Road Trips and Breaking Habits

I went on a road trip recently and I noticed that my habits were disrupted. Though I'm usually quite diligent in spending time reading my Bible and praying each day, I found that I was not doing that consistently while on the road.

I suspect that my habits were formed in one environment and when I moved into a new environment the cues I used to perform those habits were missing and I tended to get slack.

This suggests to me that ...

a) my good habits need to have stronger internal cues, rather than just external ones, and

b) just as my good habits were easier to break in a new environment, perhaps bad habits might also be easier to break in a new environment. Need to quit smoking or something? Maybe combine the effort with a change of routine, or a trip. Might help.

Hmmm. But then, of course, you'll probably need to come home at some point and it will be easy to slip into the old habits, unless - of course - you are moving permanently. But even if you return home, at least you get a headstart!

Jesus Curses the Fig Tree - A Contemplation

This is a "contemplation" on Mark 11 and Matthew 21, the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree on the road between Bethany and Jerusalem. I have tried to remain true to the text, but have tried to picture what it might have been like. I follow the chronology of Mark, as I outline here.

John and I were walking and talking with the other ten, behind Jesus. We didn't want to bother him as it seemed he had much on his mind. We were going back to Jerusalem from Bethany, where we had spent the night.

We spoke of how Jesus had been received the previous morning. The palm branches, the "Hosannas." It had been so wonderful! Jesus was going to be king! But we also remembered Jesus talking about suffering and dying in Jerusalem. But that seemed so unlikely now. Didn't the crowd's happy welcome prove that? Maybe He would die after a long reign? But how could that be? Wasn't the Messiah to remain forever?

With the rising sun still low in the eastern sky, the dust puffing at our footsteps was still cool on our feet, and we shared our deep thoughts as we looked down at our feet, which were quickly gathering dust.

But then, from the corner of my eye, I saw Jesus step through the grass and brush on the edge of the road and walk toward a tree a short distance away.

I glanced over. I could see it was a fig tree. I recognized the big, bright green leaves.

"Does anyone want a fig?" I asked.

"No," Thomas said. "There might be a few figs, but it is not really the season yet. Probably just early-figs now, and I don't really like them."

We walked on past, still engrossed in our talk, as Jesus pushed leaves aside and searched for something to eat.

Then I heard him say, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" and the crunching sound of His feet on the drying grass as He came back to the road behind us.

I guessed that he hadn't found anything, figs or early-figs, and if there were no early-figs, then later there would be no figs at all. Pretty worthless tree.

He soon caught up with us and led us in to Jerusalem, to the Temple, which was full of men buying and selling in the courtyard. Jesus chased them out and spent the day arguing with the chief priests and teachers.

We left Jerusalem that evening after dusk, very tired; the stars were out as we passed the fig tree on our way to Bethany and I did't give it a glance or a thought.

But in the morning as we returned to Jerusalem, Peter cried out, "Rabbi, behold! The fig tree which you cursed has withered."

I hadn't even noticed, but now we looked. The tree was so different that I didn't think it was the same tree, but as I looked to the left and right I realized it was where the living tree had been yesterday, and there was no other fig tree around. There, by the side of the road in the bright morning sun, was the fig tree, dead, its branches and broad leaves a crackly brown. It had to be the same one.

I walked over, took a leaf in my hand and pressed it. It crumbled. I snapped a branch. It was dusty dry.

Jesus watched from the road as we gathered around the tree, then, as we we walked back, He held up his hand. We stopped and looked at Him.

“Have faith in God," he said. "Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it shall be granted him."

We stared at Jesus for a moment, taken aback, for who except Jesus has faith like that?

Not I. At least... not very often, though as I think about it there have been times when I have had such faith - not by trying hard to have it, but when the spirit of God has been upon me and I knew without effort and without a doubt - and then I did indeed receive what I requested.

Jesus Curses the Fig Tree

In studying to write the "contemplation" about Jesus cursing the fig tree, I studied the two accounts of the incident, recorded in Mark 11 and Matthew 21. From that study I believe that Matthew's is a more condensed version. I show how I believe these two accounts fit together in the table above. (You may need to click the table to make it large enough to read.)

The Clattering Train

I found this poem quoted in Winston Churchill's book, The Gathering Storm, and it keeps coming to mind. Even though Churchill was talking about the rise of Nazi Germany, the poem seems frighteningly contemporary - as if it is speaking to the world today, though may God forbid.

Who is in charge of the clattering train?

The axles creak and the couplings strain,

and the pace is hot and the points are near,

and sleep hath deadened the driver's ear,

and the signals flash through the night in vain,

for death is in charge of the clattering train

There is even an excellent video of actor Albert Finney portraying Churchill reciting the poem.

The poem is abbreviated from a longer poem called "Death and his Brother Sleep," which, according to one source I found, is by Edwin J Milliken in Punch Magazine.

Culture Change and Social Justice in Christian Ministry

I am frankly quite concerned about the new focus on "culture change" as a priority in Christian ministry, and it might allay my fears if its advocates could answer these questions:

1. I read a long article by culture-change advocates and was left with this question: What do you want culture to be like? "Change," in and of itself, can be good or bad, so please spell out what you mean. Tell me as exactly as you can HOW you believe culture needs to change. How can I know if I should agree with you if you don't say where you are going?

2. By your emphasis on long-term - sometimes "many-generation" - change, are you assuming that human institutions are perfectable? Really, I don't know; I'm just asking.

3. Related to the previous question. Are you quietly slipping amillenialism into your philosophy? Again, just asking.

4. I am of the view that C.S. Lewis advocated, that individuals are eternal and societies are temporary, so human beings are priceless. Do you see the salvation of individuals as more, less, or equally important to the reform of cultures?

5. I am a bit concerned about your advocacy of "community." By "community," are you including the government? If so, are you suggesting the government should have some additional authority? If so, what?

6. Related to the previous point, the term "social justice" has been used in the past by socialist and communist groups to advocate for governmental redistribution of wealth and an overiding of the market. Are you using the term in the same sense?

7. Regarding Christian missions, in the past Western missionaries have been accused of imposing an I-know-what's-best-for-you cultural view on non-Western cultures. More recently mission leaders have attempted to maintain as culturally-neutral a stance as can be accomodated within the teachings of Scripture. In advocating "culture change" in Christian missions, are you suggesting a return to something more like the earlier view?

