A friend's blog provokes ongoing debate, and I enjoy taking the opportunity to jump in every now and then. As I have been involved lately, it has occurred to me how often these debates are over whose set of presuppositions are correct, so the debate itself is pointless - few people are willing to give up their presuppositions because of a few lines on a blog somewhere, no matter how well written.
This leads to a stridency that makes the debates even less fruitful. Everyone takes the simplest, most dogmatic position, and yells invective at each other.
All of this was triggered by the following comic which gets just about everything correct. The main characters in this strip (if you have never read Frazz) are Frazz: the young single, well-read janitor at an elementary school who provides reason in the midst of the chaos; and Caulfield: the over-smart elementary schooler who provides nonsequiters to the teacher's "Any other questions?". You can find it at: www.comics.com
Merry Christmas.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Merry Christmas
In Matthew 11, John the Baptist sends to Jesus from jail and asks if He is the awaited Messiah, or if should they look for another. Jesus responds, not with a simple "Yes" or "No" but rather with a summary of His work: the blind see, the lame walk, the poor hear the good news, and then adds an encouragement not to be offended by Him.
The word for offended here is the Greek scandalon, which means a rock that causes someone to stumble on the road. Jesus was warning John not to get caught up in His previous conceptions about Messiah. Undoubtedly, John expected a conquering King who would overthrow Rome's oppression and set up a glorious kingdom in Israel. In fact, one wonders if John was not so aggressive in condemning Herod precisely because of these expectations. Perhaps Jesus' response was going to be the moment when John would realize for the first time that he was not going to be released from prison when the Messiah set up his throne.
Jesus always surprises us. He is often less than what we expect because He is so much more than we could imagine. It was this way on the first Christmas, it is often that way in our lives.
Have a Merry Christmas. May Jesus be more than you can imagine in your life, not only in this season, but all through the year.
The word for offended here is the Greek scandalon, which means a rock that causes someone to stumble on the road. Jesus was warning John not to get caught up in His previous conceptions about Messiah. Undoubtedly, John expected a conquering King who would overthrow Rome's oppression and set up a glorious kingdom in Israel. In fact, one wonders if John was not so aggressive in condemning Herod precisely because of these expectations. Perhaps Jesus' response was going to be the moment when John would realize for the first time that he was not going to be released from prison when the Messiah set up his throne.
Jesus always surprises us. He is often less than what we expect because He is so much more than we could imagine. It was this way on the first Christmas, it is often that way in our lives.
Have a Merry Christmas. May Jesus be more than you can imagine in your life, not only in this season, but all through the year.
Psalm 26
Vindicate me, O LORD, for I have walked in my integrity,
And I have trusted in the LORD without wavering.
Examine me, O LORD, and try me;
Test my mind and my heart.
In this psalm, David is consumed by his integrity. He even goes so far as to offer to be tested, examined by the Lord to prove the depths of his innocence.
As I was reading this passage this morning, it occurred to me that David undoubtedly wrote this before Bathsheba. I doubt he ever called upon the Lord to examine him closely and prove his integrity after that incident.
I think it possible that the Lord takes such self-conscious integrity and tests it to the breaking point, so that we might not be fooled into believing that it is our goodness or righteousness that counts in His sight. He loves us, not because of anything about us except for His love. When we forget that He goes to great pains to remind us.
And I have trusted in the LORD without wavering.
Examine me, O LORD, and try me;
Test my mind and my heart.
In this psalm, David is consumed by his integrity. He even goes so far as to offer to be tested, examined by the Lord to prove the depths of his innocence.
As I was reading this passage this morning, it occurred to me that David undoubtedly wrote this before Bathsheba. I doubt he ever called upon the Lord to examine him closely and prove his integrity after that incident.
I think it possible that the Lord takes such self-conscious integrity and tests it to the breaking point, so that we might not be fooled into believing that it is our goodness or righteousness that counts in His sight. He loves us, not because of anything about us except for His love. When we forget that He goes to great pains to remind us.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Scandolous Freedom
I have a very simple recommendation. Every evangelical Christian should read Steve Brown's book A Scandalous Freedom. Period.
Steve is a PhD Presbyterian who pastored for years and runs a ministry in Key Biscayne Florida. His message is simple: God means it when He says He loves us, and we cannot do anything to make Him love us either more or less. Rather remarkable for a Presbyterian, or an Evangelical. The liberals stole grace from us, Steve Brown tells us where to find it.
Go get a copy today. Read it. Then tell everyone you know about it.
Almost
I am not often this insensitive (at least not publicly).
But I just read the story about the man who set himself, a Christmas tree, and an American flag ablaze over the San Joaquin Valley school board's decision to use the names Christmas and Easter for the winter and spring holiday seasons.
My gut reaction is that I wish the fireman hadn't been there.
