Christmas Hypocrite

That would be me. The Christmas hypocrite.

I hate, hate, hate the questions, "What do you want for Christmas?" and "What's on your Christmas list?" Very kind, well-intentioned people (to whom I am related, in most cases) wanting to know how to shop for me. I don't blame them. I already have my basic needs, and I'm not too picky about what I wear. I have only one hobby, and I have everything affordable that I need for that. So, I'm not easy to shop for, I know. But I'm also easy to shop for, since I'm equally as mildly-excited about really cool gifts as mediocre gifts. So I frustrate those who want to buy something for me, but I still hate those questions.

I'm not sure why I'm so messed up. I don't like to be demanding. Being selfish is bad, they say, so I try not to be. I don't like the attention of the question, or even the attention I get when opening a gift. The giver is usually more excited than I am, and my even-keeled reaction usually disappoints. "Hey, that's nice. Thanks. What time is kickoff?" I'm truly grateful, but not very demonstrative. Worse, if the gift is something I want, then I feel bad that I got it. There's got to be a disease name for this. Presentosis.

When people ask those question, I try to remember they are being nice, and yet no matter how I try, I can only manage to mumble and stutter and say nothing helpful.

But I'm a Christmas hypocrite, because I'm lightning quick to ask the exact same questions of them!

I'm admittedly an unskilled gift-receiver. But I'm a horrible gift-giver. So I ask those questions. I never have had a good idea of a gift to buy. Never. I despise shopping, and I'm uncontrollably hostile against malls (those non-sequential zoos of colorful, loud, tortuous frenzy!). Ideas I think will be great invariably end up falling flat (I get less than "Hey, that's nice" because they say lying is bad, too). Then there it is ... I've wasted yet another entire year of gift-giving, and it will be twelve long months before I can disappoint again.

So, I ask the questions in order to avoid pain for both of us - the very questions I hate to be asked and can never answer comfortably. Hypocrite, and at Christmas of all things! 'Tis the season to be sorry, fa la la la blah!

First-world problem, I realize.

Some people are great gift-givers. I married one of those. Some are great gift-receivers - so gracious, making the giver feel so good. These people are aliens to me. They come from a different world, speak a different language (called Giftonian), and collectively think that I'm the alien. Strange beasts who make it all look so easy.

I probably won't change. I'm tired of trying. To be honest, friendship is the only gift I really value.

So don't be surprised if you get burlap socks or a paint-by-numbers kit that uses Roman numerals. Whatever it is, it will be poorly wrapped and likely missing a tag saying who it is to and who it is from. But you'll know who it's from. Sorry.

Taming the Selfish Jerk

Recently, I had an evening ahead of me that I was not looking forward to. I'll save the details, but I was facing back-to-back events that I knew would not be enjoyable. In fact, they would be very taxing to me because of my particular personality. Others could well have enjoyed themselves, but not me. Either one of the events would have drained me by itself, but two of them back-to-back loomed like a two-headed monster. But I was going of my own volition. Lynne was already preparing for me to come home late, exhausted, and withdrawn.

As I'm driving to my first appointment, I found myself in rush hour. Normally, I'm a little competitive and self-righteous when I drive. I sometimes let people in, but I usually have to think about it twice. If there's enough room for me to switch lanes to get an advantage, I'll attack the open space aggressively and competitively. But my worst trait is when I see other drivers who are more aggressive than I am. I subconsciously become the Lane Czar, dictating who should be allowed to change lanes. Yes, I will accelerate subtly just enough to prevent the violator from violating. If they zoom down the lane that's going to merge in, I resist giving them space to squeeze in at the last minute when they finally flick on their blinkers. I figure if they don't have a conscience, I can share mine. I have enough for two. Terrible, I know. But I'm right. Right?

Taming my selfishness 1. While driving, I could feel that competitive, czarist stress rising in my chest while I was contemplating the night ahead of me. And I knew that in order to survive the night, I needed to just be what others needed me to be, despite what I personally wanted. So I decided to start with the commute. I started letting everyone in ahead of me. Whoever wanted that space, I gave it to them. If I wanted that space and someone else was ready to gun it, I gave it to them. Whoever wanted to merge, I slowed a bit and gave them the margin they needed. Even those who zoomed down to the last foot of asphalt, I gave them space to come in. I let go of every desire to have that space for myself, I regulated my speed so I didn't cause chain reaction slowdowns, and I gave space to everyone who wanted it, no matter how they were driving. My job was not to get to my destination on time, but to do what I could to help all traffic move forward.

Taming my selfishness 2: At my first appointment of the night, it was very busy  and noisy, with a lot of voices creating a kind of verbal traffic jam. I had a particular way I thought things should go, but instead, I repeated the same attitude I had driving. I gave up "my lane" and allowed others to drive as they wanted to drive, the circumstance to flow as it wanted to flow, and just be someone who helped traffic flow in whatever way I could. My job was not to get to my "destination" on time.

Taming my selfishness 2.5: While driving to the second appointment, I was charged with picking up dinner for others. I was running late, so I didn't need to waste any time. However, I had to embarrassingly slip out of the drive-thru lane because I couldn't find the list of requests. I went inside, found my list, and ordered, and of course, my order was the one that got caught in some equipment failure. Another traffic jam. Rather than get annoyed, I let that "car" pull in front of me, so to speak.

Taming my selfishness 3: At the second appointment, the situation was hard to take. People I care about in an unimaginably difficult set of circumstances. It was a traffic jam of problems. And they needed someone to hear them and understand them. It's no fun listening to problems layered upon problems with no solution in sight. This was not a time for mutually beneficial back-and-forth catching up like we used to. It was a time to slow down a bit and let the car get in ahead of me.

None of this was easy for me. And I'm fully aware that my end of the evening was easier than for others. This was not heroic on my part. It was not enjoyable. I did come home weary, sad, and ready to crawl into a cave of solitude. But there were people who needed to get in front of me, and I tried to allow them to do so without any effort on my part to grab my place in the flow of traffic.

More importantly, what I did get out of this was freedom. I didn't have that competitive stress of trying to aggressively take something for myself, to get my place in traffic and slip ahead of others to get to my destination on time. I didn't get the feeling of "winning" by grabbing what I could. And to be honest, I didn't get that kind of satisfaction that comes from helping others, either. But I had freedom. For an evening, I was free from having to seize what I wanted.

The driving was an intentional exercise to get myself in the mood for the rest of the night, to put myself in the habit of giving up my lane. The exercise actually helped. During both events, when I felt like I wanted to grab the reigns and steer things in my direction, I remembered the drive and just repeated the same action. And on a very unpleasant night, I had some freedom.

Too Small

I love science. I love the discipline, the process, the inquisitive posture, the discoveries, the imagination, and the accountability of community. But science is not big enough to satisfy my soul.

I'm moderately interested in politics and government. I see the necessity, I see the potential for the common good, and I love that our society will spend thousands of dollars pursuing the well-being of even just one child in need. But politics is not big enough to give me hope.

I tolerate religion. For all the ways that it can be abused, I can appreciate how religion can contribute to community, mutual support, and attaching to something bigger than oneself. But religion is not big enough to make me good.

I enjoy sports and leisure. I'm my most animated when following a close game. Bicycling clears my head and improves my mood. Travel is like spice, giving the rest of life a rich flavor. But sports and leisure are not big enough to give me peace.

I like myself, usually. I must - I do things to take care of me. I don't have an irresistible charm or anything, but I usually treat myself kindly. But I'm not a big enough reason to press on through this broken world.

If Jesus isn't who he says he is, then nothing is big enough for me.

