I was happy to note recently during my travels through the book of I Samuel that "trash-talking" has been around for quite awhile.
I further learned that talking trash is not only okay for Christians to do - but also that some of the saints of old were masters at the art.
This ageless practice is found often in the world of sports - do you remember Muhammad Ali and how he used to psych out his opponent with trash-talk?
"..Float like a butterfly; sting like a bee ..."
I remember trash-talk in the circle of world events back in the early nineties. The late Sadaam Husseun said something about the "mother of all wars" if we didn't watch out. That mother of all wars - that was a good one.
I think it was Kruschev that slapped his shoe on the table and proclaimed that they (former Soviet Union) would "bury" the United States.
In I Samuel 17, the Israelites found themselves pitted against a "trash-talker" of Biblical proportion! But he met his match in a youth of a boy - who proved that his trash-talk wasn't just talk.
Goliath. His name would forever be engraved in the hearts and minds of people when they think of "large and imposing".
King Saul was having a problem. This Goliath fellow was ruining the morale of his troops. A couple of times a day, this giant would come out and talk trash.
You know the story ... well if you don't, then go find it cause it can really shape your thinking about big enemies and how they threaten.
David, the guy not quite big enough to leave the family farm yet, took on this giant with only a shepherd's sling, some stones and the power of God Almighty!
The last bit of trash talking was quite a thing to see:
"Am I a dog?! that you send little boys to me with sticks?!"
and the Philistine cursed David by his gods.
"Come, boy, and I will feed your flesh to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field!"
David, in a matter-of-fact manner, put the event in proper perspective ... "You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a shield; but I come to you in the name of the Lord of Host! - the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied!"
Then ole' David - laid down some trash....
"Today."
"This day... the Lord will deliver you into my hands...
...and I will smite thee (you gotta' love that King James!!)...
...and I will remove your head...
...and then I will feed the carcases of the entire Philistine host to the birds and the wild beasts...
That all may know that there is a God in Israel."
It was not empty words as the rest of the story will prove. God backed him up.
Trash-Talking is fun when you can back it up.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Amy Grant and Legalism vs. License
This is my second attempt at putting this post online, and I have written it in my mind numerous times over the past few days.
I read a post on one of my favorite blogs the other day: it was Jon Acuff's "Stuff Christians Like", his Thursday post really pushed my buttons. Therefore I am going to address it here; you may want to stop over and read it before reading the remainder of this post, it's called "#586 Not Forgiving Amy Grant Nearly Fast Enough".
I have liked Amy Grant since I discovered her music in the early eighties - I think contemporary Christian music owes alot to her.
When her popularity reached a peak among Christian audiences, she seemed to begin to insert more and more "cross-over" music into her work. Crossover music plays well on Christian radio as well as Top 40 radio.
Her overt references to a relationship with Jesus became less and less, opting instead for good "positive" music with references that could be applied to any loving relationship.
I think Amy Grant walked away from Christian music and hasn't shown any serious signs of wanting to come back.
But that is not the point of my contention.
I think it is time to address this subject of judgmentalism. Jon in his characteristic sarcasm (which is why I love to read his posts) says that he did not burn Amy's CD's; instead he put them in his "judging box" until he decides what to do with them.
I would like to point out that in the ranks of western Christianity there are two camps that occupy equal and opposite ends of the spectrum.
Both notions are wrong.
On the one end we have legalism, judgmentalism and other hypocritical and sometimes "Pharisaical" mindsets. This line of thinking gives Christians a bad name these days. It is how we are portrayed in the media: in fact I would say you could count on one hand, the number of serial killers and rapists that are portrayed in the American entertainment industry - that were not whacked out because of some over-bearing "Christian" or else they rely on some extreme "Christian" zeal to justify their misdeeds.
Judging others is - in most cases - wrong. It is sin.
The problem is that folks that occupy that end of the spectrum are easy prey to all who oppose Christianity; and yet they also find themselves "piled onto" by much of the Christian segment of the population. So they seem to have enemies everywhere.
That makes for a very lonely state.
Paul found it necessary to lash out against this kind of legalism. In an instance recorded in Galatians 2, he saw his colleague, Simon Peter leaning toward legalism and called him on it. Peter's visionary encounter with God in the early days of the Church had led to the realization that the Kingdom of God would be made up of not only Jews, but also non-Jews.
Peter was adapting to this new realization by fellowshiping with non-Jews and even eating with them (this was forbidden under strict Jewish law). On one occasion, Paul saw Peter eating with non-Jews - but when some of his old-school friends entered the room, Peter quickly separated himself from the non-Jews in old-school fashion.
Paul saw this as legalism and "withstood Peter" to his face. We would say he "got up in his face".
But wasn't Paul judging Peter?
And Jesus, when He spoke out against the hypocrisy of the "Scribes and Pharisees" wasn't He judging their actions?
These questions bring us to the other side of the spectrum: on that end is the opposite of legalism, it is the camp of license.
That is the "pretty-much-anything-goes-as-long-as-it's-done-in-love" crowd.
As I have said, it is popular in America these days to pounce on traditionalism and legalism, but 35 or 50 years ago, I would say that it was the license camp that was getting trounced. People in general took a harsh view of sin and compromise.
Unwed mothers were deemed a stigma to society. Divorce, promiscuity, substance abuse, homosexuality, all these issues were dealt with in a harsh fashion by the society as a whole.
As a society, we deal with these issues differently now - and some of that is very good.
But in some ways, we may have gone too far.
Again, Jesus was pretty harsh when He lashed out against the practices of the Scribes and Pharisees... He did not follow up His rebukes with any cushioning statements like - "...but I understand how you feel - I find myself mistreating people at times..." that would be ridiculous.
Yet it is not unusual for us to try and soften any of our references to sin by pointing out that we are no different.
But we are called to be different. In our effort to become more engaging, non-confrontational and "conversational"... we are at risk of becoming no different from the world.
Paul also dealt with the issue of license in a church setting. In 1st Corinthians 5, Paul addressed an issue that had arisen in the church. Apparently there was an inappropriate relationship going on between a man and his step-mother. And it seems, that this church was very "open-minded" and "tolerant" toward this behavior.
Paul counseled them to deal in a fairly harsh manner with these folks - cutting off all fellowship with them until they realized their need for repentance.
Was Paul being judgmental?
Of course he was being judgmental, but it was called for in this case.
I am reading Jerry Bridges', "Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate" (NAVPRESS 2007), and he has a chapter on "Judgmentalism" which is helping to straighten out some of my thinking on this matter.
He talks about judging based on Biblical mandates and judging based on our own personal convictions without the backing of sound Biblical arguments: perhaps that is where we should draw the line on when judging is called for and when it is wrong.
As far as Amy Grant is concerned. Maybe we Christians should welcome her back but how would she know that we had? What would be our sign to her that it was okay for her to pour her creative energies back into the Christian market?
For that matter - where is the public outcry for Christians to forgive Jimmy Swaggart?
My guess is that Swaggart and Amy Grant came from opposite ends of that aforementioned spectrum. So we should welcome Amy but Swaggart can just flail away in the wind.
God calls us to balance; not compromise - but to look at things through the prism of His love and His sovereignty.
Jerry Bridges recommended a reading of Romans 14 and in that chapter, Paul reminds us that we should follow the things which make for peace...
Peace among the folks that occupy the kingdom of God. We can better attain that when we remember that God is the Master and to his own Master each one of us stands or falls.
When we follow the things that make for peace among us - don't you think we will look very different to the world.
Don't you think that difference will be compelling?
I read a post on one of my favorite blogs the other day: it was Jon Acuff's "Stuff Christians Like", his Thursday post really pushed my buttons. Therefore I am going to address it here; you may want to stop over and read it before reading the remainder of this post, it's called "#586 Not Forgiving Amy Grant Nearly Fast Enough".
I have liked Amy Grant since I discovered her music in the early eighties - I think contemporary Christian music owes alot to her.
When her popularity reached a peak among Christian audiences, she seemed to begin to insert more and more "cross-over" music into her work. Crossover music plays well on Christian radio as well as Top 40 radio.
Her overt references to a relationship with Jesus became less and less, opting instead for good "positive" music with references that could be applied to any loving relationship.
I think Amy Grant walked away from Christian music and hasn't shown any serious signs of wanting to come back.
But that is not the point of my contention.
I think it is time to address this subject of judgmentalism. Jon in his characteristic sarcasm (which is why I love to read his posts) says that he did not burn Amy's CD's; instead he put them in his "judging box" until he decides what to do with them.
I would like to point out that in the ranks of western Christianity there are two camps that occupy equal and opposite ends of the spectrum.
