One of interesting things about God is the fact that God is love, and God is also the judge to whom we will all answer for our actions when we die. Some people have a hard time wrapping their minds around the idea that God can be both loving and judgmental. They think that love and judgment are mutually exclusive. They could not be more wrong.
Without judgment, there can be no justice. Without justice, there can be no meaningful love for the victims of injustice. Therefore, true love demands judgment --- specifically, judgment of those who would cause harm to others.
Once a person accepts the idea that love and judgment are not mutually exclusive, and that in fact there are situations in which it's impossible to be truly loving without being judgmental, then it's easy to understand how God can be both loving and judgmental.
It should also be easy to understand the idea that our own moral obligations include the obligation to deal with one another in a manner which reflects God's character. If indeed God's love for innocent victims is the motivation which causes him to judge people who would victimize others, then it logically follows that we likewise have an obligation to intervene in such situations --- and to judge and punish others for their harmful acts when such action is appropriate.
Who determines what counts as "harmful" acts? Do we finite human beings have the authority or wisdom to do so? No.
We may rationalize certain sins by saying that "no one really got hurt," but God is in a much better position to assess the damages caused by sins than we are. Many of the acts considered "harmless" by hedonists are in fact very harmful.
Sexual sin, for example, destroys families. Contrary to the teachings of morally depraved people such as Hugh Hefner, fornication and adultery are not harmless little indulgences which hurt no one. Sexual intercourse which doesn't occur within the context of marital commitment has wide-ranging societal consequences, not the least of which is the proliferation of single-parent families in which children are deprived of the ongoing support and guidance of both father and mother. Such deprivation is everybody's business, inasmuch as it statistically leads to increased poverty and crime. Therefore, telling people to mind their own business, when they criticize others for their sexual sin, amounts to a failure to really grasp the significance of such sin.
The same principle is applicable to many other so-called "private" sins as well.
Saying that we are sometimes entitled or even obligated to judge others is not the same as saying that we have unfettered freedom when it comes to our judgments of others. Jesus made it very clear that we incur certain responsibilities when we judge others. To the extent that we judge others, we will be judged by God (which is what Jesus meant when he said, "Judge not, that you be not judged"), so we must strive to be as critical of ourselves as we are with respect to the sins of others. We must seek to be people of integrity. We must ruthlessly root out hypocrisy in our own lives. No one does this perfectly, but it should nevertheless be our constant goal.
We should also seek to make judgments which are not arbitrary, but which in fact can be defended on the basis of reason, on the basis of God's word, and on the basis of the truth about particular people and particular situations. We should remember that our judgments are themselves subject to judgment by others and, far more importantly, by God.
Humility is essential. We must not claim to know more than we actually know. That's why we must leave final judgment up to God, knowing that things are not always what they superficially appear to be.
However, the need for humility should not be used as a lame excuse for failing to take a stand against evil and wrongdoing. Our judgments may be imperfect, but that does not change the fact that we are obligated to take a stand against such deeds.
Showing posts with label judgment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judgment. Show all posts
Monday, February 23, 2009
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Lack of Integrity Besets Political Liberals
I just received the following message in an automated e-mail newsletter which I receive from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:
Members of the radical "No on 8" campaign in California have quickly turned their disappointment over the homosexual marriage ban into rabid hostility. Protestors have flooded the streets in Los Angeles with their sights set on the Mormon Church, railing against its leaders for their powerful role in protecting marriage. Together with allies in the Catholic and Protestant churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) was one of the main ingredients in Proposition 8's success. The Mormon Church's donations, estimated at roughly $22 million, fueled the hundreds of ad placements across the state that ultimately tipped the scales in the amendment's favor. Yesterday, 2,000 homosexual activists vilified the church, huddling outside the gate of an L.A. temple with profane signs and rainbow flags. Today, another march is scheduled for Temple Square in Salt Lake City, but the Church's leadership has no regrets about its involvement. In a statement, Elder Clayton said, "We believe it's a moral issue, and we reserve the right to speak out on moral issues." At LDS headquarters in Utah, leaders called for a ceasefire with gay activists and "goodwill" on both sides. Unfortunately, that message has yet to stick with the "No on 8" crowd, which has lashed out with unprecedented aggression against the faith community. Apart from the attacks on the LDS church (including ugly ads that depict Mormon missionaries invading the home of a lesbian couple and tearing up their marriage certificate), churches like Jack Hibbs' Calvary Chapel at Chino Hills have been spray-painted, cars vandalized, and police have confirmed at least two reports of physical assault. Once again, the Left is proving its unwillingness to practice the very "tolerance" they preach. FRC is proud of the example that the interfaith community has set on marriage. If the Prop 8 outcome is any indication, homosexuals could stand to learn a thing or two from the church on civility.How sadly typical. As usual, the political left has demonstrated its utter lack of integrity insofar as "tolerance" is concerned. The same lack of integrity can be seen when they talk about the necessity of free speech, and then turn around and accuse pastors and others who speak out against homosexuality of "hate crimes" (showing that they're so immature that they can't handle viewpoints which aren't aligned perfectly with their own opinions). Or they'll accuse conservative Christians and political conservatives of being "judgmental," never quite grasping the idea that such accusations are just as judgmental.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Thoughts About Getting Older
I was at the bookstore yesterday, and there was a special edition of U.S. News and World Report, dedicated to the Civil War. There was a photo of Abraham Lincoln on the cover, and it was one of the photos, taken late in his life, which made him look particularly old and haggard. There was another, somewhat similar photo inside the magazine.
I was looking at the dates when they said Lincoln was born and when they said he'd died, and I realized with a bit of a start that he'd only been a few years older than I am now when he was assasinated. Specifically, he was 56 years, two months and four days old; whereas I'm almost 52 years old.
Now, I won't claim that time hasn't taken a toll on me physically. I went bald a long time ago. Financial problems have contributed to the inability to afford the kind of medical and dental care I would have preferred, so I'm missing several teeth, and I have some other medical issues which still haven't been properly addressed. Earlier this year, I had a patch of skin cancer removed by a dermatologist, and it left a slight bump on my head which wasn't there previously. I'm now taking a number of medications for hypertension, which was never an issue for me (to my knowledge) until just this past year.
Nevertheless, all things considered, I think I've aged fairly well. My skin still looks fairly youthful. I've only recently started to see a few gray hairs on my head and in my beard and moustache (although I'm "clean shaven" at the moment). I can still climb the stairs to my apartment on the 12th floor, although I do sometimes have to stop and rest for a minute or so, on the way up, to catch my breath.
Based on outward appearances, I think I've aged in a manner which is somewhat similar to how "Meet The Press" reporter Tim Russert aged. He still looked fairly youthful even during his final year on earth.
Nevertheless, looks can be deceiving. Tim Russert died just last week of a heart attack, at the age of 58. The intensity of the tributes now being paid to him is obviously a reflection of the affection people felt for him, largely on account of the fair and professional manner with which he dealt with the guests on his show. But it's likely that people were also a bit shocked that someone who seemed as vigorous as he seemed to be would die so soon of natural causes.
Another person I looked up to for many years was Christian rock musician Larry Norman. He was about three years older than Tim Russert when he died earlier this year. That death wasn't so much of a shock, because Larry had been in ill health for a number of years.
Obviously, one reason why Lincoln looked so old prior to his death was that he'd had a hard and stressful life, and no part of it was harder or more stressful than the years when he served as the president. And of course, medical care back then wasn't what it is now. Generally, people just didn't live quite as long. Lincoln obviously didn't die of natural causes, but it seems unlikely that he would have lived very many more years, even if there had been no John Wilkes Booth.
More and more, I find myself comparing my age to the age of other people at the times of their deaths, perhaps because of my awareness that I'm only about 13 years away from the age of 65, when my father died, and when my maternal grandfather died as well.
When I look back at my life and think about how quickly 12 or 13 years can fly by, it makes me deeply aware of my own mortality. It makes me sadly aware of how little I've really accomplished, in comparison with my goals, and how little time remains in which to make a real difference. Of course, there's no way to know for sure how long my own life span will be. But if one were to assume that I was destined to die at the age of 65, that would mean that I had already lived 80% of my total lifespan.
Then again, nothing is guaranteed to anyone in terms of longevity. I just read an article about a 14-year-old kid in Chicago who was murdered in a foolish dispute involving a bicycle. Compared with that kid, I've been abundantly blessed already with a long life.
Comparing one's life to the lives of others can be a futile enterprise, and somewhat pointless. Every human life is unique, and the circumstances with which each person has to deal are also somewhat unique. People do have free will, but they sometimes fail to achieve their full potential for reasons which are largely beyond their control. I think that God understands that.
Jesus Christ only lived 33 years on this earth (according to most scholars), but he accomplished more during that brief time span than other men can ever hope to accomplish.
The true value of a person's life is something which no man or woman or child can really accurately assess. Only God really knows that value.
In any event, life isn't really a competition with other people (even though that may seem to be the case in the short term), because God doesn't grade on the curve. His standard is nothing less than perfection. We all fall short of God's standards. It's only a question of how much we fall short. Thank God for His mercy and grace. We'll all be judged when we die, but our ultimate focus should not be on ourselves or our accomplishments, except to the degree that those things indicate whether or not we did our best to serve God and to make the most of the time we were given. Ultimately, our focus should be on God.
It would be nice, when I die, to receive the commendations of men. But that may or may not happen. In any event, I know that God knows and sees all, so I'll be happy, when I die, if I can hear the words, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."
I was looking at the dates when they said Lincoln was born and when they said he'd died, and I realized with a bit of a start that he'd only been a few years older than I am now when he was assasinated. Specifically, he was 56 years, two months and four days old; whereas I'm almost 52 years old.
Now, I won't claim that time hasn't taken a toll on me physically. I went bald a long time ago. Financial problems have contributed to the inability to afford the kind of medical and dental care I would have preferred, so I'm missing several teeth, and I have some other medical issues which still haven't been properly addressed. Earlier this year, I had a patch of skin cancer removed by a dermatologist, and it left a slight bump on my head which wasn't there previously. I'm now taking a number of medications for hypertension, which was never an issue for me (to my knowledge) until just this past year.
Nevertheless, all things considered, I think I've aged fairly well. My skin still looks fairly youthful. I've only recently started to see a few gray hairs on my head and in my beard and moustache (although I'm "clean shaven" at the moment). I can still climb the stairs to my apartment on the 12th floor, although I do sometimes have to stop and rest for a minute or so, on the way up, to catch my breath.
Based on outward appearances, I think I've aged in a manner which is somewhat similar to how "Meet The Press" reporter Tim Russert aged. He still looked fairly youthful even during his final year on earth.
Nevertheless, looks can be deceiving. Tim Russert died just last week of a heart attack, at the age of 58. The intensity of the tributes now being paid to him is obviously a reflection of the affection people felt for him, largely on account of the fair and professional manner with which he dealt with the guests on his show. But it's likely that people were also a bit shocked that someone who seemed as vigorous as he seemed to be would die so soon of natural causes.
Another person I looked up to for many years was Christian rock musician Larry Norman. He was about three years older than Tim Russert when he died earlier this year. That death wasn't so much of a shock, because Larry had been in ill health for a number of years.
Obviously, one reason why Lincoln looked so old prior to his death was that he'd had a hard and stressful life, and no part of it was harder or more stressful than the years when he served as the president. And of course, medical care back then wasn't what it is now. Generally, people just didn't live quite as long. Lincoln obviously didn't die of natural causes, but it seems unlikely that he would have lived very many more years, even if there had been no John Wilkes Booth.
More and more, I find myself comparing my age to the age of other people at the times of their deaths, perhaps because of my awareness that I'm only about 13 years away from the age of 65, when my father died, and when my maternal grandfather died as well.
When I look back at my life and think about how quickly 12 or 13 years can fly by, it makes me deeply aware of my own mortality. It makes me sadly aware of how little I've really accomplished, in comparison with my goals, and how little time remains in which to make a real difference. Of course, there's no way to know for sure how long my own life span will be. But if one were to assume that I was destined to die at the age of 65, that would mean that I had already lived 80% of my total lifespan.
Then again, nothing is guaranteed to anyone in terms of longevity. I just read an article about a 14-year-old kid in Chicago who was murdered in a foolish dispute involving a bicycle. Compared with that kid, I've been abundantly blessed already with a long life.
Comparing one's life to the lives of others can be a futile enterprise, and somewhat pointless. Every human life is unique, and the circumstances with which each person has to deal are also somewhat unique. People do have free will, but they sometimes fail to achieve their full potential for reasons which are largely beyond their control. I think that God understands that.
Jesus Christ only lived 33 years on this earth (according to most scholars), but he accomplished more during that brief time span than other men can ever hope to accomplish.
The true value of a person's life is something which no man or woman or child can really accurately assess. Only God really knows that value.
In any event, life isn't really a competition with other people (even though that may seem to be the case in the short term), because God doesn't grade on the curve. His standard is nothing less than perfection. We all fall short of God's standards. It's only a question of how much we fall short. Thank God for His mercy and grace. We'll all be judged when we die, but our ultimate focus should not be on ourselves or our accomplishments, except to the degree that those things indicate whether or not we did our best to serve God and to make the most of the time we were given. Ultimately, our focus should be on God.
