Chomping the head off a squirrel

I pulled in to my garage recently and saw one of our cats lying under the car. He looked perfectly content, even though it’s hot and kind of smelly and the floor is hard concrete. It could even be dangerous if someone came along and started the car up. (My brother had a cat jump up in his engine one time; that was gross.)

I said to myself, “This is crazy. It’s 90 degrees outside and we have this big, air-conditioned house with food and couches and beds that he could lay on, and he chooses to lie under the car. We’ve even provided him with a way to get into the house. All he has to do is go through the cat door, but he’s chooses not to. He’d rather lay in the dirty garage under the car.”

Why does he do that? Because he’s a cat. It’s his nature to lie around in smelly garages and be perfectly content doing so. And instead of eating out of the food we provide him, he’ll go out and chomp the head off a squirrel. Because it’s his nature; he’s a cat.

He doesn’t really care that I’ve provided him everything he needs and have given him an easy way to get to it. He wants to live his way because he’s a cat; it’s his nature.

Even if PETA came along and said, “How can you let that cat lay in the garage and chomp the heads off of squirrels? You’re cruel and unusual. Put that cat on the air-conditioned couch and feed him shrimp scampi.” I couldn’t change anything. Even if they dragged me away in chains (which they might do since they value animals more than people), I couldn’t stop it. All I could do is plead, “I tried to give him everything but he didn’t take it. It’s his nature; he’s a cat.”

It made me think that that’s how we are with God. God has provided us with everything we need and a simple way to get to Him (the cross) and on our own we choose not to, because of our nature: our sin nature. We choose it because it’s the way we’re made. We all have our own unique versions of lying on the garage floor and chomping the heads off of squirrels, but even though the paths we take are different, the nature is still the same. We’re sinners; we don’t seek God. When the door is provided we don’t open it unless the Spirit takes us by the hand (or in some cases the neck) and takes us through it.

It drove home for me the verses in Romans that say, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

The next time you look at a situation and bemoan, “How could God allow that?” check yourself. It’s very likely you’ll find the person is just following his nature.

Live Your Life with Regrets

I saw a motivational poster recently that said, “Live your life with no regrets.” My first thought was that this was a good message, and I said to myself, “I have no regrets.”

But that feeling didn’t last too long. I thought back on some of the things I’ve done. I’ve treated people who love me poorly; I’ve been mean and unkind to people who didn’t deserve it. I’ve done and thought things that the Lord and I both know are wrong. I have regrets; quite a few.

I don’t want to demean the intentions of those who subscribe to the “No regrets” philosophy. I understand how regret and guilt can be paralyzing and harmful to personal growth. However, I know I never could have ever repented of anything without regretting it first. Regret is the sting of conscience pointing to repentence, and without repentance there is no hope.

I have no regrets about choices I have made; not even taking statistics in college. I take that back—I do regret watching Adam Sandler’s Punch Drunk Love. Life choices are “learning experiences” from which one can learn, and which no one should regret (unless you paid good money to see that movie). My regrets come from my acting on my sin nature, or my inner scumbag, as I call it, and then realizing what I’ve done.

I even regret that I have these regrets, but I don’t know how to change either that, or the regrets themselves. In a weird way I almost appreciate the regrets, because from them I have learned two things:
- I am forgiven and grace abounds
- With the Lord’s help I can change and have
So if I had never sinned I would never have grown.

I am starting to believe that one can live without regrets only if he is perfect or so out of touch with his nature that he is delusional.

So if you have regrets, be grateful. You have a conscience.

10 records that changed my life

I like a LOT of different kinds of music. I think it’s because I’ve been fortunate (and open) enough to find certain records that sent me on new directions that I might not have taken had I not found them. They’ve been musical pivot points that in some ways changed me.

The single Twist and Shout by the Beatles was the first record I ever bought. It was loud and raucous and the screaming vocals were just cool. As far as I was concerned, Rock and Roll was it, and the Beatles defined Rock and Roll. For me and for millions of others, they changed music forever.

The next thing that altered my musical consciousness was Absolutely Free by the Mothers of Invention. Interestingly it came out the same year as Sgt. Pepper, another album that changed the view of rock music for many people. But listen to the two of them side by side and you will see that Absolutely Free is miles ahead musically of Sgt. Pepper, but it’s clearly not accessible to the average listener, so it’s no wonder that it didn’t alter music the way it should have. Sgt. Pepper was incredibly inventive but Absolutely Free smashes genres, combining rock, jazz, classical, and techniques of musical theater and opera to generate a cohesive (albeit weird) vision of life. Incredible and inimitable. Unfortunately Frank Zappa’s limited and negative world view stunted his genius over time. At the end of life his life he seemed more interested in keeping dirty words on the radio than he did in making ground-breaking music.

I was a huge fan of early shock and glam rock artists, such as Alice Cooper, David Bowie and T-Rex and of early hard rock. But after a while a steady diet of that became pretty depressing and I needed to find something else. The first artist I discovered was Bob Dylan; I know I came really late to the Bob Dylan party, (I had heard Jimi Hendrix’s version of All Along the Watchtower before I heard the original) but I bought a copy of his Greatest Hits, Volume II. All those songs in one place, just smacking you in the face with their power. I’ve been collecting Dylan’s music ever since.

