Went South, Found Blizzard

So I'm back to warm Michigan. I took a brief jaunt south and managed to hit a snow storm that qualified as a multi-year record. It'd count as a significant Michigan snow storm - the sort we get two or three times a year.

In a separate embarrassing note, I played Ticket To Ride with little brother. I won the introductory game, then proceeded to loose to my girlfriend (who already knew the game) and then three losses more to my brother. I don't recall any of those games even being particularly close. Moral of the story: Don't teach games to family members.

On a more cheerful side, I read Tropical Gangsters while on vacation. I wasn't very impressed with the writing, but the book is a fascinating anthropological look at human nature and Western influence. I've a few more thoughts to post over the next few days. That makes TheBlogless two for two on book recommendations. Or maybe 2 minus. It really was a poorly written book, err, collection of memories.

Here a church, there a church

So a friend of mine recently posted this article about church size and how it impacts dynamics.

I've mostly grown up around small churches, and my sub-conscious tendency is that small is good. Partly that's personality - I don't interact well with the hoard mentality. Reading through the article, part of is it is that I also tend to resonate more with the inherit strengths of a small church, especially discipline, accountability, and more time with pastors and staff. Perhaps because of my background, it's hard for me to envision a church of 3,000 functioning as well as a church of, say, 500. And no, until recently, I hadn't really put registered that the first church started out at 3,000+.

The whole article is worth a read, but here's a few points struck me:

The smaller church by its nature gives immature, outspoken, opinionated, and broken members far more power over the whole body.

In smaller churches there is an unwritten rule that most everyone must be happy with any new initiative in order for it to be implement [sic]

Ah yes, I like the power of the individual. I tend to forget that not all individuals are equally deserving of power, and it's acceptable - even wise - for more power to be in the hands of a healthier minority.

It is easier to practice lay ministry and the priesthood of all believers in larger churches, where pastoral care must be done on a large scale by lay leaders. Smaller churches tend to acquiesce to clericalism.

For me, this was the highlight in the entire article. My first thought was "Wow, maybe this is why I've seen so many small churches struggle to imbue a mindset of lay ministry in their members."

Larger churches in general have something of an advantage in evangelism; they can provide more “doors” into the church through their numerous programs. Also, many (not all!) non-Christians feel too visible to visit smaller churches.

Another striking thought: In some significant ways, it's easier to accomplish a primary purpose of the church through a large church body.

Pride and Prejudice

So this clip was recently recently:It's made by a church that I used to know people from. (This video is one of my favorites, although it seemed funnier when I saw it several years ago. Not sure why.)

Anyway, the video has me thinking about how easily I stick to my perspective, regardless of facts. It's challenging about to think about how well I actually listen and consider other perspectives, or at least manage genuine arguments rather than slander.

cout << Thoughts.Brief

I finally have gotten back to this blogging thing. I haven't had a lot to say, or at least, not a lot that blogs particularly well. Vague vacuous thoughts about the meaning of life, the average character change per day a person experiences, and the endlessness of life just don't make good blog posts. Or at least, I haven't had the insight or motivation to make good blog posts.

As a side note, playing Halo doesn't make a good blog post either, but is extremely satisfying.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I came across this article which talks about our tendency to be thankful for what changes, rather than simply for what we have. Perhaps one of his most catching comments is near the end where he talks about how pre-1750s, there was no expectation of constant economic growth. I remember that from Aristotle as well - his economics assume a "fixed pie" of wealth, with the primary question being how to distribute the pie.

Here's a brief excerpt:

We assume that we deserve all we receive. Yet until 1750, societies had not learned the secret of long-term per capita economic growth.

Since then, the West has grown economically by 2% per year for about 260 years. This compounding process has made society 1,700 times richer than it was. Even in terms of per capita growth, we are hundreds of times richer, and there are more of us to enjoy wealth and give thanks for it.

We have grown accustomed to a process that is nothing short of miraculous by the standards that prevailed before 1750. We pay no attention to it. We do not even understand it. Congress surely doesn’t. We expect it to go on forever...

...Wealth is not our birthright. It is the product of thrift, future-orientation, and the private property social order. These principles were articulated in the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. It took over 3,000 years for one society – the West – to come to believe them enough to put them into action.

It is the moral order that led to the social order for which we should be continually thankful. The goodies this social order produces are merely reminders of the fundamental gift.

Perhaps I've Erred

A man is convinced he is dead. His wife and kids are exasperated. They keep telling him he's not dead. But he continues to insist he's dead.

They try telling him, "Look, you're not dead; you're walking and talking and breathing; how can you be dead?" But he continues to insist he is dead.

The family finally takes him to a doctor. The doctor pulls out some medical books to demonstrate to the man that dead men do not bleed. After some time, the man admits that dead men do not bleed.

The doctor then takes the man's hand and a needle and pokes the end of his finger. The man starts bleeding. He looks at his finger and says, "What do you know? DEAD MEN DO BLEED!"

(Joke source, which is another interesting tangent on my thoughts for today.)

So elections are over. And sadly, the doves aren't fair targets. But I've been thinking about what it takes to convince me votes were wrong.

If our country thrives, do I attribute it to not taking radical policies too far, and that we would be far more successful if my policies were implemented? Or I decide that I was wrong, and others were right, and if I had been more supportive of change, we would do better yet?

If a policy I supported (say, the Iraq war) goes, say, unfortunately, what does that say about my original view? Do I blame implementation? Good idea - bad execution? Do I blame the opposition? Do I blame timing? Fate? All of these can be can be blamed without requiring me to re-examine my original views supporting the war on Iraq.

Here's another scenario: Suppose that the Iraqi invasion had gone stunningly well; the people welcomed us, embraced democracy, and setup a stable government. Would that say anything about the views of critics who talk about the sanctity of life and the sovereignty of nations? What about the criticism that our government was badly in err, if not outright dishonest, about the WMD programs? Would any amount of success address those issues?

I've been thinking about the success of the affirmative action ban (Prop 2) and the failure of the school funding (Prop 5). What does it take for voters to change their minds that their view was incorrect?

If educational funding flounders, does that mean Prop 5 should have been passed? Or does it mean that it would have floundered worse if it had passed?

The affirmative action consequences may be even harder to tell: My guess is that an amazing number of failures will be blamed on it, regardless of the incompetence, laziness, or circumstances involved. It's far easier to say "My organization was thwarted by the lack of affirmation action" than to say "Honestly, people just don't want to provide funding for X any more."

Statistically, I'd guess diversity will drop in many places. It's easy to quantify diversity by "What percentage of are involved?" It's hard to qualify diversity. One can achieve a racially diverse group who all grew up in poverty in Detroit. Does racial diversity translate to a diverse background and perspectives? Probably not. However, I wouldn't want to be the one selling sound bytes to the media on how my all-white college was truly a diverse place.

I don't know what it takes for me to decide that I'm wrong politically. But I'm 99.9% sure everyone who disagrees with is wrong. :-P

A Few Brief Thoughts

I've been very bad about this whole 'posting' concept lately. I haven't been feeling very inspired; mostly just frustrated by not being supreme dictator of the United States and thus being able to bring a different madness into power.

Last during Bible study, we ended up talking about the following quote:

Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

It's been a thought I've been thinking about for a couple weeks now.

It's a whole lot easier to see where others approve of evil than where I do. It's easy to see where North Korea, Iran, or the one's political party of choice is approving of evil. But do I think much about how the policies I support may be promoting evil? How much would I be prepared to have my taxes go up to have a candidate who was honest?

It's pretty easy for me to see how lawyers, or business CEOs approve of evil - there's been plenty of press on that. But do I seriously examine the accepted practices and norms of my profession for how it engages in evil? Do I have any idea how Satan can tempt someone in my career?

Then there's more personal questions. Who do I idolize? Do I overly heed the professional athletes who have frequent encounters with the law, or take performance enhancing drugs? Do I envy the Hollywood stars?

Am I easily impressed by people's workaholic accomplishments, or by their priorities to spouses, children, or community that rarely improve resumes or earn public recognition?

Occasionally I wonder: If someone came in and took out our government, would we be any less chaotic than Iraq? Then I think about New Orleans and the chaos around Katrina. Mostly I've been thinking about how so many Americans, each of whom thinks himself mostly reasonable, can have so many expressions of evil in their country.

Power Conversion

Lately I've been looking at my todo list. In no particular order, it includes:
Exercise
Update e-mail lists
C++ Project
Do great good
Blog
Civic/community involvement
Get to know people
Photography
...