It would be nice, when I die, to receive the commendations of men. But that may or may not happen. In any event, I know that God knows and sees all, so I'll be happy, when I die, if I can hear the words, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Heart is Exceedingly Wicked (Jeremiah 17:9)
It had to happen. Shortly after the media first reported the Virginia Tech massacre, people started saying that this incident proved that the current level of gun control in the United States was woefully inadequate.
On the subject of gun control, I should say from the outset that I'm hardly what one would call a "gun fanatic". I've never owned a gun in my life, unless one counts the BB guns which were given to me as gifts when I was very young. The last time I used a gun was more than 30 years ago, when my father took me hunting for rabbits and squirrels (with a .22 rifle) and quail (with a shotgun). I have no relationship whatsoever with the NRA.
So it isn't any vested interest, pertaining to guns, which causes me to point out the inanity of the tired and specious arguments once again being trotted out in favor of stiffer gun laws. According to the gun control people, if we just abolished the Constitutional right to bear arms, incidents such as the recent massacre at Virginia Tech would be abolished or significantly curtailed.
Hmmm, let's examine the plausibility of that argument.
The killer, Cho Seung-Hui, killed 32 people, plus himself. Depending on who you believe, somewhere between 15 and 30 additional people were injured. (Actually, the highest estimate I've heard, in terms of nonlethal injuries, was 29. But I'm being generous for the sake of this argument.)
Horrible? Of course. Tragic? Absolutely. Preventable? Perhaps. But eliminating every handgun from the planet would not have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from killing numerous people. He would simply have found another way to do it.
People have been killing one another since time immemorial. Elizabeth (Erzsébet) Bathory, for instance, is a Hungarian countess believed by some to have killed hundreds of young women. Even the lowest estimates of her killings surpass the number of people recently killed by Cho Seung-Hui. Did Bathory use guns in any of those killings? No. It's arguable that shooting her victims would have been far more merciful than the shockingly cruel methods she used.
Wikipedia says that the total number of fatalaties in the Oklahoma City bombing was 168, and the total number of injuries was more than 800 people. (For those without ready access to a calculator, that's an average of 56 killings per person plus roughly 266 additional injuries per person, based on the fact that there were 3 killers involved.)
Would illegalizing guns have prevented that tragedy? No. Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier didn't need guns in order to kill and injure far more people than Cho Seung-Hui ever dreamed of killing.
One of the primary ingredients in the bombs used in Oklahoma City was fertilizer. Strangely, I don't see the gun control crowd calling for the illegalization of fertilizer.
The debate over gun control is not an abstract academic exercise. The outcome of that debate is of vital importance to our society's future.
The problem with misdiagnosing a problem and prescribing a false and ultimately useless solution is that the real solution is overlooked or minimized.
Blaming the tool with which a killer chooses to kill is idiotic. Many items which can be used to kill also have benign uses, some of which can even be used to save lives. (Fertilizer, for example, is useful in growing crops and combatting famine.)
The real issue, it seems to me, is a matter of the human heart. Cho Seung-Hui was seething with hatred. (If you don't believe me, just look at the photos he sent to NBC, or read the sick things he had written.) So why weren't his obvious mental problems addressed long before things got to this point?
At one time, there was what might be called a Christian consensus in this country. It wasn't universal, of course. There's never been a time in history where that was the case. And we've had our blind spots (as in the case of slavery and racial bigotry). Nevertheless, there was a time when there was an overall sense of unity in our communities. Shared moral values enabled us to speak out boldly against things generally regarded as sinful.
Now, thanks to constant activism on the part of the ACLU and other liberal groups which distort and misconstrue portions of our Constitution, we live in a society where "tolerance" has become a euphemism which is synonymous for the complete absence, on the part of many people, of anything resembling a backbone. God forbid that we should be called "judgmental".
Ironically, it never seems to occur to liberals that criticizing people for being "judgmental" is in itself judgmental. Moral relativism is an intellectually untenable philosophy, for the simple reason that it is next to impossible for a moral relativist to live life with perfect consistency and integrity in the real world.
The very concept of injustice is in itself a value judgment. Yet liberals constantly complain about injustice while simultaneously undermining the sense of morality which makes concepts such as "justice" and "injustice" comprehensible. To believe that standards of behavior can be violated, one must first believe that such standards objectively exist.
There were ample signs during the past several years that would have indicated that Cho Seung-Hui was a danger to society. But people chose to ignore those signs or minimize them, until it was too late, because doing so might have seemed "intolerant" in our current political climate.
In short, we as a society blew it. Cho Seung-Hui was a man in crisis, and a clear danger to society, but we chose to look the other way. Now we no longer have that luxury.
There are far worse things than being "judgmental", and refusing to take a stand against evil is one of those things.
There is no question at all that Cho Seung-Hui committed a horrible crime. He will answer to God for that crime. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when he is forced to do so. But I also wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those who could have stopped and helped Cho Seung-Hui a long time ago, but chose not to do so because they were too wrapped up in their own lives and too blinded by the delusional rhetoric of liberalism to respond appropriately to the ticking time bomb in their midst.
On the subject of gun control, I should say from the outset that I'm hardly what one would call a "gun fanatic". I've never owned a gun in my life, unless one counts the BB guns which were given to me as gifts when I was very young. The last time I used a gun was more than 30 years ago, when my father took me hunting for rabbits and squirrels (with a .22 rifle) and quail (with a shotgun). I have no relationship whatsoever with the NRA.
So it isn't any vested interest, pertaining to guns, which causes me to point out the inanity of the tired and specious arguments once again being trotted out in favor of stiffer gun laws. According to the gun control people, if we just abolished the Constitutional right to bear arms, incidents such as the recent massacre at Virginia Tech would be abolished or significantly curtailed.
Hmmm, let's examine the plausibility of that argument.
The killer, Cho Seung-Hui, killed 32 people, plus himself. Depending on who you believe, somewhere between 15 and 30 additional people were injured. (Actually, the highest estimate I've heard, in terms of nonlethal injuries, was 29. But I'm being generous for the sake of this argument.)
Horrible? Of course. Tragic? Absolutely. Preventable? Perhaps. But eliminating every handgun from the planet would not have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from killing numerous people. He would simply have found another way to do it.
People have been killing one another since time immemorial. Elizabeth (Erzsébet) Bathory, for instance, is a Hungarian countess believed by some to have killed hundreds of young women. Even the lowest estimates of her killings surpass the number of people recently killed by Cho Seung-Hui. Did Bathory use guns in any of those killings? No. It's arguable that shooting her victims would have been far more merciful than the shockingly cruel methods she used.
Wikipedia says that the total number of fatalaties in the Oklahoma City bombing was 168, and the total number of injuries was more than 800 people. (For those without ready access to a calculator, that's an average of 56 killings per person plus roughly 266 additional injuries per person, based on the fact that there were 3 killers involved.)
Would illegalizing guns have prevented that tragedy? No. Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier didn't need guns in order to kill and injure far more people than Cho Seung-Hui ever dreamed of killing.
One of the primary ingredients in the bombs used in Oklahoma City was fertilizer. Strangely, I don't see the gun control crowd calling for the illegalization of fertilizer.
The debate over gun control is not an abstract academic exercise. The outcome of that debate is of vital importance to our society's future.
The problem with misdiagnosing a problem and prescribing a false and ultimately useless solution is that the real solution is overlooked or minimized.
Blaming the tool with which a killer chooses to kill is idiotic. Many items which can be used to kill also have benign uses, some of which can even be used to save lives. (Fertilizer, for example, is useful in growing crops and combatting famine.)
The real issue, it seems to me, is a matter of the human heart. Cho Seung-Hui was seething with hatred. (If you don't believe me, just look at the photos he sent to NBC, or read the sick things he had written.) So why weren't his obvious mental problems addressed long before things got to this point?
At one time, there was what might be called a Christian consensus in this country. It wasn't universal, of course. There's never been a time in history where that was the case. And we've had our blind spots (as in the case of slavery and racial bigotry). Nevertheless, there was a time when there was an overall sense of unity in our communities. Shared moral values enabled us to speak out boldly against things generally regarded as sinful.
Now, thanks to constant activism on the part of the ACLU and other liberal groups which distort and misconstrue portions of our Constitution, we live in a society where "tolerance" has become a euphemism which is synonymous for the complete absence, on the part of many people, of anything resembling a backbone. God forbid that we should be called "judgmental".
Ironically, it never seems to occur to liberals that criticizing people for being "judgmental" is in itself judgmental. Moral relativism is an intellectually untenable philosophy, for the simple reason that it is next to impossible for a moral relativist to live life with perfect consistency and integrity in the real world.
The very concept of injustice is in itself a value judgment. Yet liberals constantly complain about injustice while simultaneously undermining the sense of morality which makes concepts such as "justice" and "injustice" comprehensible. To believe that standards of behavior can be violated, one must first believe that such standards objectively exist.
There were ample signs during the past several years that would have indicated that Cho Seung-Hui was a danger to society. But people chose to ignore those signs or minimize them, until it was too late, because doing so might have seemed "intolerant" in our current political climate.
In short, we as a society blew it. Cho Seung-Hui was a man in crisis, and a clear danger to society, but we chose to look the other way. Now we no longer have that luxury.
There are far worse things than being "judgmental", and refusing to take a stand against evil is one of those things.
There is no question at all that Cho Seung-Hui committed a horrible crime. He will answer to God for that crime. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when he is forced to do so. But I also wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those who could have stopped and helped Cho Seung-Hui a long time ago, but chose not to do so because they were too wrapped up in their own lives and too blinded by the delusional rhetoric of liberalism to respond appropriately to the ticking time bomb in their midst.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Trusting God Is Sometimes Easier Said Than Done
Every once in a while, I like to search the web to get additional information about the Pettigrew family. Today, I found the Pettigrew Family Genealogy Site, containing detailed information which was apparently compiled by one Pat Fincher Pettigrew before she went on to be with the Lord.
The site features a Bible verse of the day. As it so happens, the verse for today was:
"Don't concern yourself about what you will eat or drink, and quit worrying about these things.... Rather, be concerned about his [the Father's] kingdom. Then these things will be provided for you." ... Luke 12:29
I was undoubtedly meant to see that verse. I'm hardly unfamiliar with the verse, of course. I've known the verse for most of my life. (Matthew has a verse which says pretty much the same thing.) But I have to confess, it touches on a personal weakness of mine.
Some folks have major trouble with sexual sin or addiction to drugs or alcohol. But personally, I find that trusting God to provide for my needs on a daily basis is something I still struggle with. It's my own personal version of "Fear Factor". When the money starts to run low (and it frequently does), I start seeing terrifying visions in which I am tossed out on my ear with no place to live but the mean streets of the city of Chicago.
Why does this frighten me? For numerous reasons, but probably the most powerful reason is that I am not content to merely survive. I have a vision of what God wants to do in my life, and I firmly believe that it is achievable, provided that I can manage to avoid events, such as eviction, which would set me back many years!
The scriptures affirm that a man's life does not consist of that man's possessions. Very true. But there are cases in which possessions are crucial if one is to achieve certain things.
For example, if I were to lose my computer and my access to the Internet, it would be significantly more difficult for me to set up the online ministry I'm trying to start at ArtisticChristians.com.
When it comes to my fears of living on the street, there is a basis for those fears. I have come very close to losing it all, in terms of my material possessions.
I've never actually lived on the street, per se, but I've been in several situations where I would have had to do so if it had not been for the charitable acts of my fellow Christians.
It also helped that I wasn't too proud to beg for help.
Now, a man has to do what a man has to do, and if begging for assistance is what one has to do in order to survive, then one begs for assistance. But begging is no fun, and that's a mild understatement. Begging is humiliating. The reason it's humiliating is, in part, because the people from whom one is forced to ask for help sometimes do their best to make sure that it's a humiliating experience.
Frequently, one finds that the generosity of others comes with strings attached. Usually, those strings are emotional. It seems that some people think that offering charitable assistance entitles them to denigrate the person they are helping in ways which bear little or no relation to the actual facts of the situation. The mere fact that one has been forced to beg for help is taken as de facto evidence that one's character is severely deficient.
One pastor who helped me out in the early nineties accused me of being "lazy". This, despite the fact that he knew that I had only recently lost my job, and despite his knowledge of the fact that I was devoting approximately 16 hours a day to that job at that time.
It was a job in a retail music store. It took me 2 hours to get there on the bus every morning, and another 2 hours to get home on the bus that night. I worked from 10:00 a.m. when the store opened to 10:00 p.m., which was an hour past the time when the store closed.
If that was "lazy", I couldn't help wondering just what I would have had to do in order to prove to this pastor that I was a hard and diligent worker. Devote all 24 hours of every day to my job? Funny, I didn't see him doing that with his own job!
Yes, I lost the music store job, but it had nothing to do with being "lazy". I just wasn't making enough sales, despite my best efforts. Anyone who has ever worked in sales knows that that is always a possibility. If folks are clueless regarding such matters (as this pastor apparently was), I would suggest that they read "Death of A Salesman", by Arthur Miller.
I was and am genuinely grateful for the temporary help that the aforementioned pastor extended to me for a period of time when I needed that help, but that was no excuse for the abusive things that he said to me in order to force me to leave and find housing elsewhere at a time when I still did not have adequate money with which to do so (thanks to the fact that I had recently been robbed while visiting the Oak Park YMCA in order to try to get a room).
