Ethics

Review: A Letter to My Anxious Christian Friends

/ rtrube54 / 1 Comment

letter-to-anxious-christian-friends

A Letter to My Anxious Christian Friends, David P. Gushee. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016.

Summary: Written as a series of letters, this is an exploration of what it means as a Christian to both love and be anxious for one’s country as people of faith committed to the global kingdom of God.

David P. Gushee thinks there are good warrants for American Christians who love their country to be anxious–the erosion of a Christian consensus, the economic jolts we have faced as a country, the deep fractures along lines of race and values that we have experienced, the violence of our streets, and the instances where police have also exercised force unjustly. Written in the run up to the 2016 presidential election, Gushee explores what it means both to face the issues that arouse such fear, and step back from the fractured political discourse to try to think as Christians about what it means to live into our faith instead of being governed by our fears (and perhaps those who play upon them).

He writes:

“…the assumption lying behind this book is that it is okay for Christians to care enough about the country they live in to be anxious about it. It is, indeed, perfectly acceptable for Christians to be patriots, to love their country with a robust and full heart. Many of my fellow Christian leaders do not agree with me on this, and they have good reasons for their views. Mainly their worry is that American Christians, in particular, have a hard time distinguishing between God and country when they attempt to love and serve both. I think that I can point to a path of critical, informed patriotism through the various reflections offered here. But I acknowledge that I do love this country, and precisely because I do, I want it to be the best country it can be. If you agree, read on.”

The rest of the book consists of twenty reflections (letters) divided into two parts. The first eight are an exploration of who we are as a country of Americans, the place of Christians within that, how we understand our form of government and the development of political parties, the state of our civic character, and how Christians might think about patriotism. He helps his readers understand the changing place of the church in this country and how we might think about that. What I appreciated best were some of his reflections on how we are and are not a Christian nation–both the Christian influences upon our institutions and the fact that no nation can be a “Christian nation” as Israel was the people of God. Gushee is able to speak honestly both about our flaws and injustices as a nation, as well as commend the cultural goods that might be observed and built upon. He commends a kind of patriotism that is not an “America first” mentality but rather a wanting what is best of this country for all of its people while being mindful of our place in the world.

The second part of the book then considers how we might move from fear to faith in addressing some of the fearsome challenges we face:

  • Race: a call for white majority Christians to listen.
  • Police: while commending most law enforcement personnel, pressing for greater oversight and rooting out of unjust policing practices.
  • Sex: as one who has previously endorsed gay marriage in the civil sphere, he argues that our focus is better spent on the more casual and thoughtless expressions of sexuality and its heart-wrenching consequences.
  • Abortion: while deeply troubled by a casual approach to abortion, especially late-term abortions,  and favoring some legal restrictions on abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and threats to the life of a mother, he argues for greater focus on preventing pregnancies that would lead to abortion.
  • Aliens: here, he would like to see reforms proposed before our recent election cycle for comprehensive immigration reform that both secures borders while providing some path for undocumented persons who have not broken other laws to gain some kind of legal status.
  • Guns: this is one he speaks deeply and passionately about, questioning whether the founders had in mind the proliferation of weaponry we see.
  • Money: he calls us beyond competitive greed to a generosity with our resources.
  • Climate: he decries that denial of climate change and the partisan impasse that leads to doing nothing while creation suffers, and with it many of the most vulnerable.
  • War: we have been at war for most of the last century. While nations must protect themselves, he argues there are many tools and Christian should press for the nonviolent ones to be used insofar as possible and for constitutional processes to be protected.
  • Executions: the death penalty is an anomaly, the consequence for only a handful of murders, and often inequitably applied at great cost to our system.
  • Education: a call to pursue the best possible education for all our people. Surprisingly, he calls for removing tenure and union protections of incompetence while saying students, teachers, and parents all are required to make this work.
  • Health-care: all of God’s children should have access to affordable and adequate care. A generous patriotism doesn’t want any to fall through the cracks.

