ice hotels

 One leftover result of my planning for my summer vacation last year is that I ended up on Trip Advisor's email list.  While this is slightly ridiculous considering how rarely we vacation, I do find a lot of what they send out intriguing, though.

The latest email I received from Trip Advisor hit on something that has always puzzled me.  The theme is, "Incredible ice hotels," and surely enough there are enough ice hotels that eight can be listed, but how is that possible?  I understand that ice and snow structures look cool (pun intended), but it is one thing to tour and appreciate the visual appeal of an ice structure and another to spend the night there.

The hotels are indeed visually stunning, if only because you don't see many buildings made out of ice or snow.  Links to them are below in case you want to take a look.

• Sorrisniva Igloo Hotel, Norway
• Hotel de Glace, Quebec
• Lainio Snow Village, Finland
• Kirkenes Snowhotel, Norway
• Ice Hotel Romania, Romania
• Snow Castle of Kemi, Finland
• Icehotel, Sweden
• Igloo Village, Switzerland

 I think the appeal is that this is an experience you will not get anywhere else.  It would be something to be able to say that I stayed in an ice/snow hotel once.  When I think of unique vacations, though, I don't think about trying to sleep in a room that must remain below a certain temperature so that my bed does not melt.  It simply does not sound pleasant.

What do you think?  Would the awesomeness of having the experience trump the cold?

directions and empathy

Two things that should have occurred to me sooner about the differences between men and women occurred to me in the past week or two.  Both relate to earlier posts I have made, so I am linking to those previous posts below.

First, regarding the cliche about men not wanting to stop and ask for directions, I have long figured it was about admitting weakness.  That's certainly part of it, but I contemplated the whole process of asking directions and there's more to it than that.  I think the real issue is that men in general are not all that great with step-by-step directions.

A few of the worst arguments Golden and I have had have been due to our differences in navigating our way around.  She works very well with step-by-step instructions, but if I use them there is a good chance I'm going to miss a step or forget a key detail (Was it right or left at the green street sign?  Wait, all of the street signs are green!).  With widespread GPS adoption this is becoming a moot point, but I would bet that more men would stop for directions when the situation called for it if those directions were transmitted in map form.

Second, women liking movies and situations where they get to feel empathy and emotion, I have long figured that this was about women better understanding the nuances of their emotions than men.  While I still think this is largely true, I now think there is a larger factor that is more obvious.  Women like feeling empathy and emotion and men don't.  I did kind of say that at the end of the earlier post, but I just kind of threw it in almost as an afterthought.  Unlike my previous emphasis implied, I now think that every other factor pales in comparison to the enjoyment factor.

I am a more empathetic man than most.  This is something I say that with far more embarrassment than pride as it's not a very masculine trait.  I believe I can definitively state that I do not enjoy feeling empathy.  I often like the perspective it gives me, and I still usually want to understand situations from other peoples' shoes, but the actual feeling of empathy is simply unpleasant.  Maybe there is something deeper that causes me personally to dislike how empathy feels, but I suspect that this is something I have in common with most men.

My experience is that women often get something out of feeling and sharing each other's emotions, even when they are what I would consider unpleasant emotions.  I suspect that this is similar to the excitement a man gets during the daring parts of an action movie or video game.  Being shot at or in a fight would not be pleasant, but there is something about putting yourself in the shoes of a fictional person in that situation that is paradoxically exhilarating.  Likewise, sharing an unpleasant emotion must provide pleasure on some level.

So I guess the long and short of it is, news flash: men and women are different.

craigslist killers

A recent story that has been in the news, and has some extra significance for me because one of the perpetrators is from the town where my sister currently lives, is regarding the "Craigslist killers."  I do not know all of the details, but I do know that they lured men to their deaths with a job offer for only $300 a week, plus board.  That is what stuck out to me.  The people who responded to the ad were largely men who were beyond down on their luck.

One person in particular who was killed was Timothy Kern, who was described in the earlier linked article as taking the job to try to support his three kids.  I don't know that I have much to add to this, but that thought had a significant visceral impact on me.  The guy took a job, and one that ended up being too good to be true, paying basically minimum wage to support his three kids, and that is what ended up getting him killed.  Not to sound trite, but Mr. Kern just could not get a break.

These sorts of stories make me feel very fortunate for the opportunities I have been given.  Not everyone has the opportunity to attain higher education.  Not everyone is able to find work to pay for that education and life after the education—especially not in recent years.  Not everyone has seen provision throughout the situations of their lives like I have.  A lot of people are looking at a future where their skill set is unfortunately obsolete or will be out of demand for a long while through no fault of their own.

Why would I focus on provision rather than family when being thankful?  It is not because I am unthankful for my family, but because the ability to provide for a family is the basis for most men's self-worth.  In thinking about the men in this situation the thing at the forefront of my mind is how worthless a lot of them have to feel, especially those with kids they are unable to support.  Those of us whose hope is in Christ should not place our worth in temporary and arbitrary things like that, but God's work is certainly not complete in me.

All of this being said, who really knows what the future holds.  Maybe I'll be challenged with joblessness at some point in the future.  I hope not, but I wouldn't be the only one to have gone through it if I did.  Maybe things will get bad enough that I have to look into sketchy opportunities.  Again, I hope not.  I can be thankful in the good things that God has given me now, though.  What I would hate would be to run into hard times then realize too late how little I appreciated the good times when I was living them.

As an aside, if you're looking for someone to pray for Mr. Kern's children have to be at the top of the list.  I just cannot imagine...

sabbath: revisited

Several years back, I posted on the Sabbath and my opinion on its observation. I have always had an aversion to how it was enforced when I was younger, so I didn't stop to think that it might have some benefits.

When I was a kid, what honoring a Sunday Sabbath meant fluctuated a bit, but from my perspective it almost always meant making the day more boring. Church was obviously boring for a younger boy, but as entertainment appeared to conflict with keeping the day holy, there were times when Sundays were intentionally made to be dull so as not to dishonor the Sabbath.

Now that I am an adult and have more control over how my life is run, a weekly break from work does not sound like a bad thing. My last time reading through the Bible one of the things I watched for was how the Sabbath was to be observed by Israel and what its true purpose was. It was during this reading that it occurred to me that keeping the day holy was not about putting on a show of piety on that day, but rather one of trust. Part of the point of the Sabbath was that God's people trusted Him enough that they would break from work one day out of the week even when doing so would impact them economically (like farmers during the harvest, or merchants traveling distances between cities).

A further point that I frequently heard when growing up was that workers need at least one day a week off.  Too many work days in a row will drive a person crazy.  This is something that I have always agreed with, and I still do.  Beyond that, though, I am finally at a point in my life where a Sabbath rest sounds like an appealing thing.  It just has to be on different terms than I grew up with.