Compared to what Fixates

I have been reading in 1 Peter in my quiet time lately, and was particularly struck by three verses in chapter 1 as I was considering the context that Peter wrote into. The readers were suffering and dispersed because of their faith, so Peter wrote to give them some perspective to encourage them. In vv. 10-12, Peter mentions two groups of beings in order to build that perspective.

10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace meant for you sought and made careful inquiry, 11 investigating for what person or which time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he testified beforehand to the sufferings with reference to Christ and the glories after these things, 12 to whom it was revealed that they were serving not themselves but you with reference to the same things which now have been announced to you through those who proclaimed the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels desire to look. 

First, the Old Testament prophets. They sought and made careful inquiry to understand more about this Messiah that they had prophesied about. In prayer, and perhaps be reading Scripture and asking the experts of their day, they went out of the way to understand what they could, because this Messiah figure was going to be so central, so important, so crucial to their entire life's work. They somehow realized that they were not serving their generation only, but also the generations to follow them hundreds of years later (the grace meant for you) - Peter's contemporaries of of the First Century Christians. By extension, they were also serving us (the Church). Their life's work was anchored in the central figure and message of the future Church, without any way to even conceive of the Church in their day.

Second, the angels. They desire to look into the affairs of the Gospel. The events centered on the message of the Church, the Good News of Jesus, is something they are intensely curious about. It's important to them, and it captivates their attention.

Two groups of very important beings, the prophets and the angels, are transfixed on Jesus, His Gospel, and all the affairs of the Gospel.

And this is how Peter intended to encourage these suffering readers in their circumstance. They were (and by extension, we are) living out the stuff that captivates prophets and angels! Therefore, any suffering we might have as a result of our faith is put in the perspective of what grabs their attention! This is so key, so pivotal, so intriguing to them that any suffering we might have relative to our faith suddenly has tremendous importance.

Mocked for your faith? The prophets and angels are eager to see how that plays out. Have fewer things than your neighbor because you financially support the work of the Gospel? The prophets and angels can't wait to see how that investment will bear fruit. Uncomfortable being the only one who can bring Truth into a situation? The prophets and angels are on the edge of their seats to see how you might lean into the lives of others.

Sometimes, we try to gain perspective on our suffering by comparing ourselves to the martyrs who suffered greatly and died for their faith. At least my situation isn't that bad. If they can do that big thing, then I can do this little thing. I don't find that kind of perspective to be effective for very long.

Peter takes a different angle. Instead of comparing sufferers to those who paid an even higher price, he focused them on the fantastic thing that captivates prophets and angels. That's how to gain perspective on suffering for the sake of the Gospel. Suffering may well be a necessary component to the storyline that prophets and angels are intensely eager to follow. It's that important.

No Thanks!

Lynne and I pray that you will all have a wonderful Thanksgiving this week. Thanksgiving has always been family, food, and football for me, with a time to reflect on our real blessings in Christ.

Perhaps you also feel what I often feel at Thanksgiving ... that I'm being forced to be thankful. Yes, there's family, food, and football and whatever else Thanksgiving may bring for you (like shopping with family - please don't make me), but it's Thanksgiving, so we're supposed to be thankful because God-something. But sometimes I feel more guilt and pressure about giving thanks than I feel thankful.

Plus, I'm really bad at that "What are we thankful for?" question while the stuffing is getting cold. I'm thankful for warm stuffing, thank you very much! The question can be awkward, producing peer pressure to say something adequately thankful (but somehow only the little kids get a pass for saying something cute like, "I'm thankful for snot").

We don't always happen to feel thankful on the fourth Thursday of November each year. Some years, we can successfully reflect on our blessings and the feelings of thanksgiving come genuinely. Other years, we don't reflect or we reflect with no tangible result.

So, we fake it. Or we sour it for others. After all, this is not a holiday that God ordained for us - it's a national holiday with origins in a God-consciousness. It's not a sin against God to skip this holiday, right?

The Bible teaches us in several passages to "be thankful." That doesn't mean, "celebrate the American Thanksgiving," but it does mean to be thankful to God for who He is and what He's done. Why does God tell us so many times to be thankful?

Precisely because we don't always feel it, we sometimes feel forced to express it, we have been known to fake it, and at times, we just skip it. God tells us to be thankful for the same reasons that we sometimes struggle a bit on Thanksgiving - we're not naturally thankful at all times. But being thankful is not only what we ought to do, it's good for us. It's healthier to be thankful.

In other words, we do need to be told on occasion to be thankful because our nature sometimes draws us away from it. So, holidays on the calendar can be the exact external push we need to remember to be thankful, even if we do have to force it some, fake it some, and feel a little awkward at times. Not to be disingenuous, but to intentionally counter our own nature with some effort.

May this Thanksgiving be a genuine excuse to embrace a thankful heart yet again.

Scammed

This week, I posted something for sale on Craigslist - 4 cemetery plots that my grandfather bought in 1953. They are not going to be used by my family, so we want to sell them and let my parents enjoy the proceeds. I've listed them twice before with no success, so I dropped the price again. If this doesn't work, then I'll get a plot broker, which eats up the profit. But I really want to sell these at a decent price for the good of my folks. And that's a problem.

Within an hour of posting, I got an inquiry. Yes, they are still for sale. The person offered to send a certified check and then after the check is deposited, come pick up the title. Fair enough. But following Craigslist safety wisdom, I gave the church address instead of my home address. It turns out because of a "family emergency," the buyer won't be able to come by to pick up the title personally, but would send someone. First red flag. This person was called the "shipper." Second red flag. The longer the emails got, the more I saw that the person's grammar and spelling were atrocious. Third red flag. But I really wanted to get my folks some extra cash.

Then a full garrison of red flags. The check arrived UPS. It was not a certified check as promised, but still legitimate-looking. It wasn't made out to what I specified. The payer was not listed as the buyer, but "San Lorenzo Unified School District" (in California) without a logo or address. The check was for $100 too little. The "shipper's" name was given with an address in Tennessee, at an address that according to Google Maps doesn't exist. The return address on the package was a bank in North Carolina, but the UPS tracking showed the drop off to be in Colorado. The instructions included (of course) how to use some of the money from the check for me to send an amount by Moneygram to the "shipper" for shipping expenses (for an envelop that she was going to pick up in person?). CA to TN to NC to CO ... for cemetery plots in KC. It went from cautious to comical.

After poking around all the names and addresses, I merely responded that the deal was canceled because of the insufficient amount in the check. Then I got two more emails pushing for the deal, but clearly the second email was sent without connecting it to the first, as would happen when you're sending off many emails like this at the same time. After that, I noticed that except for the subject line of the emails, the cemetery plots were never specifically mentioned in the bodies of the emails. It was just "the item." Cutting and pasting is enough effort, apparently.

The scam didn't work. I started off cautious and never took any irrecoverable steps. Early on, I gave the buyer the benefit of the doubt, and then I just wanted to see what would happen. But I could see how someone would fall for this scam. It's because I really wanted it to be true. I wanted to be able to give something to my folks. And because I wanted it to be true, I (cautiously) went one more step than I would have otherwise. People get scammed because they ignore normal caution for things they really want to be true and take one, two, three more steps.

This is the exact same thing that happens when we surround ourselves only with news sources and social media that reinforces what we want to be true. We really want something to be true, so we listen almost exclusively to sources that tell us that it is true. And that's how we get scammed with "news," tossing our normal skepticism aside to more quickly get what we want. Then on top of that, we repost it and forward it to perpetuate it to others like the common cold. Be it politics, social justice, or religious news, we get scammed ... and we're the ones doing the scamming. Because we don't take simple steps of caution, we're to blame, not the authors of the articles. We're falling for our own scams!