The strength of this book is that it articulates an ethic that is broadly pro-life, and expands upon what would be a generous and faith-informed vision of patriotism. Obviously, not all will agree with all he commends. I personally took issue with what I thought a cavalier treatment of Romans 13 about authority that imputed Paul’s statements to his privileged status as a Roman citizen. I thought this was biblical eisegesis and unnecessary to make his case against unlawful use of police force.

Because Gushee tries to cover so much ground, especially in the second part of the book, in a series of short reflections, many of his recommendations, which tend to echo more progressive positions in most cases, come with relatively little biblical or theological argument, nor is there much of an effort to address opposing views. As a result, my sense is that the book will be re-assuring to those of Gushee’s “anxious friends” from a more progressive outlook, but dismissed by his conservative “anxious friends.” Nor do I feel it will promote dialogue between these factions within the Christian community who are anxious for very different reasons (it’s telling to me for example that he is silent about issues of religious liberty). I found Russell Moore’s Onward (reviewed here) a far more helpful resource for promoting this kind of engagement.

Perhaps the two might better be read together. Perhaps the places they differ might open up the safe space for Christians to wrestle toward an ethic of societal engagement that is neither left nor right but distinctively Christian. I think that is what both authors would want. And for Gushee, an ethic of faith working through love is much preferable to one that resides and responds in fear.

______________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher via a pre-publication e-galley through Edelweiss. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Of Sockpuppets and Fake Reviews

/ rtrube54 / 4 Comments

AmazonI had one of those “it’s about time” moments recently when I learned that Amazon is suing 1,114 people who have posted false reviews on its site. In most cases the review is provided by the purveyor of the product. The “reviewers” created a false online identity (a “sockpuppet”) and fake IP address. They worked through a site called Fiverr, where every service is offered for the price of $5 and agreed to post the fake review on the Amazon site for the particular product.

Despite Amazon’s stated terms, it has been know that Amazon is a kind of wild west (as are other sites like Yelp) where people get friends to write glowing reviews of whatever they are selling. Authors have even been known to create sockpuppet accounts to promote their own books. Likewise, there is the phenomenon of the malicious review, often from other authors trying to self-publish. This is a good article from Forbes published back in 2012 describing this phenomenon.

I suspect most of us have read Amazon product reviews and even weighed them in considering purchase of a product. I certainly have. Most of us probably intuit when a review seems fake or too good to be true. For those who struggle with this, I found this article on “How to Spot a Fake Review on Amazon.”

I would also confess that I have written a few Amazon reviews but I do not routinely re-post reviews from my blog on Amazon. I do this under two circumstances. One is when I have received a review copy of a book and the publisher explicitly requests an Amazon review. In this case, I disclose the relationship. The other instance has been a couple of instances when I’ve written a review on my blog and they’ve subsequently asked me if I would post it on Amazon. In the couple instances where I did this, I bought the book, my friends did not know in advance that I was reviewing it, and they did not have other reviews of the work on Amazon. In all cases the review is posted first to my blog, sometimes in more extended form.

My hunch is that many reviews posted on Amazon are honest reviews. Often the ones that are neither 5 star nor 1 star seem to have a balance to them, both what is good and what is not. So it is gratifying to see Amazon trying to clean up its act. However, what will really persuade me is when Amazon goes after the product sellers who are paying for these fake reviews. Banning them permanently from Amazon, and if they can get away with it legally, publishing the names of all those who pay for reviews would prove to be a significant disincentive. If Amazon doesn’t ban a product seller who they know engages in this fraudulent practice, then they are complicit in this.

What puzzles me is that people are posting fake reviews for $5. Now I suspect that if they do it numerous times, it can pay off. But to make $2500 a month, they have to do this 500 times, every month! One wonders how smart these people are. It reminds me of the person who must have purchased a skimmed credit card number of ours and made a $1.92 purchase that got flagged by our credit card issuer who froze the card immediately. Dumb. And, with Amazon’s suit, this just got dumber.

Using Amazon product reviews is probably the lazy person’s approach, one I’d admit to taking. On consumer goods, a consumer review publication is probably both more rigorous and reliable and you can access this at your library. For books and other media there are also reputable review publications, plus a whole cloud of us independent-minded bloggers. Find those whose judgments about things you’ve already purchased agree with yours or whose recommendations you’ve tried to your benefit.