That was hardly the only time that sort of thing had happened to me. Memories of incidents like that one still burn in my mind even to this day. Such memories make it hard for me to trust God to provide for me. Yes, I've survived, but I've had to go through some things no human being should ever have to go through in order to do so.
When it comes to the role Christians have played in dealing with my difficulties, it's kind of a "glass half full, glass half empty" kind of situation. On the one hand, I have always received the help I needed, more or less. And as I say, I am grateful for that fact. Christians certainly could have responded with total indifference to my needs. To their credit, they did not.
But helping a person means more than just providing for that person's material needs. It also means being sensitive to the fact that being forced to beg for help or forbearance is inherently stressful for most normal people. It means showing kindness and love to the people you help, knowing that that is how you would want to be treated if you ever found yourself in a similar situation. (It's called the Golden Rule. Look it up in the Bible. Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you.) I'm sorry to say that most of the Christians I've dealt with have fallen way short in that department.
Not that any of that excuses my failure to trust God for provision. I know, intellectually, that God can be trusted to provide for my needs. It's just that when the sheriff is banging on one's door at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, with the intent of serving one an eviction notice because one has fallen behind on one's rent, it's still difficult to incorporate that intellectual knowledge into the way one views the world. During such moments, the world seems like a cruel and hostile place, and God seems like he is pretty indifferent to the sufferings of those who have to experience that cruelty and hostility.
That visit from the sheriff that happened to me several years ago. I was already starting to sink into depression in response to my situation, and that visit from the sheriff made things even worse. Not long after that, I spent a miserable weekend at a local mental health hospital after trying to kill myself by swallowing more than an entire bottle of over-the-counter sleeping pills.
At the time when I took the pills, I was just sick and tired of dealing with the stress of life on this earth. I was sick and tired of being told that God loved me by people who demonstrated, through their indifference to the truth regarding my own situation, that they really didn't care whether I lived or died.
Yet, I attribute the fact that I am still alive today to God's miraculous intervention.
That night, I knelt beside my bed, in fear and trembling, not knowing what was coming next. I poured my heart out to God. I told God that I just couldn't deal with living in this world of pain any longer. I longed for genuine relief. I longed with all my heart to be joined with God in heaven.
I told God that I wanted to die, but I added that if God wanted me to live, if God had a higher purpose for me here which I couldn't yet see, I was willing to accept his will and to do my best to do his will.
The next morning, to my great surprise, I awoke to a new day. The effects of the pills could be clearly felt. I could barely move my limbs. For about a day or so, my legs would not even support the weight of my body. But I was alive.
I now realize that that was a test of my faith. I almost completely failed the test. If I had not prayed that prayer of submission, I think I might have failed that test, and I might not be typing these words today. But I had not abandoned my faith. I have not abandoned my faith. I will not abandon my faith!
I know in whom I have believed. When I committed my life to Jesus Christ at age 13, in 1969, I was putting my faith in Jesus Christ, not in that imperfect institution known as the Church. Yes, it's true, the Church is in some respects the Body of Christ. But the Church is comprised of weak and fallible sinners. They have been saved, but in terms of personal virtue, they have not yet arrived at their final destination. And when I say "they", perhaps I should include myself and change the pronoun to "we".
My faith in Christ is real, but it is not what it ought to be.
If my faith was what it ought to be, I would live a fearless life. I would remind myself that Jesus himself suffered greatly while he was here on this earth. The scriptures tell us that "foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to rest his head." For at least 3 years of his life, Jesus was a homeless man. I don't know how many of those nights he had to literally sleep under the stars, but it seems to be clear that when he was not doing so, he was staying with other people who chose to offer him lodging for the night. He was not living in any mansion. He was not staying at any 5 star hotel. He was taking whatever he could get.
As for false accusations, Jesus is no stranger to those, either. He did miracles, and how was he thanked? He was accused by some people (often the religious leaders of the day) of performing those miracles through the power of the Devil! Talk about ingratitude.
Jesus knows my grief and my pain, because he's been there.
I write the above words because once again, I am going through a time of trial in relation to my finances. I know that God will provide for me and I will survive, but it's still stressful, because I don't like having to ask for help, and it is likely that I will have to do so again in the very near future.
I pray that I will receive the mercy and help I need so that this time of trial will be as short as possible.
I further pray that such help will be extended to me in a more loving and generous spirit than I have received from some people who have claimed to speak in God's name.
Most of all, I pray that no matter how people respond and no matter what happens to me, I will never abandon my faith, and I will never forget that God loves me with a love so deep that it cannot be measured.
The site features a Bible verse of the day. As it so happens, the verse for today was:
"Don't concern yourself about what you will eat or drink, and quit worrying about these things.... Rather, be concerned about his [the Father's] kingdom. Then these things will be provided for you." ... Luke 12:29
I was undoubtedly meant to see that verse. I'm hardly unfamiliar with the verse, of course. I've known the verse for most of my life. (Matthew has a verse which says pretty much the same thing.) But I have to confess, it touches on a personal weakness of mine.
Some folks have major trouble with sexual sin or addiction to drugs or alcohol. But personally, I find that trusting God to provide for my needs on a daily basis is something I still struggle with. It's my own personal version of "Fear Factor". When the money starts to run low (and it frequently does), I start seeing terrifying visions in which I am tossed out on my ear with no place to live but the mean streets of the city of Chicago.
Why does this frighten me? For numerous reasons, but probably the most powerful reason is that I am not content to merely survive. I have a vision of what God wants to do in my life, and I firmly believe that it is achievable, provided that I can manage to avoid events, such as eviction, which would set me back many years!
The scriptures affirm that a man's life does not consist of that man's possessions. Very true. But there are cases in which possessions are crucial if one is to achieve certain things.
For example, if I were to lose my computer and my access to the Internet, it would be significantly more difficult for me to set up the online ministry I'm trying to start at ArtisticChristians.com.
When it comes to my fears of living on the street, there is a basis for those fears. I have come very close to losing it all, in terms of my material possessions.
I've never actually lived on the street, per se, but I've been in several situations where I would have had to do so if it had not been for the charitable acts of my fellow Christians.
It also helped that I wasn't too proud to beg for help.
Now, a man has to do what a man has to do, and if begging for assistance is what one has to do in order to survive, then one begs for assistance. But begging is no fun, and that's a mild understatement. Begging is humiliating. The reason it's humiliating is, in part, because the people from whom one is forced to ask for help sometimes do their best to make sure that it's a humiliating experience.
Frequently, one finds that the generosity of others comes with strings attached. Usually, those strings are emotional. It seems that some people think that offering charitable assistance entitles them to denigrate the person they are helping in ways which bear little or no relation to the actual facts of the situation. The mere fact that one has been forced to beg for help is taken as de facto evidence that one's character is severely deficient.
One pastor who helped me out in the early nineties accused me of being "lazy". This, despite the fact that he knew that I had only recently lost my job, and despite his knowledge of the fact that I was devoting approximately 16 hours a day to that job at that time.
It was a job in a retail music store. It took me 2 hours to get there on the bus every morning, and another 2 hours to get home on the bus that night. I worked from 10:00 a.m. when the store opened to 10:00 p.m., which was an hour past the time when the store closed.
If that was "lazy", I couldn't help wondering just what I would have had to do in order to prove to this pastor that I was a hard and diligent worker. Devote all 24 hours of every day to my job? Funny, I didn't see him doing that with his own job!
Yes, I lost the music store job, but it had nothing to do with being "lazy". I just wasn't making enough sales, despite my best efforts. Anyone who has ever worked in sales knows that that is always a possibility. If folks are clueless regarding such matters (as this pastor apparently was), I would suggest that they read "Death of A Salesman", by Arthur Miller.
I was and am genuinely grateful for the temporary help that the aforementioned pastor extended to me for a period of time when I needed that help, but that was no excuse for the abusive things that he said to me in order to force me to leave and find housing elsewhere at a time when I still did not have adequate money with which to do so (thanks to the fact that I had recently been robbed while visiting the Oak Park YMCA in order to try to get a room).
That was hardly the only time that sort of thing had happened to me. Memories of incidents like that one still burn in my mind even to this day. Such memories make it hard for me to trust God to provide for me. Yes, I've survived, but I've had to go through some things no human being should ever have to go through in order to do so.
When it comes to the role Christians have played in dealing with my difficulties, it's kind of a "glass half full, glass half empty" kind of situation. On the one hand, I have always received the help I needed, more or less. And as I say, I am grateful for that fact. Christians certainly could have responded with total indifference to my needs. To their credit, they did not.
But helping a person means more than just providing for that person's material needs. It also means being sensitive to the fact that being forced to beg for help or forbearance is inherently stressful for most normal people. It means showing kindness and love to the people you help, knowing that that is how you would want to be treated if you ever found yourself in a similar situation. (It's called the Golden Rule. Look it up in the Bible. Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you.) I'm sorry to say that most of the Christians I've dealt with have fallen way short in that department.
Not that any of that excuses my failure to trust God for provision. I know, intellectually, that God can be trusted to provide for my needs. It's just that when the sheriff is banging on one's door at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning, with the intent of serving one an eviction notice because one has fallen behind on one's rent, it's still difficult to incorporate that intellectual knowledge into the way one views the world. During such moments, the world seems like a cruel and hostile place, and God seems like he is pretty indifferent to the sufferings of those who have to experience that cruelty and hostility.
That visit from the sheriff that happened to me several years ago. I was already starting to sink into depression in response to my situation, and that visit from the sheriff made things even worse. Not long after that, I spent a miserable weekend at a local mental health hospital after trying to kill myself by swallowing more than an entire bottle of over-the-counter sleeping pills.
At the time when I took the pills, I was just sick and tired of dealing with the stress of life on this earth. I was sick and tired of being told that God loved me by people who demonstrated, through their indifference to the truth regarding my own situation, that they really didn't care whether I lived or died.
Yet, I attribute the fact that I am still alive today to God's miraculous intervention.
That night, I knelt beside my bed, in fear and trembling, not knowing what was coming next. I poured my heart out to God. I told God that I just couldn't deal with living in this world of pain any longer. I longed for genuine relief. I longed with all my heart to be joined with God in heaven.
I told God that I wanted to die, but I added that if God wanted me to live, if God had a higher purpose for me here which I couldn't yet see, I was willing to accept his will and to do my best to do his will.
The next morning, to my great surprise, I awoke to a new day. The effects of the pills could be clearly felt. I could barely move my limbs. For about a day or so, my legs would not even support the weight of my body. But I was alive.
I now realize that that was a test of my faith. I almost completely failed the test. If I had not prayed that prayer of submission, I think I might have failed that test, and I might not be typing these words today. But I had not abandoned my faith. I have not abandoned my faith. I will not abandon my faith!
I know in whom I have believed. When I committed my life to Jesus Christ at age 13, in 1969, I was putting my faith in Jesus Christ, not in that imperfect institution known as the Church. Yes, it's true, the Church is in some respects the Body of Christ. But the Church is comprised of weak and fallible sinners. They have been saved, but in terms of personal virtue, they have not yet arrived at their final destination. And when I say "they", perhaps I should include myself and change the pronoun to "we".
My faith in Christ is real, but it is not what it ought to be.
If my faith was what it ought to be, I would live a fearless life. I would remind myself that Jesus himself suffered greatly while he was here on this earth. The scriptures tell us that "foxes have holes, and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to rest his head." For at least 3 years of his life, Jesus was a homeless man. I don't know how many of those nights he had to literally sleep under the stars, but it seems to be clear that when he was not doing so, he was staying with other people who chose to offer him lodging for the night. He was not living in any mansion. He was not staying at any 5 star hotel. He was taking whatever he could get.
As for false accusations, Jesus is no stranger to those, either. He did miracles, and how was he thanked? He was accused by some people (often the religious leaders of the day) of performing those miracles through the power of the Devil! Talk about ingratitude.
Jesus knows my grief and my pain, because he's been there.
I write the above words because once again, I am going through a time of trial in relation to my finances. I know that God will provide for me and I will survive, but it's still stressful, because I don't like having to ask for help, and it is likely that I will have to do so again in the very near future.
I pray that I will receive the mercy and help I need so that this time of trial will be as short as possible.
I further pray that such help will be extended to me in a more loving and generous spirit than I have received from some people who have claimed to speak in God's name.
Most of all, I pray that no matter how people respond and no matter what happens to me, I will never abandon my faith, and I will never forget that God loves me with a love so deep that it cannot be measured.
Monday, January 15, 2007
From One Jerk To Another
Yesterday morning, I attended Willow Chicago (the downtown Chicago branch of Willow Creek Community Church) for the second time.
After the worship service, Willow Chicago held a fellowship reception in the Windsor Room at the nearby Congress Hotel, since their contract with The Auditorium (where their Sunday worship services are held) apparently doesn’t include access to meeting rooms for such events.
As I approached the Congress Hotel, I looked into the window of the hotel’s gift shop. I saw what appeared to be a line of humorous bumper stickers.
However, the captions on some of those bumper stickers would not necessarily strike everyone as amusing. For example, the first bumper sticker I noticed had the following caption:
“Jesus Loves You. Everyone else thinks you’re a jerk.”
Alright, I made part of that up. “Jerk” wasn’t actually the word the bumper sticker used. It actually used a harsher word which rhymes with the phrase “brass pole” and which could be roughly paraphrased as “anal aperture”. But this is a family-friendly Christian blog, so I thought I’d try to keep things “clean” for the sake of the many Christians who think that certain words should be completely off limits.