Both notions are wrong.
On the one end we have legalism, judgmentalism and other hypocritical and sometimes "Pharisaical" mindsets. This line of thinking gives Christians a bad name these days. It is how we are portrayed in the media: in fact I would say you could count on one hand, the number of serial killers and rapists that are portrayed in the American entertainment industry - that were not whacked out because of some over-bearing "Christian" or else they rely on some extreme "Christian" zeal to justify their misdeeds.
Judging others is - in most cases - wrong. It is sin.
The problem is that folks that occupy that end of the spectrum are easy prey to all who oppose Christianity; and yet they also find themselves "piled onto" by much of the Christian segment of the population. So they seem to have enemies everywhere.
That makes for a very lonely state.
Paul found it necessary to lash out against this kind of legalism. In an instance recorded in Galatians 2, he saw his colleague, Simon Peter leaning toward legalism and called him on it. Peter's visionary encounter with God in the early days of the Church had led to the realization that the Kingdom of God would be made up of not only Jews, but also non-Jews.
Peter was adapting to this new realization by fellowshiping with non-Jews and even eating with them (this was forbidden under strict Jewish law). On one occasion, Paul saw Peter eating with non-Jews - but when some of his old-school friends entered the room, Peter quickly separated himself from the non-Jews in old-school fashion.
Paul saw this as legalism and "withstood Peter" to his face. We would say he "got up in his face".
But wasn't Paul judging Peter?
And Jesus, when He spoke out against the hypocrisy of the "Scribes and Pharisees" wasn't He judging their actions?
These questions bring us to the other side of the spectrum: on that end is the opposite of legalism, it is the camp of license.
That is the "pretty-much-anything-goes-as-long-as-it's-done-in-love" crowd.
As I have said, it is popular in America these days to pounce on traditionalism and legalism, but 35 or 50 years ago, I would say that it was the license camp that was getting trounced. People in general took a harsh view of sin and compromise.
Unwed mothers were deemed a stigma to society. Divorce, promiscuity, substance abuse, homosexuality, all these issues were dealt with in a harsh fashion by the society as a whole.
As a society, we deal with these issues differently now - and some of that is very good.
But in some ways, we may have gone too far.
Again, Jesus was pretty harsh when He lashed out against the practices of the Scribes and Pharisees... He did not follow up His rebukes with any cushioning statements like - "...but I understand how you feel - I find myself mistreating people at times..." that would be ridiculous.
Yet it is not unusual for us to try and soften any of our references to sin by pointing out that we are no different.
But we are called to be different. In our effort to become more engaging, non-confrontational and "conversational"... we are at risk of becoming no different from the world.
Paul also dealt with the issue of license in a church setting. In 1st Corinthians 5, Paul addressed an issue that had arisen in the church. Apparently there was an inappropriate relationship going on between a man and his step-mother. And it seems, that this church was very "open-minded" and "tolerant" toward this behavior.
Paul counseled them to deal in a fairly harsh manner with these folks - cutting off all fellowship with them until they realized their need for repentance.
Was Paul being judgmental?
Of course he was being judgmental, but it was called for in this case.
I am reading Jerry Bridges', "Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate" (NAVPRESS 2007), and he has a chapter on "Judgmentalism" which is helping to straighten out some of my thinking on this matter.
He talks about judging based on Biblical mandates and judging based on our own personal convictions without the backing of sound Biblical arguments: perhaps that is where we should draw the line on when judging is called for and when it is wrong.
As far as Amy Grant is concerned. Maybe we Christians should welcome her back but how would she know that we had? What would be our sign to her that it was okay for her to pour her creative energies back into the Christian market?
For that matter - where is the public outcry for Christians to forgive Jimmy Swaggart?
My guess is that Swaggart and Amy Grant came from opposite ends of that aforementioned spectrum. So we should welcome Amy but Swaggart can just flail away in the wind.
God calls us to balance; not compromise - but to look at things through the prism of His love and His sovereignty.
Jerry Bridges recommended a reading of Romans 14 and in that chapter, Paul reminds us that we should follow the things which make for peace...
Peace among the folks that occupy the kingdom of God. We can better attain that when we remember that God is the Master and to his own Master each one of us stands or falls.
When we follow the things that make for peace among us - don't you think we will look very different to the world.
Don't you think that difference will be compelling?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Health Care Reform - Ha!
I have written my Senator regarding health care reform.
I haven't contacted my Representative in the House, because I trust him to do the right thing.
My Senator, a Republican, voted for TARP last year and started us down this road.
It is exciting to see a few brave souls stand against the tide. This week Senator Carnahan, Democrat of Missouri, was literally laughed at by the crowd in his town hall meeting when he said that the health care reform bill would even possibly bring about a BUDGET SURPLUS!?!?
Fox News' Neil Cavuto interviewed Robert Broadus of Maryland confronted Senator Ben King - Democrat from Maryland over healthcare reform.
Broadus chooses not to carry healthcare coverage now, because he lost his job and had to take a lesser paying position. Broadus' voice grew passionate as he questioned "you are going to tell me I have to pay a fine of $2500 a year!?"
It is fun to watch these representatives squirm in their home districts.
But perhaps they are to be pitied what with having to face the angry citizenry in their home districts and then they get back to Washington and have Rahm Emmanuel and his storm troopers intimidate them into supporting whatever new legislation the White House has decided it will force upon this great nation.
If I can contribute my 2 cents worth ... Health care is simple: we do our best to maintain our health, if we get sick we get help; those services cost money and so we pay for it.
I keep hearing how health care reform is such a "complicated" business... so complicated that our legislators and our own President haven't bothered to read it.
If it is complicated now - and it is - it is because the government is involved.
Look at it closely - everything that is goofy and complicated about health care is because of government involvement.
Now to fix that, Washington wants to apply the same solution that they have tried for 50 years - more government involvement.
It never has worked.
It never will.
I haven't contacted my Representative in the House, because I trust him to do the right thing.
My Senator, a Republican, voted for TARP last year and started us down this road.
It is exciting to see a few brave souls stand against the tide. This week Senator Carnahan, Democrat of Missouri, was literally laughed at by the crowd in his town hall meeting when he said that the health care reform bill would even possibly bring about a BUDGET SURPLUS!?!?
Fox News' Neil Cavuto interviewed Robert Broadus of Maryland confronted Senator Ben King - Democrat from Maryland over healthcare reform.
Broadus chooses not to carry healthcare coverage now, because he lost his job and had to take a lesser paying position. Broadus' voice grew passionate as he questioned "you are going to tell me I have to pay a fine of $2500 a year!?"
It is fun to watch these representatives squirm in their home districts.
But perhaps they are to be pitied what with having to face the angry citizenry in their home districts and then they get back to Washington and have Rahm Emmanuel and his storm troopers intimidate them into supporting whatever new legislation the White House has decided it will force upon this great nation.
If I can contribute my 2 cents worth ... Health care is simple: we do our best to maintain our health, if we get sick we get help; those services cost money and so we pay for it.
I keep hearing how health care reform is such a "complicated" business... so complicated that our legislators and our own President haven't bothered to read it.
If it is complicated now - and it is - it is because the government is involved.
Look at it closely - everything that is goofy and complicated about health care is because of government involvement.
Now to fix that, Washington wants to apply the same solution that they have tried for 50 years - more government involvement.
It never has worked.
It never will.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Moon Shot
I wanted to write a post about the Apollo 11Moon Landing last night but just didn't have the energy.
It's been thirty years but I remember some things about that summer quite well.
My best friend, Steve - who was more advanced than I in Science and Current Events - somehow sparked my interest in the Apollo mission. Steve knew all about the previous missions, even the Gemini Project.
We commemorated the endeavour the way we commemorated most trends of that day - by pretending we were participating (I never liked to call it "pretending" - preferred to say "play-like"; pretend always sounded too effeminate).
Steve and I built our Lunar Module and the Command Module out of lawn chairs:
It's been thirty years but I remember some things about that summer quite well.
My best friend, Steve - who was more advanced than I in Science and Current Events - somehow sparked my interest in the Apollo mission. Steve knew all about the previous missions, even the Gemini Project.
We commemorated the endeavour the way we commemorated most trends of that day - by pretending we were participating (I never liked to call it "pretending" - preferred to say "play-like"; pretend always sounded too effeminate).
Steve and I built our Lunar Module and the Command Module out of lawn chairs:
We started out the first morning at my house, we stacked a couple of lawn chairs on top of each other in my carport and climbed inside. In the afternoon we might move to my closet which was very dark, as we were orbiting around the dark side of the moon.
We had an alternate set up at his house and every day, the first order of business was to rebuild the command module - it was different every time.