During most of my college years, various advisors assured me that college was when I had the most free time. I'm finding that more and more true. So much of my time is spent doing the basics - trying to keep the apartment clean, running chores, feeding myself, working, and the like.

There's no doubt that I could make better use of my time. And I hope to, a little bit. But lately I've been pondering the Michigan political race and pondering "How did Michigan manage to nominate two people for governor who inspire me so little?"

More to the point, if everyone did what I did, would it change? What does it mean for me to be intelligently involved in politics with my time and money?

Here's another way I've been looking at the problem: Why is it so hard for me to convert my money into influence? I'm fairly well off in one of the wealthiest nations. Why is it so hard for me to convert money to influence in clear, concise ways?

But there's no "$20,000 for sane politics" donation that I can make. There's no "Donate $10,000 to change public education" option. (Although for $10,000, I can fund building a church in India.) There's plenty of good causes I can donate to. But generally, the progress they make is slow, uncertain, and filled with set backs.

It makes me appreciate the appeal of lobbyist: Hire them, and they'll influence the people in power toward your way of thinking. Part of me wonders if we over-emphasize the contributions of the single individual in American and fail to look at the impact of many people working slowly and steadily toward a goal. Part of me wonders if I simply don't realize how little influence 1 in 300,000,000 has.

And part of me is reminded that while influence through power is cool, it doesn't change people's hearts. That's a much slower and harder process.

Fear will keep the local politicians in line

Fear of this electorate.

So in light of recent scandals sweeping the Congress, it occurred to me that what is needed is to simple vote out the Congressional GOP leadership team. Make a stunning example of how unacceptable this level of leadership is. Actually, there's a pretty long list of governance that I think the populace should be pretty put out about. But if campaign finance reform, responsible spending and integrity aren't bottom level issues, surely we can at least hold congressional leadership to the same standard we're holding the Catholic church.

No, I don't really expect the Democrats to get the message, and it'd probably be necessary to oust their leadership in a couple years. But the nice arrangement with the Congress is that they face re-election every two years, so there are plenty of opportunities to vote them out.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking I should start a grassroots campaign for President for 2016. I figure if I can convince 7 citizens per year to vote for me, and each person they convince then convinces another 7 each year, and so on, then I should will have convinced most of America to vote for me.

A Brief Morsel

One blog I follow talks about the recent school shootings. Ironically, I came across this blog discussing the author's thoughts on some of the underlying issues.

I don't know if I have much to add at the moment, but one thought I've been thinking about is the principle that we reap what we sow. I don't mean that in a "we're such an evil bunch of people that of course we deserve to have our children randomly slaughtered" way, but more in a "When I look at the way Americans live, what values do I see us passing on to our children? Do we handle hurt, anger, rage, or fear in a constructive or healthy way? Do I want my children to be like America's role models?" way.

Here's my "Wow" question of the day: How can 65 percent of the world's richest nation live paycheck to paycheck? How can we be so wealthy and have so little savings?

And if we're not wise with money, why on earth do I expect us to be wise with law, or justice, or charity, or emotional healing, or child raising?

Advertising Economics

I hear a lot about the advertising business boom. Selling advertising on buses. On school buses. About FedEx sponsoring textbooks. Google and Yahoo selling ads. Recently, someone auctioned off the right to tattoo a section of his body. There's this vision of the future as a "Minority Report" scene where people receive personalized ads as they stroll about. There's moaning and worrying about us becoming overwhelmed with ads.

Lately I've been thinking about the economics behind this model. Here's my conclusion: This sort of future is only possible if advertising becomes very, very cheap.

Here's why: For a company, advertising is cost limited by profit per item. That is, advertising comes out of a company's profit. Long term, a business can not function if it cost more to sell the item than to buy it. (Yes, exceptions like the razor/razor blade model where one sells a cheap permanent item and an expensive replaceable item. But even then the net profit needs above zero.)

Now a company can shift where it advertises. Perhaps the internet is a better medium than newspapers. Perhaps advertising on textbooks is a better use of resources than magazines. Perhaps sponsoring college bowl games is better than radio. But companies are strictly limited their advertising budget based on their sales.

Likewise, credit cards not withstanding, there's a strict limit on the number of purchasing decisions a person makes during a year. Just because I see more advertising doesn't mean that my yearly buying power goes up. (Yes, there's suggestions that advertising does increase spending, which may lead to debt, which leads to interest, which in turn leads to less spending...or bankruptcy.)

So perhaps the question is really...what's the value to us of non-advertising filled space? What does an advertiser have to value a space at before we'll fill it with an ad? How good is a "FedEx" tattoo on my arm as an advertisement?

<< This space available for rent. $1000/character minimum. Higher bids accepted. All content subject to review and editing>>

Zeal and Human Nature

I came across this blog entry today discussing the nature of radical Islam. I don't have a lot more to say about it, other than I've been contemplating whether or not we (I) think of ourselves (myself) as somehow more enlightened and less given to violence.

Chinese Torture, err, Modern Medicine

The difference, apparently, in anesthesia. Ancient Chinese used to remove toenails without to torture. Modern doctors first repeatedly stab you with a needle to numb the toe, then operate. When all is said and done, I strongly prefer modern medicine.

Thoughts from today:
Sometimes the "surely it will get better" thought isn't right, and there is a reason that modern medicine is a huge advancement over ancient times.

Experts often know more than novices. I shouldn't pretend to be an expert where I'm not.

Experts are tempted to abuse their expertise for personal gain.

Some problems take an expert to solve.

Some problems take an expert to know that it takes an expert to solve.

The Only Constant: Change

Lately I've been thinking about how life is always in flux. Not necessarily truly dramatic paradigm-altering change, but a "The more things change, the more they stay the same" type change.

* I've always assumed that Steve Irwin would make video of dangerous creatures until he was fifty or sixty or seventy, and then become one of those guest commentators on TV or some such. Or not.

* Friends wander in and out of our lives...and occasionally wander back in again.

* Our pastor was commenting on how our church feels different this year than it did last year, which is different from five, ten, or fifteen years ago.

I'm also realizing all over again that I don't like change. Or rather, I like change that isn't too personal. Buying a house sounds cool. Rebuilding an entire social network doesn't. New experiences are interesting. Developing new life routines isn't. And so on.

Nothing very new for my personality and temperament, but since I haven't blogged much, I figured I'd share, especially as I'm having writers block on my more interesting thoughts.

Message or Fact

Lately I've been thinking about the information overload in today's society, and how fundamentally, technology doesn't make getting the truth easier, it merely changes the means by which honest and dishonest folk communicate their messages.

I've been disturbed lately by some of the blogs I follow which discuss the wholesale manipulation of photography in the middle east. This editorial illustrates the concerns rather well.

It's easy for the message - "Innocent civilians hurt by big mean army" - to become far more important than whether or not we're actually being shown truthful shots of innocent civilians hurt by a big mean army.

It's also easy for us to be very confident in our world view, without good support. How do we know what is happening in Iraq? Well, because we have news. How do we know that the news is a realistic or accurate portrayal of the situation? Because they interview a few people? Because all the news reports the same thing? Because the politicians don't dispute the news? Because they quote statistics?

In reality, news can only capture a small fragment of life. The morning newspaper probably doesn't correspond closely to the average daily life. Few of us were murdered, mugged, or subjected to arson in the last day. That's not entirely bad - that's just how news works.

But when we begin to rely on the news for forming opinions, and especially when the news is not even being honest in their reporting of the details, how can we trust our views on situations?

I've been thinking lately about the value of integrity in society, and how it matters for so many jobs.

Janitor? It's a real nuisance when stuff starts disappearing.
Clerk?
Chief Financial Officer? It's a federal diasaster when millions in funds start disappearing.
Auditor? Arthur Anderson...
Reporter?
Photographer?
Diplomat?
Politician?
Parent?
Pastor?
Citizen?

Disturbing Friendships

I came across this link in the very cool Freakonomics blog. Basically, a guy is selling himself as a "Rent-A-Pal" for 30 days, including unlimited e-mails. I'm not sure if this offer means that he'll send as many e-mails as one wants, or just that he won't report them all as spam.

I am a bit surprised that nobody has bid the $20 minimum yet. It can be hard to get someone to listen to you, and I figured some internet loner would put $20 down to get some social interaction.