Then a friend told me, “I just discovered this guy who sounds like he is playing lead, rhythm and bass all at the same time on one guitar. You have to hear him.” I went out and bought Leo Kottke’s My Feet Are Smiling and was amazed. The guy was right. As Kottke says on the record, he “takes simple melodies and drives them into the ground.” “Easter” is profound and “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” is beautiful. He sparked my interest in other greats acoustic guitarists, such as Chet Atkins, Merle Travis (who have a great duet album called the Atkins/Travis Traveling Show) and Brownie McGhee, but for me no one can ever replace Leo Kottke.

Listening to Kottke made me consider something that up to that point had been unthinkable; I wondered if might like country music... I put on a country radio station and after a while heard Waylon Jennings sing Amanda (which I later learned was written by the great Bob McDill) and was hooked. I bought “The Ramblin’ Man” album and heard him playing hard core country music with rock sensibilities. Amanda was my introduction to the power of hard core country ballads. Simple chords, simply melodies, powerful stories. That sent me on a new journey that over time has led me to many artists, including Johnny Cash, and to Americana and alt-country music. But it all started with one great song.

I have since realized the question, “Do you like country music?” is a dumb question because it assumes that country music is monolithic. As with rock music, it’s not. There are nuances and subgenres that are rich and full. I couldn’t answer the question, “Do you like rock music?” anymore easily. Yes I do but it doesn’t mean I like ¾ of the bands that are out there, any more than I like the ¾ of the country music that is just plain awful (Kenny Chesney comes to mind). But when you find a good country song, there is nothing better.

I’ve always had a place for musicians with a sense of humor and a gift for story. Warren Zevon’s “Werewolves of London” was on the radio, and I thought it was interesting and I should check it out. I bought Excitable Boy and realized that—as fun as Werewolves is—it is not representative of the genius that is Warren Zevon. I know idolatry is a sin but I’ve come to closer to it with him than with anyone else. If any musician is sorely under-rated by his generation it is Warren Zevon. He wrote like no one else. His understanding of human nature was so on target it was sometimes painful; he understood loss and hurt, and he was wildly funny. Unfortunately he was also an insecure, self-destructive alcoholic who usually destroyed the relationships with the few people who really cared about him. He died on September 7, 2003 of lung cancer. That was a horrible week. Johnny Cash died 5 days later. That was the week the music died.

A lot of Christian music is lame. As Cartman noted on South Park, “All you have to do is take a regular song, and change the word “Baby” to “Jesus” and you’ve got a Christian song.” At the same time, though, I’ve always admired people who smashed the false dichotomies of sacred and secular and have approached their art and faith in a fully integrated manner. I’m pretty sure I feel that way, at least partially, because my first introduction to an artist of faith was Larry Norman, through his raw and gritty album Bootleg. It opened a whole new way of looking at music. It was just Larry singing about his faith, about the times, about his life, and telling funny stories about bad Jesus movies. He said that he never wanted to create a new genre, but he did. He was later rejected by the industry; too secular for Christian music and too Christian for secular music. I guess that means he got it right.

I went a long time before I heard any other artists expressing their faith in an integrated way. Then I head T-Bone Burnett’s rockabilly theology/philosophy on Truth Decay. Just incredible. That is smart music. A few years after that Steve Taylor came out with Meltdown. He took on celebrity Christianity, Bob Jones University, the main-stream press, and abortion in ways that had never been done. Hardhitting, funny, poignant (Baby Doe will have you bawling your eyes out) and it really rocks hard.

In the last few years I was taken down another road when I bought Johnny Cash’s first Rick Rubin-produced record, American Recordings. This time I wasn’t sent down a road that broadened me; I already knew Johnny Cash and country music well. This time it was a road of deepening. It inspired me to read and research Cash’s life. I found him to be another artist who truly integrates his faith and his art. He seemed to be a highly authentic Christian, in the way that many in the Old Testament were authentic and flawed, in their faith. His life has really inspired me in my walk. If he could crawl out of that cave and keep going then so can I.

As I look back on this list, I realize there are many albums I like as much or more than some of these, and today I wouldn’t really consider myself a huge fan of either Waylon or Zappa. But all of these records were pointers along the way. Musical Andrew’s, telling me “you've got to know what I know.”

I’ve realized a couple of things as I plowed through writing this. One is that I had to work really hard to get the list down to the ones that really mattered. I had 21 albums in my first draft. The second thing I thought about was “Who the hell cares? Man you have no life if this is what matters to you.” Ok, I admit it. I’m a shallow music geek. And now you know it too. The last thing I realized what that most of the music on here is at least 25 years old and the stuff that isn’t is by an artist who was in his 70s when he made the record. That could be because I’m old…I hope something comes along that really blows me away. I like a lot of current music but I haven’t found any new paradigms yet (at least ones that interest me). But I’m really happy I found these.

If you have any music that has changed your life please post a comment!

Stephen King is at it again

After that last exchange about ole SK, I figured I should give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he made any clarifying remarks about his remarks on Capital Hill.  He did and it's all on his web site at  http://www.stephenking.com/news.php

What a profile in courage.  

First he dodged his remarks and began with the tired liberal prerequisite that he respects the troops.  He did it in his inimitable style, saying that he "likes the troops just fine" (huh?) and that he "respects the hell out of their brainpower" (and he demonstrates that how?).  He followed that with, "I know that most of them read, because I send them books when they ask, and a lot do."  Yessiree-some-of-mah-best-friends-r-soljers. 

