competing with facebook

Throughout the past couple of years this blog has gone through a few droughts and surges in readership. Right now is kind of a drought. The reason is different than for past droughts, though. I blame the recent slowness on Facebook.

I figure that if most people are like me, they have their websites that they regularly visit, and they rarely go outside those sites. Occasionally a website will get added to the list, but that usually means another gets visited less frequently. Since a lot of people are checking Facebook more frequently, that has reduced some of traffic to mine and a few other of the blogs.

I am kind of in a quandry with this. I could link to my blog through Facebook and send notifications about new posts there. This is something that Dash has been dabbling with. I feel weird about sharing this blog with potentially anyone I may have been mildly acquainted with at any point in my life, though. I went into this in a little more detail a couple of years ago. I have been very purposeful in who I have alerted to this site simply because I want to be able to let my guard down a bit. I definitely would have to go through and review what I have already posted before opening the floodgates like that, because I am sure there are things that I might not have said in the same way in some of my worlds.

For now I have no intention of changing things up. Even with the current situation, I have enough readers to justify adding new content. I will continue posting and won't push this site out to more people than my comfort will allow. I'm open to new ideas for the site, though.

the political church

One of the most significant criticisms I have heard of churches in recent years are their influence in politics. The two opinions that I run across most frequently are that religious considerations should be completely removed from the election process and the opposing view that it is more Godly to support one specific politician or party than another. I discussed this very early in this blog's existence, but I have refined my opinions somewhat in the last few years.

In my earlier post I advocated an approach to politics that is more passive than I probably should have. I didn't come out and say it, but it was implied. Upon reexamination, I don't think that church influence in politics is necessarily a bad thing. I think that it is an abused thing.

I think that a big problem with most peoples' approach to politics, whether they are Christians or not, is that they make their personal political views more important than they really are. Even on issues that everyone agrees are important, it is rare that one person's viewpoint properly sums up all of the moral and practical implications of specific policies for that issue. Furthermore, politics works a bit like a pendulum, so anyone who is seeking a rightist or leftist paradise will be sorely disappointed because the masses won't allow that to occur. It's almost unavoidable that whoever wins the White House in 2008 will lose seats in Congress in 2010.

The main problem with mixing Christianity and politics is that you inevitably end up putting words in Jesus' mouth. The idea of Jesus wearing a "Vote Caesar in '28" pin is ridiculously hilarious. Can anyone really know what Jesus' fiscal policy would be, or what perspective he take on privacy rights, or how he would rate the value of military experience versus community organizing experience? He was willing to associate with political extremists, if you remember Simon the Zealot, but he didn't advocate political extremism.

On the other end of the spectrum, I don't see anything in the Bible that indicates that we cannot be political, either. From a practical and historical perspective, there are good and bad policies, and it isn't wrong to take a stance on policies or politicians. In fact, I think it is a good thing to want to make society better. I think it is awesome that both candidates were asked a series of questions at Saddleback Church. I also think that this election presents a great opportunity, regardless who is elected president, for Christians to be a truly positive influence on society through whatever administration is put in place.

I actually have some pretty strong political views. The thing is, I am sure that some of them are probably not perfect, even though I can rationalize my views as well as anyone can. Because of that, I try not to take my political views too seriously. It doesn't make someone stupid, immoral, or anything else like that to disagree with me, and no politician or political policy can be perfect. I'll vote how I see fit, and everyone else can vote as they see fit if they see fit to vote.

As a final thought, no matter who wins the election in November, we should remember Paul's words.

"Everyone 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."- Romans 13:1

silence is dust

Last night at church I sat next to a visitor. We discussed a few things, but there was a lot of dead air. It was the kind of dead air that hovers around people who aren't necessarily trying to talk. I don't think he minded too much, because he said that he would be back next week. It probably is a mistake for me to sit next to new people, though.