I suppose if the selling bid is high enough, I might consider making myself available as an internet pal. Perhaps I could sell myself as an internet counselor and discount my services to $40-$60/hr. Some disclaimers would have to apply about advice being purely for entertainment purposes.

I spent part of today merging my old Pine addressbook with my primary Outlook one. It was interesting to go back at all the different names I've stored. Some of them are of people I barely interacted with, and yet I can instantly identify who they are and how they are connected to me. Other are of people that I *think* I knew for a period of time, yet I cannot place the name at all.

There's also a weird sense looking through the names. There are people I frequently interacted with a year ago that I rarely think of today. There are people that I rarely interacted with that I often ponder what happened to them. I'm also reminded of the people who have wandered back into my life after I was sure they were gone forever.

Finally, I'm reminded how solitary our life journey tends to be. I have a some friends I still keep in contact five years ago. A much smaller group from eight or nine years ago. And just a handful from beyond that. (I actually suspect that I keep in touch with more high school acquaintances than people from my freshman year of college.)

Even with the multi-year friendships, most of them have ebbed and flowed over time. People drift into life for a while, then out, then back. And then there's the plain bizarre, like long distance friends who move to my neighborhood.

In thinking through the solitariness of life, I've been contemplating what it means to influence people. My church likes to talk about the vision of knowing God, helping others to know God, and helping others to help others to know God. (And yes, for the math geeks reading, that is a recursive vision.)

I'll try and blog again about my contemplativeness after it cools.

Stuff, stuff, stuff everywhere...

...and not a bit to use.

So I've spent the last few weeks helping several people move. Or at least, eating the food they provide when I show up to help them move. I'm not entirely sure how helpful I've been in every case.

Today's move reminded me of a couple hobbies my parents tried to involve me in growing up - gardening and fish. But I've also gotten to thinking about how much stuff I have...and how much of it I ever use. I'm struck by the 80-20 rule. I use 20% of my stuff 80% of the time. Actually, I suspect it's more like I use 10% of my stuff 90% of the time...and most of it never. But I tend to think of things like "Well, who knows when I'll use this 'Get well' card...it'd be a horrible thing to get rid of, only to discover that I really need one."

Now could I find that card when I actually need it? Probably not. Would I even think of the fact that I have it? Probably not. But it faithfully sits on my shelf, collecting dust and being remembered mostly in cleaning sprees and blog entries.

My desk happens to have a 1 page printout of Master of Orion 3's keyboard shortcuts. Total cost to recreate: Maybe 3 cents? It has sat on my desk for months. I feel that way about a lot of my possessions: With the right alignment of the moon, it'd be useful. Most of the time, it just takes up space.

From time to time, I've thought about finding a giant box and putting all of my various unused items in it and inviting my friends to sort through it. (Anyone looking for a copy of KOTOR I?)

It's weird. I'm hesitant to throw anything away for fear of being wasteful, and yet I'm not clear that my room is serving any purpose for many items other than being a temporary landfill.

It's a problem that makes it hard for me to jump into hobbies. I know my tendency to collect stuff, and I don't really care to jump into a hobby just to collect more stuff.

So today I've been thinking about "What does it mean to be responsible with my stuff? What do I really need to keep? How do I accumulate less that I won't use? And what do I do with the stuff that 'ought' to be useful, but never is? For example, my compass for drawing circles."

Resume Padding

I remember a discussion with a friend of mine who graduated top of his class in engineering. It was about all of the honor societies which had invited him to join. Pay $50, $75 or $100 bucks and you can become a lifetime member of this "prestigious" organization. A few of them actually did something during the year (meet, network, invite contacts), but often the invites felt more like a mass mailing scam where a Nigerian con-artist sent a "Congratulations. You are one of a select few invited to join this honorary society every year...." letter to every student.

Inevitable, one of the plugs for these societies was resume building. The implicit message: For only $60, you can put this prestigious title on your resume. Employers (who certainly have never been to college themselves) will be overwhelmed by your credibility and competence.

I've been thinking lately about this saying of Jesus:

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

It's the opposite of resume building. Resume building is "Doing community service? Add it to your resume." Or "Have you been recognized by a few others? Flaunt the award to as many others as possible?"

At work recently, a co-worker complimented me for a piece of work that has drastically increased our visual presentation. He's right - it's a significant improvement. The only problem? Even though I'm usually the one who people see with the work (because of my job), my total contribution on this work is about 0.5%.

After some contemplation, I've decided I like credit and recognition from others. And when others don't recognize most of my 'acts of righteousness,' I'm not above helping their thinking along. After all, it's not good to let people be naive or oblivious.

Perhaps scarier is the hesitation - a bit grumbling - after my co-worker compliments me. "God, must I disillusion him about my contribution?" I'm not terribly serious about my complaint, but the thought definitely enters my mind on a very trivial matter.

If credit is so appealing in the little things, how am I going to fair in the larger matters? If being just with credit is a challenge, how will I do when it is unjustly given to others? Do I really believe that God sees?

Incidentally, my friend's solution to the prolific honor society invites? He simply added "Invited to join numerous honor societies" to his list of accomplishments which was then read during his graduation. Entirely free too.

I'm a little slow, but...

So I was reading this story recently about how Lutherans, Catholics, and Methodists signed a historic document, jointly agreeing on the doctrine of justification. Actually, the Catholics and Lutherans apparently signed it a few years ago, with the text here.

Now I'm a bit slow when it comes to doctrinal stuff, but a few questions sprang to mind reading through the document.

What has changed in the past 400 years? Is theology progressive, like science? Are we better at philosophy, theology, and ethics than we were 400 years ago? Are we smarter than the men (both sides) debating then? I'm not at all convinced that theology is like technology, which gets better with every generation.

The declaration has statements like

Our common way of listening to the word of God in Scripture has led to such new insights.

and

The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification.

What about each groups' understanding has changed? It's great that new insights and a shared understanding have been reached. What were they reach from? Whose understandings have changed in the last 400 years?

Out of curiosity, how did this issue get so misunderstood 400 years ago that doctrinal condemnations were issued? Is anyone the least bit apologetic for false condemning the other falsely? (Were those condemnations false?)

Could a document this important be written in a way that a common American could understand? I'm all for incomprehensible theology, but it'd be nice to have a "what we really mean is ..." version.

Could one finish the must statements with consequences?

But the justified must all through life constantly look to God's unconditional justifying grace [or else what?]

The justified also must ask God daily for forgiveness as in the Lord's Prayer (Mt. 6:12; 1 Jn 1:9), are ever again called to conversion and penance, and are ever again granted forgiveness. [Or else what?]

Is this Johnny must eat his peas or else he won't have desert? Johnny must eat his peas or else he will be spanked? Johnny must eat his peas or else he will be shipped to outer Mongolia?

The justified must ask God daily for forgiveness or else what...? They aren't forgiven for their sins? They suffer disconnection from God despite remaining his children? God smites them with lightning?

For A Few Pennies More

So I've been doing a poor job of blogging lately. I've been hoping that inspiration would hit for talking about geishas, but somehow I just haven't felt like the topic would be very interesting.

Instead I've been thinking about fundraising. Periodically I get fundraising letters from friends and acquaintances - even the occasional enemy. I've gotten a few recently, and they've reminded me of my middle school fundraisers. Boxes of chocolate bars were the method of choice. As I recall, the bigwigs had a big (read: hot, loud, large, uncomfortable) assembly where they dazzled us with all the prizes we could win based on the number of boxes chocolate we sold (36 bars/box). Every student was supposed to sell at least one box, asking anyone (and everyone) to buy a bar or two or ten. Parents were supposed to take boxes into co-workers, etc., etc.

Fundraising in American is a strange beast. Instead of simply asking people to donate, we entice them with a value of nominal value at an inflated price. Companies are glad to be seen as aiding charity by providing products for a small profit plus marketing. Sometimes rather than provide supporters with a token, we assure them that we'll adequately suffer to earn their dollars - walking/biking/swimming/crawling some distance is popular, although occasional more creative ordeals are created (e.g. going without food/sleep/water/caffeine for 24, 36, or 48+ hours).

Here's a few questions I've been thinking about:
Why do I give for incentive? If I think the cause is worthy, why don't I simply give the whole amount for it? If I want the item, why don't I go buy one and then give the difference toward the charity?

Why don't I give without being asked? Am I unaware of good causes until asked for my money? Are my priorities/budget in giving so unclear that I primarily only give when asked? Are the causes I'm asked to support better than the ones I find on my own?

