plane than your own?
I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m saying ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.’ Preferring ones own belief system over an opposing belief is neither wrong nor foolish. We all do it, Christians and non-Christians alike. If the requirement you place on Christians is to value the opposing view as highly as their own, then you need to do the same. I certainly didn’t see that here.
If this is what it feels like for you to go to my church (I doubt it is, but …) then no wonder you don’t come.
2) The original post was originally written to a Christian audience. Whether or not they are right in your opinion, they are like-minded and it is entirely reasonable for that group of people to see themselves as found and all others as lost. You’ve done the same thing here, among like-minded people! Atheists, for example, see themselves as ‘freed from the fetters of religion’ (found), while the rest of us squirm (to paraphrase Matt in the previous post) “just trying to explain the unexplainable [and] explain why your unexplainable is the “right” unexplainable” (lost). Same concept, only backwards … I’m lost and you’re found. It’s simply a matter of perspective.
3) The first law, after reading all of this, is apparently true.
Comment by: Matt Casper
13Nice stuff, Mike.
However, I would say that I don’t call Christians or other believers “lost” or “found” and would like the same from them, and from everyone.
And I think the larger question is this: are belief systems like Christianity unifying or divisive? And I would have to say that religious belief systems are, by nature, divisive, because they all have parameters for what’s “right” and “wrong,” which invariably, inevitably means conflict.
Being an atheist is an easier and more peaceful existence, because I do not need to sway anyone to my belief system. Nor do I see people/events through the filter of my belief system.
I look at the facts as they arise. I won’t lie: I do have a few “ethical litmus tests” that I use on the sources of said facts (e.g., are you a bigot? are you violent? are you intellectually curious?), be they from someone I meet in the street, or some talking head on the tube.
I understand the comfort a belief system provides: it codifies your existence, and gives you a framework for how to behave in most every situation. But it’s a double-edged sword as it forces you to 1) filter everything you take in through your beliefs or 2) filter out anything that doesn’t fit your beliefs.
And I think that is what makes belief systems divisive. They have an incredible impact on what you see and hear. They make people unable to communicate or listen without an agenda.
Which is why I think that without belief systems like Christianity, Judaism, Muslimism, etc.—and regardless of whether there is or isn’t a god—the world would be a more peaceful, objective place.
Comment by: Ir
14I posted Matt’s ‘larger question’ as a new blog entry:
Are belief systems unifying or divisive?
Comment by: Ir
15Mike wrote:
Some like-minded groups do better than others at not mischaracterizing ‘outsiders’ but nevertheless the temptation to do so is always there in a like-minded group. That’s why I like mixed groups.
Comment by: Siamang
16Mike O: Good points, all great for the conversation. I have one perspective to add. You wrote:
I’d like to examine your definition of “out of hand.” Is “after being raised a Christian and following Christianity for decades, giving it a full consideration and then moving away from belief in it” really dismissing it out of hand?
Because that would describe most atheists I’ve met, and most atheists posting here. It describes me to a certain point.
You may think we dismiss something you say “out of hand”. But for many of us, these are not new thoughts. They are things we’ve given quite a bit of mental consideration over many decades of our lives… many of those decades while we were residing within belief.
I think the key is not to dismiss a PERSON, even while we might dismiss their beliefs. I rather enjoy considering the beliefs of others so that I may understand the person better.
Comment by: Mike O
17I take your point, Siamang. One thing I’ve learned in the last two months or so is that a previous assumption of mine was not accurate. I had assumed that most non-Christians had never been Christians. Sure, it happens, but not often.
I went to a debate on creation vs evolution once, and the atheist debating for the side of evolution was a former Christian minister. I was very intrigued how that could happen and thought, “How odd!”
I’m learning that it’s not so odd, after all.
Comment by: Mike O
18Matt said: However, I would say that I don’t call Christians or other believers “lost” or “found” and would like the same from them, and from everyone.
Yes, lost/found is Christian terminology, but the philosophical positioning is what I was getting at.
Comment by: Ir
19Mike, that’s one thing which struck me as seriously missing from Understanding Lostness. I didn’t get the sense the author knows what you now know - that a number of ‘lost’ people were once Christians.
Not only that - some of the ones who weren’t ever Christians, like Hemant, the ebay atheist, have done a lot of reading and their atheism is a well-researched, well thought-out position.
And some of these atheists, whether they ever were Christians or not, have done such things as written detailed rebuttals to all the favorite Christian apologetics books.
Some of these atheists have responses to more arguments for Christianity than most Christians will ever know.
I don’t see how any Christian who hasn’t realized this can claim to ‘understand lostness’.
The typical evangelical Christian response to such knowledge among atheists, in my experience, is to label them ‘hardened’. That gives the Christians an excuse not to ‘waste time’ on them. But I think that’s missing the point. Such atheists are knowledgeable; that’s all. If having knowledge makes people less easy to persuade that Christianity is true, Christians should take a serious look at why that is, rather than avoiding the issue by deciding they are not open to God, so, forget about them.
Comment by: Mike O
20I’ve spoken to Richard, and this is new for him, too in the last year or so (if I understood him correctly). This is something that he is trying to relay to his church and board to get them thinking outside the four walls of their church to the world they so misunderstand.
For someone to whom this was fairly recently somewhat of a ‘news flash,’ I think Richard is doing quite well trying to convey to Christian people, people who really don’t understand lostness, what he has come to understand.
He and I are in a similar position. While he is a pastor of his church and I am not, we are both trying to get our churches to see that we have misunderstood those who do not number themselves among us. And from the “how do I give my church a clue” perspective, what he wrote rang very true to me.
I just went out and read it again, and other than the fact that he uses the term lost a lot - a term he apparently has not learned to be sensitive to yet, I’m curious as to what he wrote there that made you think he didn’t understand lostness.
I might not see it because he and I agree and I’m reading it from his perspective. What do you see? IMO, based purely on what he wrote there, that he understands quite well.
Comment by: Ir
21Mike wrote:
…a big one for me is that it’s not necessarily a ‘default’ position.
Comment by: Ir
22By the way, Mike, it’s neat to hear you’ve spoken to Richard. I appreciate how each of you are trying to help your church communities understand ‘outsiders’ better. It’s always challenging taking on a role like that.
Comment by: Mike O
23I’ll say!
It’s coming along. It’ll take a while to turn this big boat around.