James Macpherson Improves Journalism

My friend James Macpherson is coming in for a lot of criticism across the Net. People are saying that he is ruining journalism by his decision to hire writers in India to help cover local news in Pasadena, California, for his PasadenaNow.com Web site. Well, I'd like to say a few words in his defense, but before I do, I need to make clear that I have helped him with some of the technical aspects of his site, and have a financial interest in his success, so if you need to discount what I say, now you have a reason.

One of the main comments I've read is that a reporter really needs to be local, and actually go to the events he or she covers. Having been a reporter, I agree that if other things are equal, being physically at an event is a better way to do journalism. However I'm sure that ever since the telephone became common, distance reporting has been a regular practice. I certainly did plenty of phone interviews when I was a reporter and I know others did as well. And today interviews are also conducted by email, Internet Messenger, and by Skype. And I'm sure lots of reporters in the United States don't attend their local city council meetings anymore, but watch them on cable television or by webcast.

I also agree that cultural differences will likely show up in reporting from India, but that is easily dealt with by James editing the story before it is published, which he will do.

So while I agree with those arguments, I think their effects can be minimized. But, what I am seeing is a far different problem than most people are seeing. I see this not as a conflict between good and bad journalism, but between journalism and no journalism.

What I mean is this: I used to work for the now-defunct Arcadia Tribune, in Arcadia, California, which was owned by our local daily newspaper. When I worked there I had to physically go to virtually every Arcadia City Council meeting, every Planning Commission meeting and every School Board meeting and write up what happened. But the local daily newspaper no longer requires that. I know this because recently I did an email newsletter about my local school district, and in four or five years attending the board meetings I saw a reporter maybe twice. And because there were seldom any stories, I knew that no reporters were watching by cable television either.

So, my point is that this is important stuff AND IT IS NOT BEING DONE WELL! The newspapers I am aware of no longer cover local government meetings on a regular basis, particularly for smaller cities. In newspapers' defense, perhaps the economics no longer make sense, but reporting on what local government is doing is one of the main functions of newspapers and its a rotten shame to see papers either unable or unwilling to perform that task.

So, by figuring out a way for his publication to economically perform this vital government-watching function in more complete way, James is improving journalism. What he is doing may not be perfect, but by filling some of the gaps in local news coverage, James is making a big, positive step, and he doesn't deserve the abuse he's getting.

Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit

Usually I don't write about things that are general knowledge (what's the point?), but I've been reading through the book of Matthew and ran into the passage about blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:31-32) and remembered my reaction when I first read that... "anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Scary, huh? And that's why I want to write about this, because I think some believers are frightened by it when they are the last ones who should be concerned.

I think the reason for the fright is that all too often we focus on a particular verse in the Bible and neglect to take into consideration the verses around it, which is kind of like putting your greasy nose on the Mona Lisa and then trying to understand it from that range.

So let's back off just a little bit.

This passage begins at Matthew 12:22 with some Pharisees saying Jesus drove out demons by the power of the Devil. Jesus denies that and says he drives them out by the Spirit of God (vs. 28). Then he adds that if you're not for him you are against him and that all sins will be forgiven except blasphemy against the Spirit, which will never be forgiven. Jesus concludes (33-37) by saying that what's in you will come out; that evil in your heart will overflow into evil words, and that you will have to give account on the day of judgement for every careless word.

It seems, then, that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was what these Pharisees were doing; saying that the Holy Spirit - the power by which Jesus performed his exorcisms - is actually evil. Also, Jesus adds later (vs. 36) that even careless words will get you into trouble, so apparently this blasphemy doesn't even need to be as explicit as what the Pharisees did.

These seem to be very harsh words, but I think not. I think the reason blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable is because by rejecting the Holy Spirit, unbelievers reject the power of God to change them. If you see evidence of God's Spirit at work in another person or when you hear God's Spirit knocking at the door of your heart, and if you say, "Begone evil spirit!" or "No," or "Go away," or "I'm not interested," or "No thank you" or "Yawn," then you are turning away the only power that can save you.

That one little word, "No," - spoken aloud or just in your heart - can kill you.

Okay... But if you reject the Holy Spirit once does that mean you are condemned forever?

Well, remember verses 33-35. Jesus says there that your words (the ones that make noise in the air) actually reside in your heart, which is the critical thing. So if that word of rejection that dwells in your heart remains there, then sadly, yes, there is no forgiveness. But if you will only surrender and say "Yes" when the Holy Spirit knocks on the door of your heart, then the "no" ceases to exist and God's Spirit is free to enter your life and forgive you and make you right with God.

How to become a Christian

The Great Foreshadowing: Matthew 1-4

I've been reading and rereading my way slowly through the New Testament book of Matthew and something struck me that I'd never seen before, though I've read Matthew probably a dozen times.

The first four chapters (and perhaps more, but I haven't gotten there yet) parallel the life of the nation of Israel.

• Israel traces its ancestry back to Abraham. Jesus traces his ancestry back to Abraham.
  
• Israel was born in the promised land. Jesus was born in the promised land.
  
• Israel went to Egypt. Jesus went to Egypt.
  
• Moses called the people into the desert. John the Baptist called the people into the desert.
  
• Moses "baptized" people through the water of the Red Sea (Paul compares the crossing of the Red Sea to baptism [1 Corinthians 10:1-2]). John baptized people in water.
  
• The people of Israel were "baptized." Jesus was baptized.
  
• Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness. Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness.
  
• Israel was tested in the wilderness (Deuteronomy. 8:2). Jesus was tested in the wilderness.
  
• Israel was hungry in the wilderness (Deut. 8:3). Jesus was hungry in the wilderness.
  
• God provided Israel with food in the wilderness. God provided Jesus with (spiritual) food in the wilderness. (I think this is suggested by Jesus' reply to the devil in Matt. 3:4, that "Man does not live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.")
  
• When Moses leadership ended, Joshua took over. When John's leadership ended (with his imprisonment), Jesus took over.
  
• In Hebrew, Joshua's name and Jesus' name are the same.
  
• Joshua went throughout the promised land with his army. Jesus went throughout the promised land with his followers.
  

There may be more parallels, but it seems that at least Matthew is saying that the whole history of Israel is a foreshadowing or prophesy of Jesus life.

I think I first noticed this in reading Matthew 2:15, that says Jesus' return from Egypt was a fulfillment of the prophesy: "Out of Egypt I called my son." But in looking back at Hosea 11:1 it appears that the passage was referring to God calling the people of Israel (figuratively called "my son") out of Egypt.

When I had casually examined this passage in the past, I kinda thought, "Ya know, Matthew, I think that's a bit of a stretch." But now I believe I see what Matthew meant. He meant that God figuratively calling "his son" out of Egypt was a foreshadowing of God literally calling "his son" out of Egypt.

Further, the parallelism was emphasized for me with Jesus' answer when the devil tempted him to make food out of rocks. Jesus, enduring trials in the wilderness, quoted Deut. 8:3, which speaks of Israel enduring trials in the wilderness. That pretty much clinched it for me that the parallels were not an accident but quite intentional.

So anyway, so what if the history of Israel foreshadows the life of Jesus?

Well, I think there is a lot more to it than I'm seeing, but one obvious answer is that it reinforces the point - as I mentioned in the essay about Jesus' genealogy - that Jesus wasn't someone who just appeared out of the blue, but that he is central and all-important in God's plan. That a nation - a whole nation - should be used by God to foreshadow the life of one man makes me shiver with awe at how great that man must be.

Not Skipping Over Matthew 1

Often, in reading the book of Matthew, I think people tend to skip over the genealogy in Matthew 1. We read the first verse, then sort of go blah, blah, blah until verse 18, then pick up the narative again. I think that's a big mistake.

I agree that this genealogy looks boring at first glance, but there is important stuff there, topics worthy of a sermon or three. Let me try to demonstrate that this is the case by coming up with a few sermon topics.

1. When Talking to People about Jesus, Start on Common Ground

That's what Matthew did, and it is why he started off with a genealogy.

Right up front, in verse one, Matthew says that Jesus is the "son of David," which qualifies him to be the Messiah. BIG claim, so Matthew does not dawdle, but gets right to work proving his point by tracing Jesus' lineage, right back through David.

Notice also that the genealogy moves from earlier in time forward to Jesus, rather than starting from Jesus and moving back in time, as does the genealogy in Luke.

I think the reason for this is that Matthew is making it clear to his Jewish readers that this is a continuation of God's long work - a work that his audience is very familiar with - not something unconnected and popping up out of the blue.

So, in explaining the gospel, do we do our best to connect with our audience using a point of reference they will understand?


2. God Uses Both the Great and the Small

In reading this genealogy one of the first things that I wonder is: Who are all these people? Some of them are very well known (Abraham, Jacob, Judah, David, Hezekiah and others), but who were Abiud and Zadok? Some of these guys aren't even mentioned anywhere else in the Bible and even some of those who are mentioned elsewhere are obscure.

But whether these people were great or obscure, and whether they knew it or not, they were all part of God's plan to bring about the birth of Jesus.

So take heart, even if you live and work in obscurity, you are part of God's plan.