A Defense of the West

Self-flagellation is not dead. It is practiced today in the West, and in the church, with a diligence that would put a medieval flagellist to shame.

The flagellist of medieval times beat himself for sins he had committed. The Western flagellist of today beats himself for sins that someone else has committed.

And unlike the medieval flagellist - who no-doubt believed that others should beat themselves for their sins as well - the modern Western flagellist believes that he alone is guilty, and everyone else is innocent. Or, more correctly, he believes that his culture alone is guilty, and all other cultures are innocent.

Though he does not acknowledge it, the new Western flagellist beats himself because his culture kept records, while others did not. The Western flagellist beats himself because his culture was active while others were not.

Does it never occur to those of you who look into Western and church history and find nothing but fault that maybe we kept better records than most of the rest of the world? And that those records include our failures?

Does it never occur to you that a people or culture that actually does things is a culture that will make mistakes and commit sins? Rocks do not commit sins.

Do you who find a never-ending stream of faults with Western culture and the missionary enterprise find similar evils in any other culture? Or are those somehow sanctified because that is "their culture" or that is "how their faith is worked out?" Why the double-standard?

Do you have no capability of seeing the big picture? For all the sins of the West, for all the sins of the church and its missionary enterprise, do you really, truly, fail to see the amazing and overwhelmingly positive things that have come out of the last few hundred years of Western history and missionary endeavor?

You are insulters of noble, faithful and brave men and women who have gone before you! You tear down, you destroy, you find nothing but fault, and then you - those Christians among you - burst into tears that the church in the West is dying.

Foolish men! Why should anybody want to be part of the ugly faith that YOU have portrayed?

And you still don't understand.

The very criteria you appropriately apply to other cultures - that we should try to understand, that we should try to see the good - you abandon when it comes to your own culture.

Every other culture of the world gets a pass, but for your own culture you demand a perfection that nothing in human history or in your Bibles should lead you to expect.

You seem to think you need to adopt other people's sins because you haven't enough of your own, but let me assure you, flagellants, you have plenty of sins!

You want to flagellate yourselves? Then flagellate yourselves for painting a false and ugly picture of the West and of Christianity. Frederick the Great told his painter to paint him "warts and all." You go further; you just paint warts.

And flagellate yourselves for your double standard, for invariably accusing the West and excusing anybody and everybody else.

I'm sick of it. Go tell some other culture how evil the West is - perhaps you will find a receptive audience there.

Jesus Calms the Storm (Mark 4: 35-40)

This is a "contemplation" on Mark 4:35-40, the story of Jesus calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee. I have tried to remain true to the text, but have tried to picture what it might have been like.

Like the other fishermen on the Sea of Galilee, I hoped that Jesus and some of his disciples would sail with me after he spoke to the crowds on the eastern shore, but I did not really expect he would pick my boat. It is hardly the finest on the lake.

And while I still don't know why, Jesus did pick my boat, and I remember being so pleased and honored.

I shoved the boat away from the shore just as the sun dipped below the horizon. In the afterglow the air was still warm and I could see Jesus was tired. He sat on a cushion in the stern and gave me a smile, but quickly I saw his eyes droop. Then he layed down, with his head on some netting, pulled a sailcloth over himself, and fell asleep. I was not surprised; he had spent the day speaking in the heat of the sun, much of the time while standing in another boat - my cousin Jonathan's.

A gentle breeze came up from the west, and we tacked into the wind. I looked on either side and in the dimming light saw the other boats, some carrying disciples and some, vering away to the northwest, carrying people going home to Capernaeum. We "captains" smiled and waved at each other.

I was so happy.

I stood in the stern just in front of Jesus and behind the disciples, who spoke quietly in the bow. I had one hand on the tiller and another on the line to the boom, pushing on the tiller and keeping the sail taut, the breeze in my face, the cool of the early evening on my cheek and the gentle but powerful tug of the wind swishing my little boat through the water. I felt very responsible!

Jesus' words went through my mind. I wondered about the mustard seed he had mentioned. We had a mustard plant outside my house, and it was very large, though, as Jesus said, it started very small. I guess he meant that big things have very small beginnings. I wondered if what he said was the beginning of something big, or if maybe He was the beginning of something big. Something big and good.

Also, he said we should put our lamp on a lampstand where everybody can see it.

What did that mean?

The wind had begun to blow brisk and cool. The waves slapped against the side of my boat. It was dark now and I looked up, but could not see as many stars as a few minutes before. Clouds. It made me nervous. Then I looked back to see Jesus still sleeping peacefully. I was glad he was resting.

I guessed that when he told us to put our lamps on a lampstand he meant that we should let people see the good, so it inspires and guides them. I remember thinking that I should be a better man or I wouldn't be much of a guide.

The wind grew stronger - the tiller and the sail began fighting me - and I felt drops of rain on my face. It was what I had feared. Squalls come up quickly on the lake. I hoped this would not be a bad one.

But it was, and now we were far from shore.

The rain came down so heavily I could barely keep my eyes open, and waves slapped over the sides of the boat. Water swirled along the bottom, running to the stern and covering my ankles when the boat pitched up at the bow.

The four disciples were fishermen - they knew what was happening - and were already bailing, using a bucket and drinking cups.

I looked back. Jesus was still asleep, completely covered with the sailcloth. Perhaps he couldn't yet feel the water, but surely the pitching would awaken him.

But it didn't.

The wind became violent and John and I reefed the sail. The bare mast swung violently in the storm and the water was becoming deep in the bottom of the boat. It was hopeless to navigate, so I tied down the tiller and began to bail with the others.

We needed every hand, but as I looked back at Jesus, he slept. I couldn't understand how he could sleep in this storm, but I was afraid to awaken him. I glanced at the disciples and could tell they felt the same way. As they bailed they would glance back at Jesus.

The water was at our calves and I was afraid we would sink in minutes.

Then Andrew waded back to the stern. I could see he was angry and I knew what he was doing.

He shook Jesus' shoulder.

"Teacher," he yelled over the storm, "Don't you care if we drown?"

Jesus pulled the sailcloth from his face and blinked as the rain splattered in his face, but he sat up, then, holding the tiller, he stood and raised an arm toward the sky.