Do I typically respond to requests from within my budget? Do my financial habits reflect that I expect to be regularly giving toward various causes?

Do I have a priority framework for unexpected requests? Do I budget for these occurrences? For example, students I know often go to a summer Christian training program called "Leadership Training." I appreciate the program, and while I usually don't know who exactly is going, I budget money with the expectation that I will be asked.

Am I primarily being a producer or a conduit? Do I produce money to give to others, or do I connect other people with places for them to give? In giving, am I a businessman (who makes money) or a lobbyist (who tries to convince others how to spend their money)? I've been thinking about a quote by St. Paul:

He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

One of the purposes of my work is have something to give to others.

Don't get me wrong: I do not think being conduit-like is bad - even this blog entry is part conduit. And there's a difference between being a conduit and serving in a position that is supported by giving (e.g. missionary). But I easily make the mistake of urging others to give rather than developing financial habits and career skills that will enable me to give generously from what I make.

The Outsider

Lately I've been contemplating something Paul wrote about his missionary trip to Thessalonica (pronounced "City of Thes" when I can't remember the ending):

We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us

We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you our lives. Paul is about the people who became Christians during his first trip to Thes (Acts 17). These aren't people that he's known very long; these aren't long-time devoted Christ followers (although most of the initial followers were God-fearing people from the Jewish synagogue). I'm not even clear if all of these people were Christians at the time Paul was living with them.

And yet the result of his love was that he was delighted to not only share theological truth (the gospel), but his life as well. Sharing our lives makes us vulnerable...especially toward people who are mostly strangers, in a strange city, with strange customs. Paul certainly had enough skeletons to be more than a little uncomfortable with sharing himself.

"Me? How did God reach me? Well, I was the stiff-necked guy that he had to knock off a horse...What was I doing on the horse? Oh...well...I was going to try to go kill some Christians."

This story does a good job of putting Paul in perspective...and should be worth a laugh or two.

I remember when I first heard this verse placed in the context of community. I don't remember much about that teaching, but it has really stuck with me over the years as a reflection of Paul's heart toward people. (Much of 1 Thes 2 is very thought-provoking in that regard.)

I'm not very threatened by the question "Does my love for people lead me to delight in sharing truth with them?". But the question "Does my love of people lead me to delight in sharing life with them?" starts making me squirm a bit: Impersonal truth is far easier for me than open involvement. I'm not sure love can be love without both truth and openness.

Depraved, depraved I tell you

So here's a thought provoking article looking at the idea of innate goodness in people:
Freakonomics Depravity. What can I say...statistics and theology. What's not to like?

As a side note, I'm tracking interest in the Geisha vs church discussion. Here's a few stats:

Number of requests: 11
Average requests/person: <2
Average requests/person/week: <0.6
Average request/post: 2
# comments attempting flattery/manipulation/interest with thoughtful interactions with the post at hand prior to demand: 1

Best Laid Plans of Mice & Men

The plans of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord

I've been thinking about this saying lately. Actually, I've been thinking of a conversation I had with a mentor friend of mine a long, long time ago when I asked him "Of whose tongue is the saying speaking?"

We ended up in a discussion about initiative verses success, and some of the many arenas where we're highly dependent on others: Education, jobs, friendship, romance, etc.

I can answer a test, but grading rest in the professor's hands.
I can hunt for a job, but hiring is not my decision.
I can ask my boss for a raise, but he controls the purse strings.
I can invite others to be my friend, but friendship requires their acceptance.
I can ask for a woman's heart, but the relationship is based on her reply.

I'm sobered to think about how much of my daily life is dependent, in part or totally, on the replies of others. We strive so hard to make our lives independent - automated banking, twenty-four hour grocery stores, fast-food, and online shopping. But most major decisions - and many minor ones, are still heavily dependent on other's will: My social life, home purchasing and living arrangements leap to mind.

I'm not sure I like this scheme where God answers my plans through others. I'm not sure at all.

Quality Roots

So I finally re-potted my big plant (right) yesterday. And I tried to make it reproduce (baby plant, left). The big plant was in the white plastic pot that the baby plant was in. The root to soil ratio was probably 4:1, suggesting that it was long overdue for a re-potting. I'm not quite sure it will survive as I wrecked it's root system to untangle them from a tight ball, although my mom should be proud of me for remembering to break up the roots.

Then baby plant was the tiny offshoot from big plant which I broke off and stuck in some moist soil. I'm not quite sure it will survive other. I'm a bit rusty on my plant biology, but I vaguely recall no roots is very bad for plants. On the other hand, my friends assure me that spider plants are indestructible. So maybe this is a "What happens when the unstoppable force of my ability to kill plants meets the immovable force of spider plants?" question.

Now above is a genuine Yucca plant. These live in the forsaken deserts of New Mexico. They are basically a growing half-sphere of spikes. Unfortunately, the non-sphere portion is the against the ground, which tends to be comprised of granite or other rock. Since spikes are generally considered undesirable in one's lawn, I spent a fair amount of time growing up to rid the lawn of these nuisances.

The simple approach was to take a pick mattock, place a well aimed blow at the point where the Yucca and the ground connected, and sever the spikes from the root. Unfortunately, this approach doesn't work so well because the Yucca has an amazing tap root which goes deep into the ground and will simply regrow. So shortly one simply has a smaller, harder to see protruding ball of spikes. The proper approach was to first sever the ball, then dig/hack/smash about six inches into the rock and take out about six inches of the tap root.

Re-potting my plants has gotten me thinking about the Yucca, and what it means to be deeply rooted. I don't work much with plants, and I tend to forget how tenacious and intertwining root systems are, even interfering with drain pipes.

Spirals: Inward, Downward, Onward

I've recently created a hypothesis: Life is a set of spirals, or at least, self-fulfilling prophecies. Or, in physics terms, an object in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by another force.

School/Jobs: There's a self-momentum to education. Good grades in high school makes good grades in college easier, which makes good jobs easier.

Friendships: Friendships are rarely static. They tend continue moving closer, moving rapidly apart, or reinforcing the distance that exists. Yes, momentum can shift (and periodically does), but the past is a remarkably good predictor of the future.

Group Efforts: Getting a new group going is an amazingly challenging task. But once the group gets going, it tends to have a culture which is incredibly difficult to change. Eventually the momentum will shift toward decline.

Hurricanes: And tornados. Enough said.

Maybe I'm confusing spirals with entropy: Everything moves toward decay unless energy is put into the system. Or maybe life isn't about spirals. Maybe it is circles.

X-men, Magicians, Someone

So lately I've been watching reruns of the X-Men cartoons (which, yes, I used to watch in my childhood), as well as having caught the third movie. Fundamentally, I decided recently, the X-men are really sorcerers. There's a thin "genetic" explanation for their mutant powers which might work for a few such as Wolverine or, say, Xavier. But for most mutants, science can't begin to fathom a genetic explanation:

Cyclops: Solar energy is converted into a concentrated laser beam. Now we're pretty good at our energy science, and last I checked, energy is conserved. Remember those solar lamps which if you are lucky and live in a sunny state can absorb energy during the day and power a garden lamp at night? Cyclops' energy intake to expenditure ratio is, well, energy creative.

Iceman: Ice is another one of those very well understood sciences. To make ice, one needs water...and low temperature. Cooling happens to be another very well understood science. And the suggestion that with a little genetic alteration, the human body can act as a Zamboni machine...is well, magic.

Pyro: Manipulating fire is a cool talent. Unfortunately, fire requires fuel (wood, gas, oil) as well as oxygen. So for Pyro to be manipulating fire, he basically needs to be fueling by materializing an unknown fuel to feed the fire. By the time we're at matter creation, we're either at magic or godhood.

Colossus: Do I even want to start with the ability to generate a metal skin from...um...no where?

I'm fascinated, though, by how much the control of the supernatural captivates us. One friend once observed that he thought we have an almost intuitive understanding that there ought be a way to shape reality other than physically - it's almost like we're reaching for a lost ability. Here's a few other thoughts I have:

- We want to be someone chosen. Magicians and mutants are called - often self-called - to a greater purpose, whether for good or evil. They live above the humdrums of every day lives, pursuing deeper, fuller meanings of life that effect everyone around them.

- We want to be special. We don't want just to be chosen randomly, but we want to be someone who is truly one in a billion. We resent the "Remember, you're unique...just like everyone else" sentiment. Magic is reserved for the few, the chosen, the handful.