I don't necessarily think it is a problem that needs to be worked out, but I very frequently do not feel like talking so I just don't. If I don't feel that I have anything to add to a conversation and there is nothing worth talking about on my mind, you won't hear much of anything out of me. Silence is also Golden, so when we were dating she used to point out that very few couples would be as comfortable just sitting in silence as we were.

I don't think this is an issue of shyness. If anything, for me it is an issue of laziness. If I have to work to come up with something to say it doesn't seem worth it. When I do try to force conversation, it usually exhausts me more than anything else.

Having said that, I would bet that some people who know me have a hard time believing there are times when I am quiet. I can sometimes have the opposite tendency of hijacking the conversation. That's a story for a different post, though.

lion down

Since I was living in the upper peninsula of Michigan when I first became interested in sports as a kid, I have been a Lions and a Tigers fan. This is not an easy proposition if you know anything about the records of both teams over the last twenty years, but as I have noted before, I take some pride in pulling for my team even when things are bad. This also diminishes my patience for bandwagon fans.

While the Tigers were horrible for a while, they have at least been an average team over the last three years. The Lions, however, have genuinely stunk for the entirety of this decade. They stunk in the 1980s as well, and they were an average team in the 1990s only because they had Barry Sanders. They constantly battle to just stay out of last place, not just of their division, but of the entire NFL. Part of the appeal of fantasy football is that I can watch football games and pay attention to something other than the score of the Lions game. At least I have some control over how good my fantasy team is. It's a way for me to be emotionally detached from my team until some day in my fifties when they have a winning season again.

Just how bad are the Lions? They have a 31-84 record and have never in that time finished in higher than third place in a four-team division under the leadership of the current team president Matt Millen, which has spanned about seven years. This year they have already been blown out by two teams, the Atlanta Falcons and the San Francisco 49ers, that were among the laughingstocks of the league last year. The Lions have only won one playoff game since 1957 in a league where twelve teams every year advance to the playoffs.

I have heard many commentators express the opinion that Millen is the worst team president in the history of the NFL. It is now common at Lions games for the crowd to chant, "Fire Millen," as the team makes yet another opponent look brilliant. Even so, Millen still has the full support of William Clay Ford, Sr., who owns the team. The fans, however, don't have the same warm feelings or patience for Millen. The opinions of most fans can be summarized by the thoughts in this letter from a former fan and this bit of opinion from an ESPN contributor. Even Bill Ford, Jr. has issued an opinion that Millen should leave the team.

Normally, I am not a person who wants to see someone else lose his job. I really have to make an exception for Millen, though. By now he shouldn't need the money, and all indications are that he is not suited for the job. Part of the human experience is learning to accept that you cannot be good at everything. So, in helping him understand this part of the human experience, and to help the Lions actually have a winning season sometime this century (I wish that were hyperbole), Millen has to go. It would be nice to see the Fords sell the team to someone who understands football as well, but I can only hope for so much.

In this spirit, I have considered rooting against the Lions this year in the hopes that a lousy season will force Millen's ouster. It goes against my nature, and I suspect at this point that Millen wouldn't get fired if the team went 0-16 for the next three years, but it is all I have to hold on to at the moment. That, and my mediocre fantasy football squads.

bad call

Earlier this week I walked into the bathroom at work and noticed someone I have not seen before. That is not too uncommon since there is a conference room on our floor that another company frequently uses for training.

While the guy was at the sink, though, he did something that I consider a faux pas in a public bathroom. The guy took a phone call and proceeded to carry a conversation just standing there in front of the sinks.

I am the type of person where, if Golden is carrying a phone conversation and I am in the bathroom I do everything I can to block bathroom-specific noise. I have also let calls hit voicemail when I was in the bathroom rather than trying to carry a conversation in that environment. There is just something weird about hearing a flush over the phone. This is why I could not figure out why the guy didn't quickly head for the door once the call came in.