"Quiet!" he said, "Be still!"

I thought for a moment that he was rebuking us for disturbing his rest, but then - swiftly and quietly - the wind died down and the waves receeded. In seconds hundreds of raindrops became tens, then just a few, and then none at all. And my boat floated gently on the water.

I stood in astonishment, ignoring the water which swirled about my legs.

Jesus looked at his disciples. "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"

I was glad Jesus didn't look at me; I was so close. And like the disciples, I just stared, even more frightened of Him than I was of the storm.

Jesus lay back on the cushion, pulled the sailcloth over his face and once again fell asleep.

It was silent in the boat.

I looked at Jesus for a moment and then at the sky, rapidly clearing, with the stars shining brightly. And at the sea, now gently lapping against the side of my boat. But as I looked down, the water was still cold around my legs.

Why I was so quiet I don't know, but I picked up a bucket and began bailing, pouring the water gently over the side of the boat. I don't know why I was so careful - if Jesus could sleep through that storm he could sleep through my bailing - but still, I felt I must be quiet.

I think the disciples felt the same way, because from the stern I could hear a whispered conversation. Just bits and pieces came to me, but I remember so clearly them saying: "Who is this? Even the water and the waves obey him!"

Atlas Shrugged: A Christian Perspective

For some reason I've been gravitating toward books on world disaster lately - maybe the state of the world is weighing on my mind or something. I have read Winston Churchill's The Gathering Storm, and Barbara Tuchman's The Proud Tower, and, most recently, Ayn Rand's classic, Atlas Shrugged, which describes the destruction of the United States purely through internal stupidity.

I came away from Rand's book with mixed thoughts. Since I'm a Christian, let me outline my thoughts below, grouped under "Things that are compatible with Christianity," and "Things that are incompatible with Christianity."

Things that are compatible with Christianity

~ Rand condemns the notion that "nothing is truly knowable." Amen to that! This is one of the scourges of modern society. That Jesus really lived, and really died for our sins, and really rose again are critical truths of Christianity, not mush. Though I'm sure she was an atheist, I applaud Rand for sticking up for truth.

~ She defends business-people making profits. One memorable passage is of a party in which academics of the "nothing is knowable" variety are at an industrialist's house stuffing their faces with hors d'ouvres that his work provided while all the time snearing at him and his "dirty" profits. Good for her!

- She applauds "greed," which I would strongly disagree with if I thought she really meant it, but I don't. Her heroine, Dagny, for instance, turns in horror from the offer of a free factory. If she was greedy, she would have grabbed it. What Rand means is that people who build things should be free to own them and enjoy them and make as much money from them as they want without the government sticking its nose in. I don't think the government should have nothing to do with the economy, but I mostly agree with her on that.

- When one character, Francisco d'Anconia, began railing against the Bible verse about the love of money being the root of all evil, I thought I disagreed. But as I read I realized that d'Anconia meant that he loved money as a tool of exchange, which is fine with me and not at all what the Bible objects to.

Things that are incompatible with Christianity

- Adultery. Rand seems to think that an adulterous relationship she describes is okay because the relationship was between equals, not a relationship between a noble man and a streetwalker. Christianity does not see this as a relevant difference.

- It seems every interaction in the book is based on trade. This works great in business interactions, but stumbles in personal relationships. In one case a man tells his lover that he bought her an expensive gem for purely selfish reasons - he wanted to see her with it on solely to please himself. Riiiight. I don't think turning daily courtesies and personal interactions into business exchanges is in the spirit of Christianity.

- In John Galt's long speech, Rand has him condemn the Christian idea of the nobility of "sacrifice." Galt seems to mean that if I need "A" (or think I need A), that doesn't give me a moral claim to require someone else to sacrifice by giving it to me. And A, by the way, may mean that person's possessions, time or effort.

Okay, I see a few interesting things here.

First, Rand is taking an overly narrow view of the Christian belief in sacrifice.

Yes, we are commanded to give - Christ is our ultimate example of self-sacrifice - but the Christian idea behind giving is to HELP, not to encourage dependency.

For instance, when I was in the Army, a guy in the barracks - "Rambo," I'll call him - was talking about another guy, "Bill," who had gone to the hospital from a drug overdose and was threatening to overdose again. Bill wanted out of the Army.

Rambo was furious that Bill might kill himself and as he headed out the door, going to Bill's room, he said, "I'm going to smack him upside the head!"

"Hit him one for me, too," I said.

The guys were surprised because that didn't sound like a very Christian thing to say, but it seemed to me then (and now) that a smack upside the head was the most loving and helpful thing to do for Bill.

Second, as I was reading Galt's speech I began to think of Paul's admonition that if a man won't work, he won't eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10).

I think the key here is the word "won't." In Atlas Shrugged, Rand portrays those who are perfectly capable of working, but won't - and these are exactly the people Paul is saying can just go hungry.

Even so, I think Christians need to give even to those people who won't work, but I think the very best thing we can give them is this message: Get up off your lazy butts and get to work!

For those who can't work, the "widows and orphans," as the Bible would describe them, those are the ones we Christians need to help with gifts of money or food or training, or whatever.

Having said that, I think Rand is right that giving is probably best left out of the government's hands. There is nothing noble about giving when the government forces you to give, and the opportunities for governmental corruption are innumerable, and even with the best of motives the way the government spends the money you "gave" often makes matters worse, as she describes so well. Simply put, I don't think people are so incompetent that they need the government's assistance to help the poor.

- Through Galt, Rand also objects to the Christian doctrine of original sin. She doesn't like it. Well, I don't either, but it's there. Reality has sharp edges. If you are interested, I have written more about it here.

- She condemns anything "spiritual," or "mystical," but spiritual and mystical mean something beyond the mere material, something you can't really touch or see or taste or sense on measuring tools. But this made her praise of logic and reason (with which I agree) rather confusing because logic and reason are just as intangible as the spiritual and mystical that she condemns.

- Rand seems to think Christianity (and every other religion) has been a hinderance to industrial development. I call "hooey" on this one, at least in regard to Christianity. Modern banking arose in the monasteries of the Middle Ages (The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark); the term, "The Protestant Work Ethic," certainly gives no credance to the idea that Christianity breeds moochers; and there have even been whiney books written, such as one I tried to read, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, lamenting Christianity's role in founding capitalism. Even in Atlas Shrugged, when Rand has a character insult a hero, she slips and has the woman call him a "Puritan."