I thought it was a bit ironic that I saw that message when I was on the way to a church event being held in that same hotel.
Putting aside the issue of the bumper sticker’s mild profanity, and putting aside the fact that it was obviously an attempt at humor on the part of the writer, I thought it was an interesting message which raised equally interesting questions.
In essence, the message on the bumper sticker seemed to imply that Jesus loves jerks because he is too naïve to recognize a jerk when he sees one. It implied that loving a person and recognizing that the person is a jerk are mutually exclusive.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody knows us better than God. If any of us really are jerks, you can be sure that God knows that better than anyone else.
I have been known, from time to time, to characterize some particularly unkind people (including some of my fellow Christians) as jerks. I’ve even used the other word that was actually on that bumper sticker, when people have really made me angry by treating me badly.
However, in my more reflective moments, I suspect that God thinks that we’re all jerks, not just some of us.
Admittedly, some of us are bigger jerks than others, but the Bible makes it clear: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
We have all acted in self-centered ways from time to time. Intentionally or unintentionally, most of us have hurt one another on occasions. And even if some of us as individuals have not ever hurt other people, we have certainly hurt God when we have insulted God by implying by word or deed that we were better qualified than God to know how we ought to live our lives.
The Bible talks about two kinds of righteousness. One kind of righteousness is what might be described as “relative righteousness”. To be relatively righteous is to be more righteous than most other people. Job, for example, met that criterion. That’s why the Bible described Job as a “righteous man”.
Provided that it is tempered by humility, relative righteousness has value. It’s good to strive to be a relatively righteous person. In fact, God expects us to do so.
However, there’s also another kind of righteousness: Perfect or absolute righteousness. We ought to strive for that higher level of righteousness as well, but the Bible makes it clear that no one other than Christ has ever lived a perfectly righteous life here on earth. Compared with the perfect righteousness of Christ, our relative righteousness begins to look pretty sad and pathetic.
A lot of people think that because they’re relatively righteous, in comparison with other people, that means that they are qualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. Not long ago, I spoke with someone I care for deeply. He said that he knew he was going to go to heaven because he’d been a relatively good person who had “never murdered anybody”.
Such a statement is common in our society, but it shows a real lack of understanding, for two reasons. First, it implies that all one has to do in order to qualify for entry into heaven is to abstain from the most grievious sins such as murder. Second, it implies that murderers and others who have committed the worst sins have no hope of entering the kingdom of God. Neither one of those things is true.
God doesn't merely want us to be relatively righteous people. God’s standards are uncompromising. God requires perfection. Anything less than perfection makes a person unqualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. In terms of salvation, the extent to which you miss the mark is irrelevant. If you miss it by even a little bit, you’ve missed it.
It’s like being a deer hunter. You can miss the deer by an inch or a mile. Either way, you go home hungry, and the deer lives to see another day. What good is it that you almost hit the deer you were shooting at? When you're hungry for venison, "almost" doesn't cut it.
When it comes to pleasing God, we’ve all missed the mark. Some by a little, some by a lot, but we’ve all missed it. We all have a spiritual hunger that cannot be satisfied on the basis of our own inadequate efforts.
However, heaven would be a mighty empty place if God had not made any provisions for sinners to enter heaven. That’s why Jesus died on the cross for us. He knew that on some level, we were all rebellious jerks who didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Yet, Jesus inexplicably loved us anyway. That’s why it’s called “amazing grace”!
Jesus wants to spend eternity with us, despite our obvious and not so obvious flaws. Because Jesus was the only perfect person to ever live, Jesus was the only one qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on our behalf. He had no obligation to do so, but he did so anyway.
None of this ought to be used, as some immature Christians do, as an excuse to act like jerks. God’s grace and mercy can cover and forgive a multitude of sins, but we still have a moral obligation to make a conscientious effort to avoid sin. We still have an obligation to hold one another accountable for sins we may commit.
As much as possible, I try not to act like a jerk. Relative to a lot of other people, I think that I’ve done a pretty good job of living a morally admirable life.
Nevertheless, nobody but God is more aware of my shortcomings than I am. Consequently, I’m indescribably glad and grateful that Jesus has loved and forgiven me even when I have miserably failed to meet God’s standards.
Regarding what other people think of me or don’t think of me, I do want others to think well of me, but there is a sense in which it really doesn’t matter what other people think about me, just as there is a sense in which it doesn’t really matter what I think about others or about you.
Your judgments are impure. My judgments are impure. God’s judgments are perfect and unimpeachable.
In the final analysis (which is coming sooner than you may think), what God thinks about me and you is the only thing that really matters.
Don’t be caught unprepared for Judgment Day. Instead, I would suggest that you pray the following prayer, or something similar to it:
Dear God,
I’ve known a lot of jerks in my life. Sadly, I have to admit that I have sometimes been one of them. I have chosen my own way and not yours. I have rejected your wisdom and counsel. I have hurt you, and it's quite likely that I have hurt others. I have strayed from the path that leads to eternal life.
Please forgive me. Please set my feet back onto the righteous path once again. Please help me to help others so that they, too, can receive the glorious forgiveness you have generously offered to all who will humbly ask for forgiveness.
I thank you that you sent your son Jesus to die on my behalf. I thank you that you can be trusted to honor this request for forgiveness. I praise and glorify your holy name, for you alone are worthy of such praise.
In Jesus’ Blessed Name,
Amen
If you’ve just prayed the above prayer for the first time, or if you’ve just prayed something similar (possibly because the above prayer was not tailored perfectly to your own situation), please write to me and let me know that you’ve decided to follow Christ.
It would really make my day to know that I helped to play a role in leading you to make the most important decision that you will ever make.
Sincerely,
Mark Pettigrew
mark_w_pettigrew[at]hotmail[dot]com
After the worship service, Willow Chicago held a fellowship reception in the Windsor Room at the nearby Congress Hotel, since their contract with The Auditorium (where their Sunday worship services are held) apparently doesn’t include access to meeting rooms for such events.
As I approached the Congress Hotel, I looked into the window of the hotel’s gift shop. I saw what appeared to be a line of humorous bumper stickers.
However, the captions on some of those bumper stickers would not necessarily strike everyone as amusing. For example, the first bumper sticker I noticed had the following caption:
“Jesus Loves You. Everyone else thinks you’re a jerk.”
Alright, I made part of that up. “Jerk” wasn’t actually the word the bumper sticker used. It actually used a harsher word which rhymes with the phrase “brass pole” and which could be roughly paraphrased as “anal aperture”. But this is a family-friendly Christian blog, so I thought I’d try to keep things “clean” for the sake of the many Christians who think that certain words should be completely off limits.
I thought it was a bit ironic that I saw that message when I was on the way to a church event being held in that same hotel.
Putting aside the issue of the bumper sticker’s mild profanity, and putting aside the fact that it was obviously an attempt at humor on the part of the writer, I thought it was an interesting message which raised equally interesting questions.
In essence, the message on the bumper sticker seemed to imply that Jesus loves jerks because he is too naïve to recognize a jerk when he sees one. It implied that loving a person and recognizing that the person is a jerk are mutually exclusive.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody knows us better than God. If any of us really are jerks, you can be sure that God knows that better than anyone else.
I have been known, from time to time, to characterize some particularly unkind people (including some of my fellow Christians) as jerks. I’ve even used the other word that was actually on that bumper sticker, when people have really made me angry by treating me badly.
However, in my more reflective moments, I suspect that God thinks that we’re all jerks, not just some of us.
Admittedly, some of us are bigger jerks than others, but the Bible makes it clear: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
We have all acted in self-centered ways from time to time. Intentionally or unintentionally, most of us have hurt one another on occasions. And even if some of us as individuals have not ever hurt other people, we have certainly hurt God when we have insulted God by implying by word or deed that we were better qualified than God to know how we ought to live our lives.
The Bible talks about two kinds of righteousness. One kind of righteousness is what might be described as “relative righteousness”. To be relatively righteous is to be more righteous than most other people. Job, for example, met that criterion. That’s why the Bible described Job as a “righteous man”.
Provided that it is tempered by humility, relative righteousness has value. It’s good to strive to be a relatively righteous person. In fact, God expects us to do so.
However, there’s also another kind of righteousness: Perfect or absolute righteousness. We ought to strive for that higher level of righteousness as well, but the Bible makes it clear that no one other than Christ has ever lived a perfectly righteous life here on earth. Compared with the perfect righteousness of Christ, our relative righteousness begins to look pretty sad and pathetic.
A lot of people think that because they’re relatively righteous, in comparison with other people, that means that they are qualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. Not long ago, I spoke with someone I care for deeply. He said that he knew he was going to go to heaven because he’d been a relatively good person who had “never murdered anybody”.
Such a statement is common in our society, but it shows a real lack of understanding, for two reasons. First, it implies that all one has to do in order to qualify for entry into heaven is to abstain from the most grievious sins such as murder. Second, it implies that murderers and others who have committed the worst sins have no hope of entering the kingdom of God. Neither one of those things is true.
God doesn't merely want us to be relatively righteous people. God’s standards are uncompromising. God requires perfection. Anything less than perfection makes a person unqualified to enter the kingdom of heaven. In terms of salvation, the extent to which you miss the mark is irrelevant. If you miss it by even a little bit, you’ve missed it.
It’s like being a deer hunter. You can miss the deer by an inch or a mile. Either way, you go home hungry, and the deer lives to see another day. What good is it that you almost hit the deer you were shooting at? When you're hungry for venison, "almost" doesn't cut it.
When it comes to pleasing God, we’ve all missed the mark. Some by a little, some by a lot, but we’ve all missed it. We all have a spiritual hunger that cannot be satisfied on the basis of our own inadequate efforts.
However, heaven would be a mighty empty place if God had not made any provisions for sinners to enter heaven. That’s why Jesus died on the cross for us. He knew that on some level, we were all rebellious jerks who didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Yet, Jesus inexplicably loved us anyway. That’s why it’s called “amazing grace”!
Jesus wants to spend eternity with us, despite our obvious and not so obvious flaws. Because Jesus was the only perfect person to ever live, Jesus was the only one qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on our behalf. He had no obligation to do so, but he did so anyway.
None of this ought to be used, as some immature Christians do, as an excuse to act like jerks. God’s grace and mercy can cover and forgive a multitude of sins, but we still have a moral obligation to make a conscientious effort to avoid sin. We still have an obligation to hold one another accountable for sins we may commit.
As much as possible, I try not to act like a jerk. Relative to a lot of other people, I think that I’ve done a pretty good job of living a morally admirable life.
Nevertheless, nobody but God is more aware of my shortcomings than I am. Consequently, I’m indescribably glad and grateful that Jesus has loved and forgiven me even when I have miserably failed to meet God’s standards.
Regarding what other people think of me or don’t think of me, I do want others to think well of me, but there is a sense in which it really doesn’t matter what other people think about me, just as there is a sense in which it doesn’t really matter what I think about others or about you.
Your judgments are impure. My judgments are impure. God’s judgments are perfect and unimpeachable.
In the final analysis (which is coming sooner than you may think), what God thinks about me and you is the only thing that really matters.
Don’t be caught unprepared for Judgment Day. Instead, I would suggest that you pray the following prayer, or something similar to it:
Dear God,
I’ve known a lot of jerks in my life. Sadly, I have to admit that I have sometimes been one of them. I have chosen my own way and not yours. I have rejected your wisdom and counsel. I have hurt you, and it's quite likely that I have hurt others. I have strayed from the path that leads to eternal life.
Please forgive me. Please set my feet back onto the righteous path once again. Please help me to help others so that they, too, can receive the glorious forgiveness you have generously offered to all who will humbly ask for forgiveness.
I thank you that you sent your son Jesus to die on my behalf. I thank you that you can be trusted to honor this request for forgiveness. I praise and glorify your holy name, for you alone are worthy of such praise.
In Jesus’ Blessed Name,
Amen
If you’ve just prayed the above prayer for the first time, or if you’ve just prayed something similar (possibly because the above prayer was not tailored perfectly to your own situation), please write to me and let me know that you’ve decided to follow Christ.
It would really make my day to know that I helped to play a role in leading you to make the most important decision that you will ever make.
Sincerely,
Mark Pettigrew
mark_w_pettigrew[at]hotmail[dot]com
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
My Joke Of The Day
QUESTION
What do you get when you cross a godly liberator with a Native American from the frozen north?
ANSWER
EskiMoses
Feel free to use the above joke in any and all comedy routines, if you're performing for a classroom of six year olds and you want to tell a joke with a slightly Biblical flavor.
Corny jokes, unfortunately, aren't considered to be "cool" or "hip" or whatever the latest term is for people who have tragically outgrown the simple joys of childhood. Consequently, I wouldn't advise using the above joke in your routine if you're appearing at a typical comedy nightclub in any major city.
In fact, if you're a committed Christian, you might want to avoid doing any comedy routines at such places at all. Most of the "comedians" at such clubs seem to think that the quintessential act of cleverness is to use as much profanity as possible, along with a lot of "jokes" that ridicule conservative Christians and/or Republicans.
Whatever happened to people like Jonathan Winters? Jonathan Winters was hilarious, and he managed to make people laugh without ever doing much of anything which would have made him unwelcome at a church picnic.
Steven Wright is another comedian I like. His dry sense of humor revolves heavily around playing with the English language in clever and unexpected ways. If he has any animus towards Christians or political conservatives, I haven't yet heard him tell a joke which revealed those feelings.