I seem to recall that Steve got to be "Neil Armstrong" and I had to be second-fiddle - Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin (even though Steve's haircut more closely resembled Aldrin's). Neither of us wanted to be Michael Collins - the unsung hero who kept everything going in the Command Module while Armstrong and Aldrin were lolly-gagging on the moon.
I remember the excitement of those days. Both Steve and I had collected a couple of official moon maps. These were large folding maps that our bank was giving away (I still have one). We noted the Sea of Tranquility on the map - that's where the LM (Lunar Module) was supposed to land.
I also had a 45RPM record that the local A & P Grocer was distributing. It offered segments from Kennedy's "We Choose to Go to the Moon!" speech along with other inspiring features about this national response to his challenge.
There were commemorative items everywhere, one could purchase a LM Model Kit for only 10 cents. I remember seeing the ad often in those days, "Lunar Module Model Only 10 Cents!" -so I clipped the coupon and mailed it in along with my dime.
I think I was under the impression that it could possibly something near life-size; it was instead a small plastice model - much like the model cars of that day. I never was very good at putting models together but I did get that Lunar Landing Module put together in some fashion. Some time later, I was surprised to receive another package in the mail - this one was much larger than the one containing the LM. I opened it to find two booklets about space exploration!
WOW!
Thanks to the wisdom of my Dad, I soon learned that the books were the first of many that I would receive at a charge. The ten cent plastic model was the bait to get me into some "Space-Book-of-the-Month" club; Dad paid - I believe it was seven dollars - for the two books I had already opened and sent a letter stopping the books. Fortunately, I had helped him wash his car and he let that count toward the cost of the books. This was an early lesson in: "if it sounds too good to be true - it probably is".
Dad purchased our first RCA color TV so we could watch the Apollo 11 lift off in living color. That was quite an experience!
On the night of the moonwalk, we had been to a mid-week church service (ours were on Tuesday nights) and rushed home to watch on television. If I recall correctly, there were thunderstorms and the power was off for a time - but the astronauts were experiencing delays as well. The power returned in time for us to see Neil Armstrong edging out of the hatch and onto the ladder to descend to the surface of the moon.
In 1969 there was a great deal of turmoil in the country: student protests, the Vietnam War, Nixon in the White House, the rise of the drug culture ...
In the middle of all that, some clean-cut, wholesome American heroes briefly burst on the scene atop a Saturn V rocket. And rode that rocket to the resolution of a dream whose seed was planted almost a decade before.
The moon shot was a pleasant diversion from all the turmoil.
"But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon.
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things,
not because they are easy, but because they are hard,
because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. "
Rice University,
September 12, 1962
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Love is Spelled T-i-m-e
I hope you will take a few minutes to view the video that follows in the next post.
(pause the music player so as to hear it)
I haven't talked much about my Dad lately, his physical condition is about the same as it has been for the past 7 or 8 months, but his mental capacities seem to be diminishing more.
He has been prone for that past two or three years to tell the same stories over and over; now however, he will finish a familiar account - pause to clarify something about the story - and launch right into telling the story over again.
One of the stories he tells ( and I've heard this one throughout my life) is about a particular day when it was too wet to work in the garden. For family members who read this, some of the details may not be accurate since the nuances of the story change with each re-telling.
My Dad was one of ten children. Their family farmed vegetables and cotton and their father - my Granddad - was a preacher. Like the Methodist Circuit Riders of old, my grandfather seldom Pastored a single church; instead he traveled the countryside throughout the southeastern United States, preaching where ever he could get a hearing and staying in the homes of people that were moved with kindness.
This meant that he was away from home a great deal and the children were expected to keep the farm going in his absence.
One summer day, it was too wet to plow or otherwise work the garden. The boys were sent out to hoe the weeds in the cotton. They struggled awhile and finally Howard said it was too wet - he was going home. With that, one of the elder brothers, Finney, replied that if Howard - or "Hy-Bo" as they called him- wasn't going to work, they would all quit.
On that day, their father (who happened to be home) declared a holiday of sorts. According to Dad, he borrowed Arthur Johnson's stake-bodied truck (a "stake-bodied" truck has tall sides that allow one to stack up more cargo), and loaded everyone up for a trip to Grant Park in Atlanta.
Dad says that they packed buttered biscuits in a flour sack and his father stopped and bought some coconut bon-bon's - that was their lunch.
They had a grand time.
I wondered: why would a day like that stick with a man for 65 to 70 years?
What would be so compelling about that experience, that it would stay in his mind when so many other significant events had become cloudy?
My mother-in-law passed along to me something this week that she had heard a preached talk about. Now in his twilight years, the minister had thought about what he would do differently with his children - if he had it to do over again.
He said he would be silly more. He would do more crazy things.
This summer, our children seem to be more than capable of supplying their own silliness in excessive amounts. While I have noticed myself responding more and more in a grumpy fashion. I have thought about that little anecdote my mother-in-law passed along many times.
I suspect that halting the work on a farm and buying coconut bon-bons in the 1930's or early 1940's would have been considered a silly thing to do. But for some reason, my Granddad chose to spend that time in such a manner.
And the legacy of the love from that one day still lives on in the stories and memories of a old man.
Am I making memories today with my family that will last anywhere near that long?
(pause the music player so as to hear it)
I haven't talked much about my Dad lately, his physical condition is about the same as it has been for the past 7 or 8 months, but his mental capacities seem to be diminishing more.
He has been prone for that past two or three years to tell the same stories over and over; now however, he will finish a familiar account - pause to clarify something about the story - and launch right into telling the story over again.
One of the stories he tells ( and I've heard this one throughout my life) is about a particular day when it was too wet to work in the garden. For family members who read this, some of the details may not be accurate since the nuances of the story change with each re-telling.
My Dad was one of ten children. Their family farmed vegetables and cotton and their father - my Granddad - was a preacher. Like the Methodist Circuit Riders of old, my grandfather seldom Pastored a single church; instead he traveled the countryside throughout the southeastern United States, preaching where ever he could get a hearing and staying in the homes of people that were moved with kindness.
This meant that he was away from home a great deal and the children were expected to keep the farm going in his absence.
One summer day, it was too wet to plow or otherwise work the garden. The boys were sent out to hoe the weeds in the cotton. They struggled awhile and finally Howard said it was too wet - he was going home. With that, one of the elder brothers, Finney, replied that if Howard - or "Hy-Bo" as they called him- wasn't going to work, they would all quit.
On that day, their father (who happened to be home) declared a holiday of sorts. According to Dad, he borrowed Arthur Johnson's stake-bodied truck (a "stake-bodied" truck has tall sides that allow one to stack up more cargo), and loaded everyone up for a trip to Grant Park in Atlanta.
Dad says that they packed buttered biscuits in a flour sack and his father stopped and bought some coconut bon-bon's - that was their lunch.
They had a grand time.
I wondered: why would a day like that stick with a man for 65 to 70 years?
What would be so compelling about that experience, that it would stay in his mind when so many other significant events had become cloudy?
My mother-in-law passed along to me something this week that she had heard a preached talk about. Now in his twilight years, the minister had thought about what he would do differently with his children - if he had it to do over again.
He said he would be silly more. He would do more crazy things.
This summer, our children seem to be more than capable of supplying their own silliness in excessive amounts. While I have noticed myself responding more and more in a grumpy fashion. I have thought about that little anecdote my mother-in-law passed along many times.
I suspect that halting the work on a farm and buying coconut bon-bons in the 1930's or early 1940's would have been considered a silly thing to do. But for some reason, my Granddad chose to spend that time in such a manner.
And the legacy of the love from that one day still lives on in the stories and memories of a old man.
Am I making memories today with my family that will last anywhere near that long?
To a Child, Love is Spelled T-I-M-E - An Inspirational Movie
Listening to my Dad during my visit yesterday, I was reminded of this video. You can read more about my thoughts in the accompanying post.
You can find out more about the video on www.simpletruths.com
A Bug in the Ear
I have spent about 13 years in the Human Resources field and during most of that time I have been involved primarily in recruiting. In this line of work, it is not unusual for people to "put a bug in my ear" regarding some job candidate. Usually they want to recommend someone for a particular job.
This week I heard Crawford Loritts of Living a Legacy, mention the idea of a transfer of credibility when we endorse someone else.
This line of thinking set up my mind to be ready to notice something while reading I Samuel 16: in this chapter, God began to transfer the kingdom of Israel from King Saul to David. The actual transfer of power didn't take place for years.
You may remember that God provided numerous opportunities for David to learn about how to run an administration and how to conduct himself in battle - prior to his actually assuming those duties.
