As you may know, I’ve never been a Warren Buffet fan (no, not Jimmy Buffet – pay attention, Steve). Than, last week, my honey gave me the low-down on why Mr. B is in favor of the death-tax: he’s built his fortune on it. I did some research and found this blog post http://reachupward.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-warren-buffett-loves-death-tax.html. Read it and the supporting articles for an eye opener.
I started disliking Buffet's economics when he pushed for corporations to expense their employee stock options (he also lost my affection when he encouraged Schwarzenneger to hike CA property taxes). His position was obviously motivated by the desire to keep “the little” guy from owning stock in corporations. I believe his motivations are twofold.
First, issuing stock to employees dilutes the value of each remaining share and thereby dilutes the control that any one investor – particularly a major stockholder - has over a corporation. Ever wonder why Berkshire Hathaway stock has never split? It’s so that Buffet’s hold on the company is never diluted. Checkout the current trading price to get an idea of what this means in the real world: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BRKA&d=t. Probably not adding any BKRA to the old 401(k) in the near future, eh?
The second reason I believe Buffet opposes stock in the hands of the little guy is a corollary of the first: if the common man, on average, held stock in corporations, he could band together with other ‘common men’ to influence corporate policies. Here’s what I mean: Corporations can ride out a protest by consumers who oppose the company’s policy on a particular issue (pick your issue: promotion of homosexuality, funding of planned parenthood, hiring illegal immigrants, etc…). They just crank up the marketing machine, do some damage control PR, lower prices, etc… until the flap-up subsides. What they can’t ride out as easily, is a shareholder protest. Shareholders can literally cost executives their jobs. You might be familiar with what CalPERS is able to do in boardrooms across the country with their massive holdings and influence (the CEO of my old company, EDS, was ousted largely due to pressure from CalPERS). Well, imagine a large group of shareholders who held strong opinions about certain social and political issues; who collectively owned a good chunk of a company and who weren’t willing to compromise their convictions to save their portfolio. They might do something crazy like demand the company *really* verify the legal status of their immigrant workers, or even worse – make decisions based on the long term best interest of the whole company rather than what would drive the share price up as fast as possible this quarter.
Warren Buffet is probably a great guy. I understand he's a big fan of bridge, which seems like a pretty down-to-earth activity. I jsut don't agree with his economic positions and think there's more to them than a desire to keep his kids from becoming billionaire wastrels...
Friday, December 21, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
First Haircut
I was thinking about how hard it is to patiently endure life's circumstances, while waiting on God and resting in His promises. As a Christian I know it will all work out in the end. I know I'll end up in eternity with God, enjoying never-ending and ever-increasing bliss and blessing. So, relatively speaking, how important is my job? How important is my health? How important are the material blessings in my life? Not very.
If God can take care of the eternal bliss part, he can take care of the job-health-stuff part, right? I may not have the job-health-stuff ratio that I'm looking for at a given moment, but he'll do what's necessary between now and eternity to make sure I get there. Even if I don't like the process.
All this makes me think of the first haircut I got. Grandpa did it on the back porch. He had clippers, scissors, combs and even one of those plastic cloaks to keep the hair from getting all over your clothes. He sat me down on a stool, put the cloak on me, and started in. I did not like it one bit.
First off, I didn't trust Grandpa enough. I was positive those clippers would cut my ears off. If it could cut hair, surely it could cut my skin, right? And what if he accidentally poked me in the eye? I mean, those things were SHARP! Then there was the fact that the clippers tickled when he cut my neck hairs and above and around my ears. So, I squirmed and fidgeted and slumped and whined, repeatedly asking "Are you done yet?". I was miserable. And I bet Grandpa was too; we went to the barber shop for my haircuts after that.
The thing is, Grandpa was just trying to do something good for me: cut my hair so that I didn't look like Shirley Temple (As a toddler/preschooler I had curly blond hair). He had no intention of hurting me. Likewise, God is just trying to do something good for me (and for his glory): conform me to the image of his Son. But I fidget and whine and complain. I keep asking "When is this going to be over?". I spend my time worrying about the future, worrying that God is going to let me down or finally let me have it for all the bad things I've done. Many times, I just simply don't trust God to get me home safely.
Interestingly, I really enjoyed the results of my first haircut. I had "big boy" hair and could comb and part it, just like Grandpa. Fortunately I have the memory, and while the memory is far more enjoyable than the experience was, I wonder how much more enjoyable the memory would be if I'd spent that time in the chair talking to Grandpa instead of fighting against him? If I'd listened and obeyed his instructions to "sit still"? I wonder.