So, if I call you in the future and you are temporarily indisposed, you can let it hit voicemail. I don't mind.

where fire walking started

In an episode of Mythbusters that I watched last night the possibility of fire walking was tested. While the physics of fire walking was being worked out all I could think about was where fire walking came from. The narrator mentioned that cultures on six different continents practice fire walking. This means that, not just one, but several different people in different locations and times in history originated the idea that it would be a worthwhile use of time and energy to walk barefoot through hot coals.

I think a lot of these things that people do that I classify as a less than wise idea were originally intended to prove a person's chutzpa. That would explain why so manyof these things that I see that people in different cultures do on educational programming are rite of passage rituals. I remember one tribe that has a ritual of cutting patterns in kids' skins as part of their rite of passage. Another tribe has a pain tolerance ritual involving some nasty looking ants. None of these things seems all that pleasant.

Even though I understand the psychology of the people who currently go through this process, as you have to prove that you are man enough to tolerate the pain, I don't necessarily understand why anyone originally came up with these rituals. I have to assume that each was designed by someone who took some pleasure in pain, but was the goal sadistic in nature or masochistic in nature?

I'm just glad that in American culture rites of passage are limited to things like a driver's license rather than some pain ritual. I am neither a sadist nor a masochist.

men and church

A couple of weeks ago I finished reading the book Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow. I have wanted to post some thoughts on it for a while, but I have not taken the time until now to type them out. Some of this is a rehash of an earlier post, but I think it is worth the rehash.

I have made it no secret that, throughout my life, church has often felt like it wasn't really designed for me. I definitely see great value in church and I am not looking for a reason to skip. I just want to better understand why I feel this way. My rationale goes that if I can gain this understanding I will be able to figure out how to make the experience more enjoyable and worthwhile for myself and others who may be experiencing the same thing.

One thing that I should note is that I really like my church. A lot of the masculinity problems that plague a lot of churches do not exist in my church. I think this can be credited to my pastor.

Probably the most discussed point in the book is that church appeals to older folks and women more than younger folks and men because it offers security rather than challenge. Someone who values security values stability, predictability, nurturing, and support, all of which one can find at a typical church. Someone who values challenge values risk, variety, competition, and independence. These are not adjectives that describe most churches. Women and the elderly are statistically more likely to desire security, and men and the young are statistically more likely to desire challenge. This pattern is evidenced in the typical church pews, where there are many more female and elderly parishioners than male and younger ones.

Some of the other sticking points that the book mentions are as follows. (This is a bit long, so don't feel bad for skipping it.)

