Is being logical a Christian characteristic? I would like to think it is a highly desirable characteristic of one who wants to emulate Jesus- but I am not sure.
What would God have against logic? This is not a definitive answer but maybe it has something to do with the fact that logic can make us think we are self reliant. Logic is how we make most of our decisions in life. This is our internal rudder which guides us through our life. I am not sure there is an absolute logic but rather a logic that comes from eaches experience,guidance, cultures standards, and our belief system. When a situation approaches we use this logic to help navigate to the right decision.
So why would the Bible be full of people who made total illogical decisions in order to obey God? Why would God ask those who are obedient to Him to make these decisions?
I preached on Joseph- Jesus earthly father on Sunday. In studying Joseph he was a righteous man meaning he held high regards to the laws and worked very hard in studying them. Why on earth did God ask Him to marry a women who was pregnant? He could have legally had her stoned which by God's law was totally acceptable. Even before the angel appeared to him in a dream his response was to divorce her quietly.
In most stories in the Bible God asked people to trust Him more than their logic. This is by far the toughest task God asks us to do. It is quick to define someone smart or stupid by how they use their logic. If I had lived in the time of Noah would I have viewed him as someone with a whole lot of logic? I would like to say great you are listening to God let me help you build your ark.
What do we do when someone says they heard God yet it defies logic? There are many of us who justify our actions by saying God told me- but what about those who really do hear from God? Are we so use to listening to the logic we wouldn't even know God's voice? Would we even listen if He did say something that went against the logic.
I know in my life it is much harder to listen to God than the logic that governs my life.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
What about those of us who didn't like school?
What would church be like if it was based on a different structure other than the American education system? Even as the education system is realizing the need for change in order for children to learn better is the church taking notice?
Even as schools better utilize technology and in some areas more practical teaching such as vocational programs can the church change also?
Should the church also? These are many of the questions that have been going through my head as I dug out of snow numerous times yesterday.
No, I have not done a complete study of the educational system in America and contrasted it with the church and the way it is constructed, but I think on the outside there are enough similarities to see that roughly they were based on the same structure.
If people are good at school, growing up in church will probably come easy to them. If one can focus,concentrate, and learn from a lecture style scenerio they will be much more apt to succeed in both settings.
But what about those who don't learn or thrive in these situations? I read a book a couple of years called Why men hate church. A better title would have been why don't active learners like church. The book in great detail talked about how church is mainly geared for those who learn in the above mentioned settings and those who enjoy sitting around and talking.
That leaves out a whole lot of the population, if someone does not fall into those catagories would they have the tendencies to think that God/Christianity wasn't for them? There is a very good chance.
When we look at our church families who do we see missing? Where are the artists, the leaders, those that think outside the box? Those are just a few of the type of people that I have seen missing from churches that I have been a part of.
Even as we emulate a educational system that is failing, are we going to have the courage to change our opinion of the basic structure of the church in order to better accomplish our mission?
Even as schools better utilize technology and in some areas more practical teaching such as vocational programs can the church change also?
Should the church also? These are many of the questions that have been going through my head as I dug out of snow numerous times yesterday.
No, I have not done a complete study of the educational system in America and contrasted it with the church and the way it is constructed, but I think on the outside there are enough similarities to see that roughly they were based on the same structure.
If people are good at school, growing up in church will probably come easy to them. If one can focus,concentrate, and learn from a lecture style scenerio they will be much more apt to succeed in both settings.
But what about those who don't learn or thrive in these situations? I read a book a couple of years called Why men hate church. A better title would have been why don't active learners like church. The book in great detail talked about how church is mainly geared for those who learn in the above mentioned settings and those who enjoy sitting around and talking.
That leaves out a whole lot of the population, if someone does not fall into those catagories would they have the tendencies to think that God/Christianity wasn't for them? There is a very good chance.
When we look at our church families who do we see missing? Where are the artists, the leaders, those that think outside the box? Those are just a few of the type of people that I have seen missing from churches that I have been a part of.
Even as we emulate a educational system that is failing, are we going to have the courage to change our opinion of the basic structure of the church in order to better accomplish our mission?
