Daring to Dream

This week's sermon was on finances and dreaming. More on finances and less on dreaming, actually, but the part about vision caught my attention. I realized during it that I don't dream much about what I could do as a result of wise financial management. Instead, I tend to view finances as a means of guarding against diasister that could happen tomorrow. Savings certainly has its place, but I don't tend to think beyond savings to the bigger picture:

If I am not consumed with owning, what else can I do with my money?

The corollary is that in many ways, I don't think aggressively enough about how I can reform the boxes in which I tend to live. (No pun intended.) So my goal for the week is to think through what I could do with a house. Not just the occasional "have more people over for BBQ" type events, but if I owned a house, how could I use it constructively on a day-to-day basis as a single guy.

My other (public), slightly longer term, goal is to brainstorm other expenditures that I can wisely make if I don't buy a house. The catch is that I'm understanding more that I like seeing the visible impact of how I spend my money. I don't really like economics of scale.

With large scale giving, individual donations don't make as much (visible) impact. That is, my pastors get paid regardless of whether or not I give to my church on a particular week. Don't get me wrong, I still think it is vitally important to support the work of the local church I'm involved with. And yes, numerically, individuals do matter. But part of me would like to drop a cow off at my pastor's house and know that for the next month, his family is directly living differently because of me. Actually, that might be fun to do anyway. *wonders what his pastors would do if he gave them each a dozen live pheasants*

<aside>Maybe this issue underscores my difficulty with gifts in general: I like gifts to be personally significant, not generically routine. I'm often reminded of the question in The Game: What do you buy for the man who has everything? I like gifts as meaningful changes; I like them as quality symbolic tokens, but I dislike the "must find gift for occasion X" mindset. If the perfect Valentine gifts doesn't come up until mid-June, it is still a good gift. (On the other hand, if my significant other never thinks of giving gifts, I will be a bit concerned. But I could probably cope...)</aside>

Ironically, I don't particularly think my motivation behind this is to be visible as "the giver" or "the one who sacrificed so much". I'm not immune to that temptation, but I think part of the joy in the "It is more blessed to give than to receive" line is seeing the impact of our giving. Perhaps I'm deceiving myself, but I think it is still possible to be secretive in giving while still seeing others benefit.

So yes, I definately need to think through the whole giving aspect of finances more. (And the saving, and the spending, and the making.) Here's a final thought on how it is good for us to be self-sufficient:

The thief must no longer steal, but work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

Al Style Personality

Okay...I cave. For everyone's amusement value, here's a personality feedback test you all can take for me. Link to personality test: Just replace the 'Most like me' and 'Least like you' lines with 'Most like Al' and 'Least like Al'.

There are a few rules:

1. E-mail me the results - no fair biasing other by posting them here. If you don't know me well enough to have my e-mail, well, do you really know me well enough to be filling out a personality test for me?
2. You have to *also* take the test for yourself and send me your numbers.
3. Yes, if you want me to send back your results, I will. Unless you are a weird stalker-type person who I don't know, in which case see #1.

I Will Not Conform...Well, Okay

So most of my friends' blogs have been posting Johari windows, which are a personality test of sorts. What both really cool - and a bit scary - is that you (and all your friends) get to see what traits they put for someone. The Johari window is mostly positive, while Nohari is weakness based. The rash of postings has me thinking about the importance of feedback, and the manner I prefer to receive it. Humor value for today is the three quotes at the end, for those of you who know me.

Here's a few thoughts:
- The encouragement aspect of the Johari windows is neat. It's a nice way for a person to see what others most appreciate about them. It's perhaps a little sad we need to have blogs for people to get constant encouragement in these areas, though.
- The Nohari windows really gave me problems, usually because I wanted to express a much more complicated thought than a one or two word weakness. Perhaps this is because I generally see genuine weakness as primary character-based, not personality-based. And I don't like giving - or receiving - character criticism in public.
- Sometimes, it is hard to give feedback based on pre-existing categories. There were several windows where I was looking for words that weren't there.
- Some criticisms (and strengths) I would much rather approach in private. Do I really want to pick 'arrogant' for someone and either look the idiot for being the only one to put that, or else start a whole new train of negative thought toward the person? Partly I think this is because there are "safe" negatives - such as 'insecure', and unsafe ones - "cruel".
- I really like to know why a person picks the words they do for me.