This is also how we buy bad theology - someone says something that we really want to be true, so we loosen our safeguards and take one, two, three more steps into it.

How do we avoid "media-scamming" ourselves? By the same way we avoid getting scammed on Craigslist.

1. Check the details, like I checked the drop-off location of the UPS package and the return address. 
2. Know the source. I didn't know this person (or the form of English he or she used), so I was already cautious. These fake news sites are run by people we don't know and are being treated as legitimate to the point where Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has taken some heat over it (but I still love the satirical news sites). But if they say what I really want to be true and it sounds vaguely like a news source, that's all I need to grab onto it, right?
3. Ask yourself some caution questions, such as, "Am I making an excuse to ignore a normal safeguard?" If you're looking for a way around your own safeguards, you're well on your way to media-scamming yourself.
4. Or, "Am I listening to the opposite view?", so that you can see what you want with a more critical eye. 
5. Or, "Am I too embarrassed to ask someone what they think?", because that would indicate that you probably already know deep down that you're not being cautious. 

We can prevent falling for our own media-scams in the same way we prevent falling for money scams.

This may seem harmless, but we're talking about ideas that form our actions and our relationships.

We allow people we don't know tell us what the "news" is and what it means with less caution than we use to avoid a Craigslist scammer ripping us off for money. We guard our money better than we guard our minds and hearts.

On an unrelated note, you really want 4 cemetery plots, don't you?

I woke up Wednesday morning and ...

I woke up Wednesday morning and ...

... my neighbors are still people who deserve my good neighborliness;

... pizza still tastes good;

... abuse of power, bigotry, oppression, and disrespect still give me a holy discontent;

... my mission is still to show others who Jesus is and invite them to simply consider His place in their lives;

... my politics still pale in comparison to loving others;

... Daylight Saving Time is still useless;

... my government still can't save me;

... my bank account still can't satisfy my soul;

... my wife is still sweet;

... my president still needs my prayers;

... my car still pulls a little to one side;

... and the things of the human race are still wonderful, horrible, and limited.

Fr Tim

During my Sophomore year at the University of Missouri - Rolla (now MS&T), I moved out of the dorm and into an old house with a good friend, John. John was a Chemical Engineering major who was a year ahead of me, and we had become friends in the college band (the kind with tubas, not bass guitars). The house showed its years (perhaps turn of the century era?), the basement flooded with mud after a heavy rain, the stairs were so short and narrow I had to turn sideways and duck my head to get to my room. We burned wood and oil for the radiators, but could never get it above 56 degrees in the dead of Winter. Blowing circuits with space heaters was a daily, necessary habit. We were diagonal to the Pike House, one of the frats, which made it impossible to get to sleep on the weekends from all the party noise. I loved that house and I loved living with those guys in that house.

John's cousin, Tim, also lived in the house. The two of them were close friends, growing up a block apart and attending the same grade school. Tim's dad owned the house and we rented from him. Tim was an Applied Math major, and an easygoing sort. We all pitched in on cooking, cleaning, and repairing, but truth be told, Tim was always the one making sure things got done. He carried more than his fair share. After several months, I learned that Tim's dad was well-to-do from his construction business in St. Louis, but you couldn't tell that by knowing Tim. He didn't act like the son of a comfortably wealthy man.

In this house, we had an Applied Math major, a Chem E major, and a Computer Science major (me), plus whoever the fourth resident was in a given semester. Tim introduced me to late night "toast marathons" - get a loaf of bread, a toaster, and a stick of butter, and eat buttered toast until the loaf and stick were gone. The two of us could knock off a loaf without effort. The house was also home to many band parties (the band was our social group - the kind with tubas, not guitars), juggling parties (nothing important was broken), and Halloween parties. One year, I went as Reagan, and another as Ed Grimley, who was a decent fellow, I must say.

I also attended school over several summers, and when we did, another friend (Andrew) and I would buy cheap season tickets to the Muny theater (the Starlight Theater of St. Louis), drive up on Fridays to John's house, eat half of their food, attend the show, and the spend the night at John's house. Through those trips, I also got to know John's many sisters and his parents.

John and Tim graduated at the same time, and so with them moving out, Tim's dad sold the house (to the Pikes, who immediately tore it down). Andrew and I found another house to rent, and I pretty quickly lost touch with John and Tim. (Back then, the Internet was still ARPANET.) Over time, the computer scientist became a pastor and the applied mathematician became a Catholic priest. Perhaps all those toast marathons were just preparing us for serving Communion. It has been 30 years since I last saw Tim ... excuse me, "Father Tim" .. and I never heard his story of how he became a priest.

Last week, Father Tim didn't show up for morning Mass, so the Deacon went to go check on him and found him slumped over on his desk, apparently suffering a fatal attack sometime the previous night.

Last Sunday after our worship service, I drove over to St. Louis to attend the viewing. The line of visitors outside the church was consistently 200 to 300 people deep for four hours. There had to be a few thousand visitors. From the line, I texted John that I had made it, and he kindly rescued me from the line and took me in to the room where his family was. I got to reconnect with John, his wonderful parents, and all of his sisters. John then cut us both in the line of people snaked through the pews to visit Father Tim's brothers and parents. Father Tim's dad, of course, wouldn't remember my name from a bunch of 30 year old rent checks, but he did cheekily ask if he was a good landlord. John and I spent quite a bit of time just catching up our stories. The time renewed my fondness for John and his family, and my appreciation for Tim as a friend and roommate.

I still haven't heard his story of how he became a priest. During college, he was consistent about going to Mass, but didn't show any tendencies of going priestly. I wasn't a believer at the time, so I'm sure news of my career change came as a shock to him, too. I have no regrets, here - we can't keep up with everyone. But I am struck by the idea that he had an important story that I never heard - a story that clearly affected a few thousand people. Without regret, it is still sad to me that I never heard him tell his story.

How many people are in my life right now whose story I've never heard? And I don't necessarily need to add anything to my schedule to hear those stories. I just need to ask about them when I spend time with people. I just need to be more intentional. Their stories - your stories - affect thousands, and I need to hear more of them.

I never heard Tim's story. And he never heard mine.

Widows, Orphans, and Who?

Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

-- James 1:27 

In other words, the lives of widows and orphans matter. The Gospel is such as this - the Gospel extends to everyone, from the highest members of society to the ones society forgets. In the social setting of the New Testament, widows and orphans were among the most vulnerable, and the Gospel extends to them no less than anyone else. If the Gospel doesn't extend to them, then it's not really the Good News.

And we buy this. We easily agree that this is true. Even though widows and orphans aren't nearly as vulnerable now as they were then, we still have a Gospel-stamped area of our heart for those who have lost their husbands and especially for those children who have lost their parents. We bend over backwards for them at times, and as a church, we have even joined the CarePortal to help care for children who are facing separation from their parents for some reason.

Do the lives of all children matter, not just orphans? Of course they do. Do the lives of all women matter, not just widows? Of course they do. This passage by no means suggests otherwise. But this passage doesn't say "the lives of all women and children matter." It does emphatically say that the lives of widows and orphans matter as a key attribute of the Gospel. What makes the Gospel the Gospel is that the lives of the vulnerable matter.

