the Lost Art of Listening...

Most people think they listen; some even think they're good listener. But truth be told, listening is a lost art. Very few people really listen to a person, for listening is far more encompassing than just hearing the words...
The words we speak are actually about 10% of our actual communication. The other 90% is our tone and body language. But beyond that, a good listener is also sensitive to to what the speaker isn't saying, or to what the speaker is trying to say but don't quite know how to say it. A good listener first listens without premature judgments. They quiet their body language; they still any fidgeting and pay attention. This shows genuine interest in what the speaker is saying, and portrays that they, and what they say, are important to you.
Beyond that a good listener learns to wait to respond, to not form comments or objections internally to one point while the speaker is expressing further points. By internally forming responses one loses much of the flow of what follows that which piqued their attentions. Further, when responses are formed the natural bent is to want to express them, and the listener is done listening until he/she can respond or rebut. The good listener learns patience, and remains attentive to the speaker until they're done, then they formulate and share their responses.
Listening is really all about respect. Do you respect the speaker enough to give them their time to express their heart, their agenda? All too often what we want is more important to us than the needs or desires of the speaker... It is truly a lost art, practiced by too few today...
Food for thought...

I'm back...

It has been some time since I last wrote, but life has been busy. I am currently in the process of trying to sell my building and business in northern Illinois to retire to Florida. While I am still in relatively good health I may not stay retired- I will wait upon God to lead me in the next chapter of my life. He has already blessed me with a fantastic home in Florida, one which I've been putting my own personal touches on this past year, a new church, and wonderful neighbors. Now I just need to practice patience as I wait upon Him to prompt a buyer for the business...

I've come to realize, more acutely each passing day, that God is completely in control if I allow Him to be. I've been very aware of how much more sensitive my spirit is when He is in control- so different than the crusty, indifferent, difficult individual that I can be. It amazes me how calloused and hard I am in my carnal state, but when I allow God to live through me I am sensitive, caring,- a whole different animal. Go figure. But He's a God of miracles, and changing me is one of them...And yet, He never forces His will on me, It is always a matter of submitting my free will to His.  

If you pray, and are so inclined, please pray for a buyer for my business and building. I know God works in His time, and I pray for patience, but I am so ready to go! Remember this old blogger in your prayers! 

Democrats, really, still Blaming Bush?

I had a conversation with a customer, clearly Democratic, who once again blamed George HW Bush for all our Iraqi problems, stating that we wouldn't be in this mess if not for his interference in Iraq in search of "phantom" weapons of mass destruction. When I said it was the view of Republicans and Democrats alike that this was a threat he called me ignorant, and said I didn't know what I was talking about- the Democrats DEFINITELY did not believe or support the threat of WMDs. So to my learned friend, please allow this ignorant person to enlighten you with concrete, non-disputable, easy to corroborate facts, Please see the following list and see if any of these Democrats, who spoke out against Iraq and Saddam Hussein and his WMDs, and the need to ACT, rings a bell...

1. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT- Secretary of State under Clinton,  2/18/1998 at Columbus, OH Town Hall meeting
2. BILL CLINTON- President, USA, on 2/17/1998 at Arlinton, VA, addressing a Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon
3. HOWARD DEAN- DNC Chairman on 1/31/1998 on CBC/PBS "The Editors"
4. SANDY BERGER- National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton, on 2/18/1998 at Columbus OH Town Hall meeting
5. NANCY PELOSI- (D-CA) on 11/17/2002 on NBC's "Meet the Press"
6. JAY ROCKEFELLER- (D-WV) on 10/10/2002 on the Senate floor addressing the Senate
7. JOE BIDEN- (D-DE) on 8/4/2002 on NBC's "Meet the Press"
8.HARRY REID- (D-NV) on 9/18/2002 on CNN's "Inside Politics"
9. HILLARY CLINTON- (D-NY) on 9/15/2002 on NBC's "Meet the Press"
10.JOHN EDWARDS- (D-NC) on 1/7/2003 on MSNBC's "Buchanan & Press"
11. EVAN BAYH- (D-IN) on 3/7/2003 on Fox News "The O'reilly Factor".

In each and every one of these DOCUMENTED filmed interviews these leading Democrats spoke out against Saddam and his WMDs and our need to remove him from power or remove the threat he causes to America. So the next time you "well-informed" Democrats want to "get all up in my grill" and blame everything on Bush and the Republicans check the list and see what your "leaders" thought when it was politically correct to believe in WMDs. I'm just glad Bush had the kahunas to do what all these Democratic "leaders" felt was necessary but lacked the conviction to actually do something about it.
Rant over. Food for thought....