In conclusion, setting aside the gratuitous atheism and contempt for altruism, Atlas Shrugged is a very interesting but lengthy book with timely and valuable things to say about economics, governmental corruption, and freedom.

Escape to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-14)

This is a "contemplation" on Matthew 2:13-14, the story of the nighttime escape of Joseph, Mary and Jesus to Egypt. I have tried to remain true to the text, but have tried to picture what it might have been like.

He woke suddenly and alert.

The lamp was still burning and Mary was sitting in the corner sewing by its flickering light and humming quietly, the child beside her.

It hadn't been a bad dream. He'd had those before - waking with a gasp and sweat on his forehead - but still, though he felt he should be frightened, he wasn't. Perhaps he was getting used to angels.

No, you don't get used to angels appearing in your dreams.

It was certainly frightening the first time, though, when the angel told him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. Strange that he just knew it was not some bizarre nighttime halucination, but an angel, a real angel. Maybe it was the reality of the experience, the clarity of the dream, that convinced him. It was astonishing, but not weird and disjointed, like so many dreams.

And this dream was the same way. It was as clear as a friend talking to him across his carpenter's bench. No, not a friend, more like the governor! It was frightening, like standing in front of a high official.

And this time the angel didn't give him comforting words, to do as his heart desired - to wed Mary. This time it was an order. Not exactly threatening, but in a tone that could not be mistaken, with an insistence that would not let him wait until morning.

"Get up," the angel said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt."

It wasn't fear he felt, just urgency.

Joseph got up.

"What is it? Mary asked.

"We need to leave. Now."

"Now? But why?"

"I'll explain later. We need to pack and leave right away."

There was clothing, water skins, a bit of food, and, of course, the gifts the Magi had left for Jesus - gold, incense and myrrh. They would be useful for a trip to Egypt.

Mary wrapped Jesus in a blanket, and they slipped quietly out of the house. Joseph left a coin on the table for the landlord. It would more than pay for their rent.

He held the rope and led the donkey, with Mary and Jesus, through the town, the donkey's little feet clicking against the occasional stone.

The angel had warned that Herod meant to kill the child, so Joseph watched for soldiers, his heart beating wildly when he saw two guards talking. But they barely glanced as Joseph led the donkey past them.

At the edge of town he heard what he wanted before he saw it, the braying and chuffing of camels - a caravan, and, as he had hoped, a caravan to Egypt.

The magi's gold was useful. For a few gold coins, a packet of myrrh, and the donkey, Joseph purchased a trip.

He helped Mary and Jesus onto a kneeling camel.

"Joseph, where are we going?" Mary was insistent.

"Egypt," he said, climbing atop his own camel.

"Egypt? But why?"

He did not want to speak aloud. If he was overheard perhaps the caravan leader would turn them in to Herod for a reward, or perhaps he would be afraid of Herod and not want them in his caravan. So he held up his hand to Mary and looked at her, as if to say, "Be patient."

Roped head to tail, Joseph's camel to the back of Mary's, and hers to the camel in front of her, the train headed into the desert as the eastern sky turned pink, and then golden.

The sun rose and the shadows shortened and the camels plodded farther into the desert and Joseph's heart ceased its hammering, and Mary leaned back when she could, to talk, and when he thought nobody was watching he would lean forward and whisper bits of what the angel had said, and sometimes she heard but mostly she couldn't.

But that was all right. When they stopped for the night, then, near a flickering fire in the wilds of Sinai, he would whisper the story to her, and they would plan what to do in Egypt, and wait for the day when the angel would come again and tell them it was safe to return to Israel.

Keeping Church Flexible

At church today it occurred to me that though our church is more than 100 years old, we really don't have big fights about music, and I got to thinking about why.

First, I think the reason people get upset about changes in church music (or how communion is served, or any of a hundred activities that take place on Sunday morning) is that they become used to a particular way of doing things and it bugs their socks off when you change it on them.

I'm not innocent. For example, if I hear a remake of a classic song (Christian or otherwise) in which the artist has made some change, it grates my nerves. Logic can tell me all it wants that it's okay if the artist wants to try something a bit different, but all the time my mind is saying, "That guy is totally messing up that song!"

So how do you prevent grumpy people like me from getting bugged by changes at church?

Well, what my church does - and it seems to be fairly successful - is to make a point of changing things just a little bit almost every Sunday.

We don't sing exactly the same songs all the time. Sometimes there are new songs. We don't always play the organ or piano. Sometimes there is a choir and sometimes there isn't. We don't serve communion the same way every time. Sometimes people come up front; sometimes they are served in their seats; sometimes we take the bread and cup as a group and sometimes we take them when we receive them.

I think this flexibility helps me remember that it isn't the form that should be unchanging, but the Gospel itself.

So I guess if I was in charge of a church that was stuck in a debilitatingly rigid pattern, I might introduce one small change in one area for one Sunday, and tell people that it will be changed back the next week, perhaps saying, "Let's just try it and see how it feels." The next week it would be changed back and I'd introduce a small change in another area, again, just for one Sunday. And so forth.

The point here is not to say, "My way of serving communion is better than your way." After all, is it really a good idea to replace one rigid pattern for another? Rather, the idea is just to limber people up a bit and help them be a bit more receptive to new ways God may have of doing things.

Clarity in Marriage

Once, when a man and woman got married - at least in the United States - they understood their duties fairly well. The man would support his family and the woman would take care of the household. Clear, perhaps, but not very flexible.

Then, a few decades ago, things began to change and those roles stopped being well defined. Now, if, say, the wife hates cooking and the husband loves it, then no problem, he does the cooking and nobody sneers that he is doing "women's work." And if the wife wants to work outside the home, she can do that. Nobody raises an eyebrow.

The big advantage, of course, is that the new system is very flexible, and each task can be performed by the person who enjoys it most, or who dislikes it the least.

But there is a problem with the new system.

Let's say that the wife hates ironing, but decides early in their marriage to do it for a little while as a special treat. "I just want to show how much I love him."

She doesn't see ironing as her duty, as she might have in years gone by, because now there's nothing that says ironing is one of her duties. Now she may feel that she is doing something special.