He then deflected his remarks by changing topics.  He railed about how the government doesn't spend enough on education and complained that when the government does spend money all it cares about is test scores and not actual learning. 

Lastly he prayed that it would all go away.  He wistfully hoped that his little remarks won't detract from the real problem that "too many kids in America read for pleasure on the text-screens of their phones and hardly anywhere else."  

So I guess that's what he meant to say up on Capital Hill?  I can see how things got mixed up.  It's pretty easy to confuse ignorant soldiers with kids sending text messages.  Moreover, it's a very astute summary of the real problem.  Kids don't read for pleasure much anymore.  Yep, that's what's wrong with society. 

A little further down on King's web site you will find how much he values debate, discussion and free speech.  He was thoroughly annoyed by a conservative blogger (Noel Sheppard) who felt that King's comments were inappropriate and wrote, "Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen."  King urged the readers of his web site to send an email to Sheppard stating, "Hi Noel - Stephen says to shut up and I agree." 

Defensive, deflective, petty and vindictive.  One of the comments on my last post about King said, "the last time I checked, it's a free country and he, like everyone else, is entitled to his opinion."  Apparently King doesn't believe that should apply to Noel Sheppard.

Stephen King has demonstrated that learning to read is no guarantee of intelligence or thoughtfulness.  If you're ignorant and can't read you can grow up to go in the Army.  If you're ignorant and can read, you can grow up to be a successful novelist.

What to do

On the side of my blog, I've listed my favorite books. One of them is "The Stand" by Stephen King. I'm wondering if I should take that off my list. The reason: Stephen King is clearly an elitist. I've lost respect for him.

I heard on the news the other day that last month he was speaking to a group of high school students at the Library of Congress, when he said the following:

I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got, the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's, it's not as bright. So, that's my little commercial for that.

Yikes. This guy has clearly been living in his Addams family house in Bangor for too long. He needs to take a walk downtown and say that directly to the people who wait on him at Deering's or Hannaford Brothers. He might need Cujo to protect him. But then again, maybe not. I think the good people of Bangor have sense enough to know how to properly treat feeble-minded people.

Jimmy Carter is Right

I have to give to Jay Leno; he strives hard to find the best comedians and put them on his show. Last week he had Jimmy Carter on his show.

According the AP, Carter stated during his Tonight Show appearance that delegates from Florida and Michigan should not be counted at the Democratic National Convention because they "disqualified themselves." As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with him. The Democrats shouldn’t feel compelled to seat them. Florida and Michigan broke the rules set out by the party and the party can do whatever it dang well pleases.

The talk over the last few months about what to do about Florida and Michigan reflects a lack of understanding of what primaries actually are. The media, Mrs. Clinton, and people on the right who are happy to see the process drag on, all promote the misinformation. You hear things like, “the Democrats are disenfranchising voters”; “we live in a country where every vote should count”; and comparisons to the 2000 election abound.

There’s one small problem with that premise. Political party primaries have NOTHING to do with voting in the Constitutional sense! People who vote in primaries are not really voting; they are merely helping to select the nominee of a political party. Political parties are private organizations and they have the right to select their nominees in whatever manner they wish. If they wanted to, they could rip pages from the phone book, tack them to the wall, throw a dart at the pages, and select as their nominee the name of the person on whom the dart lands (I think that’s how that’s how the Green Party does it).

The Constitution says NOTHING about political parties, primaries, conventions, or even about the popular election of the president. All the Constitution says about electing the President is:

[The President] shall…be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint…a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. …The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot…and they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; …and transmit [the list] to…the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall…open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President. (There is more text in the actual section than I quoted because it is not pertinent to the point of this article. You can find the full text of the Constitution on-line at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

Didn’t see any mention of primaries, or Democrats or Republicans there did you? Here are some important facts about primaries:

• The first political primary didn’t occur until 1910. It was in held in Oregon.
  
• The New Hampshire primary didn’t begin until 1916.
  
• Some primaries are “non-binding”, AKA “beauty contents”, which means that convention delegate selection has nothing to do with the results of the primary.
  
• And of course, several states select their convention delegates via caucus and not by primary.
  
• Smaller parties generally select their nominees completely outside of the primary process.
  

The situation is exposing two issues that are of greater concern:

As already noted, many people, including media people who should know better, don’t understand the facts well enough to realize they are misinformed. We would do well to reinforce that the parties are private organizations that are free to select whatever method they wish to choose their nominees. They could count Florida and Michigan twice if they wanted to.

The larger and more critical issue is we seem to have forgotten that the two parties are private organizations that have nothing to do with the constitutional process. They have been in power so long and have passed rules and laws that make it appear that our process actually sanctifies the two-party system. They impress us that they are the only ones who can carry out any valid political activity. When people are frustrated by the two parties, there is little they can do; the parties are so entrenched they are indeed part of the system.

I wish I had answer for this one, but someone smarter than I will have to figure that out. Maybe we should ask Jimmy Carter.

Thanks, Larry

The morning of March 14 I checked my RSS feeds from Christianity Today and saw the headline, “Larry Norman, 'Father of Christian Rock,' Dies at 60”.