David owed one of those opportunities to a recommendation from someone in a seemingly insignificant position - a servant of the king.
In 1st Samuel 16:14-20 you'll find the story of how one of Saul's servants recommended that one solution to Saul's recurring depression (or oppression) was to requisition someone that was handy with a harp. The musician could play some soothing licks on the harp and calm Saul's rattled nerves.
Saul said, "make it happen."
The servant said he knew just the man to do it: little David.
Here is the principle at work:
God often employs the seemingly insignificant in specifically strategic roles to bring about His great plan.
David owed this opportunity to serve the king and eventually to become the king's armor-bearer - all to a seemingly offhand suggestion from a servant.
What role do you play now that seems insignificant - mundane?
Do you ever feel that you are insignificant?
If you are concerned about your prominence in the Kingdom of God, let me give you some other examples of lackluster roles that turned out to be highly important:
This week I heard Crawford Loritts of Living a Legacy, mention the idea of a transfer of credibility when we endorse someone else.
This line of thinking set up my mind to be ready to notice something while reading I Samuel 16: in this chapter, God began to transfer the kingdom of Israel from King Saul to David. The actual transfer of power didn't take place for years.
You may remember that God provided numerous opportunities for David to learn about how to run an administration and how to conduct himself in battle - prior to his actually assuming those duties.
David owed one of those opportunities to a recommendation from someone in a seemingly insignificant position - a servant of the king.
In 1st Samuel 16:14-20 you'll find the story of how one of Saul's servants recommended that one solution to Saul's recurring depression (or oppression) was to requisition someone that was handy with a harp. The musician could play some soothing licks on the harp and calm Saul's rattled nerves.
Saul said, "make it happen."
The servant said he knew just the man to do it: little David.
Here is the principle at work:
God often employs the seemingly insignificant in specifically strategic roles to bring about His great plan.
David owed this opportunity to serve the king and eventually to become the king's armor-bearer - all to a seemingly offhand suggestion from a servant.
What role do you play now that seems insignificant - mundane?
Do you ever feel that you are insignificant?
If you are concerned about your prominence in the Kingdom of God, let me give you some other examples of lackluster roles that turned out to be highly important:
- a servant, exiled from his homeland and forced to serve as the capturing king's cup-bearer, Nehemiah became the point-man for the Jerusalem Restoration project
- another captured slave-girl was forced to serve in the household of a Syrian war-lord. When she learned that her captor had fallen victim to the dreaded disease of leprosy, she recommended that he consult the prophet, Elisha
- a donkey (no matter how low your plight appears - it has not dropped to that level yet!), after suffering abuse from her rider, suddenly spoke! She offered God's correction to a wayward prophet
- a young exile and his friends, were taken into servitude and forced to learn and promote a culture that contradicted everything they held dear. Yet Daniel and the three Hebrew Boys were able to greatly influence the king and the policies of that foreign nation
It is likely that God has placed you where you are right now for some specific purpose. Perhaps it is to further your spiritual education, or perhaps it is to allow you to hold influence over someone whose path you will cross.
If you find yourself in a dull spot - remember that in most of the examples listed above - it was the attitude of the person involved that earned them a hearing. They were able to be an influence because someone deemed them a person worth listening to.
May God help us to keep a divine perspective on our role in life and to always display an "excellent spirit".
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Reasoning : Great America Series
Have we lost the ability to reason in this country?
Or have we just thrown away that option as if it really wasn't all that important anyway?
Working in the area of recruiting vocational talent, I have often heard more seasoned employees and decision-makers decrying the fact that often graduates leave college without every acquiring any critical thinking ability.
Yet our country was built upon a foundation of reasoning.
A group of men gathered together to hammer out a document that would properly define their reason for rebelling against a tyrant. Men, fatigued with the heavy burden of representing their friends and families; men living somewhat as outlaws, these men - argued, proclaimed, persuaded and listened -all in an attempt to come up with a statement that people would buy into so wholeheartedly that they would be willing to die for it.
Thomas Jefferson penned their thoughts and the Declaration of Independence became just such a document. The document is inspiring! It was achieved - not so much through compromise and consensus as through the contention of debate. Through well thought out arguments they chiseled down to the truth.
And the document they presented to the world - endorsed with their signatures - was truth...
. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .
That is why people were willing to link arms with the framers and pledge their own lives.
Tell me, has anyone in Washington produced anything in recent history that people would be willing to die for?
Can you point to any piece of legislation, any speech, any executive order that carried with it the least bit of inspiration?
I think it is because we have forgotten about truth.
In other times, men of truth were able to express themselves and their beliefs and together they were able to arrive at God's truth.
Political correctness...
fear of offending...
a prevailing sense of false tolerance ...
arguments that are disallowed before they are even offered ...
- all these snuff out reasoned thought. Expression is shut down. Creativity is aborted.
And we end up with much talk ... much communication ... much action ... but nothing is really accomplished - at least nothing worth believing in.
When it seemed our nation had outgrown the "Articles of Confederation" ... legislators met again in the late 1780's and for one summer they contended over the document that would become our constitution. What a miraculous work they produced by the Grace of God!
They worked through the aggravation, the heat, the insects. They refused to take any issue off the table - everything was up for discussion - anything could be altered.
Finally, they produced a document that - maybe, just maybe - the people of the nation could come together on.
But they weren't overly confident.
In Miracle at Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen*, the author records portions of a speech written by Benjamin Franklin and presented on the day of the signing of the Constitution. Franklin said ...
"I must confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve. . . . but I am not sure I shall never approve them."
... "I consent, Sir, to this Constitution, because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice the the public good. . . ."
Quickly, name one politician today who would sacrifice anything - least of all his/her opinion - for "the public good"?
Franklin was willing to trust trustworthy men and their opinions and because he knew that their hearts were as his heart - he felt it quite possible that he would eventually come into agreement with them.
It all starts with truth. A common moral compass.
Shortly before the American Revolution, The Great Awakening had infused this fledgling nation with a fresh regard for the truth.
Our nation has been through at least one generation of moral relativism and a constant denial of absolute truth.
I think that is why we are so easily swayed by emotional topics.
It is definitely why we would become so panicky at the threat of a severe economic downturn.
Panicky enough to do goofy stuff - like selling out our liberty, one right at a time, in exchange for the promise of ...
what?
... oh yeah,
"hope".
The neat thing about truth is that it is God's Truth.
Jesus said that He was the Way... the Truth ...
So the Truth exists despite our actions and our emotions and all of our psuedo-intellectual rules...
What's more the Truth will prevail. It always wins in the end.
The forefathers knew that,
that was why they reasoned among themselves;
they wanted to be certain -
not that truth was on their side
- but that they were on the side of truth!
What a blessed country! What a blessed History!
* Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787, Catherine Drinker Bowen. The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1966. pp255 & 256
Or have we just thrown away that option as if it really wasn't all that important anyway?
Working in the area of recruiting vocational talent, I have often heard more seasoned employees and decision-makers decrying the fact that often graduates leave college without every acquiring any critical thinking ability.
Yet our country was built upon a foundation of reasoning.
A group of men gathered together to hammer out a document that would properly define their reason for rebelling against a tyrant. Men, fatigued with the heavy burden of representing their friends and families; men living somewhat as outlaws, these men - argued, proclaimed, persuaded and listened -all in an attempt to come up with a statement that people would buy into so wholeheartedly that they would be willing to die for it.
Thomas Jefferson penned their thoughts and the Declaration of Independence became just such a document. The document is inspiring! It was achieved - not so much through compromise and consensus as through the contention of debate. Through well thought out arguments they chiseled down to the truth.
And the document they presented to the world - endorsed with their signatures - was truth...
. . . We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .
That is why people were willing to link arms with the framers and pledge their own lives.
Tell me, has anyone in Washington produced anything in recent history that people would be willing to die for?
Can you point to any piece of legislation, any speech, any executive order that carried with it the least bit of inspiration?
I think it is because we have forgotten about truth.
In other times, men of truth were able to express themselves and their beliefs and together they were able to arrive at God's truth.
Political correctness...
fear of offending...
a prevailing sense of false tolerance ...
arguments that are disallowed before they are even offered ...
- all these snuff out reasoned thought. Expression is shut down. Creativity is aborted.
And we end up with much talk ... much communication ... much action ... but nothing is really accomplished - at least nothing worth believing in.
When it seemed our nation had outgrown the "Articles of Confederation" ... legislators met again in the late 1780's and for one summer they contended over the document that would become our constitution. What a miraculous work they produced by the Grace of God!
They worked through the aggravation, the heat, the insects. They refused to take any issue off the table - everything was up for discussion - anything could be altered.
