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.