But I just read the story about the man who set himself, a Christmas tree, and an American flag ablaze over the San Joaquin Valley school board's decision to use the names Christmas and Easter for the winter and spring holiday seasons.
My gut reaction is that I wish the fireman hadn't been there.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Eragon Movie
I went and saw the movie at the first showing here in the Valley, at 10:40am at Cine Capri. Side note - I liked the old Cine Capri better. I think Harkins has better theatres than the new one even now. But I digress.
I expected to be disappointed. It is little more than an adventure story.in the movie, and in a sense I was. The movie is too short by at least 30 minutes, probably an hour (it comes in at just over 90 minutes). And the screen writers eliminated far too many things in order to get the movie down to size. Paolini has written a decent epic-type story, the movie is not even close to epic
I don't know if I like the result. Eragon is more heroic and succeeds far more than he does in the book, and I think I liked him better in the original. They change the ending from the book, and do so in such a way that I think they probably have no intention of making the second story (Eldest) into a movie at all. I will go see it again with the rest of my family and from there I will have a better idea of whether I like the movie, not as a version of the book, but just as a fantasy adventure.
I also learned something about film making that has been bugging me for the last couple of months, but that will have to wait for another post.
I expected to be disappointed. It is little more than an adventure story.in the movie, and in a sense I was. The movie is too short by at least 30 minutes, probably an hour (it comes in at just over 90 minutes). And the screen writers eliminated far too many things in order to get the movie down to size. Paolini has written a decent epic-type story, the movie is not even close to epic
I don't know if I like the result. Eragon is more heroic and succeeds far more than he does in the book, and I think I liked him better in the original. They change the ending from the book, and do so in such a way that I think they probably have no intention of making the second story (Eldest) into a movie at all. I will go see it again with the rest of my family and from there I will have a better idea of whether I like the movie, not as a version of the book, but just as a fantasy adventure.
I also learned something about film making that has been bugging me for the last couple of months, but that will have to wait for another post.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Truth
I am in the middle of a book entitled The Limitations of Scientific Truth, by Nigel Brush. I initially bought it because it looked from the table of contents like it covered a range of topics that I need to learn more about. I figured it to be a dry read. Not so. The author is a very engaging writer who takes a host of complex philosophical topics and condenses them into a nice package.
One of his points is that modern science has no solid ground for asserting that it finds truth. This is not his opinion, this is the current state of the world. All of the attempts at finding a solid philosophical basis for the scientific method have come up empty. Essentially, the only reason we believe the findings of science is because we choose to believe them.
Philosophy does not fare much better. The last century of philosophical thought has been forced to acknowledge that we cannot evaluate philosophical perspectives by any objective standard. If my belief system differs from yours, no external ruler exists in philosophy to measure them and find which is superior. Basically, if I believe something different than you, it is only because I choose to do so.
The only other source of information available to humans is revelation. Which of course cannot be measured by any external tools, and is therefore accepted or rejected entirely on faith. Now I don't have any problem with that - I know that my decision to accept the teachings of Scripture are first and foremost an act of faith. I have examined them and believe that they are likely correct. Yes, it is true that they work for me (except when they don't seem to), and there is an element of confirmation that I believe God gives to those who choose to follow the truth. But in the end, following the Scriptures is an act of faith.
I just find it very nice to know that science and philosophy are as much faith-based systems as Christianity.
At least we admit it.
One of his points is that modern science has no solid ground for asserting that it finds truth. This is not his opinion, this is the current state of the world. All of the attempts at finding a solid philosophical basis for the scientific method have come up empty. Essentially, the only reason we believe the findings of science is because we choose to believe them.
Philosophy does not fare much better. The last century of philosophical thought has been forced to acknowledge that we cannot evaluate philosophical perspectives by any objective standard. If my belief system differs from yours, no external ruler exists in philosophy to measure them and find which is superior. Basically, if I believe something different than you, it is only because I choose to do so.
The only other source of information available to humans is revelation. Which of course cannot be measured by any external tools, and is therefore accepted or rejected entirely on faith. Now I don't have any problem with that - I know that my decision to accept the teachings of Scripture are first and foremost an act of faith. I have examined them and believe that they are likely correct. Yes, it is true that they work for me (except when they don't seem to), and there is an element of confirmation that I believe God gives to those who choose to follow the truth. But in the end, following the Scriptures is an act of faith.
I just find it very nice to know that science and philosophy are as much faith-based systems as Christianity.
At least we admit it.
Cultural differences
In my post on Forgiveness, I posted an addendum on multiculturalism. One of the follow-up comments put forth the view that one source of contention between cultures is the defensiveness that comes from being the "out," or minority view. The solution then, is for the dominant culture to reach out with support to the minority.
But what if the dominant culture really IS superior? Perhaps its superiority is precisely WHY it is dominant. Is such supportiveness reasonable in this context?