Things that I think should qualify as a Sabbath rest include, but are not limited to, the following.

• An afternoon at the park
• An afternoon at the beach (no, still no real beaches in Kansas)
• An afternoon watching football
• An afternoon playing football, soccer, baseball, etc
• An afternoon watching a movie
• An afternoon reading
• An afternoon playing board/card games

While it is certainly God's privilege to expect sacrifices that seem absurd, the requirement of boredom one day a week always seemed ridiculous.  I think I would feel differently about it if I saw that doing this grew my relationship with Him, or caused me to understand Scripture better, or provided some other notable spiritual benefit.  For me it did not, and it still doesn't.  Strip away the anti-entertainment rule, though, and I am all about slowing down and having a quiet and reflective day once a week.

change

A while back I noted that I had worked at a grocery store that installed a CoinStar machine under the guise of serving customers better. Since the machine took a 7% cut of the change total, I always questioned the purpose of it. It wasn't like we turned down customers who opted to pay with coins, and at the least a bank would count and deposit coins free of charge for customers. Since the machine was providing a service that I felt the store should be providing anyway I was always a little bit cynical about that machine being used as a source of revenue. It seemed more a pointless extravagance in that situation, but I just today heard of a story that indicates that the grocery business may have changed since I was a cashier.

Apparently, a mother in Portland, Oregon, needed to buy some food for her kids but only had change. The information I have is that she had quarters, but perhaps there were smaller denomination coins there as well. The first grocery store she went to told her that they had a $5 limit on change-only purchases. The second grocery store tried to send her to their change counting machine (I don't know if it was specifically a CoinStar machine) that took a 10% cut of the money. When she pointed out that she could not afford to pay this fee and another customer offered to give her cash for the coins she had the store backed down.

This brings up a few points. First, the grocery store I worked for employed two types of people: high schoolers and the poor. Were the employees who enforced these rules all from the former category, because otherwise I would have expected them to be sympathetic to the woman's plight.

Second, apparently most chains do not have an official policy regarding how much you can pay in coins, but the stores themselves enforce these non-existent rules anyway. I am going to guess that the individual stores do not know that there is no actual policy on the matter because the chains want customers to feel the need to use their for-cost change counting machine.

Finally, this gives me pause since there has been a push over the last few years to accept the dollar coins. Why should anyone switch to using dollar coins if there is a chance cashiers may decide they are not going to accept them?

politics: chosen

I am pretty sure that this is the last in my current political series. Maybe I'll hit on a lighter topic shortly.

I have already quoted from this passage twice in the last few posts, but that is only because it is such a relevant, yet under-appreciated, piece of Scripture. I have bolded the relevant points for this post.

"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. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For 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. For 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. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:1-7

A few years ago I saw an online poll that asked whether Jesus would have been a Republican or a Democrat. While the question itself seems ludicrous to me since Jesus went out of his way to avoid the politics of His day (Matt 17:24-27, Luke 20:20-26), it eventually got me thinking along a broader point that God does technically vote in elections, coups, rebellions, puppet governments, and every other process that brings people to power. Any time I stop to contemplate that I am astounded.

Depending on your politics, it may be difficult to imagine that God technically voted for George W. Bush or Barack Obama. I do not really have any ill will toward either of them, but if I did I would have to acknowledge that it was God who put both into their respective positions of power. This passage is far more challenging when I consider that is means that in the last century God also cast a vote for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and innumerable other despots. Paul certainly knew that he was saying that God put objectively evil people in power, as it is likely that Paul wrote his letter to the Roman Christians in the early years of Nero's reign, and only about a decade-and-a-half after Caligula's reign. This was not Camelot.

This is not to say that the people God has chosen are blessed people because of it. In the Old Testament God used pagan rulers to punish Israel and Judah, then He punished those same rulers for their violence and sin. Even the people who God used who trusted Him were typically horribly flawed, and frequently paid for their sins (Samson, Jephthah, David, et al).

While I do not like the idea that people who I personally believe were bad rulers were put into position by God, I can accept that this is because God ultimately orchestrates things in the way that is most likely to draw people to Him. I do not say this lightly. Horrific things happen in many of these administrations implemented by God—things much worse than my Western mind can even imagine. I am sure if I were to witness some of those atrocities, I would strongly question God's wisdom or care. If I am to accept Scripture, though, I have to accept God's control of who is in power in the world as a hard truth.

So, what does this all mean? What is the respect and honor that we owe to government leaders with whom we disagree? How can we even know what is owed? Are dissenting opinions wrong? Does this mean that any form of protest is wrong? Should political satire be off-limits? I personally believe the answer to this is in the following passage from Titus.

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men. At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy."- Titus 3:1-5a

Apart from the fact that God established the authorities that exist, the main reason we are to act with respect toward the governing authorities is that disrespect is a symptom of the former life. It is more consistent with foolishness, disobedience, and slavery to passions than it is to consideration and humility. I therefore believe that the Biblical line for respecting authorities is the point at which we become disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. That sounds like a low bar, but my observation is that it is a very difficult standard for anyone with strong political opinions or for anyone who wants to fit in with a group of people who have strong political opinions.

Can I hold a strong political opinion without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? Probably, but I have to be on guard. Can I have a political debate with friends or acquaintances without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? That is more difficult, but probably not impossible. Can I join a peaceful political protest without being disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful? This is pushing the envelope, but could conceivably be okay. Obviously, this is a subjective standard, but it does function as a Scriptural red flag.

I think the real danger here is to underestimate what counts as disobedient, slanderous, divisive, inconsiderate, or prideful. Political name-calling, while appearing to be merely immature, is inconsiderate and prideful. Assuming the worst about those we disagree with and allowing that to color our political conversations, while appearing to be merely strong-minded or informed, is slanderous and divisive. Violating laws in passive ways through civil disobedience, while appearing to be selflessly pushing forward a cause, is still disobedient.

This is not to say that I have achieved the level that Paul commanded. It is simply something that I must continually strive for.

politics: taxes and welfare

I struggled mightily with how to write this one. I think it is an extremely important topic for Christians to consider, but one of the reasons it is important is that it hits on some hot-button issues where a firm stance can alienate people pretty quickly. I have to look no further than my Facebook friends news feed where I have seen plenty of articles posted that either harp on the dangers of a large tax burden or on the unconscionability of allowing the down-and-out to go without basic needs to know the gravity of taking or stating an opinion.

I definitely do have some opinions about what a proper tax system should look like and what the government's role should be in assisting the poor. Those opinions are informed by Scripture as well. That I have opinions or what those opinions ultimately are is not the point, though. The point is that I believe that on this specific issue there is an extraordinary temptation to bend Scripture to an already held position, whatever it happens to be, and ignore the foundational Scriptural principles.