3. Jesus is for Both Jews and Gentiles

It is interesting that Matthew traces Jesus genealogy way back, past David, to Abraham. In fact, in verse one Matthew says that Jesus is the son of David and, he adds, the son of Abraham.

If Matthew's only point is to show that Jesus is the son of David, why does he continue tracing the lineage back to Abraham? I think one reason is because Abraham was not technically Jewish, since the line of Israel actually began with Abraham's grandson Jacob.

So, by linking Jesus to Abraham, I think part of Matthew's point is that Jesus is not exclusively for the Jews, but is for all people. This point is strengthened by the mention of the women Rahab and Ruth in the genealogy, neither of whom where Jews. Since Matthew was tracing a patriarchal genealogy, it would have been very easy to exclude those women if he had wanted to exclude non-Jews. But he doesn't! They're included, too.


4. The Three Groups

Notice as you read the genealogy that Matthew highlights three groups among Jesus' ancestors:

First, the group headed by Abraham, the man who believed God and had it "credited to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). I think this is one reason Matthew begins the genealogy with Abraham, to emphasize the central role of faith.

Second, the group headed by David, the king. I think Matthew intends here to point out that Jesus is the King, the Messiah.

Third, the group beginning with the Babylonian captivity. The captivity was a time of cleansing for the Jews, so I think Matthew intends to point out that Jesus came to bring spiritual cleansing.

If I was to summarize this, I think Matthew is saying: Have faith in your great King, your Messiah, who will purify your lives.


5. The Three Fourteens

Matthew notes that the three groups in the genealogy were each comprised of 14 individuals. However, if you count the names there are 40 names (a common biblical number, and perhaps symbolic), but the problem is that 40 divided by 3 is not 14, but about 13.33.

At this point you might slam shut your Bible and say it's all a fraud, but you would be mistaken. A closer reading shows that Matthew is counting the transition people twice, so, he says, from Abraham to David there were 14, and from David to the exile (Jeconiah) there were fourteen, and from the exile (Jeconiah) to the Christ there were fourteen. Notice that David is counted twice and Jeconiah is counted twice.

It's not, perhaps, how you or I would have divided a group of 40, but it works.

So, because Matthew has made the transition people mark both the end of the previous period and the beginning of the new era, it is completely fair to conclude the same thing about Jesus, that he both ends the previous era and begins a new era. And notice that Matthew emphasizes (vss. 16, 17) Jesus' title of "Christ." Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. So, this new era is the era of the Messiah.

Another thing I have learned is to think about this genealogy when I run into passages in the Bible I don't understand. Sometimes what appears to be wrong turns out on closer examination to be simply a different way of looking at things. Don't turn away from God because you encounter some things you don't understand.


So, anyway, I think there is a lot more in this genealogy, but I just wanted to explore it a bit to encourage others to realize that it is not a barren stretch to skip over, but is full of good content.

The Chinese Burrito

Okay, I just had a million dollar idea. It is based on three assumptions:

1. Americans often eat on the run, while they're walking or driving.
2. Chinese food - except for the place down the street from my house - is yummy.
3. You can't eat Chinese food on the run. You have to sit down and eat it.

So in one respect Chinese food is not as well adapted to the American lifestyle as it could be.

Solution: Wrap the orange chicken, or beef brocoli, or whatever Chinese food you like, in a tortilla.

Bingo! A Chinese burrito. Tasty and easy to eat on the go.

Feel free to use this idea to make your first million dollars. Just send me a coupon for 50 cents off. :-)

Crocodile and Alligator

My dad (Robert Haugaard) made up this joke, which I thought was pretty good:

A crocodile thought he was an alligator, but he was in denial.

How Should We Give to the Poor?

I see them at freeway exits and on the sidewalks in shopping areas. Men and women with signs that say they're homeless, asking for money. And frankly, I'm very unsure what to do.

Jesus was pretty clear that his followers need to give to the poor, but then Paul says that "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Thes. 3:10).

What troubles me is when I see the same people, day after day, who seem to be making a career out of begging. I see men and women with "I am homeless" signs who are smoking and drinking large coffees from fast food stores and listening to an iPod (or some digital device). Is that what the money they get is buying?

I see freeway exits without anyone begging, then a bit later, every exit is covered. I've even seen what seems to be sort of a changing of the guard, with one homeless person walking away and another taking his sign and resuming the begging, as if one person is going off duty and another going on. It's almost as if it is organized. And when it seems organized, it begins to seem like a con.

I've seen people who are probably illegal Mexican aliens lining up near a building supply store by a freeway exit to do what is probably some seriously hard day labor while a small distance away are people asking for a handout. Why aren't they doing day labor, too? Are Mexicans the only ones who can work hard?

My mother was approached by a woman outside a grocery store who asked for money to feed her children. Sure, my mother told her, she'd go back in the store and buy her a chicken and some rice. No, the woman said, she wanted money to take her kids to McDonalds.

I've been told by co-workers that they've seen a guy who begs down the street from our office get into a pickup truck and drive away.

So on the one hand, I want to help, but on the other hand - like Paul - don't want to encourage laziness. I realize that some of what I see - the bad use of money, for example - could be partly tied to mental problems, but on the other hand, I think some of it is a con job or a simple disinclination to work.

One solution is to give to organizations that specifically work with the homeless, and sometimes I do that, but that also feels a bit "hands-off-ish," as if I want to avoid any personal contact with people in need. And that is - I hate to say - partly true. In fact, one reason I sometimes do give directly to people on the street is because I want to force myself to be a bit more personal, something I am not naturally inclined to be.

But on the other hand, giving money to people on the street may just be feeding an ugly addiction or rewarding con artists or helping people avoid getting assistance for their problems.

So I wrestle with this. Not whether to give - that's commanded - but how to give wisely and within the time I have available.

If you have any thoughts, I'd like to hear them and maybe post them here.

2007 Priorities

I've been pondering my priorities for 2007 during the last week or so, and for some reason my mind went back to the old musical, Godspell. I hadn't thought about it in decades. I remember the first time I saw the movie I was offended at Jesus being depicted as a clown, if I recall. But a friend urged me to see it again, so I did, and this time came away with what I believe is the correct understanding, that the clown motif was not an insult, but was a way to show Jesus in contrast to our culture.

Whatever.

In any case, I remembered how much I liked the Godspell music, so I downloaded the album (legally), was listening to it and was really struck by one of the songs, Day by Day, which contains these lines:

Oh Dear Lord
Three things I pray:

To see Thee more clearly
Love Thee more dearly
Follow Thee more nearly

Day by day

I think God prompted me to remember the musical and download the songs from it, because while I was wondering about my priorities I heard this song with these three prayers and instantly knew they were exactly what my "day by day" priorities should be.

Happy New Year!

Kabloona

I just finished reading "Kabloona," by Gontran de Poncins. It's an excellent but old (1941) and politically incorrect account of the author's life among the Eskimo (or now, "Inuit"). The whole book is good - a bit jarring, but good - but I was particularly struck by de Poncins' account of how he decided to pick up from Paris and move to the northern reaches of Canada.

Whether it was a photograph in a shop-window that had first prompted me, or a chance remark negligently dropped in my hearing, I do not now remember nor does it much signify. I know only that some time before that spring day the word Eskimo had rung inside me and that the sound had begun to swell like the vibrations of a great bell and had eventually filled the whole of my subconscious being. I had not been possessed instantly by a conscious and urgent need to go into the Arctic and live with a primitive people. These things operate slowly, like the germ of a cancer. They brood within, they send out tentacles and grow. Their first effect is not decision but restlessness. You find yourself feeling that something is obscurely yet radically wrong with your life. You fidget. Your world becomes progressively more stuffy, less tolerable. Probably you show it, and show it unpleasantly; for your friends seem to you more and more to be talking nonsense, leading a meaningless existence, content with a frivolity and a mediocrity to which you find yourself superior. In their eyes, very likely, unbearably superior. But no matter. The thing is at work in you. Finally, there comes a moment when you waken in the middle of the night and lie still, eyes wide open in the dark. Life, you sense, is about to change. Something is about to happen. And it happens; you have made your decision.

The Rendezvous

A Christmas spy story.

Bern sat quietly on the wooden pew in the darkened church. Four advent candles in front burned steadily. Green and red holly decorated with tiny white lights hung in a chain of semi-circles from the side balconies.

He was not the first to arrive, though he had indeed arrived early. It wasn't that he was anxious to attend the service; it was just convenient. On Christmas Eve the streetcar arrived at the corner two blocks from the church at 10:17 p.m., 43 minutes early.

He had found a spot near a side aisle and pulled a Bible from the rack in front of him and placed it next to him, close enough so that it might appear that he had just laid it aside after reading it, but far enough away that it could be interpreted as a marker to save the spot next to him.

Unbuttoning his heavy coat, he waited, watching the candles and listening to the organist softly playing some melody he did not recognize. Bern was not at all religious, but still, it was beautiuful, and by contrast it made him feel dirty. Or rather, it made him feel how dirty he really was. He didn't want to be here, but this was where "Al" - or whatever his name was - wanted to meet, so he was stuck with it. Perhaps this was Al's sense of hunmor. If so, Al had a bad sense of humor.

