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.