I hear someone speak about Proverbs 18:22 on a popular Christian, family radio show. I was taken aback. I know that the family is valued by this particular show, but I actually haven't listened to it for years because of their propensity to idolize elements of the family. The particular commentator said that it is the parents' job to encourage their adult sons to find a wife as soon as possible. She used Proverbs 18:22 as her rational. Of course, the shows host agreed.
I'm fearful that it is very possible to abuse Proverbs 18:22. Yes, it says that finding a wife is a good thing. Yes, it says their is favor of the Lord in finding a wife. And I'd agree, there is favor and blessing in a wife.
On the other hand, this by no means is a command for parents or the church to encourage people to marry. Compared that idea with 1 Corinthians 7:8. In that verse, Paul clearly reverses the challenge saying if you are unmarried, you are better off to stay unmarried unless (v. 9) you cannot control yourself. Self control is as much a with the favor of the Lord as finding a wife. Singleness is as much a blessing as marriage. If your adult child does not pursue a marriage partner, rejoice and help them to use their singleness as a way of being free to serve the Lord with their whole life.
There are a lot of Christian broadcasters on the airwaves with a very narrow way of looking at the Scriptures. They are narrow because they value certain things. I'd challenge parents to look at the Bible in its entirety. With out and eye to the fullness of Scripture, values can become idols.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
The problem with pendulums and the lessons we get from them
[Note: this may be the most technical post I've ever written. It is also pretty long. I'm sorry about that. But the good news is that it has picture!]
I've heard a bit about pendulums lately. That is, the pendulum of philosophic argumentation. Most recently
Stef shared a blog post about the movie Lord, Save Us from Your Followers. The post was titled, Ken Davis & the Law of the Pendulum by Greg Sponberg. Rather than writing about the movie, I was to discuss the problem with the Law of the Pendulum.
First, some background on the Law would show us that in history, philosophic arguments tend to swing from one extreme to the other. Particularly in this discussion the swing is from Truth to Grace. These swings are as a result of a culture that puts too much weight on one side, then a counter culture forcing the issue the other way. So, in the case of Truth verses Grace, the Western church is often seen as moving out of a time when truth was held too strongly and God's grace under-emphasized. Of course, not everyone agrees with this perception, but people like Ken Davis do. So they begin emphasizing grace. And of course, the reaction of the pro-truth crowd is that the pro-grace people give up on truth. Naturally, there is a counter reaction to the first reaction and the pendulum begins swinging.
For a physical pendulum to work, it must swing from one side to the other without outside force. Gravity is the only force at work, theoretically. And as Sponberg points out in his blog, the swing is ever decreesing. That is true because there are more forces than just gravity, namely air friction is causing the pendulum to slow down. This is true for a physical pendulum.
The problem is, it isn't necessarily true for the philosophic pendulum which is of course a metaphor, and all metaphors have their limitations.
Here's what I see as the problem. A natural pendulum has a point of equilibrium. Demonstrated in this picture, that equilibrium is when gravity holds it steady at point C. For our philosophic pendulum, this might be named absolute truth, the point of perfect agreement with Truth or with God.
The problem occurs when the a misunderstanding moves a culture to an extreme position. That's demonstrated by the swing to R2 in this diagram. For the sake of argument, let's say that R2 is those who feel they have to uphold truth at all costs.
Naturally, the reaction against that philosophy, is those who believe they have to uphold Grace at all cost. The are represented by L2 on this diagram. The seem very far apart and they are. It would be natural for people to want to expell much energy fighting against the pull of R2 if you hold L2 position and visa versa.
The truth is, few people ever end up in the world of the L2 or R2. In the Christian debate of Truth and Grace, almost all Christians I know of believe in both. Therefore, they are more accurately portrayed by the position of L1 and R1.
Here's the problem. No matter where any person or group is on the swing of the pendulum, it is the perception of that person or group, to assume that they are holding to the truth, or that they are holding to the C position. Because of that, it seem that any pull away from the C position is a pull to the extreme of another position. More reasonably, most people aren't advocates of any position, but seeking the truth, the C of whatever it is we are thinking about. Where we feel tension is when our culture (our church/our society/our family) has settled on an extreme position we may desire to move from that position, but at that point even the centralist argument is going to feel like the pendulum is swinging hard. And the truth is, the pull to a centralist position will create in itself a momentum to the opposite direction. This will be uncomfortable. People will be yelling about the slippery slope of this or of that. There will be accusations of pendulumating the issue.
Here's the good thing. When a natural pendulum is stuck (say the grandfather clock has something jammed up against it), it takes a force to begin the pendulum';s movement again. It is only through that force that the swing can again work itself toward the point of equilibrium.
So our lesson in this long and technical post is that when we are faced with philosophic arguments that challenge our perceptions or our cultural norms, rather than labeling them bad from the onset, consider how they are helping us to find the final point of equilibrium. In the end, God is the force of gravity that will pull us all the the center eventually.
I've heard a bit about pendulums lately. That is, the pendulum of philosophic argumentation. Most recently
Stef shared a blog post about the movie Lord, Save Us from Your Followers. The post was titled, Ken Davis & the Law of the Pendulum by Greg Sponberg. Rather than writing about the movie, I was to discuss the problem with the Law of the Pendulum.
First, some background on the Law would show us that in history, philosophic arguments tend to swing from one extreme to the other. Particularly in this discussion the swing is from Truth to Grace. These swings are as a result of a culture that puts too much weight on one side, then a counter culture forcing the issue the other way. So, in the case of Truth verses Grace, the Western church is often seen as moving out of a time when truth was held too strongly and God's grace under-emphasized. Of course, not everyone agrees with this perception, but people like Ken Davis do. So they begin emphasizing grace. And of course, the reaction of the pro-truth crowd is that the pro-grace people give up on truth. Naturally, there is a counter reaction to the first reaction and the pendulum begins swinging.
For a physical pendulum to work, it must swing from one side to the other without outside force. Gravity is the only force at work, theoretically. And as Sponberg points out in his blog, the swing is ever decreesing. That is true because there are more forces than just gravity, namely air friction is causing the pendulum to slow down. This is true for a physical pendulum.
The problem is, it isn't necessarily true for the philosophic pendulum which is of course a metaphor, and all metaphors have their limitations.
Here's the problem. No matter where any person or group is on the swing of the pendulum, it is the perception of that person or group, to assume that they are holding to the truth, or that they are holding to the C position. Because of that, it seem that any pull away from the C position is a pull to the extreme of another position. More reasonably, most people aren't advocates of any position, but seeking the truth, the C of whatever it is we are thinking about. Where we feel tension is when our culture (our church/our society/our family) has settled on an extreme position we may desire to move from that position, but at that point even the centralist argument is going to feel like the pendulum is swinging hard. And the truth is, the pull to a centralist position will create in itself a momentum to the opposite direction. This will be uncomfortable. People will be yelling about the slippery slope of this or of that. There will be accusations of pendulumating the issue.
Here's the good thing. When a natural pendulum is stuck (say the grandfather clock has something jammed up against it), it takes a force to begin the pendulum';s movement again. It is only through that force that the swing can again work itself toward the point of equilibrium.
So our lesson in this long and technical post is that when we are faced with philosophic arguments that challenge our perceptions or our cultural norms, rather than labeling them bad from the onset, consider how they are helping us to find the final point of equilibrium. In the end, God is the force of gravity that will pull us all the the center eventually.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Parents, when it comes to preparing for college, Relax!