First, I should address why I chose taxation and welfare versus any other spending category. Generally speaking the question of taxation in the United States boils down to an argument over the rights of the rich to their money and the responsibility of the state to provide for the welfare of the poor. Occasionally, I'll see an argument regarding balancing taxation and the size of the military, but it's not as popular an argument now as it was during our last presidency. Republicans not named "Ron Paul" generally don't argue to reduce the size of the military and the Democrats who argue for greater taxation generally aren't the same people who would want to grow the military.

There are serious pitfalls on all sides of this issue for Scripture-following Christian. The mistake that I have observed people on all sides of the issue make is to forget that it is God who provides. This foundational flaw is exposed in almost all of the rationales I have heard for this issue.. The people who argue against higher taxes do so under the guise that the money was earned and is theirs rather than the government's. The people who argue for government support do so under the guise that God will not provide, so therefore only the government is left. Going even deeper than that, though, is that the question is never about what my responsibility is, but rather it is about whether someone else is exploiting me in my position. This is a tempting, but very anti-Scriptural position to take.

A defense that we do not have the luxury of espousing is that such-and-such tax or government assistance policy will be economically better for the country. God is not concerned with the economics of the decision, but rather with the devotion and trust of His followers. From the Bible's standpoint, it is better to trust God in an impoverished economy than to trust self in an environment of wealth.

It is probably the easiest to argue Scripturally against the anti-tax people because the relevant verses are more straightforward. God did not leave room for debate regarding whose money taxes are. That money belongs to the government authority.

"Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:5-7

It doesn't matter if the tax is egregious or simply seems unfair. It was never our money to begin with. We only had the money because of opportunities, abilities, and drive that God provided to us, and He explicitly states that the percentage of this money—His money—the government claims should indeed be paid in taxes.

There is a further argument that is made that the government should only have a limited role in assisting those in need for a variety of reasons. This technicality is where Scripture gets a little foggy and the underlying principle is lost in the vagueness. A valid argument can be made for or against government being the proper proxy through which we support the poor, but a valid argument cannot be made that we should not sacrificially provide for the poor. If a Christian believes that the government is not the proper means to provide to the poor that is fine IF that same Christian in practice gives sacrificially to those in need. Sacrificial charity is serious business, too. It's enough to be the deciding factor in your salvation, as you should be able to tell from the verses referenced below.

• God made it clear that true fasting was providing for those without: Isa 58:5-11
• At least one of the sins that led to Sodom's destruction was neglecting the poor: Ezek 16:49-50
• We all know about the sheep and the goats: Matt 25:31-46
• Our love is shown in how we value our possessions versus providing for brothers in need: 1 John 3:17-18

Based on the points I just made I must agree that the poor should be able to expect to rely on the sheep or the government the sheep pay for to provide for them, right? Again, I believe that this approach is frequently anti-Scriptural.

First, while I personally believe that laziness accounts for a very small percentage of people who are down and out, there is no Biblical support for choosing not to work. Solomon was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (Prov 13:4). Paul was clear that sluggards deserved no handout (2 Thess 3:6-12). Paul also encouraged the Thessalonians to work and have a manageable standard of living so that they would not have to rely on others (1 Thess 4:11-12).

Probably the most important passage to argue against the idea that we should rely on government support, though, is one that illustrates on whom we should rely. In The Sermon on the Mount Jesus made the following famous statement.

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."- Matt 6:24

This sounds like an indictment of the rich, but Jesus immediately follows this with a command not to worry about food or clothing because God will provide these things. If there is something the rich do not worry about, it is whether they are fed and clothed. He concludes with the following promise.

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."- Matt 6:33

To serve God is to not worry about the necessities, and to refuse to trust Him regarding the necessities is to seek something before God. This theme of trusting God comes up a lot in Scripture, to the point where it really is foundational to God's ultimate message to us.

• God orders our paths and blesses us if we trust in Him: Prov 3:5-10
• Abraham trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness, and Paul notes that this promise is for us as well: Romans 4:18-25
• We cannot expect anything from God if we doubt Him: James 1:6-8

There is one final perspective on this topic that I feel needs to be addressed. Plenty of people who make enough that they would not qualify to receive government assistance argue very strongly that the rich are responsible for caring for the poor. Indeed I am technically among them as I have already noted in this post that Christians with means have that responsibility. There is a serious danger in motivation here, though.

Ultimately, my responsibility is to trust God and care for those in need regardless what others do. If I goad others into caring for the needy simply because if I am sacrificing others ought to as well, my motives are less than pure. Likewise, if I do so out of a sense of self-righteousness rather than humility my pride is sin. If I take this position because I trust in government more than God, then I am not right with God. Finally, if my motivation is so that others bear their share of the burden rather than having an undue burden fall on me, I am simply passing off my selfishness as duty or as equity.

In summary, no matter our lot in life, our focus cannot be on griping about being exploited by the tax system or by society in general. Our focus has to be on trusting God enough to handle our finances and everything else in our lives.

I should be clear that I am not better than anyone else on any of these counts. I have somehow espoused both anti-Scriptural parts of the anti-tax philosophy and of the trust-in-the-government philosophy at one time or another. My position here is only to point to pitfalls of the attitudes behind these philosophies as described by Scripture.

In conclusion, thanks to those who put the effort in to read this treatise. Politics is an uncomfortable topic anyways, and to make something I have one more post that will be much shorter than this one to conclude this series. I have had fun with this, but I know I should limit these sorts of posts because political topics are difficult to converse about with tact.

politics: the game

I haven't paid significant attention to politics as of late, so this isn't targeted to anyone in particular. I am sure there are plenty of people in politics who are fully committed to God and will not budge on their morals or ethics, so this isn't a complete indictment on everyone in the system. It is merely an observation of the contrast between the life we should live and the actions some see as necessary in politics.

Most American politicians claim some flavor of Christianity to accept portions of some version of the Christian Bible as God-breathed. Certainly there is a wide range of beliefs within this group Christian politicians, but I believe that most of them are largely genuine in their stated beliefs. If you threw out the politicians who claim non-Christian religions or no religion and also those disingenuous about their claimed beliefs, I believe that a strong majority would still be people who believed in Christ as their Savior. It is therefore very unfortunate that the political game is so opposite what Scripture teaches. If most of the political players accept Scripture on some level, and a large percentage of the electorate does as well, how could we end up with a system that encourages such abhorrent behavior?