I do not accept the premise that all cultures are equivalent. Does anyone really contend that any human being really believes this? Even the multiculturalists must believe that their view that every culture is of equivalent value is superior to any alternative, parochial view. Humans cannot function absent belief that their perspective is accurate. This is why honest nihilists tend to commit suicide. But you see, if there is a clear difference between my perspective and yours, I am obligated at least to examine them and upon examination to adopt the one that is superior. This is why I blog.
This goes even deeper if there is a reason, moral or otherwise, for the two cultures to conflict. If their perspective are diametrically opposed, then the conflict is likely inevitable. And if they are mutually exclusive, then one or the other must be false and should be abandoned. I believe in the existence of absolute truth, so it is not possible to opposite premises to both be true.
It is, of course, possible for humans to be respectful in spite of their differences. It is one of the foundations on which Western civilization has been built. But if the non-dominant culture picks a fight, even from an understandable defensiveness, then it will be difficult for the dominant culture to sit quietly by and be called names. That is very much where American culture finds itself today.
But what if the dominant culture really IS superior? Perhaps its superiority is precisely WHY it is dominant. Is such supportiveness reasonable in this context?
I do not accept the premise that all cultures are equivalent. Does anyone really contend that any human being really believes this? Even the multiculturalists must believe that their view that every culture is of equivalent value is superior to any alternative, parochial view. Humans cannot function absent belief that their perspective is accurate. This is why honest nihilists tend to commit suicide. But you see, if there is a clear difference between my perspective and yours, I am obligated at least to examine them and upon examination to adopt the one that is superior. This is why I blog.
This goes even deeper if there is a reason, moral or otherwise, for the two cultures to conflict. If their perspective are diametrically opposed, then the conflict is likely inevitable. And if they are mutually exclusive, then one or the other must be false and should be abandoned. I believe in the existence of absolute truth, so it is not possible to opposite premises to both be true.
It is, of course, possible for humans to be respectful in spite of their differences. It is one of the foundations on which Western civilization has been built. But if the non-dominant culture picks a fight, even from an understandable defensiveness, then it will be difficult for the dominant culture to sit quietly by and be called names. That is very much where American culture finds itself today.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Forgiveness
A friend of mine recently posted an interesting article on the subject of forgiveness. This post started as a comment on hers, but grew too large to fit, so I moved it into my blog.
This basic issue revolves around the question of whether society can extend forgiveness to a murderer who has truly repented before being caught (in this case, 9 years after the murder). My friends and I agree that the answer, in short, is "no". I think this is part of what it means for us to have a secular government. Our legal system must deal only with justice, we do not have the wisdom to administer corporate forgiveness.
I think the idea here is that we can only practice morality in our personal lives. In the larger framework of society, we must act on principles. And the principle here is that the guilty must be punished. The validity of this principle is demonstrated consistently throughout history in society after society. What then, are Christians to do with the Christian call to forgiveness? What if the judge, the DA, and all the members of the jury were Christians? Could they let the accused go free?
I still contend that the answer is "no." The Christian morality that calls for forgiveness can only be practiced on a personal, relational level. This is not to say that Christianity has no place in society - clearly our principles are shaped by the morality found within the Bible. It is just that moral acts are inherently personal. You achieve a moral society, not by legislating moral behavior, but by developing moral individuals. It is then incumbent on those individuals to elucidate from their morality and their history the principles that will best govern society. This is basically the pattern outlined by our founding fathers.
Herein lies one of the great benefits of a pluralistic society. In such a society, it is possible to draw from the moral backgrounds of a wide range of cultures to find the principles that have proven most effective in building a stable society. This is so important because humans are notoriously bad at finding the right principles to govern based on their morality. I have asserted this over and over about Christianity, but it is true of every religious tradition; they are notoriously bad at managing secular power. If we could ever learn to stop yelling at each other, we in America might be able to find our way back to the place where we can negotiate our shared principles. But I dream...
This basic issue revolves around the question of whether society can extend forgiveness to a murderer who has truly repented before being caught (in this case, 9 years after the murder). My friends and I agree that the answer, in short, is "no". I think this is part of what it means for us to have a secular government. Our legal system must deal only with justice, we do not have the wisdom to administer corporate forgiveness.
I think the idea here is that we can only practice morality in our personal lives. In the larger framework of society, we must act on principles. And the principle here is that the guilty must be punished. The validity of this principle is demonstrated consistently throughout history in society after society. What then, are Christians to do with the Christian call to forgiveness? What if the judge, the DA, and all the members of the jury were Christians? Could they let the accused go free?