Tim Clydesdale, a sociology professor at the College of NJ who has spoken to parents at our church, sent me this article today. It is great and deserves notice by parents.
In the article Jay Matthews of the Washington Post echos a statement that Clydesdale made at Grace Point last May. That is, the quality of school you attend doesn't greatly predict your future. The implication for parents and school administrators should be relax. I've had way too many discussions with parents about what they are putting their children through in order to get them to the best college. Pushing them into the highest level courses, extra tutoring when they struggle to get A's in those classes, adding multiple demanding extra curricular, and many other tricks that they thing will help to build their child's resume. None of these things is wrong in moderation and in the right manner, but what I witness is too many youth who are over stressed and, worse yet, have their identity wrapped up in their success.
I followed Mr. Matthews' example and thought of a few people that I've greatly admired over the last 15 years and looked up their colleges. In my list are people I've worked for, studied under, enjoyed their music, recognized their accomplishment as overcomers, read their books and follow their blogs. The colleges represented on this list are as follows (in particular order): 2 at Michigan, Friends University, California San Diego, Reed College, Stanford, Wheaton and Augustana. Of those, two did not receive degrees. One only audited classes and another left to start his career.
So my challenge to parents, as well as school leaders, is to help children understand their real value. Ultimately that is in a relationship to Jesus Christ, but even within that relationship you children, all of them, have something unique that they need to develop. A university may be a part of that, but not likely the tell-tale part of what they can accomplish. Education is important, but education can come in so many different ways. Build a great relationship with your children. Help them to develop other relationships with mentors who will provide guidance. Provide for your children opportunities to experience things bigger or different than them. Foster their spirits. These will help your children to succeed much more than stretching them to a point that they end up in schools that don't really help them in the end.
In the article Jay Matthews of the Washington Post echos a statement that Clydesdale made at Grace Point last May. That is, the quality of school you attend doesn't greatly predict your future. The implication for parents and school administrators should be relax. I've had way too many discussions with parents about what they are putting their children through in order to get them to the best college. Pushing them into the highest level courses, extra tutoring when they struggle to get A's in those classes, adding multiple demanding extra curricular, and many other tricks that they thing will help to build their child's resume. None of these things is wrong in moderation and in the right manner, but what I witness is too many youth who are over stressed and, worse yet, have their identity wrapped up in their success.
I followed Mr. Matthews' example and thought of a few people that I've greatly admired over the last 15 years and looked up their colleges. In my list are people I've worked for, studied under, enjoyed their music, recognized their accomplishment as overcomers, read their books and follow their blogs. The colleges represented on this list are as follows (in particular order): 2 at Michigan, Friends University, California San Diego, Reed College, Stanford, Wheaton and Augustana. Of those, two did not receive degrees. One only audited classes and another left to start his career.
So my challenge to parents, as well as school leaders, is to help children understand their real value. Ultimately that is in a relationship to Jesus Christ, but even within that relationship you children, all of them, have something unique that they need to develop. A university may be a part of that, but not likely the tell-tale part of what they can accomplish. Education is important, but education can come in so many different ways. Build a great relationship with your children. Help them to develop other relationships with mentors who will provide guidance. Provide for your children opportunities to experience things bigger or different than them. Foster their spirits. These will help your children to succeed much more than stretching them to a point that they end up in schools that don't really help them in the end.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Community, Gospel and the Word: a Review of Total Church
I found Total Church by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis (Crossway Books, 2008) to be a wonderful and challenging book. There are some aspects of theology that I would disagree with Chester and Timmis. But that might be the reason I've been so challenged to contemplate how this book should impact my life.
Chester and Timmis are the co-founders of the Crowded House in Sheffield, UK. The are proponents of smaller, more intimate church communities developed predominately through church planting.
I really respect the belief that the church is at its core Gospel Centered and Community Centered. (Although I do wish they would have found a better way to word that because you really can't have two centers.) What I took out of this book is that with everything that we do in the church or in our lives (which are really the same thing if you are to follow Jesus) should be considered with respect to missionality, truth in the Word and how it relates to the community of God. I appreciate the movement away from the individualistic mindset of modern evangelistic church toward a theology of community.
I'm not sure I would connect this theology as tightly with Calvinism as they do. They do this implicitly, not in any direct statement. More by quoting Calvin as the authority in key arguments. In the end, it seems to me to be closer to a heritage of the anabaptist. I'd suggest contemplating this alongside Stanley Grenz Theology and the Community of God.
As a result of reading this book, I'm doing more research on the theology of community as developed by Grenz, William Klein and the Crowded House. Also, I will be challenging my church staff to re-consider the theology of all of our church programs and visional work. My goal would be to assure that we are developing as a Gospel community ourselves.
I would also love to see our next step moving toward planting. How exciting would that be.
Chester and Timmis are the co-founders of the Crowded House in Sheffield, UK. The are proponents of smaller, more intimate church communities developed predominately through church planting.
I really respect the belief that the church is at its core Gospel Centered and Community Centered. (Although I do wish they would have found a better way to word that because you really can't have two centers.) What I took out of this book is that with everything that we do in the church or in our lives (which are really the same thing if you are to follow Jesus) should be considered with respect to missionality, truth in the Word and how it relates to the community of God. I appreciate the movement away from the individualistic mindset of modern evangelistic church toward a theology of community.
I'm not sure I would connect this theology as tightly with Calvinism as they do. They do this implicitly, not in any direct statement. More by quoting Calvin as the authority in key arguments. In the end, it seems to me to be closer to a heritage of the anabaptist. I'd suggest contemplating this alongside Stanley Grenz Theology and the Community of God.
As a result of reading this book, I'm doing more research on the theology of community as developed by Grenz, William Klein and the Crowded House. Also, I will be challenging my church staff to re-consider the theology of all of our church programs and visional work. My goal would be to assure that we are developing as a Gospel community ourselves.
I would also love to see our next step moving toward planting. How exciting would that be.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Beware the great danger of the suburbs
Did you notice the great danger in your suburban neighborhood? Dave Gibbon has. I've been concerned for some time about this danger.
The suburban enclaves with their middle class citizens and well- manicured lawns, gates, and guards protecting our Orwellian lifestyle and toys, Starbucks a few minutes apart from each busy intersection, and boasting some of the best schools in the country may actually be the most dangerous locations to live. Okay, we may not have the high murder counts or robberies, but I wonder if the suburbs have become breeding grounds for the accessible and shallow thrills of drugs and alcohol abuse, extravagant parties and proms, and mere facades of happiness and the American Dream. Just ask your local city drug dealer about his primary consumers. . . suburban teenagers and college students.
Okay, I’m not a researcher, but my gut impression from my travels and intersection with youth in the major cities of the world as well as the suburbs and rural communities is that they are all equally dangerous but just in different ways.
The dangers of the suburbs entail the lack of imagination (where do you find real art museums, innovative music venues and creative opportunities to explore nature. Sure there are exceptions but it’s not the norm); materialism; greed; isolation behind cookie-cutter neighborhoods and homogeneous clubs and churches; boredom: apathy; the fascination with the relevant more than the real; a love affair with popularity more than loving the poor; and a thirst for excitement superficially satisfied in the Friday night party. This takes precedence over a dangerous ride with God on the frontlines of His movement.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Nostalgia: grapes and baseball
I had one of those nostalgic moments this morning while looking in the fridge. I saw grapes. They were kind of old, squishing and small. I like grapes, but I like them only when they are plump and juicy.
