Why Not To Teach Women Logic

So for all my English major friends, I've dug a favorite childhood story of mine. I think my 5th grade teacher introduced me to it, although I could be mistaken. But since I recall it being read aloud, 5th grade is a good guess. I hope you all appreciate the many levels of irony as much as I do. And the fallacies.

Without further ado, may I present Love Is A Fallacy

The Great Man Theory

A long long time ago, in a college far, far away, I took a history course. One question we talked about: How do we view history?

The Great Man Theory of History says that great individuals are the movers of history. This perspective looks at the people, and the influence they had - Julius Caesar, George Washington, Darwin, and such.

An alternative perspective is the event-driven history, which looks at the interactions between events in history. For example, how the Boston Tea Party, the Declaration of Indepedence, and the Revolutionary War interact.

A third take on history is idea-driven history. For example, the impact of Darwinism upon 19th century America, and how evolutionary survival ideas tended to be implemented socially. The focus is not on the person, but on the development and interaction of ideas, and the resulting impact.

In many ways, the Bible is written from a Great Man (& Woman) Theory perspective. While there are hints of event theory (the fall, the flood), much of it revolves around individuals and their lives. Adam. Eve. Moses. Hannah. Jesus. Mary (all of them).

(And for the curious, no, I didn't name the Great Man Theory. And no, I don't care to sidetrack into Bible gender-war discussions.)

I finished reading The Rise Of Lord Vader (very disappointing, by the way) tonight, and was reflecting about the heroes of our legends. Spider Man. Superman. Luke Skywalker.

It occurs to me that many of heroes come to power at a young age (teens, twenties), and are nationally, globally, or galactically known. They - or at least their alter ego - are the phenomena.

In contrast, most of the movers and shakers in the Bible spend much of their time in obscurity or controversy. Often they aren't considered great in their time, or not within a significant group. Moses, who spent forty years as a shepherd and was eighty when God called him. Jesus, who spent thirty years before having a brief three-year stint of greatness in the obscure province of Judea before dying. Star pupil Paul who spent fourteen years in Arabia before beginning a controversial and pain-filled ministry.

In short, most of our heroes spend very little time hassling with the mundane, other than as a footnote to maintain their secret identity. Many of the Biblical characters spend most of their lives dealing with the mundane: A primary theme is God using the ordinary faithful in a special way at a particular time.

It is encouraging to me that if I'm not wielding lightsabers and rescuing damsels by the age of twenty, God still might find a significant use for me.

Fighting Fire With Fire

Today I let my obsessive compulsive impulses get the better of my pack rat impulses and cleaned my room. (For the record, I decided that I definitely like cleaning better by myself. I'm not quite sure why.)

I realized that my pack rat tendencies are a rare (for me) expression sentimentality. Partly it is pure frugalness at it's worst. (I really need to hold onto this fifty-cent watergun for five years in case I need to squirt someone with it.) But partly I'm a packrat because I like holding onto mostly irrelevant memories, or thinking that someday I will go back and be inspired by this or that cool nic nak that I kept. Realistically, when I actually need inspiration, I won't be able to find the stuff I want because I don't actually take the time to organize it. And Google probably won't have invented a search engine for garages.

I also wonder if part of me is a bit afraid of forgetting stuff about my life. Stuff that ought to be important. I found the business card today for one of my first jobs during high school. Kind of cool. But pretty meaningless if I forget it. I think I finally tossed the card. It only took me ten years. Or maybe I just tucked away somewhere else.

Partly I want my memory to be right. I don't like the aspect that my memory isn't like a computer. (And while I'm thinking of it, this article on memory is quite interesting.)

I have another thought though. Today I did something good (cleaned the apartment) by letting one bad tendency - being obsessive - beat up another bad tendency - the pack rat. And the results look good. The apartment is cleaner. I have less junk. Some stuff may get donated to charity. The method works.

My sneaking suspicion is I often substitute being good with manipulating conflicting evil tendencies to imitate good. It is just a little diabolical how easy the substitution is, and how good the imitation can be.

War and Peace (Merry Christmas)

to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children

In the spirit of Christmas, I've been thinking about the that quote. It is actually a fragment of a prophecy about John the Baptist's ministry which the angel quotes to John's father. The angel's full quote is:

Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to give him the name John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Turning people's hearts. It is such a different mindset from politics. The goal of politics is winning. Getting my policies passed. Humiliating my opponents. Being popular. Convincing the independents to support me. But rarely do I believe that the Republican establishment regrets that it doesn't agree with the Democrats - that the Republicans hold to their principles sorrowfully, and wish, desperately wish, that they could work in close agreement with the Democrats. Yes, they grudging allow Democrats who recant their views to join the flock, but there's a smidgen too much glee, that the Republicans have been found right, that a stupid idiot has finally found the right way. (To my liberal friends, don't worry - I think the Democratic establishment is about the same.)

Turning people's hearts. It is such a different mindset from terrorism. Terrorism seeks to force action by making life miserable. But terrorists (as far as I can tell), don't dream about sitting down one day with their targets and enjoying a hot cup of coffee. "Sorry about that bomb at the mall. Let me tell you, that was a tricky one to make. How's Charlie recovering?" (I'm not even going to touch America's response to terrorism - far too complicated of a topic.)

When we desire to be reconciled with people, when we desire to be their allies, when we wish we could be on the same side, we behave differently than politicians or terrorists. (Okay, that is a scary and not exactly intended parallel.)

Christmas is fundamentally about reconciliation, first of us with God, then with each other; about making them children of God, about making his children each other's friends and allies. It is about God changing our hearts toward him, and fathers changing their heart toward their children (e.g. healing this).

I like Jesus' explanation of what he is about when he answers Paul's question "Who are you, Lord?"

"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," the Lord replied. "Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me."

Now everyone can be thrilled that I've posted something trivial and meaningless about the warm fuzzy spirit of Christmas, the evils of American consumerism, and the necessity of keeping it a Christian holiday.

Merry Christmas.

Preaching To The Opposition

It is harder to effectively preach to the opposition than to the choir. A friend of mine recently shared how a respected man in her life abused her. I wish she was in a tiny minority, but of my closer women friends, a shockingly high percentage have been sexually or significantly emotionally/physically abused. I don't think I've quite reached 50% yet, but I'm probably well over 25% with my 1.314159s estimate. The sad reality is that men are generally responsible.

How does one portray male headship in marriage in this context? I don't mean rationally and intellectually defend it. But how does one advocate male headship without advocating the power structure that seems to lend itself to such abuse?

Most of us - the mentally insane excluded - have a knee-jerk defensive reaction against putting ourselves in harm's way. And most of us are probably smart enough to have a few thoughts like:
- Power increases the opportunities for abuse
- He-said-she-said claims are really, really messy for victims. Evil doers often look really good to the community at large (churches included).

Lately I've also been reflecting on a couple Old Testament marriage laws.

"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

However, if a man does not want to marry his brother's wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, "My husband's brother refuses to carry on his brother's name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me." Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, "I do not want to marry her," his brother's widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line." That man's line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

The 2nd passage is of interest to me because it is effectively commands limited polygamy - and rather seriously enforced. Yet Paul later writes that pastors are not to be men of more than one wife.

In short, there seem to be aspect; of Old Testament marriage law where because of sin, God allows/commands situations that don't seem to fit his original design in order to protect women.

I don't really have any good solutions to the problem. Well, I have good theories, but they aren't very practical. I suppose I have two thoughts:

- I wonder how much of the feminist movement is fueled by men abusing power.
- I wonder how Christians can protect and defend the weak within families with effectiveness and holiness without sacrificing the male headship view of marriage.

Flames can start now.

Life Is Short: Play Hard

Lately I've been reading a bit about U2's Bono and his push for American churches to do more about the African AIDS crisis. Don't get me wrong - I think appropriately serving the African nations is a great cause. But often I feel like Christianity is always running a "big problem of the month" cause.

Here's my current to do list:
- Love wife
- Raise children
- Teach children way of God
- Love wife like Christ
- Read bible
- Pray privately
- Pray with family
- Be involved in reaching 10/40 window with gospel
- Be involved in reaching Latin American with gospel
- Be involved in reaching inner cities with gospel
- Build community relationships
- Help homeless
- Be politically active
- Be a good representative of God at work
- Be a skilled worker
- Give charitably
- Research charities' reputation so money is responsibly used
- Make wise financial decisions
- Serve in church
- Get counsel other older Christians
- Build close friendships with Christians for fellowship, encouragement, counsel, and accountability
- Love people
- Mentor younger Christians
- Avoid "holy huddle" where I loose all contact with non-Christian world
- Live life: Shop for necessities and bargins (to be frugal with money), blog, relax, have hobbies, read theological books, read for fun, learn to salsa dance, yada yada yada.
- Be involved with extended family events
- Be a servant in my friends' crisis.
- Research life choices to live healthily and spend money wisely.
- Exercise

Anyone else overwhelmed yet?