Anyway, he thought, probably the people who would be up front were hypocrites - they all were. All their pious sermons and choir robes and candles and holly. They were probably just as bad as he was. In fact, he knew one of the people here. Kelly, for instance. He'd seen Kelly get angry. The words that came out of Kelly's mouth were all the proof as he needed that religion was worthless. Yeah, hypocrites.

It made him feel better, but, still, the church - the building, at least - was beautiful...

His thoughts turned back. He wished he had never started down this path. A thousand bucks for a damn internal email list for his company's tech group? I mean, who cares? What's the big secret? If Al was such a fool that he'd pay that much for a silly directory, well, fine, I'll take your money, idiot.

Except Al was no idiot.

Then Al asked for the names of projects his company was working on. Names! So what? Except some of the names were rather descriptive and he had been warned and had signed a non-disclosure form when he joined the company, so it made him nervous. But the money was even better, and Al was so nice and, well, it wasn't really much worse than selling the email directory. But then later Al had wanted the details of the projects, and Bern baulked. Al understood. Al was nice about it. Al said he knew it was asking a lot, and that he'd try to keep Bern out of trouble, but, well, Al's superiors wanted results, and they might tell Bern's company about him selling the directory and project names.

So he gave in. And it got worse...

The church was filling up. People walked in, unbuttoned their coats and spoke in low voices. Several people squeezed past him, a few dusting him with flakes of snow that still clung to their overcoats, but they skipped the space he had saved for Al.

Al! Where was he? Bern began to worry. But why? There was nobody in the world he wanted to see less than Al. Perhaps Al had been caught. If so they'd both be shot or something else very unpleasant. Reason enough to worry.

Then he caught a glimpse of Al, quietly took a deep breath and sighed. He casually picked up the Bible and began reading it as Al squeezed past him and took the open space. They sat, neither exchanging a glance.

As the service began, the main lights went from dim to black and all Bern could see were the candles and the hundreds of dots of white light among the holly. It was indeed beautiful.

Then they sang O Holy Night and he was bothered to find eyes moistening and his voice uneven. As he sat down he bowed his head as if to pray, and wiped his eyes.

Christmas, the pastor said, is the day we celebrate the birth of the Savior, the One who was born from God into the world to live a life utterly faithful to God, loving and true, a life that none of us, with all our flaws, has ever come close to matching.

Yeah, he sighed, well at least they admit they're as bad as I am. But knowing it gave him no satisfaction.

They had become accustomed to the darkness, and while keeping his eyes to the front, Al slipped a small square of rice paper onto the pew between them. Without looking at it Bern slowly picked it up. It was two sheets. He bowed again, as if praying about what the pastor was saying, and looked at the top sheet cupped in his hands.

It said, "Need programming code for TL730, ASAP!"

The TL730! Good God! The seaport nuclear materials detector! They could defeat the detector with that information. Why did they want that!? Oh, God! As if he didn't know.

As impassively as he could, he folded the top sheet of rice paper twice and brought his hands to his face as if to pray. Oh God! he prayed. He slipped the paper into his mouth, where it disolved. The bottom sheet was blank; Al wanted a note back.

The pencil stub in his hand froze over the rice paper, laying on the Bible in his lap.

Christmas, the pastor continued, led to Easter, which makes the story complete. Christ didn't become the Savior by being born, but by dying in our place for all our wrongs; for taking our penalty; for paying our debt.

Al glanced his way.

Finally Bern wrote: "Can't."

Al looked at the paper.

The pastor continued: So through Christ, he said, we can have forgiveness! Freedom from all the ugly things we've ever done that cling to us like leeches! Just say yes to God! Yes! God, I have done evil and I need the forgiveness you are offering to me through Christ! Pray that now!

Al had slipped another sheet onto the pew, but Bern hadn't noticed it. Al nudged him once, and then again.

Bern picked up the paper. "How much time do you need?"

Bern paused, then turned to Al.

"I'm not doing it," he said aloud, "not now or ever."

People glanced uncomfortably at him. If he didn't want to give his heart to God, well, okay, but did he need to announce it during the service?

Al looked frightened, then glanced to his left as if to see if Bern was speaking to the next person over.

As the service ended, the pastor invited those who had prayed to come forward to talk to him.

The row of people filed out towards the center aisle, with Al just in front of Bern.

As they came to the aisle, Al turned toward the back of the church, but Bern paused. He had sold so much information; secrets that would cause so many deaths.

People backed up behind him. But still he paused. Then he turned toward the front of the church. Al glanced back, paused for a moment, then ran for the exit.

If his debt to God was paid, Bern thought, his debt to his country was not. That, he sighed, would be coming soon.

Slow Miracles

Maybe miracles are more common than we assume.

Usually when I think of miracles, I think of amazing, jaw-dropping affairs, but for some reason - perhaps because I recently wrote about faith uprooting mulberry trees - something came back to me that a friend brought up at a fellowship meeting in college; something you don't often hear about.

He noted that in Deuteronomy 8:4 God told the Israelites that during their 40 years in the desert their clothing hadn't worn out. I wonder, when God told the Israelites that, if they said, "Well how about that! I hadn't thought of that before, but yes, it's true!"

The preservation of clothing is just not the sort of thing that you'd notice - or believe - unless you deliberately look back over a long period of time. For example, if God started preserving people's clothing on Monday and on Tuesday someone said that God was miraculously preserving their clothes, I'm sure everybody else would have glanced at their clothes, and then back at the speaker, then thought, "This guy is a nut."

But that's what interests me about this miracle; there was nothing at all dramatic about it, nothing to draw attention to itself. It's a humble miracle. In fact, I find it hard to imagine a miracle more mundane than people's clothing lasting far longer than you'd ever expect in a camping environment.

I was tempted to call this miracle "boring," but I can't do that because its very mundane nature is the exciting part! I've sometimes regretted that I've never seen a miracle, but now I wonder: Have there been slow miracles in my life - or your life - things God is doing or has done that we have overlooked because they have been so quiet and gentle and slow and we have been too busy and preoccupied to think back over the years?

The Scary New Atheism

The latest Wired Magazine has a very interesting article on the "new atheism," and while I can't figure out how it differs from the old atheism, the essay was quite good. Writer Gary Wolf, an athiest himself, was brave and honest enough to ask some hard questions of today's leading atheists.

Let me look at just two of the people he interviews, but really, the article is worth reading in its entirety.

First he talks with Richard Dawkins.

"Dawkins," he writes, "does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them."

Wolf quotes Dawkins as saying, "It is one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in?"

It appears Dawkins backpedals a bit from that rather totalitarian statement, perhaps after being challenged, but - YOW! - I really don't want to hear any more tripe from atheists complaining that it's Christians who want to impose their views on the world. Those Christians who would like to impose a theocracy are a tiny, virtually unknown, minority. Dawkins, on the other hand, is the leading light in atheistic circles. I'd suggest atheists clean up their own house before criticizing us.

Later, Wolf interviews Daniel Dennett, who has just been asked to write an essay on human dignity, and he's finding it to be a tough task. Wolf writes that Dennett can't find a solution to ethical problems using reason alone, so Dennett's solution is for people to just mindlessly keep their inherent sense of ethics - their "default settings," as he puts it - without thinking about them. In fact, Dennett says, "We could have a rational policy not even to think about such things."

What garbage! And Wolf will have none of it.

"On the one hand," Wolf writes, "he [Dennett] aggressively confronts the faithful, attacking their sacred beliefs. On the other hand, he proposes that our inherited defaults be put outside the limits of dispute. But this would make our defaults into a religion, unimpeachable and implacable gods."

Amen!

But Dennett, Wolf adds, is willing to make an exception so that "philosophers" would be exempt from these default moral values.

Ah. I see. So "philosophers" would be exempt from the morality Dennett would require the rest of us adhere to. Philosophers would be allowed (by whom?) to lie and cheat and murder and rape and steal and enslave and destroy and do medical experiments on unwilling subjects and kick cats and anything else that their truth-loving little philosophical hearts desire.

I don't find this freedom that Dennett would grant to "philosophers" very comforting.

Also, I find it interesting that while atheists can't find any grounds for moral belief - as Dennett demonstrates - they somehow manage to fervently hold the moral belief that religion is evil. For people who claim to be logical, this seems to be a fairly serious lapse.

Anyway, I thought Wolf did a good, honest job. I don't know if he would consider that a compliment since atheists have no logical reason for thinking honesty is any better than dishonesty, but I think he is a man who is better than his atheistic beliefs.

Moving Mulberry Trees

I've always found Jesus' remark in Luke 17:6 fascinating. He said that, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you."

This, of course, sounds like a very useful thing, especially if you are in the tree removal business, but despite an experimental prayer - experimental since I don't really need any trees moved into the ocean - the tree I prayed for remained in place. And a very good thing, on reflection, since is was not my tree I was praying about. Bad me.

But anyway, then I was discouraged. Clearly I didn't even have that tiny bit of faith Jesus says is necessary to move trees.