I still contend that the answer is "no." The Christian morality that calls for forgiveness can only be practiced on a personal, relational level. This is not to say that Christianity has no place in society - clearly our principles are shaped by the morality found within the Bible. It is just that moral acts are inherently personal. You achieve a moral society, not by legislating moral behavior, but by developing moral individuals. It is then incumbent on those individuals to elucidate from their morality and their history the principles that will best govern society. This is basically the pattern outlined by our founding fathers.
Herein lies one of the great benefits of a pluralistic society. In such a society, it is possible to draw from the moral backgrounds of a wide range of cultures to find the principles that have proven most effective in building a stable society. This is so important because humans are notoriously bad at finding the right principles to govern based on their morality. I have asserted this over and over about Christianity, but it is true of every religious tradition; they are notoriously bad at managing secular power. If we could ever learn to stop yelling at each other, we in America might be able to find our way back to the place where we can negotiate our shared principles. But I dream...
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Heroes
I have just finished reading Eragon and Eldest, the 2 fantasy novels by Christopher Paolini. While they are billed as children's novels, I found that I really enjoyed them (especially Eragon, Eldest is the second novel in a trilogy, and suffers from all the issues common to such stories). I think one of the reasons I enjoyed them so much is that the hero, the young man named Eragon, is not a flawed hero. He is basically a good person, his only weaknesses are those of youth - he is 15 and 16 in the novels - not of character.
This got me thinking a bit about heroic characters. I can see that we need our heroes to be slightly flawed, both because we are flawed and cannot relate to a perfect hero, and also because so many of these stories involve the redemption of the hero. But popular culture has become so enamored with truly flawed heroes that it is hard to find someone you can really look up to. Perhaps those of you who read my blog can name for me a hero from either print or film in recent years who is at most mildly flawed. If you have read Eragon, can you name a hero like him?
My problem is that when I consume these stories, I find myself wanting a character that I can root for through the good and bad. Someone for whom, when something bad happens, I can feel it is truly unjust. Someone who feels like a redeemer to me, and not just another sinner.
Great stories resonate with us because they mirror the greatest of all stories - redemption. I have grown lately to feel that our culture only tells one side of the story, the side the Greeks told, of the tragic, almost accidental redemption of a flawed hero. But the full story includes the remarkable, miraculous redemption of a flawed world by a hero who suffered tragedy, not because he deserved it, but because He took it for us that we might be redeemed.
Eragon doesn't exactly tell this story, but it is closer than I have seen for a while. It was refreshing.
This got me thinking a bit about heroic characters. I can see that we need our heroes to be slightly flawed, both because we are flawed and cannot relate to a perfect hero, and also because so many of these stories involve the redemption of the hero. But popular culture has become so enamored with truly flawed heroes that it is hard to find someone you can really look up to. Perhaps those of you who read my blog can name for me a hero from either print or film in recent years who is at most mildly flawed. If you have read Eragon, can you name a hero like him?
My problem is that when I consume these stories, I find myself wanting a character that I can root for through the good and bad. Someone for whom, when something bad happens, I can feel it is truly unjust. Someone who feels like a redeemer to me, and not just another sinner.
Great stories resonate with us because they mirror the greatest of all stories - redemption. I have grown lately to feel that our culture only tells one side of the story, the side the Greeks told, of the tragic, almost accidental redemption of a flawed hero. But the full story includes the remarkable, miraculous redemption of a flawed world by a hero who suffered tragedy, not because he deserved it, but because He took it for us that we might be redeemed.
Eragon doesn't exactly tell this story, but it is closer than I have seen for a while. It was refreshing.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
"Christians"
I recently came again across the quote from Ghandi when asked why he never accepted Christ even though he so often quoted Jesus' words. He responded "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ." I have 2 thoughts on this.
First, I have always seen this used to call us Christians to act more like Christ. This is, of course, a valid point. We so often look to impact our culture by beating them into submission, when Jesus' method was to love them. Just love them. Not love them to change them, but just to love them. They often changed, but that wasn't his point. God loves all men, and the more we authentically love men, the more effective we will be in proclaiming Christ.
But second, I think Ghandi was not being honest. Surely he did not apply the principle that all men must unfailingly act on their convictions to those closest to him. In moments of self-honesty, he surely did not even apply this principle to himself. All men fail, and fail consistently, to be who they proclaim themselves to be. Often, we claim to be what we want to be, rather than what we are. We are not being hypocrites, we are being human. I have heard it said that we judge others by their actions but ourselves by our intentions. This is unfair both to us and to others.
But more than that, Ghandi looked only where he wanted to look. Every movement has people whose membership has less to do with adherence to core principles than it does to social or political expediency. But if you look in the places where Jesus spent His time, you will more often than not find the people who are most like Him. Had Ghandi allowed himself to compare those people to the words and message of Christ, he would have had less of an excuse for ultimately rejecting the claims of Christ.