Okay, I know that some of the above activities overlap. But lately I've been playing around with three thoughts.

First, merely because a need exists does not mean it is my responsibility to help meet that need. I can't save the world. It is okay to say "the Christian community isn't meeting this need" without my being obliged to drop what I'm doing and dash off to the new issue. I once read an article on how pastors always have someone they could be ministering to, but that a pastor must learn to let the telephone ring in order to be with their family rather than always on the job.

Secondly, God works (significantly) through community. There are people he will call and make available to commit themselves to many good causes. And I can be excited about what God is doing. Organization also makes it possible for me to be financially involved in these causes: By researching and finding a handful of organizations that I believe are trustworthy and responsible, I can be financially generous without being irresponsible about giving money to poor managers.

Third, I need to know and work within my priorities: There are relatively few specific causes that all Christians are called to be involved in. There is a clear set of principles to live by, however, and it is good for me to periodically examine if I am living those out. It is good for my friends to challenge me if I could be living them out better. But living them out better often does not mean adding more and more activity to my life. And when I look at other's lives, I need to be careful not to confuse different with better. (There are people who are better at living out the priorities than I am, and I should model them, but often I think I mistake a different calling as being a better one.)

Today's Specials

I've recently stumbled across a blog that I like. I thought I'd point out a few of the more interesting pieces.

A highly entertaining (to me) link to a link to a link about a new type of significant other: A 'friendationship'. I could just link to the original, but I like links of links of links.

Another pointed but well-taken look at how we can spin everything as God's will.

And the site of the aforementioned satire, The Holy Observer, with a couple more links to plagiarism and free will. (For those familiar with GCM, the GCM-approved dating method may be humorous. The rest of you probably won't get it.)

Also from Ochuk, this on the language of women.

Sinning Saints (Part II)

For those of you who did not read the corresponding article comments, they are thought-provoking - as much for what they do not say as much as what they do say.

What's particularly interesting about the responses is that there is very little about what Mother Teresa actually believed or wrote. Being a critic of the "I believe X about Mother Teresa's beliefs without any support, I did a little hunting. I promptly discovered why few of her beliefs were directly quoted. I was a little surprised, actually, how little a Google search on her turned up on her theologically: A plethora of classic quotes and a few critics - pretty much par for the course of a world icon. (It is, of course, far too easy to make a legend fit one's world view.)

Here's a few excepts catching my attention and my thoughts:

Yes, she met the royal law of love--love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.

Huh? I'm pretty sure Mother Teresa wouldn't claim to have met the law; I'm almost certain I've read some of her quotes to the contrary. It's a powerful claim that we can fully love God heart, mind, soul, and strength.

If she did not repent of her sins and place her faith in Jesus Christ alone for her salvation, she went to hell. If she worshipped Mary, she went to hell. It doesn't matter how many "good" things someone does, if they have sin in their life they will go to hell.

Mostly a fascinating quote because of the juxtaposition of two concepts. Concept A: If she repented and placed her faith in Jesus alone, she goes to heaven. (I think that is what the author meant. It is what I hope they meant. The strict converse of the first statement is 'If she is in heaven, then she repented of her sins and placed her faith alone in Jesus (plus possible additional conditions.)

Concept B: If a person has any sin in their life, they will go to hell. I'm not quite clear what good repentance and faith are if utter elimination of sin is necessary to avoid hell. I would guess the commenter is coming from a Wesleyan holiness perspective, but that is still a little rough for the Christian converts who haven't quite mastered not sinning.

I don't know the final answer, but if she believed Jesus was the Messiah that could save her from her sins, and if she lived her life in obedience to His teachings, then she very well may be in Heaven.

I like this quote. (Note the word 'like', which is very different than 'agree'.) It begs the question: Is obedience necessary for salvation? If so, how much?

Is there a point at which we can look at someone's life and say "They have lived such a good life that they must have been a Christ follower?" What happens if that person openly claims to be a Muslim, or an atheist? Is our belief system invalidated if the next Mother Teresa figure is a Hindu?

I'm very uncomfortable with the premise in many of the comments that if one lives a good enough life, one 'must' be a Christian. It sounds good - we want to think that Christians can live a notch 'better' than non-Christians. But I'm not clear it is theologically sound. I'm not sure I'm prepared to qualify certain people as Christians if they live a good enough life. I'm not sure I'm prepared to disqualify people for living too bad a life. And I'm very fuzzy on where I'd start drawing lines.

Here's a parting thought: It is perhaps unfortunate that Mother Teresa didn't leave behind a clearer theological picture for us to attach to her deeds - or at least, that I'm not aware of it. The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, at least in America, seems varied. Good deeds say a great deal, but there are some ideas they simply cannot communicate.

(And the corollary is that I need to blog less and do more.)

Of Saintly Sinners

I stumbled across this article by a writer I very much like. And since I generally agree with him that it is how we apply our theology to the "real-world," I liked the questions he asked. Feel free to leave your own thoughts. I'll try and post a few of my thoughts later.

"What Do You Think of Me?" And Other Taboos

I know I've been really bad about posting recently. I'd like to blame it on actually having a life, but that might be stretching matters a bit. I have bought a new computer game (galactic conquest simulation) to bury myself in, however.

I've also had trouble finding the proper way to structure my thoughts. I almost titled this post 'Women should be seen and not heard' and Other Taboo Opinions but decided it might be taken the wrong way. (Okay, it still might be taken the wrong way, but at least readers are in the middle of the post by now.)

Reading newspaper stories about people who have died always interests me; especially those who die young. People are so predictable in their quotes: How sad it is Johnny died so young; how tragic it is that Johnny didn't live out his full potential; how Johnny was cared for people, had a great heart, and really worked to make the world a better place.

Strangely enough, the people who make this world a rotten place never seem to die young.

Johnny was struck by car today as he left the high school to hang out with his friends. His friends, though shocked, are relieved. 'Johnny was hard to be around.' said one his former girlfriend. 'He'd slap me if I disagreed with him, and he always thought I looked fat. I didn't have the guts to breakup with him, but I'm not really sorry he's gone.' His parents were less diplomatic 'Johnny was a troublemaker; always giving us grief. We loved him, but maybe the world is better off without him. It's scary imagining him as a father with his lack of empathy and short fuse.' Sally, part of a Johnny's cliche...

They just don't write obituaries like that. I've been thinking recently about hot potato subjects, and even how different sets of my friends have different topics.

Here's a scattering of some examples and specific thoughts I've been wrestling with.
- "Hi, I'm a radical Islamic terrorist sympathizer": Topics where there's a strong cultural judgment easily become taboo. Most of us don't like taking a position we know is strongly condemned by our friends or family. A bit more on the church and taboos in a moment, but religious moral codes tend to make it very easy to create taboo topics.

- Sex: Taboo topics are really dangerous for the church, especially when the topic is not culturally taboo. It is very hard to effectively shape beliefs and perspectives in a specific manner without open and frank discussion. Shaping viewpoints is even harder when a different perspective is openly discussed. The culture is very good at articulating it's perspective, which paraphrased is something like "Sex feels good. Ergo only an evil and retarded religion (or God) would want to prevent sex prior to marriage. Do whatever feels good." When the church is not guiding itself in how to handle feelings and experiences from every aspect of life, it is vulnerable to being guided by the culture.

- So how does your boyfriend (husband) really treat you?: Certain problems (like abuse) tend to feel like they reflect strongly on the victim. I married the jerk who abuses me: What does this say about me? And it's hard to casually bring up the topic. Plus there's often this horrified reaction of "How could you possibly imagine that my dear beloved Xavier possibly abuses me? How in the world could you have such a low opinion of him?" So we have a strong denial mechanism coupled with a taboo topic that tends to reflect badly on the questioner for raising the question.

- What do you really think of me?: It occurs to me that the essence of many taboo topics is that they ask or reveal more about others than they want to share. There's an implicit tragedy when a guy falls for a girl, but she does not return his feelings. Or when a friend considers another a close friend, but not vice-versa. And most of us are smart enough to realize that others don't want total honesty either.

I have a bad knack for picking the wrong level of honesty in my answers. A while ago I was talking theology with a friend (Albert) and was answering a question which had implications for Albert's close friends, and thus for Albert. Albert didn't like my answer and (with atypical honesty) responded "You're silly." I didn't like the response. It stung. I like being affirmed. But I think that exchange is a more honest reflection of how we often react to others. It's just that we usually lie easily about it instead of saying "I think you're silly". We're more passionate about taboo topics which removes the cordial veneer, and since we like the illusion, we avoid deeps topics.