When I saw the grapes my mind drifted back to a summer's day while I was in seminary. I loved the experience of living on campus. I guess I'm just a social kind of guy. The particular day that I'm think about, we had some wonderful grapes that I was eating out in the campus court yard. A fellow student came by eating another kind of grape. Mine were large with purple skins and white fruit. His looked like mine on the outsides, but the insides were midnight black. I don't know if I ever found grapes like those again.
I think this moment popped into my head because as I checked my Facebook this morning another seminary friend had posted something about missing Cubs games. He lives in New Zealand. Apparently, it's hard to watch baseball down there. I imagine so. I had just watched the Phillies whoop up on Cubs last night. Go Phillies! I've never been to a Cubs game and never really been to Chicago. He did his undergrad studies there.
I'd never been to a Cubs game, but just watching a Cubs game in that beautiful stadium called Wrigley Field can make a man nostalgic. What a sport! What a stadium!
Nostalgia is a good thing. It helps us to reflect. It helps us to feel better about who we are. It's a good thing, but it has its limitations. You can't go back. Nostalgia isn't a reason to make major decisions. It will trick your mind. Those grapes were good, but I know those days are gone. I'm sure that Wrigley is a great place to spend the afternoon, but it just that and offers little more to life.
I skipped the grapes this morning. Just didn't think they'd stack up against my memory. I also suggest to my friend watching mlb online. It would cost a few pennies, but a lot less than a trip form Cambridge to Chicago. The Cubs are blowing it again anyhow.
Come to think of it. The Cubs blowing the season is in fact nostalgia.
I do miss those days though. I miss those guys.
When I saw the grapes my mind drifted back to a summer's day while I was in seminary. I loved the experience of living on campus. I guess I'm just a social kind of guy. The particular day that I'm think about, we had some wonderful grapes that I was eating out in the campus court yard. A fellow student came by eating another kind of grape. Mine were large with purple skins and white fruit. His looked like mine on the outsides, but the insides were midnight black. I don't know if I ever found grapes like those again.
I think this moment popped into my head because as I checked my Facebook this morning another seminary friend had posted something about missing Cubs games. He lives in New Zealand. Apparently, it's hard to watch baseball down there. I imagine so. I had just watched the Phillies whoop up on Cubs last night. Go Phillies! I've never been to a Cubs game and never really been to Chicago. He did his undergrad studies there.
I'd never been to a Cubs game, but just watching a Cubs game in that beautiful stadium called Wrigley Field can make a man nostalgic. What a sport! What a stadium!
Nostalgia is a good thing. It helps us to reflect. It helps us to feel better about who we are. It's a good thing, but it has its limitations. You can't go back. Nostalgia isn't a reason to make major decisions. It will trick your mind. Those grapes were good, but I know those days are gone. I'm sure that Wrigley is a great place to spend the afternoon, but it just that and offers little more to life.
I skipped the grapes this morning. Just didn't think they'd stack up against my memory. I also suggest to my friend watching mlb online. It would cost a few pennies, but a lot less than a trip form Cambridge to Chicago. The Cubs are blowing it again anyhow.
Come to think of it. The Cubs blowing the season is in fact nostalgia.
I do miss those days though. I miss those guys.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Down Hill
Seth Godin has another blog post that made me think. Actually, I've meant to post on this topic for some time. I think about it nearly every time on out for a walk. It may surprise you now when you look at my body shape, but when I was younger I ran competitively. I didn't really like running, but I liked the challenge of getting better at something. Along the way, two wise men taught me how to run hills, which is good, because I lived in Colorado at the time.
Early in my running career, my father told me never to quit on the uphill. He said it's too easy to do that. A lot of people do that because that's when it hurts the most. But if you don't quit, you have the ability to pass the most competitors.
My high school cross country coach also taught me about hill running. He taught me to use short powerful steps going up hill, and long loose strides going down. He also said that the last 10% of this hill was the point to really make a move. Yes it hurt the most, but as the hill rounds to level, the extra work the runner puts in will turn to speed and the competition will loose heart.
My cross country team was excellent at running the hilly courses. Not because it hurt less for us, but because we were more ready for the uphill stretches, and we used that to our psychological advantage.
Godin talks about bike riding on hills. The work is done on the uphill. Down hill is limited by gravity and safety concerns. The only way to pass a competitor going down hill is to coast better than the other guy. You can learn some tricks to do that, but ticks only help so much. You can beet the pack going uphill by using strength, conditioning, strategy and psychology.
Another thing that I learned to do on the downhill run was to look ahead and prepare for the next hill. Size it up. Learn which points you can push and how much juice you need to hold in reserve for the top. If you get caught up in how fast you're going down the hill, you will be surprised when you realize the slope changes.
I think this is all applicable to life and leadership. We have slopes in our path. In order to get to a down hill period, you have to have an uphill. You have to work. What are you hills in life right now?
Is it the economy? A lost job? Don't think about quitting. Find creative ways that you can put more time into the things your best at. Remember, Microsoft and Apple both began at a time when the economy was down.
I'd love to hear what your hills are right now. Maybe you're on a down hill. That's good to. What are you doing to get ready for the next climb?
Early in my running career, my father told me never to quit on the uphill. He said it's too easy to do that. A lot of people do that because that's when it hurts the most. But if you don't quit, you have the ability to pass the most competitors.
My high school cross country coach also taught me about hill running. He taught me to use short powerful steps going up hill, and long loose strides going down. He also said that the last 10% of this hill was the point to really make a move. Yes it hurt the most, but as the hill rounds to level, the extra work the runner puts in will turn to speed and the competition will loose heart.
My cross country team was excellent at running the hilly courses. Not because it hurt less for us, but because we were more ready for the uphill stretches, and we used that to our psychological advantage.
Godin talks about bike riding on hills. The work is done on the uphill. Down hill is limited by gravity and safety concerns. The only way to pass a competitor going down hill is to coast better than the other guy. You can learn some tricks to do that, but ticks only help so much. You can beet the pack going uphill by using strength, conditioning, strategy and psychology.
Another thing that I learned to do on the downhill run was to look ahead and prepare for the next hill. Size it up. Learn which points you can push and how much juice you need to hold in reserve for the top. If you get caught up in how fast you're going down the hill, you will be surprised when you realize the slope changes.
I think this is all applicable to life and leadership. We have slopes in our path. In order to get to a down hill period, you have to have an uphill. You have to work. What are you hills in life right now?
Is it the economy? A lost job? Don't think about quitting. Find creative ways that you can put more time into the things your best at. Remember, Microsoft and Apple both began at a time when the economy was down.
I'd love to hear what your hills are right now. Maybe you're on a down hill. That's good to. What are you doing to get ready for the next climb?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Good tool for Bible blogging
If you blog and include Bible references on occation, you need the tool that I just added. Look what it did to my post with the most Bible references. The tool is RefTagger Bible Reference Pop-Up by Logos. To add the tool was just a matter of adding the following code just before my last tag.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Growth of a moment
I was reading Seth Godin's blog this morning. He's talking about the growth of a movement. Guy #3 is his post title. This video demonstrates the Guy #3 principle.
I'm usually the dork at the beginning or one who runs in later. I need more Guy #3 in my life.
I'm usually the dork at the beginning or one who runs in later. I need more Guy #3 in my life.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Life After Home Audio
Sunday Evening we had the pleasure to host Dr. Tim Clydesdale at Grace Point. Tim, author of The First Year Out and professor of sociology at the College of New Jersey, came to share his research on the experience of first year college student. I had the pleasure of interviewing him. The event was records and is available on the Grace Point website .
Listen now .
Listen now .