But when I went back and read the passage more carefully I found I was foolishly adding something that didn't belong. I was incorrectly understanding the passage to say: "Work hard building up your faith and someday when it's really strong then you can use it to uproot mulberry trees."

Wrong!

As I understand it now, Jesus wasn't telling the apostles that they needed more faith, but was simply saying what he said, that if you have enough faith then the tree will move. And if you don't, it won't. There may be cases when God gives you enough faith that your prayer will be answered with a miracle; in other cases he will not give you that level of faith. So relax (I'm talking to myself especially) and don't try to juice up your faith by furrowing your eyebrows and squinting really hard.

Creating A Happy Workplace

I was reminded recently of that old story about the man who asks two guys working in a quarry what they're doing. One man said, "I'm making rocks square." The other man, who was doing the same thing, said, "I'm building a cathedral." The moral, of course, is to be like the second man with the big vision.

True, true...

But what occurred to me is that sometimes employers don't bother to let their employees in on the big picture. It's as if the boss told the two men in the quarry nothing more than, "Make these rocks square," but gave them no idea that by doing so they were contributing to the construction of a magnificent cathedral. In this case, you don't have one man with a problem, you have two men with a problem; two men who can't see beyond the tedium of their jobs. And in this case it's not their fault at all.

Over the years I've worked at and with a number of companies, large and small, and have occasionally even written company newsletters, and I think that the morale at companies where people at the bottom of the organization understand what is going on at the top are much happier places.

Let me illustrate. Suppose you are a sports fan but the only information you are given about your team is that it won or lost its last game. You can't listen to the game in your car or watch it on TV and you certainly can't attend the game. Wouldn't that take all the spice out of the sport for you?

And while I'm exaggerating to make my point, I think that a lot of companies essentially do that. They don't tell the troops what the leadership has in mind or where the company is going, or the challenges or opportunities ahead, they just tell people what to do - without context. I believe a lot of company leaders think that "communicating" means to let people know when the company picnic will be held. In fact, I have even seen press releases sent out and published in the national media before the employees were even aware of the information. Hello?

So my advice to company presidents and CEOs is this: Tell your employees everything you can about what's going on at the company, and if there are some things you can't tell them, tell them that item is a secret. Your employees are probably on your side - at least initially - and they want the company to succeed. They want to feel they are part of a team, not just making square rocks. They want to hear that, "We're negotiating with a large Japanese electronics company - I can't tell you who just now - but it could be huge and I thought you'd like to know," or that, "We're going to be facing some really tough times. Our competitor has just unveiled a new widget that both vacuums and makes coffee, and we'll need to respond by doing A, B, and C."

If you don't do this, people will come to realize that there is a caste system at your company; those who know what's happening and those who are left in the dark. They'll understand that there have to be some secrets, but let this division become commonplace and you'll create a lot of unhappy people.

Now, I mentioned that this advice is for presidents and CEOs. Not exclusively, of course, but mainly. Why? Because it is a task your middle managers almost certainly won't do well. The reason is that middle managers are afraid they'll get in trouble for saying something they weren't supposed to say, so they'll lean toward keeping even perfectly harmless information secret. Sometimes they even know the information is harmless but keep it secret anyway because "people wouldn't really be interested in that." (Yes, I've heard that many times, even when I knew it was interesting information.)

So anyway, you need to set the example! Send your thoughts out to everybody in the company on a regular basis (I'd recommend every other week) by email or on paper, and in company meetings talk in as much detail as you can about what's happening. I think you'll create a much happier workplace.

Recruiting for the Choir

I would guess that recruiting for a church choir can be a fairly difficult task, so I was interested in something the choir director at our church did recently.

Just before the service began and before the choir was in place, he said to the congregation:

"If any of you has ever wondered what it would be like to sing in the choir, just come on up - right now - and give it a try."

At the same time he invited the regular choir members - who were not wearing their robes that Sunday - to also come up. Lots of people came forward, many of them the regulars but apparently lots of others as well. And because nobody was wearing robes you couldn't tell the regulars from the visitors, which I'm sure made it quite comfortable for those who were just trying it out.

After the service I guess he must have invited the new people to come to a practice, or to join the choir, or something, because last Sunday there were a lot more choir members.

Anyway, I was impressed that he found a clever way to give people a quick and easy way to give the choir a try, and I thought it was an idea worth passing along.

No Faith, No Science; Know Faith, Know Science

I just saw the cover of the latest Wired magazine on the newsstand (I subscribe, but they deliver it there first. Grrr.). Anyway, the main story was about "new atheists" who reject faith and only accept science.

This is really rather laughable because all human knowledge - science included - is ultimately based on faith.

Let's visit Alvin Atheist for a minute. Alvin thinks he's faith-free, but he is seriously kidding himself. For example:

- Alvin gets out of bed believing, but with no proof, that his clock is telling the right time.
- He takes a drink from the tap on faith that the water department has kept it pure.
- He eats a bowl of cereal on faith, trusting that General Mills followed sanitary processing procedures.
- He takes a bus to work, having faith that the mechanic has kept it in good order and the bus driver knows how to drive.
- He looks through his microscope, trusting that it does what the manufacturer promises and that what he sees is valid.
- For lunch his colleagues take him to a sushi restaurant and for the first time in his life, despite his nervousness, he has raw fish, because his friends tell him it's good, and he accepts their word on faith.

This is too easy. I could go on all day.

But that's not fair! Alvin says.

He says he has long experience with his clock being right. It blinks '12:00' when it's not. He's had lots of drinks from the tap and lots of cereal from the box and he's ridden the bus for years, and they've all worked the way he expected, and he's used his microscope for years and it's always worked fine. And as for sushi, well, government agencies using scientific methods have determined that, handled properly, sushi is fine.

These things, he says, have been generally proven.

Not so. What (if anything) has been proven is that things have happened in a particular way in the past. But it has not been proven that things will happen the same way in the future. Alvin may be confident that when he opens his cereal box tomorrow he will find Cheerios rather than a racoon, but he has not proven this. He is exercising faith, pure and simple.

But let's take this a step deeper.

Alvin's remembrance of these things (clocks, cereal, microscopes, sushi and what not) also show that Alvin has faith in the workings of his mind. He can't prove that his memories of these things are true and not just hallucinations; he accepts it purely by faith. The thousand times he has found his clock to be right may be a false memory.

But for Alvin to come to any conclusion about anything, he has to believe that the universe is really remarkably consistent and rational, and that his mind, despite whatever little glitches it may have, is generally pretty good at remembering correctly and properly analyzing situations.

Now I don't begrudge Alvin any of this faith he has exercised (though I wonder why he calls faith illegitimate when he wallows in it daily). Like Alvin, I too believe the universe is quite rationally organized, and I too believe my mind is generally fairly good at remembering and analyzing. But there's one big difference:

I believe a rational God created a rational universe, whereas Alvin believes that some random, or irrational, or - at least - unknown, event caused a rational universe.

In short, I believe rational begat rational, and Alvin believes irrational begat rational. Hmm. I think it takes more faith to be Alvin than to be me.

Where Vultures Gather

As I was reading my Bible this morning a passage that has always baffled me suddenly became clear. As I explain it, perhaps you will say, "Well, of course! You never realized that before?"

Well, no, I never did, and because I think there may be others in my shoes, permit me to go through the passage (Matthew 24:24-28:

For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect - if that were possible.

So if anyone tells you, "There he is, out in the desert," do not go out; or, "here he is, in the inner rooms," do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

It always seemed to me that the line about vultures (which I've italicized) was pretty mysterious. I didn't see what it had to do with the rest of what Jesus was talking about.

But now, I believe I finally see it.

The carcass is a false Christ (or false prophet) and the vultures are those who gather to feed on the rotting meat he has to offer. It is a commentary on both the false Christ (one who is spiritually dead and whose message is rotten like a decaying carcass) and those who gather around him (those who enjoy his dirty message, like vultures who enjoy the taste of rotting flesh.)

To carry it just a bit further, this may also be a contrast between the true Christ and false Christs. Jesus told his disciples that he is the "bread of life" (John 6:35) and that they were to eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:56). In the same sense, the followers of the false Christs eat of their master, except in their case it is not a meal of life, but of death.

How to Get Rich

I was having lunch the other day in the patio of my company when an engineer walked up and asked if he could share my table since every other table was occupied.

Sure. No problem.

Well, we got talking of this and that and somehow the conversation led up to how he occasionally has lunch with other engineers and they discuss ideas that they think would be great products.

But, he said, the ideas are almost all rejected. Sooner or later someone will always say about the idea: "Nah, that would have to be sold."

I laughed at this illustration of engineers' stereotypical distaste for the kind of pushy social interaction involved with sales, but the thought occurred to me what a huge opportunity this could be for the sales person who would like to start his or her own company.

So here's the secret: Turn off your overbearing social charm and get to know the engineers at your company; the working ones right down at the bottom. Hang around with them; go to lunch, let them do most of the talking, listen to their ideas, and if you don't get it, ask them to explain what they mean. They're smart and generally nice people who, while they may not always suffer fools gladly and may not always express themselves tactfully, frequently enjoy explaining topics involving their expertise and are pleased when others are interested.