One politician I will mention because he has dropped out of the presidential race, and because I was not strongly for or against his campaign, is Tim Pawlenty. When he dropped out of the race a few weeks ago something I read in a few places was that he was too much of a "good guy" who wouldn't go for the jugular enough. I read further that this works in some election cycles, but apparently not in this one. While I know that a lot of the explanations for why things happen in politics are storylines invented to sell news, it does not say much for the electorate if the reason some people turned from Pawlenty was because he didn't have enough bloodlust.

I think the Pawlenty storyline illustrates my point fairly well. Simply put, the strategies and games that politicians of all political stripes play, whether they feel they have to or not, are anti-Scriptural. This is no shock to anyone, I am sure, but what gives me pause is how easily the behavior is rationalized by those who support that specific candidate. It's unconscionable when a political opponent does X sleazy thing, but when it's someone I agree with then there is an excusable reason for it, or it's a personality quirk, or it's a personal matter, or...

The truth be told, a Christian who completely follows Scripture does not bend the truth to suit a need. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not craft his or her belief system for maximum political gains. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not grandstand. A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not game the system for their own personal gain, whether it be financial (pay for play) or political (gerrymandering). A Christian who completely follows Scripture does not sell hate to get elected or push an agenda. I know there isn't a person alive who completely follows Scripture, but if there were that person would not be at all compatible with our current political system.

I would assert that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag opponent than it is to win using questionable means. I don't think that many people would disagree with that statement, but I again think that most would rationalize or write off political games as a necessary evil to keep even worse people from getting elected. So, I would assert once more that it is far better to lose a political election to a scumbag than to win it through questionable means.

I cannot hold someone who does not accept Scripture to the standard of Scripture, but I can hold those who claim Christ to Scripture. A Christian has to be a different kind of politician. I would like to conclude this with a passage from 1 Corinthians 6, where Paul is writing to the Corinthian church about handling legal disputes internally. Certainly, if read outside the context of a legal dispute as I am doing, I have failed this passage myself. Even so, imagine if Paul were writing about a political debate rather than a legal argument. I am sure he would still ask, "Why not rather be wronged?"

"Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another--and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?"- 1 Corinthians 6:4-9a

politics: 9/11

Today is the ten-year anniversary of the attacks of 9/11. It is one of those events where you know where you were when you heard the news, which for the majority of people in the East and Midwest was probably work or school because it was business hours on a weekday. Feel free to share what you were doing when you found out or other related memories in the comments. My greatest memory of that time was that for a short period there was a bit less political divisiveness in the country.

Something that I have noted in the time since is that this incident was one that has a remarkable ability to reaffirm to people what they already believed about whatever topics involved. Somehow, both people who think Islam is inherently peaceful and inherently violent find evidence for their worldview in 9/11. People who think the U.S. should take a more active role or less active role against rogue states both find evidence to support their worldview in 9/11. Some see the event as an indictment of the Western lifestyle and others see it as proof that our freedoms are so great we're worth attacking for them. It's telling that one of the big conspiracies from the past decade is that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. If I deep down want to hate the government why not invent some blame for one of the most significant events in recent history?

Maybe some of the arguments that use 9/11 as an illustration are valid. Most are probably just an excuse to trumpet a viewpoint. I would guess that all miss the gravity of the sacrifice that so many people experienced. I wonder how I would want the day honored if I had lost a loved one in the attack.

politics: alienable rights

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."- The Declaration of Independence

Typically, if a writer quotes one of the Founding Fathers or founding documents of this great nation the purpose is to prove that the Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom agreed with whatever point the author is trying to make. I have seen this done many times by people on the Right and on the Left in the political arena, and I have also seen it done by pundits, preachers, non-profits, and anyone else who is selling an opinion.

I have a different question for Christians, though. Why do we put the writings and opinions of fallible people nearly on par with Scripture, even if they helped found one of the greatest nations ever established? Patriotism is good when it involves paying honor, respect, and obligation due to our nation as the one under which God placed us. It is bad when our love of the nation or certain national ideals is in conflict with Scripture.

While I love my country and believe it is the greatest ever established (possibly second greatest to David's Israel) on this earth, I also acknowledge that its founding principles are not all Biblical. As a Christ-follower before I am an American, I have to refuse any American principles that contradict Christian principles.

In this case, the sentence above from the Declaration of Independence describes very accurately the underlying philosophy of our nation that all men are created equal and that certain rights are unalienable. The first part about all men being created equal is very Biblical (Gal 3:28). Unfortunately, that is where the Biblical agreement ends. The second part about unalienable rights is contradicted many places in Scripture as illustrated below.

The following passage is regarding the rights to life and the pursuit of happiness. The rich man had neither the right to live beyond his appointed time nor the right to pursue happiness in the way he saw fit.

"Then [Jesus] said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.' And he told them this parable: 'The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, "What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops." Then he said, "This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, 'You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.'" But God said to him, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself ?" This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.'"- Luke 12:15-21

Jesus also more explicitly demanded that His followers relinquish their right to life in the following passage.

"Then [Jesus] said to them all: 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?'"- Luke 9:23-25

Another passage regarding our non-existent right to life is from Psalm 44. Paul quoted this in Romans 8 to essentially say that we might face death, but even that cannot separate us from the love of God.

"Our hearts had not turned back; our feet had not strayed from your path. But you crushed us and made us a haunt for jackals and covered us over with deep darkness. If we had forgotten the name of our God or spread out our hands to a foreign god, would not God have discovered it, since he knows the secrets of the heart? Yet for your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."- Psalms 44:18-22

This next passage is regarding liberty. There is no such thing. We are either slaves to sin and death or slaves to righteousness and God. The only true Christian freedom is freedom from sin rather than freedom from dictatorial authority.

"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."- Romans 6:15-18

A proper response to the previous passage may be that liberty in a political sense is different than liberty in a spiritual sense. Even if this is the case, which is not a position that I hold, we don't have the inherent right to political freedom either. This passage should also offer some discomfort for those of us who believe that some revolutions have occurred for good rather than evil.

"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. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For 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. For 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. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."- Romans 13:1-7

Regarding the pursuit of happiness, is there anyone who truly reads the Bible with the intent of understanding it rather than cherry-picking verses who actually believes that pursuing happiness is a Christian right? Paul's following words to Timothy regarding people who are "lovers of themselves" and "lovers of pleasure" should dispel that notion if anyone actually has it.

"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them."- 2 Timothy 3:1-5

Finally, James hit on all three of these inalienable rights in the following passage. God has the right to, and may, take our lives tomorrow. We do not have the liberty to stake out our long-term plans apart from God, especially as it relates to fulfilling our wants.

"Now listen, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.' Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, 'If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.'"- James 4:13-15

Seriously, this is something that I could do for days with passages from all of the major sections of Scripture if I was willing to commit the time to do it. There is no shortage of Bible passages that imply or outright state that these unalienable rights are very alienable for the sincere Christian.