• Men have short attention spans during lecture formats. This makes Sunday School and sermon lectures especially ineffective. The author recommends limiting the number of points in the lesson or sermon (unlike this post), taking breaks, and going heavy on the visual aids. I know that I operate better in a conversational environment than in a lecture so that is how I teach. I am sure there are people for whom this does not work, though.
• Most men are not comfortable with passive-aggressive conflict. Almost all church conflict is passive-aggressive. The author's recommendation is to encourage being more direct in conflict in the church so long as the point is to clear the air and move on.
• Women are generally better readers than men. Since a lot of what happens in a church service or Sunday School class relies on reading, this is uncomfortable for a lot of men. This is actually one which isn't really a big deal to me as should be evidenced by this wordy post.
• When women are stressed they are more likely to want to get support and talk about their problems with friends at a setting like church. Men are more likely to want to work out the problems for themselves, which leads to fewer men than women in church during rough times.
• Churches are full of programs and not projects. Programs do not tend to provide the goals that men usually need to work toward. Most men work much better in projects where there is a beginning, an end, and success is clearly defined. The book encourages structuring ministries around individual projects to encourage more men to participate.
• Many men view church as less than masculine. The book makes a major generalization here that I agree with, and I am usually pretty careful around generalizations. Masculinity is far more important to almost all straight men than femininity is to almost all straight women. It is far more challenging for a man to take a woman's role than vice versa. I can elaborate in as much detail as needed for anyone who has questions about this, but it can be illustrated with the following question. How willing are you to wear clothes obviously designed for the opposite sex in public?
• Men hate feeling incompetent, and there are a lot of opportunities for that in a church service. Most men do not excel at a lot of the things that they may be expected to do at church, so some avoid it altogether.
• There is absolutely nothing appealing to a man about becoming Ned Flanders.
• One point that is important to me is that many men, myself included, often feel that they cannot openly challenge things they may disagree with at church. This goes back to the contrast between security and challenge. People who strongly value security view expressions of disagreement negatively. I frankly stink at toeing the line. There are many times that Golden has to hear me explain why I disagreed with something someone said on the drive home from church because I am kicking myself for not devising a way of making my opinions known in an acceptable way.
• Themes and word choices in church tend to be feminine, stressing weakness, relationships, support, and feelings. The loaded phrases of "relationship" and "intimacy" with God are also used a lot. Most straight men are a little uncomfortable with the idea of seeking an intimate relationship with another man, even if he is named "Jesus." An example that the author mentions of a particularly unwise Christian book title can be found here.
• Music in church tends to focus on a relationship with Jesus that can be frankly read as mildly erotic. Since Jesus was a man, that makes the music seem homoerotic to some men.
• Men's ministry is essentially women's ministry for men because the focus is generally on socialization and lecture. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure how that can be changed, because it needs to be. I would not be averse to doing more things with the men's ministry at my church if it were fun and/or purposeful.
• Femininity defines holiness in church. I have discussed this before. Basically, I believe that the Godliness that is pushed by most conservative churches is designed to make the congregation into proper ladies. There really is not much room for masculinity in most church definitions of holiness.

If there was something that I wish all ministry leaders read in this book it is the following list. The author details a top ten list of spiritual questions that men ask. Note that the majority are rarely addressed and I have never heard the top two adequately addressed. If a church said that they were going to meaningfully address and discuss the ten questions below in a series of men's meetings, I would bet on a packed house.

1. What is true manliness?
2. What is true success?
3. How do I deal with guilt feelings?
4. Is purity possible for men?
5. How can we nurture family life?
6. What is Christian leadership?
7. What are the basic disciplines of a Christian man?
8. What ministry skills need to be developed?
9. What is biblical business conduct?
10. What is integrity?

I actually only listed stuff that I thought was very important and that resonated with me, so there is a lot in the book. It tries to propose some solutions for the issues that are raised, too, so it isn't without practical purpose.

I do believe that Murrow's book is a must read for anyone who is struggling to get a man into church as well as anyone who is in leadership within a church. It is especially important for women in leadership positions or seeking leadership positions in church, because the book notes that the disparity between men and women is the greatest in churches where women hold high positions. As unfair and sexist as it may seem, this implies that female ministry leaders have to compensate a little to have a healthy and balanced church.

How well the church is able to reach men will absolutely define the strength of the church in the next generation. The stakes could not be higher.

on the fringe

Earlier in the week I tried watching Fringe. There was little point. I don't really have time to add another hour-long television show to my schedule, but I figured I had to give it a chance. If I later decided I wanted to watch it, I would be behind rather quickly.

The show is supposed to be a new version of The X-Files, and it really is, but I was amazed at how slowly paced it was. I think this is because it was a longer episode, but I am using this as a reason to avoid watching the show for now. If someone else gets into it and disagrees with my assessment I might give it another chance.

It does not appear that I will be watching any of the new shows this season. I have plenty returning shows which will adequately fill my time, and Fringe was probably the only new show that warranted a try. I also watched Hole in the Wall, but I haven't had any delusions that it would be a show that I would need to regularly tune in to. It is entertaining enough, but watching two episodes that I have already seen is good enough.