If God can take care of the eternal bliss part, he can take care of the job-health-stuff part, right? I may not have the job-health-stuff ratio that I'm looking for at a given moment, but he'll do what's necessary between now and eternity to make sure I get there. Even if I don't like the process.
All this makes me think of the first haircut I got. Grandpa did it on the back porch. He had clippers, scissors, combs and even one of those plastic cloaks to keep the hair from getting all over your clothes. He sat me down on a stool, put the cloak on me, and started in. I did not like it one bit.
First off, I didn't trust Grandpa enough. I was positive those clippers would cut my ears off. If it could cut hair, surely it could cut my skin, right? And what if he accidentally poked me in the eye? I mean, those things were SHARP! Then there was the fact that the clippers tickled when he cut my neck hairs and above and around my ears. So, I squirmed and fidgeted and slumped and whined, repeatedly asking "Are you done yet?". I was miserable. And I bet Grandpa was too; we went to the barber shop for my haircuts after that.
The thing is, Grandpa was just trying to do something good for me: cut my hair so that I didn't look like Shirley Temple (As a toddler/preschooler I had curly blond hair). He had no intention of hurting me. Likewise, God is just trying to do something good for me (and for his glory): conform me to the image of his Son. But I fidget and whine and complain. I keep asking "When is this going to be over?". I spend my time worrying about the future, worrying that God is going to let me down or finally let me have it for all the bad things I've done. Many times, I just simply don't trust God to get me home safely.
Interestingly, I really enjoyed the results of my first haircut. I had "big boy" hair and could comb and part it, just like Grandpa. Fortunately I have the memory, and while the memory is far more enjoyable than the experience was, I wonder how much more enjoyable the memory would be if I'd spent that time in the chair talking to Grandpa instead of fighting against him? If I'd listened and obeyed his instructions to "sit still"? I wonder.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Verse of the Day...
Actually, I'm not a big fan of the phrase "of the day". It can make things seem more ephemeral than they are. (BTW - Ephemeral is the word of the day).
Anyway, my brother in Christ, Lou, sent me this verse to encourage me as I struggle against bad attitudes and such:
Hebrews 4:16
Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
Anyway, my brother in Christ, Lou, sent me this verse to encourage me as I struggle against bad attitudes and such:
Hebrews 4:16
Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Am I Nitpicking?
A friend forwarded this to me.
First off, I agree with the overall thrust of what Chandler is saying – that belief without works isn’t enough. But...
In the article he says things like
“It seems like every generation thinks of ways to make the faith real and authentic in their time.”,
which I find troubling. The faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), so it seems that the faith changes me, not vice versa.
He then says
“In fact, the very first Christians were not called Christians at all; they were called "The Way" (Acts 9:2).”
This seems to be a misreading of Acts 9:2, which reads: ‘...so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.’ I read “The Way” as referring to Christ, or the Christian faith, not Christians themselves. (We belong to Christ, not each other, right?). It’s not a major theological error, I suppose, but nonetheless it doesn’t seem to be an accurate reading.
In the end, I’m left with the feeling that he’s trying to de-emphasize doctrine more than he’s trying to re-emphasize the importance of godly living. It’s not an either/or choice: doctrine or right living. It’s a both/and command.
Well, those are my 2 cents.
First off, I agree with the overall thrust of what Chandler is saying – that belief without works isn’t enough. But...
In the article he says things like
“It seems like every generation thinks of ways to make the faith real and authentic in their time.”,
which I find troubling. The faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), so it seems that the faith changes me, not vice versa.
He then says
“In fact, the very first Christians were not called Christians at all; they were called "The Way" (Acts 9:2).”
This seems to be a misreading of Acts 9:2, which reads: ‘...so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.’ I read “The Way” as referring to Christ, or the Christian faith, not Christians themselves. (We belong to Christ, not each other, right?). It’s not a major theological error, I suppose, but nonetheless it doesn’t seem to be an accurate reading.
In the end, I’m left with the feeling that he’s trying to de-emphasize doctrine more than he’s trying to re-emphasize the importance of godly living. It’s not an either/or choice: doctrine or right living. It’s a both/and command.
Well, those are my 2 cents.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Can't we all just get along?
Not always, but we could do alot better. A thoughtful post on the subject of Christian in-fighting over at the Jolly Blogger...
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Tag - You're It
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=240878
A few thoughts on the subject of RFID implants:
a) I just can't help but think being permanently tagged by an authority (my employer, the government, etc...) is a bad idea.
b) Such tagging seems to be historically linked to slavery or worse (think Nazis).
c) Revelation was written 1900 years ago, at a time when it was technologically unfeasible to mark *all* people and require said mark as a precondition to participating in economic activity. People in the intervening centuries have indeed scoffed - ha! - at the notion. ("What sort of raving lunatic would come up with such a 'vision' of the future!"). But now the technology to both mark humans and effectively restrict their economic activities based on certain preconditions (i.e. not having the mark) exists.