It is my desire to be one of those Christians. Because I don't want to get in the way. But if you are looking at me, or any other person, to reflect Jesus perfectly, stop looking in the wrong place. Look to Jesus, and let Him change you as you surrender yourself to Him, and then you can begin to reflect Him.
First, I have always seen this used to call us Christians to act more like Christ. This is, of course, a valid point. We so often look to impact our culture by beating them into submission, when Jesus' method was to love them. Just love them. Not love them to change them, but just to love them. They often changed, but that wasn't his point. God loves all men, and the more we authentically love men, the more effective we will be in proclaiming Christ.
But second, I think Ghandi was not being honest. Surely he did not apply the principle that all men must unfailingly act on their convictions to those closest to him. In moments of self-honesty, he surely did not even apply this principle to himself. All men fail, and fail consistently, to be who they proclaim themselves to be. Often, we claim to be what we want to be, rather than what we are. We are not being hypocrites, we are being human. I have heard it said that we judge others by their actions but ourselves by our intentions. This is unfair both to us and to others.
But more than that, Ghandi looked only where he wanted to look. Every movement has people whose membership has less to do with adherence to core principles than it does to social or political expediency. But if you look in the places where Jesus spent His time, you will more often than not find the people who are most like Him. Had Ghandi allowed himself to compare those people to the words and message of Christ, he would have had less of an excuse for ultimately rejecting the claims of Christ.
It is my desire to be one of those Christians. Because I don't want to get in the way. But if you are looking at me, or any other person, to reflect Jesus perfectly, stop looking in the wrong place. Look to Jesus, and let Him change you as you surrender yourself to Him, and then you can begin to reflect Him.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Selective Ignorance
I was reading articles on the web instead of doing the work that I needed to do (mostly because what I need to do is tedious and uninteresting), and I came across an article by a similar name written by one of my favorite computer geeks, Andrew Koenig. This guy is almost legendary to programmers like myself, plus he actually writes very lucidly.
Anyways, I come across this article, where he makes the observation that given the choice between haphazard ignorance and selective ignorance, he would choose selective ignorance any time.
As Koenig says, we all practice selective ignorance in real life. Otherwise, we would be overwhelmed by details at every turn. It got me to wondering if sometimes we don't practice intentional ignorance, which is an altogether different thing. Selective ignorance says "I can ignore this issue right now; it is irrelevant to the task at hand." Intentional ignorance says "I don't want to know the truth; I would rather remain comfortably in this place I have always been."
For much of the last couple of years, the Lord has been impressing on me the importance of living life intentionally, rather than accidentally. Given the choice between selective ignorance and haphazard, I'm with Koenig. But given the choice between intentional ignorance and truth...
So I have to be intentional about not being intentionally ignorant. Hmmmm, my head is starting to hurt.
Anyways, I come across this article, where he makes the observation that given the choice between haphazard ignorance and selective ignorance, he would choose selective ignorance any time.
As Koenig says, we all practice selective ignorance in real life. Otherwise, we would be overwhelmed by details at every turn. It got me to wondering if sometimes we don't practice intentional ignorance, which is an altogether different thing. Selective ignorance says "I can ignore this issue right now; it is irrelevant to the task at hand." Intentional ignorance says "I don't want to know the truth; I would rather remain comfortably in this place I have always been."
For much of the last couple of years, the Lord has been impressing on me the importance of living life intentionally, rather than accidentally. Given the choice between selective ignorance and haphazard, I'm with Koenig. But given the choice between intentional ignorance and truth...
So I have to be intentional about not being intentionally ignorant. Hmmmm, my head is starting to hurt.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Youth sports
Both boys had basketball games today. Daniel's was exciting, won by our kids with an 11-0 run at the end of the game. The other team had a 13-year-old that stands 6' 1" and can already play. I expect to hear about him a lot the next 4 years. Daniel covered him for a little over 1/2 a quarter, with the task of just using as much energy as he could to harass the kid. Daniel did a great job.
Michael's game was against a team that they have already played once, and will play again. NYS apparently doesn't have anyone on staff that can schedule a season.
Anyways, the coach of the other team is pretty aggressive. His kids play well, but he is a little irritating on the sidelines. Michael's coach really wanted to beat him, at least in part because of his personality.
Daniel and I kept score, which means that we were just 5-10 feet from him most of the game. I found myself getting irritated with the comments he would make to his kids: "you take it right to them and run over them," "you can take him," other comments, appropriate for older kids, a little much for 10-year-olds. At one point, the coach tells me I got the score wrong, but I hadn't, so I said to him "I got it coach. I got the right score." I admit, I was frustrated with him, but not aggressive. Then, in the third quarter, one of our kids tries to put up a shot and gets nothing on it, so it falls way short, and he says (a little too loudly for my taste) "He's got nothing!" So I turn, and in a very mild tone (as pastoral as I could manage) "You know coach, they're just 10."