One or two of the shows that Golden and I watch have already begun. Almost everything else starts in the last week of September. That gives me a week and a half to get my life in order before the schedule changes once again.

a cat with a pipe

I am amazed that the commercial above is actually for a film festival since it pretty effectively illustrates the feelings of those who don't get film festivals. I am wondering if the purpose is to keep those who don't like film festivals away, or if it is to make those who appreciate independent film feel superior in that they get it.

I may not always be the brightest bulb, as they say, but I don't think I am stupid. I am surprised, then, by how often the video above epitomizes my experience with works that are supposed to be heady. I think, and I have speculated on this before, that most of the stuff that I do not get is usually related to the emotional content of the book, movie, play, art, etc. Since I understand colorblindness, I compare my feelings about these works to my inability to see certain shades of color. I just don't understand certain nuances of red, and I just don't understand certain nuances of emotion.

One other thing I don't understand is why the people who do get certain artistic works (or at least who say they do) seem to credit it to superior intelligence or taste. I don't think that intelligence usually plays a role, and I think taste is subjective. To me that's the same as if I got arrogant over the fact that I think I appreciate a Chipotle fajita more than most people can. That kind of conceit borders on the ludicrous.

I guess this means that I won't be visiting any independent film festivals in the near future. As if that's a real shock.

that's rich

While I was with extended family this past weekend a few people mentioned in passing that I make a lot of money, and those comments got back to me. I am not sure where they got this idea. It isn't the first time that someone has made this assumption, though, so I must be putting off some vibe of which I am unaware. Maybe the spoiler on my Taurus is giving the wrong impression.

The only people who know my current salary are the people who have a legitimate reason to know my salary, so it is not like the people who think I have money have direct evidence to link me to said money. Without providing specifics, Golden and I are not poor but we are nowhere near rich by most American standards.

It is a bit weird for people to think you are loaded when you aren't. Most of my life I have been quite the opposite of rich, so the thought that someone might conclude that I have money seems absurd. Since most of my family on that side works in traditional ministry, I guess it is an easy assumption that someone who works in technology is loaded. It is a flawed assumption, though. Most of the IT workers I know are solidly middle class, though there are certainly exceptions. Being a single-income family keeps us a step or two out of Bill Gates' and Warren Buffett's league.

There are so many people who want others to think they are richer than they are, but I think I would prefer the opposite. Few of the benefits of people thinking I have money appeal to me. I actually prefer a relatively simple life. The only real advantage to me is that it keeps people from thinking that I am incapable of supporting my family. Apart from that motivation, I would prefer people think I have or make less than I really do.

One thing about which I have some pride is the ability to properly manage what I have. If someone thinks I have a large income but still must exert some effort to make ends meet, the easiest conclusion is that I don't know how to manage my money. I would prefer for people to be amazed that I could make due on a shoestring budget even if I am not actually operating on a shoestring budget.

A few questions always enter my mind when someone thinks I have money. What do they know that I don't? Where can I get that obviously beneficial bit of information?

trip observations

As I noted in my last post, I spent a few days in Pennsylvania to attend my grandmother's funeral. As is usually the case when I travel, I have a few thoughts.

First, I never noticed before, but people in that area have multiple viewings, whereas people in Kansas and Missouri tend to only have one viewing. As a family member, the one viewing is far less taxing.

Second, I have revised my opinions on what I want for my funeral. I had said that I would prefer complete honesty about me in whatever eulogy is delivered. I now think the family should get to decide what specifically happens. Really, the funeral is for the family, so what should I care about how the funeral is handled? The funeral should be part of a healing process, so however it can be most effective in healing is how it should be implemented.

Third, I think that funerals are held too closely to the death of the family member. I think families should take about a week to get beyond being shellshocked over the death before having to set up arrangements for a memorial service. Three or four days after a death just seems too soon.

Fourth, how do they train the stewardesses on flights to look so happy when acting out how to operate a seat belt and strap an oxygen mask on your head? I definitely couldn't look so genuinely happy during that portion of the job.