- We identify with the theme of being outcast because of our specialness. It's not very flattering to have been ostracized because one was a jerk, or just happened to be the weak kid. But to be downtrodden because I am one of the chosen, someone truly unique, with special gifts - to be a martyr of sorts - resonates with us.

I know if those inclinations are all bad. But I do think our tendency to view specialness and chosenness based upon our abilities and position is a psychological minefield for both us and those around us.

Blog? Blog?

So I've been very, very bad about blogging recently. Probably because I've either been stressed and/or dealing with stuff that doesn't blog well. I've also been thinking about 1st Samuel (Bible book) recently, but will restrain myself from actually blogging on it for a few more days.

I was reading a book on money this weekend and it was talking about the idea that our financial decisions fall into two categories: Short-term (taxes, debt payments, giving, life style, and savings), and long-term (investment, major life purchases, charity, children's education, etc.) The author was talking about the idea that the longer term our perspective was, the better our financial decisions were likely to be.

It wasn't terribly revolutionary for me, but the short/long-term breakdown was very helpful. I tend to feel pressured to make too much happen too fast, and it was helpful to see goals broken down into short and long-term. I think I've also been a bit too influenced by the "If you were to die in a year, how would you spend your money/time/life?" questions.

The reality is that if I knew that I'd die in a year, I could afford to do things that I couldn't do if I knew I'd live twenty. I could probably deprive myself of sleep and vacation for a year. For twenty...not such a good idea. I'm realizing that I see the "If you were..." questions are really cool for emphasizing reflection priorities, but not so helpful for actually formulating a plan. It's the same thing with "What if Jesus was coming back next week?"

I also don't like an entirely long-term strategy such as "I'm going to invest my money and when I die, give it and all its interest to my church instead of giving regularly now". I'm not sure that my church could pay it's bills via this stratgy.)

Another point that the book made was about people: Financial planning and wisdom is a means to an end. Financial displine and wisdom is not unique to Christians. What makes Christians unique is the ends toward which they spend their money. Well, what ought to make Christians unique. Statistics are a little frightening about both the ends and means of how Christians actually spend their money.

Sigh. Now I'm thinking of some financial habits I should really change. Time to quit musing deep insights and go apply them.

'Till Death Do Us Part

I periodically stumble across a obituary that catches my attention. Usually I'm struck by how people are portrayed after their death. The CEO of Michelin (the tire maker) died recently in a boating accident. Here's some sy what is mentioned about him:

He was charming
He one of France's finest business men
He was passionate about business, and inspired that passion in others
He was brilliant, dynamic, and humane.

As fine and admirable as those qualities are, I don't think they are what I'd want my friends or co-workers mentioning if they were given a single quote to describe my life.

On the other side of life, I have the honor of being in the wedding of a couple good friends this weekend. I'm sure I'll have many more reflections after the wedding (not to mention that I really should write my 'Why geishas are more relaxing than going to church' reflection after last night. But here's one I've been thinking about tonight: The custom of the father giving the bride to the groom, symbolizing the transfer of responsibility for protecting her from the father to the husband (among other symbols).

What about women makes protection appropriate? Does offering protection imply that the protectee is weaker? Is genuine protection ever offered without implying value? What does it mean for a husband to protect his wife? His daughter?

A Penny Saved...is Worthless

A friend introduced me a while ago to Dave Ramsey. The site, once you get through all the glitz, has some very good advice. Essentially Dave deals with the question "How do I wisely deal with my money?" One of the sections that makes me wince is the "Stupid Tax" section, where people share stories of ways they've been taxed on their stupidity. I think I just hate the fact that many life lessons have to cost money...in some cases, lots and lots of money.

I just started poking around the site recently, and so I've been thinking about how much our money handling skills impact our lives; about why it is one of the top five sources of marital conflict; about why Jesus talked so much about money. Here's a few thoughts to ponder with me...

Is it really true that my heart goes where I spend my money?
What does it mean to be content?
What does it mean to be grateful with great wealth?
What does it mean to be wise with great wealth?

Do I believe that contentment is related to wealth? (Corollary: Do I feel guilty of the poor because I believe they are incapable of contentment without wealth?)

Why do I work? What benefits and goals am I pursuing?

Ramsey has a quote to the effect of "The purpose of job benefits is to be a benefit to us. There's no point in pursuing benefits that don't benefit our interests, nor of paying a higher cost than the benefit's worth."

One More Thought

I came across this movie just after finishing my blog entry. It seemed...appropriate. Enjoy.

Labor Surplus

In my last post, someone asked me "So what would your economy tend to produce instead?" Here's a few thoughts...

Missionaries: It's easy to claim that God is easily one's greatest treasure. It's also pretty easy to claim that others should equally prize God. But how we spend our money often speaks loudly to whether we truly value others knowing God or not. Without getting into a mission philosophy discourse, here's a few observations:

Besides missionaries, there's a significant infrastructure needed to provide training, support, and materials for missionaries. There's also an underlying consideration of when sending American missionaries is the wisest use of resources. In many parts of the world, native missionaries can work without the cultural or language barriers for far less money.

Rational Aid: Money means power, and that means that our economy is capable of supporting a far more significant effort to help people, whether foreign or domestic. For this aid to be helpful in many cases, though, requires more than simply throwing resources at a problem. It also requires shrewdness about human nature and how to encourage growth and responsibility; compassion and mercy mingled with wisdom. It's far easier to give a lazy man a fish day after day than to actually convince him to learn to fish.

Art: I'm not sure this industry would prosper more than it does not, but I think it would prosper differently. There's something about the creative expressive nature of art that is valuable to promote and maintain.

Relaxation: Not so much an industry, but rather a use of time. Americans are very good at living hurried busy anxious lives filled with entertainment, but generally bad at pacing ourselves in a way that includes genuine relaxation.

Technology (& Education): Technology is the ability to do more with less. Or perhaps more with more. It's also a reflection of God's creation. So research and development flourishes...or perhaps doesn't decline. Depends a little bit on how one sees today's technology situation.

Macro Economics 101

As I mentioned in my last post, sometimes I contemplate the economic future my values would tend to create in America. I'm not a master economist - or even a minor one, but let me start with one observation: Fundamentally, we pay money for one of two 'goods':

Labor: We pay for someone else's time, expertise, and energy.

Resource: We pay for 'ownership' of non-manufactured resources (land, gold, sand, oil, water, etc.).

So how do I think industries would fair? Here's a few thoughts...

Clothing: Very badly. The whole designer name brand bit would do very badly. I'm a big fan of inexpensive quality clothing. Something like * * = constant. So a very expensive coat that kept me really warm and lasted really long would be worth it. The inexpensive clothing industry might do okay as part of helping people in foreign countries as well.

Automobiles: Another industry that I fear would fair badly with an emphasis on longevity and economy rather than financial gimmicks for new cars. However, truck rentals might boom as a more economical way to have an occasional truck than to own one every day of the year.

Hollywood: I'm afraid I'd be taking huge chunks out of the movie and music industry. I just don't see entertainment as justifying huge multi-million dollar salaries. And don't get me started on professional sports or television...

Credit Cards: Visa and company would be reduced to handlers for debit cards. I'm not a big fan of debt, and even less for credit cards as a means of borrowing money in most circumstances.

Fast Food: I like restaurants. But in their current cost niche, I find it too expensive to use them as a replacement for my local kitchen. Sadly, I don't think America could support nearly the number of restaurants it has on my frequency of eating out.

Just Less: In general, I tend to stretch out purchases and get by with less...a few less toys, a few less electronics, a few less music CDs, and so forth.

Hospitality (or micro-economics)

I've been contemplating economics lately - as in, what would happen to America's economy if a significant percentage of people followed my values? Hopefully I'll get around to that line of thought soon, but I've also been contemplating the virtue of hospitality (in part in relationship to my musings in my last post about community).

I've been thinking about the legacy of a long-time friend of mine is leaving the pastorate. One of the first characteristics that pops into my mind is how hospitable he and his wife were. Despite the busyness that was always around them, they loved to have people over, to make them feel welcome, to share their food.

It's strange how my perspective has changed: I remember puzzling over why such the Bible placed an emphasis on hospitality. Surely having people over wasn't such a difficult thing to do, was it? As far as commands go, it seems almost trivial compared to some of the other instructions (love your neighbor as yourself, don't lust, be content).