Is it just me, or does that all add up to a whole lot of creepiness?
A few thoughts on the subject of RFID implants:
a) I just can't help but think being permanently tagged by an authority (my employer, the government, etc...) is a bad idea.
b) Such tagging seems to be historically linked to slavery or worse (think Nazis).
c) Revelation was written 1900 years ago, at a time when it was technologically unfeasible to mark *all* people and require said mark as a precondition to participating in economic activity. People in the intervening centuries have indeed scoffed - ha! - at the notion. ("What sort of raving lunatic would come up with such a 'vision' of the future!"). But now the technology to both mark humans and effectively restrict their economic activities based on certain preconditions (i.e. not having the mark) exists.
Is it just me, or does that all add up to a whole lot of creepiness?
Friday, September 14, 2007
Tricky Dick and the Internet
I remember reading a book called The Book of Lists #2, edited by David Wallechinsky, in my Freshman year of HS. In it Mr. Wallenchinsky refers to a nefarious plan by Nixon to - shudder - connect every home in America via cable!!!!
Here's the quote from page 483:
"In his book The Shadow Presidents, author Michael Medved relates the extreme disappointment of H.R. Haldeman over his failure to implement his plan to link up all the homes in America by coaxial cable. In Haldeman's words, "There would be two-way communication. Through computer, you could use your television set to order up whatever you wanted. The morning paper, entertainment services, shopping services, coverage of sporting events and public events. Just as Eisenhower linked up the nation's cities by highways so that you could get there, the Nixon legacy would have linked them by cable communications so you wouldn't have to go there". One can almost see the dreamy eyes of Nixon and Haldeman as they sat around discussing a plan that would eliminate the need for newspapers, seemingly oblivious to its Big Brother aspects. Fortunately, the Watergate scandal intervened, and Nixon was forced to resign before "the Wired Nation" could be hooked up."
Hmm... and I thought Al Gore invented the internet!!!
Here's the quote from page 483:
"In his book The Shadow Presidents, author Michael Medved relates the extreme disappointment of H.R. Haldeman over his failure to implement his plan to link up all the homes in America by coaxial cable. In Haldeman's words, "There would be two-way communication. Through computer, you could use your television set to order up whatever you wanted. The morning paper, entertainment services, shopping services, coverage of sporting events and public events. Just as Eisenhower linked up the nation's cities by highways so that you could get there, the Nixon legacy would have linked them by cable communications so you wouldn't have to go there". One can almost see the dreamy eyes of Nixon and Haldeman as they sat around discussing a plan that would eliminate the need for newspapers, seemingly oblivious to its Big Brother aspects. Fortunately, the Watergate scandal intervened, and Nixon was forced to resign before "the Wired Nation" could be hooked up."
Hmm... and I thought Al Gore invented the internet!!!
Friday, August 03, 2007
Abstinence-only programs do not reduce HIV risk - Yahoo! News
First thought:
Last time I checked, if you don't have sex, use IV drugs, or get a blood transfusion your risk of getting HIV is pretty much nil (HIV babies notwithstanding). So regardless of all the studies in the world, the reality is that abstinence until marriage by both spouses lowers one's risk for HIV to just about one in a million. I'm not trying to moralize, it's just a fact.
Second thought:
Duh! Abstinence apart from a larger moral framework and worldview is untenable. Think about it. Just going around telling people not to have sex isn't going to work, because , as you may have noticed, the human urge for sex is pretty strong. Only food and water rate higher in most people's books.
Abstinence and other virtues are heart issues and programs don't change hearts. Programs might get us whipped up, the way we feel patriotic during the national anthem at the ball game, but unless there's genuine moral fiber - character and a heart attitude that is predisposed towards a given virtue - we'll give in to the draw of instant gratification. (I speak from copious experience/failure on this one...).
Abstinence-only programs do not reduce HIV risk - Yahoo! News
Last time I checked, if you don't have sex, use IV drugs, or get a blood transfusion your risk of getting HIV is pretty much nil (HIV babies notwithstanding). So regardless of all the studies in the world, the reality is that abstinence until marriage by both spouses lowers one's risk for HIV to just about one in a million. I'm not trying to moralize, it's just a fact.
Second thought:
Duh! Abstinence apart from a larger moral framework and worldview is untenable. Think about it. Just going around telling people not to have sex isn't going to work, because , as you may have noticed, the human urge for sex is pretty strong. Only food and water rate higher in most people's books.