Fifth, I nearly got stuck in Washington D.C. by tropical storm Hanna. At least to hear the pilot on my flight into Washington, you would think so. That experience, coupled with a few other bad experiences in recent years with airlines, has really dampened my desire to ever fly again. I know I will have to at some point, but something always seems to go wrong. If the things that went wrong were things that I could control that would be one thing, but I have yet to figure out a way to control things like inclement weather or lost luggage. If I could, I would prefer to just take the time to drive the entire way.

I hope that the next time I see family it is under better circumstances.

bereavement leave

If you are reading this on Thursday morning, I am almost certainly somewhere between Kansas City and Pittsburgh, and likely somewhere in the air. For those who don't know, my grandmother passed away early Tuesday morning, and the funeral is this Friday.

My flight leaves (or, left for when you are reading this) Thursday at 6AM, as all cheaper flights do. I am always that cheap person who isn't willing to spend the money to fly at a reasonable hour. As a result, I am getting (have gotten) up before 4AM to get to the airport in time.

I don't really have much more to say right now. I basically wanted to note why I didn't have anything to say. I'll probably have something more on Saturday when I get back. Until then, au revoir.

our little energizer bunny

NJ has always been a good napper. He may miss a nap here or there, but he is generally pretty good about going to sleep when he is put down. Over the last week or so that has started changing.

This weekend I switched his crib to a transitional toddler bed, so now he can get out of bed whenever he wants. Since he is not stuck in bed he has been getting up to play rather than going to sleep in the afternoon. Over the past few days, this has definitely cut into his nap time. Yesterday, he didn't even take a nap.

Another issue is that recently his nap has slowly been occurring later and later. He used to go to bed between 12PM and 1PM. In the week prior to switching out his crib his nap was starting anywhere from 2PM to 4PM.

All of this is an issue because our schedule, and especially Golden's, is structured around his afternoon nap. She has been catching a nap and getting chores done while he sleeps. If he is going to be constantly awake that will change how the schedule operates. I appreciate the down time as well when I am around. Golden noted yesterday that the day just seemed to go forever since NJ had been up for so much of it.

Hopefully, if he continues to skip his nap he will make up for it by going to bed a little earlier and getting up a little later. Golden needs a rest at some point because, unlike NJ, she can't keep going and going and going and...

selfish

Last weekend I was in a session where the audience was all couples when the person leading the session noted that selfishness is the thing that causes the most problems in marriage. She noted that she thought that fact was strange until she got married. Now it makes a lot of sense. I have to concur.

Everyone is a bit selfish, and I am not talking about that specifically. The people I am referring to are those who don't really aren't too concerned about what other people may want.

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be married to someone who is entirely self-absorbed. I obviously don't know that sort of life first-hand, but it must be rough. The person you are married to is so important to every aspect of your life that being in a marital commitment with someone who only cares about meeting his or her needs would be prison. Bad habits can be undone. Differences of opinion can be tolerated. For those who want to go that route, even physical issues can be addressed. How do you put up with someone who is only concerned about his or her own self over the long haul, though?

I wonder if this is why God uses the marriage metaphor so much in the Bible. Israel was the unfaithful wife, like Gomer to Hosea. The Church is Christ's bride. God fulfills our needs, so our commitment is not unsatisfying. When Israel or the Church turns away from Him, though, is it somehow unsatisfying for Him?

What I don't understand, though, is what kind of needs God could have. Everyone who goes into marriage does so with the understanding that the person he or she is marrying is there to fulfill something that is lacking in his or her life. I do not think of God as needing anything, though, so why introduce a metaphor like this that requires me to think of God in this merely human way? Is there some value in the metaphor that I am missing? Does God willingly force Himself to need the Church even though vulnerability like that seems like it should contradict His nature?

For Golden and for God, I still need to work on reducing my level of selfishness.