But gradually, I'm seeing hospitality as about more than simply having people over and letting them plop on the couch. Here's a few ideas...

Hospitality doesn't just spontaneously happen - people don't just lurk outside my door waiting for me say "You know what? I feel hospitable right now...come on in." In fact, hospitality is often down right inconvenient. Guests are unpredictable - sometimes they need to talk, sometimes they need food, sometimes they disrupt the "sacred social norms". Hospitality is more on our turf - people see us a bit more as we are as we deal with the unexpected parental visit or drunk friend.

Hospitality requires initiative and planning. People don't invite themselves over - and once over, they take attention. Plan on feeding them? Better have made time for an appropriate grocery trip - or keep one's pantry properly stocked. Want to have a crowd for the Superbowl? Better have gotten an appropriately sized place with plenty of seating.

Hospitality is an aspect of community: There's a nice feel to being able to be a welcome guest - to knowing that others want to have me around, want me to be comfortable, want to get to know me, are willing to have their space and convenience infringed upon.

I'm tempted to also go into why hospitality seems so difficult, and why I appreciate the examples of others in this area...but creative juices are draining rapidly...

Reading Test

Today's blog entry celebrates two events: Finals week, and several of my friends' upcoming marriages.

The topic? This essay on marriage by John Yoder, a Mennonite theologian. His name rings vaguely familiar, so he may be quite well known.

What can I say? It is long, and a bit challenging to read. (Actually, the first three-fourths were the best; the last 'Parallel Reasoning' part didn't resonate.)

It's a hard article to do justice to, but here's a few points of interest. First, he defines three different views on marriage:
Ontological: A marriage is permanent as long as its 'essence' is maintained, but if the essence is broken, then the marriage is invalid. For example, a marriage is valid as long as both spouses do not commit adultery.
Realist-objective: Marriage is fundamentally determined by powers beyond human control...and the call to live up to the ideal is present regardless of the current state of the marriage.

(As a sidenote to this definition, but a theme throughout the article is the notion that sexual union is a sufficient condition for a marriage relationship. For readers going 'madness!', read the article, it isn't as crazy as I just made it sound. He also argues that while sexual union is sufficient, not all 'marriages' are viable...very fascinating.)

Realist-legal: Essentially argues that the essence of the first marriage always holds, and therefore any additional marriages (or remarriage without a spouse dying) are sinful.

I like what the author does in arguing for the second perspective, trying to stay well away from legalism ("What must my spouse do before I can divorce her?") and calling Christians to a higher vision of marriage. I also like the way the ideas of grace and mercy are woven in regarding remarriage. I don't know if I entirely agree, but it's thought provoking.

Here's another excerpt regarding community that got me thinking.

Most discussion of this issue [marriage] neglects the support which church and community owe to single people. The modern idea that a single person is somehow unfulfilled, unbalanced, unwanted needs to be attacked as an idea and undermined in practice. There should be patterns of community relations in which single persons (whether divorced or never married) would be "at home" as part of a wider "family," and would be recognized for their special contribution. If such resources were available to single persons, there would be fewer "bad marriages," and the divorced would be helped to live without overwhelming pressures toward remarriage.

Attacking the unfulfilled single idea in idea is fairly easy. Undermining it in practice, however, strikes me as exceedingly difficult. I'm tempted to do a brief poll of my peers and see whether they would describe themselves as 'recognized for their special contribution in a wider church family in which they consider at home.'

I need to think more about what it actually takes to undermine the unwanted/unbalanced/unfulfilled single concept is practice. Cheaper gas, perhaps. Fortunately, electrons are plentiful (and thus, cheap) so I can blog on the thought again.

The Type of Motivation

Related to gender differences in sin, I came across this Slate article today. Interesting, with a healthy dose of salt...I'm a bit skeptical of statistics in the hands of people.

So related to my last post, I've been thinking about different types of change we under go...and my motivation for different types. For example, I wear different clothes at my current job than my previous one. It is a change, but a fairly meaningless one. I didn't loose sleep over the matter, consider not taking the job, or even really consider the cost. For all intents and purposes, my work dress style (or lack thereof?) is a cosmetic change.

Now some cosmetic changes are harder. I have friends who have finally seen the light and are forsaking their loyalty to the University of Michigan and becoming die-hard Michigan State Spartan fans. Well, at least fair-weather Spartan fans. At some level, this change is purely cosmetic - new clothes, new cheers, new bumper stickers. But it's a harder change...they have attachments that go with being Wolverines and it's hard to abandon those. If I was writing a self-help book, I would come up with a witty and clever name like connection changes to describe this category.

And then there are character changes. (See, I'd make an author because I can make all three of my points start with the same letter, which supposed to help memory or something...or else just makes editors happy so that books get published.) Character changes have to do with forsaking parts of our own identity. I don't want to be less witty in order to be empathetic; funny is part of who I am. I don't want to take risks and looking irresponsible; organized and together is part of who I am. I don't want to complain less; being open is part of who I am. Even when I think the character change is completely a good way, it's uncertain and nebulous...and that's not part of who I want to be.

Usually I find the cosmetic, connectional, and character changes all blending together. But usually when I'm really struggling with change, it's because I'm stuck on the character portion of change. I'll spare the "can character change occur without Christ" theology post for another time, but often when I'm stuck, I'm drawn back to the question of motivation: How motivated am I really? What I am willing to pay? How much pain am I willing to endure for this change?

The Price of Motivation

Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

I visited the bookstore yesterday - a very dangerous exercise for me, as I am reminded of how many books there are, and how many of them I want to read (all of them), and my reading speed just isn't up to the task. I need to be more content with dabbling, but it's hard for me to be content with reading just a few books. (I did end up reading Brian McLaren's The Secret Message of Jesus, so I can now authoritative talk about my perceptions rather than passing along assorted rumors. (For anyone who cares, McLaren is a "big name" figure in the "Emerging Church" movement.)

Frequently when I visit bookstores, I'm stunned by the self-help section. It's huge. Apparently we need lots of help. But I also find myself wondering about what motivates me to change. Generally my current lifestyle is, more or less, comfortable. If there were easy, safe, clear options for improving it, I'd make them in a flash. But most change is hard, uncertain, tentative. At a minimum, it's the devil we know (now) verses the devil we don't - who might be a lot bigger, scarier, and more frightening. So what motivates me to change?

Pain: Duh. At some point, I simply decide that change can't be any worse than the current situation, and, being a somewhat rational creature, I gravitate toward the option that might lead to pain reduction.

I wonder how much of my change can be categorized in those terms. The pain of a guilty conscience verses the pain of paying my taxes. The pain of grieving God verses the pain of being scorned by one's friends. (Hrm, I begin to sound like my evolutionary biologist friends.)

The more whimsical mathematical part of me now wants to define joy = (alpha/pain) where alpha is constant, and then all change can be expressed as a function of pain.

I don't entirely like the simplification, but it makes for great character questions...

How much relational conflict is honesty worth to me?
How much contempt from others is pursuing God worth?
Is it worth sacrificially caring for people who scorn and reject me?
How much loneliness is holiness worth?
Is the level of pain the basis for leaving a church or getting a divorce?

Digging the Hole Deeper (Part III)

If I were constructing my list of sins that Christians struggle with the most, here's where I would start. (What follows is very broad strokes; it would take theological volumes to do complete justice to these questions.)

Idolatry: We replace God with something else (power, fame, security, money), someone else, or our own "happier" idea of God.

Disbelief: We don't believe what God tells us...in fact, we openly scorn it.

Distrust: We don't trust in God's character, especially his goodness. (Yes, closely linked to disbelief; disbelief emphasizes God's honesty; distrust, God's intentions.)

Pride: We think too highly of ourselves.

Rebellious: We don't let God be God...we want to run the show. While definitely interwoven with the previous four issues, I don't think rebellion is either completely derived from the others or the root of the others, except in the most general sense.

Often, I think many other struggles are a combination of the above sins interacting with a natural (good) desire. For example, I want to avoid pain (natural, good desire), but I don't believe God that stopping the pain right now is not his will; I don't trust him to get me through the circumstance, I think that I'm too valuable to suffer this way, so I turn to alcohol or video games or a significant other to try and soothe the ache.

I don't particularly think that men and women vary significantly at this root level of sin. I lean toward the thinking that men and women differ strongly in many manifestations of these core issues. I'm not nearly convinced that the typical differences are independent of culture - and my thoughts are pretty limited to the American culture. I think some of my ideas can be traced Biblically and thus universally, but I see this area as an easy one to exceed the authority of scripture on. Also, while I think the struggles are different, I think the common roots keep struggles from being entirely incomprehensible.