So my solution I need get better about the living following: I think you are (or may be) badly wrong, but I will at least hear you out and attempt to understand you (prior to jumping down your throat) before reaching any definitive conclusions about what a depraved child of utter darkness you may be. Even if you should be a depraved child of utter darkness (or behave as such from time to time), I will love, accept, and respect you because you are made in the image of God*.

* - this means neither that there may not be consequences to our relationship because of your actions, nor that I will live this goal out perfectly. However, even in consequences, I want to make it clear that I think you are worthy of respect and concern.

Hrm, how should I modified this wording?

Quick Note #1032

This link on loneliness.

Monkey See, Monkey Do

(Okay, this post is an interesting exercise in trying to be coherent while feverish. Must remember not to write about the flying purple monkeys.)

Lately I've been thinking about a former pastor "Xavier" I knew. He was a gifted communicator who had a passion for helping people know God. I still remember some of the very practical suggestions he made for how to communicate the gospel to the world. I remember him sharing about trying to decide whether or not to make his teachings available, and appreciating his hesitation between not putting himself forward and his desire to make God's message available.

A couple years later, he was removed from the pastorate by his church for adultery with another church member.

There's something in Xavier's story that captures both the best and worst about influence. I find influencing people one of the coolest - and scariest - aspects of community. In its best form, we use influence to teach wisdom, give strength, and motivate toward better choices. At its worst, our influence desensitizes others, encourages others to mimic our wrong doing, and warps people's views of reality. Mother Teresa vs. David Koresh.

Despite its risks, I believe mentorship is fundamentally important in life. While trial by error has its benefits, it is a remarkable slow and ineffective method. I've particularly been thinking about mentorship in connection to knowing God better. Many of these thoughts directly revolve a tendency I've seen - and done frequently myself: To put someone on a pedestal and be unable to see their struggles. I think it is pretty easy (for me, at least)to idolize those I see as more spiritual. It's also easy to dismiss those who I see as less spiritual without considering if they see a truth I'm missing. Here's some of my musings:

- Which beliefs am I qualified to pass on to others? Does great strength of conviction equal the right to pass the belief on?

- How do I avoid passing on my own weaknesses to others? How do I learn to see the weaknesses in my mentors' lives?

- How do I encourage others to not idolize other Christians generating a church gossip mill? How do I encourage others not to idolize me?

Work / Time

In several of my circles, "spiritual leadership" is the hot phrase. Its meaning is similar to the "leadership" buzzword so popular today, except applied to spiritual matters. I made the mistake of using the phrase the other day to a friend, who promptly asked me "So what is spiritual leadership?" And I had the privilege of sitting there with a blank expression while I tried to sort out what the phrase meant. Eventually, I'm sure my musings will wander to the dangerous turf of male-female relationships, and I'll get ample opportunity to irritate both my liberal and conservative readership.

But for tonight, I'm thinking about the fundamental aspect of leadership: Leadership is the exercise or restraint of power. Here's some power most of us have - and restrain - on a daily basis:
- Make a stranger cry by telling her she's fat.
- Ruin a boss' day and walk out on the job.
- Ruin a random stranger's day by smashing their windshield with a sledgehammer.
- Ruin someone's life by driving your car into theirs at high speed. (Even driving large vans at low speeds can be mildly traumatic.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we don't exercise these powers. But I tend to forget what power is mine. One quality I often appreciate about my liberal friends is that they are (generally) more sensitive to the collective power and wrongs of the society, and individual contribution toward those wrongs. They look at the societal treatment of women, the poor, or the environment, and can clearly see the significant abuses of power happening.

My impression is that as Americans, we are a bit uncomfortable with spirituality involving power management. We're not comfortable with power differentials within society: We're mostly trained to be individuals, and to be in control of our own life. We're a democracy, not a kingdom. We don't have nobles or serfs. We don't need to be apprentices to learn a trade. In fact, my generation is one of the first to be able to acquire knowledge without the assistance of someone older. Even our lawsuit minded-approach to problems revolves around the premise: I have the right and power to get my way.

Very few aspects of American life require us to put our wellbeing in someone else's hands. Graduate students may come close with their advisors: Until your advisor is satisfied with your research, one is (mostly) stuck. The army is another such aspect. But by and large, our lives maintain the appearance of being independent of others.

At its heart, though, I think spiritual leadership is about power: What power do I choose to give up to God? What power do I choose to give to others? What power do I choose not to use? What power do I choose to use? Peter writes this:

Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older.

Wow. It is constructive (for me) to look at the context to figure out what Peter means by "in the same way". It is not a very American idea today. American tends to portray its olders as being a bit old-fashioned, a bit out of touch, a bit conservative. And American encourages young men to blaze their own trail and to live their own dream. I wonder how many young men have sat down with their pastor, looked him in the eye, and asked "How can I make you successful?" And how many of those men have then been willing to be faithful to making that pastor succeed?

(As a side note, I find this concept of men being under authority is very relevant to the male-female gender role discussion. The fact that many men choose to ignore it is another topic all together...)

For Mathematicians and English Teachers

This should be appreciated.

Another Brief Interlude

Blogging has not been going well recently, I can't seem to structure my thoughts into sensible English. I have a half written blog on Mario Cart & wisdom, but it won't finish, not even after a 4hr nap.

I did finally have a few thoughts about what genuine leadership means. Here's a few of them.
- Helping others be successful. And I don't mean helping others be successful so that they help you be successful. I mean, helping others to be successful even when it doesn't benefit you at all. This thought sounds trivial, but it isn't. We (I, at least) naturally think about what we want to accomplish. My career. My marriage. My ministry. My children. I don't naturally or easily think about what it takes for others to be successful. To make a good husband. To have a good job. To be an effective friend to others. To consistently serve others without expecting in return, without burning out, or feeling bitter about others not serving you is a rare trait indeed.

- Leadership is the character to stick to conviction despite strong desire (or fear) to do otherwise. Most of us naturally do the right thing in at least a few areas of our life. (A few of us are gifted at consistently doing everything wrong.) I'm not really tempted by alcohol. That's great. I don't even really like much of it. That's too bad as I'm missing out. But it doesn't say much about my leadership or character that I stick to my convictions on moderation and don't drink to excess.

Sticking to conviction (or even reaching conviction) is far harder for Christians in their 20s in, say, the area of relationships. When the desire to be in a relationship clashes with the conviction of dating only Christians. When passion for a person clashes with the conviction of dating only for marriage. When fear of loneliness clashes with wisdom in who to date. When the fear of permanent singleness meets with an available and interested other. These are the tests of character.

It's funny. I think I used to think that leadership was the ability to do the right thing because of the absence of desire or fear. Increasingly, I think it is doing the right thing despite desire or fear. (Or perhaps, the desire for God being stronger than any opposing desires or fears.) In hindsight, I think I liked my Vulcan approach better. It was much easier to be successful at.

Random thoughts:
1. This is also a thought provoking look at time.

2. Why does the spell checker want to replace 'blogging' with 'flogging'? One day I am going to hit 'replace' and it will be a hilarious blog entry.

A Brief Interlude

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.

I overheard a coffeeshop conversation recently. The gist of the conversation was a couple new fathers talking about the difficulty of parenting. One of them commented on some expert or another "Nobody really knows - advice is just there to make insecure parents feel better. You're doing just fine."

I'm not a parenting expert (yet). But the conversation reminded me that we often aren't very good at foreseeing the consequences of our actions. We draw on our experiences, our successes, our failures, and we make our best guess. And it seems good. Or at least right. It's more (or less) worked for us in the past.

And yet somehow our brilliant path leads us to set defenses against people, or to pass on our weaknesses to our children, or to hurt the ones we love. Sometimes we see it and feel guilty, but don't feel like we have any choices. Sometimes we're just oblivious to it.

Perhaps I'm particularly about this path thing because it seems like God's been saying "no" much louder than I expected in a number of ways. The path is different, less comfortable, and away from what I wanted - or even expected. And I'm not very good at remembering that my way may be fundamentally flawed, despite my best efforts.

It's Sortof Okay to Mess Up

So a couple months ago I did something mindlessly stupid. Let X represent the incredible stupid action. Let's let 'Alfred' be the unfortunate primary victim of X. I knew about 1.31459 seconds after I did X that it was stupid and hurtful. (This entry is not meant to imply that only one such X has occurred in the last 2 months, just that one is on my mind.) X wasn't really something I could apologize for without simply making the situation worse. (And yes, I know, this sounds unbelievable. Such are the oddities of the modern era.)

Anyway, I recently ran into Alfred and we talked (a bit) about X. Probably not enough, but enough for me to realize that I probably have not ruined every waking moment of Alfred's life. Yes, for those of you wondering, that is a Good Idea (TM).

Running into Alfred has me thinking about the ways people (especially me) try and justify ourselves when we're wrong, and what I think the proper response is.

Line 1:

It doesn't really matter. I didn't really hurt Alfred. He shouldn't be so sensitive to X. I'm okay because it is not my fault.