Abstinence and other virtues are heart issues and programs don't change hearts. Programs might get us whipped up, the way we feel patriotic during the national anthem at the ball game, but unless there's genuine moral fiber - character and a heart attitude that is predisposed towards a given virtue - we'll give in to the draw of instant gratification. (I speak from copious experience/failure on this one...).
Abstinence-only programs do not reduce HIV risk - Yahoo! News
Friday, June 22, 2007
'Amateur' charge infuriates blogosphere - CNN.com
Makes me think:
- We are definitely moving towards a mob society, where fast communication is more valued than deep thinking.
- It's so much easier (and quicker) to get a group of people to "feel" the same thing than to "think" the same thing.
Trust us, this is *really* how it works...
So all this 'junk' in our genetic code turns out to not be junk! Makes me feel like ranting :) :
Questions:
Questions:
- So how much of our 'junk' matches the 'junk' of Chimps? Are we as closely 'related' as once thought?
- Are geneticists 'really, really' sure they have a correct view of out genes now?
- Is it possible - just possible - that scientists in other fields may have incorrect understandings of things such as, say, climate change? And if so, might it not make sense to take a cautious approach to addressing issues like humanity's impact on the environment?
I have no problem with science. It's just irritating when people try to build an accurate world view based solely on current scientific theory (and it's all theory). Case in point: a scientific theory that was embraced by most 'educated' and 'thinking' people in the first half of the 20th century:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL
The Carnegie Foundation and The President of Stanford University - supporters of eugenics?
The 'science' of eugenics even seduced part of the Jewish people, millions of whom would ultimately suffer at the hands of eugenicists:
http://galton.org/essays/1900-1911/galton-1910-jewish-chronicle-eugenics.pdf
Science? Again, I have no problem with it. Let's just not confuse it with morality, nor make it the basis for our morality. Morality is foundational and must inform our science and philosophy, not the other way round.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Survivorship Bias
Good explanation of a phenomenon that affects:
-Financial Reports
-News Stories (ever notice that there seem to be 'rashes' of certain events, that then go away?)
-Scientific Studies
-Financial Reports
-News Stories (ever notice that there seem to be 'rashes' of certain events, that then go away?)
-Scientific Studies
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Stifling Debate
What truly frightens me about the global warming debate? That there isn’t one.
“Everyone knows it is happening, and that humanity is to blame.” is the pat answer to any heretic who dares question the ‘conventional wisdom’ on this subject. Ellen Goodman says deniers of global warming are on a par with deniers of the Holocaust (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/).
Is humanity spoiling the Earth? No doubt. Do steps need to be taken to stop and reverse the damage we’ve done? Absolutely. Are there incredibly rich individuals whose fortunes (read: power) have been built through activities which damage the environment, and whose self-interest leads them to pooh-pooh any talk that suggests human activity harms the environment? Definitely.
The problem is, there are equally powerful people who wish to exploit the specter of global warming for their own purposes. Do you think life-long politicians are interested in what’s best for their constituents or in consolidating as much power in their hands as possible? Isn’t it nice to have some awful crisis looming for the purpose of rallying people to your cause (read: expanding your powerbase)? Global warming is the left’s “War on Terror”: an amorphous and indefinable enemy who must be fought no matter what the cost to life or liberty.
It’s also a great lever for shouting down anyone who opposes you. Again the parallels with the 'war on terror' are striking: Do you question whether the US’s policy in the Middle East has contributed to the rise of global terrorism? Then the terrorists have already won! Do you question whether other factors such as solar activity or ancient climatological cycles which humanity does not possess the data to assess may be a significant cause of global warming? Why, then you’re the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. One might stand a better chance arguing for religious liberty in 17th century Salem, MA.
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that the powerful stand to gain very little from real solutions. Real solutions require individuals to change their attitudes and actions. Political solutions involve moving vast amounts of wealth from point A (the pockets of those unable to protect their interests – i.e. the average tax payer) to point B (the pockets of those whose livelihoods or fortunes are built on such redistributions), with very little consideration given to the ‘purpose’ of such activities. Is your government or nonprofit project/program failing miserably? Well, you’re surely underfunded then!
Another part of the problem lies in our unwillingness to think - to sort through competing and conflicting sets of ‘facts’ to find the truth. That takes too much time, so we just go with whatever Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh has to say. Is it possible to not buy into Global Warming hook, line, and sinker yet still believe emission and efficiency standards for cars in the U.S. should be doubled?
This brings a couple of Alexis de Tocqueville quotes to mind:
"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America."