Finally, they produced a document that - maybe, just maybe - the people of the nation could come together on.
But they weren't overly confident.
In Miracle at Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen*, the author records portions of a speech written by Benjamin Franklin and presented on the day of the signing of the Constitution. Franklin said ...
"I must confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve. . . . but I am not sure I shall never approve them."
... "I consent, Sir, to this Constitution, because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice the the public good. . . ."
Quickly, name one politician today who would sacrifice anything - least of all his/her opinion - for "the public good"?
Franklin was willing to trust trustworthy men and their opinions and because he knew that their hearts were as his heart - he felt it quite possible that he would eventually come into agreement with them.
It all starts with truth. A common moral compass.
Shortly before the American Revolution, The Great Awakening had infused this fledgling nation with a fresh regard for the truth.
Our nation has been through at least one generation of moral relativism and a constant denial of absolute truth.
I think that is why we are so easily swayed by emotional topics.
It is definitely why we would become so panicky at the threat of a severe economic downturn.
Panicky enough to do goofy stuff - like selling out our liberty, one right at a time, in exchange for the promise of ...
what?
... oh yeah,
"hope".
The neat thing about truth is that it is God's Truth.
Jesus said that He was the Way... the Truth ...
So the Truth exists despite our actions and our emotions and all of our psuedo-intellectual rules...
What's more the Truth will prevail. It always wins in the end.
The forefathers knew that,
that was why they reasoned among themselves;
they wanted to be certain -
not that truth was on their side
- but that they were on the side of truth!
What a blessed country! What a blessed History!
* Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787, Catherine Drinker Bowen. The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1966. pp255 & 256
Help for a Weary Traveler
Through a twist of fate - or better yet the kindness of some good friends, I have an opportunity to spend a couple days in Washington, DC.
Now despite the apparent "travel lines" that mark my face these days - I am not well-traveled.
I have barely been out of the Southeastern United States.
So help this homebound hooligan out.
I need suggestions.
Now I hesitate to ask for comments, because if no one responds then it will be evident to all who read this blog - that no one is reading this blog (Groucho Marx couldn't have said it better).
No - I am going to "step out of the boat" - I'm gonna take the risk.
(I wish my Mom had computer skills!)
Please respond to this question:
If you had one day to spend in D.C. and you wanted it to be a historically significant visit... What would you do?
thank you for your support!
Now despite the apparent "travel lines" that mark my face these days - I am not well-traveled.
I have barely been out of the Southeastern United States.
So help this homebound hooligan out.
I need suggestions.
Now I hesitate to ask for comments, because if no one responds then it will be evident to all who read this blog - that no one is reading this blog (Groucho Marx couldn't have said it better).
No - I am going to "step out of the boat" - I'm gonna take the risk.
(I wish my Mom had computer skills!)
Please respond to this question:
If you had one day to spend in D.C. and you wanted it to be a historically significant visit... What would you do?
thank you for your support!
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Jonathan Post Script
He didn't die.
I failed to mention that in the previous post.
Characteristically, Jonathan's father, Saul was swayed by popular opinion and changed his ruling. In this case, I'm glad he did.
Yesterday's post was so long that I couldn't just edit the "rest of the story" back in.
I failed to mention that in the previous post.
Characteristically, Jonathan's father, Saul was swayed by popular opinion and changed his ruling. In this case, I'm glad he did.
Yesterday's post was so long that I couldn't just edit the "rest of the story" back in.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Jonathan - a character study
I think two of the most selfless characters in the Bible were both called "John".
John the Baptist and Jonathan, the son of King Saul, both seemed to adopt the same mission statement: "He must increase but I must decrease". For John Baptist, his job was to grab the attention of the world and then - while they were all watching real close - to turn all that attention to Jesus. John Baptist would then fade away. Having had the "spotlight" for a time, I expect it was difficult for him to walk away from it. But John seemed so committed to his mission that we cannot detect the slightest note of regret as his crowds dwindled and his own disciples peeled off to follow Jesus.
Jonathan displayed that same type of humility as he gave up his own rights in order that God's greater good might be served.
If you are familiar with the Old Testament stories, you probably know that Jonathan was the son of Saul, the first king of Israel. He was the rightful heir to that throne, but when his father was rejected from being king - Jonathan became fast friends with David - the boy who would be king.
I have always pictured David and Jonathan in something of a setting like The Prince and the Pauper; I pictured them as being about the same age. However, in my recent stroll through 1st Samuel I found that Jonathan was much older than David. In fact, just two years into his father's reign, Jonathan is mature enough to lead an army.
I want to stop here a moment to talk about his father, Saul, and to say that Saul has always troubled me: in fact, I was repeating something of that effect in prayer this week - I see too many similarities between myself and Saul: he tried to please people and to please God at the same time; he lived the paradox of shunning attention while simultaneously craving it; he was reluctant to accept a position of power - but then upon accepting it - he forgot who brought him to his place of prominence.
I think I always associate the tragedy of Saul with the period in my life when I first learned of it. When I was 12 we moved from Morristown, Tennessee, to LaFayette, Georgia. It was part of my Dad's effort to get us back closer to family which was a good thing. At 12, everything seems bigger, more dramatic and threatening than it really is, so I had a tough time with that move.
It rained - continually -that winter. We had moved to a very old rental house on the edge of town, on state Highway 27. Because the Junior High School had burned down a year or so prior, we shared the high school. This meant that the high-schoolers went to school in the morning and then we went to school around 1:00 PM and came home around 6:00 PM.
All this, coupled with the fact that I had no friends and the town was very, very small, made for a depressing time. To top all of this off, we went to a very old and small church there were very few -if any- kids my own age there. My Sunday School class was less than exciting: it was up a very narrow and creaky staircase, in a small room with bare walls and ladder-back chairs. And there was sat, reading in turn about the tragedy of King Saul, who found himself disobeying God one time too many.
And it rained and rained.
So this time through the story of Saul, I am again, trying to figure why his story went the way it did.
Jonathan, I have learned, was much different from his father. I rather think Jonathan might have made a pretty good king, himself. I absolutely believe that Jonathan's influence on young David, made the latter a better king.
In chapter 13 of 1st Samuel it was Jonathan who struck the first blow for independence from the Philistines. He attacked their garrison and started a war. . . I like that the King James Version says he smote the Philistines - that is so cool.
In the next chapter, the Philistines are concentrating their massive (some say innumerable) army and planning to attack Saul and Jonathan, whose militia has now diminished substantially. But Jonathan, decides it is time for a bold endeavour - he and his armor-bearer consider approaching the enemy lines.
Jonathan does one of those "What if's -" ...
"What if you and I go over there and God just let's us run amok over the enemy - He could do that, you know".
Armor-bearers are an extremely loyal lot - loyal to a fault. So his armor-bearer replies:
"sure"
And off they go to discover themselves to the enemy. You need to read that account for yourself, it's pretty neat to see those Philistine soldiers call out to those two Hebrew "rubes" that somehow wandered into enemy territory. God ... and Jonathan and company had quite a surprise for them.
The thing is, Jonathan never told his father about this plan.
I think I know why - do you remember how that years later when word came to Saul that a little shepherd boy wanted to take on the Philistine's not-so-secret weapon of mass destruction: Goliath? Remember how Saul tried to discourage him and tried to push off his own armor onto the boy (probably hoping to reduce the carnage - bad for morale, you know)?
I suspect Jonathan knew his dad wouldn't even give his impractical plan a moment's consideration.
Before making major decisions in my life, I have often turned to my Dad, because I knew he would alert me to the negatives. This became very useful to me. The problem with being so practical, is that sometimes people will be reluctant to share their dreams with you.
Israel won a major military victory that day - and Saul didn't learn of it until the noise of mass hysteria and confusion emitting from the enemy camp became too great to ignore.
Jonathan had a heart for God.
He trusted God to be able to do mighty things. He wasn't afraid to entertain those "what if?" questions God was planting in his brain.
He also had the ability to leave himself in God's care.
As the story progresses, Israel is in pursuit of the enemy, hoping to totally route them. Saul makes some rash unnecessary proclamation that no one should even stop long enough to eat lunch - in fact none of his army was to eat anything until the battle was completely won.
The punishment for disobedience? - death.
Well, Jonathan didn't hear the order ( I suspect he was a little busy slaying Philistines left and right). So when he happened upon s honeycomb, he took a snack-break.
The sugar rush enlightened him and he felt his strength return so he encouraged his com padre's to do the same.
Saul - "majoring on minors" - got word that his orders had been ignored and called for the priest to inquire of God, just who was the perpetrator of this deed.