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Just call me....?
I was thinking about my name the other day. Steve Johnson. It's a great name. Almost nobody misspells it. There are a few who get confused. "Is Steve spelled with a 'V' or a 'PH'?" "Johnson is that with an 'O', an 'E', or an 'I'?" (Yes there have been a few in my life who would think my last name was "Johnsin".
My name is a good name. I know hundreds of thousands of moms and dads have agreed with that in the past 50 years. They gave it to there children.
Skye Jathani had an interesting blog today about weird names. He says that with the election of Barak Obama weird names are suddenly in style. That's what got me to reflecting back to the day I was thinking about my name. Not only is "Steve Johnson" not weird, there are times that I think my identity is lost in my name.
Try it, Google your name (chances are you've done that before). When I good "Steve Johnson" including the quotes, Google returns over 800,000 hits. I gave up really quickly any idea of digging down to see how many of those actually refer to me, but I'll venture to say it is very few.
Google "Skye Jathani" and you'll find about 8000 hits, 3 pages in, all relate to the same guy.
So, my idea was that maybe I should change my name. I already have for my blog using my childhood nickname "Deets". Maybe I should start using that more often. It kind of has a cool differentness to it, don't you think?
Then I started thinking, my name doesn't really give me any identity as far as my heritage goes. Johnson can be Swedish, English, Scottish or Icelandic. I asked my dad which it was once. He said one day he as his grandmother what grandpa Johnson was. Her response..."He was a skunk." That's not really helpful in giving me a positive cultural identity.
I don't know much of my heritage, but I do know that my maternal grandfather immigrated from the Basque Country of Spain. The Basque culture is really unique. Of course, Grandpa Bruner, as I learned to call him, had change his name to something more common in his youth. I guess he didn't want to stand out with the name Ascargorta.
So here was my thought, I could use Deets as my name, but I could inject it with a bit of Basque heritage. In the Basque language (which is very different than Spanish), there is a common use of "tx" in spelling certain words. You know how sometimes and 'x' can sound like a 'z'. Deetx would be a really unique name and spelling. Don't you think? Of course, as much as I understand the Basque language, that would be pronounced deech. And deech isn't really Basque at all.
Anyway, this is a long winded way of saying, I could change my name, but I'm still the same me. God knows me as a unique person...my common name can't hide that. In Christ, my name has already been changed, from Steve Johnson to Steve Johnson God's Son. That is my heritage. It may be common, or it may be weird, but it is me.
My name is a good name. I know hundreds of thousands of moms and dads have agreed with that in the past 50 years. They gave it to there children.
Skye Jathani had an interesting blog today about weird names. He says that with the election of Barak Obama weird names are suddenly in style. That's what got me to reflecting back to the day I was thinking about my name. Not only is "Steve Johnson" not weird, there are times that I think my identity is lost in my name.
Try it, Google your name (chances are you've done that before). When I good "Steve Johnson" including the quotes, Google returns over 800,000 hits. I gave up really quickly any idea of digging down to see how many of those actually refer to me, but I'll venture to say it is very few.
Google "Skye Jathani" and you'll find about 8000 hits, 3 pages in, all relate to the same guy.
So, my idea was that maybe I should change my name. I already have for my blog using my childhood nickname "Deets". Maybe I should start using that more often. It kind of has a cool differentness to it, don't you think?
Then I started thinking, my name doesn't really give me any identity as far as my heritage goes. Johnson can be Swedish, English, Scottish or Icelandic. I asked my dad which it was once. He said one day he as his grandmother what grandpa Johnson was. Her response..."He was a skunk." That's not really helpful in giving me a positive cultural identity.
I don't know much of my heritage, but I do know that my maternal grandfather immigrated from the Basque Country of Spain. The Basque culture is really unique. Of course, Grandpa Bruner, as I learned to call him, had change his name to something more common in his youth. I guess he didn't want to stand out with the name Ascargorta.
So here was my thought, I could use Deets as my name, but I could inject it with a bit of Basque heritage. In the Basque language (which is very different than Spanish), there is a common use of "tx" in spelling certain words. You know how sometimes and 'x' can sound like a 'z'. Deetx would be a really unique name and spelling. Don't you think? Of course, as much as I understand the Basque language, that would be pronounced deech. And deech isn't really Basque at all.
Anyway, this is a long winded way of saying, I could change my name, but I'm still the same me. God knows me as a unique person...my common name can't hide that. In Christ, my name has already been changed, from Steve Johnson to Steve Johnson God's Son. That is my heritage. It may be common, or it may be weird, but it is me.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Perfect love, fear and risk
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
1 John 4:18
If my ministry is ruled by fear, then it is not formed by God's love. I admit, too often, I do what I do because I don't want to loose what I have. But, I have nothing accept the life that is given me be God and in Christ. Therefore, if I act in love, I can risk everything. I should be willing to risk everything!
What has fear kept you from risking today?
1 John 4:18
If my ministry is ruled by fear, then it is not formed by God's love. I admit, too often, I do what I do because I don't want to loose what I have. But, I have nothing accept the life that is given me be God and in Christ. Therefore, if I act in love, I can risk everything. I should be willing to risk everything!
What has fear kept you from risking today?
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Thoughts on Salvation: the Coin
Could it be that salvation is a coin with two clear sides?
If all you ever think about is the salvation of individual souls, you will be happy every time the coin lands on heads. But when it lands on tails, you will be frustrated.
If all you ever think about is the salvation of culture, then you will be please with tails and frustrated with heads.
Does not God's Word place the individual and culture side-by-side?
If all you ever think about is the salvation of individual souls, you will be happy every time the coin lands on heads. But when it lands on tails, you will be frustrated.
If all you ever think about is the salvation of culture, then you will be please with tails and frustrated with heads.
Does not God's Word place the individual and culture side-by-side?
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Are you afraid?
We live in a time with a lot of people giving us many reasons to be afraid--Swine Flu, the economy, the national debt, terrorism, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, pirates from Somalia, tax hikes, earth quakes, floods, tornado, etc. The Weather Channel runs a series call, It Could Happen Tomorrow. The History Channel is running series on Gangs and UFO.
I hear that there is a new term for the obsession of such fears. It's called pessimism porn. Chicken Little was addicted to it. I think I have problem too since my two favorite TV shows are Lost and Jericho. Of course, I'll never know how Jericho ended since they pulled it off the air, but I'm watching season 1 on reruns right now. Lost plays on fears that the whole world can be in jeopardy from a number of different people or sources. Maybe most of our TV shows do the same sort of things.
That's not new either, look at any 1950s sci-fi movie. Nuclear disasters were the reason for so many things to be afraid.
Here, though, is a list of verses that I think will help you when these things become scare. I think every parent needs to review these verses whenever they are overwhelmed by the things that could go wrong in the life of their children. Before and after you watch the news, pull a couple of these verses out. They should help to set your mind at ease.