Ethical reviewers neither conceal their identities nor any connection with the product they are reviewing. Better yet, they keep an arm’s length relationship if possible. For more thoughts on this, I wrote last year on Ethics for Reviewers.

Several posts I read including this one dealt with the contention that “everyone is doing it.” Truth is, a number of us write reviews for our own sheer interest in discussing the things we read or watch or use. And a number of writers, publishers and other product manufacturers do want their work to stand on its own merit. Everyone is not doing it.

We really have to ask ourselves whether we want to live in a culture of lies. If we tolerate a culture of deceit, what will we do when we really want someone to believe us? Peter can cry “wolf” too many times.

If You Can’t Say Something Nice…

/ rtrube54 / 4 Comments

ThumperThumper’s words from Bambi still rattle around my brain whenever I write reviews. As I’ve commented elsewhere, I choose what I review and generally choose what I think I will like to read and am usually a pretty good judge. The one book I can think of for which this was not true was one for which I was asked to write an anonymous review before publication. Despite the thrashing I and two other anonymous reviewers gave the book, it saw the light of day.

I’m also conscious of the work it took to produce the book I’m reading — work I’ve not done — and want to recognize this effort. So, most of the reviews I post on this blog tend to be fairly positive about the book in question. i will admit that I have to overcome Thumper’s counsel when I write something critical.

So it was with interest that I read an article forwarded by a friend titled “Book Reviewing’s Grunt Squads” that describe’s the writer’s time as a reviewer for Kirkus Reviews and some of the negative reviews he wrote and the comments he made about books. At the time he was doing this, Kirkus employed a team of freelance reviewers paid by the review (he made $50 to $70 a review) to produce 325 word reviews of any book they were sent. Kirkus at this time published reviews of all newly published works. The article was occasioned by a negative review he received via the reorganized Kirkus Media. In addition to exposing the “grunt work” of the reviewing world where most reviewers would struggle to even pay the rent on what they write, he also teases out the fundamental challenge of reviewing–the challenge of fairly representing a work and one’s own reaction to that work without engaging in excessive self-indulgence or sterile (and impossible) objectivity.

He particularly explores the challenge authors face in receiving negative, and particularly unfair reviews that do not represent the book they actually wrote. He observes that authors who try to rebut such reviews almost invariably come off badly. And the truth is that there are a lot of bad books out there (even more with self-publishing) and reviewers who are assigned such books probably are doing a public service to expose them. The only authors, he observes, who come off at all well are those who have powerful friends.

So, what is the bearing of all this on a blogger who reviews mostly to remember what he read, and to share his love of good books with others? Reviewing as a volunteer activity means I have choice, which paid reviewers often don’t have. Since I am not getting paid, apart from the occasional free book, for what I do, I’m less likely to end up reading books that I’d give a scathingly negative review. Will I ever do it? Yes, perhaps in the case of a book that I think is being misrepresented as the greatest thing since sliced bread, when it is moldy bread at best — particularly if the book was misrepresented to me.

The article talks mostly of authors and reviewers. There is another group I have to consider as well. That is readers who might borrow or buy the book. For one thing, I will sometimes engage points of disagreement between myself and the author so that readers, particularly those who might know me, will not be misled as to the point of view of a book which I’ve reviewed. I read things I disagree with but not all people like to do this. This is a place where who I am as a reader and reviewer intrudes, but I hope it does so helpfully for my reader. Blog reviewing is an interactive media and so discussion and even pushback seem to be part of the nature of this media.

I probably have two main things I will criticize, beyond writing that is simply bad or excessively violent or sexual. One is when an author is unnecessarily obscure, or writes over the heads of his or her intended audience. I realize I have to be careful with this when reviewing academic books. If it is written strictly for an academic audience, I will accept a denser style and more “in group” language than I would for a book by an academic intended for a broader audience. The other thing, and I admit this is more subjective, that I will critique is when authors pursue implausible plot turns, which I consider those that are inauthentic to the development of the characters and story line.

All this said, there are still Thumper’s words rattling about in my head. “If you can’t say something nice…” For me, this means in my reading and reviewing that I want to read sympathetically, to meet authors on their own terms, to recognize what is of value, and what I think will be helpful to my readers.

