church hop

Today was probably our family's last time attending as members of the church that we've gone for 23 years. My emotions about this are not easy to articulate.

We're not leaving because of any hurt or any issues that we have with church leadership. I actually really like the pastor, who will be celebrating his first year there in a couple of weeks. However, we're doing a trial move for NJ and CD.

Both of the kids have had anxiety at the church since before our new pastor started, each for their own reason. Much of NJ's anxiety stems from the fact that he understands that he's different from most of the rest of the youth, and he had a meltdown a while back that he's embarrassed about. There's a church in town that has a program during Sunday morning service that is targeted to teens and young adults with special needs. NJ has been going to their special needs youth group meetings on Wednesdays, and has done well there. So, we're going to attend that church for a bit to see how well the kids do in that setting.

There are only a few reasons that I would be okay with switching churches. While I'm not always the best at being a friend to everyone in church, I do believe that we should strive for this to be like a family. Over the past few weeks as I've been letting people know that we're leaving I've been feeling like I'm abandoning folks.

I explained our situation to our pastor, and to his credit he has been extremely supportive of this move. I know that this has to be hard to see congregants go elsewhere, regardless of the reason. I wish I knew how to repay this kindness.

We'll be visiting family over Labor Day, and so the week after that we'll be doing something as a family that I haven't done in more than half of my lifetime and visit a church with the potential of making it our new church home. It's my hope that whether this is the right move becomes obvious shortly.

talking politics with kids

In the past few years I have worked with the children's ministry in our church more than in previous years.  One thing that I have noticed is that there are specific people who insert their political beliefs into their lessons.  In at least one case this is because the person's political and religious identities are tightly linked, so that's where his mind goes when teaching about a virtue or a vice.

There isn't a great line regarding what is inappropriate to discuss with other people's children, but as I progress as a parent I am starting to believe that any political discussion with elementary-aged children who are not your kids or grand kids is unwise.  Certainly, teachers should teach history, government, civics, etc.  However, that should be the limit.  The downsides of pushing your political worldview on someone else's kid are stronger than the positives.

Much of my opinion comes from the fact that adults don't usually have the requisite humility to discuss political issue appropriately even with other adults.  Most political discussion involves first characterizing people who disagree with you as bad or stupid rather than having valid concerns.  This is wrong, but it is typical.  Speaking to kids like this only teaches them to approach things in a similar way.

Furthermore, I'm shocked that adults think that kids' parents might want someone else teaching them their political worldviews.  Even in an environment where most people believe a certain way there are some who will not.  It is more important rather than less important not to isolate those kids and make them feel like they don't belong.

I remember people talking politics to me and around me as a kid, and it did not occur to me at the time how inappropriate those conversations were.  I've since had several moments as an adult where I realized, "Hey, that adult shouldn't have made the child me believe that conspiracy theory," or "Wow, now that I can articulate what was happening at the time I can't believe that adult slandered that politician to me that way."

For what it's worth, in my experience people with both right-leaning and left-leaning viewpoints felt the freedom to push their opinions.  So, this is an adult thing rather than a right or left thing.

My kids are not as interested in politics as I was at their ages, however I do have an approach I take when a political topic is raised.  I always emphasize that when we have a specific political belief that does not mean that people who disagree with us are bad or stupid.  I am willing to tell them what I think of a specific issue if they want to discuss it, though.

For reference, most of the political questions I've fielded in the last few years have fallen in one of two buckets.

• "I've heard a lot of people say that President Trump is mean.  Is that true?"
• "A lot of people don't like President Trump.  Why is that?"

Sometimes I wish I was raising kids in a different era.  I'd much rather be discussing political issues than politicians' tactics and dispositions.

life goals

Someone in our church has been teaching a marriage class Wednesday nights.  Golden is unable to attend because she teaches a pre-schooler class, but I've had the opportunity to regularly be there.

Much of the early portion of the class has been focused on avoiding contemptuous behavior and attitudes as well as becoming friends and allies.  I don't think I act with contempt a whole lot, though I'm sure I'm not perfect.  One thing that the class focused on regarding connecting with your spouse is learning more about each other's goals, desires, histories, etc.  Through this I've started to think about the fact that, while I have vague goals for life, I haven't really articulated them.