Domestic Abuse...

Today I have more questions than answers. I've been listening to the football pre-game shows and all the buzz is over the domestic violence that is seeming to plague the NFL right now, headlined by the Ray Rice incident where he knocked his then-fiancee (now they're married) out in a casino elevator. One show stated that the FBI says that over 70% of the domestic abuse calls they respond to never get prosecuted. Another statistic is that over 95% of calls are about abuse to women.
Can I extend another viewpoint? First, let me state emphatically that I believe Rice was wrong, and that he deserves whatever he gets. But my question is, what responsibility does his wife carry in the incident? She's the victim, yet she acted very aggressively prior to Rice hitting her. In this day where the cry is for gender equality, for equal rights, it seems to stop when the case of domestic abuse arises.  I believe that one reason is that it isn't manly to file a complaint against a woman for abuse. Yet I can personally testify that women can be just as physically abusive to men as to those that are abused.
I have never laid a hand on a woman, and don't foresee any circumstance in which I would. However, with that said, during my first divorce I had to file for a protective order, and it was granted, for physical abuse perpetrated against me. Several years later, when I remarried, my second wife struck, kicked, scratched, or similarly abused me repeatedly on a number of occasions. To add to that, after one attack she called the police, but hung up. They came to my home anyway and suggested I leave. I told them she was the aggressor and she should leave- and they agreed. It wasn't until I told my wife, after another such incident of abuse, that if she ever laid a hand on me again I would hit her once, and promised I would break something with that hit- then put my fist through a door to emphasize my point- that the physical abuse stopped. Since then I've been single for the last fourteen years, but have had four significant relationships in that time. Of those four, two of the women didn't hesitate to strike out when they got angry.
My point here? If we are going to seriously address domestic abuse then there does need to be gender equality. Yes, men are usually bigger, and stronger, and do more damage, but I'm not convinced that women don't add to the problem far more than they're credited with. It takes two to tango. If you continually poke the bear it will eventually wake up. My brother is 5 years younger than me, and growing up we shared a room. /Many times I got into trouble for "laying my hands on him" as my mom put it. I kept decrying that he was the instigator, that I keep getting punished, but it was his fault. Then one day my mom was around the corner, out of sight listening, as my brother prodded me and pushed me toward a fight. Before I could land him she stepped around the corner and told him that I was right, and he was causing the problem, and from now on when he acted that way I had permission to hit him. For the record, I never once had to hit him again.
Domestic abuse is wrong. Putting your hands on another person is wrong. But it is also wrong to continually verbally poke and prod at another, or act aggressively to try and provoke a physical response. Let's solve the problem by getting to the root of the cause. In the vast majority of cases, by the time a situation escalates to physical responses, the problem is far deeper than the physical act of abuse. We need to learn to effectively and calmly communicate with each other, Calm and communication. Physical abuse is a choice. Choose differently. Choose wisely.
Food for thought...

UFO's, Extra-Terrestrial Life, and Aliens...

I saw a video recently on Facebook, another video showing a "UFO" being chased by several fighter jets. Now I'm not saying it was real, nor am I claiming it's fake. Rather, I want to look at the question of the possibility of other life in the universe. I often hear the opinion that there is not other life out there, or if there is we would have been visited by now. No visits equals proof that we are alone...

Let's look at the facts as we know them... Years ago while teaching some high school students this very issue came up. I walked to the whiteboard, some 4' x 8' long, and told them that this board represents all the knowledge in the entire universe. I reminded them that we are one small planet on the edge of the Milky Way galaxy, a galaxy that astronomers estimate consists of over a thousand million stars (or a billion, if you will), with an average of at least one planet per star. That's one galaxy. Scientists estimate that there are 100 billion to 200 billion galaxies in our universe. I asked a student to come up and handed him a marker and asked him to draw a circle on the board representing all the knowledge humans have accumulated throughout our history in light of how much is left to learn in the universe. He paused a moment, the drew a tiny dot in the corner. I asked the rest of the class if they agreed and it was pretty much a consensus. Then I asked him to draw a circle on that dot representing how much of that accumulated knowledge he knew. He said he couldn't because it was too small to write.

We know less than a speck on a dot of what is in our universe, yet we are arrogant enough to believe we are alone. Perhaps we haven't been visited because we don't have anything to offer the larger picture (yet?). I, for one, have learned that the more I learn the more aware I am of how much knowledge is left to learn, and my own ignorance is magnified by what little knowledge I have. Ignorance is indeed bliss, for not knowing how incredibly uninformed we really must be a comfort. I believe that, at least on that day, some students became aware of how little we actually know, and to say with conviction that there is no other life in the universe is human arrogance at its greatest. With so much unknown out there how can anyone say we are alone?