Now, I probably should have shut up. Really, I should have. Both coaches were emotional, the head ref was getting more and more irritated with both of them, and I really didn't need to jump in. But I hate to see kids games treated like they actually matter. Sure, the kids like to win, but most of them forget the losses within minutes. They just want to learn to play. And I thought this coach crossed a line.
You should have seen the eruption. There are probably tsunami warnings along the Pacific Rim as a result of it. He starts screaming at the head official, "I want him off the score table!" Over and over again. Fortunately, the head official knows me, and so after explaining very firmly to the coach that he has no intention of acceding to his demands, he walks over and asks me what happened, then offers that perhaps I could refrain from commentary. Which I did.
Happy ending. The coach comes up to me after and apologizes. Very nicely. I accepted his apology, but did not offer one of my own. I don't think I had anything more than bad timing. And I am hoping that the coach takes a moment to reflect.
I will get to find out, we play them again in a couple of weeks. I will remind the official of all that happened, and suggest an up-front approach that might help defuse things.
I intend to keep score.
Michael's game was against a team that they have already played once, and will play again. NYS apparently doesn't have anyone on staff that can schedule a season.
Anyways, the coach of the other team is pretty aggressive. His kids play well, but he is a little irritating on the sidelines. Michael's coach really wanted to beat him, at least in part because of his personality.
Daniel and I kept score, which means that we were just 5-10 feet from him most of the game. I found myself getting irritated with the comments he would make to his kids: "you take it right to them and run over them," "you can take him," other comments, appropriate for older kids, a little much for 10-year-olds. At one point, the coach tells me I got the score wrong, but I hadn't, so I said to him "I got it coach. I got the right score." I admit, I was frustrated with him, but not aggressive. Then, in the third quarter, one of our kids tries to put up a shot and gets nothing on it, so it falls way short, and he says (a little too loudly for my taste) "He's got nothing!" So I turn, and in a very mild tone (as pastoral as I could manage) "You know coach, they're just 10."
Now, I probably should have shut up. Really, I should have. Both coaches were emotional, the head ref was getting more and more irritated with both of them, and I really didn't need to jump in. But I hate to see kids games treated like they actually matter. Sure, the kids like to win, but most of them forget the losses within minutes. They just want to learn to play. And I thought this coach crossed a line.
You should have seen the eruption. There are probably tsunami warnings along the Pacific Rim as a result of it. He starts screaming at the head official, "I want him off the score table!" Over and over again. Fortunately, the head official knows me, and so after explaining very firmly to the coach that he has no intention of acceding to his demands, he walks over and asks me what happened, then offers that perhaps I could refrain from commentary. Which I did.
Happy ending. The coach comes up to me after and apologizes. Very nicely. I accepted his apology, but did not offer one of my own. I don't think I had anything more than bad timing. And I am hoping that the coach takes a moment to reflect.
I will get to find out, we play them again in a couple of weeks. I will remind the official of all that happened, and suggest an up-front approach that might help defuse things.
I intend to keep score.
OSU Michigan
Halftime. 28-14. Wow, I knew that Troy Smith was a good quarterback, but it looks right now like there is nothing Michigan can do to stop him. The commentators are talking about applying pressure, but to watch him play, you figure he will just kill them with 3-5 yards throws.
Of course, this is OSU-Michigan, and there is still a half to go.
Of course, this is OSU-Michigan, and there is still a half to go.
Fame
This will probably surprise no one who knows me, but I occasionally have visions of more than moderate fame (probably why God has not given it to me). But experiences like Rick Warren's with Syria give me another good reason to avoid fame. I am certain he meant well, and had hoped to do something useful, but for all of his wisdom and insight, it appears he was in over his head.
Makes me wonder, Pastor Warren could have used advise from someone more skilled in deception and propaganda than he. Probably shouldn't keep someone like that on retainer, but...
Makes me wonder, Pastor Warren could have used advise from someone more skilled in deception and propaganda than he. Probably shouldn't keep someone like that on retainer, but...
Football - OSU vs. Michigan
I don't think you can ever cease to be either an Ohio State or Michigan fan, at least not on the last Saturday of the regular season when the 2 teams face off once again. Growing up in Ohio, I knew Michigan's fight song better than Ohio State's because we made up insulting lyrics to Michigan's song.
I don't follow OSU as closely as I once did, but today they play as 1 and 2 in the biggest game in college football in several years. I can hardly wait.
I don't follow OSU as closely as I once did, but today they play as 1 and 2 in the biggest game in college football in several years. I can hardly wait.
Coincidences, again
I find the notion of coincidences interesting. If God is truly sovereign and all actions are under His control. then any apparent coincidence is just part of God's all-encompassing plan, right? But what about things like the story Asimov tells relating the discovery of Mercury to the ancient Greek myths of Kronos and Zeus? Surely this qualifies as a coincidence.