Golden and I talked about this aspect of the class and its associated book, and so we agreed to work on listing our goals for life and for our kids.  As I sat down to write about it I realized that, while I have an idealized idea of what I think a contented life looks like, I don't have a long bucket list of items I need to accomplish in life.  I don't know if this is good or bad.

What I would consider a contented life looks pretty selfish to me at the same time.  It largely boils down to wanting to have time to do such and such thing that is personally fulfilling but doesn't enhance anyone else's life.  I think that just comes from being a parent with less free time than I'd like.  At a different time in life the contented life list would look different.

Regarding the bucket list, I have precious few things on the list I really feel like I need to do, and the things that are on the list are completely negotiable.  As an example, I'd like to travel at some point, but where doesn't matter much to me.  Is having a more specific bucket list more fulfilling?

I think that part of why I have avoided creating a bucket list of measurable goals in the past is that it's not always realistic to check things off such a list.  Will I get a bad attitude about the things keeping me from accomplishing the list, or will it be a hit to my self-worth if I can't reasonably accomplish the things that I have put out there that I want to accomplish?  While I haven't explicitly thought this, it is just easier not to share all of what I might have as a goal, especially if I haven't fleshed out the specifics of it.

So, my question to you is, do you have specific or vague life goals?  Do you have a literal bucket list?  Are there things you assume you'll start doing later in life when there's time to do them?

kids camp

This past week I did something that I never envisioned myself doing. I was a counselor at a church kids' camp. This is something that I am not particularly well-suited for, and I initially had planned on turning down the request to consider it. Upon reflection, I had the distinct feeling that this was something that I was supposed to do, so I agreed to do it.

The week actually went great. We had fourteen kids in our cabin between third and sixth grade, and three counselors to manage them all. All of us were dads to at least one of the boys in the cabin, and while there were certainly a lot of minor ongoing issues to deal with throughout my time there, I was amazed at how smoothly everything went.

One thing that I feel I got out of the experience was a greater appreciation and understanding of the personalities and drives of the seven boys from my church in my cabin. It's easy as an adult to only have a surface-level relationship with the kids in the church, and understanding their uniquenesses allows me to have a deeper relationship with each of them.

The concern that I heard relayed to me multiple times was that I wouldn't get enough sleep to function while there. While I was mentally exhausted from all of the kid conversations and metaphorical fires that needed to be put out, I got great sleep and felt great physically throughout camp.

While I believe that this was a positive experience and that I really was supposed to be doing this, it is clear that childcare of this sort certainly isn't my calling. I was able to witness adults who were truly in their element in interacting with the kids, and for my entire time there I always felt like I was winging it. However, this didn't stress me out like it normally would have because I had the attitude that I had my limits, and as long as I gave it my all that is all that could be expected of me.

So I had an great experience overall, but I don't plan on repeating it again next year. Of course, I didn't plan on doing it at all this year, so what I'm planning on right now only matters so much.

cat's in the cradle

My son turned ten just the other day
He said, thanks for the ball, dad, come on let's play
Can you teach me to throw, I said, not today
I got a lot to do, he said, that's okay
And he walked away, but his smile never dimmed
Said, I'm gonna be like him, yeah
You know I'm gonna be like him

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon
Little boy blue and the man in the moon
When you coming home, dad?
I don't know when
But we'll get together then
You know we'll have a good time then

- Jen Chapin ("Cat's in the Cradle")

The song "Cat's in the Cradle" has been on the rotation in my office building's Muzak, so I've heard the song a couple of times in the past weeks while in the bathroom.  I'll tell you, that's a hard song to listen to as a father.

I expect that everyone here has heard it before, but listening through the lyrics it's pretty heavy-handed.  I also understand that the song is from a different era, and I think that accounts for the image portrayed in the song.  There are certainly dads today who could be well-described by those lyrics, who really prioritize their job over their kids, but there are probably many more who feel like most decisions are trade-offs, and working a job is caring for the family.

Our two kids are now nine an eleven.  Our nine-year-old daughter loves to spend time with me, and I love spending time with her.  We read together, watch TV together, and sometimes get opportunities to talk.  I'm enjoying this now as much as I can because I know that I'm not guaranteed that the relationship won't change as she gets older.  When I know I have something that's going to keep me from home before her bedtime it saddens me because I know she enjoys our time together too.