"In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alexis_de_tocqueville.html
More thoughts on this later…
“Everyone knows it is happening, and that humanity is to blame.” is the pat answer to any heretic who dares question the ‘conventional wisdom’ on this subject. Ellen Goodman says deniers of global warming are on a par with deniers of the Holocaust (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/).
Is humanity spoiling the Earth? No doubt. Do steps need to be taken to stop and reverse the damage we’ve done? Absolutely. Are there incredibly rich individuals whose fortunes (read: power) have been built through activities which damage the environment, and whose self-interest leads them to pooh-pooh any talk that suggests human activity harms the environment? Definitely.
The problem is, there are equally powerful people who wish to exploit the specter of global warming for their own purposes. Do you think life-long politicians are interested in what’s best for their constituents or in consolidating as much power in their hands as possible? Isn’t it nice to have some awful crisis looming for the purpose of rallying people to your cause (read: expanding your powerbase)? Global warming is the left’s “War on Terror”: an amorphous and indefinable enemy who must be fought no matter what the cost to life or liberty.
It’s also a great lever for shouting down anyone who opposes you. Again the parallels with the 'war on terror' are striking: Do you question whether the US’s policy in the Middle East has contributed to the rise of global terrorism? Then the terrorists have already won! Do you question whether other factors such as solar activity or ancient climatological cycles which humanity does not possess the data to assess may be a significant cause of global warming? Why, then you’re the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. One might stand a better chance arguing for religious liberty in 17th century Salem, MA.
I think part of the problem lies in the fact that the powerful stand to gain very little from real solutions. Real solutions require individuals to change their attitudes and actions. Political solutions involve moving vast amounts of wealth from point A (the pockets of those unable to protect their interests – i.e. the average tax payer) to point B (the pockets of those whose livelihoods or fortunes are built on such redistributions), with very little consideration given to the ‘purpose’ of such activities. Is your government or nonprofit project/program failing miserably? Well, you’re surely underfunded then!
Another part of the problem lies in our unwillingness to think - to sort through competing and conflicting sets of ‘facts’ to find the truth. That takes too much time, so we just go with whatever Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh has to say. Is it possible to not buy into Global Warming hook, line, and sinker yet still believe emission and efficiency standards for cars in the U.S. should be doubled?
This brings a couple of Alexis de Tocqueville quotes to mind:
"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America."
"In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alexis_de_tocqueville.html
More thoughts on this later…
Monday, May 21, 2007
Favorite Books of All Time
I'm always describing books as being in my "Top Ten", which in reality is probably closer to a top 30 at this point. So, here're my favorites, in no particular order:
Humility, by CJ Mahaney
Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis
The Hobbit, by JRR Tolkien
Voyage of the Dawn Treader, by CS Lewis
The Last Battle, by CS Lewis
Out of the Silent Plant, by CS Lewis
The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoevsky
The Discipline of Grace, by Jerry Bridges
Holiness by Grace, by Brian Chapell
Humility, by CJ Mahaney
Mere Christianity, by CS Lewis
Miracles, by CS Lewis
The Abolition of Man, by CS Lewis
Lord of the Rings (three volumes, six books, but I'll count it as one for purposes of this list), by JRR TolkienThe Hobbit, by JRR Tolkien
Voyage of the Dawn Treader, by CS Lewis
The Last Battle, by CS Lewis
Out of the Silent Plant, by CS Lewis
The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoevsky
The Discipline of Grace, by Jerry Bridges
Holiness by Grace, by Brian Chapell
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, by JK Rowling
Hmmm...that's 13, so I'm not really abusing the term "top ten" all that much.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Battle of the Network Christians
Don't know why I chose that title for this post, perhaps I'm still a bit jet-lagged.
So, I met with my friend Brian yesterday (it was supposed to be our mentoring session, but we ended up taking the time to just catch up) and one of the things he mentioned was that some lady had apparently attended our church and then went out and flamed the pastoral staff in a post to CRN (http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=1455). In the process of searching for the comment (OK, that may be my gossipy-ness coming through...) I found the following blog thread: http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/04/19/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-ingrid-again/. (Side comment: It's interesting that these sites both have the same hostname. I wonder who 'stole' the hostname to host on the other domain?).
After reading through these I was thoroughly irked and posted the following item (to the.info site):
So, I met with my friend Brian yesterday (it was supposed to be our mentoring session, but we ended up taking the time to just catch up) and one of the things he mentioned was that some lady had apparently attended our church and then went out and flamed the pastoral staff in a post to CRN (http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=1455). In the process of searching for the comment (OK, that may be my gossipy-ness coming through...) I found the following blog thread: http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/04/19/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-ingrid-again/. (Side comment: It's interesting that these sites both have the same hostname. I wonder who 'stole' the hostname to host on the other domain?).