Here's what I've been thinking about in the bigger picture:
Words are a vital component of communication. While we have cliches like "A picture is worth a thousand words" and "Actions speak louder than words," it is also true that reckless words pierce like swords while wise words bring healing.

A friend recently asked me if I meant a comment as a subtle hint about how I wanted his behavior to change: He reminded me of the problem of subtlety: It is easily missed, or misunderstood, and difficult to verify that the recipient understood the message. Action and subtlety have their strengths, but clear interpretation is often not one of them.

For everyone's amusement, I have extracted a few choice quotes regarding Johari windows and how people give/receive feedback....

The Unknown Window - The Turtle...suggests a person who characteristically participates by observing. If you are in this window, you do not know much about yourself, nor does the group know much about you. You may be the silent member in the group who neither gives nor asks for feedback. Group members find it difficult to know where you stand in the group or where they stand with you. You are the mystery person. You appear to have a shell around you, insulating you from other group members. If group members confront you about your lack of participation, you may respond with, "I learn more by listening." While you may find it painful to participate actively, you will learn considerably more than you would if you choose to participate passively. Your shell keeps people from getting in and you from getting out. You will expend a considerable amount of energy maintaining a closed system because of the pressure which group norms exert on your behavior.

The Blind Spot Window - Bull-in-the-China Shop...suggests a person who characteristically participates primarily by giving feedback but soliciting very little. If you are in this window, you tell the group what you think of them, how you feel about what is going on in the group, and where you stand on group issues. You may lash out at group members or criticize the group as a whole and view your actions as being open and above board. For some reason, you either appear to be insensitive to the feedback you get or do not hear what group members tell you. Either you may be a poor listener or you may respond to feedback in such a way that group members are reluctant to continue to give you feedback. Members get angry, cry, threaten to leave. As a consequence, you do not know how you are coming across to other people or what impact you have on others. Because you do not correct your actions when you receive group feedback, you appear out of touch, evasive, or distorted. You continue to behave ineffectively because of your one-way communication (from you to others). Since you are insensitive to the groupÂ’s steering function, you do not know what behaviors to change.

The Large Facade Window - The Interviewer...suggests a person who characteristically participates by asking questions but not giving information or feedback. If you are in this window, the size of your Facade relates to the amount of information you provide to others. You may respond to the group norm to maintain a reasonable level of participation by asking for information. You intervene by asking questions such as: "What do you think about this?" "How would you have acted if you were in my shoes?" "How do you feel about what I just said?" "What is your opinion of the group?" You want to know where other people stand before you commit yourself. You do not commit yourself to the group, making it difficult for them to know where you stand on issues. At some point in your group's history, other members may have confronted you with a statement similar to this one: "Hey, you are always asking me how I feel about what's going on, but you never tell me how you feel." This style, characterized as the Interviewer, may eventually evoke reactions of irritation, distrust, and withholding.

A Man, A Plan, A Canal, Panama

For those of you who aren't word geeks, palindromes are phrases that read the same backwards and forwards. They are very cool...such as the one in the title.

I ended up in a very neat conversation a few nights ago. Among the topics that came up was the question "What is the gospel?" My high school western history teacher had two pet questions: Why? and So What? And in order to answer those, one usually needs to know who, what, and how. I generally don't like the way people use the same religious words to communicate vastly different ideas. Actually, the practice bugs me in general, but especially with theology. Sloppy communication.

Technically gospel means "good news". Isn't that helpful? Okay, maybe this quote from an early Christian orator is more helpful. Emphasis mine.