I had lunch last week with an African-American pastor who serves an inner-city church. With grief in his voice, he pondered why so many white evangelicals get that it's OK for the Bible to say in particular that the lives of widows and orphans matter as an attribute of the Gospel, but they don't get why it's OK to say in particular that Black lives matter as an attribute of the Gospel. We cannot deny that Blacks (using my friend's terminology) have been systemically vulnerable and systemically marginalized, even if we've never personally done anything to make this true. Why is it easier for us to say "orphan lives matter" than to say "Black lives matter"?

I don't endorse any violence or hatred that has been expressed through the Black Lives Matter movement. But that noise is not what I'm concerned about. Forget the worst expressions and think about the importance of every marginalized group and how the Gospel is not Good News if it doesn't call out specifically that the lives of specific marginalized groups matter. Not even that "those lives matter, too," as if some lives can be assumed but other lives surprise us with their importance. Just that "those lives matter." Period.

Context makes a difference. Whichever vulnerable group is in view, the Gospel says "those lives matter, period." In James 1, it's widows and orphans. In Acts 15, it's non-Jews. In some of our current conversations, it's Black lives.

I've never really been marginalized. I've been ignored in situations, my voice has gone unheard in some conversations, and when that happens, I experience frustration - for 5 minutes or an hour at a time. But even then, the moment someone acknowledges me and really hears my voice, it's good news to me. Imagine the good news that comes from telling a member of a group has been systemically marginalized (whether by me or not) that "Yes, your life matters in particular. Your life matters not because all lives matter. Your life matters solely because the Gospel is for you."

I can say "Black lives matter" without having to qualify it with "too" or "all" or "just like." I can say this, but not from a false sense that because my life matters, so does yours. Rather, I can say this because of the Gospel. I need no other cause, and that's part of the Good News.

Vote As If

I believe very strongly that this year's election is for more about the future direction of the American church than which set of professional politicians command the White House and Congress for the next term. To be sure, this election will have long-term consequences for our nation no matter who is elected, and I feel rather sorry for whoever it will be, because they will inherit a bitter mess. But as I study Scripture, there is a constant message that God is in total control of the fate of leaders and nations, and that it is the constant job of His people to especially put their trust in Him during these times. Now is the time to trust God particularly, rather than to fret or to put nationalism higher than God until November 8.

I think of books like Isaiah, which we are currently studying, and Daniel, which we studied earlier this year. In both cases, God's people were subject to leaders far worse than any we currently have on the ballot. Yet, these leaders were put in place by God on purpose because He was doing something greater than merely putting in place the best "church-going politician" for a term.

Likewise, I believe God has allowed us to come to this point, to this choice, for a purpose that is more about the Church than for what goes on inside the Beltway. Perhaps He did so in order to correct something wrong with the Church. We may speculate that He's punishing our nation for something, but what if He's shaking up the Church instead?

If I'm right in this theory, God is (as He has so often done in the past) moving national events in order to position the future of His people, for blessing or for discipline (and more likely, for both). I'm not saying that Isaiah and Daniel are prophecies about 21st Century United States. Rather, I don't believe God stopped moving leaders and nations in order to accomplish His goals for His people, so His ways revealed then still help us navigate events now.

In those cases, God persistently commanded His people to trust Him, to not trust in the flesh or in leaders or in armies, and to not fear, even if the situation got much, much worse. He has a plan that He's carrying out according to His sovereign will, so above all, remain faithful. Don't give into fear, sin, or pragmatism. Worry about faithfulness above all and then trust God to accomplish His plan.

This election cycle has exposed some very unhealthy relationships between the Church and the State, such as a misplaced reliance on government to be the lord and savior of our nation on the one hand, and a misguided demonization of all those within the government on the other. It has exposed an ugly underbelly of the  "ungracious religious" who discard Christlike behavior in order to promote their politics (which Left or Right, they claim is God's favorite brand of politics). It has also exposed how many in the Church choose which of a candidate's sins to highlight and which ones to ignore based only on their party preference. Great hypocrisies of the Church have been laid bare, and I, for one, am glad the disease has finally been brought to light. Only then can the Church be healed of it.

We have too long embraced Constantinianism, which seeks to force the affairs of the State by the power of the Church (which is not the same thing as redemptive influence). We have also bought into an unhealthy dualism that separates the sacred from the secular, allowing us to discard one in order to concentrate on the other, and then on the next day, switch. Oddly, these twin problems seem contradictory (too much integration vs. not enough integration), but they are actually the same failing to understand what a healthy integration looks like.

But books like Isaiah and Daniel insist that we trust God even more fervently during days such as these, because God is in total control. If that's actually true, then there is no need to compromise, cut corners, fudge, or be confused about how we should hold both the Church and the State in our hands.

So vote "as if." Vote (or not vote) as if we actually do trust that God is in total control. That doesn't mean to vote for whoever is the "most Christian" (good luck figuring that one out). It doesn't mean to vote for whoever is from the "correct party" (God isn't a card-carrying member of any of them). Nor does it mean to throw up your hands and say, "whatever - God will sort it out."

Rather, it means to carefully consider your vote as if God is in fact in total control. Like Isaiah and Daniel, trusting His complete sovereignty allows you to stand before Jesus and say, "I didn't have to compromise Your values in order to be 'pragmatic'." Don't vote your conscience - vote His, as best you can. Of course every vote will be for someone who is not Jesus, someone who is broken, fallen, imperfect, sinful, and holding some policies that are abhorrent to Him. Of course! But He's got this - He's the One who put Nebuchadnezzar in power over the Israelites! We don't have the luxury of a clearly moral and wise candidate this time around (or almost every other time around, to be honest). There's no need to pretend that we do.

God has given us this situation on purpose, and He expects His children to honor Him with how they trust Him in the midst of it. Vote as if God is always intentional in everything, including allowing our nation to come to this point, perhaps even for the purpose of correcting the Church. Vote (or not vote) so that you can tell Jesus you didn't compromise, even though there were no options except disappointing ones. He's not only faced this situation before, He's manufactured them before.

And please, back off of those who vote for the same reasons for a different candidate. This is no easy choice, and God is still sovereign. Lastly, don't be fatigued by all this - rather, seize the opportunity God has given us to trust Him in the midst of political disarray. If we can't trust Him now, we can't trust Him ever.

Responding to Disasters ... Again and Again

Hurricane Matthew blows through Haiti. Hundreds dead. Then it hits the coast of Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas. More dead. Thousands displaced temporarily or long-term. Basic utilities taking days, weeks, or even months to be restored. Weeks after the storm, water-borne diseases start cropping up, after the world has lost interest. And this is just one natural disaster out of many. We face several major disasters each year, and many of them span several years, such as the refugee crisis in war-torn Syria. Then add cities shaken by terrorist attacks and mass shootings, even within our own borders, and we're in danger of becoming numb to the constant need of recovery.

We are asked to pray, asked to give, asked to change our social media profile pictures to show support. Then there's backlash from skeptics about asking for prayer or guilt from others because you didn't pray their thing when you mentioned that you had prayed for another thing. "You prayed for France - why aren't you praying for Haiti?"

So many needs, so much devastation. How should we respond? How can we respond? Do I respond to all of them a little (and if not, how do I justify turning a cold shoulder to a legitimate need)? Do I respond to none of them? Do I respond to a random sampling of them? Maybe I respond to only those that affect my country, but then our needs aren't any more important than others'. Maybe I should pray for special revelation from God as to which to respond to before doing anything at all?

I suggest:

First, respond to at least one. Do respond. Get your response muscles working and active. Even if you pick one worthy need somewhat at random, respond to at least one per year. The only other option is inactive callousness.