Perhaps, one day after my Lord has come and restored His creation and His people, we will have the opportunity to explore our vast universe, to travel to galaxies and stars and planets that can only live now in our imaginations! How cool would that be?
Food for thought...

Atheism in light of Science

I've touched on atheism in my past writings, but today I feel compelled to address it again. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, that we evolved through evolution, beginning with the Big Bang Theory...
Let's look at evolution first, for the very foundation of atheism rests in its belief as true. So how does evolution stack up in the face of science? First, science deals in that which it can measure, observe, and dissect. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, one man's postulation of what might have happened, and subsequently accepted by a large portion of the populace as being "true". It is not grounded in any fact, it is not an observed science, it is merely one man's "best guess" as to what happened many millions of years ago. Science does have laws, however, laws that have been tried and tested and found to be true, like the laws of Thermodynamics. The interesting thing is that, specifically, the second law states that any environment, when left to random mutation, goes from a state of order to a state of disorder. Science actually states that we should "de-evolve" if the theory of evolution were true. Yet we are not de-evolving, nor do we see species "evolving" today (ie. half man / half ape).
As for Creationism, or the belief that our universe was created by a higher, intelligent order, or God, atheists claim we are fools to believe such with blind faith. Yet the very word "universe"- "uni" meaning "one" and "verse" meaning "spoken" is declared in the very beginning of Scripture. "God said, 'Let there be...'". God spoke and created order out of chaos, the very opposite of evolution. With all of Nature a display of such an orderly creation how is it difficult to place our faith in such? It is a far more difficult belief that, after a cosmic explosion, our world cooled and somehow a single cell amoebae was miraculously birthed, then continued to split and grow until there were all different species, with their own unique DNA, their specific unique characteristics, all from that first single celled organism. Wow. That's faith. It would be easier to believe that, if a tornado were to tear through a junkyard, that it could pick up junk parts and deposit on the other side a perfectly formed Mercedes Benz, a speedboat, and a Harley Davidson motorcycle. Yet any atheist would tell you that it could never happen, that you'd be crazy to believe it. However, the odds are far better of that happening than for the theory of evolution to have come to pass. So who really needs blind faith to bolster their beliefs?
So why do people refuse to believe in God in the face of overwhelming evidence of order in nature? I believe that it is a a relief mechanism to alleviate guilt in their lives. All to often we want to believe we control our destiny, that we know what is best for us, rather than trusting that there is a higher power out there. If we accept the premise of God then we must accept that we don't answer to ourselves, but to a higher authority, and for many that's bothersome. We must face the guilt of our wrong-doing, our sin. However, if there's no God then there's no guilt. No God, no guilt. It is a cheap out in the face of overwhelming natural evidence of an ordered and orderly universe which defies the theory of evolution... It takes far more blind faith not to believe in God that to believe in Him with all Nature singing His praise...
Food for thought...

Truth- Absolute or conditional...

As I was perusing some of my old blogs (yes, I do go back and occasionally read my stuff... Some of it actually still makes sense to me!) and I noticed I've referred often to "truth". Yet as I grow older I realize that "truth" is not consistently defined by society. Sometimes truth is absolute- water is wet, the sun is hot, snow is cold. Most people don't have problems recognizing absolutes in nature as true, but when it comes to our personal lives absolute truth is much harder to acknowledge.
Somehow truth morphs from absolute to conditional when our personal lives are concerned. Conditional truth is when we rationalize around absolute truth to justify our position or words or actions. Example: a man complains about his wife's nagging, or indifference, or lack of affection as a reason for his having an affair. Suddenly the absolute truth that an affair is adultery and adultery is wrong has been changed to "adultery is justifiable because my spouse drove me to it". Conditional truth.
Unfortunately truth is not conditional. It does not depend on our emotional responses to others or situations- it remains constant no matter what our feelings or responses. Truth is an attribute of God, and God is absolute, therefore truth is absolute. "Conditional truth" is merely justification, or rationalization, not truth at all. When we find ourselves rationalizing, or justifying, it's  time to stop what we're doing and recognize the absolute truth we're trying to ignore and change our words or actions accordingly.
As a side note: When we are truthful we don't need a good memory, for truth is truth and does not change. It is when we pervert the truth that we need good memories, for we have to remember what lie we tell so not to confuse it with our next justification or fabrication. Conditional truth is lying to ourselves in the hopes of convincing others that what we say is true...
Food for thought...