I was crestfallen.  I read the article and realized I was actually really late in getting the news.  He died on February 24!  I knew he had been sick for some time (in actuality he hasn’t been healthy at all for years), but it still took me by surprise.  I read the summary of his odd life and sat there for a while.  Then I went downstairs and told my wife the news. 

I couldn’t help it; I cried when I told her.  I always feel like a moron when I cry at celebrity deaths.  It’s happened only twice before.  September 2003 was horrible.  Warren Zevon died on the 7^th and Johnny Cash died on the 12^th.  I cried over both of them.  For me that was the week the music died. 

Then I took out my IPod and played Larry Norman music for 3 days straight.  Now I’m down to a few times a week.

I’ve thought a lot about him in the last few weeks.  He always puzzled me.  I would read things he said about his life and think, “he has to be making this up.”  At times he came across as grandiose; sometimes he seemed paranoid.  And a lot of his music was really not that good, especially the later stuff.  Granted, he was not at full capacity when he made it.  I still bought it though, and even in the midst of the mediocrity I would always hear elements of the brilliance.

I’m very relieved people have been honest in writing about him after his death.  One person quoted in the Christianity Today article said, “Norman was unpredictable and often exaggerated stories.”  On his web site, Long time friend Randy Stonehill says, “I knew Larry Norman perhaps better than anyone, yet to this day I'm not sure that I really understood him completely. For as brilliant and insightful as Larry was, I'm not sure that he understood himself completely. This issue became apparent in the way he consistently seemed to "derail" relationships through out his life.”

I never met Larry Norman but he changed my life.  When I became a Christian he was Christian music.  There was nothing else.  And since then he has been the standard by which I assess all other Christian music.  Which is why I don’t like a lot of it.  He taught me what it could be.

Blogs I've been in

I've been quoted in 2 blogs:
Craig Roth of The Burton Group referred to a talk I gave at their conference.
http://ccsblog.burtongroup.com/collaboration_and_content/2007/07/postscript-from.html

Matt Thornhill of the Boomer Project quoted my idea for a bumper sticker...
http://boomerconsumerbook.blogspot.com/2008/04/reader-comments.html

I guess I'm verging on internet celebrity...

Why You Never Question a Drunk

A friend sent me this joke the other day...

A woman was shopping at her local supermarket where she selected:
-Half-gallon 2 % milk
-Carton of eggs
-Quart of orange juice
-Head of romaine lettuce
-2 lb. Bag of coffee
-1 lb. Package of bacon

As she was unloading her items on the conveyor belt to check out, a drunk standing behind her watched as she placed the items in front of the cashier.

While the cashier was ringing up her purchases, the drunk calmly stated, "You must be single."

The woman was a bit startled by this proclamation, but she was intrigued by the derelict's intuition, since she was indeed single. She looked at her six items on the belt and saw nothing particularly unusual about her selections that could have tipped off the drunk to her marital status.

Curiosity getting the better of her, she said: "Well, you know what, you're absolutely right. But how on earth did you know that?"

The drunk replied, "'Cuz you're ugly."

Weaker Brother or Small Minded Legalist? A polemic.

There are a couple of Scripture passages that really annoy me. Oops, let me rephrase that. The lazy way some Christians interpret them annoys me. The passages in question are 1 Corinthians 10:14-33 and Romans 14:1-23. I’m not going to post them here because they are too long, but you can read them online in any translation you want—including the Arabic Life Application Bible—at http://www.biblegateway.com/ I’d suggest "The Message". It's a great translation. Unless you have them memorized, you may want to scan them before reading the rest of this.

The passages give advice to mature Christians about how to behave in ways that are sensitive to immature believers and also encourages them not to worry about small-minded people.

Numerous times I’ve heard these passages reduced to, “If something is going to offend someone’s sensibilities, I just won’t do it around them.” That interpretation is inaccurate and possibly harmful because it binds the freedom of believers and suggests an acceptance of duplicitous behavior.

Inaccurate Interpretation:
Read the passages again. In essence, they say: be careful how you relate to new Christians, especially ones who have had really bad religious teaching, because they are likely to have screwed up ideas about what it means to be faithful. Help them through this time and show them how to be free. On the other hand, the world is full of small-minded people and you can’t go around every day worrying about what they think. In all cases, use your head.

They don’t say: “I won't do something if it might offend someone’s sensibilities."

You can boil the passages down to issues of “freedom” (which is good) vs. “license” (which is bad). The challenge is knowing when to apply "freedom" (I will stride past the small-minded person) and when to apply "license" (I will be considerate of their feelings).

Interpreting the passages as I noted equates all “offended people” to being “less free” or “the weaker brother”, and they aren’t the same thing! The weaker brother is defined as one who received bad religious teaching he received in his pre-Christian state, and is thus impeded in his understanding of Christian freedom.

Binds the freedom of believers:
When I’ve seen people apply this passage to their lives it generally has not been to those situations, but instead has been to avoid offending Christians who have who have scruples about what comprises “Good (and Really Good) Christian Behavior”.

• Good Christians don’t go to R movies. Really Good Christians watch only Christian films. Some Mormon family films are also acceptable.

• Good Christians home school their children. Really Good Christians home school other peoples’ children.

• Good Christians don’t let their kids listen to secular music. Really Good Christians have the Christian radio station on all the time.

