Dentists, Mechanics, and Deities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Choice Word (or two)

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

I've been pondering the following quote:

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

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

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

I'm Back - And Dealing with Tigers

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the Literate

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

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

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

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

Debate 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

A-->B

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

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

Now in reality, these beliefs chain together:

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

So we have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a time for elegant quotes

I'm tired of quotes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Strength of Brokenness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hammers and Lions, Oh My

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A More Wretched Hive of Scum And Villainy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of Others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much else to say. I loved the entry.

Temptation by any other name

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

And I promptly decided that I wanted pizza.

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

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

Gone to Meddling

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

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

Conversations might go like this:

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

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

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

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

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

What makes a feeling or reaction silly or ridiculous?

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

It's All About Me

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

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

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

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

How often do I ask someone to for advice?

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

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

How often do I learn the stories of others?

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

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

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

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

Group Think

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meaninglessly Satisfying

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

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

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

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

Mercury poisoning

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

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

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

Of %#$#*% and FEMA

Okay, first thought for tonight - two anonymous quotes:

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

and in response to that

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

(See Mike? A joke, of sorts.)

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

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

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

Music: A Taste of Heaven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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