Identity: Generally, I see women more tempted to get their value from relationships, where as men are more likely to get their value from accomplishment.

Church: Someone (Tina?) commented on this quote:

On the other hand, women have always been the backbone of the church and I agree with Ken Shneck, they often are the more passionate followers of Christ.

There's definitely an interesting trend toward women being more involved with church. Percentage-wise, I believe most churches have significantly more women than men involved (reference for those who think evidence matters). I've heard a number of interesting thoughts on this phenomenon. Answers range from 'women are more spiritual' to 'God shows greater grace to the oppressed' (discussion of the long-term historical trend) to 'church is too feminine'. Another thought I've heard is that men are harder to get to attend, but are more committed once involved; women easily buy into the community/attending portion of church, but less easily buy into the sacrificial following of Christ bit.

I'm not sure of the actual answer, but I suspect the trend does reflect gender differences in sin.

Here's a few other ideas I've played around with, but with no deep conclusions
Violence: Are men more prone to physical violence/aggression? Why are roughly thirteen times as many men in jail as women?

Modesty: Part of the previous thought, Paul's letter to Timothy contrasts his desire for men to live with holy hands, without anger and disputing while women are to dress modestly (and do good).

Gossip: I toyed around with this one, but wasn't terribly convinced in the end that gossip is a core gender issue...the overarching issue (speech?) seems gender-neutral.

As for the sins drawn up by the class...a few closing thoughts:
Anger: Not sure I see this one as very gender specific (I've known plenty of angry women). I might buy that men tend to express to anger in certain ways - see my violence mutters - that are more blatant.

Pride: It made my top 5 list for both genders. 'enough said.

Self-esteem: See here.

Resentment/bitterness: I have a hard time buying this one as women specific. Perhaps partly because I think resentment and bitterness go hand and hand with anger and pride...and men have plenty of both.

Lack of Trust: Ah yes, the many men I know who trust God to lead them through seeking counsel from others, from serving their bosses wholeheartedly, from listening to their pastors, from obeying their government, and from being obedient to God's word.</sarcasm> Distrust did make my top 5 list.

A Brief Trip Into Trouble (Part II)

A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs.
A woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn't need but it's on sale.

A man has six items in his bathroom: a toothbrush, shaving cream, razor, a bar of soap, and a towel from the Holiday Inn.
The average number of items in the typical woman's bathroom is 337. A man would not be able to identify most of these items.

A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.

A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend.
A successful woman is one who can find such a man.

A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn't.
A man marries a woman expecting that she won't change and she does.

Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children. She knows about dentist appointments and romances, best friends, favorite foods, secret fears and hopes and dreams.
A man is vaguely aware of some short people living in the house.

Any married man should forget his mistakes. There's no use in two people remembering the same thing.

Ah, gender differences. So the context of these thoughts is this article from a couple posts ago. The post talked about students identifying pornography, lust, anger, and pride the four sins that men more strongly struggled with, while self-esteem, resentment, bitterness, and lack of trust were the four woman tended to identify. The article goes on talk about the perceived severity of these sins, and that Christians tend to view men's sins as "more severe" than women's.

So a few thoughts. First, one idea that leaps out to me is women's reactions to men's struggles with lust, especially pornography. A quote from Every Man's Battle neatly capture the essence:

Brenda, Fred's wife, also participated in the interviews. She summarized the typical female response: "I don't want to sound mean, but because women don't generally experience this problem, it seems to us that some men are uncontrolled perverts who don't think about anything but sex. It even affects my trust in men, knowing that pastors and deacons could have this problem. I don't like it that men lustfully take advantage of women in their thoughts...It's at least some comfort to know that many men have this problem. Since most men are affected, we really can't call you guys perverts."

I'm not clear that the typical female reaction of disgust/perversion to men's struggles with lust has an equivalent counter-part with men. I don't know if I've ever heard a man respond the same way to a woman's struggles with self-esteem, resentment, bitterness, or distrust. (Also, I am not implying that women's responses are inappropriate.)

Secondly, I'm reminded of something I once read about suicide (paraphrased):

We easily assume that suicide is related to a lack of self-love. But in fact, suicide is strongly driven by self-love: The current circumstance seems too painful, and therefore the most self-loving course of action is to terminate self.

I have a similar thought about low self-esteem. If we truly thought little of ourselves, we would not greatly struggle with thinking little of ourselves. But a part of us instinctively grasps that we are valuable, that we are in God's image...and we are drawn like a moth toward flame by that which communicates even a sliver of that value to us.

I definitely have a hard time buying that low self-esteem is a "major" sin (although I don't quite agree with Keith that it is an infirmity). I accept that low self-esteem is a consequence of various major sins (disbelief, idolatry come to mind).

The last thought that comes to mind is a Larry Crabb comment about two halves of our evil selves: The animal self and the diabolical self. We often fight (and win) against the animal self (e.g. lust) only to get completely blindsided by the diabolical self (e.g. pride).

I'll try and post some thoughts on gender sins next time.

A Brief Discourse on Sin (Part I)

Well, by popular demand, a few thoughts. First, I think there are clearly severities of sin, not just against people, but against God. For example, I have friends who have repeatedly been sexually abused as children. I'm sure the abusers have also said occasional unkind words to store clerks.

Suppose an abuser were together both his sexual abuse victim and the store clerk in the same room and say "I wanted you both here to ask your forgiveness; I've horribly wronged both of you, and I want to seek reconciliation. So-n-so, I want to ask your forgiveness for snapping at you in the store, and so-n-so, I want to ask your forgiveness for abusing you..."

Something deep within us ought to cry out at how wrong this picture is; that the sexual abuse and passing remarks are not equivalent. They are not the same in their magnitude against people - one is a much greater offense against the image of God, and therefore against God. I would accept as a pastor a man who said something snide to a cashier last week; I would not accept a man as a pastor who sexually abused a child last week.

Likewise, if a man had a habit of both viewing pornography and being rude to strangers, I would have no hesitation in recommending which sin to focus on (given no highly unusual circumstances).

I don't think this inequality is purely from a human perspective either. Various sins are more or less assaults against God and his image, and thus of various offense against God. Here's a few passages that come to mind:

That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. [Jesus, on faithless (non-Christian) servants]

If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. [Paul]

Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

So sin by ignorance is better than sin with knowledge; providing for immediate family is of utmost importance, and it is really bad to refuse to repent when Jesus shows up in your city and does miracles.

I don't mean to suggest that all sins do not have some common attributes: They are great offenses against God (and often people), they separate us from God, they create an humanly unpayable debt owed to God. I don't think an exact "sin severity" chart can be constructed; likewise, if we are aware of only committing "less severe" sins, that ought not be a source of pride. If we truly know ourselves and the fullness of sins we are committing (unlikely), we certainly know our capacity for committing greater sins and this awareness leads to a humble gratefulness toward God's goodness toward us.

As for the gender specific thoughts...well, that is at least not until part II.

And sometimes I forget important links...

These are the responses to the original author's article. There's a nice summary at the bottom of the page.

Sometimes I like to meddle...

There was cute cartoon lion image to go with this post, but sadly my image is not being uploaded. So no cute cuddly line.

Here's a couple cage rattling links written by a columnist that I very much appreciate. He's very good at asking prickly questions. The first deals with American Christian stewardship and the second asks a simple question about gender differences in sin.

Of Hammers and Chisels

It is with no small irony that I note this CNN article about Delay resigning from Congress. It's interesting to watch how the scandal has played itself out from assurances of innocence to fundraising to silence and now to resignation, officially due to "having enough" and to put less pressure on family. Meanwhile, Republican officials comment on what a great leader he was. I don't know about Delay specifically (although what I've seen certainly suggests his guilt), but I do get a little tired of the constant political charade. Has anyone ever thought about commenting "You know, he was really effective at accomplishing our agenda because he excelled at bribery and extortion...we'll miss his results, but we can't have his methods publicly associated with us" as a resignation commentary?

I also have been contemplating this blog about how acceptance and criticism should work together in the context of community. I like the concept. Implementation...well...challenging.

A rebuke impresses a man of discernment...

more than a hundred lashes a fool

No image this week. The Passion of the Christ is a fine movie for illustrating what a hundred lashes can do to someone for those who truly want a picture.