Our son is eleven, and I spend what time I am able to with him.  However, like I did when I was younger, he values his alone time very much.  He has things he enjoys to do, but the natural father-son things like sports, board games, and Legos aren't on that list.  I try very hard to find things that will keep his attention that we can do together, and I try very hard to find good topics of conversation.  I feel that we've made recent progress, but it is a real challenge.  His natural tendency is to wander back to his room as he gets bored.

My schedule is also packed.  I tend to work late, I teach in church, I'm on the church board, I regularly meet with different folks in the church, and I do other random things that fill the calendar.  I have avoided work that involved travel, but I still frequently feel a tension between the importance of time with the family and time with my other responsibilities.

Probably the issue that I most have with the song that opened this post is that it's written from a mildly selfish point of view.  Spend time with your kids now, or it'll be your fault that they aren't around to meet your needs later when you want to spend time with them.  What most concerns me has less to do with those regrets and more to do with the fact that these are the kids' formative years.  Their perspectives of everything in the world are going to be based on a foundation of what they learn and experience now.  Their abilities or lack thereof later in life are being set based on what happens now.  How can a parent affect things when they can only be around so often?

song of songs

FYI, the topic below is somewhat adult in nature, but it is Biblical.

Along with teaching Sunday School, I also alternate with someone else teaching a men's class at church.  I could take the easy way out with video series, and I am leaving myself open to the possibility in the future, but I have been doing expository teaching through different books of the Bible.

What I hate teaching (or sitting through a lesson on) the most is something that everyone in the room already knows.  If I know a passage or a topic has been taught repetitively and I don't have something new to bring to the table, I really don't enjoy teaching the lesson.  Because of this, I am drawn to teaching things that others have not focused on, for one reason or another.

All of this is to say that I decided a while back to teach the Song of Songs in the men's class.  I used two books in planning my lessons (The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy by O'Donnell and Exalting Jesus in the Song of Songs by Akin and Platt). I am going to be wrapping up the series in early August, and so have pretty much gotten through the entire book.  I have included some thoughts I have about teaching the book below.

• I never appreciated the true spiritual value of the Song.  Marriage represents the Church and Christ, and so the quality of union we have with our spouse reflects how we value the relationship between Christ and the Church.  The purpose of the Song is to celebrate and promote Godly marriage that properly reflects the relationship between God and His people.
• I never appreciated the context and target audience of the Song.  This is probably a song (or series of songs) meant to be sung at a wedding celebration, and targeted to unmarried girls.  One can imagine singers taking the roles of husband and wife, and a choir of girls singing the "friends" parts.  Who the target audience is explains a lot of the content in the book, not the least of which are the three commands in the Song to not forfeit one's virginity too quickly.
• I did not appreciate that reading this song literally is a relatively recent approach.  For centuries commentators assumed that the book is a metaphor for God and the Church or God and Israel.  The Song couldn't be about intimacy between a married couple because that would degrade the Holy Scripture.  This is a perspective that seems laughable today, and it is a ridiculous position, but it was the de facto position of all of Christianity and Judaism for over a millennium.
• Some weeks were flat-out awkward because my sources assumed that if something could be describing a very intimate part of the body or intimate action that was probably the correct interpretation.
• I used to have a real problem with the Song because I believed that the man in the Song was Solomon.  One of my sources (Akin/Platt) believes that this is true, but my other source (O'Donnell) believes that Solomon is only introduces for comparison purposes.  This is appealing for a few reasons, one of which is that it solves the very difficult challenge with the book that the Song does not describe a polygamist's marriage.  This would conflict with the mutual ownership that the woman expresses throughout the Song (Song 2:16; 6:3; 7:10), as well as with the fact that polygamy was not God's perfect ideal for marriage.  I agree with O'Donnell that Song of Songs is written by Solomon to describe a different, idealized couple.
• I did not realize that the Song was written very much with the intent of praising the value of virginity.  Apart from the commands to wait for love in the Song, there are a couple of clear indications that the woman (This song is targeted to girls) saved herself for marriage.  First, in the honeymoon chapter her husband refers to her body as a locked garden and a sealed fountain, indicating that she has closed herself off from men until this time (Song 4:12).  Second, in the conclusion the woman describes herself as a wall in comparison to a door, which likely establishes her virginity because a wall is not entered but a door is (Song 8:10).