Friday, December 21, 2007
I want a Tiger Cub for Christmas
I have just finished reading Freakonomics. An stimulating and thoughful read by an Economy professor from University of Chicago. There is a part of this book that is fairly controversial that I want to share and then share my thoughts on it.
Freakonomics page 4
In 1995 the criminologist James Fox wrote a report for the U.S. attorney general that grimley detailed the coming spike in murders by teenagers. Fox proposed optimistic and pessimistic scenerios.In the optimistic scenerio, the rate of teen homocides would rise another 15% over the next decade. In the pessimistic scenerio it would double.
Other criminologists,political scientists, and similarly learned forcasters laid out the same horrible future as did president Clinton.
And then instead of going up and up and up, crime began to fall, fall, and fall some more. The crime rate drop was startling in several respects. It was ubiquitous, with every category of crime falling in every part of the country.
The magnitude of the reversal was astounding. The teenage murder rate instead of rising 100% or even 15% as James Fox had warned, fell more than 50% within 5 years. By 2000 the overall murder rate in the U.S. dropped to it's lowest level in 35 years.
Why?
Pg 6 Freakonomics
It wasn't gun control, a strong economy or new police strategies that finally blunted the crime wave. It was among other factors, the reality that the pool of potential criminals had drasctically shrunk.
How you may you ask?
The decision of Roe V Wade or the legalization of Abortion.
As far as crime is concerned, it turns out that not all children are born equal, not even close. Decades of studies have shown that a child born into an adverse family enviorment is far more likely than other children to become a criminal. And the millions of women most likely to have an abortion in the wake of Roe V. Wade- poor unmarried and teenage mothers for whom illegal abortions had been too expensive or too hard to get were often model's of adversity.
They were the very women whose children if born, would have been much more likely than average to become criminals. But because of Roe V Wade these children were not being born. This powerful cause would have a drastic distant effect years later, just as these unborn children would have entered their criminal primes, the rate of crime began to plummet.
The author later compares the millions of aborted babies to the crime that is prevented and those of us who are pro-life would find the scales do not equal out.
No, reading this did not change my mind about being pro-life, but what it did make me think about is all of us who are pro life who do very little after the baby is born.
It is like the proverbial little girl who wants a tiger cub from her parents for Christmas. It is a great present until the cub grows into a full grown Tiger and they have no idea of how to control it.
There are many questions that have went through my head after reading this. Is the church prepared to help 1.7 million at risk children? The majority of the children do not come from ideal home situations.
If we were to talk a young teenage mom out of abortion and she decided to keep the baby. Would we critize her parenting techniques? Would we critize her if she became a stripper or on welfare to support the baby? And what if the baby because of the circumstances did turn out to be a criminal would we visit them in jail?
Our job is no where near done when a person decides against abortions. The fight has just started and where are we when the battle rages?
Freakonomics page 4
In 1995 the criminologist James Fox wrote a report for the U.S. attorney general that grimley detailed the coming spike in murders by teenagers. Fox proposed optimistic and pessimistic scenerios.In the optimistic scenerio, the rate of teen homocides would rise another 15% over the next decade. In the pessimistic scenerio it would double.
Other criminologists,political scientists, and similarly learned forcasters laid out the same horrible future as did president Clinton.
And then instead of going up and up and up, crime began to fall, fall, and fall some more. The crime rate drop was startling in several respects. It was ubiquitous, with every category of crime falling in every part of the country.
The magnitude of the reversal was astounding. The teenage murder rate instead of rising 100% or even 15% as James Fox had warned, fell more than 50% within 5 years. By 2000 the overall murder rate in the U.S. dropped to it's lowest level in 35 years.
Why?
Pg 6 Freakonomics
It wasn't gun control, a strong economy or new police strategies that finally blunted the crime wave. It was among other factors, the reality that the pool of potential criminals had drasctically shrunk.
How you may you ask?
The decision of Roe V Wade or the legalization of Abortion.