After reading through these I was thoroughly irked and posted the following item (to the.info site):
I know I’m late to the discussion - I was literally out of the country the past few weeks – but as a member of Bridgeway, I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this thread.
My first thought: Has anyone gone through this thread with the eye of an outsider? Is this the church of Christ? Is calling names - either from the “free-will” or “sovereign grace” camp acceptable? I mean, haven’t we all read 1 Corinthians? “I am of Appollos”, “I am of Cephas”, “I am of Christ”. It’s interesting that Paul didn’t say “Oh, you guys who are claiming to be ‘of Christ’ are the right faction”. No, his point was that we need to be united by our love for Christ, not divided into camps. I would add that our love for Christ, as well as a hefty dose of humility, should shine through in the way we defend the truth.
This leads to my second thought: If someone is concerned that my spikey-haired pastor (and sorry Russ you’re really not the spikey-haired one. That would be Lance. And I think Jeremy may also have you beat in the hair gel department, but I’m not sure) is leading Christ’s church astray, or has some other concern about something someone who names the name of Christ is doing, then why not use a Biblical model for addressing the perceived problem:
Step 1. Go to the one who is supposedly offending and bring the problem to their attention, with the loving intent of restoring them.
Step 2. If they don’t respond, bring in a couple of other brothers in the Lord as witnesses. Again, the motive has to be love: love of both God and your brother or sister in the Lord.
Step 3. If Steps 1 & 2 don’t work, THEN you bring the issue before the whole church. AGAIN, the motive is to restore, not “make an example”, of the offender. (Though one would hope examples for others to follow and/or avoid would come out of the process).
My third thought: You know, I don’t like *everything* about my home church, Bridgeway. But I don’t like everything about America, my wife, my kids, New Coke (I still haven’t let that one go yet), the second Becky on Roseanne, or even the 49ers (may they ever reign over the NFL). Seriously though, Bridgeway is a church full of - gasp! - people. Sinful people, no less. But, as I think Russ was saying (I could be misinterpreting him, we haven’t consulted on this), it’s better for us to be honest about who we are in Christ at this moment and then move forward towards more Christ-likeness in the power of the Spirit than to try to “keep the image clean” (apologies to Steve Camp).
Please note: I am *NOT* contending that we should sit around saying “I’m OK – You’re OK” while playing kumbayah, or advocating an approach of “Can’t we all just get along” at the expense of defending the truth. But we have to defend the *WHOLE* truth, including the truth that we’re called to love each other.
This brings me to my fourth thought: Why is it that we feel free to smack each other around in the name of “defending the truth”? It’s like we think: “Don’t worry Lord, I realize you are incapable of defending yourself and the truth, and given that you have given me an infallible understanding of every jot and title in your Word, I’ll just jump in and take a verbal battle axe to those who oppose us. (There’s room in the Trinity for one more, right?)”. It’s like we call “olly-olly-auction-free” and then just beat the tar out of each other and think that’s supposed to be OK. We can’t wait until people wander into error – or what we perceive to be error – so we can lop their little “heretical” heads off with apparent impunity.
If we love the truth, we’ll do what it calls us to do: speak the *truth* in *love*. We must realize that to compromise one is to compromise both.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Thank you for Charles Spurgeon
I've been going through a rough time lately. Very rough. I go through these bouts of depression and anxiety every now and again, and sometimes they're blacker than others. This recent trough as been particularly bleak.
Then I 'happened' to read today's 'Morning' entry on my PC (its in my startup folder and I've posted it below). And there's Charles Spurgeon, pointing me back to the One who can cover my sins and make me whole. His love of and confidence in Christ is contagious. I've been struggling with the sin of unbelief, and CHS's words have reminded me that the answer to this sin as well as my struggles in general is Christ. My default position is self-reliance. How foolish I am.
Thank you, Lord, for your patience, for your Word, and for saints like Charles Spurgeon who point the way to you - even 100 years after they're gone.
MORNING
“Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.”