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Two points stand out to me. First, the definition of the gospel is of critical importance to the speaker. Salvation (from something or another) is entire contingent on holding to the gospel; the consequence of not holding onto it (or getting it wrong) is pointless belief.

Second, the phrase 'that Christ died for our sins': It is another one of those religious phrases where everyone uses the same words but means different ideas. So maybe the question is not "What is the gospel?" but "What exactly does it mean that Christ died for our sins?" and "So what does that mean for me?" See - high school history teachers are cool.

And while we're on the topic, here's an interesting post about church I stumbled across.

Nails, Arrows, Rhetoric, and Other Sharp Pointy Objects

Tonight we have time for two jokes and a quote.

So my leasing office wants me to renew my lease. I call the office to inquire about the details. She says yes, thanks for calling, do you know you want to renew? I say I imagine so, but what will rent be? The receptionist informs me she doesn't know, but if I come in, they could find out for me. She imagines it would only go up $5 or $10. I ask her if she could find out and call me back with the information. She says yes. Then she asks me if I would be renewing for sure next year. I reply that I expect to, but that really depends on the rent, strangely enough. She asks if the rent is unchanged if I will renew. I say that I expect so, but could she please find out for me?

The punch line: She called back within 5 minutes to offer me not only the current rent, but $200 off.

Story number two: I went to the tire store today to get a nail removed from my tire. I noticed the nail on Sunday and expected the tire to be flat on Monday. No...still good today. So today I decided to take out the nail, thinking that maybe it wasn't that deep. No, when I started prying at the nail with a hammer, a hissing noise starts. So I left the nail alone and took it by the tire store later. (No, the tire was still not flat. This nail was of the self-sealing variety, it seems.)

So the nice tire man tried to sell me his $40 warranty on my current tires (free patches and rotations) rather than simply rotating and patching for $24. I said thank you, but I'll just pay the $24. (The store normally does routine maintenance on tires bought from them for free...but my tires aren't from their store.) The guy ends up charging me nothing as he "figures I'll buy tires from them eventually." He's probably right. Especially since they did successfully patch my tire rather than telling me it couldn't be fixed in an effort to get me to buy new tires.

For today's serious thought: I wonder how many of our characters are like my tire. They look solid, but they have major holes that are just waiting for an opportunity to spring a leak and strand our lives at the side of the road.

Finally, in honor of singles' awareness day, here's a few interesting tidbits from Freakonomics by Steven Levitt - a very cool statistics book that looks at real numbers and their implications. Similar to social science, but without an agenda. From data on a mainstream data sites, analyzing 30,000 users from Boston and San Diego.

4% claimed to make $200,000+ a year. 1% of typical internet users actually make that much. 70% of women claimed "above average" looks, compared to only 67% of men. A paltry 1% considered themselves below average. The average height: 1" taller than national average. Women weighed 20lbs less than the national average.

A man not posting a photo of themselves got 1/4th the volume of mail of a man who did. Women? 1/6th. 57% of the men posting ads did not receive one response. 23% of women received no response.

Here's a few other quotes:

For women, a man's income is terribly important. The richer a man is, the more e-mails he receives. But a woman's appeal is a bell-shaped curve: men do not want to date low-earning women, but once a woman starts earning too much, they seem to be scared off...For men, being short is a big disadvantage (which is probably why so many lie about it), but weight doesn't matter. For women, being overweight is deadly (which is probably why they lie). For a man, having red hair or curly hair is a downer, as is baldness-but a shaved head is okay. For a woman, salt-and-pepper hair is bad, while blond hair is very good. In the world of online dating, a headful of blond hair on a woman is worth about the same as having a college degree-and, with a $100 dye job verses a $100,000 tuition bill, an awful lot cheaper.

Wow. The 21st century internet-using Americans are not quite the progressives I thought they were. Lot's of sobering thoughts in there, but it reminds me that there are much worse fates than singleness.