Second, don't feel bad for not responding to all of them (or for any one of them in particular). Ignore those who are upset that you didn't respond to their favorite one. This is between you and God, not you and them. The only other option is failing to live up to an impossible standard.

Third, think about how you want to focus. Maybe you'll focus on natural disasters, or focus on areas where Christ has not yet been named, or focus where God has already connected you. Lynne and I are already connected to Italy and Kenya, so it would make sense for us to focus our attention there (but not expect you to). The only other option is to have no good reason to be able to say "no."

Fourth, it's better to think ahead about how to respond than to wait for things to happen. Then when we do respond, it won't be based on our mood that day, but rather on rational conclusions made without urgency. The only other option is repetitive stress each time something new comes up.

Fifth, pray. Of course, pray. The only other option is to not pray.  In other words, the only other option is to try to figure this out only by the flesh.

Whatever you do, be sure to check out the organizations you intend to help through. Do your homework. For financial support, check out charities with websites like Charity Watch (https://www.charitywatch.org/home) and Charity Navigator (https://www.charitynavigator.org/). After Matthew hit Haiti, some groups in Haiti plead with Americans to not send through organization X, because "it will never get to us." Giving comes with the responsibility of choosing well to whom to give.

A place for your good stuff

Garage sales, donations to charity, gifts to younger families - the various ways we take what we have and repurpose them. We want to declutter, we want to help others, and we want to make a little extra cash. We could throw it away, and sometimes we do, but we like the idea of putting our current stuff to a second use.

Let me offer one more suggestion for your good stuff that needs a new home. Or perhaps stuff you didn't know you need to part with, but are thinking about someone else who might need it more.

The CarePortal (https://careportal.org/) is a resource to connect the needs of vulnerable children in our area with the resources of the church. "Resources" doesn't just refer to stuff, but also neighborly love, friendship, time, a listening ear, and someone who is humble enough to be blessed in return.

The CarePortal started off by specific requests in certain locations, and those involved in the CarePortal would see needs show up in their emails as they happen. It has been a wonderful partnership we've entered into. But the technology has added new features so that we can now search based on what we have as well as what is needed.

For example, a family might need a kitchen table in order for their children to be placed back in their home, the case worker enters the need in the CarePortal, those in the system geographically near the need get the email, and they see if they have a kitchen table. If yes, then the need can be met. (And perhaps a new friendship can develop, too.) We're already familiar with this process.

The new angle works in the opposite direction. Someone has a kitchen table they want to repurpose it. They (or a friendly CarePortal member in their church) searches the CarePortal to see if anyone needs a kitchen table, and if that need exists anywhere in the region, the church contacts the CarePortal who contacts the case worker who contacts the family with the need. Same connection, but in the opposite direction. Assets-based compared to needs-based - both ways can form a connection.

If you have things you'd like to repurpose, before putting it in the garage sale or donating to another worthy cause, please consider the CarePortal, which has such great potential to meet specific needs and develop meaningful relationships. Just let one of the CarePortal partners at Grace know about your stuff! See Diane, Caylyn, Tom, or Jason, or anyone else you know who is involved.

That's out of place, and it bugs me

What bugs you when it's out of place? A stack of books that are not aligned? Children who misbehave in the store? That dangle of hair that won't stay where you put it? Someone's sweater buttoned one off? A car that is intentionally parked to take up two spots? I'll wager that most people have at least one kind of thing that when out of place just bugs them without relief. And we are compelled to set it right - straighten the stack of books, shush the kids, clip the hair, mention the sweater button thing, or curse the selfish driver.

You could be bugged by one kind of thing out of place, but not another. For example, you can't stand the toothpaste squeezed from the middle but you find mismatched socks creative. And the thing that bugs you doesn't bug the person next to you, and that bugs you! They should be bugged by that - why aren't they?!? That bugs me.

One of the things that bugs me is when something is not logical. I'm not the all-great determiner of what's logical, and I don't always do what's logical. I am no expert, but I've learned a few things. But even before education, I was bugged when I noticed logic being violated. Not just my logic, but the rules of logic.

When someone makes a logically inconsistent statement, I notice. I can't not notice. And I'm compelled to set it right. Social media is perhaps the most frustrating, because that's where I come across the worst offenses of logic, and I have this burning need to set the logic straight. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with the point being made - if it violates logic, I wanna say something. I must say something. And sometimes do. And often shouldn't.

The problem with this, no matter what it is that bugs us when it's out of place, is that we can be so fixated on "setting it right" that other things might suffer. We're so bugged that we don't care who we bug until we get ourselves unbugged. For example, my quest to get the logic straight in a discussion has successfully alienated way too many people, interfered with family dynamics, and even kept me up way too late at night.

But there are a bunch of other things that are out of place that should bug me much more:

• Children without a loving home or a chance for a good education
• Human trafficking
• Systems that inhibit someone from finding work
• Discrimination, judgmentalism, and stereotyping
• Failure to stand up for one's neighbor
• Misrepresenting God and His ways

The list could go on. All of these things are out of place, but at a gut level, they usually don't bug me more than when logic is out of place. (My only hope is to realize that this is not logical.)

Are you willing to be bugged about such things at a deeper level than the pet peeve "out of place" things do? Willingness is where it begins. Then maybe we'll be compelled to set it right.

A Critical Look at Criticism

Why do we criticize? We see someone who is rude or espouses a view that we find distasteful, and then we criticize. Perhaps quietly under our breath, perhaps at the top of our lungs, or perhaps from our keyboards. To to their face, or behind their back, or publicly. Someone unethical, and we criticize - or they do something quite neutral, but we already don’t care for that person’s views, and we criticize the neutral thing they did.

We could do a lot of other things. We could ignore them. We could engage in a friendly debate without offering criticisms. We could look for the positives and downplay the negatives. We could even just be bothered, not really ignoring them, but offering no criticisms, either (“I really can’t agree, but you’re welcome to your opinion”).

But sometimes we criticize instead. We tear down, mock, highlight the negative (and ignore the positive), cry out “see?!?!”, and take the least flattering snapshot to turn into a derogatory meme. Why do we choose that response? We can do it out of unconscious habit or by plotting, but why do we choose a path of tearing down?

I can’t speak for you, so I’ll speak for me. Perhaps you have similar reasons.

I criticize rather than self-examine. What a great excuse to ignore my own bad ways for one more day! If I can criticize others enough, then I don’t need all that humility stuff needed to focus on becoming a better person. Besides, even a mediocre person looks pretty good when constantly compared to those who are criticized enough.

I criticize rather than truly help. This is a second way that criticizing is a convenient excuse! In order to truly help someone, I cannot be in a posture of criticizing. I can condescendingly offer “help” to one I criticize, but I can’t truly help in that way. Criticizing, then, becomes a substitute for rolling up my sleeves, getting over myself, and truly helping someone.

I criticize rather than offer grace. Let’s face it - offering grace is costly. Criticizing is a low-cost endeavor (pay no attention to the high cost of the damage done). Offering grace means that some wrongs won’t be righted, some illogical things will never be straightened, people who offend won’t always get retribution, and my thoughts won’t get the attention I think they deserve.

I criticize in order to get someone’s favor. Sometimes, criticizing is just to get a laugh from others, which is one way of granting favor. More sinister is criticizing in order to be favored by those on the “right side.” I want to be accepted by Group A, so I find ways to criticize Group B. Boy, I really like being accepted by Group A, so Group B can just twist in the wind.

That’s my list. Don't criticize. I don’t know what your list is, but I’m sure it’s clever.

Your Agenda

The word agenda is a plural word from Latin that means "things to be done." Let's poke around this word a little.