I feel compelled to restate my point in this. I am not attempting to denigrate the great nation to which I owe so much. I am attempting to establish that the Founding Fathers were entirely capable of contradicting Scripture, and so nothing they said should be considered to carry equal weight with Scripture. On occasion we will have to make the choice whether we will accept national and cultural philosophies as our own worldviews even when they contradict Scripture. For my worldview, God's Word has to trump all else.

cute

I mentioned not long ago that a lot of words have different meanings to men and women. I don't have a good way of judging how well this applies to all men and women, but one word that has stuck out to me, especially when I was growing up, is "cute." It is completely possible that I am alone on this, but that word has devalued a lot of compliments in my life. The following example uses my grandmother as an example, and I have chosen to use this since she has passed and so will not read this some day in the future with embarrassment.

I like to share things that I think are funny with others. So, if I come across something I think is genuinely funny I like to share it. More than once when I was at my grandparents' house I read some joke I liked out of a Reader's Digest to my grandmother, to which her response was to say it was cute. It wasn't a huge deal because I knew it was supposed to be a compliment, but that was never the response I wanted.

I think "cute" is a go-to generic compliment for a lot of women because the word implies the sort of thing a lot of women want to be or that they want to own. In my life I've heard a lot of women say things in the vein of, "You look cute in those earrings," or "Those shoes are so cute," or "You have a cute baby," or "You two look cute together." In most contexts; though, the word is feminine. I haven't heard many men use the same sort of compliments, and it sticks out like a sore thumb when a man actually does say something like that.

The real problem is that a compliment is only effective if it makes the recipient feel how he or she wants to feel about himself or herself. Giving a man who would prefer to be masculine feminine compliments or a woman who would prefer to be feminine masculine compliments drains the value from those compliments.

In thinking through this I realized that I do not know which compliments men give that aren't really compliments to women. Is there a reverse version of "cute" that I am not aware of? I should probably learn before I start giving Golden or CD compliments that mean less than I think they do.

temptation

Recent news regarding research performed at the USC Marshall School of Business indicates that positive reinforcement is more effective at getting people to avoid temptation than guilt. It doesn't sound like the research was extremely thorough, but the conclusions make a lot of sense to me.

An example of this that was mentioned in the story dealt with people's ability to resist eating cake. Three different groups of people were left in a room individually with a piece of cake and told they that they could eat it if they wanted to. One group was informed that they should contemplate their pride at resisting this temptation, one group was informed that they should contemplate their shame at eating the cake, and one group was the control group who did not receive positive or negative reinforcement. The group of people who were told to contemplate their pride at resisting temptation did better than the other groups, especially the one told to focus on shame.

The article gives three reasons why guilt is ineffective.

1. Guilt focuses thoughts on the temptation rather than on self-control. If you're thinking a lot about the object of your temptation you are more likely to cave to the temptation.
2. Guilt makes you feel bad in general, and this damages your resolve to fight the temptation.
3. Guilt makes the tempting thing seem more pleasurable, and therefore makes it more difficult to resist.

This aligns well with how I have learned that you are supposed to guide small children to right and wrong. For example, rather than yelling at your kids not to run inside, it is better to tell them that they should walk. This concept is very difficult for me to implement as a parent because I don't always know what behavior I want in my kids as quickly as what behavior I don't want. This concept goes further than parenting; though, and seems like it is very relevant to addictions.

I have never been to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but if the movies are to be believed, people who share with the group tend to open with a positive: "Hi, my name is Dust and I am an alcoholic. I have been alcohol-free for seven months." While it may sound like a downer, the focus is on acceptance within the group despite your weaknesses, and pride in the success of resisting temptation for a period of time. Obviously, there is more to Alcoholics Anonymous than this, but if the meetings consisted merely of visiting speakers berating them for their weaknesses instead of allowing people to think about their successes I'd bet it would be far less successful at what it does.

I think this points to an area where much of the church is ineffective. The churches that I am used to are good about doling out the guilt for things that are wrong. I have started asking myself the last few years whether this truly does any good, though. Certainly sin should be called sin, but if spiritual nagging makes people more apt to fall to temptation, then there has to be a more effective way of helping people get out of their addictions. Of course it is through God's strength that we have freedom from sin, but we are to help bear each others burdens (Gal 6:1-2). If that is the case, then we have a responsibility to assist in the most effective way we know how.

So, if you are helping someone avoid temptation how would you go about doing it? Here are the steps I would follow.

• Pray.
• Praise successes.
• Maintain humility throughout the process (Gal 6:3).
• Praise successes.
• Encourage the person to visualize success and imagine how good it will feel to overcome than the temptation.
• Praise successes.
• Analyze failures to see what went wrong, but don't dwell on them.
• Praise successes.
• Encourage the person to listen for the Spirit's guidance (Gal 5:16).
• Praise successes.

holocaust stories

We are going through The Hiding Place in our Sunday morning class at church right now. It is a very powerful and well-thought-out book, and so it is a good choice. I don't think I am the intended audience, though. This got me to thinking about who is the audience for a story about the Holocaust.

Several people close to me have gone through periods where they were strongly interested in the Holocaust. I have no intent of invalidating that interest, but I do not personally understand it. My reaction to these sorts of stories is due to the fact that it is sadness and loss piled onto more sadness and loss. Even when the story has a happy ending I feel exhausted by that point. I do have to admit that there are some sad stories I am drawn to. Holocaust stories are simply not among them.

I don't want to imply that my perspective on this is the one that is the most valid, though. If you have an interest in Holocaust stories or think you may have some insight into their draw leave a comment. I'd love to get a fresh perspective.

metaphor in toy story 3

There are spoilers in this post from Toy Story 3. My assumption is that at this point you will have seen the movie or you won't care if part of the movie is spoiled. This is a heads up nonetheless.

Over the last nine months or so I have watched Toy Story 3 countless times with the kids. After seeing it so many times, I have come to the conclusion that it is meant on some level to be a metaphor for Old Testament Israel or Judah, which does make some sense if there is near the Jewish influence in modern media that a lot of people believe there is.

By my interpretation Woody is a prophet, akin to Isaiah or Jeremiah. Also, Andy is God, Buzz represents the nation's ruler, the rest of Andy's toys represent the nation, and the kids at daycare represent other nations' false gods. One representation that I think is intentional, but that I am less sure of, is Lotso Hugging Bear as Satan.

As the story is introduced the toys (the people of the nation) are trying to find ways to get Andy's (God's) attention. This is because they (the nation) have needs that aren't getting met and they feel like Andy (God) is ignoring them. Events occur to exacerbate that feeling, and so all of the toys (the nation) except Woody (the prophet) want to turn their back on Andy (God) and stay at Sunnyside Daycare with all of the younger kids (false gods) until they understand the implications of their decision. Buzz (the king) ultimately makes the decision that the toys (the nation) are not Andy's (God's) any more in the face of Woody's (the prophet's) argument that they will always be Andy's (God's).