As far as crime is concerned, it turns out that not all children are born equal, not even close. Decades of studies have shown that a child born into an adverse family enviorment is far more likely than other children to become a criminal. And the millions of women most likely to have an abortion in the wake of Roe V. Wade- poor unmarried and teenage mothers for whom illegal abortions had been too expensive or too hard to get were often model's of adversity.
They were the very women whose children if born, would have been much more likely than average to become criminals. But because of Roe V Wade these children were not being born. This powerful cause would have a drastic distant effect years later, just as these unborn children would have entered their criminal primes, the rate of crime began to plummet.
The author later compares the millions of aborted babies to the crime that is prevented and those of us who are pro-life would find the scales do not equal out.
No, reading this did not change my mind about being pro-life, but what it did make me think about is all of us who are pro life who do very little after the baby is born.
It is like the proverbial little girl who wants a tiger cub from her parents for Christmas. It is a great present until the cub grows into a full grown Tiger and they have no idea of how to control it.
There are many questions that have went through my head after reading this. Is the church prepared to help 1.7 million at risk children? The majority of the children do not come from ideal home situations.
If we were to talk a young teenage mom out of abortion and she decided to keep the baby. Would we critize her parenting techniques? Would we critize her if she became a stripper or on welfare to support the baby? And what if the baby because of the circumstances did turn out to be a criminal would we visit them in jail?
Our job is no where near done when a person decides against abortions. The fight has just started and where are we when the battle rages?
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Steriods and Baseball... my two cents
I wrote an article for Helium.com about baseball and steriods. Enjoy:)
Are we shocked? Of course we are not suprised by the findings. If we look at the statistics of the average major leaguer in the 1990s to that of the average mlb player from the 1970's we would see a huge difference. We have been told that it is because of the tightness of the baseball, the use of the wood in the bats or the air in Colorado. Of course we could say the size of the players over the years. Maybe we should have thought something was amiss when Hans and Frans were regulars in our favorite teams clubhouse. What is the most suprising with the Mitchell report? In my mind it is the fact that more major leaguers were not named. The question is does it matter? Absolutely not. People are saying it does not matter. They are saying that by stepping up and buying tickets at record paces over the past few years. Last year attendence records were set yet again.
America likes this brand of baseball. We like seeing robo/humans play a game. The biggest part of baseball that attracts me along with many others is the numbers. It is exciting to think that you can view and be a part of history. I went out and bought tickets to see Bonds during his home run chase. People booing along with snapping pictures. It is taboo to like Bonds yet we love the history and legacy of what he is doing. We hate him yet we can't turn away.
Is this going to change baseball forever? Probably, but is baseball going to keep it's popularity? Absolutely. While we waited to see which players would be named in the Mitchell report, I had a conversation with a friend of mine. We discussed which player would suprise us if they were named in the report. One name would have suprised me. Derek Jeter, and I am a Red Sox fan. Derek Jeter is the one player who I have respect for as a person and one superstar whose body doesn't look part Terminator. I don't care what these players are like as people. I don't care what Curt Schilling's advice on American policy is. I am not going to listen if they told me they didn't do steriods or HGH. I think we should treat them as they should be treated. They are millioniares who have compromised their own lives for the money. Which players do we want on our favorite teams because of their intelligence? I can't think of one. As the Red Sox try and get Johan Santana am I thinking I hope he is a person of integrity or he supports my political views? I could care less. The Sox should get him because he would help them repeat as champions.
In conclusion are we shocked when 20 somethings are enticed to help their job by taking a drug? I don't think many of us have the integrity to turn down a wonder drug that would help us make millions. Baseball will live on, we just have to remember that that robo-humans that play the game have given up alot for our entertainment
Are we shocked? Of course we are not suprised by the findings. If we look at the statistics of the average major leaguer in the 1990s to that of the average mlb player from the 1970's we would see a huge difference. We have been told that it is because of the tightness of the baseball, the use of the wood in the bats or the air in Colorado. Of course we could say the size of the players over the years. Maybe we should have thought something was amiss when Hans and Frans were regulars in our favorite teams clubhouse. What is the most suprising with the Mitchell report? In my mind it is the fact that more major leaguers were not named. The question is does it matter? Absolutely not. People are saying it does not matter. They are saying that by stepping up and buying tickets at record paces over the past few years. Last year attendence records were set yet again.