Review: Slow Church

/ rtrube54 / 6 Comments

slow churchSlow Church by C. Christopher Smith and John Pattison, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

Summary: This book argues that the church has been “McDonald-ized” and that just as the Slow Food movement has returned to embracing food that is good, clean, and fair, so the church needs to embrace an ethic of quality, an ecology of reconciliation, and an economy of abundance.

Slow church. That’s not what I wanted when I was growing up. I wanted to get my weekly dose of church and get on to more interesting things. If the authors are to believed, the church growth specialists gave my generation what we wanted–fast church. Messages that cut to the chase, efficient, homogeneous organization that led to big box churches that provided a great show. For a time, I was part of such a church in another city, typically driving 10 miles to attend. But it seemed totally unconnected to the place where we lived and so when we moved to our current home town, we found a church in the neighborhood, which in recent years has come to embody many of the things the authors of this book describe as part of the “slow church” movement.

The authors describe an approach to thinking of the church that gives words to much of what we were looking for. They believe that God’s redemptive work is slow and values the unique qualities of people and place and gifting that our particular places of worship reflect. They organize their approach around three categories.

First they think in terms of ethics. What is the good to be pursued in the life of a local congregation? It begins with a sense of place that takes time to become a community that shares life together and learns how to serve the mix of people in a real neighborhood rather than efficiently reaching a “market segment.” It encourages stability that takes time to understand a place rather than our restless mobility. It values patience that is willing to suffer alongside others and walk alongside the people of one’s community through the seasons and changes of life as Christ is formed in us.

A second emphasis is on ecology. It focuses on the connectedness of all things and all of life as opposed to fragmenting life, and groups of people into segments, often with the result of dividing them against each other–young and old, liberal and conservative, poor and affluent, and even humans versus the rest of creation. It cares about the dehumanization of work and fosters good work based in our neighborhoods. It celebrates sabbath where God provides enough in six days for us to live seven.

A third focus is on economy. Will we join the culture’s economics of scarcity or the kingdom economy of abundance? This means noticing all the abundance God has placed in the people and physical resources of a church and a community and responding with gratitude and hospitality. And in a wonderful connection with the slow food movement, it means reveling in the fellowship of the table, having rich conversation over good food.

This book is particularly important for churches that take seriously the work of “re-neighboring” and community development in transitional or struggling communities. It is also important for churches in more suburban “communities” that often don’t have a real sense of community and place, and are at great peril over the long haul.

The authors challenged me to consider how, even though I am in a church that is seeking to become these things, I am embedded in a “fast church” life and way of thinking that is formed more by my culture than the church community with which I identify. I work in a ministry that is not located in the community where I live, where I travel extensively, and work with colleagues in a tri-state area, and more widely with individuals throughout the country as well as an extensive virtual community. As I write today, I don’t have good answers to resolve this tension. But this book serves as impetus for a conversation, maybe a slow conversation, but one that I recognize needs to begin in my life.

How about you?

Ethics For Bloggers?

/ rtrube54 / 8 Comments

A while back I did a post on Ethics for Reviewers. An incident the other day provoked me to think more broadly about ethics for bloggers. I used a photo in a post for which I did not find attribution. Unexpectedly, the post went viral to a degree I never expected and ended up on the screen of the person who took that picture. Via Facebook, I received a request to either give proper attribution or take it down. It was a great photo so I gladly did so and that was the end of the matter. But this prompted me, perhaps as a matter of penance (!) to reflect on the ethics of the wider practice of blogging. Here are some of my thoughts:

1. Give proper attribution to all sources and don’t use sources you don’t have permission to use.  It’s actually stealing and a violation of copyright. Verbatim or substantive quoting of material without proper attribution is plagiarism. Provide source information for quotes or statistics, and attribution information for media you are sure you can use. I am not a copyright lawyer but it seems that the rule of thumb is that you can use it if: you created it and have not surrendered rights to it, it is public domain, or media in Wikimedia Commons (include all attribution info). If you err, correct it immediately if the correction is demonstrable.  Better yet, if in doubt, either ask or don’t do it.  That was my mistake the other day. Attribution in web-based media can include links back to the source, which also makes your blog of greater interest because it is a portal that takes people elsewhere.