Line 2:

It doesn't matter because I'm human. I didn't catch the consequences of my actions, but I'm not expected to. It's unreasonable to think I should never do something thoughtlessly that hurts someone else. I'm okay because I'm doing what is reasonable.

Line 3:

I can't help it. I've tried to be more thoughtful, more compassionate, more caring, but I just don't change. I'm okay because I'm doing my best.

Line 4: (and my personal favorite)

I don't care. Too bad that Alfred is hurt. Too bad that others are pushed away by me. I just don't care. I'm okay because I'm not emotionally impacted.

(I wanted to use affected instead of impacted, but I'm afraid my English-teaching-play-quoting-grammar-fiend-friend would yell at me because it ought to be effected.)

At the moment, my mind is contemplating two thoughts:
1. It is not okay to be wrong. None of the above lines are entirely true, although there is some truth in most of them.

2. As a Christian, I am okay even when wrong because Jesus died to make me right with God. I think as a culture, we tried and think it terms of I'm okay because I haven't messed up tooo badly. I do, at least. This idea means when I reach some level of severe messing up, I'm not okay any more. Let's call this level 'U', and the okay level of messing up level 'A'.

This idea that I'm not okay unless I'm behaving at level A also means that I can't really consider the possibility that I consistently think or behave at level U without having a major nervous meltdown.

In contrast, as I really grasp and believe that I'm okay because of what Jesus did for me, I'm free to examine who I really am and who God wants me to become. It is too bad that I only tend to grow in my understanding of my identity in Jesus as I am having a nervous breakdown. I could definitely improve my process here.

If I'm Ever a Nationally Known Christian Speaker

This is really scary (for those of you who didn't catch the first round of coverage). It really frustrates me to see God misrepresented. The real tragedy is that it probably makes Christians look pretty stupid. I wonder if many people really buy the his outlook on God.

Here's a few thoughts, though, if I ever get to be a nationally quoted speaker for Jesus:

- If I'm going to predict disaster upon a city, I will have a high tech doomsday device (e.g. Deathstar) under my command with which to inflict said disaster.

- Prior to making random announcements about my deity's unwillingness to forgive or assist the rebellious, I will consult appropriate religious texts for contradictory stories. Such stories will be disowned prior to my announcements.

- I will pay special attention to stories about prior prophets named Jonah who run in the opposite direction because he so wanted disaster to be visited upon a city that he avoided going to it so that the inhabitants could not hear of their danger, repent, and have God show compassion.

- If said stories exist and I wish to see wrath, I will keep my mouth shut and laugh afterward. (I will first investigate whether my deity says anything about gloating in my enemy's misfortune.)

- If said stories exist and I wish to see mercy, I shall appear to provide the warnings of impending doom with much sorrow and contrition, all the better to earn the hearing of my audience.

- I shall consider the possibility that my deity is fickle and often does not express his wrath despite egregious provocation. If I do not know what my deity is going to do, I will not make vague pronouncements such as "My deity may or may not express his wrath somewhere in the world in some form involving suffering."

- I shall bear in mind that my deity may take badly to certain forms of misrepresentation. I will investigate what my deity cares about prior to seeking national fame. Should I achieve national fame prior to completing my inquiry, I shall sprinkle my comments liberally with phrases such as "In my understanding..."

- My advisors shall include an atheist, several arrogant teenagers, and a Wolverine. Any prepared comments that cause any of my advisors to dissolve into uncontrollable fits of laughter shall be rewritten.

- All comments shall be prepared.

(For the bored, this is funny.)

A Brief Interlude

Well, I've made very little progress pondering influence, power, and servant leadership of late, so that post is not happening tonight. I have been thinking about

He who answers before listening, that is his folly and his shame

after some rather spectacular failures on my part to listen adequately lately before jumping in with my thoughts, but I'm not feeling too much like embarrassing myself tonight.

So instead I'm posting a paraphrase of a friend's comment. (Reposted with permission; details changed to protect his identity from the hordes of online stalkers who visit this blog.) He's 35, a passionate liberal, especially about environmental issues. (Also posted with permission.)

Have you ever set back and pondered if you are accomplishing your rhetoric? I remember attending rallies and conferences in college where we talked about how America needed to change. How our policies were destroying us from within. Fifteen years later, I don't know if I'm really pursuing a radical new America. Would the college students today recognize me as setting a standard for progress? I feel too comfortable in my house with my wife and children. For the first time, I recently considered buying a gas-guzzling SUV for family trips up north to see my parents. My house looks like most of my neighbors. The only time I really know their political stance is during elections when signs litter our lawns. I wonder if the Republicans are just more honest about enjoying flagrant wealth and consumerism while I protest too much. Am I really different than them?

I think the comment stuck in my mind because I've been playing with the same questions with my faith. The Bible is filled with radical vision for life. Light upon the hill. Ambassadors for God. Holy priests. We talk about people seeing God through us. And yet when the day to day routine of life kicks in, I wonder how differently I really live.

I wonder if I am just fooling myself with fancy language while not really making the necessary commitment to really changing the way I live, the way I talk, the way I think, the way I interact to genuinely know Jesus. In some ways I think it would be easier to be a pastor - then, at least, I would get paid to "be spiritual". It might not be any more godly, but at least people could say "Oh him? He's a pastor - he's really working to accomplish something for God." If I'm not going to live the authentic Christian life, a false one that earns the praise of men seems like a really attractive substitute.

I Need a Hat

Well, I'm supposed to be in bed about 12 minutes ago for my goal of 9 hours of sleep and avoiding my caffeine deprivation headache tomorrow. (I drank caffeine today to put off the headache today.)

But, two quick notes: First, I want a cool hat. I keep being around lulls in conversations where everyone just sits and stares at each other. So I think I need a cool hat - maybe an Abe Lincoln stove pipe hat which friends can put conversation starting questions into. Then when the lulls occur, I can fish out a question and presto, a topic. (And I need questions too.)

Meanwhile I'm trying to put together my thoughts on leadership. A friend asked me a while ago what I thought leadership looked like, especially spiritually. And since I was thoroughly unhappy with my answer, I've been tossing it around. We'll see if I can come up with anything good.

Targeted Teachings

I realized recently that I've had a number of conversations where people have commented on their profound dissatisfaction with their church - or at least pastor - because they have not been getting anything out of the sermons. As a result, I've been thinking about what good teaching is, and the role it plays in a church. Here's some assorted thoughts.

- Sound doctrine is important. Doctrine is roughly equivalent one's charts while navigating a boat. If the charts are bad, the journey may continue uneventfully for a while, but eventually the reef, sandbars, or rocky coast will get you.

- There is such a thing as a bad teachers. Even those with sound doctrine can't necessarily communicate clearly and effectively with others.

- There is such a thing as a bad student. Often when I don't get something out of a sermon, it is because I won't take the time to sit down and ponder it. I also tend to forget that I've been working on another issue for a month and don't really need another can of worms. I certainly won't sit down to a cup of coffee with a close friend and ask "You know, my pastor talked today about pride and arrogance. I'm having a really hard time figuring out how to apply the sermon to my own life - where do you really see me struggling in these areas?"

- I'm not clear that sermons should communicate significant new information to those who have been around church for many years. Newer is not better in matters of teaching: In general, novelty is heresy, not progress. I'm easily tickled by learning a cool idea, but the goal of teaching is that people may live holy lives. Paul writes

"It was he [Jesus] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."

Teachers are given so that the laity may be prepared. Evangelists are given not to reach the lost, but to prepare the laity. Pastors are given to prepare the laity. The purpose of the preparation is that the laity may become like Christ.

- I'm not clear that the target audience of a church should be it's mature members. When the apostles started teaching the 3,000 converts to Christianity after Pentecost, I doubt much information was new to those who had faithfully followed Jesus for three years.

- If a church intends to reach the unchurched (that whole "go and make disciples of all the nations" bit), it probably needs to be able to answer the question: How do we expect our converts to learn the basics of the faith? If the expectation is that the converts will simply hang around until they pick it up, I'm worried. The analogy of new converts is of babies - and babies usually don't thrive being left at the dinner table until they figure out how to eat the scraps of dinner.

- Sermons are not designed to communicate massive amounts of information in and of themselves anyway. 50 Sundays a year with perhaps 45 minutes of teaching each about 38 hours of teaching - or roughly a semester long 3-credit college course. And there are no homework or tests to remind you of the information. This fact is not a bad thing as sermons serve many other (good) purposes, but it does mean that the expectation that sermons are the primary source of doctrinal teaching for a church is probably weak.

I tend to feel pretty defensive when people comment that they aren't getting much out of the sermons. I think my defensiveness largely due to the set of expectations people seem to bring to the table - that the sermon should fit them, their style, and their stage of life. (This goal gets harder, of course, when you get married and both you and your spouse expect the sermon to consistently speak to both of you. And then when the children start attending...)