So, if my point isn't obvious yet, what I'm suggesting is that you and an engineer with a great idea might make an awesome team and might build a fine company that makes a great product.

By the way, did I mention that you need to turn off your overbearing social charm?

Frankincense and Computers

I was reading the book of Revelation in the Bible this morning and came upon the passage about the destruction of Babylon (Rev. 18:11-13), which says "the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her" because nobody is buying their products, which include gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth, citron wood, articles of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron, marble, plus cinnamon and spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, flour, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses and carriages, and the "bodies and souls of men."

For a passage about a prophesy that hasn't yet come to pass, I thought that list of merchandise sounded rather outdated. What about automobiles and DVD players and computers and television sets and so forth? We have those things now, so presumably the people in the last days will also have those things, or some better equivalent. Didn't God know about modern inventions when this passage was written?

Yeah, sure he did! The problem was that my perspective - as I began thinking about it - was just too self-centered. The Bible was written not just for me but for people across a huge (in human terms) span of time, and the mention of television sets, for example, would be incomprehensible for people just decades ago, not to mention a thousand years ago.

But on the flip side, the mention of linen and olive oil and cattle and so forth is completely comprehensible to us, and while some of these products may be old fashioned to us, we still know what they are, and if we don't (what is citron wood, anyway?) well, we can look them up.

In other words, God made it so people in years past could understand this passage, and so people today and tomorrow can understand it.

Downtown Los Angeles

I was called for jury duty last week and had to spend a couple days in downtown Los Angeles. During some of the breaks I wandered around town a bit and was reminded of why I almost never go into LA.

I don't mean to be harsh toward the city. It's a huge expanse and I know there are some lively and interesting areas of LA, but the Downtown (by which I mean the area in and around City Hall) is ratty and uninviting, though up the hill (on Hill Street) it is nice and uninviting. I mean, this is one of the most important cities in not just the United States, but in the world, and at its heart it is pretty much a disgrace.

If I may for a moment treat Downtown as a seperate entity from the rest of sprawling LA, I'd say it seems to be just a commuter zone. For example, I was looking for a place to have lunch and asked a woman on the street where I might find a restaurant.

"You like Mexican?" she asked.

"Sure," I said.

Well, she walked with me all the way to Olivera Street, about five blocks away. It was one of the few lively spots I found in the area, and the whole of Olivera Street is tiny, not to mention being quite a distance from all the big office buildings and across a grubby freeway overpass. (When I got back to the courtroom I heard another juror say that he went on what sounded like an even longer hike to find a restaurant.)

Anyway, as we were walking along this woman mentioned she lived in Corona.

Corona!? Ouch! What a nasty, long commute!

But that is the impression I got about the whole Downtown, that few if any of the office workers live nearby and that the place is probably pretty abandoned at night.

The area is covered with huge full-block buildings - mostly government - that you clearly don't go into unless you have business there. You can walk for long stretches and encounter no openings for people, just monolithic walls with the occasional vehicle service entrance and locked doorway decorated with yellowing sheets of newspaper. It seems that whatever life there is in Downtown is inside these huge buildings, but get out on the street and it's dead. Unless you're outside at the beginning or ending of the work day, or at noon, you can walk blocks and blocks and seldom pass more than a few people per block, most of them apparently homeless (and nothing against them; they provide what little life there is on the streets).

Don't get me wrong. Some of the buildings in the Downtown are beautiful (though others are gag ugly) with nice grass areas, and there are pretty parks - which appear generally abandoned, even at lunch time. So where are the people?

Well, one day at lunch I found quite a few of people - underground. There is a "mall" that is below ground level. It features a set of not-impressive-but-okay fast-food outlets, most of them apparently independent. The mall has a tiny sign at the top of the stairway going down, as if the city sort of reluctantly realizes that people need to eat but is embarassed that anything so crass as a commercial establishment should mar the solemn grandure of massed government buildings.

As I walked around Downtown I found weed and trash covered lots, places where it stinks (literally), blackened chewing gum spotting the sidewalks (all over), poor quality repairs that have been made to concrete sidewalks using asphalt, broken concrete that was unrepaired (even with asphalt), boarded up and run-down businesses. And yes, there are a few interesting spots (a seafood mall, for example), but the overall impression is one of sad, dirty dullness.

Someone will mention that if you go west a bit, up the hill, on the appropriately named Hill Street, there is where it becomes elegant. True, but it is a dreary sort of elegance. The Disney Concert Hall, the other concert facilities and the cathedral are attractive, but they are also just more block-square monoliths, though I did see some attractive condos or apartments being built (more on that in a moment).

One of the main points advanced by Jane Jacobs - a brilliant analyst of city life - is that what makes a big city lively and safe is mixed uses, which ensures there are always people on the streets, day and night. If you mix offices and stores and churches and residential and restaurants and movies and parks and other uses close together then you always have people coming and going, keeping an eye on the area and making it both safe and interesting.

And sadly, that is exactly what Downtown is not; even the new parts (at least those parts I saw). The area seems overplanned, as if the city said, "Let's clear off this whoooole block and put something really magnificent here!" And they do, and it's magnificent, and it's also lifeless.

These fine new buildings, that could contribute so much to the community, don't seem to do so because they don't have any other lively things going on around them. For example, I'd think that people who have just got out of a concert just might like to wander across the street and have a cup of coffee at a restaurant. Well, lotsa luck! From the looks of it, it's just drive in, drive out. A soulless commuterville.

In concluding I need to emphasize that I'm only speaking from my experience of a couple of days and I don't know the circumstances surrounding the development of Downtown LA, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. Also, just today I spoke with a friend who said the city of LA is trying to address exactly the problems I saw, so perhaps those condos or apartments I saw being built up on Hill Street are part of the solution. Well, good. If there are people working to fix this problem, blessings upon them! I wish the city well. One of the great cities of the world should have a far livelier downtown than it now has.

God Hardening Hearts

It has always troubled me a bit where the Bible says in Romans 9:18 that God "hardens whom he wants to harden."

Why then, I ask - as Romans 9:19 asks - does "God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

Paul explains that the potter has the right to do with the clay whatever he wants, and that is certainly true. God is the potter and we are the clay, and I am able to accept that God is all-wise and if he hardens the hearts of some, well, I don't get it, but he knows best.

But in rereading Romans I noticed something else, something that had eluded me before.

A couple chapters further on, in Romans 11:25, it says that "Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved."

That "until" struck me. The hardening in the case of Israel was not permanent. It is only for a time, and then "all Israel will be saved."

I thought back to Romans 9 with this in mind, and wondered if the hardening spoken of there might also a temporary measure used by God for some specific purpose. And I wonder if it may be the case most of the time that there are times when God temporarily hardens the hearts of people, but then when his purpose is accomplished he removes that hardening to allow them to be receptive to his love.

Pick Your Battles

I've always regarded Paul, the author of a good chunk of the New Testament, as an uncompromising proclaimer of truth and opponent of error, but during a recent reading of the Book of Romans, rather to my surprise, I noticed an important caveat that hadn't sunk in before - that there are some errors that we shouldn't oppose.

The passage that hit me - if you care to follow along - is the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of Romans, but specifically, Romans 14:14, where Paul writes: "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean."

In the first part of this verse Paul makes it clear that there is nothing wrong with eating any kind of food. Okay, that's the truth-proclaiming Paul I know so well. So, in the second part of the verse, I would have expected him to tell the believers to correct those who mistakenly believe you shouldn't eat meat.

But he doesn't!

Instead, he essentially says that some errors are harmless and to leave people in their errors because it is far more important that those people not violate their consciences.

So, if people believe, for example, that meat is out-of-bounds (14:21) or that one day is more sacred than another (14:5) or that you shouldn't drink wine (14:21)... well, so what!? Yes, they're wrong, but it just doesn't matter!

In fact, Paul goes further and even urges other believers to not eat meat if it's going to throw the lives of those who don't believe in eating meat into a tizzy.

So Paul is actually saying we should accomodate some types of error!

Gulp!

While there are indeed core issues that believers should stand up for firmly - as Paul does - there are also a slew of peripheral issues that just aren't worth fighting about and damaging people's faith about and alienating people about and upsetting people about and causing division about, even when we ab-so-lutely know the truth about those issues.

So, pick your battles... wisely.

Justice Versus Forgiveness

In reading some sermons by Martin Luther I came upon a concept I hadn't considered before.

Luther draws a distinction between the duties of the Christian as an individual and the duties of the Christian (or non-Christian) as a civil authority.

The distinction is that the Christian as an individual should always forgive and the civil authority should never forgive, but only exercise justice.

Not forgive? But that's at the very heart of Christianity!

But Luther points to Romans 13, which says the civil authority "does not bear the sword for nothing." And he also refers to Jesus distinction between two realms, the realm of civil authority and the realm of God's authority ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" - Matt 22:21).

The civil authority's task, Luther says, is to punish criminals to maintain order and justice (not, by the way, to impose Caesar's authority on God's realm or vice versa). In the pursuit of that job the magistrate is to punish, not to forgive. In fact, the "sword" reference in Matthew 22 suggests that the civil authorities may also make use of the death penalty.

