The problem I have with tech support

Yesterday, the cable Internet connection was not functioning correctly for a couple of hours. All I wanted to know was if the company was aware of the problem.

I call up the toll-free support number and go through the multiple menus to get to tech support. The response I get is, “No, we aren’t aware of any problems.” That was exactly what I expected, but not what I wanted to hear.

At this point, support has two options: 1) go find out if this is a widespread problem, or 2) assume the problem is with my connection and go through the scripted steps to try to resolve it.

Of course the support side has no idea that I used to be a professional in the network and PC security business and I don’t call support unless I’ve exhausted the obvious and not-so-obvious solutions and workarounds. I don’t call unless I’m pretty certain the problem is not with my end of things. (After all, I hate wasting my time with support – and their time too…) But support opts for option two, when I would much rather have them go with option one and call me back. Even an, “I don’t know. We’ll look into it,” would be more welcome than patronizing the support rep and pretend to go through the useless steps.

Yesterday’s example is with the network connection, but I’ve also experienced similar things time and again with other pieces of hardware and software. The assumption is that if I am experiencing a problem, then the problem must likely be with me.

On the other hand, with less experienced and knowledgeable customers, it probably is helpful to look for some obvious failure points: Is the cable connected and secure? What are the status indicators? Did you make any changes recently? Does the Cable TV work?

In my ideal world, when someone calls tech support, the support person would already know the background and experience of the customer and can begin at an appropriate level. They would have already seen me going through troubleshooting procedures so they won’t ask me to repeat them. But it isn’t an ideal world and customers and tech support don’t have an ongoing relationship (well, I hope they don’t…) where that base of knowledge is learned.

I write this because it seems like there are some applications from this experience and these thoughts that might carry over to the arena of church and spiritual communities and life. And that will be left as an exercise for the reader, because I don’t have answers and some of the ideas I have, I haven’t fully thought through yet.

Television and mood

We don’t normally watch any TV. Not that I have any particular objection to it. It’s just that there are so many other things to do.

We have guests here this week and the TV has been running infinitely more (really, because compared to zero, any value is infinitely greater) this week. Shelley complained that watching TV makes her grumpy. I don’t think that is too surprising. I think there is something about TV and movies that short-circuits something in the brain and perhaps even damages things in there.

I have read/heard of studies that have shown that any kind of video (TV, movies, computers, video games) should not be allowed for any child under six or seven because it stunts neural development and results in permanent damage. Particularly dangerous are the so-called “educational” videos and games. Even though they supposedly provide some kind of cognitive enhancement and/or interaction, any benefit is far outweighed by the long-term damage.

One of the main problems I see of video-based entertainment, infotainment, informative programs, and education is that it subconsciously trains people to accept everything that is seen. I think there is something about the visual pathway that we automatically grant a kind of integrity and authenticity to, even if it is completely false. Radio only employs the auditory pathway, and we are think about what we hear. Video, in my opinion, appears to bypass many of those gatekeepers. Books, although visual, aren’t pictures so the words get processed differently and we think about what we read.

Churches can maybe learn from software development

Way back in the year 2001, a group of software developers saw that the way development was being done was not working well. They came together and agreed upon a set of priorities called the Agile Manifesto that should govern successful software development.

Church leaders observe that most churches are stagnant at best and often in decline. Religion doesn’t seem to appeal to most people. Perhaps churches have prioritized the wrong things…

Perhaps what we need is an Agile Manifesto for churches something like this (with apologies to the Agile Alliance…):

We are uncovering better ways of revealing the true God to the world and helping others to do it. Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over policies and organizations.

Loving (respecting and accepting) one another over doctrine and creeds.

Trusting members’ judgments over detailed job descriptions and artificial boundaries.

Responding to change over following a plan.

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

It’s only about the organization

Got a call from the Conference office regarding Shelley’s baptism. As expected, the response was they could not grant me permission when a pastor nearby could come over.

I would have been okay with that, but they harangued me for baptizing two at camp. I let them know I was more than willing for them to “fire” me from the volunteer leader position, and I even volunteered to take my name off of the rolls, but they wouldn’t have that either. Their repeated response: the church organization has policies in place… yada, yada.

What were we supposed to do when the two campers asked to be baptized? Say no? That you have to be thoroughly instructed in beliefs and doctrines before you can be baptized?

In tonight’s conversation, I got the very strong impression that this Conference and administrators do not care about doing what is right for individual people. My reservations about remaining in this organization have become even stronger.

A comment on recent (2005) Adventist church action

See this link for a Church Manual amendment from the most recent General Conference session in 2005. I posted a brief comment about it below the post.

Okay, so I looked back at the 1995 church manual as well as the 2005 version. The amendment actually only altered a few words and added one bullet point between the two versions. So my initial impression was off the mark; I originally thought that everything in the above blog post was new to the 2005 version.

However, as I posted in the other blog's comments section, why aren't most of the sins that the Old Testament prophets and Jesus spoke against included in the enumerated list of reasons for discipline? As long as different sins are being listed, why not list the ones that God seems to be concerned most about? Is it because those sins frequently don't directly affect the external reputation of the chruch? Is it because sins of neglect (of love, mercy, compassion, hospitality, humility, respect, forgiveness, etc.) are so much more difficult to observe than sins of commission? Is it because to start disciplining for sins of neglect means everyone would be disciplined?

Hey... Isn't that what discipleship is about? Why does the church manual have a whole section dealing with the reactionary type of discipline (basically punishment) but little in the way of how to develop the desirable Christian qualities? If we spent more time, effort, energy, money, and other resources in working to develop the positive qualities, I have a sneaky suspicion that the whole current section in the church manual on church discipline could shrink to almost nothing.

Most of the earlier comments that I made still stand. From experience I know that policies like these are far too often used to destroy people, even if the actual text pays lip service to safeguarding the spiritual and relational interests of people. Policies are used as excuses, as legal backstops for people to do mean and horrible things to another person. So I also stand by my statement that I think policies are written by the Devil. If not written by him, I think at the least he's quite pleased when increasing numbers of them become part of God's church. In my opinion, organizations ought to seek to reduce the number and specificity of policies rather than increase them.

---------
Earlier comment:

No matter how the wording in it tries to spin it, it strikes me of "legalese." The whole amendement appears to be the organization attempting to protect itself from lawsuits and of having to pay out on lawsuits when church members are disciplined and dismissed on the grounds listed in the policy. It sounds like the stuff people have to agree to and sign when accepting employment.

What really bothers me is that some of the wording in the policy is so open-ended that basically anyone can be disciplined for just about any reason. And because this is part of the official Church Manual, the disciplined have little or no recourse. Thus the organization is very well protected and insulated -- just like secular businesses and governments.

I've wavered in my thoughts on whether or not church is a business. I've come to the conclusion that the church is not a business and should not be run as one. As soon as the church, any church, is run primarily using business models based on business concerns, all decisions basically come down to, "Will we make or lose money?" This is the absolutely wrong question when running a church. In other words, concerns about increasing tithes, concerns about paying out over lost lawsuits, should be the least of the concerns. Rather, "Is the church, at all levels, treating every person with love, mercy, compassion, and respect?" should be the primary modus operandi of any church that claims to follow Christ. Sadly, I have rarely seen this to be the case in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Policy statements like the one linked from this post grieve me and really make me question why I continue to be a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. To me, it seems like something that was written by the Devil. I wonder, how is this different from the intertestamental Jews who kept creating more and more regulations (policies) about what it meant to belong to Judaism?