Lotso (Satan) makes the children in the Caterpillar room (false gods) sound like an appealing option, then traps them in their decision to stay with the children (false gods). The children (false gods) mistreat the toys (the nation), but the toys (the nation) are stuck because they have forsaken Andy (God). In the process, Lotso (Satan) corrupts Buzz (the king) who in turn holds the toys (the nation) hostage.

Woody (the prophet) appears with information from the outside and hope for freedom. He also has information on Lotso (Satan) that he is a fallen toy (demon) because of what happened between him and his kid (God). The toys (the nation) agree that Woody is right (repent) and decide to attempt to escape the daycare (false gods) and return to Andy (God). During this time Buzz goes through his own transformation (repentance) process.

Toward the end, the toys (the nation) are almost condemned to destruction at the dump (Hell) as Lotso (Satan) taunts them with the question, "Where's your kid (God) now?" While the concept of Hell is more New Testament and Christian than Old Testament and Jewish, it could also represent destruction at the hands of the Assyrians or Babylonians. Regardless, the toys are ultimately saved.

The metaphor is not perfect, and so there are a lot of holes you could poke in my theory if you wanted. For example, once you introduce Bonnie you are introducing polytheism, which is stridently inconsistent with Old Testament theology. While the kids in the Caterpillar room are representative of false gods, what about the kids in the Butterfly room? If you follow the metaphor too strictly, it sounds like Ken and Barbie stayed with the false gods, and this wasn't portrayed as a bad thing. Perhaps most importantly, Andy (God) plays only a very minor role in ultimately assisting the toys.

I understand that you can make almost any story fit into any structure you want to illustrate whatever point, but I have to believe that at least one of the writers was attempting to implement either a Christian or Jewish perspective into the framework of the story by including a series of related Old Testament themes. That's what it looks like to me at least.

marital communication

Partly but not entirely because two of the groomsmen from my wedding are getting married or have gotten married this year, I have been thinking about marital relationships a lot lately. It amazes me how fundamentally different men and women are, and how God not only allows, but also ordains, that the most important relationship that the majority of people have is with someone so incredibly different from them.

I see it in other marriages and even in my own where the couple can have a conversation and each person in the couple can walk away with a completely different understanding of what was just discussed. Words like romance, happiness, contentment, love, hurt, respect, security, power, worth, trust, and thousands of other words are all loaded and have different meanings to different people. When people talk about communication being one of the most important things about marriage they seem to downplay that the real complication is getting both spouses to the point where they agree what the meaning of the word, "is," is. I have seen plenty of relationships where at least one spouse was completely unaware that the other spouse essentially spoke another language, so merely encouraging communication may not always suffice.

So, if there is something that I wish I had known better when I got married it is that I needed to pay more attention for what Golden and I each meant when we were discussing something important. A lot of things that seem benign to one spouse are deeply tied to some inner need of the other, so what inner needs were being discussed that only one person at the table even understood was the basis of the conversation? Of course, this only illustrates how much I still have to learn.

I have one question for the married people out there. What is something you wish you realized before you got married that you know better now? Obviously, make it something that wouldn't embarrass you or your spouse.

journey

I can't believe I was so naive when I was a teenager. How stupid I was in my early twenties. I can't believe the issues I had five years ago. It seems like as I look back in my life I always feel myself superior to my prior self and am a bit embarrassed of what a numskull I was then. To be sure, I have done, said, typed, and thought a lot of unintelligent things in my time. It seems crazy that my future self won't look back in five years and think the same thing of me now.

When I was a kid I never really appreciated the description of life as a journey. What I am today may resemble what I am tomorrow, but I am still slightly different on those two days, for better or for worse. Before, time was so short that I had not changed much. Now, I see my past (still short) life as a meandering path of discovery (and a fair amount of stupidity). People who knew me at one stage of that path might not really know me now.

When I hear anecdotes about famous or non-famous people or read what they wrote or said, I don't always appreciate the context of where that person is in their life. Actions they may perform or positions they may take when they are at one stage in their journey may not be what they would do or believe at a different stage in their journey. Luther in 1510 was a different person from Luther in 1530. Lincoln in 1850 was a different person from Lincoln in 1865. Einstein in 1920 was a different person from Einstein in 1950. However, in each of these situations if I hear a quote from one of these men I expect it to be from the later version of them that has gone through the life-changing experiences rather than the less-experienced versions of themselves.

The Christian take on this is that life's journey is part of what God uses for sanctification. We're given time on earth to allow Him to break us and begin His work in us so that what we are at the end of the journey is what He intended for us to be. Christianity is not the only belief system to take into account the fact that experience changes us (for example, the Buddhist belief in slowly improving toward Nirvana is similar), but it is the only one that puts the responsibility for the changes squarely in God's hands.

The current me is still on the journey to perfection and nowhere near there. That leaves me having to look forward to the work that will be done rather than take pride in already being at the end of the journey.

a moral question about death

I have given a lot of thought recently to the idea that things that happen early in your life have the potential to significantly impact the quality of your life later on or to lengthen or shorten your life. I don't have detailed statistics here, but I have heard that the life expectancy for football players, for example, is dramatically shorter than the average, and this is probably largely due to the physical toll the game has on players' bodies. They may be in extraordinary physical shape at 25, but taking hit after hit after hit comes back to haunt them at 50 or 60.

Something that hits more closely to home is that, since I have chosen a career and overall lifestyle that is on the more sedentary side, there are some serious risks to my health later in life. I don't really like the ways that I can mitigate this (eating right and exercising), but I still have to strongly consider their value right now.

This whole line of thinking got me on the track of how this might create some moral dilemmas that we don't often think about. Let me pose a few theoretical and necessarily morbid scenarios to illustrate.

First, going with the football theme, imagine a receiver catches the ball and is tackled, but a second defensive player lays down a late hit that results in the receiver getting a concussion. The late hit is penalized, but it was strategic. The strategy does not carry the intention of trying to injure the receiver, but rather to make the receiver gun-shy the next time he reaches for the ball and reduce the receiver's confidence to catch the ball on future downs. Further imagine that the concussion was the tipping point that later caused the receiver to fall into dementia unlike he otherwise would have and also die three or four years earlier than he otherwise would have.

Second, imagine a driver who is not fully drunk, but who is impaired by alcohol, and runs a stop sign and strikes a pedestrian who happens to be jaywalking. The pedestrian does not survive.