Better to live on a corner of the roof
than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.
A quarrelsome wife is like
a constant dripping on a rainy day;
restraining her is like restraining the wind
or grasping oil with the hand.

Power? Money? Fame? What Good Is Religion?

So I've had a couple conversations about religion recently. Okay, I've had more than a few, but two that I'm thinking about for this post. In one the conversation turned to the primary purpose of religion, and someone suggested that religion primarily deals with how one treats one's neighbor. The other discussion talked about whether we thought it was worthwhile to encourage others to consider our religious perspectives.

(And yes, encourage covers a lot of territory. I find there are some approaches I appreciate, and some that I don't. I appreciate my neighbor with a Honda mentioning how good the customer service is. I don't appreciate my local Honda dealer dragging me off the street and forcing me to endure his sales pitch.)

So is encouraging others to consider our religion important? Well, is religion more like chocolate or nutrition? More like interior decorating or building structure?

Chocolate flavors and interior decorating are matters of preference. Prefer dark chocolate? White? Hershey? Chocolate milk? I might suggest you try a new flavor, but the whole point of chocolate is to be enjoyed, and if you enjoy a flavor I find detestable, it's not a big deal.

Likewise with interior decorating. Decoration is supposed to make me feel comfortable in my surroundings. I might suggest that painting your room black gives a very comforting feeling for those times you are down, but if you prefer impressionist paintings and beige walls, what's the difference?

In contrast, nutrition and building structure aren't matters of opinion. Bad things (TM) happen as a result of the decisions made. Not getting any calcium? Osteoporosis is an issue. Too much fat? High cholesterol? Heart attacks are...well...bad. Your house collapsing from improperly calculated building stresses isn't fun either.

Whether religion is about more than just opinion really asks the question: What does your religion accomplish that other religions don't? And do people care?

If your religion makes people wealthy, then people who want money are probably interested. If your religion gives power, then the power-seekers will be interested. (I'll ignore for the moment whether or not money or power are actually good for people.)

One last thought: What do you get out of others adopting your religion? In general, it is harder to believe those who profit from our decisions. My neighbor mentioning Honda's customer service doesn't profit if I go buy a Honda. My local Honda dealer does. I trust my Honda dealer a lot less, even though he knows much more about Hondas.

Transporter Mishaps

GalaxyQuest remains one of my favorite movies, mostly because of how aptly it pokes fun at science fiction cliches and stupidity. I'm not sure that a familiarity with the genre is essential, but it certainly helps. Pictured left is "Piggy" - a vicicious creature the starship crew encounters during its voyage. Sadly, the piggy suffers a small transporter mishap which turns him inside out...promptly causing him to "explode", tossing guts all over the crew. Oops.

Inside Out (by Larry Crabb) also happens to be one of favorite books. In a nutshell, the book deals with human nature, human identity, and Christianity. I like the book because it talks a lot about the implications of genuine faith while having very little patience for religious cliches (e.g "If you just prayed harder, life would be better). It's hard to do the book justice, but a brief outline might be something like:

a. We avoid knowing ourselves because of pain and fear, and a lack of hope.
b. As we know ourselves, we find that we have many longings - and many disappointments.
c. We spent most of our time trying to meet those longings in all the wrong ways, which leads to even more pain inaddition to being evil.
d. Christianity is about bringing hope and change to this otherwise dismal situation.

I think I especially appreciate his application of Christianity as bringing deep hope to a very real set of issues, rather than the cheesier "Jesus took away all of my problems" line that I often feel Christianity is reduced to.

P.S. For what it is worth, the piggy turned out to be a peaceful and friendly (if ugly, inside-out and dead) creature. There's many a deep metaphorical irony there.

Of Liberals

So recently my friends have started posted 'what do you think of my blog?' type question. I realized one of aspects that I appreciate about her blog is how liberal and reform minded it is. That, in turn, has got me thinking about what I most appreciate about the liberal / left / Democratic perspectives. And yes, even my friends who hate politics should read this post. It isn't that political.