America likes this brand of baseball. We like seeing robo/humans play a game. The biggest part of baseball that attracts me along with many others is the numbers. It is exciting to think that you can view and be a part of history. I went out and bought tickets to see Bonds during his home run chase. People booing along with snapping pictures. It is taboo to like Bonds yet we love the history and legacy of what he is doing. We hate him yet we can't turn away.
Is this going to change baseball forever? Probably, but is baseball going to keep it's popularity? Absolutely. While we waited to see which players would be named in the Mitchell report, I had a conversation with a friend of mine. We discussed which player would suprise us if they were named in the report. One name would have suprised me. Derek Jeter, and I am a Red Sox fan. Derek Jeter is the one player who I have respect for as a person and one superstar whose body doesn't look part Terminator. I don't care what these players are like as people. I don't care what Curt Schilling's advice on American policy is. I am not going to listen if they told me they didn't do steriods or HGH. I think we should treat them as they should be treated. They are millioniares who have compromised their own lives for the money. Which players do we want on our favorite teams because of their intelligence? I can't think of one. As the Red Sox try and get Johan Santana am I thinking I hope he is a person of integrity or he supports my political views? I could care less. The Sox should get him because he would help them repeat as champions.
In conclusion are we shocked when 20 somethings are enticed to help their job by taking a drug? I don't think many of us have the integrity to turn down a wonder drug that would help us make millions. Baseball will live on, we just have to remember that that robo-humans that play the game have given up alot for our entertainment
Saturday, December 1, 2007
No innocent bystander
I am convinced that the main people that we show mercy, help or feel sorrow for are the people in our view who are innocent. It is hard to have mercy or help those that we think that deserve their status in life, whether that be prison, homeless, have some STD etc. If we can convince ourselves this person deserves our help than we help them, but if they are in their prediciment by their own doing so long.
Case in point if we come upon a homeless person what is the first thought? I am not going to give them money because they are going to spend it on booze or drugs. We are justifying it in our minds that they do not deserve mercy. I am not saying that they wont spend it on booze because there is the chance.
Why are we more likely to send money to a mission organization who supports poor African children? We think they deserve it, they didn't do anything to deserve their situation. This may be partially true, but is this really the thought process that God wants his people to have when dolling out mercy and grace.
Does our charity need to have anything to do with who we think are worthy or not? I just finished reading two books: one on self justification (it was along the lines of blink and the tipping point) and the other on two guys who decided to become homeless for 5 months to see how life was like on the streets.
Human nature is strange, in the self justification book (I cant remember the name of it) there is a whole chapter on the criminal justice system and many examples of the ends justifying the means. Such as a police officer raids a house and the people flush the drugs down the toilet, in order to still arrest them they drop some planted drugs in the house in order to arrest the people. In their minds it justifies putting them in jail because obviously they were guilty. This book went on to share stories and stats about how when a police officer will change his tactics if he/she believes one is guilty, and if the officer believes the defendent is guilty every piece of evidence will be held in that light.
This is the way we live, if we believe something and some piece of evidence is brought up to refute this, we tend to refute the evidence rather than change our views. We have all done it, we have stubornly stood up for faulty thinking even in the light of new evidence, we don't want to admit we are wrong.
Now putting that into the context of our thinking of the poor and needy lets try for a second to use the example of Jesus. Does he at any point try and justify his giving to the deserving? Does he try and justify why he helped some and not others? Self justification in my mind is not a trait of Jesus. When we self justify is it to convince others or our self?
In the other book I read it the two men on their journey through America being homeless. They were the most suprised at their being treated by the church. They were looked down upon and told not to come to certain functions because of their apperance. It is hard to have for many of us to have compassion on the homeless because we have been told that these people don't deserve our compassion and sympathy.
Let's face it none of us are innocent bystanders, I am glad Jesus didn't just die for those He thought deserved it.