Gen 15:1
Gen 21:17
Gen 26:24
Gen 46:3
Exod 14:13
Exod 20:20
Num 14:9
Num 21:34
Deut 1:17
Deut 1:21
Deut 1:29
Deut 3:2
Deut 3:22
Deut 7:18
Deut 18:22
Deut 20:1
Deut 31:6
Deut 31:8
Josh 8:1
Josh 10:8
Josh 10:25
Josh 11:6
Judg 6:23
1 Sam 12:20
2 Kings 1:15
2 Kings 19:6
2 Kings 25:24
1 Chron 22:13
1 Chron 28:20
2 Chron 20:15
2 Chron 20:17
2 Chron 32:7
Isa 10:24
Isa 37:6
Isa 40:9
Isa 41:14
Isa 43:5
Isa 44:2
Isa 44:8
Isa 54:4
Jer 1:8
Jer 40:9
Jer 42:11
Ezek 2:6
Ezek 3:9
Dan 10:12
Dan 10:19
Zech 8:13
Zech 8:15
Matt 1:20
Matt 10:26
Matt 10:28
Matt 28:5
Matt 28:10
Luke 1:13
Luke 1:30
Luke 2:10
Luke 12:4
Luke 12:32
John 12:15
John 14:27
Acts 18:9
Acts 27:24
Rev 1:17
Rev 2:10
Do you think your circumstances are really worse that all these folks? If not, then I think God's message to you is the same. Do not be afraid. Have faith. He is able.
I hear that there is a new term for the obsession of such fears. It's called pessimism porn. Chicken Little was addicted to it. I think I have problem too since my two favorite TV shows are Lost and Jericho. Of course, I'll never know how Jericho ended since they pulled it off the air, but I'm watching season 1 on reruns right now. Lost plays on fears that the whole world can be in jeopardy from a number of different people or sources. Maybe most of our TV shows do the same sort of things.
That's not new either, look at any 1950s sci-fi movie. Nuclear disasters were the reason for so many things to be afraid.
Here, though, is a list of verses that I think will help you when these things become scare. I think every parent needs to review these verses whenever they are overwhelmed by the things that could go wrong in the life of their children. Before and after you watch the news, pull a couple of these verses out. They should help to set your mind at ease.
Gen 15:1
Gen 21:17
Gen 26:24
Gen 46:3
Exod 14:13
Exod 20:20
Num 14:9
Num 21:34
Deut 1:17
Deut 1:21
Deut 1:29
Deut 3:2
Deut 3:22
Deut 7:18
Deut 18:22
Deut 20:1
Deut 31:6
Deut 31:8
Josh 8:1
Josh 10:8
Josh 10:25
Josh 11:6
Judg 6:23
1 Sam 12:20
2 Kings 1:15
2 Kings 19:6
2 Kings 25:24
1 Chron 22:13
1 Chron 28:20
2 Chron 20:15
2 Chron 20:17
2 Chron 32:7
Isa 10:24
Isa 37:6
Isa 40:9
Isa 41:14
Isa 43:5
Isa 44:2
Isa 44:8
Isa 54:4
Jer 1:8
Jer 40:9
Jer 42:11
Ezek 2:6
Ezek 3:9
Dan 10:12
Dan 10:19
Zech 8:13
Zech 8:15
Matt 1:20
Matt 10:26
Matt 10:28
Matt 28:5
Matt 28:10
Luke 1:13
Luke 1:30
Luke 2:10
Luke 12:4
Luke 12:32
John 12:15
John 14:27
Acts 18:9
Acts 27:24
Rev 1:17
Rev 2:10
Do you think your circumstances are really worse that all these folks? If not, then I think God's message to you is the same. Do not be afraid. Have faith. He is able.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Things to never tell a child: #5 You're better safe than sorry
I don't think parents too often actually sit a child down and tell them that you're better safe than sorry. I can remember hearing this in the past, as in during my childhood, but I don't think it was a message given by my parents. It was probably something I picked up in my 1.5 years of Cub Scouts or with the ultraconservative Jr. High football coach who bravely lead my team to a zero win season. "Better safe than sorry, Men."
Here's the thing, while I don't have evidence that parents use these words when talking to their children, I do think that Christian parents and the churches of America teach this all the time.
That's why we live in the suburbs by the way. That's why we pay high house prices to live in school districts that are free of the riff raff, gangs and drugs of the inner-city.
In my children's high schools each child is allow 1.5 electives in their course schedule. One day in two they have either gym or health. The other day they can learn art or philosophy or music or something. Now they have another option to take those courses if they desire, but few do. Why? Because you'll be better safe than sorry. Therefore, every school administer, teacher and course book recommends that they take at least 3 years of foreign language.
Now I'm not against foreign languages. I wish I would have learned more. But I can tell you, those courses I took in high school didn't teach me one lick how to communicate to people of other languages. I don't think my kids will be better off either. Both of them are taking German anyhow. The fact is, everyone I've ever known who I'd need to talk to who spoke German, spoke English too.
I'm not against learning German. I'm against the better safe than sorry mentality that directs artistic kids or kids with a scientific bent into the same course schedule. "Why?" I asked the school counselor once. "Because you never know if you are going to apply for a school that demands 3 or 4 years of foreign language for applicants." Hmm. I looked it up, and very few schools actually make that demand. Very few.
Now the church lives this way too. People lived that way in Jesus' day. He called them Pharisees and teachers of the Law. These were people who were so afraid of breaking the Law of God that they made their own laws to protect it.
We do similar things in a different way. We expect that our children should go to college because otherwise there will be closed doors. We send them on safe mission trips to safe regions of the world so that they can have a good experience. We work extra hours in our jobs because we want our kids to have every economic advantage. We tell them to be good strong Christians, but don't act weird. Make sure that you fit into the church group. No weird clothes or strange music that people don't get. We offer program after program so that no child (or adult) will feel left out. We offer services with every kinds of music so that everyone feels they have a place.
Why? Because, we’re better safe than sorry. Don't burn any bridges.
I'm not sure that Jesus lived this way. He burned bridges. Not every bridge, but the safe ones. Not the bridges to the marginalized, but the bridges to the mainstream. He didn't mind making those "religious" people feel left out.
He wasn't safe. No, his behavior cost him his life.
That's drastic. Do we want to put our children in a place where their lives will be in danger? Of course not, but their lives will be shallow unless we allow them to push those limit.
Stef showed me a video this morning where Francis Chan gave a silly analogy of Christians as gymnasts who plays it safe . It’s silly because no Olympic gymnast would cling to a balance beam like he does in this video. In the same way, Christians can't cling to their faith in such a safe way as to not risk "loosing" it. It's God's job to protect the hearts of our children. The Holy Spirit is responsible for working these things into their hearts. All we can do as parents is teach our children is teach to trust, or teach them to fear.
I hope that I'm teaching my children to trust God. That's faith. Fear is a lack of faith. To not have faith is to be an unbeliever. I hope my kids are learning to be believers.
Bono has a line on U2's latest album, No Line on the Horizon. He says, "Stop helping God across the street like a little old lady." It took me a bit to understand this line, but he's talking about being religious folks who are trying to make religion safe rather than a matter of faith.
So, I want parents, teachers and mentors to consider this. Are you helping God across the street or are you helping the children in your life to develop a faith that allows for real risk? If you are then stop! Take them out of the "better safe than sorry classes and help them to discover faith by trial.
Faith isn’t safe, but, in the end, faith is the only real thing we can have. In the end to live a safe life is to be sorry if we don’t allow our children to develop this real, active faith that is not afraid.
Here's the thing, while I don't have evidence that parents use these words when talking to their children, I do think that Christian parents and the churches of America teach this all the time.
That's why we live in the suburbs by the way. That's why we pay high house prices to live in school districts that are free of the riff raff, gangs and drugs of the inner-city.
In my children's high schools each child is allow 1.5 electives in their course schedule. One day in two they have either gym or health. The other day they can learn art or philosophy or music or something. Now they have another option to take those courses if they desire, but few do. Why? Because you'll be better safe than sorry. Therefore, every school administer, teacher and course book recommends that they take at least 3 years of foreign language.