The most practical lesson I have gotten from teaching Song of Songs is that a husband has a responsibility to praise his wife's beauty to her frequently and in detail, and see her as his standard for beauty, Likewise, a wife has a responsibility to periodically make herself physically available to her husband.  Those points sum up about half of the book.

I am looking forward to being done with this series.  That is less about the awkwardness of the topic and more about the time I have to spend in preparing these lessons.  I'm ready for a less-involved series.

teaching in church

"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."- James 3:1

I have been the primary teacher in our Sunday School class for just short of four years now, along with rotating through teaching a men's class on Wednesday nights for the past couple of years.  Many of the classes I have taught have been very thin in attendance (I've taught a solitary person more than once), but many have been well-attended by very intelligent people.  That might sound like bragging, but what what has struck me over and over the past few years is how unqualified I am, and how ridiculous it is that I presume to be able to teach many of the people who regularly fill the seats.  I don't have more knowledge or experience.  All I have is that I put in time to research and prepare a lesson every week.  Just about anyone could do that.

The reason I teach is not skill or a love for teaching.  I'm not a great speaker.  What drives me is the fact that it seems like a waste of time if everyone takes the time to show up and the topic of discussion is either shallow or not well researched.  Why even show up, then?


In light of the statement above from James, it is scary what I don't know.  How can I teach when there are so many questions that I don't know let alone the answers?  There are passages of Scripture that flat-out confound, and there are realities of life I am not close to grasping.  People ask hard questions in class and pose difficult scenarios, as they should.  There is a limit to my knowledge, and the a big theme of the last five years for me has been realizing how much I still need to understand about the Bible and doctrine.  This being the case, how do I keep from leading people down wrong paths on this issue or the next?

Really, the only thing I know to keep myself in line is something I mentioned in class a few months ago.  If I get to the end of class and haven't mentioned how the passage we're looking at points to Christ, then something is wrong.  I pray that there aren't other things that I state wrongly along the way.

stepping down

Just short of ten years ago I agreed to be an usher at our church. At the time it wasn't a big deal. I just had to pray for the offering every couple of weeks and manage the collection plate in my aisle.  In the time since the role morphed into more a position of greeting and directing people to empty seats.  This is not at all my forte, and since I'm otherwise very involved, I am backing out of this responsibility after this month.  That I have stayed in the role as long as I have is an example of why I am always hesitant to agree to commit to things, though.

Any time I am in a role of responsibility, even something as small as this, I don't feel the freedom to back out.  I am very well aware that in a lot of cases there will be no one else to step up, and few things make me feel more rotten than leaving someone else holding the bag.  Because of this, I usually view new commitments through a very long-term lens, and hem and haw before committing.

As I noted, I am not suited for the current ushering role in our church.  The job is not mentally difficult in the least, but the responsibilities are a serious chore for someone who is as introverted as I am.  It is not in my nature to approach people I don't know, get information about them, and ask others to make room for them in the row where they're sitting.  When I hear about the reasons visitors do not return to churches I wonder if it was because I was not outgoing enough for some folks to want to return.

Even so, the only reason I feel the freedom to step down from this specific role is that it has interfered with my other responsibilities.  Sometimes the kids are in service, but Golden has to be in the nursery and cannot watch them.  Sometimes someone wants to talk about the lesson after Sunday School and I have to rudely rush out.  There is always the specter of what to do when one of the kids is sick and I have to usher and Golden is on the schedule to help in the nursery.  Without those conflicts of interest I'd probably stay in the role out of a sense of duty or guilt, which is every bit as pathetic as it sounds.

So, I guess that means that it's time for someone a bit more extroverted than I am to step up.  I hope they do.

a different means of encouragement

I am sorry that I have been away a while.  Things pile up and a lot of things do not get done.  I did have a quick thought that I wanted to share, however.

For the last few months I have been teaching a Sunday School class out of Hebrews.  The primary reason for this is that I do not know that I have ever heard the book sufficiently taught, and so I felt this would be a learning experience for myself and for everyone in the class all at once.

Something that I have never realized about Hebrews is that it is meant to be an encouragement to a persecuted church full of members who might not hold up under persecution.  This is why the book is full of comments about not drifting away from the Gospel (Heb 2:1), maintaining confidence in Christ (Heb 3:6,12; 4:14), and persevering in the faith in the face of persecution without laziness (Heb 6:11-12; 10:23; 12:1-3).