When it was determined that Jonathan was the culprit, he confessed and here was his defense....
"I merely tasted some honey with the end of my staff and now I must die"
At first, I read that statement as if it were a question and some translations record it that way ("now I must DIE!?!?"), but some translations put it as a statement.
I tend to believe that is the way Jonathan said it... just as a statement of fact - not as a statement about the ridiculous nature of the demand and subsequent penalty.
I think at that point, Jonathan was throwing himself into the hands of the sovereign God.
I think he was saying in effect: "Those are the rules and if God wants me to end this way, I am perfectly okay with that".
I like this guy.
I am hoping to avoid the attitudes and actions of Saul; but I so want to emulate Saul's son, Jonathan. . . .
...a heart for God
...open to God's impractical possibilities
...always mindful and trusting of God's sovereign rule over every situation.
John the Baptist and Jonathan, the son of King Saul, both seemed to adopt the same mission statement: "He must increase but I must decrease". For John Baptist, his job was to grab the attention of the world and then - while they were all watching real close - to turn all that attention to Jesus. John Baptist would then fade away. Having had the "spotlight" for a time, I expect it was difficult for him to walk away from it. But John seemed so committed to his mission that we cannot detect the slightest note of regret as his crowds dwindled and his own disciples peeled off to follow Jesus.
Jonathan displayed that same type of humility as he gave up his own rights in order that God's greater good might be served.
If you are familiar with the Old Testament stories, you probably know that Jonathan was the son of Saul, the first king of Israel. He was the rightful heir to that throne, but when his father was rejected from being king - Jonathan became fast friends with David - the boy who would be king.
I have always pictured David and Jonathan in something of a setting like The Prince and the Pauper; I pictured them as being about the same age. However, in my recent stroll through 1st Samuel I found that Jonathan was much older than David. In fact, just two years into his father's reign, Jonathan is mature enough to lead an army.
I want to stop here a moment to talk about his father, Saul, and to say that Saul has always troubled me: in fact, I was repeating something of that effect in prayer this week - I see too many similarities between myself and Saul: he tried to please people and to please God at the same time; he lived the paradox of shunning attention while simultaneously craving it; he was reluctant to accept a position of power - but then upon accepting it - he forgot who brought him to his place of prominence.
I think I always associate the tragedy of Saul with the period in my life when I first learned of it. When I was 12 we moved from Morristown, Tennessee, to LaFayette, Georgia. It was part of my Dad's effort to get us back closer to family which was a good thing. At 12, everything seems bigger, more dramatic and threatening than it really is, so I had a tough time with that move.
It rained - continually -that winter. We had moved to a very old rental house on the edge of town, on state Highway 27. Because the Junior High School had burned down a year or so prior, we shared the high school. This meant that the high-schoolers went to school in the morning and then we went to school around 1:00 PM and came home around 6:00 PM.
All this, coupled with the fact that I had no friends and the town was very, very small, made for a depressing time. To top all of this off, we went to a very old and small church there were very few -if any- kids my own age there. My Sunday School class was less than exciting: it was up a very narrow and creaky staircase, in a small room with bare walls and ladder-back chairs. And there was sat, reading in turn about the tragedy of King Saul, who found himself disobeying God one time too many.
And it rained and rained.
So this time through the story of Saul, I am again, trying to figure why his story went the way it did.
Jonathan, I have learned, was much different from his father. I rather think Jonathan might have made a pretty good king, himself. I absolutely believe that Jonathan's influence on young David, made the latter a better king.
In chapter 13 of 1st Samuel it was Jonathan who struck the first blow for independence from the Philistines. He attacked their garrison and started a war. . . I like that the King James Version says he smote the Philistines - that is so cool.
In the next chapter, the Philistines are concentrating their massive (some say innumerable) army and planning to attack Saul and Jonathan, whose militia has now diminished substantially. But Jonathan, decides it is time for a bold endeavour - he and his armor-bearer consider approaching the enemy lines.
Jonathan does one of those "What if's -" ...
"What if you and I go over there and God just let's us run amok over the enemy - He could do that, you know".
Armor-bearers are an extremely loyal lot - loyal to a fault. So his armor-bearer replies:
"sure"
And off they go to discover themselves to the enemy. You need to read that account for yourself, it's pretty neat to see those Philistine soldiers call out to those two Hebrew "rubes" that somehow wandered into enemy territory. God ... and Jonathan and company had quite a surprise for them.
The thing is, Jonathan never told his father about this plan.
I think I know why - do you remember how that years later when word came to Saul that a little shepherd boy wanted to take on the Philistine's not-so-secret weapon of mass destruction: Goliath? Remember how Saul tried to discourage him and tried to push off his own armor onto the boy (probably hoping to reduce the carnage - bad for morale, you know)?
I suspect Jonathan knew his dad wouldn't even give his impractical plan a moment's consideration.
Before making major decisions in my life, I have often turned to my Dad, because I knew he would alert me to the negatives. This became very useful to me. The problem with being so practical, is that sometimes people will be reluctant to share their dreams with you.
Israel won a major military victory that day - and Saul didn't learn of it until the noise of mass hysteria and confusion emitting from the enemy camp became too great to ignore.
Jonathan had a heart for God.
He trusted God to be able to do mighty things. He wasn't afraid to entertain those "what if?" questions God was planting in his brain.
He also had the ability to leave himself in God's care.
As the story progresses, Israel is in pursuit of the enemy, hoping to totally route them. Saul makes some rash unnecessary proclamation that no one should even stop long enough to eat lunch - in fact none of his army was to eat anything until the battle was completely won.
The punishment for disobedience? - death.
Well, Jonathan didn't hear the order ( I suspect he was a little busy slaying Philistines left and right). So when he happened upon s honeycomb, he took a snack-break.
The sugar rush enlightened him and he felt his strength return so he encouraged his com padre's to do the same.
Saul - "majoring on minors" - got word that his orders had been ignored and called for the priest to inquire of God, just who was the perpetrator of this deed.
When it was determined that Jonathan was the culprit, he confessed and here was his defense....
"I merely tasted some honey with the end of my staff and now I must die"
At first, I read that statement as if it were a question and some translations record it that way ("now I must DIE!?!?"), but some translations put it as a statement.
I tend to believe that is the way Jonathan said it... just as a statement of fact - not as a statement about the ridiculous nature of the demand and subsequent penalty.
I think at that point, Jonathan was throwing himself into the hands of the sovereign God.
I think he was saying in effect: "Those are the rules and if God wants me to end this way, I am perfectly okay with that".
I like this guy.
I am hoping to avoid the attitudes and actions of Saul; but I so want to emulate Saul's son, Jonathan. . . .
...a heart for God
...open to God's impractical possibilities
...always mindful and trusting of God's sovereign rule over every situation.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Practicality in a Parable
I love the practicality of the Bible.
Apart from the deep spiritual mysteries that it entails, the wonderful drama of Redemption and the stories that all point to HIStory, the Bible is marvelously practical.
Did you know that under the Mosaic law, there was actually a Building Safety Code that required handrails on the roof in order to avoid the liability of senseless injury (Deuteronomy 22:8)?
Recently, while listening to Pastor Jeff Chadwick, I got stuck on a verse that was pregnant with practicality; let me explain.
In Matthew 20 you can find a parable about a landowner who hired some workers one morning to work in his field and reap the harvest. For all of my "old movie"fellow travelers, you might remember Marlon Brando and that gaggle of dockworkers waiting to be picked to work in the movie,"On the Waterfront".
For those of you that just do not have the imagination or patience for Black & White entertainment - perhaps you could call up some images from "Cinderella Man" and Russell Crowe getting shut out of another work day behind the iron gate.
That's the scene that is painted in the parable: guys waiting on the street corner for somebody to come by and hire them.
You may remember how the story goes, a group is hired for the day at a rate of one denarius.
But the landowner - apparently anxious to meet some deadline - goes back to that corner again and again throughout the day, hiring more workers each time. He finally returns to the corner with barely an hour left in the day . . . and hires one more group.
At the end of the day, they all cue up to the pay master. Everyone gets a denarius.
Though they had agreed to that rate, the first hour workers were kinda' sore on account of they were expecting to get more than those blokes that had only just arrived.
Those of you that fall in to the liberal egalitarian class will probably applaud the fact that equality abounded - the "playing field was leveled". What a moderate thing to do!!
Mr. Obama would applaud this landowner's action - might even make him a part of his brain trust . . . he might not even "bail him out" until last.
I don't really like the idea of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need".
That's when I heard the verse . . . and I must admit I was more than a little distracted for some time after that . . . verse 15, in the English Standard Version puts it this way:
"Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?"