Now I'm not against foreign languages. I wish I would have learned more. But I can tell you, those courses I took in high school didn't teach me one lick how to communicate to people of other languages. I don't think my kids will be better off either. Both of them are taking German anyhow. The fact is, everyone I've ever known who I'd need to talk to who spoke German, spoke English too.
I'm not against learning German. I'm against the better safe than sorry mentality that directs artistic kids or kids with a scientific bent into the same course schedule. "Why?" I asked the school counselor once. "Because you never know if you are going to apply for a school that demands 3 or 4 years of foreign language for applicants." Hmm. I looked it up, and very few schools actually make that demand. Very few.
Now the church lives this way too. People lived that way in Jesus' day. He called them Pharisees and teachers of the Law. These were people who were so afraid of breaking the Law of God that they made their own laws to protect it.
We do similar things in a different way. We expect that our children should go to college because otherwise there will be closed doors. We send them on safe mission trips to safe regions of the world so that they can have a good experience. We work extra hours in our jobs because we want our kids to have every economic advantage. We tell them to be good strong Christians, but don't act weird. Make sure that you fit into the church group. No weird clothes or strange music that people don't get. We offer program after program so that no child (or adult) will feel left out. We offer services with every kinds of music so that everyone feels they have a place.
Why? Because, we’re better safe than sorry. Don't burn any bridges.
I'm not sure that Jesus lived this way. He burned bridges. Not every bridge, but the safe ones. Not the bridges to the marginalized, but the bridges to the mainstream. He didn't mind making those "religious" people feel left out.
He wasn't safe. No, his behavior cost him his life.
That's drastic. Do we want to put our children in a place where their lives will be in danger? Of course not, but their lives will be shallow unless we allow them to push those limit.
Stef showed me a video this morning where Francis Chan gave a silly analogy of Christians as gymnasts who plays it safe . It’s silly because no Olympic gymnast would cling to a balance beam like he does in this video. In the same way, Christians can't cling to their faith in such a safe way as to not risk "loosing" it. It's God's job to protect the hearts of our children. The Holy Spirit is responsible for working these things into their hearts. All we can do as parents is teach our children is teach to trust, or teach them to fear.
I hope that I'm teaching my children to trust God. That's faith. Fear is a lack of faith. To not have faith is to be an unbeliever. I hope my kids are learning to be believers.
Bono has a line on U2's latest album, No Line on the Horizon. He says, "Stop helping God across the street like a little old lady." It took me a bit to understand this line, but he's talking about being religious folks who are trying to make religion safe rather than a matter of faith.
So, I want parents, teachers and mentors to consider this. Are you helping God across the street or are you helping the children in your life to develop a faith that allows for real risk? If you are then stop! Take them out of the "better safe than sorry classes and help them to discover faith by trial.
Faith isn’t safe, but, in the end, faith is the only real thing we can have. In the end to live a safe life is to be sorry if we don’t allow our children to develop this real, active faith that is not afraid.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Which is more freedom?
I've been listening to the latest Mars Hill Audio with Ken Meyer. If you are a heady person and like to think about complicated things, I recommend this mp3 subscription, http://marshillaudio.org/. If not your going to think it sounds too much like NPR and will turn it off.
This quarter's journal features some discussions about freedom, particularly with respect to free market or economic issues, but they say you can only understand economic freedom in light of theology. (This post isn't about economics in any way. It's about relationship.)
Here's my illustration and question. This morning after riding my exercise bike I took a 5 minute cool-down walk down the block. Caspian (my pooch) knows when my bike ride is coming to an end. He usually shows up at peddleside when my timer beeps or my peddling slows.
He knows that I take him on this walk. I'll take him without a leash.
I take him because I know he needs the walk as much as I do before he's locked in his crate for the day. I don't use a leash because I'm tire and don't feel like looking for one for a five minute walk. Besides, most of the neighbors are off at work or school. There's little chance of running across another dog walker.
This is what I was thinking this morning.
When I walk him without a leash, because I know that I'm violating my HOA rules, I demand that he heal the whole time. He must walk a foot or two from my left leg. If he starts to move ahead or is distracted by a fun smell, I immediately give him a "hey" or a quick foot tap to remind him that he has to be close. He's getting pretty go at this because he loves walking with me.
If I were to go for a walk in the middle of the day, or a little longer of a walk, I'd put him on lead. He likes that too. On command, he'll even jump up an stick his nose into his Gentle Leader because his knows what that means and that means a fun walk. We have a long leash. I think it's 12-feet long. When we walk, I let him use all 12 plus as long as there aren't any cars, small children or white fluffy dogs that he loves soooooo much. He can smell every smell and pee on every bush or cable box. What fun for a dog!
So, my question. Which one affords him more freedom? He he free when he has the ability to run off but stays close because of his respect for me? Or is he free when he's allowed to do pretty much what ever he wants as long as I can pull him back by the leash?
Which picture is paints your relationship with God?
This quarter's journal features some discussions about freedom, particularly with respect to free market or economic issues, but they say you can only understand economic freedom in light of theology. (This post isn't about economics in any way. It's about relationship.)
Here's my illustration and question. This morning after riding my exercise bike I took a 5 minute cool-down walk down the block. Caspian (my pooch) knows when my bike ride is coming to an end. He usually shows up at peddleside when my timer beeps or my peddling slows.
He knows that I take him on this walk. I'll take him without a leash.
I take him because I know he needs the walk as much as I do before he's locked in his crate for the day. I don't use a leash because I'm tire and don't feel like looking for one for a five minute walk. Besides, most of the neighbors are off at work or school. There's little chance of running across another dog walker.
This is what I was thinking this morning.
When I walk him without a leash, because I know that I'm violating my HOA rules, I demand that he heal the whole time. He must walk a foot or two from my left leg. If he starts to move ahead or is distracted by a fun smell, I immediately give him a "hey" or a quick foot tap to remind him that he has to be close. He's getting pretty go at this because he loves walking with me.
If I were to go for a walk in the middle of the day, or a little longer of a walk, I'd put him on lead. He likes that too. On command, he'll even jump up an stick his nose into his Gentle Leader because his knows what that means and that means a fun walk. We have a long leash. I think it's 12-feet long. When we walk, I let him use all 12 plus as long as there aren't any cars, small children or white fluffy dogs that he loves soooooo much. He can smell every smell and pee on every bush or cable box. What fun for a dog!
So, my question. Which one affords him more freedom? He he free when he has the ability to run off but stays close because of his respect for me? Or is he free when he's allowed to do pretty much what ever he wants as long as I can pull him back by the leash?
Which picture is paints your relationship with God?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Review: Outliers by Malcom Gladwell/iPhone Kindle App.
I just finished reading my first Kindle book. I don't have a Kindle, but I used the iPhone App.
In brief, I liked reading on my iPhone. It moved really well, I always had the book with me, and I didn't have any trouble with seeing the book at all. The down side was that I couldn't tap on the notes links at all. I got to one or two after tap-tap-tap-tap, but a few notes I just gave up on reading after tapping a good number of times. I'll tell you I read this book much, much faster than I would have read the typical 320 page book. That length book usually takes me 3 to 4 times longer with starts and stops. I was challenged to read this without any long delays. Speaks well for both the Kindle App and for Outliers.
As for the book. Malcom Gladwell outlines a compelling thesis in Outliers. I gather that his main point is that success doesn't just happen, and that there aren't some people who are born to succeed. Rather, success is a matter of many key factors lining up just right. Birthdate, opportunities to practice a trade, timing of swinging economic trends and regional/people-group culture a play a part in defining those who have succeeded in great measure.