But the husband thinks, "Oh, she's more traditional than I realized. Well, I'm okay if she does the ironing."

So now she is a bit miffed. She was doing him a favor but he is taking it for granted and handing her the shirt that needs to be ironed for tomorrow's meeting. Pretty nervy!

Or, let's say she is traditionally-minded and expects that when she marries she will be able to quit her job and that her husband will provide for her to stay home and take care of the household. But he was expecting a second income. Ouch!

So, years ago the problem was lack of flexibility; now the problem is expectations. When the roles were well-defined each partner pretty much knew what to do and what the other person was supposed to do. Now not so much.

So, my unasked for advice to couples planning to get married is this: Discuss what tasks each of you will do - making sure to cover them all - then write down who will do what.

I know, I know. You don't need to write it down because you trust your spouse, but trust isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about memory. We forget things - especially things that we find unpleasant - so being able to refresh your minds with a written agreement can be very helpful.

I'd like to end this by saying that this is what my wife and I did before we got married. Well, we didn't. We married when the marriage relationship was still rather traditional. But in retrospect, even though things have been good for us, it might have been a wise idea all the same.

A New Year's Resolution for Mr. Obama

Dear Mr. Obama,

With a strong Republican showing in the last election you are not going to get anything done on the domestic front that the Republicans don't like.

So why not accomplish something internationally, something for which you could probably get bipartisan support.

What? China and Taiwan.

I can't see any reason why the U.S. should have bad relations with rising superpower, China, except for one left-over problem from the Cold War - Taiwan.

Mainland China wants Taiwan back and the U.S. Navy is preventing that. That made lots of sense when China had gone insane after the communist takeover, but China is no longer insane. It is no paragon of law and liberty, but it is not insane either.

So why not - while we still have a lot of influence in the area - persuade The Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People's Republic of China (mainland China) to sit down and start doing some serious negotiations on their future relationship, with the understanding that we don't intend to be stuck between them forever?

American Legion's Bad Advertising

I just got a letter from the veterans' group, The American Legion, and since I served in the U.S. military I was kind of curious, and opened the letter.

Frankly, it disgusted me. Basically, the letter invited me to be a member of yet another gimme-gimme group of which it seems the country is overrun.

The Legion will make sure I get all the benefits from the government that I'm entitled to and it brags that it helped create yet another layer of governmental bureaucracy, the Veterans Affairs Administration, and it reminds me that the Legion is pushing in Washington to "make sure my interests are protected."

The American Legion promises me discounts on various products and services as if it was the Automobile Club. And the letter included four "special gifts," a decal, some address labels, a bumper sticker and "a custom-designed branch-of-service lapel pin with a pewter-finish."

Gag!

Dear Legion: I did not serve my country in the hopes of getting "a custom-designed branch-of-service lapel pin with a pewter-finish." However fine many of your members may be, your cheesy sweepstakes-y advertising is a total turn-off and your emphasis on all the goodies I can get for my membership dues is completely out of context with how I would like to remember my military service.

I want to associate my military service with serving my country, with patriotism, with teamwork, with good friends whom I've kept for years, with adventure, with rigor, and with courage (though I was blessed never to have to exhibit any). But your emphasis is on discounts at Travelodge, Avis and online flower stores.

I don't object to those things, but you have your priorities backwards.

Go away! You're bothering me.

The Embarrassing Last Days

Oddly, I find that I am a bit embarrassed writing this post.

Why I should be so is a bit unclear, but I think it is because I am about to write about a topic that has become something of an embarassment within some branches of the Christian community, including my own.

Let me give an example.

My Bible study group recently finished studying the book of Zephaniah, which is filled with doom-and-gloom about the destruction of ancient Israel, but also of Israel in the last days.

A friend - commenting, I think, on the current situation in the Mideast - suggested that, as in the time of Zephaniah, Israel might go through yet another time of exile.

I replied that I supposed that was possible, but asked why we were refusing to even consider that the last days - mentioned rather prominently by Zephaniah - might be on the horizon instead of another round of exile and restoration?

A woman said (if I remember correctly), "Well, you know why that is! Back when we were growing up there was a lot of talk about the last days happening in the 1980s."

And she hit the nail on the head.

We don't talk about it and pastors don't preach about it because it is embarassing to bring up because people were at least partly wrong about it before.

But that is lousy logic! We should consider the evidence, not whether someone came to the wrong conclusion about it before. If someone does a subtraction problem and comes up with the wrong answer, do we stop doing subtraction problems?

So why am I thinking about this topic?

Well, back in the 1970s (wrong though they were about the dates) I think Christians were right to take note of the rebirth of Israel. The fact that Israel exists again today after almost two millennia of Jews being scattered across the globe is one of the most stunning developments in the last century, and without an Israel none of the end-time prophesies make sense. The occurrance of two world wars shows that worldwide war is not beyond belief. Atomic weapons - and their proliferation - suggest that global destruction cannot by ruled out.

And more recently, I got to thinking again about the last days when a missionary challenged me to give a talk at his mission agency about "Missions in the Last Days," which I did, and you can see here. I asked him if he thought the last days were at hand and he said, "Ummm, maybe within the next 30 years."

Other things that have made me think about this:

Russia, which looked as if it would be a friendly state after the fall of communism - is not, and seems particularly hostile to Israel. The leadership of Iran (I'm not talking about the people, who seem quite reasonable) is extremely hostile to Israel and within reach of obtaining nuclear weapons, which it is apparently ready to use to destroy Israel. Turkey, which has been friendly to Israel, seems to be increasingly hostile to Israel. Anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe and even the leadership of the United States seems lukewarm or even hostile to Israel. Increasingly, Israel seems to be standing alone, in a state of quasi-peace at the moment, perhaps, but increasingly shorn of allies ... except God.

I don't mean to suggest that we get all breathless and stand on a chair and yell out that the end is coming, though maybe a few people doing that would jerk us out of our lethargy, but can't we at least take a sober look at what is happening in the world and at what the Bible describes and give a measured assessment? For the most part, except for a few end-times novelists, it seems we are just shutting our eyes.

For my part, I've decided to study the end-times passages of the Bible, and to read what others have written. (One book I recently read and can recommend is a book called "Epicenter," by Joel Rosenberg. I'm not 100 percent convinced by him, but I am about 95 percent convinced, and it's well researched and not bombastic.)