First, "things to be done" implies that they are things that are presently undone. But more than just undone, they are things that should be done (in the opinion of the agenda maker). Think of the agenda for a meeting - it's a list of things that aren't yet done (otherwise they wouldn't be on the agenda!) but they are things that should be done (otherwise they wouldn't be on the agenda!). The agenda helps those in the meeting "stay on task," rather than rabbit trailing onto something else. Agendas can be good things.

Second, my agenda is my personal plan. It's the list of things that I think should be done. These can be things that I will get done or someone else, but I still want to see them get done. Royals in the playoffs is on my agenda, Chiefs winning a playoff game is on my agenda, bicycling regularly is on my agenda. Again, there's nothing wrong with having an agenda, and in fact, having an agenda is necessary. What would we accomplish if we didn't have some form of agenda?

Some people can be described as "agenda-driven," which usually carries a negative connotation. Sure, it could just mean someone who has a plan and is diligent about accomplishing it, but more often it refers to someone who will bowl over others in pursuit of that agenda and ignore anything not on the agenda.

Then of course there is also the "hidden agenda," where someone has an undisclosed plan, but acts as if his or her plan was something else. For example, a young suitor who opens the door for a woman not because he wants to be polite, but because he wants to be noticed by the woman's daughter.

The downside of agenda is when one's agenda prevents him or her from valuing good things that don't happen to promote the agenda. It happens in every corner of life, such as in theology. A man has a certain set of theological beliefs about secondary matters, but holds those beliefs firmly. Whenever a point is made from Scripture that challenges that agenda, rather than a thoughtful reconsideration of his beliefs, he ignores or attacks that point in order to preserve his theological agenda. Another example is politics. A woman has a particular political agenda, but when someone of a different political stripe raises a valuable point, rather than politely comparing values over coffee, unclever labels are flung at each other and then comes the highly effective "unfriending." Agendas like these often are some form of an -ism. -Isms are not a set of goals, in most cases, but agendas (a specific set of plans to accomplish goals). The political left (-ism) and political right (-ism) could have the same goal of job growth, but vastly different agendas to achieve it.

Relationships are frequently sacrificed to maintain one's agenda. When "staying on task" becomes more important than "staying on what matters," agendas have gone from helpful to combative. They are no longer "things to be done," but rather "things that I've made more important than they ought to be." What's the Latin word for that? (inflatius?)

One night, you decide that you want to go out for a nice Italian dinner (your goal). So, you choose a place you read about called Mezzano's. You check on line, and send the address to your smartphone to map out your path (your agenda). As you are following the nice direction lady living inside your phone, your spouse texts a friend about your plans and the friend says that you really should try Meglioni's because the gnocchi is so much better there. Your goal has not been challenged, but your agenda has. Now you have a choice:

1. Keep to my map and go to Mezzano's ("average") to accomplish my agenda.
2. Map a new route to Meglioni's ("better") to accomplish my goal. Rerouting!

It seems like a pretty easy choice for many of us. Good gnocchi is good gnocchi, and that's my goal. But when it comes to our theology, our politics, and our other -isms, rerouting is all but easy, and often because we've confused our agenda with our goal. Goals are the what: things like justice, freedom, rights, transformed lives, generosity, unconditional love, alleviation of poverty, etc. Agendas are more about the how. When we confuse the how with the what, we've lost sight of the goal.

When your agenda is challenged ("try a different restaurant"), it's easy to react as if your goals are being challenged ("eat Greek food"). When this happens, ask what is really being challenged - my goal or my agenda? If your goals are not being challenged, perhaps your agenda needs to be realigned to better achieve those goals. A challenge like that is a good thing!

But if your goal is what truly is being challenged, you're now faced with one of two possibilities: A) your goals need to improve, or B) you need to stand firm (even if your agenda needs to change).

In order to sort this out, however, we've got to understand the difference between our goals and our agendas. If we get those confused, we'll end up eating mediocre gnocchi for the rest of our lives.

Control vs. Influence

If only I could finally, truly, completely learn the difference between control and influence. I know the difference well enough to describe it. But I'm pretty sure I haven't learned the difference.

Both control and influence are about bringing about desired outcomes, but are different paths to get there ... and for different motives. Control grabs the steering wheel, but soon realizes that real control comes only when you also make the pistons to move and the plugs to spark and the shaft to crank and the smoke to exhaust; influence pulls the reins to convince the horse to turn. Control demands; influence gives a convincing argument. Control seeks compliance; influence seeks concordance. Being controlled is enjoyed by the unstable; being influenced is enjoyed by the informed. Control must; influence ought. Control is about the controller; influence is about the influenced.

Think about your greatest frustrations, your greatest fears, and your greatest anxieties. How many of them are fueled by a sense of not being in control? How many of them are you trying to resolve through forms of control? We like control because we think that if we have it, we can virtually guarantee the outcomes we want. We think influence is too soft, too unpredictable, too likely to end in an outcome other than our preference. And yet, we suffer much less anxiety over a lack of influence than over a lack of control.

We define success by the outcomes (with good reason), and so we control. We less frequently define success by whether or not another person is better off because we influenced them. In fact, we sometimes never get to see the outcome of influence, but control gives direct and immediate feedback, so that's what we pick.

We love sports (playing and watching) because when our team wins, we feel more in control. I was emotionally crestfallen when the Royals lost three 1-run games last week at a critical time of the season - the season is spinning out of control! We have the same reaction with games and contests - we don't raise our hands in victory because of influence, but that we have enough control over the game or the whole season. Losing stinks because it is lack of control over one's destiny.

We often try to control things at work because we think that's how to succeed. Few of us see influence as the measure of success at work. And our performance reviews (and raises) are tied more to how well we controlled things over the last year, not influenced them.

It becomes a true sickness when we try to control people rather than influence them. We manipulate, dictate, yell at, and refuse to listen to when we are trying to control another person. But we do it because we so want particular outcomes (often very good ones). Oh, that I would learn to influence well, and then let go. Oh, that I would count that as a successful encounter with another person.

When we try to control God, we are blatant and blind fools. We refuse to cooperate until He does what we want. We try to use the right phrases in order to make Him respond in just the right way. I want a certain outcome, and He's got the power to make it happen, so how can I make Him come through for me? In other words, how can I be in control even of God?

The amazing thing is that God invites us to influence Him. I don't fully understand how a completely sovereign God can be influenced, but His invitations to do so are plentiful, and the respected faithful ones of history sure seemed to think that the invitations are genuine. Not manipulate in a particularly clever way, but influence - have a voice in the matter, be listened to, contribute to the outcome, or even be a reason for God to do something different than He would have otherwise. He allows that. He invites that.

When I learn the difference between these two, I'm sure I'll be a happier, more influential man.

Adulting

Our education system is designed to develop people who can personally contribute to society, whether that contribution is manual labor, office work, retail, raising a family, educating others, enhancing society through the arts, running a business, and so on. It's not just to produce workers for jobs, but that each one who is able becomes capable of adding to society in a real way.