[Warning: Dangerous and overarching sweeping generalizations sprinkled generously throughout this post. These may or may not represent Al's thoughts, either partially or entirely. Al reserves the right to truthfully deny any and all thoughts posted here, especially under duress.]

One aspect that I consistently appreciate about most of my liberal friends is their willingness to see problems - serious problems - in society, and advocate reform. In general, many of my conservative friends seem very willing to define America's core problems as (a) Liberals, and (b) well, Liberals, and if we'd just get back to tradition, the good ol' times would reoccur. Generally, I see liberals reacting to some significant and deeply troubling problems in our society. And I think that is very, very good.

On the flip-side, while I deeply appreciate the liberal awareness of have fallen our society is, I don't typically like their solutions. I tend to think that the conservative tradition is closer to the outward appearance of how things should be. Yes, I think the core of a lot of conservative is pretty rotten, but I don't think discarding the mechanisms is the proper solution.

The upshot of all of this musing is that I make a very bad liberal, and a worse conservative. I get very uneasy when the conservatives talk about maintaining/returning to tradition, because I'm not convinced that the tradition is nearly as good as they think it is. On the flipside, while I agree with many of the liberals about the problems, I don't buy their solutions. I have also decided I would be a great unifying president: Everyone would be so angry with me that I would be a common public enemy, unifying the country against me.

As a final thought, I thought I'd share two essays that I often come back to when dealing with politics and Christianity. They are both by J. Budziszewski - who I know nothing about other than I like these two essays.

The Problem With Liberalism

The Problem With Conservatism

My Daddy Can Beat Up Your Daddy

What is the measure of a god? Perhaps I'm partly motivated by the recent StarGate theme in which evil beings with god-like powers are attempting to destroy our galaxy (which is protected by benevolent if strange beings with god-like powers). I've also been reading sections of the Bible where it talks about God working for his glory.

It's strange. I don't quite know why, but I think our society doesn't view deities as very different. The Jewish Yahweh? Allah? Jesus? Goddess? Buddha? What is really the difference between them anyway?

Are some gods better than others? Does what religion you are matter? And how would one evaluate deities anyway? Give them a multiple answer test? "If I were your loyal follower, would you (a) reward me with wealth and riches and power, (b) randomly smite me with lightening, (c) ignore me, (d) other -- please specify....?"

Since I tend to lean on the opinion that all religions are not equal (created, evolved, or otherwise), I'm curious in the distinctions. Where is my deity's power seen in my life? And where is it not seen in the lives of other, non-followers?

In some ways, I like the Old Testament where the non-Jews say something like "Let us go and fight them [the Jews] in plains, because the Jewish god is a god of the mountains, not of the plains." Then the two groups fight in the plains, the Jews win, and we see that Yahweh is more powerful than the other God. Hrm, maybe the playoffs could be like that. Each team chooses to represent a deity, and the nation converts for a year to the religion of the team winning the Superbowl.

Maybe part of the problem is that Americans frequently use "God" a generic sense rather than giving a name for God. Perhaps if we forced people to use a more explicit description of their god, the differences would be clearer. For example

"I believe in 'He-who-is-nice-and-keeps-my-life-from-having-any-problems'" Sam

Then we could judge whether or not Sam's deity was powerful and trustworthy by whether or not Sam had any major problems in his life.
or

"I believe in 'He-who-wants-me-to-be-a-millionaire-within-5-years-if-I-give-30%-of-my-income-to-the-church'" Tom

Then we could judge whether or not Tom's deity was powerful and trustworthy by whether or not Tom was a millionaire within 5 years along with stealing a peek at his financial records. Better yet, survey all of Tom's fellow believers and make sure Tom is not a statistical anomaly - or attending a church comprised of billionaires' sons and daughters.

(And yes, I know I haven't been blogging enough. I blame the evil corporations that disconnected my internet.)