Carrot Top is pretty funny, too, and his use of special humorous props is generally very clever.
In troubled times, humor is sometimes one of the few things we can rely on to help us to grin and bear it. Comedy can be a ministry of sorts, whether it has an overtly religious flavor or not.
But comedy also has a dark side. The idea that nothing should be sacred seems to be all too prevalent among professional jokesters.
God will have the last laugh. I pray that more and more comedians will learn to temper their humor with a recognition of that fact.
What do you get when you cross a godly liberator with a Native American from the frozen north?
ANSWER
EskiMoses
Feel free to use the above joke in any and all comedy routines, if you're performing for a classroom of six year olds and you want to tell a joke with a slightly Biblical flavor.
Corny jokes, unfortunately, aren't considered to be "cool" or "hip" or whatever the latest term is for people who have tragically outgrown the simple joys of childhood. Consequently, I wouldn't advise using the above joke in your routine if you're appearing at a typical comedy nightclub in any major city.
In fact, if you're a committed Christian, you might want to avoid doing any comedy routines at such places at all. Most of the "comedians" at such clubs seem to think that the quintessential act of cleverness is to use as much profanity as possible, along with a lot of "jokes" that ridicule conservative Christians and/or Republicans.
Whatever happened to people like Jonathan Winters? Jonathan Winters was hilarious, and he managed to make people laugh without ever doing much of anything which would have made him unwelcome at a church picnic.
Steven Wright is another comedian I like. His dry sense of humor revolves heavily around playing with the English language in clever and unexpected ways. If he has any animus towards Christians or political conservatives, I haven't yet heard him tell a joke which revealed those feelings.
Carrot Top is pretty funny, too, and his use of special humorous props is generally very clever.
In troubled times, humor is sometimes one of the few things we can rely on to help us to grin and bear it. Comedy can be a ministry of sorts, whether it has an overtly religious flavor or not.
But comedy also has a dark side. The idea that nothing should be sacred seems to be all too prevalent among professional jokesters.
God will have the last laugh. I pray that more and more comedians will learn to temper their humor with a recognition of that fact.
Friday, December 30, 2005
My eNFj Personality
Recently, during my ongoing job search, I responded to a CraigsList ad for a "virtual assistant" who would help the company market a variety of products designed to help "life coaches" to build their businesses.
The ad featured a long series of questions to which they wanted answers. I found the job opening sufficiently interesting to respond to the ad. Among other things, the company required applicants to visit a website (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp) and take the Myers Briggs quiz, which was designed to ascertain one's personality or "temperament" based on one's answers.
I took the test, and attempted to answer as honestly as I could. In a few cases, I thought that the questions were rather simplistic, since they seemed to lack adequate context. There were a few questions where my answer could conceivably been Yes or No, depending on the context in which the question was asked. But I wasn't given the option of qualifying my answers by appending them with text which would address the relevant nuances, so I pretty much based my answers to such questions on instinct (which may be the point of not giving more information when asking such questions).
The quiz seemed to be based on Jungian psychology. As a Christian, I tend to be suspicious of just about all systematized secular theories of the mind, whether they are Freudian or Jungian or any other theory. In many cases, I think that such psychological theories are based on premises which directly contradict Christian truths. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that non-Christians can sometimes have valid insights which are worthy of consideration, even if their overall belief systems are warped. In any event, I didn't have a whole lot of choice in this situation. If I wanted to be considered for the job, I pretty much had to take the test.
According to the test, I have an eNFj personality (Extroverted 22, Intuitive 62, Feeling 25, Judging 78). Keirsey.com (http://keirsey.com/personality/nfej.html) describes such a personality as the "Teacher Idealist", and it says that such people constitute no more than 2-3% of the population. It lists some well-known people with such personalities, and the list includes Billy Graham, Oprah Winfrey and Martin Luther King. (Thank God the list didn't include idiots like Howard Stern!) Overall, I had to agree that I shared many of the personality characteristics seen in the lives of those people.
The fact that my "judging" score was so high didn't bother me at all. On the contrary, I think that judgment has gotten an undeserved bad rap in our morally relativistic society.
It is impossible to be a person of integrity without making moral judgments. Without such judgments, our ideas and practices lack coherence, and our lives lack meaning.
True leadership requires the willingness to take a stand, even at the risk of offending people who have opposite views. This is particularly true in politics. No one really respects politicians who change their policies and positions based solely on expediency. (Whatever you think about the last major presidential election in our country, it's clear that constant charges to the effect that John Kerry was a "flip flopper" resonated among many voters.) People want leaders they can look up to, they want leaders they can be inspired by, and they want leaders they can believe in. If a person changes his position on a subject as the result of a genuine change of mind or heart, that's altogether different, of course. Consistency isn't about being resistant to change, it's about having the courage to stick with one's commitments unless and until one is presented with adequate reasons for doing otherwise.
Unfortunately, people aren't always looking for moral leadership and clarity. A person with the character traits of a leader such as Billy Graham or Martin Luther King may be unwelcome in a work environment or a social environment where conformity and "getting along with others" is valued more than the truth. Sadly, that pretty much describes most of America's businesses, and more than a few of its churches. In many cases, a person with such a personality is likely to have difficulty getting along with existing leaders, because they correctly regard such a person as potential competition.
I'm undoubtedly biased, but I would guess that Jesus would have been considered to be an eNFj. Certainly, he was willing to say things which offended conventional religious leaders, not because he was a "rebel without a cause" (which he was not), but because he valued the truth. In fact, he not only valued the truth, he WAS truth. (Specifically, "the way, the truth and the life".) Even those who refuse to recognize his divinity acknowledge that he was a teacher and an idealist.
Idealism and realism are sometimes presented as if they are antonyms. I don't agree with that assessment. To be an idealist is not to be unrealistic. One can recognize that perfection is not completely attainable in this life, without abandoning one's conviction that perfection is worth striving for.
When Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect," some might have accused him of naivete. But that would have been a complete misunderstanding. Jesus knew our flaws far better than most of us do. But he also knew that the best way to inspire people to do their very best is to raise the bar high.
No loving father says to his children, as they set out to school in the morning, "Be sure to bring home lots of B's and C's." No! He says, "I want you to make straight A's." Does he actually believe that they will do so? Well, he hopes that they will, of course, but he knows that they may fall short of his expectations and hopes. If he's a good father, he will love them anyway. But he would be a poor father indeed if he did not hold them to the highest of standards. That is what it means to be an idealist. There is nothing unrealistic about it.
Being willing to speak the truth at all costs can be costly. It was for Jesus. It was for Martin Luther King. But one is what one is. I could no more change my basic temperament than a leopard can change its spots. So those of you who read this blog may notice, from time to time, that I write things which have the potential to offend people --- particularly people who have bought into the liberal secular views so characteristic of the age in which we live, but also people who claim to share my Christian beliefs even though their actions and words are completely lacking in the traits one might expect from people who take Christ's teachings seriously.
Believe it or not, I don't really enjoy rubbing people the wrong way. But what's the point of having a blog if you can't be honest when you post entries to that blog? It's not my fault that some people can't handle the truth as I see it. (I would never arrogantly claim that my opinions are infallible, but I do believe that they are based on solid and defensible reasons.)
In this diverse world of ours, there are so many people with so many incompatible opinions that the only way to avoid occasionally offending someone is to abstain from discussing anything of real importance. And I don't have much interest in such "small talk". As I see it, a person has the moral responsibility to make a real difference in this world, and that, by definition, requires the willingness to take risks.
The ad featured a long series of questions to which they wanted answers. I found the job opening sufficiently interesting to respond to the ad. Among other things, the company required applicants to visit a website (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp) and take the Myers Briggs quiz, which was designed to ascertain one's personality or "temperament" based on one's answers.
I took the test, and attempted to answer as honestly as I could. In a few cases, I thought that the questions were rather simplistic, since they seemed to lack adequate context. There were a few questions where my answer could conceivably been Yes or No, depending on the context in which the question was asked. But I wasn't given the option of qualifying my answers by appending them with text which would address the relevant nuances, so I pretty much based my answers to such questions on instinct (which may be the point of not giving more information when asking such questions).
The quiz seemed to be based on Jungian psychology. As a Christian, I tend to be suspicious of just about all systematized secular theories of the mind, whether they are Freudian or Jungian or any other theory. In many cases, I think that such psychological theories are based on premises which directly contradict Christian truths. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that non-Christians can sometimes have valid insights which are worthy of consideration, even if their overall belief systems are warped. In any event, I didn't have a whole lot of choice in this situation. If I wanted to be considered for the job, I pretty much had to take the test.
According to the test, I have an eNFj personality (Extroverted 22, Intuitive 62, Feeling 25, Judging 78). Keirsey.com (http://keirsey.com/personality/nfej.html) describes such a personality as the "Teacher Idealist", and it says that such people constitute no more than 2-3% of the population. It lists some well-known people with such personalities, and the list includes Billy Graham, Oprah Winfrey and Martin Luther King. (Thank God the list didn't include idiots like Howard Stern!) Overall, I had to agree that I shared many of the personality characteristics seen in the lives of those people.
The fact that my "judging" score was so high didn't bother me at all. On the contrary, I think that judgment has gotten an undeserved bad rap in our morally relativistic society.
It is impossible to be a person of integrity without making moral judgments. Without such judgments, our ideas and practices lack coherence, and our lives lack meaning.
True leadership requires the willingness to take a stand, even at the risk of offending people who have opposite views. This is particularly true in politics. No one really respects politicians who change their policies and positions based solely on expediency. (Whatever you think about the last major presidential election in our country, it's clear that constant charges to the effect that John Kerry was a "flip flopper" resonated among many voters.) People want leaders they can look up to, they want leaders they can be inspired by, and they want leaders they can believe in. If a person changes his position on a subject as the result of a genuine change of mind or heart, that's altogether different, of course. Consistency isn't about being resistant to change, it's about having the courage to stick with one's commitments unless and until one is presented with adequate reasons for doing otherwise.
Unfortunately, people aren't always looking for moral leadership and clarity. A person with the character traits of a leader such as Billy Graham or Martin Luther King may be unwelcome in a work environment or a social environment where conformity and "getting along with others" is valued more than the truth. Sadly, that pretty much describes most of America's businesses, and more than a few of its churches. In many cases, a person with such a personality is likely to have difficulty getting along with existing leaders, because they correctly regard such a person as potential competition.
I'm undoubtedly biased, but I would guess that Jesus would have been considered to be an eNFj. Certainly, he was willing to say things which offended conventional religious leaders, not because he was a "rebel without a cause" (which he was not), but because he valued the truth. In fact, he not only valued the truth, he WAS truth. (Specifically, "the way, the truth and the life".) Even those who refuse to recognize his divinity acknowledge that he was a teacher and an idealist.
Idealism and realism are sometimes presented as if they are antonyms. I don't agree with that assessment. To be an idealist is not to be unrealistic. One can recognize that perfection is not completely attainable in this life, without abandoning one's conviction that perfection is worth striving for.
When Jesus said, "Be ye therefore perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect," some might have accused him of naivete. But that would have been a complete misunderstanding. Jesus knew our flaws far better than most of us do. But he also knew that the best way to inspire people to do their very best is to raise the bar high.
No loving father says to his children, as they set out to school in the morning, "Be sure to bring home lots of B's and C's." No! He says, "I want you to make straight A's." Does he actually believe that they will do so? Well, he hopes that they will, of course, but he knows that they may fall short of his expectations and hopes. If he's a good father, he will love them anyway. But he would be a poor father indeed if he did not hold them to the highest of standards. That is what it means to be an idealist. There is nothing unrealistic about it.
Being willing to speak the truth at all costs can be costly. It was for Jesus. It was for Martin Luther King. But one is what one is. I could no more change my basic temperament than a leopard can change its spots. So those of you who read this blog may notice, from time to time, that I write things which have the potential to offend people --- particularly people who have bought into the liberal secular views so characteristic of the age in which we live, but also people who claim to share my Christian beliefs even though their actions and words are completely lacking in the traits one might expect from people who take Christ's teachings seriously.
Believe it or not, I don't really enjoy rubbing people the wrong way. But what's the point of having a blog if you can't be honest when you post entries to that blog? It's not my fault that some people can't handle the truth as I see it. (I would never arrogantly claim that my opinions are infallible, but I do believe that they are based on solid and defensible reasons.)
In this diverse world of ours, there are so many people with so many incompatible opinions that the only way to avoid occasionally offending someone is to abstain from discussing anything of real importance. And I don't have much interest in such "small talk". As I see it, a person has the moral responsibility to make a real difference in this world, and that, by definition, requires the willingness to take risks.
Friday, December 09, 2005
New Year's Advice
from Dr. Phil
Because I'm a big bald guy with a thick moustache, I've sometimes been told that I look a bit like Dr. Phil McGraw, the popular TV psychologist from Texas, or to "meathead" from All In The Family.
(When I have had a beard, I've been compared with Dr. Andrew Weill, the nutritional "guru", or to the guys from Z.Z. Top, depending on how long my beard is at the time. And let's not forget the comparisons to good 'ol St. Nick, whose beard, like Dr. Weill's, is noticeably whiter than mine has ever been.)