There's some truth to the issue, of course - church sermons which no one finds relevant aren't very useful. And some sermons are just, well, bad. But I wonder if those of us who have been around the church a long, long time need to encourage sermons which the strangers to the faith find relevant while we seek to apply our greater knowledge more urgently to knowing God, serving him, and being holy.

Here's my desperation list when I really need something to apply in my life:
The "search me" Prayer: God, is there any way in me that is displeasing to you? Search me, O Lord, and cleanse me. (Caution: God does not take this prayer lightly, and tends to respond. There is a parable about counting the costs before embarking on a project...)

Taking a friend out for coffee and asking him what character issues he sees in my life.

Going salsa dancing - or otherwise getting out of my comfort zone.

Spend a night praying about the habits of others that really irritate me (like not getting anything out of sermons) and see if I am doing the same thing to others.

Dentists, Mechanics, and Deities

So I broke down today and decided to take my car into the mechanic tomorrow to be fixed. (It is not broken yet, but I'm guessing that it will suddenly be broken about 9a tomorrow.) So tonight I'm trying not to dread what bad news the mechanic will have for me. "Sir, if only you had brought this car in a week ago, it would have been a $50 repair. But now, it is going to run you at least $400."

I have a similar reaction toward dentists. (My fear of dentists is actually rational, since I have scary memories of being yelled at as a child for not taking proper care of my teeth. Oh wait, that isn't rational, is it?) I probably would have a similar reaction toward doctors, except that I'm healthy and not suffering any major pain so I can avoid them.

The funny part is that I tend to procrastinate because I don't want to hear bad news, which, of course, tends to make things worse. Or else I become overly sensitive to every little ache and rattle and run around asking myself, "Is this a major problem?"

Sadly, I think I tend to fit God into the category of the bad news bearing expert: He knows how to fix me, but I'm not really sure I want the diagnosis. I'm pretty sure that I don't want to pay the price for fixing the problem, and I'm hoping that if I keep ignoring it, it will go away. Plus the idea of being told by an expert "You are a complete idiot; how could you have messed up your life this badly?" doesn't appeal to me. And no, being told everyone else has done the same errors is not comforting.

Partly, I really, really need to have it hammered home that my attempts to handle life without God are something like trying to fly while free-falling without a parachute: As humiliated as the diagnosis and correction from God may be, and as attractive as sky-diving may be, the landing kills. And if I really care about my life, I'll bite the bullet and deal with God sooner rather than later after more damage has been done.

I also need to rewire my image of the distant hostile expert God to something saner. The cliche phrase I suppose would be "Father."

Now in more pragmatic matters: Perhaps I'd better be a little more careful how I handle people asking for computer help.

A Choice Word (or two)

So I promised a blog entry on tongues a long, long time ago. Mostly, I've been thinking about this: What is my attitude toward people with my tongue?

I've been pondering the following quote:

Fundamentally, we expect words to reveal the thoughts of others. When they do not, we resent the deception: We use words such as manipulator, liar, deceiver, flatterer, or hypocrite to describe those who misrepresent their thoughts, desires, or intentions.

Trust essentially asks two questions: Who do you represent yourself to be? Are you who you represent yourself to be? Perhaps the tragedy of words is that we so easily cloak ourselves in grand ideals of peace, love, and joy and only in time are our true, less noble, motives revealed.

The other thought I've been thinking about is this one: How I treat people (like the Comcast customer service representatives) is a direct reflection of how I'm treating God. I cannot honor God while using my speech and writing to tear others down and disrespect them. My attitude toward people is a reflection of my estimation of God.

I'm Back - And Dealing with Tigers

So I'm finally back to posting, however briefly it may last. When I'm not posting, I'm practicing being assertive with large bureaucracies which are preventing my internet connection from working. While mildly entertaining for the first few hours, it gets a bit old after a while.

Meanwhile, I've been thinking about tigers. Strangely enough, I have this memory of watching a Nature show or something when I was young (8ish?) on tigers and their hunting habits. One of the few facts that stuck with me is that tigers only succeed about 1 in 20 tries. (The scary part is that I recalled the statistic correctly: See here.) For some strange reason, that memory has been floating around in my brain recently - I haven't thought about it in ages. Well, at least 10 years.

I wonder how many tries most of our goals take in life. How many do we train ourselves to expect? Can I imagine going through 20 girlfriends to find a wife? What would I think of a woman who had been through 20 serious boyfriends? (Yes, the math majors will note that a success rate of 5% implies that, on average, success happens on the 10th event, not the 20th.)

Do we train students to expect 10 or more job interviews before landing a job? Or 10 tries to pass organic chemistry?

Perhaps perseverance in the ability to keep pursuing a vision after the first 19 setbacks. Or perhaps insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

And I'm still working up my thoughts on tongues. Just been too busy dealing with tigers to and assertiveness to make much progress.

For the Literate

Well, I've been officially scolded for blogging too often, so this post will be very short.

First, a very interesting website with lots of thought provoking articles. Of course, I loved it. I particularly suggest this and this.

And since I would be remiss in my blogging responsibilities to not make a half-way decent attempt to upset at least half my readership, here's another link.

I'll have another post (soon, I hope) on tongues.

Debate 101

I've been practicing being a mathematician (of sorts) of late. I've also been thinking about explaining why I think what I think. And why I believe CNN about riots in Toledo and not e-mail forwards about kidney stealing gangs in New Orleans.

A core idea I have been thinking about is that my ideas tend to be the results of chains of thought.

For example, when CNN reports that a curfew has been announced after disturbances following a neo-NAZI rally, there is a train of beliefs that leads me to believe this to be credible news.

- I believe that Toledo exists. I have friends who claim to live there. I have many people who talk about living there. I've driven through it.
- I believe neo-Nazis exist and stage rallies.
- I believe people tend to get violent rather quickly, especially in emotionally heated topics.
- I believe that curfews are a likely way for city authorities to try and restore order.

So even without CNN reporting on the incident, the incident fits into my world view. It helps, of course, that I believe that CNN is a news reporting agency and tends to accurately (if with bias) report news.

Let's sum up this set of beliefs as A, and represent the conclusions they lead to as B. We can represent this as

A-->B

(Sorry, couldn't resist putting in a bit of math; there's plenty more coming. But I'm trying to make in comprehensible.)

Now someone might propose reality A'. For example, neo-Nazis don't exist; the protestors are really government agents promoting a policy of capitalistic exploitation over the masses. A' would not lead someone to believe CNN when CNN reported riots in Toledo. And there might be separate proposals A'', A''', and such, each leading to a different interpretation of the CNN report.

Now in reality, these beliefs chain together:

(A) I believe my parents so
(B) I believe that cars are dangerous so
(C) I believe that lying down on the traffic lanes on a freeway is dangerous so
(D) I believe that people who do so are either insane, reckless, and/or stupid.

So we have

A-->B-->C--D.

In reality, we usually have more than one A for each B, more than one B for each C, and such. That is, we have something like

(A.1 + A.2 + A.3)-->B.1.
(A.1 + A.4 + A.5)-->B.2.
(B.1 + B.2)-->C.1.
and so on

Now the question that often interests me is this: How firm is belief D? In other words, how much of the logic and argumentation has to be wrong to make argument D' true instead? The tricky part is that often an argument A.1 will support B.1 or B.1', but not B.1''.

For example, a genetic similarities between species support the idea of evolution (B.1). They also can support the idea of a common designer (B.1'). They don't tend to support the idea of many separate creatures coming into spontaneous existence (B.1''). (Don't laugh; we're simply too conditioned to expect genetic similarities to easily consider the implications if they didn't exist.)

Those of you who love logic probably see lots of ways this line of thought can be used in persuasion. I'm afraid I probably lost many people, though, on the weird math symbols. Well, not very weird. I just don't have that many symbols available in plain text. But here's a quick conclusion:

It is generally useless to try and convince someone of a logical consequence (D) if they do not share the beliefs (C) that lead to that consequence. For example, try arguing against abortion with the belief that life begins at birth. (Note that the beginning of life is also a logical consequence of other beliefs.)

There is a time for elegant quotes

I'm tired of quotes.

There's something appealing about elegant quotes by famous (usually dead) people. Artists, writers, or politicians who managed to find a clever twist or unique presentation of an idea. For me, it all started in high school English class when every essay had to have a "supporting quote." Usually this involved searching through the source for a handful of cool quotes, and then trying to write a few paragraphs connecting the quotes to the paper's "theme".

Now we have a thousand more quotes: AIM profiles. E-mail signatures. Blogs. Books. Web pages. The world is filled with 6 billion people, most of whom say at least one memorable expression a week. That's 300 billion quotes a year. And even if 0.1% are of exceptional quality, that's still 300 million quotes a year.