The way that Hebrews goes about strengthening those under persecution is very instructive, and not necessarily the most obvious approach.  While we might today imagine a charismatic speaker inspiring people to endure through the assurance that they are important to God, the author of Hebrews sticks with thick doctrine.

Are you scared of death at the hands of a hostile Roman government?  The author of Hebrews lays out the purpose of Christ's incarnation as a roundabout way to address this.  Christ became man to share and defeat death with humanity, bring humanity to glory through his death, defeat Satan, and become our perfect high priest who can offer permanent atonement through his death and resurrection (Heb 2:9-18).  So, while the encouragement is intended to be that we should not fear what Christ has defeated, and that Christ is there to assist the persecuted, it is not packaged as a stand alone trite statement.  The encouragement is integrated into a meaty doctrinal treatise.

Likewise, when the encouragement is made to maintain faith in our faithful high priest (Heb 4:14), the author follows that statement up with multiple chapters developing the nature of Christ's priesthood (Heb 5,7-10).  If the persecuted audience's faith was supposed to be in the completed work of Christ, the rationale was that understanding that work of Christ is what would cause the audience to maintain their faith.

I do believe just from personal experience that there is a modern temptation to seek encouragement in times of trouble in things other than sound and deep doctrine.  People with mindsets like mine seek security in the "real."  People with mindsets unlike mine seek security in inspirational encouragement.  Both approaches are wrong, however. Believers are to utilize sound doctrine in establishing their faith in God and their confidence in Christ's work rather than trying to manufacture faith and confidence then work backwards to doctrine.

on the board

While I have been nominated for our church board a few times, this year was the first one that I both let my name run and expected there to be a chance I would get the position.  Indeed, this year I was confirmed as a board member.

I have not commented on the nomination or election on Facebook because I'm friended with half of the church, and with all of the other people who were nominated.  I am bringing up some thoughts here because this seems a more appropriate forum.  I don't have anything to say that it would be wrong for anyone specific to read, but I am more comfortable opening up on some thoughts here.

In some past years I may have had some pride issues regarding the idea that I would be nominated.  That is a dangerous place to be, both because Scripture warns against conceit in church leadership (1 Tim 3:6) and because it obscures the real responsibility of the job.  While it is dangerous to ever say that there is a sin that I don't struggle with, this year pride about being nominated or elected was not much of an issue for me.

My big issue this year has been a bit of trepidation at the responsibility.  I am very concerned with the expectations of the individuals who were strongly behind my getting elected.  If I am to fulfill the role properly I will probably do things in disagreement with their desires many times throughout my term.  I do not know if those who voted for me realize this, but I'm the risky vote.  I'm the one who will probably shake the boat if I feel something is important, and I am probably going to take the minority position in a lot of situations.  Though I am a troublemaker in this respect, I also detest having to argue, so I hope those situations are few and far between because every one of them will be an internal battle for me.

One thing that I can promise is that I will serve attentive to the guidance of Scripture at all times.  I just hope that how I see Scripture and how I understand church responsibilities is how God sees things and how the rest of the members of the church see things.

kjv: the context killer

I am not a fan of the modern use of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. A lot of people do seem to connect better with the Scripture in old English, so I do not necessarily want to knock it for those people.  I do have my reasons for preferring modern versions over the KJV, though.

To be fair, one of my reasons is more personal than rational.  I associate the Shakespearean English of the KJV with people trying to manufacture a vibe of Godliness, and so that style of speaking in a church or when reading Scripture rings fake to me on a visceral level.  That in itself does not mean the version is better or worse than other versions available today, but it influences me personally.

On a more rational note I do believe this translation of the Bible is more difficult to understand, and this has caused a lot of issues that simply do not crop up with modern English versions.  There are two reasons for this, and the second is less obvious than the first.

The first reason I believe that the KJV causes modern readers to not understand is simply that it takes a lot more conscious effort to understand this archaic version of English than what is found in a modern translation.  Words that are not even in use today are scattered throughout the text, and there are oddly-structured sentences throughout.  Until I was fourteen I only had a King James Bible and I rarely understood anything I was reading for this reason.  I didn't understand Shakespeare for the same reason, but not understanding Macbeth is not as big of an issue as not understanding Romans.