• Good Christians don’t smoke (this doesn’t apply to Christians in tobacco growing regions). Really Good Christians believe no one should because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

• Good Christians don’t drink. Really Good Christians won’t even have sparkling grape juice.

• Good Christians are Republicans. Really Good Christians vote for Pat Robertson.

• Good Christians watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. Really Good Christians watch only Christian TV or abstain entirely from TV.

• Good Christians play cards because it’s good, clean family fun—certainly better than TV. Really Good Christians don’t play cards.

• Good Christians vacation at Disney World or Branson, MO. Really Good Christians boycott Disney because they have “Gay Day” and instead attend only Christian theme parks.

• Good Christians don’t gamble (this doesn’t apply to Catholics and Bingo, because they’re doing it for their parish school). Really Good Christians don’t even buy lottery tickets, not even a scratcher on their birthday, just for fun.

• Good Christians don’t get depressed. Really Good Christians know that depression is a sign of spiritual weakness or sin.

“(Really) Good Christian Behavior” includes subtly disdaining those who disagree. It can’t be direct disdain, because that would be distasteful, but it should come across in the tone of the conversation.

• “No I didn’t see American Idol last night. We stopped watching TV because we realized it was polluting our kids’ minds.”

• “We home school. We don’t want our kids stuck in that cesspool of American Education. Where did you say your kids go to school again?”

• “You listen to rap? Aren’t you afraid of what it will do to you?”

• “You went to Mohegan Sun? Why? There’s nothing there but a casino.”

Let me be really clear. Having the scruples is not the problem. We all have them. The problem comes when the scruple becomes the person's way of defining Good Christian Behavior for others. Then other believers tiptoe around these people in an effort not to offend them. But they're not “weaker brothers”, they're just legalists. (Frankly the list of things people can get offended about could go on and on. I tried to pick on as many groups as I could think of. If you can think of others, post them as comments.)

Tiptoeing around these people won't do any good. You can't change them. If you interpret the passage to mean, “I won’t do anything to offend anybody”, you'll end up doing what the passage says you shouldn't do. You'll be “walking on egg shells worrying about small-minded people.” In living that way, the legalist always gets his way and the believer is hamstrung.

Encourages Duplicitous Behavior:
The believer who seeks never to offend anybody will likely engage in duplicitous behavior. On the more innocuous level, the believer in makes small adjustments in his life.

• He looks around to make sure no one from church is around when he buys a lottery ticket.

• He doesn’t talk about his trip to Vegas in Sunday School.

• She won’t admit to watching Desperate Housewives at the ladies circle.

• They don’t want people from church to find out they are having a card party with beer.
  

There’s an old Christian rock song by the Swirling Eddies called, “Hide the beer, the pastor’s here”. (Here’s a Jeff Foxworthy style test for you…If you have trouble believing that a Christian band could have such a name or write such as song, you might be a legalist.)

In sum, the believer may act more like himself around non-believers than around Christians that he might offend, and adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach when around other believers.

Those are relatively innocuous examples of duplicitous behavior, but in some churches the problems are deeper and more harmful to the believers in them. Think about this:

• Do you feel free at your church to ask for prayer for a deep struggle, such as depression, or would you be afraid that you would be viewed as weak or carnal? Do you limit your prayer requests for asking the Lord to heal sniffles and Aunt Edna’s irritable bowel syndrome?

• Do you feel like an outsider at your church if you behave differently from the church norms? Are you afraid to ask questions, especially about controversial topics?

• Do you feel more like yourself away from your church than when you are at it?

• Do you feel like your church is insulated from the world around it and exhibits xenophobia or parochialism?
  

If any of these things are true, you could be in an unhealthy church situation that you should consider leaving. The Bible doesn’t say, “You will learn what others think and their thoughts will bind you.” It says, “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

You may be saying, “What’s the big deal? It’s more charitable to seek not to offend people rather than risk causing grief with those around you. So what if I cover up a few things? Not everyone needs to know my business anyway. What’s the alternative? Flaunt your views? Wave lottery tickets and cigarettes in people’s faces?”

No. The real alternative is to do what the passage says, and live your life and let the chips fall where they may. Don’t worry about your image; just live your life the best you know how, and expect that no matter what you do, someone won’t like it.

Post-script:
You may be reading this and thinking,

• “Wow, you’re really wound up about nothing. Who put that hair across your butt?”

• “I think you’re writing this to excuse some behaviors you are ashamed of. The people who live this way are putting you under conviction because you’re not living right.”

• “Well if those people are being duplicitous they obviously have something to hide!”

• “Why are making fun of Christians who hold these beliefs? When you adopt this tone you’re just as bad as the people you are accusing!”

• “You claim to be a Christian, but you don’t seem to like them very much!”
  

I started developing the thoughts for this post several weeks ago and had a hard time writing it because I predicted those reactions and didn’t want to deal with them. Why? Because I don’t want to offend anybody. I mean this sincerely—I know some of you will think this is one last bite of sarcasm, but it’s not—I really wish nobody would be offended by this. I don’t want to offend anybody, but I just know I will. I just think this message is more important than worrying about it. I hope that’s freedom and not license, but I may never know for sure.

I also thought about putting disclaimers around things I said to try to avoid bad reactions (“some of my best friends are home schoolers who don’t watch TV”) and gave it up because I realized I’d only be doing it to appease easily offended people. I just decided to subtitle this “a polemic” and let the chips fall where they may. The church could use more polemics today.