I'm not quite sure why people feel compelled to tell me who I remind them of. Maybe that kind of thing happens to everyone, I don't know. To me, I seems kind of rude for people to comment on my appearance in such a manner (especially when the person is comparing me to Santa Claus!), but maybe I'm just overly sensitive.
At any rate, I can think of worse people to be compared with than Dr. Phil, who sometimes offers pretty good advice on his show, even though he almost never really addresses underlying spiritual issues.
On 1/6/2003, Dr. Phil McGraw had what I considered to be a particularly good show, pertaining to New Year's Resolutions. So good, in fact, that I took notes. He offered the following tips and advice (which are paraphrased slightly), followed by my own comments (as indicated by the initials MP):
DR. PHIL: Be accountable to others, and be honest with them.
MP: This is the key behind the success of groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. But accountability to other human beings, who can be fooled if you really want to fool them badly enough, is less foolproof than accountability to God. If you're conscious of the fact that he knows everything about what you think and do, and if you understand that he will hold you accountable on Judgment Day, it tends to make self-discipline a lot easier.
DR. PHIL: Replace bad behaviors with new, good behaviors.
MP: Good advice. Many of our self-destructive behaviors are just our ways of killing time. Telling someone not to do something isn't much help if you don't tell him what he ought to be doing instead. But notice that judgment is required, inasmuch as one is required to decide what constitutes bad behavior and what constitutes good behavior. So the first step is to resist the nonsense of moral relativism, which says that all things are of equal value. The second step is to make sure that our definitions of bad and good are aligned with the values of our Creator, who alone can be trusted as a source of perfect knowledge about such things.
DR. PHIL: The difference between a goal and a dream is a timeline (which enables you to measure your progress). Set specific goals with measurable results and a timeline.
MP: Great advice, to a point, but it presumes that you always have the ability to project how long a particular task is going to take. Sometimes you're just guessing when you set up such a timeline, and the accuracy of your guess will depend a great deal on your level of knowledge and experience, as well as your ability to accurately foresee all of the complications which might arise. No one can be expected to do that perfectly. An event such as Hurricane Katrina can throw a monkey wrench into even the best of plans.
DR. PHIL: You can't always control results (e.g., how much you weigh), but you can control your actions, so set goals in terms of actions likely to bring you closer to your desired results, not in terms of results which can't be controlled. For example, say, "I will walk one mile each day," not "I will lose 20 lbs. by March 1".
MP: Recognition that one can't always control results is essential for people engaged in Christian ministry. We would like to be able to convert the whole world to Christ, but the reality is that the most we can be expected to do is to clearly communicate our beliefs with others. Beyond that, how they respond is ultimately their choice.)
DR. PHIL: To overcome temptation (e.g., to smoke, overeat, etc.), control your environment (e.g., by choosing not to buy cigarettes, fattening foods, etc.). Don't set yourself up for failure.
MP: Sometimes, controlling one's environment is easier said than done! But Dr. Phil has a valid point. It's a good idea to do so whenever possible. If you are an alcoholic, for example, it probably isn't very smart to go into bars and liquor stores.
DR. PHIL: Talk to yourself in ways which encourage and reinforce good behavior. If you can believe it, you can achieve it. If you keep telling yourself something is hopeless, then it is. Don't make excuses.
MP: "If you can believe it, you can achieve it" is one of those clever but overly simplistic things frequently said by motivational speakers and TV shrinks. All human beings have objective limitations. Believing that one can fly high above the clouds without the aid of mechanical devices of any kind doesn't make one a positive thinker, it makes one delusional!
However, it certainly is true that we can often accomplish more than we thought possible, and it certainly is true that approaching life with a spirit of optimism can substantially increase the probability that we will succeed, if for no other reason than the fact that pessimism saps us of the energy and motivation we need in order to do great things.
As a Christian, I might add that we can accomplish a lot more if we put our faith in God. Our success is no longer reliant solely on our own strength and our own efforts, because he is there to help and strengthen us. The Bible says that with faith, all things are possible. With faith, we can move mountains.
DR. PHIL: Will power is a myth.
MP: I don't completely agree with this one, but I do agree that for those who are struggling with serious addictions or negative habits, will power isn't always sufficient. "Will power," it seems to me, is just a phrase which means that sometimes we have to make tough choices, and stick with those tough choices even though it isn't easy to do so, in order to exercise conscious control over our own lives. Will power can also include planning our lives on the basis of the wise principles Dr. Phil teaches.
DR. PHIL: The power of an immediate reward is greater than the power of a longterm penalty.
MP: This may be one reason why people who don't meditate frequently on the possibility of Heaven and Hell tend to need more temporal rewards in order to be motivated to do the right thing. Those who meditate on such matters tend to find deferred gratification much easier, even though it still isn't easy by any means.
DR. PHIL: The difference between winners and losers is that winners do things (such as working out at the gym, studying for exams, working hard, etc.) which losers don't want to do.
MP: This raises big questions in my mind. What is a winner? What is a loser?
We all win (in the short term) from time to time, and we all lose (in the short term) from time to time. Winning in this life is sometimes more a matter of good luck than any significant achievement, and losing in this life is sometimes more a matter of bad luck than any personal failure. To call a person a "loser", therefore, isn't so much a statement about whether or not the person has recently lost anything of value. It's more of an insult with regard to that person's fundamental character.
Labeling certain people as "losers" is a common practice in our society, but I question whether or not such labels are consistent with a Christian worldview. There is a sense in which we are all losers, since we have all fallen short of God's plans for our lives. To single out certain individuals and to call them names seems to be contrary to the spirit of Christian love and humility.
Moreover, it seems to me that we won't really know for sure, until the day of final judgment, who the real winners and losers were. Jesus said, "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?" Many people who are currently considered to be winners in this world will be seen as losers on Judgment Day. Conversely, many now considered to be losers will receive top honors. If you don't believe me, read the Beatitudes.
However, I understand that Phil is trying to distinguish between those who are successful in their attempts to achieve things and those who are not. He's essentially saying that self-discipline is an essential component in success, and he's right about that.
Self-discipline is not just a matter of doing things you don't want to do. It's also a matter of abstaining from doing things you ought not to do. Self-disciplined people resist the temptation to do things (such as taking recreational drugs, having sex outside of marriage, etc.) which are not in their best interests.
DR. PHIL: You don't have to resist temptations constantly, you just have to make it past "narrow impulse moments".
MP: I might add that the more success you experience in resisting temptations, the easier such resistance becomes, because it becomes harder for you to believe the tempter's lies about "irresistable temptations", since you've proved that they can in fact be resisted.
DR. PHIL: Your beliefs about your own identity can affect your ability to resist temptations. If you label yourself by saying such things as "I'm an addict" or "I'm a criminal" or "I'm a fat person" or "I'm a loser", then you're programming yourself to act in certain self-destructive ways. Don't confuse what you do (or, for that matter, what other people may say you are) with your intrinsic identity.
MP: As a Christian, I would add that we need to remind ourselves that people are fallible, both with regard to their assessments of others and their assessments of themselves. Only God possesses perfect insight into a person's identity, so our identity should be based on his word, not on our own fallible opinions or the fallible opinions of others. If we have met God's requirements in terms of the repentance which leads to salvation, then we are children of God, because he declares it to be so. Therefore, that is our identity, regardless of how much success we may or may not experience in this life.
DR. PHIL: Take small steps regularly, and you will achieve your larger goals, too.
MP: There's nothing wrong with having large goals. But it's hard to measure progress in relation to such goals than it is to measure progress in relation to smaller related tasks.
DR. PHIL: Failure is not a valid excuse for abandoning one's goals. Everyone fails sometimes, the difference between winners and losers is that winners never give up on valid goals.
MP: And of course, it helps to know that when we fail, God is there to forgive us, pick us up and set us on the right path again.
Overall, I'd say that Dr. Phil offers a lot of good (albeit incomplete) advice.
Fillet of Soul, Anyone?
Kizoku is a sushi restaurant and lounge in Chicago, not very far from where I live. (I could probably walk there in a half hour.) Judging from the photos on the restaurant's website (http://www.kizokusushi.com), they have a very upscale decor.
But it isn't the decor, the prices or the food which have been getting a lot of press. It's the fact that they have a rather unusual way of presenting their food. One web site I visited referred to the practice as "“nyotaimori”, which apparently is a fancy way of saying that they serve sushi on the body of a naked (or nearly naked) woman. As if sushi wasn't already raw enough!
Kizoku charges a steep price ($500 for a dinner for four) for the privilege of eating dinner in a manner which would have pleased Caligula.
Of course, you won't find any pictures of "naked sushi" on the restaurant's website. After all, it's a "classy" establishment. You'll have to search the web via Google or Yahoo in order to find photos of one of their human serving trays with raw fish perched precariously on her breasts and other body parts.
At www.wtmx.com, in a blog entry by Kathy of the Eric and Kathy Show, we read the following:
Earlier, I wrote a blog in which I criticized the city of New Orleans on account of its well-earned reputation for carnality and the public celebration of the same. I even implied that the tragedy caused by Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent flood might have been an act of divine judgment. Well, all I can say is that it's a good thing for Chicago that our city isn't in the hurricane zone, because we seem to be headed in the same direction morally. We haven't reached rock bottom, yet, but we're headed in that direction.
No doubt, there are those who would call me "prudish" and "intolerant" for suggesting such a thing. There are those who would say that I'm "hung up" about sex. Well, folks, I've seen pictures of naked women, and I think they're pretty pleasant to behold. Sex is a wonderful thing. After all, God invented it, and when he did so, he called it good. There's not a person on the planet who doesn't owe his or her existence to an act of sexual intercourse.
Nevertheless, I've never experienced sexual intercourse for myself, since I believe in keeping God's commandments, which prohibit fornication and adultery.
Judging by the movie trailers I've seen, the "40 Year Old Virgin" of movie fame couldn't "get laid" even though he kept trying. Hence, he was rightfully regarded as a failure. But virginity isn't a failure if it's the result of a deliberate commitment to obey God.
In any event, regardless of whether or not you agree with the idea that people should wait until marriage before having sex, the "naked sushi" controversy is not about being ashamed of sex. It's about whether or not there are legitimate societal taboos pertaining to public acts, whether those taboos pertain to things of a sexual nature or to nonsexual things like farting or spitting on the carpet.
Inhibitions have gotten a bad rap. A society without inhibitions is a society in which people are indifferent to the effects of their actions on their fellow human beings, and that's just plain rude.
It seems to me that it's just a short step from serving raw fish on topless women to having sexual orgies in public. In fact, I read not long ago that there are actually bars, in Chicago, for people who go there specifically to have sexual orgies with one another. It's called "the lifestyle", thanks to the 1999 movie which celebrated what used to be called "swinging". So far, I've managed to avoid going into such an establishment, and I hope to keep it that way.
Now, some would argue that no one has to eat naked sushi, or visit a "swinger's bar", unless he or she chooses to do so. Therefore, they would argue, it's a "private" matter, and I should mind my own business.
That argument, it seems to me, is as ridiculous as saying that since most acts of prostitution only occur behind closed doors, society should exhibit an interest in such acts only if and when they spill out onto the streets. The trouble with both arguments is that they ignore the intrinsic social dimension of sex.
Acts of sex which take place in the context of the institution of marriage strengthen society (all other things being equal), because marriage affirms that sex is just one dimension of a rich, multifaceted relationship.
But there is an opposing dynamic, one which would weaken the family (thereby hurting children) by creating a mindset in which sex is just one more form of recreation, comparable to going to the movies or riding the rollercoaster at Six Flags. When sex becomes "just another business", it negatively affects the stability of families, which results in the need for a host of costly social programs which wouldn't have been necessary if people had just taken God's commands seriously. And that, my friend, is everyone's business.
Now, whether or not it is everyone's business to the extent that it should become a matter of law is debatable. I do recognize that we don't live in a theocracy, and I recognize that there are legitimate limits, in a pluralistic society, to the imposition of moral values on those who don't agree with those values. But even if this is a case where the law ought to "butt out", it seems to me, at the very least, that my civil liberties as a citizen include the right to speak out against what I consider to be harmful practices and trends.
Sex is wonderful precisely because it involves bonding with another human being to whom you are committed, and with whom you are willing to work hard in order to create a loving family. A committed relationship will endure long after the shortlived ecstasy of orgasm is a distant memory.
But we Americans tend to see things solely through the rose-colored glasses of consumerism, and we are increasingly oblivious to the necessity and wisdom of self-restraint. Hence, anything which stands to make a buck is tolerated, even encouraged. Who cares if those ignorant yahoos from the Bible belt are offended? For that matter, who cares if God is offended? Live for today, live for yourself, ignore little matters like morality and Judgment Day, and maybe, if you're lucky, they'll go away.
But they won't go away. God's laws are eternal. What's transient (and ultimately unsatisfying) is the pleasure which comes from disobedience to him.
How do I know? Because I have done my own thing more than once, and I've lived to regret it. Fortunately, I've discovered that the God who judges is also the God who forgives, provided that we are willing to humble ourselves and acknowledge that we need his forgiveness.
Many decades ago, in a culture in which some form of Christianity was generally taken for granted, it didn't take much courage to take a stand for Christ and for righteousness. But that is no longer the culture in which we live.
If you lack moral courage, and if you want to blend in with the crowd, then capitulate to the latest immoral fad, even if it means eating raw fish off the body of a naked woman. But there will come a time when you will pay a price for your self-indulgence and shortsightedness. Don't say I didn't tell you so.