The second reason is really what I wanted to get at in this post.  This is that verses are presented as individual statements rather than portions of a more complete thought.  There are no paragraphs, and sentences that span multiple verses are not laid out as if they are a complete thought. Rather each verse is presented on a new line as if it is a completely separate statement from the verse prior.

This entered my mind because I recently realized that I had not heard a specific verse improperly quoted for a very long time.  This specific verse is one that I had heard quoted out of context throughout my life in prior years by multiple people many, many different times.  Why did I stop hearing the misusage?  Simply put, the mistake is due to how the KJV presents the verse and most people use modern translations of the Bible now.  The verse in question is 1 Thessalonians 5:22, and I present below the context from both the KJV and the NIV to illustrate my point (emphasis mine).

1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 - KJV

16 Rejoice evermore.

17 Pray without ceasing.

18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

19 Quench not the Spirit.

20 Despise not prophesyings.

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

1 Thessalonians 5:16-22 - NIV

16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.

19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

Notice how completely different that verse appears in these versions largely because in one case it is presented as a complete thought and in the other it is presented inline with the rest of the context.

Throughout my life I have heard the instruction that we are to abstain from the very appearance of evil, which sounds great at first but ultimately leads to subjective legalism that does not in any way resemble the Gospel.  It turns out that this popular interpretation of verse 22 only makes any sense when the verse is forced to stand alone as a statement in a vacuum without a hint of context.  Reading the complete thought establishes that this is about what to do with bad prophecies rather than not doing something because someone in the church believes it has an appearance of evil.  In the NIV this complete thought is obvious, but in the KJV noticing it takes an observant eye.

There are other reasons to prefer more modern translations over the KJV as well that largely deal with the reliability of the texts used in translating that version of the Bible.  However, the issue of simply understanding the text is significant enough to me that I question the advantages for those who continue to prefer the KJV even without considering the underlying texts.  Is there a possibility that you're missing something in the text due to the choice of version?

80/20

I have often heard the 80/20 rule referenced in several different contexts, and mostly where most work is voluntary, but especially in church.  Twenty percent of the congregants do eighty percent of the work I've been told many times.  This may be true, but I think there's more to it.  I think my own personal experiences in college mirror what causes the 80/20 phenomena.


Partly due to a scholarship I had, partly due to a sense that I would need school activities on a resume one day, and partly due to a need I had at the time to feel important, I became overly involved on campus.  I had a work-study job, as many did, but was also involved with student government, residence hall government, leadership in my dorm floor, a weekly weather report for the school newspaper, and a few other things, all while maintaining a serious relationship with Golden.  For a while I did not know how to tell someone, "no," if they wanted me to contribute effort to something.  One specific semester I was in danger of losing my largest school scholarship when my GPA slipped simply because I was at my physical limit of what I could do.  I learned a lot about priorities during those years.

After that experience of being close to burnout for an extended period of time I became more willing turn down activities.  As an ardent introvert, I have struggled with where the line is and so have gone through busy and non-busy stretches.

I see the same behavior at work in church and in other volunteer situations.  It is not that twenty percent of the people are doing eighty percent of the work.  It is that twenty percent of the people are doing the work right now, and a huge portion of the other people are actively removing themselves from activities after having been burned out by being part of the twenty percent at some time in the past.  For whatever reason, volunteer situations cause people to get overworked when they have volunteered, and somehow encourage the view that, "I've put in my time."

Right now I feel on the busier side at church since I teach a class and do a few other things, but I have actively resisted a few different opportunities, and I suspect that I will actively resist others.  I know others who were very involved, got burned out, and completely and utterly removed themselves from teaching and administrative responsibilities as a result.  Maybe if I don't try to do too much I will not feel like I need a sabbatical from all responsibility in short order.

Perhaps organizations that rely on volunteers could learn from this and manage their resources more effectively so that the 80/20 rule doesn't have to continue being a thing.

in a handbasket

"Do not say, 'Why were the old days better than these?' For it is not wise to ask such questions." — Ecclesiastes 7:10

One pet peeve I have is to listen to people go off about how society is going downhill, especially when it is presented in a church setting.  This is not an annoyance because I think society is in great shape, but rather because it presents an idealized view of where society has come from. A person talking like this is frequently encouraging his or her audience to adopt the social rules of a bygone era rather than encouraging the audience to truly look to Christ.  Prayer is encouraged and the speaker may state that our society's only hope is to turn to Christ, but my experience is that what the speaker interprets as turning to Christ and what the Bible indicates as becoming a slave to Christ as two different things.