Third, imagine two twenty-something friends climbing a tree for whatever reason when one unintentionally bumps the other causing him to fall and badly damage his leg to the point where it never heals properly. That friend is then less physically active than he otherwise would have been throughout the rest of his life, and this leads to a less healthy lifestyle and an earlier death than he otherwise would have had.

Fourth, imagine some people jump their neighbor's fence and use his pool when the neighbor is on vacation. In the process, imagine one of them drowns.

Ethically and/or morally, are the defensive football player and the driver any different in scenarios one and two? I know that it is difficult-to-impossible to map one incident earlier in life to an early death later in life. Since the aggressors in both scenarios had reason to believe that their actions were somewhat unsafe, though, is the badness or goodness of their actions on the same par? There is a good chance that the driver in the second scenario would face manslaughter charges for his recklessness. Regarding the first scenario, though, many defensive football coaches would expect their players to occasionally deliver a dangerous and even illegal hit simply due to the nature of the game.

Ethically and/or morally, are scenarios three and four any different? Is the friend who bumps his cohort better or worse than the neighbor whose pool is broken into? In real life, the person who owns the pool will probably be held more legally responsible for the death in his pool than the friend in the tree will be for the eventual death he causes. Is there any real difference between them at a moral or ethical level, though?

In case it is not obvious, it is my opinion that scenarios one and two contain the same moral value and that scenarios three and four also contain the same moral value. The disregard for human life is the same with the football player and the buzzed driver, and the negligence is the same with the the friend and the pool owner. For practical reasons, the law does not see these scenarios equally. My question is do you?

broken

I mentioned earlier that I was going through a Bible reading plan with some people in my Church. That is why I have not been very active here over the past few months. We completed the Bible last week, so I hope that opens the schedule a bit.

I was talking with my sister about this reading a few weeks ago and she pointed out something that struck me as well. If you believe that the Bible is from God and you read it, it's hard not to be convicted about elements of your life that you would otherwise think are not a big deal.

The theme I got from the reading this time is that the type of person that God wants is one who He can break, then take the pieces and put them together into a manner of His choosing. This theme shows up in the Old Testament through Job, Abraham, Moses, David, and all of the prophets. In the New Testament it shows up in Christ, all of the apostles, and almost everyone Christ talked to (Nicodemus, the rich young ruler, Mary sister of Martha, Martha sister of Mary, etc). The teachings through the Epistles dwell on enduring through and growing in turmoil almost to an annoying level, especially in Hebrews and 1 & 2 Peter but in most of Paul's letters as well.

There are other things that I learned in the reading, and I have to note that my main observation was largely because I came into the reading with the open question of what God really does want from His followers. I wanted to pay attention for what really is living by the Spirit, and this is what I got. Living by the Spirit is allowing God to do whatever to you He wants.

I probably will not do another reading this aggressive for a long while, but there is no denying that God can use Scripture to challenge and change people. I know that He is challenging me. The question is what change will result.

march nothingness

I enjoy March Madness for a different reason than most everyone else does. I love this stretch of time when most other people are spending time watching a sport that I don't care about and TV shows are preempted, so that I can get a bit of extra time that I wouldn't have if I were a basketball fan.

By rights I probably should care about basketball. Now that I have a degree from the University of Kansas, I probably should care how the basketball team does. Of all the major sports, though, basketball is probably the one I care about least. I really, genuinely don't care. Golf, tennis, and NASCAR don't count as major sports.

I have a few problems with basketball. First, it is the sport where physical build most obviously trumps determination. Someone who is seven feet tall is going to outplay someone who is five-and-a-half feet tall regardless of the amount of practice they put in. Second, I can't recognize most strategy in the game like I can for a game like football, so it just looks repetitive to me. Finally, I have never played basketball well, so I never had a reason to care about the sport.

The problem is, most people assume that if you are a man in your thirties and you have an interest in some sports you must like college basketball. I don't like to keep pointing out that I don't care about the sport, so I usually find other ways to deflect conversations about basketball at this time of year. This used to be pretty difficult when I was in class at KU and everyone wanted to talk about the games, the players, the history, etc. I was relatively successful in avoiding looking like I had no school spirit when that was the reality, though.

Do you have anything similar where you just don't care about something you probably should? Is there something you don't always readily admit just simply doesn't matter to you?

...of a child

The passage I want to look at today I have heard taught many times, and I have always felt slightly uneasy about the way it was taught. I think I was always a bit insulted by the simplicity of the message, but I never really articulated why that was a problem. It did not bother me too much, but just a little. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all cover the passage, so I will include the version from Mark below.

"People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.' And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them."- Mark 10:13-16

Every time that I can recall that I have heard this taught it has been about the faith of a child. The lesson is on how children don't question things and just accept them, so we should accept God in the same way. While faith is important, I feel that the more important and challenging lesson has been dropped from this telling of the passage, which is humility.

There are two hints to what the actual point of the passage is. The first hint is that the disciples find it necessary to rebuke people who are bringing children to Jesus. Why do the disciples feel the need to specifically keep children away from Jesus? It doesn't have anything to do with the children's faith. That would make no sense.

The reason that the disciples would have rebuked those bringing children to Jesus is that in Jesus' time in the Middle East there was no honor in being young. Honor was for the aged. In this patriarchal society the dishonorable youths were managed by the women, and for a male teacher to be wasting his time with kids when he could be teaching those who were older would have been a dishonor. That was a woman's work! Therefore, the disciples believe they are protecting the honor of their teacher. Furthermore, when Jesus tells the disciples that they will have to receive the kingdom of God like children he is telling them that they have to dishonor themselves to become a part of this kingdom.

The second hint is a bit more straightforward, but you have to look in a different passage to find it. Not long before this exchange in Mark 10 (also in Matt 19:13-15 and Luke 18:15-17) Jesus had already told the disciples that they would have to humble themselves like children. Notice this in the passage below.

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Who is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven?' He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: 'I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven.'"- Matt 18:1-4

It is good to have the faith of a child if it is truly faith and not a show, but in the passage where that phrase originated God is instead asking for your humility.

my time

Pretty much the theme of my life over the last few years has been me not wanting to relinquish control of my time and my time being wrested from me. That is kind of expected when you have small children, but it is something that I in particular struggle with. Even when I had more free time the biggest fantasy I had for where I wanted my life to be was the ability to enjoy time-consuming pleasures (games, books, movies) without concern for the opportunity cost in time or money. I don't know that I articulated that this was my biggest life fantasy, but it was.

The problem with this fantasy is the problem with any fantasy. It places me and my wants ahead of everyone else. It also represents something that I have a hard time giving to God. This is evidenced by the fact that I have really struggled with having a good attitude about my accelerated Bible reading plan over the last month. I had grand plans for my limited free time January through May and this pretty much shot those down. If I can't make a real time sacrifice to read Scripture, though, something is probably wrong with my life.