One final thought. Some will object that we shouldn't focus on this topic; that there is work to be done here and now, things like community development and evangelism.

True! I don't want to "focus" on this. There is work to be done. But I don't think we should ignore it either. If I was to tell you to that a violent storm was coming would that be opposed to what you are doing? Wouldn't you stockpile some food and medical supplies and learn first aid so you could help your neighbors when it happened? And if the huge storm didn't come and just the normal storms came, wouldn't your preparations be all for the best anyway?

Fourth of July Thoughts

Today in church, on the Fourth of July, a woman prayed for our president, that God would guide him. Now that's a pretty ordinary thing to do, but it really struck me this time because it reminded me that I'm doing a lousy job praying for him, and that sometimes I let my disgust at some of his policies prevent me from doing that.

But because I disagree with him doesn't mean he needs prayer any the less. Maybe he needs it more.

So I'm going to be more faithful in praying for Mr. Obama.

Speaking of the Fourth of July, I happened to be reading the "Miss Manners" column today. A reader asked how to deal with friends - visitors to the United States - who frequent his house as dinner guests and spend much of their time insulting the United States.

Pretty rude to come and stuff your mouth with your host's food and in between swallowing spend your time insulting your host's country.

Rude, but, I suspect, fairly common.

For instance, I once worked at a high-tech company and was waiting in a conference room with a few other people for a meeting to start when two Europeans we had hired started complaining about how "materialistic" Americans are.

Unlike Miss Manners, I don't put up with much of this nonsense, so I pointed out that while we Americans who worked for the company had simply taken jobs near our homes, both of them had traveled thousands of miles to take high-paying jobs in America. And they were accusing us of being materialistic?

To their credit, they both saw my point and had a laugh at themselves, and, I might add, both of them eventually became financially successful, and one became very rich.

God bless America! Just like every other country in the world, America has its faults. But despite her faults, I love her dearly.

Book Thoughts: John Wesley's Voters

Note: I decided recently to comment on things I've noted in books over the years. I'm calling these Book Thoughts.

I had breakfast with my friend John the other day, and we talked a bit about Christianity and politics. As we talked, this quotation from The Journal of John Wesley came to mind ...

Wed. July 1. - I spoke severally to all those who had votes in the ensuing election. I found them such as I desired. Not one would even eat or drink at the expense of him for whom he voted. Five guineas had been given to W.C., but he returned them immediately. T.M. positively refused to accept anything. And when he heard that his mother had received money privately, he could not rest till she gave him the three guineas, which he instantly sent back.

Wow! I like those bribe-refusing voters. Christ at work in their lives in a real, practical way. We could learn lessons.

Wally and the Raid

If you like this story, here are the first two Wally stories: The Scandinavian Club, Wally and the Athiest.

"Wally! Trouble!"

Gabe panted as he ran up.

Wally, Tom, Robert and Sarah were eating lunch in the cafeteria. Gabe made five.

"What?" Wally said.

Gabe took a few deep breaths.

"I was walking down the hall behind Steve and Collen coming out of class ... the teacher kinda made me stay a bit late ... but anyway, I heard them say they're going to raid us tomorrow!"

"What do you mean, 'raid us'?" Wally said.

"I mean raid! Get us suspended!" Gabe said. "You know how we ..." He stopped, looked at a nearby table, then lowered his voice. "You know how we pray after lunch on Fridays over near the fence? Well, Steve found out about it and told the rest of the Athiest Club, and they reported it to Ms. Stoneman and Collen said they're going to raid us - the principal and Ms. Stoneman and the school rent-a-cop are going to raid us, I mean, and I think the members of the Athiest Club are going to come along to make fun of us. At least that's what Collen said."

The group was quiet for a moment, then Sarah said, "I guess we should call off our prayer meeting tomorrow."

"Hmmm," said Wally.

"I think the Atheist Club is mad at us for what we did to Dimkins a while ago," Robert said.

"Ha! they've always been mad at us," Sarah said.

"Yeah!" Gabe said. "I think they're mad. I heard Steve say something about getting back at us."

"Shhh! Quieter," said Wally, then asked, "Gabe, did Steve or Collen see you?"

"No, I'm positive. They never looked back at all."

"Okay," Wally said. "Don't bring a pocket Bible or wear a cross or anything else Christian tomorrow, and we won't do any praying then, but maybe we should still have our meeting ..."

Robert's face lit up. "You got an idea, Wally?"

"I think so..." Wally said, looking at the ceiling. "But we're going to have to move fast... Let's see, Don't Steve and Collen always wait for Ryan out front near the flagpole after school?"

"You mean Ryan Gilford, president of the Atheist Club?" Gabe asked.

"Right."

"Yeah," Gabe said. "I see them every day."

"Good, good..." said Wally.

After school the five walked quickly from their classes. Gabe had been on his best behavior and was free to leave class on time. A friend greeted Robert in the hall, but Robert just waved, kept walking, and called out that they'd talk later. The team needed to be in position on time.

Sarah and Tom stationed themselves at the corner of the hallway, chatting, but Sarah watched the front door over Tom's shoulder. Wally hid just around the corner near them.

Meanwhile, Robert and Gabe loitered out front, talking near the flagpole, close to Steve and Collen.

Then Sarah pushed her glasses up against her forehead. It was the signal. Ryan was coming!

Wally saw Sarah's signal and walked around the corner, waved at Sarah, and headed toward the front door.

There in front of him, approaching from the other side, was Ryan.

They met at the door.

"Hey Ryan!" Wally said.

"What do you want?" Ryan said, walking out the door.

"Hey! Have you heard of the ontological argument for God's existance?"

"Yes," Ryan said, stopping near the front steps and looking at him. "And it's gotta be one of the worst in your bag of tricks."

"Really? Why do you think so?"

...

Gabe, seeing that Steve and Collen hadn't noticed Ryan and Wally talking, said to Robert in a loud voice, "Hey, there's Wally talking to Ryan. I wonder what they're saying. Maybe Ryan's about to get converted."

Steve and Collen looked up and saw Ryan talking.

"More likely Ryan's going to DE-convert Wally," Collen said, looking over at Gabe.

They watched Ryan talking and Wally nodding his head thoughtfully.

...