Case in point if we come upon a homeless person what is the first thought? I am not going to give them money because they are going to spend it on booze or drugs. We are justifying it in our minds that they do not deserve mercy. I am not saying that they wont spend it on booze because there is the chance.
Why are we more likely to send money to a mission organization who supports poor African children? We think they deserve it, they didn't do anything to deserve their situation. This may be partially true, but is this really the thought process that God wants his people to have when dolling out mercy and grace.
Does our charity need to have anything to do with who we think are worthy or not? I just finished reading two books: one on self justification (it was along the lines of blink and the tipping point) and the other on two guys who decided to become homeless for 5 months to see how life was like on the streets.
Human nature is strange, in the self justification book (I cant remember the name of it) there is a whole chapter on the criminal justice system and many examples of the ends justifying the means. Such as a police officer raids a house and the people flush the drugs down the toilet, in order to still arrest them they drop some planted drugs in the house in order to arrest the people. In their minds it justifies putting them in jail because obviously they were guilty. This book went on to share stories and stats about how when a police officer will change his tactics if he/she believes one is guilty, and if the officer believes the defendent is guilty every piece of evidence will be held in that light.
This is the way we live, if we believe something and some piece of evidence is brought up to refute this, we tend to refute the evidence rather than change our views. We have all done it, we have stubornly stood up for faulty thinking even in the light of new evidence, we don't want to admit we are wrong.
Now putting that into the context of our thinking of the poor and needy lets try for a second to use the example of Jesus. Does he at any point try and justify his giving to the deserving? Does he try and justify why he helped some and not others? Self justification in my mind is not a trait of Jesus. When we self justify is it to convince others or our self?
In the other book I read it the two men on their journey through America being homeless. They were the most suprised at their being treated by the church. They were looked down upon and told not to come to certain functions because of their apperance. It is hard to have for many of us to have compassion on the homeless because we have been told that these people don't deserve our compassion and sympathy.
Let's face it none of us are innocent bystanders, I am glad Jesus didn't just die for those He thought deserved it.
Monday, November 26, 2007
I wish my ball was still red
I remember as a kid we would buy red balls that were some sort of strange material and even though they were not that much fun for us to play with the dog loved them. For whatever reason the dog thought they were very tasty and we would find these balls months later hidden under couches, in the basement or any other place the dog thought would be safe. After the dog was done these balls would have little assemblance to the ball we had originally bought. There was little if any red left on them, they had huge holes, bite marks, and drool all over them.
I think the Samaritan women who Jesus talked to at the well might have felt like the bouncy ball the dog had chewed up. I wasn't there so I can't say for certain but she seems like the type of women who had made some questionable decisions, it may have been her fault that she had been married numerous times and was living with a man who was not her husband. When Jesus said I came to give life and life to its fullest, was he talking about a life with freedom to be involved in this type of lifestyle? I don't know I have never lived or slept with anyone other than my wife but I would think the Samaritan's women life had to have been pretty rough. If that society was like ours I am sure "the good people" gossiped about her, some of the men tried to get their way with her because she was "easy' and I am sure her self worth was shot.
After Jesus gives her the freeing words of His message what happens? Does her life miracously change? We never hear another word about her. I don't think she is the point in the application of this story, how many women do we know in this similiar situation? How many women wish there proverbial ball was still red? How many wish they still had a whole life but because of situations beyond their control they are down and out? I was visiting my family in Vermont and I saw my sister. My sister does not want much to do with my family, God, or any of the such. It makes giving a lecture pretty pointless. I am at a loss at what to do other than love her through her situation. I don't know if she will make it out. I hope and pray she will but it looks bleak. This story of the Good Samaritan gives me hope for people like my sister.
On my 13 hour trip home from Vermont (while my kids were watching every possible disney movie) I was thinking of my sister and women like her. I was thinking later on in life, after a lengthy conversation with my wife. I was thinking it would be a worthwhile thing if I became employed as a security guard at a strip club. Why may you ask? Let's think about the scenerio of a strip club it is full of women who feel pretty lousy about themselves who are using the desires of men to pay for food on their tables for their kids. I don't think many women become strippers because it is an appealing profession. It is very easy to judge these women and condemn them but lets think what we as a Christian community are providing as alternatives. I hate what my sister has become, I hate that the Samaritan women was so despised but what do I do about it? Of course I am not going to go work in a strip club but it doesn't mean that these women are worthless.