I often feel a overwhelmed when I start reading. Every author has different quotes, and many of them are thought provoking and different. And somehow I feel pressured to know them all. I bemoan "Why didn't my education include the personal diary of Albert Einstein? Why can't I fluently quote him?"

But I think I'm too easily impressed by the presentation. The ability to say something thought provoking is meaningless without the character to follow through on it. Many of the quotes I'm thinking about talk about living life differently. They urge us to act in life differently, to make different choices. But increasingly I think that our actions spring from our being. The challenge is not so much to do differently as to be someone different. (Yes, as we change, the question of "How shall I then do" is important.) But can we truly do different if we do not change who we are?

For example, I was reading today in CNN that American consider that we're getting ruder. 93% of Americans blame parents. 70% believe that we're getting ruder. But only 8% acknowledged "using their cell phone in a loud or annoying manner". Blaming the parents sounds cool. In fact, it is probably true that the parents are largely responsible. I'm sure there are a number of elegant quotes about the importance of courtesy.

But the hard truth is that my day to day actions will determine whether or not I'm more courteous or not. Memory is a part of the issue, and memorable quotes serve as reminders. But constant reminders to take out the trash do not take out the trash: I have to repeatedly choose throughout the day how I am going to live.

I'm tired of elegant quotes because often I feel people are choosing to use the quote to express an ideal rather than pursue it themselves. If I wanted cool quotes, I could read books. In fact, I usually do. What I want to see in life is people pursuing God. I think I'd happily settle for a few less pithy sayings and a few more quotes privately pondered till they change us.

The Strength of Brokenness

So I guess this post is sort-of a follow-up to my post on wretchedness. I came across this quote that talked about the sort of people we want to be our friends. Bonus points if anyone can name the author / source.

I will allow you, and even want you, to enter and climb into my soul and know me, if three things are true about you. You must be:
- Broken yet strong
- Vulnerable with hope
- Respectfully curious

Broken people have hit bottom and survived. They know they will hit lower bottoms still and will rise up with even more life. They are overwhelmed by both their selfishness and their neediness to the point where they gladly admit their radical dependency on God. No one lees will do. With pride squeezed out of them, they can only plead mercy.

Because broken people have faced death and lived, nothing about who they are is at stake when they engage with others. They don't have to be helpful or clever or appreciated. When they interact with us, we realize they are not working to make anything happen.

Brokenness has humbled them. We feel no pressure to cooperate with some effort to change us. They want us to change, to grow, to mature, but we don't have to change for their sakes. Whether we change or not, they remain solid. We can hurt them but we cannot destroy them. We don't make them nervous. Therefore, we feel safe.

The broken people I know seem more aware of their inadequacies than their strengths, but not with a "poor me, take-care-of-me" attitude. They feel their neediness,. We feel their strength.

Broken people always find reason to worship God and to celebrate us. We don't feel used by them because their center is already solid. With their new purity clearly in view, they never ask us to finally validate them. That's already been done.

Broken people can say hard things and we appreciate it, because they find no joy in the power of superior knowledge or superior morality. They take no pleasure in their being right and our being wrong. God's glory matters to them, and it matters more than anything else. They are not proud of their wisdom. They don't put their insight o display to win applause.

And they are vulnerable, not indiscriminately but meaningfully. Their self-disclosure doesn't feel self-preoccupied. When they share their struggles, we know we're invited in but not to help, not to feel sorry for all they endure, but rather to hope together.

Out of their brokenness and vulnerability, the people we want to be entered by are insatiably but respectfully curious, never invasive, but eagerly willing to walk through whatever doors we open. Their next sentence doesn't miss what we've just said nor is it controlled by our last remark. Sometimes, while they listen to us, they look away, or perhaps close their eyes. Their focus is on Someone else. We're not their final interest. Without feeling pushed or pressured, we feel drawn into another plane, toward another Person, as they continue to ask us questions.

Hammers and Lions, Oh My

The Bible's authors expect that Christians are going to be the target of unfair accusations and slander. Or at least, they are supposed to be unfair and slanderous.

I've been thinking lately about the story of Daniel (yes, the one thrown in the lion's den). Here's the quote of interest to me:

At this [discovering that Daniel would be in charge], the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent.

Translation: When Daniel was going to get too much power, his fellow government officials decided to try and railroad him out of town. But Daniel was above reproach in his handling of his government responsibilities.

The story goes on where the officials proceed to get a law passed forbidding prayer except to the king, Daniel prays to God, Daniel gets thrown in lion's den, and so on. That is a lot of work to get someone kicked out of office.

I've been reading a fair amount about Tom Delay's ("the Hammer") difficulties of late. One of the articles that caught my attention was this one at Newsweek. One section talks about Delay's claims to be "born again". I don't know how much of the press is true. Maybe most of it is liberal bias. But I'm struck reading through the commentary how much of Delay's reputation is for shady activities and a hard-nosed approach toward politics. I'm not sure that honest, humble, gentle, or people-loving are words that his friends - or enemies - would use about him.

So politicians tend to make easy targets. That's not really news. What about my life? Would someone have to pass a law relating to my religious beliefs if they wanted to get me fired from my job?

Suppose I was being vetted before the senate for a job like 'Supreme Court Justice'. Would my enemies have to resort to slander to impeach my character? Or could my enemies mostly use the truth - if slightly distorted - to get me?

Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
...For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

The Nature of Pizza (Or, I'm a Geek)

So here's my musing for the last few days: Suppose I have a coupon for a free pizza. Which of the following coupons is the gospel more like:

Good for one free large pizza, up to four items. Pick-up at any participating pizzeria. Available at all participating stores. Coupon must be presented at time of purchase. Coupon may not be used with any other offer.

or

Good for one free large pizza, up to four items. Call 1-800-PIZZA4U and request your free pizza. Delivery only. Coupon must be presented at time of delivery. Coupon may not be used with any other offer.

With the first coupon, it's pretty flexible to get your pizza. Drive around a while and one is sure to spot a Pizza Hut, a Hungry Howie's, or even a Little Caesers. As long as one drives in the right area (a city) and can spot signs, one will end up with a free pizza.

With the second coupon, a certain level of precision is required. Phone numbers are not self-correcting. 1-100-PIZZA4U will not reach the free pizza hotline. It's not enough to merely be 'close' when one dials the number. There are parts of the 2nd coupon that must be gotten exactly right.

So which is the gospel more like? Is the gospel a matter of ballpark? If you are in the right area with reasonable beliefs, you are welcomed into heaven? Or does it require a precision in certain ways in order for the pearly gates to be opened? (Note that both coupons have a lot of flexibility - language spoken, pizza toppings, time of day, etc. The second coupon is still flexible - just not in every way.)

(And for the bonus questions: Is the gospel more like pick-up or delivery? Why?)

For the engineers and mathematicians, the question is this: (The rest of you can tune out now.)

Let x=0 be a line representing perfectly accurate theology.
Let (0,0) be the core aspects of the gospel.
Let y=mx+b represent a line corresponding to our beliefs.
(conveniently, you can't choose an m and b such that x=0 for all y, as we assume no one has perfect theology.)
What are m, b such that one is accepted into heaven?

For the non-math majors, m determines the slope of the line. By picking a larger m, the slope becomes steeper (and closer to matching our x=0 line), representing beliefs closer to the truth. By picking a smaller m, our line becomes flatter (m=0 is a flat line) representing beliefs that are the furthest from the truth.

b represents the intercept point of the line with the y axis (x=0). As b increases, the line moves up on the graph and away from (0,0). As b decreases, the line moves down the axis.

A More Wretched Hive of Scum And Villainy

Okay, so for the third "I'm an idiot" saga: I've been having headaches lately - usually the type of headaches I get from caffeine withdrawal when I go and get myself addicted. But I haven't been able to figure out what's been triggering the headaches. Today I realized that Diet Lime Pepsi still has caffeine it. Duh. Drinking the diet version doesn't solve the issue of getting addicted. And as I've been semi-consistent in drinking the diet stuff. Probably enough for me to get a habit. Duh.

I wonder how often I change habits without really addressing a key issue. Healthy is good, but if I'm still feeding my addiction, that's probably not good. Well, in general. Maybe a caffeine addiction isn't bad. Certainly better than a chocolate addiction.

Speaking of issues, lately I've been thinking about wretchedness. More specifically, why did Christ die for you? I don't mean the flowery religious language. I mean, who are you that needs to be denied every day? How do you tend to destroy the people around you?

I'm realizing that I like to put the best foot forward. If I can, I structure my destructive habits to be "humorous quirks" - like blogging. If I can't structure my habit, I structure my environment to hide the habit. Do I tend to be overly critical of leadership? Well, make sure that I'm either in charge or not around. Am I judgmental about gray areas? I learn to keep my mouth shut. Then I pray really, really hard that God won't reveal the habits I can't structure and can't prevent.