There is was, as plain as day - the Bible was displaying private property rights!
This landowner could do what he wanted with what was his.
Though it might have been deserved, I was a little troubled recently by the crowds cheering when Bernard Madoff was sentenced.
That whole episode was too easy of a reinforcement to the popular mindset that no one achieves anything honestly. I am troubled by the way that too large of a segment of our society willing gulps down the class envy that is doled out by the popular culture.
It is couched in phrases like: "the rich must pay their fair share" . . . and "we just want to spread the wealth around" . . . It is evident in the extortionate tactics employed against executives - and their families - recently who received big bonuses.
Many - if not most - well to do people are that way simply because they worked harder and sacrificed more than the rest of us. And many of us have a job now because some wealthy guy decided to pursue a profit and employed us to help him (or her) in that endeavor.
Though it is not the main emphasis of the parable, I am glad that Jesus shared that statement from the landowner, because he is right: he does have the right to what he chooses with what belongs to him - because he earned that right.
On a personal note (as if I haven't already interjected my personal opinion into this piece), I get very frustrated as I watch freedoms ebbing away.
I don't smoke - never believed it was a good thing to do (although I did think it looked cool so as kid, I was not above sneaking a drag on a white crayola or candy cigarette now and then); but suppose today some guy wanted to invest his life savings into a restaurant where smokers were not only allowed but were encouraged to smoke.
You know the answer - he'd never get a permit. Yet cigarettes (thanks to their enormous tax revenues) are perfectly legal.
That is not freedom.
Freedom says: "sure you can build your restaurant and if folks don't like it they are free to eat elsewhere".
Freedom says: "achieve all you can (honestly and legally) and then use your money as you wish: perhaps you will choose to build libraries or hospitals with it; or perhaps you will invest it in such a way that others may join you in your success".
Apart from the deep spiritual mysteries that it entails, the wonderful drama of Redemption and the stories that all point to HIStory, the Bible is marvelously practical.
Did you know that under the Mosaic law, there was actually a Building Safety Code that required handrails on the roof in order to avoid the liability of senseless injury (Deuteronomy 22:8)?
Recently, while listening to Pastor Jeff Chadwick, I got stuck on a verse that was pregnant with practicality; let me explain.
In Matthew 20 you can find a parable about a landowner who hired some workers one morning to work in his field and reap the harvest. For all of my "old movie"fellow travelers, you might remember Marlon Brando and that gaggle of dockworkers waiting to be picked to work in the movie,"On the Waterfront".
For those of you that just do not have the imagination or patience for Black & White entertainment - perhaps you could call up some images from "Cinderella Man" and Russell Crowe getting shut out of another work day behind the iron gate. That's the scene that is painted in the parable: guys waiting on the street corner for somebody to come by and hire them.You may remember how the story goes, a group is hired for the day at a rate of one denarius.
But the landowner - apparently anxious to meet some deadline - goes back to that corner again and again throughout the day, hiring more workers each time. He finally returns to the corner with barely an hour left in the day . . . and hires one more group.
At the end of the day, they all cue up to the pay master. Everyone gets a denarius.
Though they had agreed to that rate, the first hour workers were kinda' sore on account of they were expecting to get more than those blokes that had only just arrived.
Those of you that fall in to the liberal egalitarian class will probably applaud the fact that equality abounded - the "playing field was leveled". What a moderate thing to do!!
Mr. Obama would applaud this landowner's action - might even make him a part of his brain trust . . . he might not even "bail him out" until last.
I don't really like the idea of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need".
That's when I heard the verse . . . and I must admit I was more than a little distracted for some time after that . . . verse 15, in the English Standard Version puts it this way:
"Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?"
There is was, as plain as day - the Bible was displaying private property rights!
This landowner could do what he wanted with what was his.
Though it might have been deserved, I was a little troubled recently by the crowds cheering when Bernard Madoff was sentenced.
That whole episode was too easy of a reinforcement to the popular mindset that no one achieves anything honestly. I am troubled by the way that too large of a segment of our society willing gulps down the class envy that is doled out by the popular culture.
It is couched in phrases like: "the rich must pay their fair share" . . . and "we just want to spread the wealth around" . . . It is evident in the extortionate tactics employed against executives - and their families - recently who received big bonuses.
Many - if not most - well to do people are that way simply because they worked harder and sacrificed more than the rest of us. And many of us have a job now because some wealthy guy decided to pursue a profit and employed us to help him (or her) in that endeavor.
Though it is not the main emphasis of the parable, I am glad that Jesus shared that statement from the landowner, because he is right: he does have the right to what he chooses with what belongs to him - because he earned that right.
On a personal note (as if I haven't already interjected my personal opinion into this piece), I get very frustrated as I watch freedoms ebbing away.
I don't smoke - never believed it was a good thing to do (although I did think it looked cool so as kid, I was not above sneaking a drag on a white crayola or candy cigarette now and then); but suppose today some guy wanted to invest his life savings into a restaurant where smokers were not only allowed but were encouraged to smoke.
You know the answer - he'd never get a permit. Yet cigarettes (thanks to their enormous tax revenues) are perfectly legal.
That is not freedom.
Freedom says: "sure you can build your restaurant and if folks don't like it they are free to eat elsewhere".
Freedom says: "achieve all you can (honestly and legally) and then use your money as you wish: perhaps you will choose to build libraries or hospitals with it; or perhaps you will invest it in such a way that others may join you in your success".
You know, I am told that originally Jefferson had listed "the pursuit of property" instead of the "Pursuit of happiness" as one of our inalienable, God-given rights in the Declaration of Independence. Freedom is not all about property and stuff we grab for ourselves; but everyone that is grabbing stuff is not hoarding it - many will share it freely.
That's the American way.
It's the Bible way.
It's the Bible way.
But it only works when we share according to our own hearts... not when someone takes it from us in order to share it according to their own desires.
I like freedom... and I must say, I am starting to miss it.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Pre - Fourth of July - Backyard Camping
For those of you that are outdoor adventurers, this will seem somewhat ...dorky.
To kick of our Independence Day Weekend, we had a family camping trip . . .
. . . .to the back yard.
I love the idea of camping... an open campfire, man and nature and such ... but when it comes to actually executing plans to camp - more often than not my plans melt away like wax from a citronella candle.
R. is even less a camping enthusiast.
I think we both like the idea, but at bedtime, we long for the luxuries of home.
I came home from work yesterday with a plan in mind; I had heard on the radio that cool temperatures were expected for the night and thought we should take advantage of it.
My first proposal was to go camping somewhere but even as I presented that proposal to R. (without whose endorsement - most plans are guaranteed to fail), I already had a back - up plan. The back- up plan was to camp in the woods behind our home.
R. started the preparations for grilling supper and I began site prep and tent set up.
In true Clark Griswold fashion, I insisted on having all the accoutrement's of a real camp-site. This required moving the grill and a picnic table to the top of a hill near the tent site.
We enjoyed a wonderful traditional 4th of July meal.
AA and I enjoyed a moonlight swim in the kid's pool.
R. and I slept very little. My hastily prepared campsite was on something of an incline and we had mattress malfunctions. We have three air mattresses but the one belonging to Mom and I had a leak. I did a quick repair job on it but I think it was still losing air.
After AA had gone to sleep (he's a heavy sleeper), R. and I switched mattresses giving him the leaky mattress. I understand that that was a very selfish move but it's one of those things you get to do when you are the Dad.
Around 2:30, I was awakened from a very light slumber by Ab who suddenly was dealing with a fear of coyotes. About an hour later, I actually heard several coyotes howling to each other - accompanied by some furious barking from our old chocolate Lab, Tanner. Fortunately she was asleep again by that time.
We arose very early and it was cold!
R. and I are planning to strategically catch up on some of our sleep today...
'Hope you enjoy the pics in the post below:
To kick of our Independence Day Weekend, we had a family camping trip . . .
. . . .to the back yard.
I love the idea of camping... an open campfire, man and nature and such ... but when it comes to actually executing plans to camp - more often than not my plans melt away like wax from a citronella candle.
R. is even less a camping enthusiast.
I think we both like the idea, but at bedtime, we long for the luxuries of home.
I came home from work yesterday with a plan in mind; I had heard on the radio that cool temperatures were expected for the night and thought we should take advantage of it.
My first proposal was to go camping somewhere but even as I presented that proposal to R. (without whose endorsement - most plans are guaranteed to fail), I already had a back - up plan. The back- up plan was to camp in the woods behind our home.
R. started the preparations for grilling supper and I began site prep and tent set up.
In true Clark Griswold fashion, I insisted on having all the accoutrement's of a real camp-site. This required moving the grill and a picnic table to the top of a hill near the tent site.