Uncle Hack, This One's For You...

My mom is the youngest of six children- Hack, Jack, and Mack, Mary, Katy, and my mom, Becky. Only Mom and Aunt Katy remain, but memories of my aunt and uncles often warmly resonate in my mind. One such memory involved my Uncle Hack, named after my grandfather, Haskell Hall. Anyway, my Uncle Hack loved science fiction. Even as a child I was an avid reader and on one trip to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, when I was perhaps ten years old, to visit my Aunt Dale and Uncle Hack we shared our love of reading, Uncle Hack had many many books around, mostly his science fiction paperbacks. Uncle Hack gave me some of his books to read, if I wanted, and I was lost for the weekend. It was a series about a Professor Jameson, who sent his body into space upon his death and was found some 40 million years later by an advanced race who revived his brain and placed it in a metal body. Thus started his adventures. I was fascinated and read five of the six novels that weekend! But the trip ended, and I never read that last novel, never finished learning the fate of Professor Jameson. My Uncle passed away, I never returned to his home and his books, and for some forty plus years I've wondered how the story ends.
Uncle Hack, you'll be glad to know I will wonder no more. After countless attempts to find these books from the 1960's, after hours of perusing used book stores, flea markets, the internet, et al, I have located all six books and will now get to finish the adventure! I hope the story lives up to the anticipation of some forty years of curiosity. But no matter how the story ends, I have you to thank for starting it. You are missed, Uncle Hack, and loved. And now I have a book to read. This one's for you Uncle!
Food for thought...

Joseph, a Good Old Boy...

I was reading this past week a old book of my long past grandfather's, called "The Lost Books of the Bible" and in it was an account of the birth and early life of Mary, the mother of Jesus. In it her betrothal to Joseph is covered, and quite honestly, I was fascinated by the account, yet it answered some questions that had plagued me for years, but in a surprising manner.
I've often wondered why we hear so little of Joseph after Jesus' early years. We read the account in the Gospels of Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem, and the whole nativity story. We hear of them moving to Nazareth when Jesus is a young child, and the story of traveling to Jerusalem and leaving Jesus mistakenly behind, then finding him in the Temple at perhaps age twelve. But no real references to Joseph after that. I wondered if perhaps he'd had an accident, or took ill, and subsequently died in Jesus' early years. But then I read this account and a whole new outlook has to be considered.
The text says,
 "For Isaiah saith, there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall spring out of its root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding, the Spirit of the Counsel and the Might, the Spirit of Knowledge and Piety, and the Spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him. Then, according to this prophecy, he appointed, that all the men of the house and family of David, who were marriage and not married, should bring their rods to the altar. And out of whatever person's rod after it was brought, a flower should bud forth, and the Lord should sit in the appearance of a dove, he should be the man to whom the Virgin should be given and betrothed. Among the rest there was a man named Joseph, of the house and family of David, and a person very far advanced in years, who drew back his rod when every one besides presented his. So that when nothing appeared agreeable to the heavenly voice, the high priest judged it proper to consult God again, who answered that he who the Virgin was to be betrothed was the only person of those who were brought together, who had not brought his rod. Joseph therefore was betrayed. For, when he did bring his rod, and a dove coming from Heaven pitched upon the top of it, everyone plainly saw that the Virgin was to be betrothed to him..."
I always pictured in my mind a young Mary (this text says she was betrothed at age 14) and a young Joseph, two kids in love and starting a life together. But this certainly makes more sense, for not only is it culturally accurate, it explains why Joseph was first willing to divorce Mary quietly when he found her with child, then why he was conspicuously absent in Jesus' later years. I wonder if we need to change all our Nativity scenes for the sake of accuracy...
Food for thought...

Trey Gowdy

I watched a YouTube video today called "Meet Trey Gowdy" and I believe it is worth watching for every American, whether Republican or Democrat, because in it he asks the questions I hear so many concerned Americans asking... The link, I believe, is  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4eaDTdwdA8 (copy and paste). Trey Gowdy was a prosecutor for 16 years before running for Congress from South Carolina

and he's clearly got his head screwed on straight. This is a long video, almost an hour, but in it he addresses everything from the IRS scandal to Benghazi. I especially liked the segment where he's asked to comment on one of his fellow congressmen's comments about congressmen being underpaid...
If ever our country needs strong leadership it's now, and Mr Gowdy would make an excellent Speaker of the House. I believe he would exercise the leadership necessary to stand up to this President, or any president, who chooses to ignore their sworn duties to uphold our laws and/or grab power that is not granted to the executive branch in the Constitution. Trey Gowdy you have my vote!
Food for thought...