Forgive the length of this–the rest will be briefer:

2. Do not intentionally deceive! None of us knows all there is to know about the things we write about, nor even about ourselves. But the internet is an uncurated place where a lie in digital print or image will become truth for many. Of course the danger of lying about yourself is that there are people who know better! The quality of the our blogging world and its contribution to our world’s health depends on telling the truth as we have light to see it.

3. Do not attack the character of people. Bloggers are generally better at this than media pundits or Facebookers, but ad hominem  attacks on people as opposed to discussion of disagreements about ideas, policies, takes on life degrades the blogging world.

4. Don’t write to chase an audience. It’s really tempting to tailor your writing to what gets views. It’s one thing if you’ve agreed to write pieces on a certain topic for pay. Most of us aren’t there, but views can become a kind of “pay” that shapes us if not careful. Write about what you know about and care about and views will take care of themselves.

5. Become a good citizen of the blogging community. Visit and comment on other blogs. This just makes good sense to get better at your craft. But it is also a real service to other bloggers who have bared their souls, raised an important question, or written something they hope will be helpful or funny. We all write to be read by others and those of us who do this are probably the best attuned to others. Just avoid something I saw the other day, a commenter who turned their comment into a blog post. Brief, complimentary, with maybe a genuine question or insight the blog raised for you is best.

Generally I’ve found the blogging world far more thoughtful, ethical, and sensitive than the Facebook world which can be incredibly mean and snarky and seems to just reinforce the fault lines of our society. I hope we can keep it that way. We are all “tenders of the commons”.

Ethics for Reviewers?

/ rtrube54 / 6 Comments

Apparently there are some people making a cottage industry of reviewing famous authors on Amazon and giving them one star, terrible reviews. A New Statesman article chronicles how Anne Rice and others are petitioning Amazon to ban anonymous reviews and requiring verifiable identities. Frankly, it seems this may just give these reviewers more attention. But it raises the question of reviewer ethics.  Here is my proposed code of ethics:

1. If you can’t put your name to a review, don’t write it–or at least don’t publish it.

2. Don’t use mean reviews as a way to attract lots of views or followers. It seems to me this is a poor substitute for good writing. It also suggests you are a very poor chooser of books to read and review. Do you really want to spend your life reading and slamming bad books?

3. Read the books you review. If I can’t finish a book I won’t review it.

4. If you have a problem with a book, be specific. Cite the instances where the writing is poor, facts are in error, or the specifics of why you take issue with a writer’s argument.

5. Don’t engage in ad hominem attacks. Your assessment that a book is bad or a plot is faulty or an argument has problems doesn’t mean the writer is a bad person. Separate the book from the person.

6. Disclose any facts that might bias a review, even if they don’t, such as receiving a free review copy of a book or a personal relationship with an author.

7. Practice the golden rule. Treat writers as you would like to be treated. That doesn’t mean using kid gloves but it does mean being as fair and even-handed as you can be in reviewing a book. Remember that someone can review your stuff as well!

8. I’ve decided in providing links to a book to link to the publisher’s website rather than a certain online vendor if at all possible. This allows people to purchase from the vendor of their choice–perhaps that local bookshop down the road–rather than providing expedited access to that certain online vendor. I post reviews on that vendor’s site only if asked by the author or by a publisher providing a review copy of the book.

Reviews serve a valuable function in helping people know whether or not they should buy a particular book. That carries with it a certain responsibility, not only to book buyers but authors and publishers as well. It doesn’t mean serving as a publicist for a book. It means commending good works that might not otherwise come to a person’s attention. It means helping someone understand whether a book will serve their interest in buying it. It can give useful critiques to writers and publishers. All of these are real people who have an economic interest in what we write–whether it is the few dollars they spend to buy the book or a livelihood for writers and employees in publishing houses.

For me, this comes down to wanting to sleep at night–to believe I’ve acted with integrity. And it seems to be one more way of promoting civility in a society that too often seems to prefer the cheap shot.