If we broke the process down to 5 basic steps, it might look like this:

1. Tools. The earliest stages of education are the acquisition of the basic tools of learning: letters, numbers, learning habits, and motor skills, for example. The goal here is to learn how to use the tools, but the tools are not usually being used for anything that contributes significantly to society or solves a social ill.
2. Exercises. Now that we have the tools, we take on exercises in order to use the tools. These are usually non-real problems - just exercises on a page. The solution for each question is already well-known, and you'll be graded by those already-known answers. In this stage, we are learning how to solve problems, but we're not faced with real ones. If we get the answer wrong, no one will lose a finger.
3. Word problems. We eventually graduate from exercises to word problems, which are real-world problems - things that could exist. But still these problems are already solved. We're not creating a new solution that will actually help someone. It is a realistic simulation, and we are preparing for that day when we'll be doing the same actions for problems not yet solved.
4. Thesis / project. This stage ventures into the territory of solving problems that have not yet been solved. No one has pre-worked this particular scenario, and our answers will be a new contribution, no matter how small. But this is a controlled environment and the risk is still pretty low. If we get the wrong answer, it's easily fixed.
5. Work. Now, we're doing what we've been building up to through the previous stages. These are new, real problems. But they also carry real consequences. Someone could lose a finger if we get these wrong. But now ... finally ... we're really contributing to the Common Good.

If we stop at Stage 1, no "work" gets done (other than learning itself).

If we stop at Stage 2, no useful work gets done.

If we stop at Stage 3, we feel accomplished, but the Common Good is still not yet served.

If we stop at Stage 4, perhaps others can learn from our labor, but we're still not directly doing "work."

Our goal is Stage 5. The other stages make little sense until we get to this stage. None of the previous stages are a destination for all who are able. (Note that good teachers are in Stage 5, not 4, but what is produced is the student, not the problems they solve.)

In today's terms, we call it adulting.

Now, make the following associations and then reread the 5 stages and the "if we stop at" statements:

1. Tools = Bible & prayer.
2. Exercises = Bible studies, Sunday school.
3. Word problems = theology, sermons, in-depth studies.
4. Thesis / project = church programs.
5. Work = walking daily as a disciplemaking follower of Jesus.

Too many Christians stop at Stage 3, and we too often settle for Stage 4. None of those stages are a destination - our goal is Stage 5.

In today's terms, we call it adulting.

Beyond Tolerance

On this side, there are those who cry for "Tolerance!" These are often those who live in some way that departs from a particular standard (a Biblical standard, a rigid religious standard, a self-righteous standard, a societal norm, etc.). They feel judged, and understandably don't want to be judged. They don't subscribe to that particular standard and are asking to not be held to that standard.

On the opposite side, there are those who see the word "tolerance" as a code word for "condone me with all of my sins." There are some things that are right and some things that are wrong, and whoever is wrong should not be condoned in their wrong-ness. Often, but certainly not always, these folks identify themselves as Christians.

So, let me focus in on the Christian response, without comment on how the rest of the world ought to respond.

Calmer Christians will add a caveat saying, "Of course, we ought to accept everyone as they are, but in no way condone any form of sin." That's rational and consistent. But I don't think it goes far enough. Nor do I think those who call for tolerance are going far enough, either!

Now it's beginning to sound like I'm about to skip merrily down the lane of full-on tolerance of anything and everything. Not at all. Here's my key issue - those who live in each of the far corners of this topic have a binary view of this issue. It's either tolerance of everything or horrible judgmentalism. You're either advocating everything or condemning others, with no other way to look at it. If those are the only two options, then we are stuck in an ugly dispute with no real resolution.

Jesus, the one who Christians are supposed to follow, did not teach us to be tolerant. But neither did He teach us to be judgmental. In other words, He didn't teach either of the binary choices, so there must be something else. Not a midpoint between the two, but something completely other.

In Luke 15, the Pharisees posed this issue with Jesus. He was hanging around sinners, and the religious leaders called Him on it because He sure looked like He was condoning their sin. But He wasn't judging these sinners, and He certainly wasn't condoning their sin. And yet He still loved spending time with them. He responded to the Pharisees with a triplet of parables teaching about the joy of finding what was lost - that was how He explained why He would hang around such "awful" sinners.

Jesus was practicing something far beyond tolerance. In some ways, He went much further than what those who want tolerance are asking for! He loved them. He spent time with them. He wanted them to be found, and so He sought them out. They were, in a sense, His goal. Tolerance is just putting up with something, but Jesus went far beyond merely putting up with sinners.

People get caught up in the question, "Should we be tolerant?", and I think that's not even the right question, because Jesus didn't act based on a tolerance scale. The questions He evokes are: Who should we love? Who should we spend time with? Who should we seek? Will our joy be in staying clear of what's lost or finding what's lost?

Don't get caught up in the tolerance debate, follower of Christ. Instead, follow Christ in this.

When you can't see eye to eye ...

The only thing wrong with people having a different opinion is that they don't have my opinion. Why can't we have the kind of variety that agrees entirely with me? Or why can't people come around to my way after I explain to them how logical my way is? (I don't argue with people ... I just give the more reasons to agree with me!)

When we are at loggerheads with one another, and it's clear that no one is going to budge, how do we find ways to communicate and cooperate? If the difference is over something minor (who's your favorite Royals player?), it's not usually that hard to enjoy one another's company. But when the difference is major (which way the TP roll goes, Marvel v. D.C., etc.), and the other one is just never going to come around, how do we keep from souring our relationships?

There are plenty of ways, books, and ideas, of course. Most of them are effective. The only problem is remembering to employ them in the heat of the battle. I offer the following ideas as one possible approach:

Identify the values that apply. Without judging, without comparing, without critiquing, list as many values that are in play with the issue at hand. For example,

• living within one's means
• truthfulness
• compassion
• building memories that last

Have each person contribute to the list, adding whatever seems relevant. By this, you will see what values the other is coming from, and often, that their values are valid and important. That helps you understand their view, their logic, and their conclusions. Perhaps there are ways to accommodate many of each other's values. This also helps you filter out what you're saying from stubbornness and what you're saying from your values.

Find as much common ground as you can. You'll have plenty of time to talk about where you differ. Start by talking about where you agree. It's amazing how effective this can be, whether the common area is big or small. I have found especially when talking to religious skeptics or politically enraged chatterboxes that identifying our common ground calms the discussion and opens up a more civil way to disagree. Be careful, you might end up appreciating the other person's perspective a little bit!

Don't dig in your heels until you're able to effectively state the other person's view. Way too often people dig in their heels to argue their opinion or their way before they even understand the other's point of view. That leads to either misrepresenting the other's view in order to maintain that dug in position, or realizing way too late that you're arguing the wrong fight. And then we usually just dig in further, because we're not humble enough to apologize. But if you wait until you can effectively restate the other's position so that they can say, "Yes, you understand what I'm saying, even if you don't agree," they will know that you're listening and that you respect them. You might even discover that you don't disagree as much as you thought.

One of the beautiful side effects of high school or college debate is that it trains you to argue both sides of an issue, regardless of what you actually believe. And to argue each side vigorously. That tempers dogmatism and requires you to consider respectable sources that don't echo your own view. In debate, you also need to identify the values that apply so that the conversation doesn't wander off into irrelevance. And there are even times when the best strategy is to find common ground on a specific issue (but usually for the purpose of finding a better area to clash, so don't take this analogy too far!).

Three simple things that we already know. We just don't remember them when the "other person" is being obstinate. But the more we practice these even with minor issues, the more habitual they become, and the better we will navigate potentially divisive conflict.

I don't always practice these, but when I do, the conversation is almost always dramatically better.

Your Voters' Guide

But not your normal voters' guide. I dare not.

Never before have I seen people in such inner turmoil about how to vote in the presidential election coming up in November. Without comment on any of the candidates, issues, concerns, or parties, it's safe to say that many are finding this the hardest voting decision they've had to make. Twin declarations of #NeverThisOne and #NeverThatOne in a two-party race cannot be reconciled. Then, some want to vote third party, but others protest that this is effectively voting for the major party candidate you are least like.