Failing to succeed...

The best results in life revolve around failures- our failures. Sure it's nice to succeed, but continual success doesn't lead to a rich and fulfilling life. That is only achieved through failure, or more specifically, dealing with failure in a proper mindset.
Continued success robs us of appreciation, and diminishes the value of our success. Failure, on the other hand, makes us all the more aware of the beauty of our accomplishments once we finally do succeed. And appreciation is a necessary ingredient to a rich and fulfilled life.  Our greatest success stories are often founded on lives that experienced bitter failure, but it wasn't the failure that is important to note, but that each time our heroes picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and tried again. And when they finally did succeed their success was all the more rich and rewarding because of what they went through to obtain it. Here's just a few examples:
There was once a man who went to war with the rank of Captain. He left the war with the rank of private. He then went into business, but his business failed. He studied law, but failed there too, criticized for being too impractical and temperamental. He turned to politics, but was defeated in his first attempt at the legislature, then was defeated in his first attempt at Congress, was defeated in his bid to be commissioner of the General Land Office, He was then defeated in his Senatorial bid, and next defeated in attempt to win the vice-presidency, then defeated in a senatorial bid again. He wrote to a friend, "I am now the most miserable man living. If what I feel were equally distributed to the whole human family, there would not be one cheerful face earth." Who was this man? Our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln.
Another popular hero once commented, "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot... and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. That's why I succeed." - Michael Jordan
Thomas Edison failed a thousand times before inventing the incandescent light bulb. A reporter asked him how it felt to fail a thousand times and he replied, "I didn't fail 1000 times. The light bulb was an invention with a thousand steps." Confucius said,"Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising every time we fall." Charles Kettering said, "Failing is one of the greatest arts in the world. One fails toward success."
Henry Ford failed and went broke five times before succeeding. He view on failure? "Failure provides the opportunity to begin again, more intelligently." F.W. Woolworth, R.H. Macy, Albert Einstein, Louis Pasteur, all faced repeated failures in life, only to achieve great things. Eric Hoffer writes, "Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track of are our failures, discouragements, and doubts. We tend to forget the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as signs of decline and decay." How true is that! We need to remember those trials to fully appreciate the richness of our success. Failing correctly is paramount to success.
So when life gets you down, when you feel like a complete and utter failure, remember those who've gone before, who've set the bar on failure to heights we will probably never reach, and take heart. Failing is often the main prerequisite to success. As Robert F. Kennedy wrote, "Only those who dare to fail greatly can achieve greatly." Fail today- tomorrow may just be your heyday...
Food for thought...

Vulnerability and Mercy...

Vulnerability and mercy. I wonder if we really understand the attributes of these two traits. The Bible talks of God's mercy, and also of Jesus's vulnerability. Yet they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Mercy flows from a position strength. God is a god of mercy because he operates from a position of strength. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing, and can't operate from anywhere except strength. He is the Uncreated, and we are His created, and no matter how big or strong, or smart we think we are we can never match His strength or wisdom.
Jesus, on the other hand, lived vulnerability. Being vulnerable is living from a position of weakness. Yet, the dichotomy is that Jesus, the Son of the Almighty God, with all the attributes of God, set aside his deity and donned the the cloak of humanity, the cloak of vulnerability.  Jesus chose to make himself vulnerable, and he instructed us, as his followers, to do the same.
Vulnerability means purposely exposing ourselves, our weaknesses, to allow others to know us in our weakness, for it is in our weakness that we can find strength. It sounds like a conundrum, but in reality it is the secret to living a Christ-centered life. In or own strength our basic carnal instinct is to hide our weaknesses and deal with our world from our strengths. The problem with that approach is that there is always someone stronger, or smarter, or bigger than us, and they aren't afraid to knock us down a few pegs. The Law of the jungle, the instinct born of sin.
Vulnerability, however, says to the world to look at us, to see we are transparent and authentic, we are flawed and open about it. It asks the world to be accepting of us for who we are, not who we want or pretend to be. We must trust that our weaknesses won't be embraced and used against us. We must trust.
Being open and vulnerable can be the hardest thing for us to do, for our base instinct is to protect ourselves, not leave ourselves open to potential hurt. And yet when we do open ourselves, when we choose to follow Jesus' example, we are opening ourselves to God's mercy, to his forgiveness, and His love. And when we allow ourselves to be open and authentic before God, when we make ourselves vulnerable to Him, it allows God to flow and work through us. Satan, and evil, may have power on this earth for a time, but when we humble ourselves before God we have the authority, His authority, to conquer whatever befalls our path. Understand, we are still weak and flawed creatures, but we command the power of the Uncreated through His Holy Spirit He has promised to everyone who believes.
A general in the army is just one man. Alone he cannot win a war, or even fight a battle against a stronger, larger foe with any hope of winning. He is neither big enough, nor strong enough. But the one thing he does have is authority. He can command and soldiers to fight his battles. It is not through his strength that the battle is won, but through his authority. Likewise, God gives us the authority to command his power.
Vulnerability and mercy. Mercy through vulnerability. Strength through weakness.
Food for thought...