"Well," Wally said, when Ryan finished speaking. "I actually think there is more to the ontological argument than that, but I gotta go right now. But thank you for your observations. I really appreciate it," he said, briefly laying a friendly hand on Ryan's shoulder and smiling at him.

Wally headed for the sidewalk and Robert said, with a smirk towards Steve and Collen, "Hey, let's go see if Wally converted him."

"Nice work," Wally said later, lying on the grass with his feet up on a park bench as the others drank sodas. "Now for part two. Let's hope they play their part." He closed his eyes and felt the sun.

...

They sat in a circle during lunch break the next day, off to the edge of the school grounds, on the grass near the fence. Heads bowed.

All except Sarah, who occasionally lifted her head a bit and glanced back towards the buildings.

"Nothing yet," she said. "Oh, wait! Yup, here they come!"

"How many?" Wally asked.

Sarah raised her head slightly once again, as if she were bowing up and down in prayer.

"Looks like ... about 12 or 13.... Mr. Andrews, Ms. Stoneman, that chubby security guard... plus Ryan and the gang."

"Woo hoo!" Wally whispered. "We're going to catch us a principal, too. Let us know when they're about 25 feet away, Sarah."

"Okay... 5-4-3-2-1, Now!" she said.

"Hi Mr. Andrews and Ms. Stoneman," Wally called out, waving, then standing up and approaching them. "Have some cake!" he said, holding out a couple slices of cake on paper plates.

Mr. Andrews and Ms. Stoneman, the security guard and all the athiests stopped and looked confused.

"It's chocolate!" Wally explained, when they hesitated. "We made it especially for the Athiest Club, Mr. Andrews, but you guys can have some, too!"

Robert and Tom and Sarah brought cake to the others.

Gabe dropped back and began filming. He'd get this on line in a few hours.

"Look at the cake," Wally said, pointing to the unsliced portion. "It says, 'Welcome Athiest Club' on it. We've got some lemonade, too, if you want some."

Ms. Stoneman, who had been marching side by side with Mr. Andrews, had discretely dropped back a few steps. This seemed to be a matter in which the principal should take the lead. The security guard was a step behind her. He glanced repeatedly down at his cake.

The athiests held back even further. Steve, behind the others, quietly took a bite of cake.

"Wally..." Mr. Andrews said, holding the cake uncertainly.

"Wally, we saw you guys praying out here just a few minutes ago."

"Praying?" Wally looked baffled. "Oh!" he said after a second, as enlightenment hit him. "No, no! We were just huddled around cutting the cake and trying to keep it hidden so it'd be a surprise. Did we surprise you, Mr. Andrews?"

"Uh... Wally, I think you were praying."

"Oh no, sir! It was just a nice surprise for the athiests, sir."

Mr. Andrews sighed, glanced down at his cake for a moment, then looked up.

"But how did you know the Athiest Club was going to be here?" Mr. Andrews asked.

Wally put on a gentle, saintly smile, pressed his hands together and looked at the sky. "Well, sir," he began, "I heard a voice - a very quiet voice - that told me ..."

"Wait!" said Mr. Andrews. "This does not appear to be a topic we can safely discuss at school."

"Yes, sir," said Wally, looking contrite.

"Would you like some lemonade with the cake, sir?"

Mr. Andrews sighed and looked down at his cake for a moment.

"Yes, Wally, I think that would be nice."

...

As they walked home, Tom chuckled. "Did you guys hear what Collen said when they were walking away?" he asked.

"What?" Gabe said.

"Well, he was all sarcastic and said to Ryan, 'Gee, I sure wonder where Wally could have heard that we were coming out here to get them busted? Tell us again, Ryan, about how Wally wanted to talk to you about the ontological argument. Yeah, right. The ontological argument. That is sooo easy to believe.'"

"And then Ryan yelled that it was the truth and then it kinda went back and forth like this: 'You BLEEEP moron! You BLEEP! You're the BLEEP! You're a BLEEPING BLEEP!' It was pretty entertaining."

Wally smiled and sighed. "Yeah... Ya know the only bad part about the whole thing?"

"What?"

"I didn't get any chocolate cake."

Four Web Utilities

I've recently developed four new super-specialized Web utilities for about six people out there in the big world:

CountDuplicates.com - Enter a list of lines and it will tell you how many times each line appears in the list.

FilterLines.com - Enter a list of lines and it will remove any lines except those containing the word or phrase you enter; or it will keep only lines containing the word or phrase you enter.

RandomizeList.com - Enter an ordered list of lines and it will scramble the list.

DeDupeList.com - Enter a list of lines and it will remove duplicate lines.

The Two Mountains

I've been reading some books about painting (a hobby of mine) and ran across a description of how to paint mountains.

Basically the book said that mountains up close have clear colors and shapes and that the colors get duller and the shapes less distinct with distance.

This sent my mind off in a totally unrelated direction.

It seemed to me that if you stood on Mt. Alpha and looked around you, everything would be pretty clear. Trees, rocks, streams, annoyed grizzly bears, and so forth. But if you lift your eyes and look far off across the wide valley toward Mt. Omega, it would look faded and indistinct.

However, if you drove the 47.5 miles across the valley and then hiked up Mt. Omega, then it would be wonderfully clear. Bears, gold mines, cliffs, trees and ticks would all be obvious. But then, if you look back at Mt. Alpha, you would find that it has become fuzzy and indistinct.

And this seemed to me to be a parable of how we Christians need to think about such doctrines as the Sovereignty of God and Free Will.

If you consider just the sovereignty of God, everything is quite clear. God is in charge of everything and that's that. But, then, if you glance up from Mt. Sovereignty and look over at Mt. Free Will, Mt. Free Will is hazy and difficult to understand. How can people have a free will if God is in charge of everything?

But then, if you drive over to Mt. Free Will, it looks pretty clear. People have a free will and they can make real decisions. But then if you look back at Mt. Sovereignty then it becomes indistinct. How can God really be in charge if humans have a free will?

Both mountains are completely real. You can climb each one and examine it in microscopic detail, but if you look at one from the other, the one you are not standing on is indistinct.

As humans, we don't have a God's-eye view. We can't clearly see both at the same time, as God can. But we can see them one at a time, and we can trust that though we may not be able to understand them both together, God can.

Wally and the Atheist

"Mista Damkins? Yes. I sorry bozzer you, but somesing velly bad at Robert Frost High Skoo," Wally said into the phone.