But my interest here is of a slightly different sort. I have come to suspect that much of what we call coincidence is nothing more than our perceptions filtered by our expectations. For example, in politics, we will tend to value only the evidence that supports our theory, while discounting as insignificant or of lesser quality those facts that do not support us. Voila! All the evidence is on our side.
This is not supposed to carry over into science, but it does. The truth is that there is very good data that supports a very old universe, and some good evidence that supports a young universe. There are reasons to believe in evolution, and reasons not to. The quantum theory of nature has proven to be extremely effective in predicting the way certain phenomena occur, but still has some maddening implications that are so counter-intuitive as to leave one scratching one's head (assuming your brain hasn't exploded from trying to think about it). There are reasons to believe in global warming, and there are reasons to think it is all bad extrapolation from insufficient measurements.
So where does that leave us? I think we have to listen to those who disagree with us. Even as believers, we need to hear from those who do not believe; not because they can inform our understanding of God's revelation, but because they can help us to understand how someone else might perceive His revelation, and we can more effectively communicate.
Strange, this has nothing to do with coincidences. That will have to be for another post.
But my interest here is of a slightly different sort. I have come to suspect that much of what we call coincidence is nothing more than our perceptions filtered by our expectations. For example, in politics, we will tend to value only the evidence that supports our theory, while discounting as insignificant or of lesser quality those facts that do not support us. Voila! All the evidence is on our side.
This is not supposed to carry over into science, but it does. The truth is that there is very good data that supports a very old universe, and some good evidence that supports a young universe. There are reasons to believe in evolution, and reasons not to. The quantum theory of nature has proven to be extremely effective in predicting the way certain phenomena occur, but still has some maddening implications that are so counter-intuitive as to leave one scratching one's head (assuming your brain hasn't exploded from trying to think about it). There are reasons to believe in global warming, and there are reasons to think it is all bad extrapolation from insufficient measurements.
So where does that leave us? I think we have to listen to those who disagree with us. Even as believers, we need to hear from those who do not believe; not because they can inform our understanding of God's revelation, but because they can help us to understand how someone else might perceive His revelation, and we can more effectively communicate.
Strange, this has nothing to do with coincidences. That will have to be for another post.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Haggard clarified
My original post about the Ted Haggard scandal was meant to address only the issue of how we might initially react to the news. It intentionally said nothing about how the process might proceed. A number of people have asked me informally about this, and then one person made some very good comments on the subject, to I thought I would take the chance to say some of the unsaid things.
There is clearly a need for some time in this process. The hurts that he himself is dealing with, along with those of the members of his family, congregation, and the community that he impacts, all require time and space for healing. While in some circumstances the healing process might proceed while the man remains in the pulpit, it is almost certainly not the case here. So time away from the pulpit is probably necessary, not because he cannot minister at this time, but because he (and everyone else) cannot heal should he remain in the pulpit at this time.
I am less comfortable with the notion that this sin "disqualifies" him from the pulpit at this time. This is a big deal, and has wide-ranging consequences, some of which certainly make pulpit ministry very difficult. These things conspire to make the pulpit unavailable to him, so I guess in a way he is currently disqualified. But I say this with many caveats. I think we cannot allow ourselves ever to forget the we do not minister out of our purity, but in the embrace of the grace of God in the midst of our sin. It is not our purity, but His mercy, that qualifies us for the work of the Kingdom.
Still, it would seem to me that it is best for everyone that he not be in the pulpit right now. I just wonder what will happen when the time comes (should it ever some) that he prepares to re-enter the pulpit.
There is clearly a need for some time in this process. The hurts that he himself is dealing with, along with those of the members of his family, congregation, and the community that he impacts, all require time and space for healing. While in some circumstances the healing process might proceed while the man remains in the pulpit, it is almost certainly not the case here. So time away from the pulpit is probably necessary, not because he cannot minister at this time, but because he (and everyone else) cannot heal should he remain in the pulpit at this time.
I am less comfortable with the notion that this sin "disqualifies" him from the pulpit at this time. This is a big deal, and has wide-ranging consequences, some of which certainly make pulpit ministry very difficult. These things conspire to make the pulpit unavailable to him, so I guess in a way he is currently disqualified. But I say this with many caveats. I think we cannot allow ourselves ever to forget the we do not minister out of our purity, but in the embrace of the grace of God in the midst of our sin. It is not our purity, but His mercy, that qualifies us for the work of the Kingdom.
Still, it would seem to me that it is best for everyone that he not be in the pulpit right now. I just wonder what will happen when the time comes (should it ever some) that he prepares to re-enter the pulpit.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Lessons from Sudoku
Now, I do not work Sudoku puzzles as a hobby. I do not need one more thing to take up my time any more than I need (as my parents used to say) a hole in my head. But I will work a puzzle if I have some time, like I did on the airplane coming back from Sacramento.