- Romans 8:37
We go to Christ for forgiveness, and then too often look to the law for power to fight our sins. Paul thus rebukes us, “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Take your sins to Christ’s cross, for the old man can only be crucified there: we are crucified with him. The only weapon to fight sin with is the spear which pierced the side of Jesus. To give an illustration-you want to overcome an angry temper, how do you go to work? It is very possible you have never tried the right way of going to Jesus with it. How did I get salvation? I came to Jesus just as I was, and I trusted him to save me. I must kill my angry temper in the same way? It is the only way in which I can ever kill it. I must go to the cross with it, and say to Jesus, “Lord, I trust thee to deliver me from it.” This is the only way to give it a death-blow. Are you covetous? Do you feel the world entangle you? You may struggle against this evil so long as you please, but if it be your besetting sin, you will never be delivered from it in any way but by the blood of Jesus. Take it to Christ. Tell him, “Lord, I have trusted thee, and thy name is Jesus, for thou dost save thy people from their sins; Lord, this is one of my sins; save me from it!” Ordinances are nothing without Christ as a means of mortification. Your prayers, and your repentances, and your tears-the whole of them put together-are worth nothing apart from him. “None but Jesus can do helpless sinners good;” or helpless saints either. You must be conquerors through him who hath loved you, if conquerors at all. Our laurels must grow among his olives in Gethsemane.
Then I 'happened' to read today's 'Morning' entry on my PC (its in my startup folder and I've posted it below). And there's Charles Spurgeon, pointing me back to the One who can cover my sins and make me whole. His love of and confidence in Christ is contagious. I've been struggling with the sin of unbelief, and CHS's words have reminded me that the answer to this sin as well as my struggles in general is Christ. My default position is self-reliance. How foolish I am.
Thank you, Lord, for your patience, for your Word, and for saints like Charles Spurgeon who point the way to you - even 100 years after they're gone.
MORNING
“Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.”
- Romans 8:37
We go to Christ for forgiveness, and then too often look to the law for power to fight our sins. Paul thus rebukes us, “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Take your sins to Christ’s cross, for the old man can only be crucified there: we are crucified with him. The only weapon to fight sin with is the spear which pierced the side of Jesus. To give an illustration-you want to overcome an angry temper, how do you go to work? It is very possible you have never tried the right way of going to Jesus with it. How did I get salvation? I came to Jesus just as I was, and I trusted him to save me. I must kill my angry temper in the same way? It is the only way in which I can ever kill it. I must go to the cross with it, and say to Jesus, “Lord, I trust thee to deliver me from it.” This is the only way to give it a death-blow. Are you covetous? Do you feel the world entangle you? You may struggle against this evil so long as you please, but if it be your besetting sin, you will never be delivered from it in any way but by the blood of Jesus. Take it to Christ. Tell him, “Lord, I have trusted thee, and thy name is Jesus, for thou dost save thy people from their sins; Lord, this is one of my sins; save me from it!” Ordinances are nothing without Christ as a means of mortification. Your prayers, and your repentances, and your tears-the whole of them put together-are worth nothing apart from him. “None but Jesus can do helpless sinners good;” or helpless saints either. You must be conquerors through him who hath loved you, if conquerors at all. Our laurels must grow among his olives in Gethsemane.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
My Friend Jim
My friend Jim passed away this morning at 6am.
When we started going to WRBC, Jim latched onto us and made us feel welcome, like we could be the messed up people we are and still be accepted. Jim went out of his way to get me to go to Promise Keepers and then offered to disciple me. For a margin-dweller like me, Jim was just what the doctor ordered. I took him up on his offer, and it started a process that changed my life.
Me being me and Jim being Jim, we had many a heated debate. Through it I saw a man who was very much like me: a prideful guy who liked to hear himself talk. But I could also see the Lord at work in him, pushing and empowering him to fight his natural tendencies, and it gave me hope that Christ could do the same thing in me. Jim helped me identify some serious sin in my life and connected me with some other guys with similar struggles. He was also very frank about mistakes he had made as a husband and father. I truly believe God used Jim to heal my marriage and family.
Jim certainly wasn't perfect. He was stubborn, prideful, gossipy, and was an expert at button pushing. But he is one of the most generous, gregarious, and friendly people I’ve ever met. I already miss him.
When we started going to WRBC, Jim latched onto us and made us feel welcome, like we could be the messed up people we are and still be accepted. Jim went out of his way to get me to go to Promise Keepers and then offered to disciple me. For a margin-dweller like me, Jim was just what the doctor ordered. I took him up on his offer, and it started a process that changed my life.
Me being me and Jim being Jim, we had many a heated debate. Through it I saw a man who was very much like me: a prideful guy who liked to hear himself talk. But I could also see the Lord at work in him, pushing and empowering him to fight his natural tendencies, and it gave me hope that Christ could do the same thing in me. Jim helped me identify some serious sin in my life and connected me with some other guys with similar struggles. He was also very frank about mistakes he had made as a husband and father. I truly believe God used Jim to heal my marriage and family.