Gladwell caught my attention in the first chapter as he spoke about birth timing. I've noticed this before. As students work through schools and through sports, those who are the oldest in their class year succeed at a higher rate than the younger. Success is in some measure determined by timing of your birth.
Gladwell goes on to show other ways that highly successful people have benefited from things outside their control. Of course, the true outliers always took advantage of the opportunities that they are given.
As Gladwell pulls the information together, he proposes that in order to make more people successful, they need opportunities. I think that is simple enough. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that studying outliers is at all a way that we can help more people succeed. Outliers are just that, outliers. That means they are the rare few who succeed far beyond anyone else. The Beatles are outliers, but can't realistically develop a system that will make every disadvantaged, hopeful musician into the next Super band. If we develop that system, everyone will be that good, presumably, thus they won't be that special. The true outliers will rise up in some other way.
My next complaint with Outliers is that I am concerned by the measure of success in the end. I've heard this measure being used time and time again. That is, I think that Gladwell seemed to indicate that if we found the things that each culture did well and helped all other cultures to assimilate those aspects, then every culture will be more successful.
It work in Korean Air as the learned to fly like Americans. It seems to be working in some inner-city schools, the KIPP schools, as they assimilate educational principles of the rice cultures (Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore, etc.).
First, while I'm sure that we don't want Korean pilots to fly more airplanes into hillsides, and we don't want a math illiterate American culture, I'm not sure that we can define success by saying that every culture should have super success in math or what ever else some cultures may have. Why does this concern me? While I respect the achievements of many Asian people that I know, I'm not sure that academic success is really a measure of success at all. I thought Gladwell made that point early on in the book. My concern is that of many Asians who have stressed academics, I've found that many are miserable in their pursuit of that success. Japan's exceedingly high suicide rate evidences this fact as 36 out of 1000 men commit suicide every year and 14 of 1000 women do. There are other nations as high or higher, but they all seem to be nations of economic stress, particularly those who are struggling to find their way out of their communistic background.
Another problem I have with this rice culture as measure of success, is that I'm not sure it is creating many more true outliers. For example, you have to go to #16 on the list of Forbes' Riches People list to find someone from the rice culture. Further, I only find 3 rice-culture members on in the top 50. Again, I don't think we should measure cultural success by the riches people list, or by any outliers, but it seems to me that Gladwell sets the stage for that assumption to be made.
I think we would be good to look at this book in a positive light. We learned from it that success requires a hand from interested people along the way. Let's extend that hand whenever we can. We've learned that our background, our culture provides areas of strengths and weaknesses. Let's celebrate our strengths and diversity. I don't think we need to have a world economy where every culture bleeds into one. Let's aim for one that realized the beauty of diversity.
In brief, I liked reading on my iPhone. It moved really well, I always had the book with me, and I didn't have any trouble with seeing the book at all. The down side was that I couldn't tap on the notes links at all. I got to one or two after tap-tap-tap-tap, but a few notes I just gave up on reading after tapping a good number of times. I'll tell you I read this book much, much faster than I would have read the typical 320 page book. That length book usually takes me 3 to 4 times longer with starts and stops. I was challenged to read this without any long delays. Speaks well for both the Kindle App and for Outliers.
As for the book. Malcom Gladwell outlines a compelling thesis in Outliers. I gather that his main point is that success doesn't just happen, and that there aren't some people who are born to succeed. Rather, success is a matter of many key factors lining up just right. Birthdate, opportunities to practice a trade, timing of swinging economic trends and regional/people-group culture a play a part in defining those who have succeeded in great measure.
Gladwell caught my attention in the first chapter as he spoke about birth timing. I've noticed this before. As students work through schools and through sports, those who are the oldest in their class year succeed at a higher rate than the younger. Success is in some measure determined by timing of your birth.
Gladwell goes on to show other ways that highly successful people have benefited from things outside their control. Of course, the true outliers always took advantage of the opportunities that they are given.
As Gladwell pulls the information together, he proposes that in order to make more people successful, they need opportunities. I think that is simple enough. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that studying outliers is at all a way that we can help more people succeed. Outliers are just that, outliers. That means they are the rare few who succeed far beyond anyone else. The Beatles are outliers, but can't realistically develop a system that will make every disadvantaged, hopeful musician into the next Super band. If we develop that system, everyone will be that good, presumably, thus they won't be that special. The true outliers will rise up in some other way.
My next complaint with Outliers is that I am concerned by the measure of success in the end. I've heard this measure being used time and time again. That is, I think that Gladwell seemed to indicate that if we found the things that each culture did well and helped all other cultures to assimilate those aspects, then every culture will be more successful.
It work in Korean Air as the learned to fly like Americans. It seems to be working in some inner-city schools, the KIPP schools, as they assimilate educational principles of the rice cultures (Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore, etc.).
First, while I'm sure that we don't want Korean pilots to fly more airplanes into hillsides, and we don't want a math illiterate American culture, I'm not sure that we can define success by saying that every culture should have super success in math or what ever else some cultures may have. Why does this concern me? While I respect the achievements of many Asian people that I know, I'm not sure that academic success is really a measure of success at all. I thought Gladwell made that point early on in the book. My concern is that of many Asians who have stressed academics, I've found that many are miserable in their pursuit of that success. Japan's exceedingly high suicide rate evidences this fact as 36 out of 1000 men commit suicide every year and 14 of 1000 women do. There are other nations as high or higher, but they all seem to be nations of economic stress, particularly those who are struggling to find their way out of their communistic background.
Another problem I have with this rice culture as measure of success, is that I'm not sure it is creating many more true outliers. For example, you have to go to #16 on the list of Forbes' Riches People list to find someone from the rice culture. Further, I only find 3 rice-culture members on in the top 50. Again, I don't think we should measure cultural success by the riches people list, or by any outliers, but it seems to me that Gladwell sets the stage for that assumption to be made.
I think we would be good to look at this book in a positive light. We learned from it that success requires a hand from interested people along the way. Let's extend that hand whenever we can. We've learned that our background, our culture provides areas of strengths and weaknesses. Let's celebrate our strengths and diversity. I don't think we need to have a world economy where every culture bleeds into one. Let's aim for one that realized the beauty of diversity.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Things to never tell a child: #4 Grandma will be waiting for us in heaven
This is a difficult one. It comes out when people are grieving. They miss Grandma. They're longing for a chance to talk to her one more time. But don't say it to a child. A child thinks in concrete terms and if you paint heave to look like Grandma's house, their image of and purpose for heaven will fall short of that which God has in store.
I don't like too talk too much about heaven. Heaven is out there. We talk about it all the time. Our hope is that some day we will all live together in heaven.
Or is it?
Our hope is that we can please God. Our reward is that God will bring us into his presence. Grandma is a wonderful part of our life on earth, but our reward isn't about recreating our relationships from earth in a new place. The afterlife is about God. (Actually, this life is about God, too.) At any rate, it is not good for children to miss that point and the central point of this life or the next.
Of course, when I use Grandma in this post, it could just as easily be any person of a dear relationship.
Don't think that we should not assume that Grandma will be in heaven. That's possible as far as we mean by heaven in the presence of God for eternity. In that picture, Grandma may visit us. But we can't assume that. The thing is, we don't really know what the afterlife has in store for us. We know a bit about it, but we don't know much.
What do we know?
We know that God will be the center of it.
We know that it is a city which implies that there will be people there--lots of people.
We know that there will be other spiritual creatures there.