But it isn't the decor, the prices or the food which have been getting a lot of press. It's the fact that they have a rather unusual way of presenting their food. One web site I visited referred to the practice as "“nyotaimori”, which apparently is a fancy way of saying that they serve sushi on the body of a naked (or nearly naked) woman. As if sushi wasn't already raw enough!
Kizoku charges a steep price ($500 for a dinner for four) for the privilege of eating dinner in a manner which would have pleased Caligula.
Of course, you won't find any pictures of "naked sushi" on the restaurant's website. After all, it's a "classy" establishment. You'll have to search the web via Google or Yahoo in order to find photos of one of their human serving trays with raw fish perched precariously on her breasts and other body parts.
At www.wtmx.com, in a blog entry by Kathy of the Eric and Kathy Show, we read the following:
Kudos to Tabitha. She's done more than 50 dinners and has gotten to be quite the pro. She prepares by not eating or drinking much beforehand and other than the occasional itch she's unable to scratch, has no problems for the 60-90 minutes she is laying there nearly still.Yeah, she's quite a "pro". She's not only good at suppressing the urge to scratch when she itches, she's good at suppressing the urgings of her conscience as well. Kind of like a whore who learns to deal with the dehumanizing aspects of prostitution by living in denial about the depravity of her (or his) lifestyle.
Earlier, I wrote a blog in which I criticized the city of New Orleans on account of its well-earned reputation for carnality and the public celebration of the same. I even implied that the tragedy caused by Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent flood might have been an act of divine judgment. Well, all I can say is that it's a good thing for Chicago that our city isn't in the hurricane zone, because we seem to be headed in the same direction morally. We haven't reached rock bottom, yet, but we're headed in that direction.
No doubt, there are those who would call me "prudish" and "intolerant" for suggesting such a thing. There are those who would say that I'm "hung up" about sex. Well, folks, I've seen pictures of naked women, and I think they're pretty pleasant to behold. Sex is a wonderful thing. After all, God invented it, and when he did so, he called it good. There's not a person on the planet who doesn't owe his or her existence to an act of sexual intercourse.
Nevertheless, I've never experienced sexual intercourse for myself, since I believe in keeping God's commandments, which prohibit fornication and adultery.
Judging by the movie trailers I've seen, the "40 Year Old Virgin" of movie fame couldn't "get laid" even though he kept trying. Hence, he was rightfully regarded as a failure. But virginity isn't a failure if it's the result of a deliberate commitment to obey God.
In any event, regardless of whether or not you agree with the idea that people should wait until marriage before having sex, the "naked sushi" controversy is not about being ashamed of sex. It's about whether or not there are legitimate societal taboos pertaining to public acts, whether those taboos pertain to things of a sexual nature or to nonsexual things like farting or spitting on the carpet.
Inhibitions have gotten a bad rap. A society without inhibitions is a society in which people are indifferent to the effects of their actions on their fellow human beings, and that's just plain rude.
It seems to me that it's just a short step from serving raw fish on topless women to having sexual orgies in public. In fact, I read not long ago that there are actually bars, in Chicago, for people who go there specifically to have sexual orgies with one another. It's called "the lifestyle", thanks to the 1999 movie which celebrated what used to be called "swinging". So far, I've managed to avoid going into such an establishment, and I hope to keep it that way.
Now, some would argue that no one has to eat naked sushi, or visit a "swinger's bar", unless he or she chooses to do so. Therefore, they would argue, it's a "private" matter, and I should mind my own business.
That argument, it seems to me, is as ridiculous as saying that since most acts of prostitution only occur behind closed doors, society should exhibit an interest in such acts only if and when they spill out onto the streets. The trouble with both arguments is that they ignore the intrinsic social dimension of sex.
Acts of sex which take place in the context of the institution of marriage strengthen society (all other things being equal), because marriage affirms that sex is just one dimension of a rich, multifaceted relationship.
But there is an opposing dynamic, one which would weaken the family (thereby hurting children) by creating a mindset in which sex is just one more form of recreation, comparable to going to the movies or riding the rollercoaster at Six Flags. When sex becomes "just another business", it negatively affects the stability of families, which results in the need for a host of costly social programs which wouldn't have been necessary if people had just taken God's commands seriously. And that, my friend, is everyone's business.
Now, whether or not it is everyone's business to the extent that it should become a matter of law is debatable. I do recognize that we don't live in a theocracy, and I recognize that there are legitimate limits, in a pluralistic society, to the imposition of moral values on those who don't agree with those values. But even if this is a case where the law ought to "butt out", it seems to me, at the very least, that my civil liberties as a citizen include the right to speak out against what I consider to be harmful practices and trends.
Sex is wonderful precisely because it involves bonding with another human being to whom you are committed, and with whom you are willing to work hard in order to create a loving family. A committed relationship will endure long after the shortlived ecstasy of orgasm is a distant memory.
But we Americans tend to see things solely through the rose-colored glasses of consumerism, and we are increasingly oblivious to the necessity and wisdom of self-restraint. Hence, anything which stands to make a buck is tolerated, even encouraged. Who cares if those ignorant yahoos from the Bible belt are offended? For that matter, who cares if God is offended? Live for today, live for yourself, ignore little matters like morality and Judgment Day, and maybe, if you're lucky, they'll go away.
But they won't go away. God's laws are eternal. What's transient (and ultimately unsatisfying) is the pleasure which comes from disobedience to him.
How do I know? Because I have done my own thing more than once, and I've lived to regret it. Fortunately, I've discovered that the God who judges is also the God who forgives, provided that we are willing to humble ourselves and acknowledge that we need his forgiveness.
Many decades ago, in a culture in which some form of Christianity was generally taken for granted, it didn't take much courage to take a stand for Christ and for righteousness. But that is no longer the culture in which we live.
If you lack moral courage, and if you want to blend in with the crowd, then capitulate to the latest immoral fad, even if it means eating raw fish off the body of a naked woman. But there will come a time when you will pay a price for your self-indulgence and shortsightedness. Don't say I didn't tell you so.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
When Bad is Called Good
"It's Good To Be Bad," proclaims a bus-bench advertisement for The Alley, a Chicago store (on Clark and Belmont) which sells clothing, shoes and jewelry for people into the punk lifestyle. Think leather jackets, metal studs and the like. The image accompanying the ad shows a woman, down on her hands and knees (like an animal awaiting copulation), wearing a shiny black jumpsuit and an ugly hairdo reminiscent of what one might have expected to see on a guard in a Nazi concentration camp.
Not surprisingly, The Alley is endorsed, in Chicago, by an organization called the Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame. This particular blog entry is not the place for me to give an in-depth explanation of the reasons for my opposition to the agenda of the substantial number of Americans who now embrace gay and lesbian lifestyles, but you can safely surmise that I believe that the gay agenda is immoral and irrational, as are the foundational beliefs which enable gays to promote their agenda. I will write more about that subject at a later time.
If you've read my profile in the sidebar of this blog, you already know that I am politically conservative, so you probably aren't surprised by my opposition to homosexuality. However, if you are one of the many liberals who seek to characterize political conservatives as wide-eyed, intolerant lunatics, you may be surprised to learn that I currently attend a Lutheran church (on Belmont, just east of Ashland and Lincoln) which is led by a pastor who clearly disagrees with me about that subject. I would be pleased if he and I could agree about everything. Yet, despite our differences of opinion about that matter, I am still able to fellowship with those who attend and lead that church. Treating them hatefully because I believe them to be wrong would serve no godly purpose, and might even obstruct the work of the Holy Spirit. I haven't yet discussed the subject of homosexuality with that pastor. However, in the future, I hope that I will be able to influence him to reconsider the wisdom of his endorsement (or, at the very least, his acceptance) of a licentious lifestyle which, in my view, is clearly condemned in scriptures such as Romans 1:26-27.
When people seek to justify the unjustifiable, they tend to make statements which are transparently nonsensical. For example, saying that it's good to be bad makes about as much sense as saying that up is down, or that black is white, or that the Devil is God. Words lose their meaning when people claim that they are synonyms for their antonyms.
In Isaiah 5:20, the Bible says this about such people: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Now, when the Bible says "woe" to someone, that isn't something to take lightly. It's an old-fashioned way of saying, "Listen, buddy, God is seriously ticked off about your rejection of his wise advice, and if you don't change your ways, you're going to regret it."
Gay punks (and those who profit by selling products to them) aren't the only people to twist the meaning of words. The word "bad" has often been used as a compliment in the black community, particularly the segment of that community consisting of people who like to think of themselves as "cool" and "hip".
It seems that some people think it's incredibly clever to thumb one's nose at the Almighty. That's about as smart as playing chicken with an 18-wheel truck when you're riding on your bicycle. Perhaps, after such people have spent a few years frying in Hell, they'll come to realize that bad really is bad!
Not that I want to sound flippant about the prospect of anyone going to Hell. It would be wonderful if everyone could accept Christ as Savior, thereby escaping eternal damnation. However, the scriptures offer a reality check for the delusional people who argue that all roads lead to Heaven. Matthew 7:13-14 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." There's a reason why cheap, slutty women are called "easy", and it isn't just that it's easy for men to persuade them to have sex. It's also because they have chosen the easy way, not the right way.
It is common for liberals to accuse conservative Christians who believe in moral absolutes of being "narrow minded". We should take that as a compliment, for Jesus tells us that it is the narrow-minded who will inherit paradise. Godless people who lack humility and moral discernment will be destroyed. Don't cite your opinion polls, because the popular consensus is wrong. I didn't say that, Jesus did. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Him, if you dare!
Some people ask how a loving God could send anyone to Hell. I ask how a loving God could deny justice to those who have been victimized by people who have rejected God's plan for their lives.
Tell me this: If you discovered, upon arriving in Heaven, that your next-door neighbor throughout eternity would be an unrepentant Adolph Hitler or an unrepentant Jeffrey Dahmer, would you feel that Heaven was very heavenly? Or wouldn't that feel more like Hell?
God excludes people from Heaven, not because he hates them, but because he hates their capacity for ruining the perfect eternal heavenly kingdom he is preparing for those of us who have submitted to his will. God sends some people to Hell because they have arrogantly rejected his mercy, not because they are less than perfect. If perfection were the criterion for admission to Heaven, none but Christ could enter. (And that helps to explain why I can still find common ground with Christians who, in my opinion, are seriously wrong about some things.)
What about you? Do you call good "bad" and bad "good"? Are your ideas about right and wrong based on the latest opinion polls? Or have you submitted to the will of God? Let him forgive your transgressions so that you can be assured of a place in his heavenly, eternal kingdom.
Not surprisingly, The Alley is endorsed, in Chicago, by an organization called the Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame. This particular blog entry is not the place for me to give an in-depth explanation of the reasons for my opposition to the agenda of the substantial number of Americans who now embrace gay and lesbian lifestyles, but you can safely surmise that I believe that the gay agenda is immoral and irrational, as are the foundational beliefs which enable gays to promote their agenda. I will write more about that subject at a later time.
If you've read my profile in the sidebar of this blog, you already know that I am politically conservative, so you probably aren't surprised by my opposition to homosexuality. However, if you are one of the many liberals who seek to characterize political conservatives as wide-eyed, intolerant lunatics, you may be surprised to learn that I currently attend a Lutheran church (on Belmont, just east of Ashland and Lincoln) which is led by a pastor who clearly disagrees with me about that subject. I would be pleased if he and I could agree about everything. Yet, despite our differences of opinion about that matter, I am still able to fellowship with those who attend and lead that church. Treating them hatefully because I believe them to be wrong would serve no godly purpose, and might even obstruct the work of the Holy Spirit. I haven't yet discussed the subject of homosexuality with that pastor. However, in the future, I hope that I will be able to influence him to reconsider the wisdom of his endorsement (or, at the very least, his acceptance) of a licentious lifestyle which, in my view, is clearly condemned in scriptures such as Romans 1:26-27.
When people seek to justify the unjustifiable, they tend to make statements which are transparently nonsensical. For example, saying that it's good to be bad makes about as much sense as saying that up is down, or that black is white, or that the Devil is God. Words lose their meaning when people claim that they are synonyms for their antonyms.
In Isaiah 5:20, the Bible says this about such people: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Now, when the Bible says "woe" to someone, that isn't something to take lightly. It's an old-fashioned way of saying, "Listen, buddy, God is seriously ticked off about your rejection of his wise advice, and if you don't change your ways, you're going to regret it."
Gay punks (and those who profit by selling products to them) aren't the only people to twist the meaning of words. The word "bad" has often been used as a compliment in the black community, particularly the segment of that community consisting of people who like to think of themselves as "cool" and "hip".
It seems that some people think it's incredibly clever to thumb one's nose at the Almighty. That's about as smart as playing chicken with an 18-wheel truck when you're riding on your bicycle. Perhaps, after such people have spent a few years frying in Hell, they'll come to realize that bad really is bad!
Not that I want to sound flippant about the prospect of anyone going to Hell. It would be wonderful if everyone could accept Christ as Savior, thereby escaping eternal damnation. However, the scriptures offer a reality check for the delusional people who argue that all roads lead to Heaven. Matthew 7:13-14 says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." There's a reason why cheap, slutty women are called "easy", and it isn't just that it's easy for men to persuade them to have sex. It's also because they have chosen the easy way, not the right way.