I have mentioned the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) when I discussed a similar topic before, but this is a very instructive story here as well.  In that parable a person who everyone of the time would have viewed as a saint prays thanks to God that he was not put in the circumstances of the obviously sinful tax collector.  I can imagine sermons at the local synagogue rightfully decrying the sins of people who call themselves Jews who aggressively take from their own people while working in conjunction with a pagan empire.

"Our modern world is becoming more and more sinful," someone might point out, "because we cannot even trust those trained by our own rabbis in the Law of the one true God to treat their own brothers fairly.  Can you believe how horrible the world has become?  Can you believe how wretched tax collectors are who dare to number themselves among Abraham's children?"  Such a statement would be true on its face, and I can imagine the audience getting worked into a fervor.  The speech would endear the speaker to most of the audience, because it would build solidarity and would make the audience feel a bit righteous for not being one of those sinners benefiting from his selfish actions.

The key to this parable that Jesus taught, though, was that the person who focused on his own righteousness and others' sins was not justified, but the tax collector who was painfully aware of his sin and approached God with humility was justified.  The sins of Pharisee in the story were not forgiven, but the sins of the tax collector were.  Isn't focusing today on the evils of the times rather than the evils of my own nature doing the same thing that the Pharisee did in the parable?  Does not that sort of speech or sermon sound more dangerous than beneficial when viewed from this perspective?

On a related note, most of the people who talk about how bad things have gotten get their facts wrong, and that is a big part of what bothers me.  Some forms of crime have increased in recent years, but most violent crimes, property crimes, and many other various types of crime have been on a steady downswing in the United States since the early 90s.  A chart on the FBI website indicates that this trend, in violent crime at least, has continued through recent years.  All this does is validate my primary point that, while people are sinners in need of a Savior today, people have always been sinners in need of a Savior.  The times are evil, but the times have always been evil.

motorcycle accident

I just learned the husband of one of the people who regularly attends our Sunday school class died in a motorcycle accident a few hours ago.  This in itself is sad, but the fact that this man is a father with young children makes it especially sad.  The family is definitely going to need a lot of prayer and encouragement, so please remember them in your prayers.

I know a lot of good dads who ride motorcycles, and I definitely understand the appeal.  They must be a blast to ride because they look fun.  This isn't a judgment on dads who ride motorcycles.  However, I have personally heard of so many situations where dads have died in a bad motorcycle accident and left behind families who needed them. So, I do question the wisdom of dads with young children doing things like biking.  The dangers seem so senseless.  Based on what I am seeing online, I think my opinion is in the minority.

Again, please remember this family in prayer.  There is no way this is going to be anything but difficult.

source of humility

We have been going over the parables of Jesus in Sunday School for the last several months, and something struck me recently.  A large number of them turn on a specific character being unable to accept his own unworthiness.  I have mentioned this before in the parable of the unmerciful servant, but it shows up in other parables as well.  In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) the primary point is that the Pharisee is not justified because he does not see his own sin.  In the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) the older son is representative of people who wrongly believed themselves righteous.  Jesus' illustration of the plank in one's eye (Matt 7:1-6) is also a perfect illustration of the error of attempting to assist others in their errors while ignoring your own issues.

Two things spring to mind regarding this.  First, if Jesus gave so much air time to the danger of thinking ourselves more holy than we ought, this should probably be an important topic for training.

Second, I don't know that I have heard many sermons that focus strongly on the fact that we are all treacherous sinners in desperate need of salvation.  I don't mean to say that I have never heard it said that we all need Christ, because I certainly have.  It has always been as a minor supporting step leading to some other point, though.  As such, I believe that it is easy for a proclaiming Christian to dangerously underestimate the level of evil exists in his or her being that necessitates Christ's justification and sanctifying work.  Since so much important stuff relies on having a proportional understanding of our sinfulness, I think this is a dangerous position to find ourselves.