We know that our Lord is preparing a place for us--and he's coming back to take us there.
We know that there will be no death or pain or crying.
We know that it is a reward for those who are righteous in Christ.
Instead of painting a false or assumed picture for a child, help them to understand the known things of the afterlife. Tell him that Jesus loves Grandma very much and she is happy with him. Some day we can be there to.
I hope that we get to see Grandma in heaven. What a special reunion it would be. But, as special as it may be, I just might run right by Grandma on my way to the King. I hope Grandma isn't offended. If she's thinking about it at all, she'll probably be happier for my reunion with my Savior.
I don't know what that will be like, but I know that this life and the next is about God first. God's arms will be and are open, waiting for me.
I can't wait. But I will wait.
I don't like too talk too much about heaven. Heaven is out there. We talk about it all the time. Our hope is that some day we will all live together in heaven.
Or is it?
Our hope is that we can please God. Our reward is that God will bring us into his presence. Grandma is a wonderful part of our life on earth, but our reward isn't about recreating our relationships from earth in a new place. The afterlife is about God. (Actually, this life is about God, too.) At any rate, it is not good for children to miss that point and the central point of this life or the next.
Of course, when I use Grandma in this post, it could just as easily be any person of a dear relationship.
Don't think that we should not assume that Grandma will be in heaven. That's possible as far as we mean by heaven in the presence of God for eternity. In that picture, Grandma may visit us. But we can't assume that. The thing is, we don't really know what the afterlife has in store for us. We know a bit about it, but we don't know much.
What do we know?
We know that God will be the center of it.
We know that it is a city which implies that there will be people there--lots of people.
We know that there will be other spiritual creatures there.
We know that our Lord is preparing a place for us--and he's coming back to take us there.
We know that there will be no death or pain or crying.
We know that it is a reward for those who are righteous in Christ.
Instead of painting a false or assumed picture for a child, help them to understand the known things of the afterlife. Tell him that Jesus loves Grandma very much and she is happy with him. Some day we can be there to.
I hope that we get to see Grandma in heaven. What a special reunion it would be. But, as special as it may be, I just might run right by Grandma on my way to the King. I hope Grandma isn't offended. If she's thinking about it at all, she'll probably be happier for my reunion with my Savior.
I don't know what that will be like, but I know that this life and the next is about God first. God's arms will be and are open, waiting for me.
I can't wait. But I will wait.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Things to never tell a child: #3 Prayer Works
Does God answer prayer? Absolutely! So why shouldn't you tell children that prayer works?
Because prayer isn't a tool for us to get what we want. Prayer is prayer not a Internet order form, not a 1-800 number to God Services, not an line to the help desk in the sky.
Prayer is a human's relational connect to the Creator. It's about listening to God as much as (arguably more so) a way of petitioning God.
I know the Bible says Ask and it will be given to you and with prayer and petition make your requests known to God. In that light, we should know that God wants us to make requests and, in context, when we ask for holiness, God will give it to us. But these verses don't paint a pragmatic use of a get what you want service.
Look at the Ask, Seek, Knock passage in Matthew 7:7-12. The passage is sandwich between a passage on not judging others and the narrow gate to God. It isn't about God's willingness to give us whatever we want. It is about God's desire to give us holiness and is desire for us to ask for that. The only way to interpret this passage differently is to look at these things as unconnected thoughts. But they are connected.
Likewise, Philippians 4:6 does say make your request known to God, but the only promise is that God's peace will guard are hearts. Again, in times of trouble, God is offering us holiness, not our desired result.
So what's wrong with telling a child that prayer works? It's wrong because from a human perspective, often prayer doesn't work. Many times people, godly people with good intentions and solid faith, don't get what they hope for when the pray. Paul didn't! The Apostle prayed many time for the thorn in his flesh to be taken away (2 Corinthians 12:7-8). I don't know that it ever was. Why wasn't it taken? Because, Paul concluded, it was a messenger for Paul to understand God's grace, a messenger for Paul to become more holy.
If you tell a child that prayer works and they pray for a puppy, they expect a puppy. If the puppy doesn't come, the God either doesn't care or isn't capable. What if the desire is less selfish? If a child prays for his mother to be healed of cancer and the cancer doesn't go away, again God is either uncaring or incapable. Many many times prayer does not work.
Don't tell a child that prayer works, rather tell them the value of prayer as a relational tool. Tell of the wonder of being able to talk to or listen to God, the maker of all things. Make prayer a matter of wonder in the eyes of children. Don't cause a child to stumble in his faith by misrepresenting prayer, but give them the excitement to be in the presence of God and the hope of realizing ever increasing holiness in his life. But even then, let a child know that sometimes when we pray, God doesn't seem as close as we want, but that doesn't mean he's not their. Our feelings can hide the truth also.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Things to never tell a child: #2 God will make you happy
"I'm in right up right down right happy all the time"
What a crock! I'm not happy all the time. I doubt seriously that you're happy all the time. Actually we are likely happy less than half of the time.
Most of are lives are spent just existing. Happiness is fleeting. Anyone who says that change when you "ask Jesus into your heart" is just wrong. A fruit of the Spirit is joy. Joy and happiness are synonyms. Rather than giving a theological argument about the difference between the two, I propose that God gives neither--At least
on the short term.
Joy is a fruit of the Spirit. Fruit is a long work in progress--not a switch. The problem with telling children that the should be happy all the time is that it just won't prove to be true. Everyone has down times in their lives. Many good godly people suffer from depression even.
If you tell someone that they should be happy all the time you telling them that when the don't fell happy something is a lie. They can either believe they feeling, thus distrusting God or God's ability. Or they can distrust their emotions. I've heard many well meaning Sunday School teachers teach the second. "Emotions are untrustworthy." they say.
The danger with this is that emotions are real and real is trustworthy. Over time a person will either become mentally ill from stuffing their emotions or they will choose to disbelieve God.
Allow your children the best chances to discover the truth about God and about the difficulties that exist I'm this world. Teach them that it is ok-even good-to feel sad. God gives them those emotions for a reason. Never let them believe that they should be happy all the time.
Note: I'm trying something new today by sending this remotely. Pardon typos more than usual. I'll try to clean it up later.
What a crock! I'm not happy all the time. I doubt seriously that you're happy all the time. Actually we are likely happy less than half of the time.
Most of are lives are spent just existing. Happiness is fleeting. Anyone who says that change when you "ask Jesus into your heart" is just wrong. A fruit of the Spirit is joy. Joy and happiness are synonyms. Rather than giving a theological argument about the difference between the two, I propose that God gives neither--At least
on the short term.
Joy is a fruit of the Spirit. Fruit is a long work in progress--not a switch. The problem with telling children that the should be happy all the time is that it just won't prove to be true. Everyone has down times in their lives. Many good godly people suffer from depression even.
If you tell someone that they should be happy all the time you telling them that when the don't fell happy something is a lie. They can either believe they feeling, thus distrusting God or God's ability. Or they can distrust their emotions. I've heard many well meaning Sunday School teachers teach the second. "Emotions are untrustworthy." they say.
The danger with this is that emotions are real and real is trustworthy. Over time a person will either become mentally ill from stuffing their emotions or they will choose to disbelieve God.
Allow your children the best chances to discover the truth about God and about the difficulties that exist I'm this world. Teach them that it is ok-even good-to feel sad. God gives them those emotions for a reason. Never let them believe that they should be happy all the time.
Note: I'm trying something new today by sending this remotely. Pardon typos more than usual. I'll try to clean it up later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)