It is common for liberals to accuse conservative Christians who believe in moral absolutes of being "narrow minded". We should take that as a compliment, for Jesus tells us that it is the narrow-minded who will inherit paradise. Godless people who lack humility and moral discernment will be destroyed. Don't cite your opinion polls, because the popular consensus is wrong. I didn't say that, Jesus did. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Him, if you dare!
Some people ask how a loving God could send anyone to Hell. I ask how a loving God could deny justice to those who have been victimized by people who have rejected God's plan for their lives.
Tell me this: If you discovered, upon arriving in Heaven, that your next-door neighbor throughout eternity would be an unrepentant Adolph Hitler or an unrepentant Jeffrey Dahmer, would you feel that Heaven was very heavenly? Or wouldn't that feel more like Hell?
God excludes people from Heaven, not because he hates them, but because he hates their capacity for ruining the perfect eternal heavenly kingdom he is preparing for those of us who have submitted to his will. God sends some people to Hell because they have arrogantly rejected his mercy, not because they are less than perfect. If perfection were the criterion for admission to Heaven, none but Christ could enter. (And that helps to explain why I can still find common ground with Christians who, in my opinion, are seriously wrong about some things.)
What about you? Do you call good "bad" and bad "good"? Are your ideas about right and wrong based on the latest opinion polls? Or have you submitted to the will of God? Let him forgive your transgressions so that you can be assured of a place in his heavenly, eternal kingdom.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Some Thoughts About New Orleans
If you read, listen to or watch the news, you're undoubtedly aware of the disastrous recent events which have devastated New Orleans and other cities and towns near the Gulf of Mexico. People will be recovering from the effects of Hurricane Katrina for a long time to come.
I grew up in Southwest Missouri, but I visited New Orleans back in the '70's, during a trip to Florida with my father and my brother. During that trip, we visited the French Quarter.
New Orleans has contributed a number of positive things to American culture, including its unique cuisine, as well as the style of music known as jazz.
However, what I saw in the French Quarter during my visit to that neighborhood was a cesspool of immorality. For example, posters visible from the street (and therefore visible to any child walking down that street) featured prominent, vulgar photos of strippers, their breasts concealed only by strategically placed stars or "pasties". I was not surprised, therefore, when I later learned about some of the more decadent aspects of Mardis Gras, where female celebrants have been known to parade around topless, and where public drunkenness and loutish behavior are fairly common.
Another well-known aspect of New Orleans culture is the prominent role of "voodoo" in that culture. Whether or not one believes that voodoo rituals have any real power, it is an incontestable fact that voodoo is a pagan religious practice which is incompatible with biblical Christianity.
Some people say that such things are part of what always gave New Orleans its "charm". I guess that's a matter of perspective. I personally don't find it very charming when people thumb their noses at God.
I don't consider myself to be a "prude". I've seen artistic depictions of nudes, and unlike some of my fellow Christians, I don't believe that such subject matter is invariably inappropriate in an artistic context. Nor did Michelangelo believe that that was the case when he painted the famous Biblical scenes on the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel.
However, there is a big difference between artistic, tasteful depictions of the unclothed human body and depictions which promote the lowest forms of sensuality, as did the posters I saw in New Orleans.
Other big cities, such as Chicago, also have strip clubs, but most of them display outdoor signs which only vaguely allude to the activities taking place therein. That's true even in Las Vegas, which is nicknamed Sin City for good reason (making it one of my least favorite cities in America). New Orleans, however, seems to have a unique and longstanding tradition of blatant and very public carnality.
None of this, of course, in any way negates the value of the lives of the people living in New Orleans. God loves them all, just as He loves you and me. At the same time, it should be pointed out that God also loved the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, but that love did not prevent him from destroying those ancient cities as punishment for their extreme iniquity. Love and judgment are not mutually exclusive.
Let me acknowledge that morally upright people also suffer during natural disasters. It would be presumptuous and unloving to say, of any individual victim of such a disaster, that that victim was being punished for his or her sins. That might indeed be true in some cases, but only God is in a position to know for sure. There are other possible explanations for why an individual might be the victim of such a disaster.
Moreover, even in situations where people really are being punished for their sins, that fact does not absolve Christians of the moral responsibility to show love, compassion and charity to disaster victims. After all, sinfulness is just a matter of degree. Not one of us can claim to be without sin.
Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that God has punished cities and even nations for practicing and tolerating ungodly behavior for prolonged periods of time. I suspect that that may have been a factor which led to the current disaster. No doubt, there were also ample environmental reasons which could be cited by meteorologists and other scientists. But it does not follow from the fact that a disaster is partially attributable to natural causes that the disaster was not also God's way of making a point. It is not for nothing that insurance companies often refer to such disasters as "acts of God".
Therefore, while I do sympathize with those who have lost homes, possessions and family members, I can't honestly say that I am eager to see the rebuilding of New Orleans, unless that city demonstrates a willingness to turn over a new leaf and reject the sinful excesses of the past.
Even apart from moral considerations, it seems to me that rebuilding New Orleans would be just plain stupid from a financial point of view.
New Orleans has always been extremely vulnerable to hurricanes and flooding on account of its location in what has been described as a "bowl" surrounded by levees. I'm reminded of Jesus' saying to the effect that wise men do not build their houses on sand. Perhaps there is a connection between New Orleans' obvious rejection of Biblical standards of behavior and its unwise choice to build on land which has always been poorly protected from natural disasters.
If New Orleans is rebuilt, it will be rebuilt with Federal money. That means that every American has a vested interest in how that money is spent. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply declare New Orleans to be a lost cause, and to build a new city further inland, in a place where such disasters are far less likely to occur in the future? Why should Americans from other areas of the country be required to subsidize the stupidity of rebuilding on unsuitable and extremely vulnerable land?
Yes, it's true that when fire destroyed substantial portions of Chicago during the 19th Century, the city was rebuilt bigger and better than ever. But that's comparing apples to oranges. Unlike New Orleans, Chicago was not in an inherently dangerous location. The Chicago Fire was caused by unwise building practices, not by any aspect pertaining to the location itself. Fires still occur in this city sometimes, as they do in any town or city, but modern building codes have substantially reduced the likelihood that another Chicago fire could ever destroy property on a scale comparable to the original Chicago Fire. But it is difficult to conceive of any innovation which would make the original location of New Orleans any less vulnerable to future disasters comparable to Hurricane Katrina.
There are probably those who favor the idea of rebuilding New Orleans itself, in its original location, based on their sentimental attachment to that city. However, the bottom line is that the city (80% of which is currently underwater!) is pretty much destroyed at this point. Even if New Orleans was rebuilt in its original location, most of the old historic buildings would no longer be there. Regardless of where the rebuilding takes place, nothing there will ever be the same.
When I heard that Katrina was headed for New Orleans, I prayed that God would spare as many people as possible, and I wept for the potential victims as I prayed that prayer. I still weep for the victims, and I pray that America will reach out to them with love and compassion. But I also pray that we will learn from the mistakes of the past, and that we will have the wisdom not to repeat those mistakes.
UPDATED COMMENTS AS OF 1/2/2005: My TV has been out of commission for the past couple of months, and I've been too busy with activities pertaining to my search for a new job to read the newspaper very much. I'm not sure what the status is down in New Orleans, in terms of the rebuilding effort.
I suspect, sadly, that people will fail to heed the lessons of the first disaster, and I suspect that they will try to rebuild New Orleans in its original location, even though it will probably cost almost as much money to do that as it would to simply rebuild the city in a new location. It is very much reminiscent of earlier situations in which people, buoyed by Federal dollars, rebuilt their homes in the same flood plains, along the Mississippi, which led to the destruction of their original homes.
I'm a committed Republican, and I'm glad I voted for Bush, but I was disappointed in President Bush's assurances to the effect that we would rebuild the original city, apparently at its original location. He said, in an obvious attempt to placate people angry at him for FEMA's slow response, that an America without a New Orleans was "unimaginable". Even if that's the case, relocating a city to a more sensible location is not tantamount to failing to rebuild the city. The current location of New Orleans is, by the admission of most serious scientists, an environmental disaster site. Destruction of wetlands has prevented natural processes from rebuilding the land which is lost every year due to runoff.
Compassion and common sense are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to show compassion for the people of New Orleans without subsidizing the stupidity of rebuilding the city on the original site.
Friday, August 19, 2005
A Life Worth Living
Welcome to my new blog site. In this initial entry, I hope to introduce myself in a manner which will stir interest in this blog, and which will bring visitors back again and again.
At the risk of sounding pretentious, I'd like to ask a simple question for you to ponder: What makes life worth living? Many factors can influence one's perceptions with regard to that question.
Few reasonable people dispute the notion that life can be more enjoyable when one has an abundance of material things. Most people also desire some measure of power, although the type of power which is desired can vary widely from one individual to the next. Fun experiences can certainly enhance the perception that one's life has been worthwhile. There is nothing inherently wrong with material things, power or pleasure. But none of those things present the entire picture, at least not for people who believe, as I do, that there is one God who created all that there is.
Ultimately, all of our evaluations concerning the value of our own lives and the lives of others are subjective, and potentially misleading. If there is a God, and a forthcoming day of final judgment, then the true value of our individual lives will only be revealed to us on that day. Then God will have the final word. It is likely that most of us will have some surprises waiting for us.
If there is a life after death, then the things which will ultimately determine the value of our lives here on earth are those which will endure even after we have died. Treasures on earth are transient, but treasures in Heaven are eternal. Therefore, those of us who are sufficiently farsighted to care about how we spend eternity try to live our lives in such a way as to make every moment a positive investment in the future. That means trying to live life in a way which is pleasing to God, even if it means that we must sometimes forfeit temporary pleasures we might experience here on earth.
Virtually all of us, including myself, do this imperfectly. Nevertheless, there is value in making an effort. To make a real effort means to consider the consequences of all of our actions, even including such seemingly trivial things as the creation of entries in one's personal blogs.
Of course, when our own efforts fall short (as they often do), God's grace and mercy are available to all who seek those things, and who also meet God's criteria, which have been clearly communicated in many ways, particularly through the revelation of his written word, and through the life and teachings of the incarnate word of God, Jesus Christ.
Of course, these beliefs of mine, while popular in certain circles, are far from universal. It would be folly to pretend otherwise. Nevertheless, every person has certain foundational beliefs, the understanding of which is crucial to an understanding of all other aspects of that person's life. Since this is my first blog entry in this new blog, I feel that it's important to establish the foundation of my life, so that those who read my subsequent blog entries can read them with an understanding of their context.
By its very nature, a blog is an expression of personal opinions. By my very nature, I am human, and therefore fallible. (Some would say extremely fallible!) I don't pretend that the things which I will write in this blog constitute ultimate truth (although I may, from time to time, refer to things which, being of divine origin, do fit that description in my opinion). Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I think that those who take the time to read what I have written will be rewarded for their efforts.
Like my life itself, this blog will be a journey. I welcome you to come along for the ride!
At the risk of sounding pretentious, I'd like to ask a simple question for you to ponder: What makes life worth living? Many factors can influence one's perceptions with regard to that question.
Few reasonable people dispute the notion that life can be more enjoyable when one has an abundance of material things. Most people also desire some measure of power, although the type of power which is desired can vary widely from one individual to the next. Fun experiences can certainly enhance the perception that one's life has been worthwhile. There is nothing inherently wrong with material things, power or pleasure. But none of those things present the entire picture, at least not for people who believe, as I do, that there is one God who created all that there is.
Ultimately, all of our evaluations concerning the value of our own lives and the lives of others are subjective, and potentially misleading. If there is a God, and a forthcoming day of final judgment, then the true value of our individual lives will only be revealed to us on that day. Then God will have the final word. It is likely that most of us will have some surprises waiting for us.
If there is a life after death, then the things which will ultimately determine the value of our lives here on earth are those which will endure even after we have died. Treasures on earth are transient, but treasures in Heaven are eternal. Therefore, those of us who are sufficiently farsighted to care about how we spend eternity try to live our lives in such a way as to make every moment a positive investment in the future. That means trying to live life in a way which is pleasing to God, even if it means that we must sometimes forfeit temporary pleasures we might experience here on earth.
Virtually all of us, including myself, do this imperfectly. Nevertheless, there is value in making an effort. To make a real effort means to consider the consequences of all of our actions, even including such seemingly trivial things as the creation of entries in one's personal blogs.
Of course, when our own efforts fall short (as they often do), God's grace and mercy are available to all who seek those things, and who also meet God's criteria, which have been clearly communicated in many ways, particularly through the revelation of his written word, and through the life and teachings of the incarnate word of God, Jesus Christ.
Of course, these beliefs of mine, while popular in certain circles, are far from universal. It would be folly to pretend otherwise. Nevertheless, every person has certain foundational beliefs, the understanding of which is crucial to an understanding of all other aspects of that person's life. Since this is my first blog entry in this new blog, I feel that it's important to establish the foundation of my life, so that those who read my subsequent blog entries can read them with an understanding of their context.
By its very nature, a blog is an expression of personal opinions. By my very nature, I am human, and therefore fallible. (Some would say extremely fallible!) I don't pretend that the things which I will write in this blog constitute ultimate truth (although I may, from time to time, refer to things which, being of divine origin, do fit that description in my opinion). Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I think that those who take the time to read what I have written will be rewarded for their efforts.
Like my life itself, this blog will be a journey. I welcome you to come along for the ride!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)