I find Luther's arguments mostly persuasive. Forgiveness, it seems, is only valid between the injured party and the injurer. So, if Joe hurts Sam, Sam can forgive Joe, while Robert, who is uninvolved, cannot forgive Joe for an injury to Sam.

But a judge is supposed to be an uninvolved person, a "Robert." Therefore, while a judge (for example) can take all extenuating circumstances into consideration - such as a killer being severely provoked, for example, or that the injury is absurdly small (your walking on someone else's grass) - and can properly adjust any judgment accordingly, the judge can't just forgive criminal behavior. Forgiveness is the task of the injured party alone; enforcing justice is the task of the civil authorities, even if those in authority are Christians.

Thoughts on the Trinity

I got a letter a while ago asking me to give a clearer presentation of the triune nature of God because my paraphrase of Anselm's hypothesis was a bit obscure. Well, I'm not sure that is something I can do any better, but the letter got me thinking about whether there is anything more I can say about the topic. And, come to think of it, there are a few things I'd like to add.

First, I'd like to take care of a very silly idea. I think there are some people who believe that the idea of the Trinity was conjured up out of whole cloth by the church for some nefarious reason. This is pure nonsense. I mean, what possible purpose would be served by that? Could it be to make the idea of God more explicable to people, thereby making the church more appealing to people?

Ha! Anybody who thinks the doctrine of the Trinity makes things easier to understand obviously has no clue what it is. I mean, come on! The doctrine is that God is one essence, but three persons, each of whom is fully God. That's supposed to be easy to understand? I don't think so!

No, Christians do not hold this view because it makes God easier to explain, for the very simple reason that it makes God harder to explain. The church believes this for the same reason scientists hold their views - the evidence supports it. The scientist's source of evidence is the environment; the Christian's is the Bible.

But perhaps it was just some goofy idea that crept in somehow and eventually just kind of became set, like concrete, as a doctrine.

That's really hard to accept. Both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churchs accepted (and accept) the doctrine, and when the Protestant Church broke away from the Roman church it threw out parts of Roman Catholic doctrine that it believed didn't reflect the Bible, but it held on to the difficult doctrine of the Trinity.

Why? Well, it certainly wasn't because the uncompromising Luther and Calvin and Zwingli had suddenly decided not to upset the Roman Catholic Church. No, they accepted the Trinity because they saw it in the Bible.

Okay, on to my main point.

At the edges of human perception things get very weird.

On a small scale, subatomic particles act in ways that - at least to me - are inexplicable, and on the grand scale the universe has attributes that are equally inexplicable. For example, if the universe is - in a sense - an expanding ball, what is on the outside of that ball? My mind screams that it's gotta be open space, but if I'm understanding the explanations, there's not even that. Very weird.

Then what is God like, who is in many ways beyond the edges of our perception?

I can only imagine that in many ways he is utterly beyond our comprehension. So if the environment we are a part of is so difficult for us to understand, why in the world should we imagine that the fullness of God should be easily understood by a fifth grade math student - or a PhD for that matter?

Further, the concept of the Trinity revolves around numbers (one and three), but the thing to remember is that God created numbers and he is not limited by the numbers he made. For example, if someone were to look at the Mona Lisa painting and try to draw conclusions about its creator, Michelangelo, that person might draw some reasonable inferences, but he would be stretching waaaay too far if he concluded that Michelangelo was flat, or that he always wore an enigmatic smile. God is no more limited by his creation than Michelangelo was limited by the attributes of the Mona Lisa.

So because God is so far beyond our understanding and beyond all the laws that govern our universe, the only way to know much about him is to take him at his word, so if you accept that the Bible is God's word to people, that means believing what the Bible says about his nature even if it is as mysterious to you as the curvature of 3D space is to me.

To wrap this up, I'd like to imagine someone asking me how God can be one essence and yet be three distinct persons. I think I would respond with some questions of my own:

Do you believe God is just?

Yes.

Do you believe God is loving?

Yes.

Do you believe God is creative?

Of course!

Alright. Are justice, love and creativity just different names for the same thing?

Well... no. They may be related, but I wouldn't say they are the same.

Okay. What percentage of God is just?

Well, all of him, of course! One hundred percent.

How about loving and creative? What percentage of God is loving and what percentage of God is creative?

All of God is loving and all of God is creative!

Okay, but how can justice, love and creativity (since they are not just different names for the same thing) each make up 100 percent of God? That comes to 300 percent, not 100 percent.

Uhh, I think you're just being silly.

Perhaps I am, but you can see that your view is not really much different from the Christian view of the Trinity. One essence; three attributes, each of which is God in His entirety.


Okay, I don't pretend that this imagined conversation explains the Trinity, but I do think it shows that the philosophical difficulty presented by the Trinity is not a problem unique to Christians. My point with this whole article is simply to say that God is so far beyond what we are capable of imagining that it makes the best sense - if we are Christians and accept the Bible as authoritative - to simply look at the evidence in the Bible and ask ourselves what it teaches about God, and then take God at his word.

Deathbed Conversions

I was reminded today of an email conversation I had years ago with my boss at a little company I used to work with.

How he came to think of this, I don't know, but he wrote me an email (copying another executive, so maybe it was a lunchtime discussion I was supposed to resolve), but anyway, he wanted to know if you can go to heaven by repenting a minute before you die after living badly during the rest of your life.

Well... yes, I replied, but...

I think that every time you shut your ears to God and turn away when he calls, you harden your heart a little bit. Day after day and year after year of ignoring God can build up a callous heart so that at that moment just before you die you may have no desire whatsoever to repent.

I suggested he not wait for that point. Though I haven't seen him in a long time, I'm still hoping he doesn't wait that long. And if you're reading this and haven't asked God to forgive you, I also hope you don't wait that long.

How to become a Christian

Seeker Churches: Out the Back Door

I was chatting recently with a woman who is the accountant at a "seeker friendly" church. (If you are not familiar with that term "seeker friendly," it means the services primarily address people who are not yet Christians, so the messages are often very basic and evangelistic in nature.)

She said since the church adopted that format some years ago the growth has been astonishing. Many people have made committments to Jesus and the church has grown so much that it now needs larger facilities.

Wonderful! But on the other hand, she said, older members are leaving. She said people hang around for about five years and then go to the church up the street (well, a lot of them do). That church, she said, is more "discipleship" oriented, helping people who are already Christians to grow in their walk with God.

In discussing this we agreed that people just don't want to be stuck in first grade for the rest of their lives.

Anyway, in addition to kind of hurting the pastor's feelings, the people who are leaving her church are the ones who do most of the giving. She said it takes a few years for people to get into the habit of giving, and then when they do, they trot off to the church up the street.

I joked that maybe her church and the church up the street should enter into a partnership.

However, as I've been considering this since our chat, I'm not sure it is a big problem. Maybe churches should specialize, and maybe seeker churches should just consider that their ministry is reaching non-Christians and accomodate themselves to people leaving after a while. Or maybe seeker and discipleship churches really should form partnerships. At minimum, it seems to me that seeker friendly churches need to realize that if they want to hold on to people, they need to provide some paths for them to really deepen their walks with God.

Is Belief Intolerant?

I just had an annoying conversation with a high school student who said that "Christians are worse than everybody else."

They are? Christians are worse than everybody else?

In our discussion, it turned out she didn't mean they did bad things (though I was willing to concede that they may), but rather that they hold their beliefs to be true and other people's beliefs to be false, which, of course, made them intolerant.

Sigh. This is so discouraging.

Anybody who holds any belief about anything can be painted with the same brush. By believing something about a topic, you are automatically saying that different beliefs about the same topic are wrong - maybe not entirely wrong - but wrong in some respect. And if you believe someone is wrong, then according the current tortured definition of "tolerance," you are intolerant.

To take a simple example, if you believe 2 plus 2 equals 4, the corollary is that you do not believe they add up to 7 (you intolerant slime ball!). And if you believe 2 plus 2 equals 13, then you also believe the corollary, which is that those who hold that 2 plus 2 equals 4 are wrong. (You're still intolerant.)

Nor does it make the slightest difference how tactfully you express your belief; you are still saying - if only by implication - that someone else is wrong.

Some may say that they believe all beliefs are equally valid and worthy of respect. On the surface that sounds very broadminded, but in fact, it is precisely the same as any other belief. By saying all beliefs are equally valid and worthy of respect, you are saying that those people are wrong who believe only some beliefs are valid and only some beliefs are worthy of respect. (You're as intolerant as the rest of us.)

So, basically, this student's argument is that Christians are intolerant because they believe in Christianity. And logically, it also means that geographers are intolerant if they believe Pensacola is in Florida, and zoologists are intolerant if they believe snakes are reptiles, and - need I say this? - it means this student is intolerant because she believes Christians are intolerant. In short, it means everyone is intolerant any time they hold anything to be true, which is so dumb it's hard to imagine I'm wasting my time writing about it.

Founding Anaheim

I recently read a book called "Men to Match My Mountains," by Irving Stone, about the history of the Western United States. Fairly good, but one thing that struck me as particularly interesting was the description of how the city of Anaheim, in Southern California, was founded.