Jim certainly wasn't perfect. He was stubborn, prideful, gossipy, and was an expert at button pushing. But he is one of the most generous, gregarious, and friendly people I’ve ever met. I already miss him.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Something I Hate
First off, Aunt Martha always told me I shouldn't use the word "Hate". This was one of her favorite mini-lectures, right up there with the evils of sugar *and* artificial sweeteners (no sweets for the wicked?). That said, I've looked up the word hate, and it means "extreme dislike", and as I won't be applying the term to individuals, but rather to things, I think I'm on pretty solid moral ground with this post (uh, wait, was I just being arrogant?). Anyway....
I hate...Glossy Christianity: I think the production quality of Jesus' ministry was nil. Can you see Jesus scouting out a locale, saying to Himself "Yeah, I think with the dramatic backdrop of this historic place, a few lepers to heal, and a couple of numbskull scribes to throw me some lame questions which I will summarily knock out of the park, I should be able to really do a great work for the Father!"
Yet production quality seems to be the rallying cry of Evangelical Christianity in America. How much energy goes into 'producing' a worship service? Into 'producing' successful (i.e. lots of people in attendance) church programs?
Of course, being thoughtful and deliberate are important, and God wants us to use our minds. Still, there is a thin yet critical line between being thoughtful and considerate and being contriving and manipulative. In the former instance we leave the results to God and seek to honor Him with the means while in the latter we don't trust God with the results and as a result feel licensed to play with the means in order to achieve the "good" results we're after (aka the end justifies the means).
I'm not saying churches shouldn't use modern technology or modern music, I'm just saying I think we've all gone a bit overboard trying to be 'hip' (that means 'dope' for all you millenials) and impressive. I know the generation under 40 is very 'visual' and that they are impressed by high-quality multi-sensory presentations. But as impressive as our powerpoints and videos may be, they will never have the power or impact of God's truth and love, and if we spend too much time tweaking dials to produce a desired effect we might miss the chance to do great things for God.
I hate...Glossy Christianity: I think the production quality of Jesus' ministry was nil. Can you see Jesus scouting out a locale, saying to Himself "Yeah, I think with the dramatic backdrop of this historic place, a few lepers to heal, and a couple of numbskull scribes to throw me some lame questions which I will summarily knock out of the park, I should be able to really do a great work for the Father!"
Yet production quality seems to be the rallying cry of Evangelical Christianity in America. How much energy goes into 'producing' a worship service? Into 'producing' successful (i.e. lots of people in attendance) church programs?
Of course, being thoughtful and deliberate are important, and God wants us to use our minds. Still, there is a thin yet critical line between being thoughtful and considerate and being contriving and manipulative. In the former instance we leave the results to God and seek to honor Him with the means while in the latter we don't trust God with the results and as a result feel licensed to play with the means in order to achieve the "good" results we're after (aka the end justifies the means).
I'm not saying churches shouldn't use modern technology or modern music, I'm just saying I think we've all gone a bit overboard trying to be 'hip' (that means 'dope' for all you millenials) and impressive. I know the generation under 40 is very 'visual' and that they are impressed by high-quality multi-sensory presentations. But as impressive as our powerpoints and videos may be, they will never have the power or impact of God's truth and love, and if we spend too much time tweaking dials to produce a desired effect we might miss the chance to do great things for God.
Interesting Quotes
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” Albert Einstein - 20th Century
“One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much." Jesus Christ - 1st Century
“One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much." Jesus Christ - 1st Century
Friday, March 02, 2007
Claims swirl around 'tomb of Jesus' | csmonitor.com
Now that my faith has been utterly destroyed by Linda Hamilton's ex, I suppose I will have to choose between a life of existentialist hedonism or Wicca (free Stevie Nicks solo album for the next 1000 new converts).
The frightening thing is how poor the science and reasoning behind this particular claim is. I find the position that states "I just don't believe this Jesus guy came back from the dead, if he existed at all" much more reasonable than this cockamamie conglomeration of half-evidence. But then again, we Christians are a fool-hardy group of ninnies, and maybe the scathing condescension of Richard Dawkins and intriguing voice-overs of the latest Discovery Channel special will be what it takes to finally stop the insanity of believing God exists and that He came to earth 2000 years ago to reconcile us to Himself.
The frightening thing is how poor the science and reasoning behind this particular claim is. I find the position that states "I just don't believe this Jesus guy came back from the dead, if he existed at all" much more reasonable than this cockamamie conglomeration of half-evidence. But then again, we Christians are a fool-hardy group of ninnies, and maybe the scathing condescension of Richard Dawkins and intriguing voice-overs of the latest Discovery Channel special will be what it takes to finally stop the insanity of believing God exists and that He came to earth 2000 years ago to reconcile us to Himself.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)