We enjoyed a wonderful traditional 4th of July meal.
AA and I enjoyed a moonlight swim in the kid's pool.
R. and I slept very little. My hastily prepared campsite was on something of an incline and we had mattress malfunctions. We have three air mattresses but the one belonging to Mom and I had a leak. I did a quick repair job on it but I think it was still losing air.
After AA had gone to sleep (he's a heavy sleeper), R. and I switched mattresses giving him the leaky mattress. I understand that that was a very selfish move but it's one of those things you get to do when you are the Dad.
Around 2:30, I was awakened from a very light slumber by Ab who suddenly was dealing with a fear of coyotes. About an hour later, I actually heard several coyotes howling to each other - accompanied by some furious barking from our old chocolate Lab, Tanner. Fortunately she was asleep again by that time.
We arose very early and it was cold!
R. and I are planning to strategically catch up on some of our sleep today...
'Hope you enjoy the pics in the post below:
Self-Evident Truths
In a day in which "truth" is thought to be whatever you make it... "what's true for you may not be true for me" - we celebrate the birth of a nation founded strictly on truths that are declared to be "self-evident".
Yesterday I heard this commentary from Chuck Colson of Breakpoint and it moved me.
I hope it strikes a nerve with you and prompts you to action:
BreakPoint Commentaries
The American Creed
By Chuck Colson
7/3/2009
'We Hold These Truths...'
The great British intellectual G. K. Chesterton wrote that “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on [a] creed.”
Think about that for a moment. Other nations were founded on the basis of race, or by the power of kings or emperors who accumulated lands and the peasants who inhabited those lands.
But America was—and is to this day—different. It was founded on a shared belief. Or, as Chesterton said, on a creed.
And what is that creed that sets us apart? It is the eloquent, profound, and simple statement penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I’ll never forget when I graduated from Brown University during the Korean War. I couldn’t wait to become a Marine officer, to give my life if necessary, to defend that creed. To defend the idea that our rights come from God Himself and are not subject to whims of governments or tyrants. That humans ought to be free to pursue their most treasured hopes and aspirations.
Perhaps some 230 years later, we take these words for granted. But in 1776, they were earth-shaking—indeed, revolutionary.
Yet today, they are in danger of being forgotten altogether. According to Gallup, 66 percent of American adults have no idea that the words, “We hold these truths . . .” come from the Declaration of Independence. Even worse, only 45 percent of college seniors know that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are proclaimed in the Declaration.
As America grows more and more diverse culturally, religiously, ethnically, it is critical that we re-embrace the American creed.
America has always been a “melting pot.” But what is the pot that holds our multicultural stew together? Chesterton said the pot’s “original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy.” A democracy founded on those self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And as Chesterton remarked, “The pot must not melt.”
Abraham Lincoln understood this so very well. For him, the notion that all men are created equal was “the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”
So tomorrow, go to the Fourth of July parade. Go to the neighborhood barbecue and enjoy the hot dogs and apple pie.
But here’s an idea for you. Why not take time out at the picnic to read the Declaration of Independence aloud with your friends and your neighbors.
Listen—and thrill—to those words that bind us together as a nation of freedom-loving people: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are the words Americans live for and, if necessary, die for.
Yesterday I heard this commentary from Chuck Colson of Breakpoint and it moved me.
I hope it strikes a nerve with you and prompts you to action:
BreakPoint Commentaries
The American Creed
By Chuck Colson
7/3/2009
'We Hold These Truths...'
The great British intellectual G. K. Chesterton wrote that “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on [a] creed.”
Think about that for a moment. Other nations were founded on the basis of race, or by the power of kings or emperors who accumulated lands and the peasants who inhabited those lands.
But America was—and is to this day—different. It was founded on a shared belief. Or, as Chesterton said, on a creed.
And what is that creed that sets us apart? It is the eloquent, profound, and simple statement penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I’ll never forget when I graduated from Brown University during the Korean War. I couldn’t wait to become a Marine officer, to give my life if necessary, to defend that creed. To defend the idea that our rights come from God Himself and are not subject to whims of governments or tyrants. That humans ought to be free to pursue their most treasured hopes and aspirations.
Perhaps some 230 years later, we take these words for granted. But in 1776, they were earth-shaking—indeed, revolutionary.
Yet today, they are in danger of being forgotten altogether. According to Gallup, 66 percent of American adults have no idea that the words, “We hold these truths . . .” come from the Declaration of Independence. Even worse, only 45 percent of college seniors know that the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are proclaimed in the Declaration.
As America grows more and more diverse culturally, religiously, ethnically, it is critical that we re-embrace the American creed.
America has always been a “melting pot.” But what is the pot that holds our multicultural stew together? Chesterton said the pot’s “original shape was traced on the lines of Jeffersonian democracy.” A democracy founded on those self-evident truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence. And as Chesterton remarked, “The pot must not melt.”
Abraham Lincoln understood this so very well. For him, the notion that all men are created equal was “the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”
So tomorrow, go to the Fourth of July parade. Go to the neighborhood barbecue and enjoy the hot dogs and apple pie.
But here’s an idea for you. Why not take time out at the picnic to read the Declaration of Independence aloud with your friends and your neighbors.
Listen—and thrill—to those words that bind us together as a nation of freedom-loving people: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are the words Americans live for and, if necessary, die for.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Kitty Capers
I didn't want a cat.
I really did not want to get a cat.
Now that we have one, I have been determined that she sleep outside at night. Since I am usually last to turn in, I usually get the honors of giving our little Angel a Bon-Voyag-ee to the Garag -ee.
I have been going to work earlier lately and sitting up late too (Vacation Hang Over). So one night this week, I trudged off to bed before R.
At approximately 3:26 AM, I learned that the cat was still in the house. How did I know this? You ask. I knew this because I was awakened by the distinct sensation of a cat crawling over my head to get from R.'s side of the bed to mine and off to my night stand.
I looked at my clock - noted the time and rolled over.
Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night, check to see how much longer you have to sleep and it seems like only a moment later, the alarm clock is gently calling you from your glorious dreamworld?
Well I had an experience like that.
It seemed that no sooner had I rolled over than my alarm clock began its rakish appeal. I rolled over to try and understand what was going on and to try and stop that maddening alarm!
It was in the neighborhood of 5:30 AM . . . very A - M!
I tried to begin my morning ritual... shower, shave etc. . . . but I just couldn't seem to wake up. I was beginning to get concerned about how my day might go if I couldn't get some life into me.
I was beginning to come to life, just a little after my shower.
Then I looked at the clock in the bathroom.
3:50 AM . . . . very A - M !
The cat - that "sweet" little bundle of fuzzy "innocence" - had deviously achieved her revenge.
Apparently shortly after walking across my head that morning, she had also stepped on the button on the top of my alarm clock; the button that changes the time. She had strategically stood there just long enough to run the time up two hours.
It was a weird morning. Needless to say, I am sensing the need to look over my shoulder a little more often when Angel's in the house.
I really did not want to get a cat.
Now that we have one, I have been determined that she sleep outside at night. Since I am usually last to turn in, I usually get the honors of giving our little Angel a Bon-Voyag-ee to the Garag -ee.
I have been going to work earlier lately and sitting up late too (Vacation Hang Over). So one night this week, I trudged off to bed before R.
At approximately 3:26 AM, I learned that the cat was still in the house. How did I know this? You ask. I knew this because I was awakened by the distinct sensation of a cat crawling over my head to get from R.'s side of the bed to mine and off to my night stand.
I looked at my clock - noted the time and rolled over.
Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night, check to see how much longer you have to sleep and it seems like only a moment later, the alarm clock is gently calling you from your glorious dreamworld?
Well I had an experience like that.
It seemed that no sooner had I rolled over than my alarm clock began its rakish appeal. I rolled over to try and understand what was going on and to try and stop that maddening alarm!
It was in the neighborhood of 5:30 AM . . . very A - M!
I tried to begin my morning ritual... shower, shave etc. . . . but I just couldn't seem to wake up. I was beginning to get concerned about how my day might go if I couldn't get some life into me.
I was beginning to come to life, just a little after my shower.
Then I looked at the clock in the bathroom.
3:50 AM . . . . very A - M !
The cat - that "sweet" little bundle of fuzzy "innocence" - had deviously achieved her revenge.
Apparently shortly after walking across my head that morning, she had also stepped on the button on the top of my alarm clock; the button that changes the time. She had strategically stood there just long enough to run the time up two hours.
It was a weird morning. Needless to say, I am sensing the need to look over my shoulder a little more often when Angel's in the house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)