Children's Books I question...

As I am now a grandfather, soon to be four times over, I thought I should collect a few children's books for when I have visits from the grand-kids. Sure, I could get Bambi, Snow White, Jungle Book, and the other regular Disney stuff, but I wanted to be different so I've scoured the used book stalls for those unique or different ones. I'm thinking perhaps these titles are not the best for the grand-kids...

The Boy Who Died From Eating All His Vegetables
Fun 4-Letter Words to Know and Share
A Toddler's Guide to Hitchhiking
Dad's New Wife Robert
The Popup Book of Human Anatomy
Why Can't Mr. Fork and Mrs. Electrical Outlet Be Friends?
Pop Goes the Hamster- And Other Fun Microwave Games
Strangers Have The Best Candy
Your Nightmares Are Real
and, Daddy Drinks Because You Cry...

Perhaps those tried and true Disney stories are best after all...
Food for thought...

Church Politics...

One of the most problematic issues that faces the Church today is church politics. Church politics, in its simplest definition, boils down to the practice of putting what we think is most important ahead of what God says is most important. In my time I've been associated with churches of all ages; churches that were new, freshly planted, churches that were matured and sometime set in their ways, churches that were growing, and churches that were stagnant. I've had the opportunity to observe this phenomenon of “church politics” from many angles.

When a church is newly planted, and in the early pains of its infancy and early growth there is almost always a unity of vision of what the church wants to be and what direction it’s headed. Yet as the church grows larger almost inevitably the unity of vision is lost. Leadership becomes fragmented in their direction as people begin to try and implement their own vision of where the church should go, without the unity of the leaders or the people. A major reason for this fragmentation is ego. Let me share a personal experience:

For a number of years in my recent past I had regularly attended a local Community church, a “seeker” church, if you will, with the desire and direction of making a welcoming environment for people seeking to fill that void in their heart. It was dynamic, it was growing, and it was exciting. I served in that church in several ministries. As we grew I began to notice this “church politics” growing, as there seemed to be a growing power struggle among leadership, perhaps desire for recognition. In one of the ministries I served a problem arose between the Elder in charge and one of the volunteer leaders. I thought the best way to handle it was to make the elder aware and discuss the situation before feelings got hurt and things got out of hand. I was expressly warned by my team leaders not to do so, or I “might get run out of church” like several others. Still, I sent him a note and we met.

During our meeting, this Elder, a “pillar” of the church, got angry and accused me of lying, of creating a mess that I needed to clean up. He claimed he’d talked to the parties and they disavowed any knowledge of any problem, that I was a liar, that I was a trouble-maker. So I turned on my computer, I opened my e-mails from the two parties, and I let him read for himself that everything I said was true. What was his response? I made a mess and I needed to clean it up. Not any acceptance of the fact that I spoke truth, that my concern was for the ministry and perhaps he should address his shortcomings in the situation. No apology was forth coming for calling me a liar, no sorrow for the pain and hurt feelings his words and actions had caused. Why not? - Because his ego wouldn’t allow him to acknowledge his wrong-doing. There’s no place for our ego when we’re serving God.

Another issue stemming from church politics is loss of vision. The community church that I recently attended had an early vision of reaching out to those seeking to fill that void that one has when not in community with Jesus Christ. The services were welcoming and open for anyone who wanted to experience Christian worship. Yet today, though the “vision” is still to reach out to “seekers” it has become lost in the “production” of each service. The emphasis is no longer on the act of worship; the emphasis is on the seeker. The whole reason for the church is for Christians to meet in corporate worship, and it is the worship that draws the seekers. When they come in and find others who are broken, who are flawed, but who live in joy and peace they want that, they seek to know more. But once the focus becomes the seeker the power of the worship experience is quenched. Corporate worship is the worship of God, not numbers of people you can get in to fill the seats…

I believe that a church needs to maintain a unity of spirit to remain vibrant and growing. A church needs to constantly recommit its vision and focus to the Lord. How can they best do this? How can churches avoid the pitfalls of church politics? First, change leadership regularly. Get new people in to serve. Church after church that I've observed has had the same people run for church offices year after year. It’s no wonder that egos build, that power struggles arise! Churches should have term limits. We see the same problem in our government- men who serve term after term, grow in power and “prestige” until they become a legend in their own mind. Limit the term, limit the power, and ultimately limit the damage that church politics can cause. The problem won’t be gone completely, for we are still flawed and broken human beings. But if there’s a problem in leadership term limits is a definite cure, for time will remove it if we don’t.