Passion is Over-Rated

Recently someone asked me to take on something that would require a fairly significant commitment, so I told him I’d need to think about it and get back to him.

It was something I was capable of doing, but I wasn’t sure I wanted to. One of the first thoughts that came to mind was, “Is this something I’m really passionate about?” You may be wondering, “why would he ask himself that?”

Well, several years ago in Christian circles, it became fashionable to teach people about their spiritual gifts. We were told, “If you want to know what you should be doing, figure out what your ‘spiritual gifts’ are and then do them.” There were even tests you could take to help you figure out what your gifts are. I must admit that I’ve taken a few of them (I needed to take more than one to find the one that gave me the results I liked), and even administered them for others, and helped counsel people about their gifts. It’s a great way to convince people join church committees. At the same, a few things have nagged at me.

• If an atheist took a spiritual gifts test, would he score a zero?
• How do you decide the difference between a gift and a talent?
• The list of “gifts” is kind of odd for today’s needs. Churches would be better served if they added things like accounting and baby-sitting as spiritual gifts. They’d get a lot more help with the finance committee and in the nursery.

Around the same time corporations and popular culture started picking up the same theme, only they all talked about “connecting with your passion” instead of with your spiritual gift, but I suspect the same consultants started both movements.

At work, people talk a lot about passion. This used to mean they talked about who was seeing who, but now it means they talk about being passionate about things like systems development methodology, or about lean and agile processes…Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Now the main thing people want to know when they ask you something is, “are you passionate about this?” because they assume that if you are, it make you more effective, and management all wants passionate people in their jobs. To succeed, you learn the lingo.

So now you know why, “Is this something I’m really passionate about?” was one of the first things I thought to ask myself when I was trying to make up my mind about what to do. I could have asked myself numerous other things: how much time will it take? Will it involve being out of the house during ‘Scrubs’ (wait, I have TiVO, it doesn’t matter anymore)? Do the other people involved with this effort annoy me? What would Jesus do? A million things I could have asked myself, and this is what I came up with.

I cringed because I realized how much I’ve internalized this belief even though I know that passion is highly over-rated as a decision-making criterion.

Have you seen “American Idol”, or “American Inventor”? Those shows prove over and over again that passion isn’t much of an indicator at helping people figure out what they should be doing. Every week delusional people get up and say that singing is their passion, when their passion should really be being mute. On American Inventor one guy even sold one of kidneys to get money to invest in his really dumb idea. He went into despair when the judged told him his idea was not very good. But then his passion got a hold of him: “I’ll show you. Some day I’ll be on top of the world with this (whatever it was)!” And he left only to continue in his delusions. You hear the same thing on Idol. “Simon is an idiot, I’ll be a star!” You just wish someone had told these people the truth.

After I cringed I thought about Jonah and Moses. Now there were two guys who had zero passion for the plans God had in store for them. God wanted Jonah to go to Nineveh to preach. Jonah hated the Ninevites and didn’t want to do it because he was afraid God’s compassionate message would win over the people of the city and he wanted them to rot. As some of you may have heard, Jonah ran in the other direction and God sent him back to Nineveh by way of a big fish. And sure enough, the people of Ninevah all turned to God and Jonah was steamed, so steamed he wished he was dead.

God had a big job in mind for Moses. “Set My people free” is a tall order, and Moses knew he wasn’t up to it. He argued with God. “Hey, I stutter…No one will listen to me!...I’m really not all that bright…Surely you could find someone better able to do this.” On and on. God told Moses to quit calling him Shirley and then patiently answered all of his objections. Moses was stuck. The rest, as they say, is ancient history.

If I did only what I was passionate about, I’d never get off the couch. I’m really passionate about laying around doing nothing.

As I reflected on all that, it made me realize how we have taken passion and gone way overboard with it. I think it’s time to back off and develop a new fad.

• Sometimes you should do something because it’s a good opportunity, even if you’re not all that excited about it.
• Sometimes you should do something because it needs doing, even if you don’t want to (I believe that’s called “being a mature adult”).
• Sometimes you shouldn’t do something because you’re already overcommitted, and it would be wrong to take on the new thing even if you are passionate about it, because it would hurt the things you are already doing.
• And more than anything, if you are passionate about something, your biggest prayer should be that God will bring brutally honest people into your life to prevent your passion from killing you.

So are you wondering what I decided to do? I decided to not take on the new thing. I just wasn’t that passionate about it.

The Professor, The Island, and Motivation

This is a recent email dialog between me and one of my sons...

I'm teaching a Sunday School class, using an excellent book called, He's God and We're Not, by Ray Pritchard. Attached is a section from it that I shared with the class today that I wanted to pass along. This week's law is "what you seek, you find." P.95-96 of He's God and We're Not says this:

There is an easy test to find out what you truly seek in life. This test is absolutely fool-proof. You tell me how you spend your time and your money and I'll tell you what you are seeking.....

I read about a man who looked at his life and concluded he was just like the Professor on Gilligan's Island. "The Professor knew how to turn banana peels into diesel fuel and he could take algae and make chocolate fudge, but he never got around to fixing the hole in the boat so he could get off the island. Same as me. I spent my life learning to do amazing things that didn't matter, and I ignored the hole in my boat. And that's why I'm stuck where I am."...Most of us are as close to God as we want to be.