Some have the their minds made up and have no internal struggle. The data shows, however, that we have the greatest national dissatisfaction ever with this field of candidates.

I will not, however, give any advice on how to choose, except for these two often-overlooked attributes: wisdom and leadership style. These are biblical attributes of leaders in the Bible which we often ignore in favor of morals and policy (which are also valid voting issues). I urge you to consider wisdom and leadership style as foundational to how one will perform in office.

My voters' guide is not primarily about how to pick your candidate. My concern this year is greater. Not only have I never seen such internal struggle within people - neither have I seen such internal struggle within the Church. Because it so hard to decide, and there is so much at stake, the church is infighting like I've never seen before. Likely, there has been worse in our history, but not in my recollection.

Followers of Christ telling other followers of Christ, "How can you be a follower of Christ and vote for so-and-so?" The exact same phrase and attitude flying both left and right (and every other direction). Anger, damaged relationships, cold shoulders, questioning one's commitment to Jesus. This year's election runs the danger of creating new and deep schisms within the body of Christ.

I see a greater danger here than the "wrong person" getting elected. An irreparably damaged Church is far worse.

Let us disagree. That's fine. If you're struggling to support someone, and I'm struggling to support someone, shouldn't we expect us to have struggles between us? It is possible that there is no candidate that we can heartily endorse without major concerns, so let's not pretend like there is a single, cleanly righteous choice. You may conclude there is an obvious choice for you, but don't pretend like your candidate shouldn't give the Church grave concerns.

But please in this election season, remember that the Church has shown throughout history that we can be the Church effectively under any government and under any leader ... if we are not fighting among ourselves! But if we are fighting among ourselves, the greatest leader of the greatest government won't matter.

"Wouldn't It Be Neat If" as a Neighborhood Strategy

Wouldn't it be neat if ...
... the broken and wounded around me were healed;
... my friends who are estranged were reconciled;
... racism targets in my city were celebrated for their differences;
... racist hearts were opened;
... the poor of our communities emerged into stability;
... the outcast around us were included among us;
... the secretly low-esteemed undeniably saw their worth;
... the hopeless found faith?

Wouldn't it be neat if all these came true?
Neat, indeed. And tidy. Without spot or stain spoiling the neatness of my own illusion.
Wouldn't that be neat?
But what if ... ?

What if ...
... the broken and wounded are healed only by us being broken, too;
... reconciliation comes only after we bother to listen;
... differences are celebrated only if we throw the party;
... racist hearts are opened only when we stand with the "other";
... the poor emerge only if we fight for their jobs;
... "us" is created only by paying less homage to "me";
... worth is communicated only by loving without condition;
... invisible faith blossoms only after seeing faith at work?

What if all these are true?
What if "wouldn't it be neat if" was never neat?

Bad Water and Your Work

Perhaps you saw our demonstration of water filtration, able to take some of the dirtiest water and filter it 99.9999% pure from all biological contaminants. Perhaps you also were able to see how delivering water filtration kits to impoverished areas like western Kenya can have a huge impact on a family finally getting reliable, clean water to drink and wash with. And perhaps it's easier to see some of these basic principles when they are far removed from your personal situation.

Why are there water-borne diseases? These diseases are devastating, and able to wipe out entire populations - all from contaminants that are so small that we have to use kidney dialysis technology in order to affordably filter them out. Why do such things exist? Beyond the physical causes (improper sanitation, inadequate water treatment, mixed-use sources, etc.), what is the reason for these diseases?

Ultimately, because of the Curse. Because man rebelled against God, this Creation is fallen and in many ways, and conspires against the flourishing of man. Water-borne diseases are part of that conspiracy. So we can say that these diseases are collateral damage of an ongoing cosmic spiritual battle.

Therefore, we can also say that water filtration has a spiritual significance. The process is purely mechanical, fitting neatly within all the applicable rules of physics in a completely naturalistic process. But it is spiritually significant. Water filtration is part of the fight in the great spiritual battle of the Universe, fought on the battlefield of drinking water.

Believe it or don't believe it, it's at least easy to comprehend. This is not a hard concept to grasp. And so it's not hard to see how those who make water filters are part of the great battle (whether or not they know it). It's not hard to see how those who distribute water filters are part of the great battle. It's not hard to see how those who finance the distribution of water filters are part the great battle, even if it's a very thin slice of a much larger reality.

Now let's bring this home to your vocation and your work. Maybe it's not so obvious as water filtration, but using this as an example, can you look at your work through this lens? Can you see how your work could well be part of the great battle of the Universe? Is there some chaos that you bring order to? Is there some harm that you bring prevention or healing to? Is there some ignorance that you bring light to? Is there some brokenness that you bring wholeness to? Is there some rebellion that you contain? Is there some way you battle against the effects of the Fall?

Can you see how the work of your hands fits into the great cosmic spiritual battle played out in our Universe? If so, then you can see how your work is spiritually significant, even if it involves strictly physical processes. A mighty weapon in the spiritual battle can be as simple as a water filter.

Toxic Dresses

Our sewing team is close to shipping their second batch of hundreds of dresses for the female students of Benard’s Vision School in western Kenya. The dresses are intended to preserve their school uniforms. The students get only one uniform per year, and for many, it is their only change of clothes. You can imagine how difficult it is to keep one uniform in good shape for active kids when it is worn every day for a year.

These sew-ers have had fun together doing great work making colorful, culturally appropriate dresses. The first batch of dresses brought enormous smiles to our students' faces, and the gratitude of those who run the schools. They have my personal gratitude as they touch the lives of many students I've met.

This may be the last time we send dresses. Why would that be? If it's has been such a positive experience for students and sew-ers, why would we not do it again? Because if we keep doing this, eventually we will cause more harm than good.

There is quite a good number of books that explore these concepts, the most popular being When Helping Hurts and Toxic Charity. They clearly explain how not all forms of “help” actually do good for the ones we intend to help. Sadly, many of the things we’re accustomed to doing can actually do great, systemic harm.

The first danger is dependency, which eventually leads to entitlement. By constantly giving material goods, especially apart from any kind of reciprocal relationship, we can create a kind of dependency similar to an addiction. The dependent ones become less able to do the very things they should be doing to help themselves, because it is continually done for them. Eventually, a sense of entitlement takes over, with a demandingness put on the givers.

Another danger is identity. By giving too many material goods too often, we can communicate to someone that they are less than, incapable, beneath the norm, or as one impoverished soul once said, “like the garbage of society that no one wants.” Furthermore, we mess up our own identities, by thinking that having material goods to share means we are not impoverished in any way, and that by giving to someone “in need,” we are their saviors.

On a more practical level, making dresses for Kenyan students can take away jobs from Kenyan dressmakers. Most of the clothes that get donated and shipped overseas are wreaking havoc on the local clothesmaking businesses. We have checked with the leaders in Kenya to make sure we have not been doing that, but sooner or later, we would be if we continue.

So what do we do now? We still want to help! Using clothes as an example, a better way for us to help is to buy sewing machines for Kenyan women to make clothes with, to help them be entrepreneurs. Maybe we donate the money to buy the cloth, and then pay the dressmakers to make dresses, so that they make a profit and get a business started. That’s just one example.

The one thing that brings people out of poverty is work. Not charity, not free clothing, not even free food. Work, jobs, business, entrepreneurship. Historically, it’s the only thing that has ever brought a community out of poverty. We can do better than making dresses, as good as making dresses has been.

Helping those in need is not at all about “doing something” so that we feel good about ourselves for having done something. It’s about submitting ourselves to the needs of others for their good.