I've been thinking a lot this week about a quote I read from an author I really like (but can't recall which one). The essence of the quote was something like this:

In significant relational transgression (e.g. when one person wrongs another), there is often a necessary period of silence between the two, a period of distance, for the offender to realize the magnitude of the offense. Then, and only then, true reconciliation begin.

I have not captured the thought perfectly, and I don't entirely agree with it as I've put it. But there's more there than I'd like to admit.

Silence verses Condemnation

I find that silence and distance is related to the magnitude of the offense. A friend once lamented to me that often when he brought up pet peeves with certain people, they were overcome with guilt. He was like "Dude, I just want them to wash their hands after playing with the cat before they cook me dinner...not send them into a month long guilt depression." On the other hand, I've been around people who could horribly slander someone, then when confronted shrug it off and be shocked when the other person didn't immediately offer reconciliation.

Realization verses Vindictiveness

A while ago I hurt a friend (Frank). We talked about it, reconciled, and life was good. But Frank had a bad habit of bringing up the offense at the most inopportune moments to tease me. And of course I had no defense - I was in the wrong to begin with, and I could hardly start claiming to be in the right now - leaving Frank free to rub salt in the wound as often as he wish. To be fair, Frank didn't intend to be vindictive, he was merely a bit dense about the consequences of his words. We ended up having another conversation about thoughtful words.

I think there is a line of varying clarity between helping people realize significant wrongs they've committed against us and using those wrongs as assaults against them. Rarely do I think that open and genuine fellowship comes after significant offense without some realization by the offender about what he's done. (And yes, generally all parties involved have made significant contributions.) Some offenses need to simply be let go (your friend forgot to say thank you once in a hundred times...?), and even those that don't require a non-vindictive approach. Broadcasting the offense from the church pulpit (or the blog) doesn't count.

He who walks with the wise...

Some of my days have themes. Today's theme has been "Who am I listening too?" I stumbled across this blog entry talking about intelligence and foolishness not in terms of intellectual capacity, but in terms of one's relationship with God. Then I came across this blog discussing Fundamentalism vs. Liberalism. The entry is fascinating in many ways, but many of the points relate back to knowing God's heart rather than following human constructions. And then I came across this quote by A.W. Tozer (who was quoting someone else):

Let no one listen to a man unless he listens to God.

There's an interesting feedback loop here. People who know God better than me differ from me (hopefully) in their view of God. As I learn from them, my view of God improves, and I'm better at recognizing people who know God well. I've been reflecting today on some of the different types of people I've known. People don't tend to fit well in a single category, but here's some generalizations...

The charlatans: Sometimes known as hypocrites, everyone loves to hate these people. They portray themselves as deeply spiritual and their surface lives have the appearance of godliness, but over time, one realizes that there are deep sins that are being denied and suppressed. This group scares me as it takes time and often much discernment to tell whether people fall in this category.

The different mature: These are people whose view of God is very, very different from mine. Regretfully, it has generally taken me a long time to recognize the beauty and depth of their faith. But over time, these people have perhaps the most significant impact on me as they broaden and deepen my understanding of God.

The older me: These are people who are very similar to me, naturally and capably speaking into my life. Because we're similar, they tend to see through me, and are able to speak truth much more directly into my life than others.

Faith survivors: These are people who have been through hell on Earth at least once, and sometimes repeatedly. And yet through it all, they pursue God: Not necessarily without struggle - often great struggle. Often they are people who I originally meet and think "Wow, they are really young in their faith" until I hear where they have come from and realize how present God is in their lives for them to be loving people and coping with reality the way they are.

The Younger Visionaries: These are the idealists who see the magnitude of God and haven't been worn down by life's hard knocks. They often lack an understanding of God's work through pain, but they deeply and contagiously believe in what God can do with them and through them.

Most of the above are people that I listen to. Even the charlatans I tend to take seriously - first, because I think they often have good points even if they are not living them, and secondly, because I often mistake them for (the older me, the different mature) before I decide I must be much more cautious in how I take their advice.

And then there are a whole host of categories of people I take much less seriously, people who I love and care about, but who fundamentally I don't trust as listening to God. I still try and hear them out because God can speak through them despite themselves, and because sometimes they know God better than I realize.

But sometimes I think about the number of times I've re-evaluated how I categorize people, the countless times my estimations have been wrong, that I've regretted not listening to someone, or wondered why on earth I took someone so seriously...and sometimes I just throw my hands up and wonder how on earth I'm supposed to hear from God through people when it is so hard to know people's hearts and intents.

I was talking to an old not-quite-dead white guy friend of mine this week. Somehow or another the topic turned to violence and parenting, and he made a fascinating comment...paraphrased:

Conservatives [e.g. Christians] are often deeply concerned about physical violence in movies, video games, and the like. But rarely are they concerned about the verbal violence that envelopes their lives, their homes, or their dinner tables.

It is a challenging question: How do I verbally treat those I disagree with? Those who talk badly about me at work? Those who make foolish decisions?

Do I believe that people are more than the sum of their decisions? Or do I award respect based entirely on what people do?

Perspective

Earth: A strange planet dominated by metallic creatures. Primarily based on iron composites, these creatures can be divided into distinct classifications. All of these life forms share the ability to multiplex light frequencies in complicated patters, apparently as a form of communication.

The sea-variant are a individualistic bunch, slowly traversing the planet's bodies of water and rarely visiting each other except in large congregations with the land-variants.

The land-variants are a diverse bunch, but can primarily be divided into the long distance ones which roam continents, seemingly at random, but generally stopping at large metal structures (which other creatures routinely create). The exact purpose of these structures is unclear, but they may be a exchange point for the short distance creatures.

The short distance creatures travel very predictable routes, spending most of their day at one location, their evenings at another, with a few regularly visits at other locations - usually the exchange points mentioned above.

The land creatures are prolific in building structures for themselves, although they rarely enter the structures, preferring to linger outside. A few of the creatures even launch themselves into space, although few ever return to land. It should also be noted that there are flying variants of the creatures as well. Little more is known about these creatures, although they seem to be infected with a small carbon based lifeform. Little is known about the interaction between these lifeforms, although our scientists speculate about a possible symbiotic relationship.

I sometimes wonder if aliens would write reports about earth like this one. Would they recognize humans as the intelligence behind machines? Or would they mistake vehicles (cars, trucks, boats, airplanes) as intelligent creatures in their own right? And how would we, as humans, break that notion?

Funny how sometimes the wrong perspective can make so much sense.

Of Speakers and Microphones

I received one particularly thought provoking reply to my last post on disqualification . Ok, I received several, but one I've been particularly thinking about. Here's an excerpt.

...the issue I would raise is that of disqualification. Thinking on the ministry of Jesus, I can pick out numerous examples of forgiveness, both related to general sins and even sexual sins...Sin doesn't disqualify you, otherwise no one would ever be saved, that is why Jesus came in the first place.

In contemplating the comment, I realized that I didn't talk much about the relational verses role issues that disqualification raises.

Here's what I mean by that:
The relational aspect has to do with my relationship with God. How am I connected to him? Not at all? Enemy? As a slave? Servant? Child? The role aspect has to do with our authority to speak and minister on God's behalf, especially publicly.

I think our relational aspect is fairly fixed as either a Christian or non-Christian. Occasionally non-Christians become Christians, and certainly we draw closer or further from God. But the foundation on which we connect with God is generally constant, regardless of sin.

In contrast, a higher bar is required to be "bigwig" representative of God. God has higher lifestyle expectations from those who lead and teach his people. Teachers are judged more strictly by God; they bear a responsibility not just for their own lives, but for the manner in which they influence others.

Here's a few thoughts on the qualifications regarding pastors...although I would argue they should apply to the leaders overseeing any significant public ministry (e.g. parachurch operation).

He must manage his own family well

How does a man treat his wife and children? Not in just in public, but in the privacy of his home?

above reproach

A catch-all category that could probably allow lengthy discussion about what is above reproach. I would certainly include 'does not break marriage vows', 'does not abuse children', and 'does not embezzle money' on the list.

He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace...

I think it interesting that Christian leaders are expected to have a good reputation in the eyes of others (including non-Christians). They may not be liked, but the majority of people who know the leader will acknowledge respect or a grudging admiration for him despite their disdain.

I don't think America very consistently holds it's pastorate to these standards...I wonder what would happen if we did. I'm wondering how I'd handle the issue in my church if the need arose...