The idea for the city, the book says, occured in 1857 to a group of Germans living in San Francisco who found the weather there a bit moist for their liking. (Obviously they were not looking for weather that reminded them of home.) So, 50 families each chipped in $750 to buy 1,165 acres in Southern California. They didn't all immediately move south, however. Instead, while they continued to live in the San Francisco area, they hired people in Southern California to divide up the land into 20-acre lots, build an irrigation canal, lay out a 40-acre town site in the middle, and fence in the community with willow trees. Then, when the vines began to bear fruit, the whole colony moved south to their new home.

But, because the properties were not identical in value, a committee assigned a value to each one, then the families drew lots for the properties. If they got a good lot, they paid the colony company extra money; if they got a poor lot, the company reimbursed them.

Clever... and fair.

I know that founding cities still happens occasionally (developers sometimes create cities near existing population centers, for example), but the idea of getting a group of likeminded people together to invest in a town and then carrying it out so methodically is pretty cool. Also, I thought the system the Germans adopted was very wise; they stayed up north - presumably working at their regular jobs - while they created jobs for themselves down south, then, when things were up and running, they just moved in and started working. Worth thinking about if you're planning to start a city. ;-)

Attending Church with a Rabbit

Last Sunday at 11 a.m. I went to a new church. It was in a large building with stained glass windows, there was a good sermon and great music, a few people wandered around, there was some whispering and giggling, people lifted their hands in worship or knelt in prayer. All pretty normal for a contemporary-style church.

However... in the congregation was a large pink rabbit, a fairie, a woman with large butterfly wings and a man who kept jumping 15 or 20 feet into the air.

What is this weird place and how did I get here?

Well, I had read about a cyberworld called Second Life, a beautifully designed online place that in an approximate way resembles reality. In this world people can construct buildings, wander around, fly (without an airplane), meet people and party - especially party. And, in wandering around, I discovered that probably a lot of the partying is way beyond my level of comfort.

Anyway, I wondered if there was a Christian presence in this "world." I poked around a bit and found that, indeed, there is, so last Sunday I rushed home from my own church and attended the ALM CyberChurch. It was really great! I was welcomed at the door; the sermon was excellent; there was a fellowship time in an adjoining room after church, and I felt I had been in God's presence.

I shared this experience with my real-world fellowship, and after discussing it I think we all concluded that - with some reservations - cyberchurch is a useful tool, but some folks were a bit afraid that it might draw people in so much that they don't attend a real-world church. And one man felt because you wear a cyberbody that people would find it harder to get to know the real you.

Here are my thoughts on these objections:

- I think that probably every advance in communications has raised the possibility that people will withdraw from face-to-face contact and rely on a communications tool for their spiritual life. I'll bet that in Gutenberg's day some people were afraid that printing and distributing the Bible would cause people to withdraw and take their spiritual nourishment from solitary reading. The same might be said of radio or television ministries. And, frankly, I think those people have a point. It is possible some people will prefer a cyberchurch to a real-world church.

I'd generally prefer people don't abandon real-world churches since a cyberchurch is only an approximation of real people getting together in real bodies to worship God - though in some cases I think a cyber-church would be better than attending a dead real-world church.

- On the question of people hiding behind masks in the cyberworld, I think that may be true, but I think it probably works both ways. While your real face and manerisms can reveal much of your inner self to a discerning observer, I wonder if people in the cyberworld, who can choose their own bodies, aren't in a way choosing a body they believe expresses their deeper self. Also, I'd ask if the anonymity of the cyber-world doesn't make people feel a bit safer to reveal their inner selves since nobody need know who they are in the real world.

I don't think a cyber-church is for everybody. In fact, I think my visits will probably be just occasional, but I can think of some examples where they'd be a huge blessing:

1. For people who are physically isolated.

2. For those with health problems who are unable to leave their homes.

3. As an outreach to various groups of people. You could have a traditional church, a contemporary one, a punk one, a goth one, churches for various ethnicities. Whatever. I think you will find the cost of building facilities in the cyber-world compares favorably with the cost of building in the real world.

4. As a meeting place for Christians in closed countries for whom it is dangerous - or too distant - to get together in person.

5. For a mid-week fellowship group.

6. As a place for fellowships begun in the real world to continue when people move away. For example, a college Christian group could maintain itself when everybody graduates.

For a good introduction to the concept of cyber churches, see the Living Sounds Web page by the pastor of the ALM CyberChurch. If you'd like to visit the church, you need to sign up for Second Life (a basic account is free) and download the special Second Life browser. When you've done that, you can go directly to the church by clicking here: secondlife://Vine/173/75 .

Meaningless, Meaningless!

What a peculiar document is the biblical book of Ecclesiastes!

"'Meaningless, meaningless,' says the Teacher. 'Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.'" The Teacher starts with that happy thought and winds up with it, yet sprinkled throughout the book are hints of something that is not at all meaningless.

One commentator suggested the author is taking on the persona (perhaps from his own experience) of the worldly person. I think the author is addressing the person who perhaps believes in God in a casual sort of way, but who is really just a materialist. For his discussion the Teacher adopts this worldly viewpoint and drives it unrelentingly to its logical and hopeless conclusion, but all the time dropping hints of something different and better.

Everything, he says, is going to crumble, and you yourself will die. And he proceeds along those lines in kind of a stream-of-consiousness fashion, poisonously juxtaposing comments about enjoying yourself with comments about your ultimately meaningless end. Or, in another case, saying a stillborn is better off than the living because the child has never experienced the pain of life on earth, while in another section saying that a live dog is better off than a dead lion. So, is it better to be dead or alive? The materialist could follow either line of logic, and the Teacher explores them both: Life's meaningless so I might as well just die, or, Life's all I've got so I should enjoy it while I can.

Mr. Cheerful he is not.

But then he goes and drops these little clues all over the place about the spiritual.

Without God, he says, "who can eat or find enjoyment." God has "set eternity in the hearts of men;" "everything God does will endure forever;" what God has done is "so that men will revere him;" "God will bring to judgement;" when man dies "he takes nothing from his labor that he can carry in his hand;" "I know it will go better with God-fearing men;" "Remember your Creator in the days of your youth;" on death "the spirit returns to God who gave it." Plus, there are lots of proverbs instructing people in how to live and, of course, there is the conclusion that men should keep God's commands and that God "will bring every deed into judgement."

His everyday proverbs on how to live and about doing good make no sense if the ultimate spiritual end is destruction. In that case, why do good unless it is convenient? His comment that God will judge makes no sense if that judgement is limited to this life. Listen to him: "Although a wicked man commits a hundred crimes and still lives a long time, I know that it will go better with God-fearing men." I mean, he's just admitted that sometimes the wicked live a long time, and if, after that, everything is over, judgement makes no sense at all. And why should men revere or remember God if spiritually - not just physically - the good and bad are both going to just be dead? Why would God put eternity in the hearts of men if there was nothing besides death? Just to mock us? And listen to this big hint - Hint? More like a flat-out statement - that the Teacher drops when he says that on death "the spirit returns to God who gave it." Wow! That's what lives on! The spirit.

But even on the spiritual level, the emphasis is on God, not on what we can do. What God does "will endure forever" while nothing we do for ourselves will last for long. It makes me think of the gospel, that Jesus did it all for us. It's not our work. It's his. We just need to trust in him so that when our spirits return to God, as Ecclesiastes says, we will stand in our spiritual selves before God with our sins cleansed and ready to experience the joy of that eternity that God has placed in our hearts.

The Philosophy of Elves and Dragons

I've been reading Christopher Paolini's Eldest, the second massive volume in his fantasy dragons-and-wizards trilogy begun with Eragon.

Reading their thoughts, I've come to the conclusion that despite their reputation for wisdom, you shouldn't put much stock in the philosophy of elves and dragons.

For example, on page 542 (hardback), Eragon is talking with the elf Oromis about elvish beliefs and the elf says, "I can tell you that in the millennia we elves have studied nature, we have never witnessed an instance where the rules that govern the world have been broken. That is, we have never seen a miracle. Many events have defied our ability to explain, but we are convinced that we failed because we are still woefully ignorant about the universe and not because a diety altered the workings of nature."

So, Oromis says the elves have witnessed events that "have defied our ability to explain," but nevertheless he is quite certain that those events are not miracles. And why couldn't those unexplained events be miracles?

Well, Oromis explains, the elves believe these events can't be miracles because the elves are still very ignorant of how the universe works. Hmmm... So elves don't believe a diety might work miracles because they're ignorant. Sorry, Oromis, the logic escapes me.

Then, to make it sillier, on the next page Oromis critisizes dwarfs for sometimes relying upon faith rather than reason. Methinks, Oromis, that if you want an example of faith, you should look in a mirror.

Oromis follows up by saying that if the gods exist, "have they been good custodians?" He then cites death, sickness, poverty, tyranny and other miseries.

But perhaps Oromis should consider the possibility that the inhabitants of the land may be at fault, and if the diety were to shackle the hands and feet and minds of people (and elves and dwarfs) to prevent them from committing evil, wouldn't Oromis complain that the diety is a tyrant, and that he enslaves his subjects? I think you might, Oromis.