Sarah sat next to Wally, her hand clamped firmly over her mouth and nose to keep herself quiet, but as he began speaking a smile started leaking out.

Tom took a swallow of milk. It was the wrong moment. When he heard Wally's fake accent he snorted and it came out his nose.

Robert and Gabe laughed, but Wally gave them an angry face and waved them away.

"I saw you on terivision, Mista Damkins," Wally continued. "I sink maybe you hairp.... Wha? Hairp! ... Yes! Hairp. Sank you I sorry Engrish not reery good."

It had started the day before, on a lazy Tuesday afternoon. Wally Lim, Sarah, Tom, Robert and Gabe were loafing at Gabe's house. Sarah was doing homework at the dining room table and the others were eating potato chips and watching the local news.

"Next up," Ms. Chirpy, the announcer, said: "Is the Lofton School District doing enough to promote athiesm? The president of the Free Lofton From God Association says, 'maybe not.'"

"Oh, that blowhard is always on!" Tom said. "It's not enough they changed the law; we gotta listen to him nag? Turn the channel!"

"No!" Wally held up his hand. "I want to hear him."

Tom shrugged and went back to his potato chips.

After the commercials, association president Roger Damkins put it a lot more strongly than "maybe not." The district, he said, was "shamefully neglecting its duties."

Wally watched the report to the end - shushing Robert when he tried to say something - then burst out laughing.

"Whoo Hoo! This is gonna be fun! Okay everybody, turn off the TV and listen."

On Wednesday morning, between algebra and P.E., Wally stopped in at Ms. Stoneman's office.

"Hiya Ms. Stoneman!" Wally waved as he walked in.

Ms. Stoneman looked up without smiling.

"Hello, Walter," she said stiffly. She had not forgotten the trouble she had gotten into the last time he had come in.

Wally leaned on her desk. "Hey, we'd like to start a club for people who believe in God," he said. "Is that cool?"

Ms. Stoneman stared at him for a moment.

"No, Walter. You of all people should know perfectly well that we do not allow religious clubs on campus."

"Well, I protest," Wally said.

She sighed.

"Well you just go right ahead and protest to your heart's content," said Ms. Stoneman, looking down at her paperwork.

"Okey Dokey," Wally said. "Here's a letter of protest." He put it on the desk and started out. He turned at the door, "See ya later, Ms. Stoneman." He waved a cheery hand and left.

Ms. Stoneman picked up the envelope and stared at it. She was beginning to have a bad feeling about this.

On the telephone that afternoon Damkins was getting excited. He pressed his ear to the phone to make sure he understood through Wally's accent: "So," Damkins heard Wally say, "we try start crub at skoo. Atheist crub. They not ret us. They say no. Happen just today! I even write retter of protest."

Damkins began to see possibilities. Persecuted atheist. Persecuted athiest foreign student. Clear evidence the school district was negligent in its duties and maybe hostile to athiesm. And - though not a major consideration, of course - it would be another chance to get on television.

"We have protest tomorrow morning," Wally continued. "Rots of students. Want you and terivision be spesher guest."

Damkins was eager and arranged to bring a television news crew and meet Wally on the sidewalk in front of the school fifteen minutes before the bell rang. The publicity would be good for the cause, Damkins thought. And besides - though not a major consideration, of course - he'd get to be on TV again.

The next morning Wally and Sarah, Tom, Robert and Gabe got to school early. Gabe carried two poles whose ends were wrapped in what looked like a wide strip of bedsheet. Wally carried a bullhorn. Sarah and Tom and Wally stopped students on their way into school and told them they might get to be on TV if they stuck around, so a crowd had gathered when Damkins appeared with the news van close behind.

Wally rushed up to Damkins. "Sank you velly much for coming, Mista Damkins!"

He led Damkins to the top of the first flight of steps, overlooking the crowd. Below, the news camera was set up and Sarah and Robert were in the front row already taking video with their phones. Gabe and Tom had quietly disappeared behind Wally and Damkins.

Wally began speaking to the crowd. He toned down the accent.

"We are gazzered here today to protest great injustice at Robert Frost High School!"

Damkins wondered momentarily why Wally hadn't said "Skoo," but let it pass.

"And to say many tanks to Mista Roger Damkins. He is athiest, president of Free Lofton From God Association, and rike many athiest, he openminded and not rike injustice and make special trip to Robert Frost High School to help us start a theist club on campus."

Damkins wasn't quite sure, but he seemed to hear "a theist club" this time instead of "atheist club."

But Wally pressed on, and Gabe and Tom unfurled a banner behind them that read, "We Want a Theist Club!"

"Thank you, Mr. Damkins," Wally said, looking right at him and dropping the accent entirely. "Thank you for supporting our right to have a theist club even though you yourself do not believe in God." Wally put a hand on Damkin's shoulder. "You are a true man of principle! Would you like so say a few words, sir?" He handed Damkins the bullhorn.

Tom and and Gabe and Wally and several in the crowd clapped and cheered for Damkins, and Sarah and Robert and the news crew kept filming.

It was now clear to Damkins what was happening, but he was stuck.

"I, uh, well, I uh wasn't prepared to give a speech." (That would be the first time, Tom thought.) "But I guess I just want to say that, um, we appreciate the efforts of all good people to... uh, resolve, um, differences, and to improve the, uh, quality of our schools and, uh, help our community grow. Uh ... thank you."

He handed the bullhorn back to Wally and slipped away as quickly as he could.

"Hiya Ms. Stoneman!" Wally walked into her office without knocking.

"I don't think it's a good idea for me to carry this bullhorn around all day," Wally said. "Do you? Somebody might disrupt class with it. Can I leave it here until after school? Thanks a lot!"

He waved goodbye and ran out without waiting for a reply.

Ms. Stoneman sighed. She had heard all about what had happened. Three times she'd heard. Three times by three very amused teachers, and as a fan of Roger Damkins it annoyed her. A lot. But ... on the other hand, at least she had come through unscathed.

The principal, Mr. Andrews, watched the television news report and the video Sarah and Robert had posted on the Internet. He chuckled. He watched the clips again, then laughed out loud and shook his head.

If somebody had to go up against Walter Lim, he thought, he was glad it was Roger Damkins.