Last, I think churches need to focus less on size, on how many people they can pack in on any given weekend, and more on worship (the reason to gather corporately) for size ultimately becomes a pride issue. Sure, everyone wants to grow, but there comes a point where size hinders worship. My daughter pointed out to me that Jesus preached to thousands- but Jesus didn't preach to thousands every weekend, every service. No, when he needed recharging he met with his disciples, or withdrew alone to pray. Also, it’s worth pointing out, that despite listening to many wonderfully talented preachers and speakers in my days not one of them was the Son of God. Sometimes size begins to hinder worship. It becomes a production instead of a worship, and then the focus is lost. The early churches were “house churches”, meeting in the homes of the early Christians. By their very nature they couldn't be “large”- when they outgrew a home they split into several homes. Intimacy and unity had to be trademarks of the early church, for the very size made it so. Perhaps we need more of that model church…

Food for thought…

Forgiveness...

All my life I've been taught or told about the importance of forgiving those who've wronged me. I've even blogged on "Forgive and Forget? I think not..." (Oct 6th, 2010), on the importance of forgiving others but not necessarily forgetting what happened so you can avoid the same pitfall again. Not that the trespass should be brought up again, for it should be treated like a death, buried and gone, but not forgotten. 

But forgiveness is not just an act of kindness, or mercy, toward the one who's wronged, though there is indeed  a therapeutic reward for the one who is forgiven. But the true value for the one who's wronged and chooses to forgive is internal. The act of forgiving releases the forgiver from a growing root of bitterness, and not releasing another's wrong through forgiveness will create bitterness. Feeling wronged can lead to feelings of animosity, indignation, and often even self-righteousness. All of these are dangerous and allowed to simmer leads to self destruction. But forgiveness frees us from all these; the release allows us freedom to move on, to go forward with our lives, and to continue to grow. Failure to forgive stunts personal growth and keeps us in a holding pattern of negative emotion. And there's nothing so powerful, or destructive, than negative emotion. So let it go; forgive and do yourself a far bigger favor than even the one you've forgiven...

Food for thought...

When God Closes a Door...

All my life I've heard comments to the effect that "when God closes a door He opens another" (or a window, etc.). It's one of those axioms that seems to just be accepted among those of faith. But recently, when I heard one such statement made I had a thought, (whether divinely inspired or not I cannot claim), but perhaps an epiphany none the less...
When I heard the statement I had the mental image of a hallway with a door closing on a person. But that door,  like most doors, had a doorknob, and I thought, "Just because the door closes doesn't mean it can't be re-opened". Doors are meant to be closed and opened. Sometimes it just takes a little effort on our part. Sometimes it just takes an act of faith to reach out and turn that doorknob, to reopen the door, and to go through. Perhaps the door closed to test our faith, to see if we will be proactive and make an effort, or do we just sit back and say, "Lord, give me another path. Open another door."
I think that the Lord does indeed give us direction, but He also expects us to be proactive. When Peter was in chains, in prison, the Angel of the Lord freed him of his chains. Peter didn't just sit back and say, "Woe is me!", and sit there. He got up and left. (Acts 12) When Paul and Silas were imprisoned they didn't just sit there; they used their situation to their advantage to free themselves (Acts 16). There are many recorded instances of doors seemingly closed, then reopen by proactive actions. All too often I think we as Christians today sit back and expect God to act miraculously on our behalf, but we aren't willing to act. I do believe God expects us to be proactive, not passive. God is a proactive God, not a passive one- He's a God of action. He expects us to be people of action too. I've also heard that "God helps those who help themselves".
Food for thought...

Life After Life After Death...

I was raised within the culture of the Religious Western Ideology, and there were certain subjects that were really not deeply investigated or discussed. They were more like tangents to the faith, their existence to be acknowledged but not debated, for they didn't strongly impact the mission of the church. What is Heaven, what happens when we die, what is our future after death, what happens to earth, our bodies, the existence of hell, were all pushed into a category of issues that don't impact the church today and its mission today... The cursory teaching was that if we have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, if he's our Lord and Savior, then when we die we will go to Heaven and be with Him. If we don't, then we go to Hell, a place reserved for sinners who reject Jesus. Accept it and move on. But is that teaching accurate?