I like that analogy. I always wondered about the professor and why he never fixed the boat. Maybe he just chose not to fix it all along because he felt some sort of false security on the island. Meaning he thought he could get by better without the help of a structured society(God)...and even if they fixed the boat and sailed away would they find America again? Although he may have survived he was in a constant struggle to do so, whereas if they fixed the boat and left it would have meant a greater initial struggle that would have led to easier and better times.

I guess what I mean is that this metaphor could be extended to say that it is not always an ignorance to the hole in the boat that causes people not to fix it; it can also be the fear that if they fix the boat and sail blindly into the ocean what they are looking for might not really be there. They would rather arrogantly wait for help to come to them than to seek it out. Does this make sense to you or do you think I'm looking at it wrong?

I think you are absolutely on to something. The assumption the analogy makes is that the professor is blind to the fact that is in front of his face: “I’m smart. If I can do all these things, I should do what really matters and get us off the island.” The analogy assumes the professor doesn’t know what mattered and hence doesn't go it, so his life is wasted.

What I’m hearing behind your questions and statements is that there are other ways to view why the professor didn’t seek to get off the island. You’re really asking, “what motivates people to make the choices they do?” You implied at least two motivators, false security and arrogance.

False security. Some things that could have driven him to this:

1) The Cool Guy. There is where the Professor says to himself, “Wow. There are two hot girls here! I can make alcohol out of bamboos shoots! I like being on the island. Back in society I was just a geeky professor, but now here on the island, everyone looks up to me. I’m needed, and I have a chance with two hot girls that wouldn’t have given me the time of day back in the real world.”

The motivator here is “feeling wanted; being somebody”. Now he is somebody instead of just a geeky nobody. Maybe he even secretly sabotages attempts to get off the island to keep them there.

2) Staying is easier than going. As you said, “would they ever find America again? This is where the professor says to himself, “It’s a big ocean, we have food and water here, I have enough abilities to maintain things, and if we leave here on our own, we might never make it back. Besides the weather is always perfect and there are two hot girls here.”

The motivator here is “fear, and rationalizing yourself into complacency”. Not being sure that you can make it “out there”. This is similar to what motivates people from small towns, ghettos, or just their own small universes to never break out of them. “I don’t know what I’ll find out there.” “I’m just from this little old town. I could never survive out there.” “The ‘hood is good enough for me.”

3) Fear of the unknown. Similar to the above, but it’s more just plain old fear. “This is where the professor says, “I have no idea what is out there. If we leave we will surely die.”

The motivator here, as already stated is fear, a total unwillingness to risk what you don’t know, that includes a pessimism that believes, “nothing will work so we have to stay here.”

ARROGANCE. Some things that could have driven him to this are:

1) I’ll make my own way. This is where the Professor would say, “I’m a man of science. There is nothing else out there that I need. The island is no worse than anywhere else, and here I have a chance to be the ‘captain of my destiny’. I can construct the society I’ve always wanted. Besides, there are two hot girls here.”

The motivator here is, “I’m the King of the World”. In this case, the professor is not resigned to the island, he loves it, and loves that no one can tell him what to do. He is the smartest person on the island and no one can change that.

2) The island is all that there is. This is where the professor says, “nothing else really matters. The island is all we have. Forget that America ever existed…after a few years it will fade into memory. There is no one to rescue us, so here we are. At least there are two hot girls here.”

The motivation here is “fatalism”. It is similar to fear, but more a matter of resignation than fear. Life is what it is, so what?

+++
In all of this, the underlying truth is, in the case of guys, no matter what motivates them they will always find ways to include hot girls into the rationalization, which is why I married your mother.

When is the use of force valid?

The subject of war is one that is a complex one, and the validity of it will likely always be debated.

There is no single Christian view of war, even though some would lead folks to think that all Christians are "right-wing war mongers".

There is no one verse that can be used to define the Bible's opinion on the matter.

The Bible does say, "Thou shalt not kill", but that applies to individuals and relates to murder. The Bible also depicts the histories of several wars and never condemns them (at least from the standpoint of being wars themselves).

My view is that you look at how various scripture themes tie together to determine if the principle of force is valid. There are Christians who have always been pacifists; there are Christians who have always stated that scripture permits force. I personally think those Christians who are pacifists are naive. We live in a fallen world, and to maintain justice sometimes force has to be used. In one sense, war is a logical extension of law. Pacificists would have to contend (in order to be logical) that police should never kill people in the line of duty. Society would break down in a heartbeat if the principle that force can never be used were followed.

Nations have different responsibilities from individuals. People are exhorted in scripture to hold to live peacefully. Nations and governments have the responsibility of keeping the peace, which is different.

Romans 13 says ¹Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ²Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. ⁴For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. ⁶This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. ⁷Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (I put in the underlines.)

This is implying that governments, in order to maintain a peaceful society, sometimes have to use force to do that, and that could be against citizens who commit crimes or against nations who do wrong. It is not saying that governments are direct institutions of God--but that in the scheme of things God uses human institutions to keep peace. Remember, too, this was in the letter to the Romans. The Roman government put Paul in jail for preaching and he still believed they were a legitamate government!