Because I do not work the puzzles regularly, even the easiest puzzles are hard for me. I generally figure out all the possibilities for a collection of squares, and then use logic to deduce the actual values. Yesterday, I did this for a while when it occurred to me that I might instead figure out what I needed in a particular row, column, or square, and from there figure out where each of those needs could be placed.
The result was remarkable. I finished the puzzle I was working on in a matter of minutes (after spending 30-40 up to that point) and moved through the next puzzle (which was supposed to be harder) almost effortlessly. Trust me when I tell you that I have never worked a puzzle so quickly.
And I got to thinking. I do this in my own life a lot. I spend a lot of energy investigating all the options, rather than just figuring out what I need and how best to achieve those things. There are, most of the time, just too many possibilities, but very few needs. Jesus said something like that to Martha.
I haven't worked any more Sudokus (I'm back to my real life now), so the approach may not always work. Just like it won't always work in my life. But it can work, and that's enough for right now.
Because I do not work the puzzles regularly, even the easiest puzzles are hard for me. I generally figure out all the possibilities for a collection of squares, and then use logic to deduce the actual values. Yesterday, I did this for a while when it occurred to me that I might instead figure out what I needed in a particular row, column, or square, and from there figure out where each of those needs could be placed.
The result was remarkable. I finished the puzzle I was working on in a matter of minutes (after spending 30-40 up to that point) and moved through the next puzzle (which was supposed to be harder) almost effortlessly. Trust me when I tell you that I have never worked a puzzle so quickly.
And I got to thinking. I do this in my own life a lot. I spend a lot of energy investigating all the options, rather than just figuring out what I need and how best to achieve those things. There are, most of the time, just too many possibilities, but very few needs. Jesus said something like that to Martha.
I haven't worked any more Sudokus (I'm back to my real life now), so the approach may not always work. Just like it won't always work in my life. But it can work, and that's enough for right now.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Change for change's sake
If you know me, you know that I am a pretty staunch fiscal conservative, holding that markets are reasonably efficient and can be trusted to respond not only to financial but even social pressures without the need for governmental interference. I believe that governmental agencies move much more slowly than most markets, so relying on government to push social change is much less effective in general than relying on markets.
I am also an environmental skeptic, taking nearly all the current furor over environmental damage with more than a little salt, figuring that we know way less than anyone is willing to admit about these things, and that many of the suggestions being tossed around are both unlikely to really be effective, and unlikely to be ultimately implemented because of long-term cost. Besides, the progress already being made in this country by industry responding to social pressure is much greater than the prophets of doom are willing to admit (notice I can say all these things without any documentation -- isn't the web wonderful!!!).
All that being said, I am wondering if there might not be some benefit that may come from the current changes in Washington. A recent issue of Scientific American (September 2006) is devoted entirely to climate change, CO2 emissions in particular. And it got me to thinking that there might be some good ideas out there that aren't being considered right now because of core philosophy. And maybe a change in philosophy might open the door for one or two of these good ideas to be tried. This is where the slow pace of governmental movement become a benefit. There is no way all the weird ideas of the environmental left will be able to be implemented, which is fine with me. But this change will let us at least toss some new ideas out and see if any stick. Only a fool would believe that there are no good ideas out there from the left, just like only a fool would believe that there are no good ideas out there from the right. Our presuppositions and filters keep us from seeing even the plainest of truths at times.
So it should be fun. Hopefully, some good things will happen. We will see.
I am also an environmental skeptic, taking nearly all the current furor over environmental damage with more than a little salt, figuring that we know way less than anyone is willing to admit about these things, and that many of the suggestions being tossed around are both unlikely to really be effective, and unlikely to be ultimately implemented because of long-term cost. Besides, the progress already being made in this country by industry responding to social pressure is much greater than the prophets of doom are willing to admit (notice I can say all these things without any documentation -- isn't the web wonderful!!!).
All that being said, I am wondering if there might not be some benefit that may come from the current changes in Washington. A recent issue of Scientific American (September 2006) is devoted entirely to climate change, CO2 emissions in particular. And it got me to thinking that there might be some good ideas out there that aren't being considered right now because of core philosophy. And maybe a change in philosophy might open the door for one or two of these good ideas to be tried. This is where the slow pace of governmental movement become a benefit. There is no way all the weird ideas of the environmental left will be able to be implemented, which is fine with me. But this change will let us at least toss some new ideas out and see if any stick. Only a fool would believe that there are no good ideas out there from the left, just like only a fool would believe that there are no good ideas out there from the right. Our presuppositions and filters keep us from seeing even the plainest of truths at times.
So it should be fun. Hopefully, some good things will happen. We will see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