Jesus fascinates me because he was tempted in every way, yet without sin. Every trial I face - every way I'm tempted to hurt others - he's felt the same temptation, though perhaps in a different setting. Here's my theory of the night: Nice people who successfully control and hide their destructive habits are really boring because we don't relate to them. They may have cool gadgets, cool hobbies, or cool blogs, but when it comes down to actually knowing them, we don't find much to connect with. I wonder how often other people say that about me. (And if you can't say something nice ...)

I like how Larry Crabb talks about wretchedness in The Safest Place on Earth.

Unless we have some understanding, however, of the "great principle of wretchedness" and can see it in ourselves, we will not be impressed by its opposite. The lives of folks like the three I've mentioned previously will not seem so miraculous. And we'll not seek after greatness as a poor man would seek gold. We'll not desire it above all else, nor chase after its source with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Wretchedness - our own wretchedness - must be recognized before true greatness can be properly defined and passionately desired. And it must be recognized not only as a past reality that only memory keeps in view, but also as a present reality that, in all honesty, we must continue to acknowledge.

As I begin to write about what is wrong with us, a thousand pieces of evidence come to mind telling me that whatever is wrong spoils, or at least stains, community. That is its primary effect. Until we have identified a deep, stubborn complex of internal forces whose main effect is to destroy relationships, we have not diagnosed the core problem in human beings. We must see this complex as so hopelessly corrupt that it can only be abandoned and replaced, never repaired. And until we realize that the replacement must come from outside resources, we have not understood the severity of the problem. Whatever is wrong with us makes spiritual community impossible.

Of Others

I thought this was classic. If I knew a Christian Goth woman, I'd probably buy her one for my own amusement.

Also, one of my friends wrote a very good blog entry about respect, credentials, and love. I'm not sure how public she wants her blog, so I won't link to it. (Although the more technically inclined should be able to find it anyway. +1 respect points if you can.) I've stuck in assorted thoughts of my own.

I think it's interesting to hear people describe themselves - what pieces of info they choose to share at first and what impression they want to make. It shocks me how many adults want to impress me (yeah, I have my people I instantly want to impress as well). These conversations are much different in working relationships than friendships and friendships than dating, etc.

Wow, I'm glad nobody wants to impress me. (Mike: Now the question is - which part is the joke? That nobody wants to impress me, or that I'm glad about being so insignificant?)

One of the weirdest places to do this is church. I've recently been asked a number of times about what I'm involved in ... A few of the queries I've fielded have been motivated by comfort level ... I have no problem telling this set that [various involvement details edited out]...

This full answer only applies to that set of people (apparently my blog-reading public as well, but I'm guessing most of you know me well enough to unpack that anyway).

Ah, the on going question: How honest am I with strangers? I was reading job interviewing tips today. Most them boil down to "Don't be too open, manipulate any negative to seem like a positive. Honesty is not a good policy."

There's another set that's getting ready to judge my spirituality and our possible friendship or no based on my answer. It's sort of in the way the question is asked - lead up to after other prestige questions or before much has been said. There's this feeling that I get that if I've got the right pedigree, we'll try a friendship. If not, why bother?

This attitude fully annoys me and makes me sad...

On the other hand, it is a fair question - the things a person believes, thinks and feels make up who they are. These are often indicated by how they use or waste their time and occasionally by their level of involvement in something.

So here we go - how does one answer that question in both a humble, non-self-serving manner and honestly without negative pride?

Not much else to say. I loved the entry.

Temptation by any other name

I'm amazed how envy and dissatisfaction takes about 2.53 seconds to get a hold in my heart. I was going to the refrigerator to get my packed lunch the other day. (My non-robotically self-made lunch, may I add.) And enroute I encountered the pizza buffet that my work had ordered for the VIP meeting.

And I promptly decided that I wanted pizza.

My next thought was that my own lunch wasn't good enough. (Nevermind that it was cheese & ham sandwiches with mustard on slightly stale bread and a banana. Yes, the slightly stale bread was my fault.) And then I was grumpy at God for providing the VIPs with free pizza and not me. (Nevermind that I earn enough that I could buy pizza; that if I did get a raise, I probably wouldn't buy pizza with it; and that I have other priorities for my money.)

From there, my mind drifted to God holding out on me. Amazing what a few boxes of pizza can bring me to.

Gone to Meddling

Lately I've been thinking about the issues of honesty, respect, and tact. I'm especially thinking about it because I'm discovering lately that I have a lot of views that rub people the wrong way. (I know that is shocking to many of you.) I've scratched or delayed half a dozen blog topics because I haven't figured out a way to write which both honestly presents my thoughts and yet gives respectful space to those with other views.

My problem is that often honesty seems to be taken as implicitly disrespectful and tactless. Why? Because we want people to be who they aren't. I want people to care about my problems when they don't. I want people to like my choices when they don't. I want people to spend time with me when they don't.

Conversations might go like this:

Acquaintance: So why didn't you come bowling last night?
Tactful Me: I didn't feel in the mood to go bowling.
Honest Me: Because Stan went. I despise Stan and can't stand being around him.

Friend: So why did you decide to help out with your church's "Help the elderly" ministry?
Tactful Me: I felt like this was a great opportunity to serve God and just really felt than he laid this opportunity on my heart.
Honest Me: Well, there's this hot girl who said she was going to get involved and I wanted to impress her.

A friend (Charles) recently commented that he found tattoos repulses. Another friend (Stan) promptly commented that Charles was being ridiculous. A part of me agrees with Stan. I don't get Charles. I don't get why he's disgusted by tattoos. But that doesn't give me the right to trivialize or invalidate his feelings or reaction.

How does Charles honestly expression his repulsion to a tattoo artist?

After Charles mentions his repulsion, how do I answer his question "So what do you do?" when I, in fact, am a tattoo artist.

What makes a feeling or reaction silly or ridiculous?

P.S. I'm feeling bad for having demonized Stan and Charles so much. I need a new set of names for abusing when I want to write an example in. Please suggest some good ones.

It's All About Me

So I've been thinking a lot about churches. I realized that I've been with my current church for eight years. That's a long time. And my church has changed significantly in those years. I've been thinking about some of the changes, and whether or not I would have gotten involved had those changes existed eight years ago. Not that the changes are bad - most of them are great - I'm just not sure if I would have appreciated the current church eight years ago.

I've also been contemplating what I expect from a church - and what I should bring to a church when I choose it. I easily view the church as a monolithic entity which should be responsible for welcoming me, teaching me, entertaining me, befriending me, advising me, bring food when my family has a child, and visiting me when sick, and such. But a church is made up of people who have families, 40-hour a week jobs, credit card debt, mortgage payments, and the like. In short, the church is a lot like me.

How many times a week do I call a friend from church to see how he is doing? If others call as their friends as frequently as I call mine, then I'd get about as many phone calls as I made.

How often do I really sit down and ask how someone is doing?

How often do I ask someone to for advice?

How often do I make a point of welcoming new people? Of remembering their names?

How often do I let myself be inconvenienced by others' needs?

How often do I learn the stories of others?

How often do I sit down and ask someone how I came across - and how I could be more effective in communicating with them?

How often am I wrapped up with my life and my comfortable circle of friends that I simply neglect the very activities that I expect from my church? What does it take for me to feel loved and befriended? Am I consistently giving that to others?

I don't think we all bring the same gifts to the church. But I think it's easy for us to expect more from the church as a whole than we bring to the church. Basic math says that if I'm contributing E effort from the church and everyone in the church followed my model, then we each get out roughly what we put in. Figure some loss due to thermodynamics (e.g. friction), and we get back less than we put in.

(I admit, I don't totally buy the math above. I think we often reap benefit that is not proportional to the energy put in. I have other concerns with that representation. But it gets at a point I've been pondering a lot lately.)

Group Think

So I mentioned that I've been thinking about group think verses individuality. Specifically, I've been thinking about organized religion in the form of the church. I think that my generation - and possibly others - tend to be very critical of organized church. Here's some of my musings.

For some reason, I often feel caught in the middle between the people who are badly hurt by the group and the group. Here's some of my frustrations...
- I rarely can get both sides of the story. It's usually a lot easier to get the side of the angry, grieved party than the groupthink.
- We assume sins against us as horrendously intentional rather than painfully accidental.
- When we're sinned against, we usually want justification, not to cover the offense and seek reconciliation, patiently reaching out toward the offenders.
- When we do want to cover the offense, it's often because we're afraid of conflict on matters where the boat should be rocked.
- I believe in the institution of the organized church.
- I don't believe that all churches are good churches.
- I believe in loyalty to a specific church.
- I don't believe in blind loyalty to a specific church.
- I believe it's important to not be tearing down the character or work of other Christians.
- I believe it's important to know the flaws of one's leaders.