Finally, Oromis says this athiestic view makes for "a better world" because "we are responsible for our own actions."

Oh, Oromis! The existance of God does not in the slightest take away our responsibility for our actions. If I steal from my employer does that mean I'm not responsible because my employer exists? Please don't talk nonsense, Oromis.

And then there's Eragon's dragon Saphira.

Eragon asks about her beliefs and Saphira replies, "Dragons have never believed in higher powers. Why should we when deer and other prey consider us to be a higher power?"

Uhh... I don't think Saphira had her coffee before replying. Let's just flip it around:

"Dragons have always believed in higher powers. Why shouldn't we when deer and other prey consider us to be a higher power?"

In other words, if Saphira is a higher power to the deer, why can't there be a higher power to Saphira?

Well, actually there is, and because writing the next 600-page book will no doubt take a while, author Christopher Paolini has plenty of time to get his subjects thinking straight. After all, he is a higher power to both Oromis and Saphira.

Amish Entrepreneurs

I recently finished a book about how the Amish are leaving the farm because of the high cost of farmlan, and are starting businesses, and how, despite having less than a high school education, with little experience in business, with very little familiarity with technology and, of course, with limits on how they can use technology, they are doing better at it than a lot of non-Amish.

I was particularly struck by this statistic, at the start of chapter 12 of Amish Enterprise, by Donald Kraybill and Steven Nolt:

The story of Amish enterprise is largely a story of success, with only scattered tarnishes of failure. The default rate among small business in general is rather sobering, however. Nearly one-quarter of new American firms fold within two years, and some 63 percent close their doors within six years. During the 1980s, the rate of business failure nearly matched that of the Great Depression. The Amish launched more than 40 percent of their business ventures in the 1980s, but surprisingly, fewer than 5 percent of the Amish operations failed.

Wow! How do they do it?

Well, the authors don't lump all the reasons for their success in one place, so I'll miss some, but here are the reasons I remember:

- They start small, often in their homes or in outbuildings near their home.

- They start (and stay) simple, which keeps their costs down. Their culture frowns on luxuries and showing off, either for them personally or in their businesses. So their overhead is low. They're not big on splashy advertising, either, so they - to some extent - avoid one of the big costs of business - marketing. (I guess when you avoid self-promotion, you really have to rely on word of mouth.)

- They don't mind hard work (they're coming from a farming background, remember) and are willing to work long hours. What's interesting is that they don't regard work and family as separate and competing. They try (not always successfully) to make it a family activity. Mom and Dad run the business and the kids sweep up or do other chores.

- They are scrupulously honest. People like doing business with people they trust. Duh!

- They focus on high quality.

- They live simply, which means "cheaply," so they can charge less and still make a profit, and since they're not spending the money on indulgences, much of the money they make goes back into building their businesses.

- They help each other. If a business is having trouble, other Amish business people help out.

There are other things, like - well - just being Amish, which attracts customers because of its novelty, but the other things I can think of aren't transferable. If you pick up the book, by the way, it's a sociological study, not really a business book

This also reminds me of a most excellent business book, called Good to Great (Jim Collins), which I read a while ago. The one thing I remember without reviewing is what the author regards as the main reason why some companies that are just chugging along in their industry suddenly (apparently suddenly) break out of the pack and become excellent and remain so for at least 15 years. It's not what you think. It's not a great plan; it's not a brilliant CEO; it's not clever financing or deal making; it's not a revolutionary product, it's not "getting control of the purse strings" - it's a humble but determined CEO. He (or she) is determined to make the company successful, but figures he doesn't have the skills to do it himself, so he humbly hires the best possible people.

Rockefeller's Philanthropy

A while ago I finished Titan, about the curious life of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil. Author Ron Chernow paints a picture of a contradictory and confusing but fascinating man, on the one side a hard-edged businessman who would cross over into illegal and immoral practices in his quest to succeed, but on the other side, a man who was actually quite generous and fair in his business practices and - far more interesting - a man who did amazing things with his money.

To say all I can on Rockefeller's positive side, he thought he was doing good - all the time. He thought cooperation in the oil industry was better than competition, so he tried to create a monopoly (he never quite succeeded). He actually overpaid for oil refineries and people sometimes started refineries just so Standard Oil would buy them - at inflated prices. Rockefeller was scrupulous in paying his debts, he never took on the trappings of nobility, as did some of his rich contemporaries, he always attended a simple Baptist church rather than moving up to some socially more acceptable church, and he tried to provide fuel to the world at cheap prices. And, as I mentioned, he gave generously, and when he did he seldom put his name on things ("Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing"), as did Andrew Carnegie.

On the negative side, if companies refused to deal with him he tried to drive them out of business, and in doing that he bribed public officials, tried (and failed) to block a competitor's pipeline by buying up land in its path, manipulated railroad prices, tactically undersold competitors to drive them out of business, and so forth. When the federal government wanted to regulate the new post-Civil War interstate commerce, Rockefeller had provided them with a handy list of what to legislate against.

How Rockefeller internally reconciled some of his practices to his Christian faith, I have no idea. Chernow certainly doesn't seem to have figured that out either.

Anyway, his philanthropies were amazing! There his Christianity shone.

Hookworm, once a debilitating problem in the Southern US states, is no longer a big problem. Why? Because Dr. Charles Stiles discovered it could be cured with some cheap medicine, and though his discovery was met with ridicule, Rockefeller believed, and basically paid to erradicate the problem. Rockefeller also started a public-private partnership to build thousands of schools across the South. He founded the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the first medical research lab in the country, whose discoveries have saved thousands if not tens of thousands of lives. He was also the money behind the founding of the University of Chicago. Lots of other stuff, too.

What strikes me about his giving was that it was thoughtful and focused and for the most part the results of his giving could be fairly precisely measured.

It occurs to me that there are problems - such as the ones Rockefeller focused on - that can pretty much be solved once and for all, but there are other kinds of problems ("the poor you will have with you always") that are less amenable to a one-time solution. Necessary as it may be to give to charities addressing the less solvable problems, I suspect that the better an organization can define a problem and measure success in combating it, the easier it will be to persuade people to contribute.

Freddy the Pig

I enjoy reading to my son a bit every night. He especially likes talking-animal books, so we started off with C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles (awesome!), then we read several of Brian Jacques' Redwall series (quite good). We tackled Robin Hood, King Arthur, Treasure Island, Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, Jeanne Duprau's City of Ember (excellent!) and The People of Sparks (very good), Eragon, Booth Tarkington's Penrod and Penrod and Sam (old and excellent but with some racist - though not intentionally malicious - overtones), Despereaux (okay), Time Stops for No Mouse (good) and The Sands of Time (good), by Michael Hoeye, Ken Oppel's Silverwing (okay), Sunwing (okay), and Firewing (weird), A Cricket in Times Square, and we just finished Lloyd Alexander's series, The Book of Three (first book, fair, others, excellent). But now, what to read? What to read?

Well, for some reason I thought of a series I loved as a child, Walter Brooks Freddy the Pig books. I thought these 26-or-so books were long out of print, but - as I discovered in perusing Amazon - they have been brought back. Happy day! All's right with the world! We picked up Freddy the Cowboy at the library and are reading and enjoying it. I'd have preferred to start with Freddy the Detective, but you start where you can.

Here's a silly snippet. Freddy the pig is asking Quik (a mouse) if Howard (another mouse) can come for a visit:

"I suppose it'll be all right," he [Quik] said. "If he doesn't eat us out of house and home. I never knew a field mouse yet who didn't eat like a pi- I mean, like a pinguin," he said hurriedly.

"What's a pinguin?" Jinx [the cat] asked, and Howard said: "I think he means a penguin. They're very greedy creatures, though seldom seen in this neighborhood."

Quik grinned at him gratefully, but Freddy said: "Penguin nothing! He started to say 'pig' and then couldn't change it to anything that made sense."

My son likes it and so do I, so I think we have reading material to keep us busy for a long time.

Anyway, help revive the Freddy books! There's probably one or two of them left in your public library. Try one, and if your kids (or you) like it, the whole set is available on Amazon.

Gouge Out Your Eye

And if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, than that your whole body should be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, than that your whole body should be cast into hell. - Matthew 5:29-30

When Jesus said, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out" he was - I've heard - speaking metaphorically. Well... maybe. But maybe not. Perhaps instead he was giving a literal reply to a bad excuse he'd heard once too often.

I think Jesus was responding to the whine - probably as prevalent then as it is now - that goes like this: "Well, I just can't help it, I've got a wandering eye." Or, in the case of the hand, "I can't help it. I just have sticky fingers."

Okay, Jesus says, sighing a bit, I imagine, if it is really your eye that is dragging you into sin, then you really better gouge it out.

I can hear the whiner responding, "Uhhh, well, um, okay. I didn't literally mean my eye causes me to sin. My eye only does what I tell it to do."

Precisely!

And this, I think, is just what Jesus is trying to communicate. Don't blame your hand or eye. The sin comes from your heart, and you know it, and that is what needs to change.