I don't really have much more to say about this other than I think this is something that I will always struggle with. God is going to work on this during my life, but this is something that does not change easily.

what's important in life is...

Over the past couple of years I have heard a few random people start a sentence with words like, "What's important in life is," then complete the sentence with something like, "family," or, "giving and receiving love," or something of that nature. I always hate when I hear that because it could either be something that is mostly true or it could be self-serving garbage, and it is hard to tell which. I tend to think that the person making the statement is being self-serving without realizing it. Fair or not, that's where my mind goes. The following are the arguments the statement being true and for the statement being hooey.

Why it may be true

The reason a statement like, "What's important in life is family," sounds noble is that it implies loyalty and sacrifice. While family should not take the place of God, the family unit is the main means that God has chosen to illustrate our relationship with Him. Furthermore, leading or caring for a significant other and/or family represents the greatest responsibility most people will ever have. For many people the purpose of their lives is tied up in their family.

Likewise, I believe that love if it is defined properly is more or less synonymous with sacrifice. God is love and God showed His love in that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. Love isn't about emotional responses, but about what I am willing to do for someone else. I love my family because of what I would sacrifice for their well-being rather than because I get the warm fuzzies when I think about them.

If you say that the important thing about life is love, and by love you mean selflessly sacrificing yourself for the cause of Someone greater than yourself, then I agree. If you say that one of the most important things about life is growing in your relationship with God through your relationship with your family and the sacrifices that entails, then I agree.

Why it's probably hooey

The problem is that a lot of people determine things are important because they desire it for themselves. If someone said that the purpose of life is sex (forget the reproduction argument for a moment), most would assume that person was allowing his or her own desires to mess with his or her sense of proportion. This would be the same if someone decided that the purpose of life is notoriety, wealth, good looks, or excitement. They are all so obviously self-serving that, while anyone is free to believe that one or more of these things are the central focus of life, society will not let them act noble about it. That's kind of how I feel about putting love or family in this list.

If someone says that love is what is important in life because they desire love from others, that is a bit self-serving. If family is important, not because they are worth sacrificing for, but because it looks good when you show up to church or other social events together as a cohesive unit, that is a bit self-serving.

If you are a Christian who believes in and agrees with what the Bible says, you do not have the option of making the purpose of your life be self-serving. The common thread in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments is that those who God accepts are those who surrender, sacrifice, and humble themselves out of fear and reverence. Therefore, what is important in life is the opposite of satisfying our desires. It is rather surrender, sacrifice, and humility before God.

structured learning

This past week I joined a few people in my church in starting a schedule of chronologically reading through the Bible in 112 days. This is something that I resisted at first, but that I decided I would start with the caveat that I would drop it if it became too much of a burden. So far the reading has been less involved than I expected, and it has required less time overall than the reading and homework I had to do most semesters when I was taking MBA classes. Life is busy, though, so I am not entirely convinced I will complete this.

The last time I tried a structured Bible reading program I was in junior high. I don't believe I finished, but my memory of the process is spotty. I have never been an extremely fast reader, and it was very hard to catch up when I got behind (which will happen at some point during every reading program if you don't read ahead). It was hard enough to focus on the content of what I was reading when I did a day's reading, but if I tried to read multiple days' worth of reading speed was a higher priority than understanding what I was reading. Even then I knew this defeated the purpose of reading through the Bible. This is a big reason why I am wary of structured reading plans.

The first time I actually read all of the way through the Bible and understood most of what I read was around my sophomore year in high school. I took more than a year going through it at that time and I used a study Bible so that I would have a better context for what I was reading. Furthermore, when I did spend a large block of time reading the Bible it was because I was interested in what I was reading rather than because I had to complete the scheduled reading for last month, so I retained what I read better. The success I saw with the more unstructured reading further influenced my opinions regarding the best way for me to read the Bible.

Because of this experience, I am actually a bit wary of the other ways that I have heard pushed to read the Bible as well. Reading the Bible a little each day is a great way to stay on top of reading if your life can be structured in that way. I think that saying that that is the standard for Bible reading is ridiculous, though. Bible reading is important if it is effective, and if a specific structure or plan for reading the Bible does not work for someone then pushing it on them is not helpful. It will only discourage them from reading Scripture in the future.

Ultimately, the reason I decided on this Bible reading plan was that I found I was coming up with excuses not to read a lot of the passages in the Old Testament, so I figured if I had the motivation of discussing what I was reading with others who were reading it the reading might not be so much of a burden. I do not want to diminish the value of the Old Testament, but much of it can be dry and difficult to trudge through, such as Exodus, Leviticus, and stretches of the two books of Chronicles (which open with nine solid chapters of genealogies).

I found a story in the New York Times today that I felt paralleled this a bit. The College Board is in the process of revising the coursework associated with advanced placement classes because some of the classes had so much material the classes were more focused on memorization than discovery. If you know my philosophy on education, which was formed based on experiences like what I just described, you know that I like these changes. Allowing the student to learn through self-directed means rather than forcing him or her through a rigid set of steps will ultimately cause that student to retain more knowledge and discover how to learn new things. For people like myself, if you take the discovery process from Scripture reading, then they will not want to read it and they will only learn what they have to. That is true for all other learning as well.

julie and julia?

Netflix has a section in their site called "Top picks for..." where it lists ten movies, TV series, or whatever that you might like based on your ratings for other movies and recent movies that you have added to your queue or rated. When I visited this section in my Netflix page tonight noticed that Julie & Julia is listed. That makes no sense. I am the first to admit that there are "chick flicks" that I like more than Golden does (What Women Want, Hitch, and Little Black Book to name a few), but those movies all have things that a standard genre piece doesn't have. What Women Want is appealing because I appreciated the insight it brought, Hitch was genuinely funny, and Little Black Book dared to break the standard formula for how a rom-com should end. Julia & Julia, though? What could possibly be in that movie that I would find appealing? This is especially odd because I have been impressed lately with how accurate Netflix is in predicting movies that I would like compared to Blockbuster.

I double-checked the filmography for the director, the genres that the movie is listed under, and the movie description, and there is nothing there that should appeal to me in any way. No offense to those who like the movie. It just doesn't sound like my thing. To be fair, the rest of the recommended movies are more up my alley (three comedies, three sci-fis, two animated, and a psychological thriller), so it's probably a simple miss.

I said all that to ask a simple question. Have you ever been recommended a movie (either through electronic or interpersonal means) that in no way matched the sort of movie you would be interested in? I'm not really asking about a movie you didn't like but you normally like the genre. I mean there was no possibility you would have ever liked the movie because you don't even like the genre. Did it impact the way you thought about that person or electronic system?