Another approach that has been developed to determine the validity of war is the "Just War Theory" that was developed by Augustine and expanded on by Thomas Acquinas. A good summary of this is at:

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

The problem is, people will always disagree on the conditions of when war is just. There are Christians who actually have trouble with the fact that an incredibly brave German pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, participated in a plot to assassinate Hitler. He was captured and executed for it.

Another view is the priniciple of moral gradation. This is the idea that sometimes something that is not great must be done to stop something that is worse. There is a phrase (admittedly not scriptural, but I think sensible) that says, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." So even though some might contend that is was wrong for Bonhoeffer to want to kill Hitler it was appropriate because to stand by and do nothing would permit much more evil.

If you want to die happy

Go to the Thai Diner in the west end of Richmond, VA and have the spicy noodle soup. Get it American Hot. You will then be able to die happy.

Rumination – What’s the Point? Is thinking worthwhile, or not? It depends on whether or not you have a point!

In the movie, “Planes, Trains and Automobiles”, Steve Martin says to John Candy: “You know when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea: have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!”

Sometimes people deride thinkers as muddled and impractical, and I understand this because many are. To me the worst thing is thought without a point. There is a difference between ruminating to obtain clarity and thinking just to think.

Ruminate. dictionary.com says:

v 1: chew the cuds; "cows ruminate" 2: reflect deeply on a subject; "I mulled over the events of the afternoon"; "philosophers have speculated on the question of God for thousands of years"; "The scientist must stop to observe and start to excogitate" [syn: chew over, think over, meditate, ponder, excogitate, contemplate, muse, reflect, mull, mull over, speculate]

It’s a great word, and I believe, an important quality to develop. I heard a pastor once say that “ruminate” was the word that the psalmist had in mind in Psalm 1:2, when he wrote, “But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates (or ruminates) day and night.”

The example that dictionary.com used, “philosophers have speculated on the question of God for thousands of years” is evidence that perhaps even the dictionary doesn’t get it. I may be moving from definition to connotation here, but there is a huge difference between rumination and speculation.

The purpose of bovine rumination (to echo Dave Barry, ‘Bovine Rumination’ would be a great name for a band) is to get the food to the point where it is energy, where it provides life to old Bossie. Speculation can go on forever with no result; rumination ends with digestion. Rumination should beget clarity (and maybe some gas…); speculation may beget nothing but more speculation, or it may result only in the speculator feeling pretty darned good about what a thinker he thinks he is…

Speculation becomes a mental treadmill if it leads to nothing but more speculation, or worse, it becomes mental masturbation if it just leads to the speculator feeling good about his thoughts. In neither is clarity gained.

Speculative thinking is widespread today because relativism (all points are equal) and cognitive dissidence (the ability to believe two opposing views at the same time and not seeing the contradiction—e.g., being a moral relativist and also believing in something as “wrong” or “right”) are the order of the day and inconclusive thinking is the natural result.

Rumination leads to clarity because it has an object (a point) and a process. The process is the refinement of the object until it breaks down into useful components (e.g., as food into energy). It is gradual, but purposeful. Even the gas has a purpose.

The ruminator needs to start with: “I know there is a point, and I trust I will find it.” That makes all the difference.

No more pontifications...

The end is here for the days of spoofing the news coverage of the Pope’s health. Anything written at this point would be tasteless, although some might say, “And how would that be different?”

I’ve had several questions on these items. Some just didn’t get it; others didn’t understand “the fascination with the Pope”. And for some, pope jokes just aren’t funny, no matter what.

To close out this chapter, it might help to tell what this has drove all this. It wa about him as celebrity, and as pop icon. The pope was the object, but the media was the subject.

It all started one slow news weekend in February when Fox News began running almost continuous coverage of his condition.
“The Pope is at the window. “Ooh, look. Now he’s waving.”
“Well, Frank, what do you think of that wave? Is that the wave of a healthy Pope, or a sick one?”
On and on and on and on for days!

It was weirdly reminiscent of the coverage of Princess Diana, and oddly juxtaposed against the coverage of the Michael Jackson trial. And it was the irony of so many people who disagree with the pope on so many things, behaving as though they actually cared. The pontiff is a man whose detractors quote for their own advantage; he’s prolife and anti-war, so many can find one sound byte they can use to legitimize their position, even though most couldn’t stand up to the totality of his beliefs.

This all made it clear that the pope is more than just a modern modern religious leader (in the mold, say of the Archbishop of Canterbury or Billy Graham), he's actually a celebrity! Hence the stories mixing the pope with MJ, American Idol, and the Ocars.

The coverage reached total absurdity yesterday when the Fox camera was trained on the two lights of the papal residence for hours, with the caption on the screen reading “Pope still alive”! The reports were speaking in hushed tones, as if reporting on a golf tournament, grasping for fresh words to say.

Today Matt and Katy are in Rome wearing tasteful black wardrobes and asking somber, serious questions. (Have you ever seen buzzards circling?)

Soon after he’s gone, they’ll be back to Michael Jackson, and The Next Big Thing.

Mercifully, now that his death is near, the coverage is turning. They have moved beyond his wavering wave, and whether or not he’ll speak at the window, and are addressing what his life has meant to the church and to the world. Only good can come of that.

(No one has found the hidden joke yet. It's pretty subtle, and sort of gauche, and maybe not that funny. You'd probably have to know too much about the Pope to find it. No more clues.)