In the parable of the unmerciful servant we learn that forgiveness to others is necessary through a proper perspective of the unpayable debt we have been forgiven.  In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector we learn that the person who believes himself good in contrast to an obvious sinner is simply not justified (scary indeed!).  In the parable of the prodigal son Jesus leaves the story open at the end, but we know that most of those who the older son represented rejected Christ.  In the plank in one's eye passage we learn that we cannot help others with their issues if we are unaware of our own.

My sense is that a large percentage of the mistakes that modern Christians make, and that have resulted in non-Christians having a wrong idea about what Christianity is, springs from thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought.  We are horrific sinners saved by grace, and whose sanctification is far from complete.  If Paul was the chief of sinners I am too.  I have no room for moral superiority or boasting.

Isn't the personal humility that comes with this foundational principle of the Gospel what makes the grace offered in the Gospel such good news?  I am undeserving scum who far falls short of the mark, but God in His love and mercy offers me salvation anyway.

hymns

Tonight our church had a hymn sing, and this brought to mind how full circle I have come on this genre of music.

When I was growing up my family listened to hymns a lot, and since I went to church regularly in traditional churches I heard my share of hymns as a kid.  As anyone who hears a lot of a specific type of music will do, there were songs that I liked and songs that I did not like.  I appreciated hymns overall, though, until I became a teen.

As I got into adolescence I grew to resent the expectation that church-goers would like the one genre of music over the others, and the attitude that many had that everything that was not a hymn was inferior (or worse, unholy).  I also got tired of the tendency of hymns to use outdated jargon, and plenty of "thees" and "thous." As such, while I did not hate hymns, I learned to strongly prefer other styles of music.

As I have grown as an adult, and especially in the past two or three years, I have come to appreciate the depth and maturity that exists in many hymns.  This is probably mostly due to the fact that I have more life experiences to appreciate a This has been in part because my understanding of Scripture and what practical Christianity really is has increased, and so some of what I thought I grasped before strikes me more seriously now.  Some of this is that I am no longer in a situation, or have recently been in a situation, where there are any expectations on what music I am going to like or what I am going to relate to.

One example of a song that I have only recently been appreciating on a doctrinal level is "Rock of Ages."  I am not Calvinist, and maybe this is one of the reasons it has taken some time to connect with me, but I feel I am only now grasping what I always claimed to believe—that I, and everyone else, truly come to God empty-handed.  I bring nothing to the equation except a reticent willingness to be changed.



An example of a song that I appreciate based on life experience in a way that I did not when I was a kid is "The Solid Rock."  Of my myriad of weaknesses, if there were one that I would pick out to say how much I underestimated the depth of it earlier in life, it is my ability to trust God.  My strength is in trusting Him, but it's something I need His help to even consider doing.



One song I am including here just because I like it is the Owl City version of "In Christ Alone."  It was written more recently than most traditional hymns, but it is essentially a hymn.  It is also every bit as meaningful as the other hymns I have been contemplating lately.



There are certainly some hymns I still do not enjoy, and probably never will.  However, I am getting to the point in my life where a good number of songs that I may have overlooked ten or twenty years ago can profoundly touch me.  I must be getting old.

blood and pastels

Easter, and Holy Week in general, is one of my least favorite holidays.  By rights it should be among my favorites because it represents the event that forms the foundation of my religious beliefs and my relationship with Christ.  It just seems so feminized, though.

This may come down to the fact that the real holiday is considered Easter and Good Friday is a day leading up to the ultimate holiday, but when I think of the Crucifixion and Resurrection I am disappointed with the emphasis on pastel colors and dressy attire.  I'd mention cute, furry animals as well, but that opens a can of worms about pagan roots on some of the celebration that I don't care to debate here.

In my thinking, Christmas should be the more feminine holiday and Easter should be the more masculine holiday.  Christmas is about birth and potential.  Easter is about violent death, death's defeat, and promises fulfilled.  Mary is as much the symbol of Christmas as anyone because God used her humble spirit for His glory.  Christ is the symbol of Holy Week because he showed what true humility and sacrifice was.  Christmas is about love and commitment in new relationships (Mary and Joseph), and Easter is about what love costs in a mature relationship (Christ and the Church).

We all choose how to celebrate and contemplate the holiday, but there are also cultural expectations within the church regarding how the holiday should be observed.  I wish you a great Good Friday and Easter as we all contemplate Christ's sacrifice and its implications on our lives.  This is what I will be doing this weekend.

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.

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.