I think the Samaritan women who Jesus talked to at the well might have felt like the bouncy ball the dog had chewed up. I wasn't there so I can't say for certain but she seems like the type of women who had made some questionable decisions, it may have been her fault that she had been married numerous times and was living with a man who was not her husband. When Jesus said I came to give life and life to its fullest, was he talking about a life with freedom to be involved in this type of lifestyle? I don't know I have never lived or slept with anyone other than my wife but I would think the Samaritan's women life had to have been pretty rough. If that society was like ours I am sure "the good people" gossiped about her, some of the men tried to get their way with her because she was "easy' and I am sure her self worth was shot.
After Jesus gives her the freeing words of His message what happens? Does her life miracously change? We never hear another word about her. I don't think she is the point in the application of this story, how many women do we know in this similiar situation? How many women wish there proverbial ball was still red? How many wish they still had a whole life but because of situations beyond their control they are down and out? I was visiting my family in Vermont and I saw my sister. My sister does not want much to do with my family, God, or any of the such. It makes giving a lecture pretty pointless. I am at a loss at what to do other than love her through her situation. I don't know if she will make it out. I hope and pray she will but it looks bleak. This story of the Good Samaritan gives me hope for people like my sister.
On my 13 hour trip home from Vermont (while my kids were watching every possible disney movie) I was thinking of my sister and women like her. I was thinking later on in life, after a lengthy conversation with my wife. I was thinking it would be a worthwhile thing if I became employed as a security guard at a strip club. Why may you ask? Let's think about the scenerio of a strip club it is full of women who feel pretty lousy about themselves who are using the desires of men to pay for food on their tables for their kids. I don't think many women become strippers because it is an appealing profession. It is very easy to judge these women and condemn them but lets think what we as a Christian community are providing as alternatives. I hate what my sister has become, I hate that the Samaritan women was so despised but what do I do about it? Of course I am not going to go work in a strip club but it doesn't mean that these women are worthless.
Monday, November 5, 2007
The final outcome
I am always thinking and concerned about what my final outcome will be. As I think about what this new venture in Goshen will be I don't know what the final outcome will be. I think about when I was 25 and just starting at real life, the responsibility the prestege of working in a church of the size and the youth group. I was excited to think after Real Life what opportunities would open up after that. Now seven years later I look back and think what happened. I am now starting over. I have no idea how to measure success in a church setting. If I was to measure it financially I was making $10 an hour at the group home I was working at. In this new venture I am making just over half what I was making at Real Life. But, I can't look at what I am doing in terms of finance. I can't look at St Marks in terms of numbers either. I am inheriting a youth group of about 10% the size of Real Life. It is hard from a logical perspective of what has happened. This makes no sense at all from a human perspective.
I don't have an agenda of where my life is going to go. I really don't have a goal of what I want to accomplish at St Marks, I don't have all of these concerns of where this job is going to take me.
I am more concerned with the person I am and who I become rather than what goals and accolaids I get. Do I want to be successful? Absolutely, but the outcome I am looking for is just different now as oppossed to when I was 25. Sometimes rather many times when following God it doesn't make much sense and God's definition of success is something that we can only scratch our heads at. At least God hasn't asked me to build an ark (see noah), marry a prostitute (see Hosea), or any other number of things He asked people in the Bible to do.
I don't have an agenda of where my life is going to go. I really don't have a goal of what I want to accomplish at St Marks, I don't have all of these concerns of where this job is going to take me.
I am more concerned with the person I am and who I become rather than what goals and accolaids I get. Do I want to be successful? Absolutely, but the outcome I am looking for is just different now as oppossed to when I was 25. Sometimes rather many times when following God it doesn't make much sense and God's definition of success is something that we can only scratch our heads at. At least God hasn't asked me to build an ark (see noah), marry a prostitute (see Hosea), or any other number of things He asked people in the Bible to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