I really hate the typical pattern I see, which is that Charles joins the church. Charles is enamored by the church and gets heavily involved. After a while, Charles becomes disillusioned by a combination of factors. Some of this is simply that Charles is loosing his blinders and seeing issues that were problems all along. Other issues are just Charles' take on them.

Charles feels like he can't talk to people. Maybe he tries talking to someone "in leadership" - say, Stan - and the conversation goes badly. Stan doesn't really see the issues Charles sees, or doesn't see them as the priority, or doesn't do a good job communicating his concern to Charles. Charles is hurt and angry. He feels like most of the church group supports Stan. He's angry at his church friends for not taking his side more. Charles doesn't have very many people that he can talk with about these problems - and few, if any, of them are in the group itself.

The few friends Charles does talk to don't have the other side of the situation - partly because they aren't involved in the group and partly because Stan hasn't shared his side of the story with complete strangers. These friends have few choices: They either foolishly empathize about how unjustly hurt Charles is; they staunchly defend Stan without any facts; or they feel caught in the middle without anything to say.

I really don't like the dynamic above in a lot of ways. Here's a few of my thoughts...
- As Stan, it's helpful to frequently discuss major failings - both personal and in leadership.
- As Stan, it's also important to realize that what others are seeing may not be what you are intending. Creating opportunities for others, especially acquaintances/strangers, to share what they see is helpful.
- As Charles, it's vital to seek out and apply the Biblical teachings on reconciliation, forgiveness, bitterness, and the like. We don't like the "If you have something against your brother, go to him." Usually the reason for not doing it? He won't listen. Maybe not, but I think we are really resistant to doing a sincere, prayerful, competent, humble reconciliation attempt.
- As friends, know that there are two sides, both probably somewhat in the wrong.
- As friends, blessed on the peacemakers. Not those who pretend conflict doesn't exist, but those who promote reconciliation between grieved parties.

One final thought: I think church can be particularly susceptible to the feeling that "no one else sees this issue". Why? Because good churches don't encourage gossip. And so there is a much smaller set of "public knowledge". At work, people have a reputation. Their flaws and irritating mannerisms are public knowledge because of gossip. So when I am hurt, it's easier for me to chalk it up to "so-and-so is just jerk about X".

In church, without gossip, I can't easily compare my experiences against "the group consensus". And so it's easier for me to feel hurt rather than realizing that Stan is just a blind fool in some areas.

Is it possible for a church people to be open about the weaknesses they see in others without becoming a gossiping church?

I'm an Idiot...And Other Boring Stories

Well, in my never ending goal of catering to my readers (<-- a joke, Mike), I've decided to post a couple self-humiliating stories. For some reason people seem to appreciate these.

Sob story one: I'm an idiot. Over the past eight weeks or so I've been realizing how much influence I let a handful of people have over me in certain environments. I feel like Pavlov's dog. Let's take a hypothetical straw man - say, Stan. For some reason, some criticism Stan made in high school has stuck with me. I don't know why I care about Stan's opinion. It's not like he's especially insightful or close. Somehow, though, I remember that he commented how nervous I was around him. And now whenever I endup at an event with Stan, my mind jumps to pondering if I'm acting nervous. I spend the rest of the night trying to maintain a coherent line of thought and not jumping back to mulling over whether or not I'm being normal. And then Stan leaves and I relax and life returns to normal.

It's strange. I doubt that Stan even remembers the comment. I doubt that Stan even cares. I really doubt that anyone else cares. Worse yet, I know better. Yet retraining the patterns is incredibly difficult. I'm glad that I don't have many Stan's in my life - and glad that I don't often see them. See now they remind me not only of how nervous I am, but what an idiot I am for allowing this line of thought to have control in my life for so long.

Sob story two: Sometimes being shopping alone at Meijer @ 10p on a Friday night is just really lonely.

Hrm, I need a happy cheerful story...I actually had one, too, but I seem to have forgotten it. Maybe that will be tomorrow's goal.

And I shouldn't leave us all without one serious theological thought...
I've been thinking about what it means that Jesus was tempted in every way, just as we are. One thought: Jesus knows the attractiveness of sin. And he knows why a sin is particularly attractive to us in our life and our place.

Meaninglessly Satisfying

In the meaningless and not terribly surprising category...I guess this means I'm cool according to some stranger. Oh well, I'll not scoff at free compliments.

Pure Nerd 86 % Nerd, 13% Geek, 30% Dork

For The Record: A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia. A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one. A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions. You scored better than half in Nerd, earning you the title of: Pure Nerd. The times, they are a-changing. It used to be that being exceptionally smart led to being unpopular, which would ultimately lead to picking up all of the traits and tendences associated with the "dork." No-longer. Being smart isn't as socially crippling as it once was, and even more so as you get older: eventually being a Pure Nerd will likely be replaced with the following label: Purely Successful. Thanks Again! -- THE NERD? GEEK? OR DORK? TEST

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 96% on nerdiness You scored higher than 7% on geekosity You scored higher than 49% on dork points

Mercury poisoning

So today I learned about mercury poisoning. Here's a few of the things I learned:
- Mercury contaminates just about anything it touches.
- Mercury vaporizes when vacuumed, creating a toxic cloud.
- Mercury, spilled and vaporized, makes one's home almost unlivable.
- Mercury is especially dangerous to small children.
- Mercury is present in small glass thermometers, which are breakable.
- Mercury is one of those substances I should talk to poison control about.
- I don't have the number for poison control.

Don't ask how me how I learned all of the above. But I was thinking about how mercury is like sin.
- A little sin is toxic.
- Sin not only hurts me, but it hurts those closest to me.
- Sin is toxic, regardless of whether or not I realize the danger.
- Sin contaminates what it touches.
- Sin is made worse by my attempts to clean it up.
- Sin requires professional cleanup.

It's late. I should wrap all of this into a cool parable. Maybe a story about how I was an idiot and broke a thermometer and caused my apartment to be evacuated. But I don't have the coherency to be that clever. I'm also working through some thoughts I've been thinking about loyalty to a group verses groupthink. Remind me to post it.

Of %#$#*% and FEMA

Okay, first thought for tonight - two anonymous quotes:

Swearing is capable of expressing a raw realness of life that is lacking in all other words in the English language.

and in response to that

I both pity and scorn the uneducated yokel whose grasp of himself and English is so shallow as to consider swearing among the truest touches of emotions. What do they teach in schools these days?

(See Mike? A joke, of sorts.)

Elsewhere, I've been thinking that character development is like disaster preparation. Much of the time it's impossible to tell whether or not character development is happening. Those who are faithfully changing and those who are not look roughly the same. And then Katrina hits. And one's preparation - character - is revealed for the world to see. Sometimes Katrina is getting fired. A death in the family. A loss of a significant other or a divorce. A fight with a best friend.

I was thinking today that I tend to get complacent between the hurricanes and forget how important character and disaster preparation are. I tend to slack and forget to invest in communication equipment, dry food, and evacuation plan. I like glamour and glitz, not hardwork that seems meaningless. We only really see the success - or failure - of disaster preparation when the disaster strikes. We can speculate about theories of preparedness, but the true test is at the moment when landfill is made.

Am I committed to the daily grind of character development? To biting my tongue when others take credit for my work? To being genuinely gracious when others slight me? To playing the servant even when I don't think it matters? Do I believe God sees that which no one else sees? What patterns am I sowing for the future? How will those patterns impact the recovery effort when the next storm hits my life?

Music: A Taste of Heaven?

Ok, so it's been a good weekend for theology. Topics have included Catholicism, charismatic perspectives, the gospel, evil, the will of God, and such. I need to remember that a life of 100% theology is not healthy for me. 99.5% theology and 0.5% recreation would be much better. But that's neither here nor there. Related (indirectly) is a friend's response to my question about why he loved being involved in the band. Paraphrased with permission, here goes: He said it taught him about life...

You learn to play your part and support others while they play their part
You become sensitive and aware of leadership
You have a means to achieve expression

I really like being in a group that works together for a common goal, and where everyone contributes their individual talents, but where they are not supposed to "out do" others; rather, it is the interplay of all of the passages that brings depth and color to the music. When you do play the same notes as the person next to you, you have to learn to be keenly aware of their playing, and you need to align yourself with them with their breathing patterns, their tonality, the tuning...

You can never think only of yourself but you must continuously refine and work on your skills to allow yourself to grow and to give the group room to grow.

Ironically, I thought the above spoke beautifully about God and the church: What he intended the church to be in our lives and the role he wants us to play in it.

...A group that works together for a common goal, and where everyone contributes their individual talents, but where they are not supposed to "out do" others; rather, it is the interplay of all of the personalities that brings depth and color to the church. When you do serve the same roles as the person next to you, you have to learn to be keenly aware of their relationship with God, and you need to align yourself with them with their gifts, their style, the Holy Spirit...

The obvious conclusion is that music must be a taste of heaven.