Our focus, as a Christians, should centrally be on these very issues, for what happens eternally should directly impact how we live temporally. We should live today to impact eternity. But first we need to understand what the Scriptures teach about our hereafter... As a Christian I believe in the sanctity of the Bible, but I have learned caution in accepting the accuracy of every translation or transliteration of the Scriptures. Sometimes it is important to go all the way back to the original writings, and dissect them within their context to learn what is really being taught. With that said, I have learned that my early lessons of Heaven, and Death, et al, is far from scripturally accurate... (It is also noteworthy to add that, unlike other religions, Christianity has an end game, a known destination, rather than endless reincarnations or repetitions of the same fate, as taught by many Eastern religions)...

As Christians, when we die I do believe we go to be with Jesus, but this is a temporal state, while we wait for the Judgment of mankind, both Christian and not. This temporal state is indeed life after death. But it is the life after life after death that should create excitement within Christians! For that is where life really begins! After the judgment we will be given new bodies; physical, glorious, and imperishable, modeled after the resurrected body of our Lord Jesus Christ. And we will be uniquely us, recognizable yet perfected, a truly physical body, not just a "spiritual" one as some teach. (It is interesting that even today, in our "perishable" bodies science says we completely change every atom and molecule in our bodies approximately every seven years- so even if you love who you are right now you'll be a completely different person in a few years! I guess people can change!). Knowing that what we do today, in these scant seventy to eighty years we're given here on this earth, will impact our lives in eternity, should give us purpose and direction today to better impact our tomorrow. But where will we live?

For years I disputed the teachings of the Latter Day Saints, who claimed that only a select few (144,000) would go to heaven and the remainder would live on earth. I was taught all Christians go to Heaven. It turns out that isn't scripturally accurate. It turns out that God isn't going to abandon this earth, His creation, any more than He will abandon me, His creation. Instead, He is going to "make-over" this earth, making a new earth, a perfected creation, just as we are given new and perfected bodies. It is here, on this new earth that we will make our homes, live our eternal lives, lives with purpose and direction, to the glory of God, our Father. (Turns out, though there is much in the teaching of the LDS church I disagree with, as to earth they were dead on). I don't claim to know all that the future holds, nor do I know the "accessibility" of Heaven for us, but I do believe we will have access to the home of the Father. But our lives will be here, on a new and perfected earth. As such, it makes me more acutely aware of my planet today, and how we care or don't care for it. It is important to not just leave it better for our children, but also to care for it as my future home. Though I believe God will "create" a new earth, I don't believe He will destroy His old creation; rather, as previously stated, He will "makeover" this current one. (I was tempted to include the many scripture references to support my comments for this blog topic, but decided against it for the sake of brevity, but you can investigate on your own in Paul's two letters to the Corinthians, his letter to Colossus, the writings of I John, and Revelations, to name a few).

As for those who choose to reject God, will they spend eternity in Hell? Is there a Hell, as some dispute? Well, that's an issue for another blog. I will simply comment this- I believe that separation from God must be a living hell, for without Him there is no hope, no future...

Food for thought...

OBAMACARE: The Figures the White House Doesn't want you to know...

Let's face it, the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, has been far less than advertised. Although, to be fair, it was advertised by Nancy Pelosi as, "You want to know what's in it, then vote for it". The American people were basically handed a "pig-in-a-poke" by the Democrats, or more accurately, the far leaning left. After it was rammed through Congress on a straight partisan vote, using questionable procedural tactics we did indeed find out what was in it. And buried deep within the dozens of new taxes, the new layers of government hierarchy, the massive expansion of government, are some good ideas. I've commented on those in the past. But of more interest today are the resulting numbers this act has caused, numbers the administration would prefer you didn't know.
The concern was for the "millions of uninsured" who couldn't afford insurance under the old system. The concern was for "more affordable" health insurance, with greater choice of hospitals, doctors, and plans. We were told we have to help those without insurance, or those with pre-existing conditions, etc., to make healthcare fair and affordable. Or so these were the concerns we were told. Well, I'm not going to quote the bushels of statistics that show Obamacare has done exactly the opposite of what they claimed they wanted. I'll just look at the overall numbers, those Obama prefers not to share.
First, Obamacare was supposed to help those without insurance get insurance. What did the Act actually do? Some six million Americans lost their insurance plans because they didn't meet Obamacare standards. Some 4.8 million have signed up for Obamacare, and let's assume they were all "uninsured", so the actual result is a minimum of 1.2 million more people are now added to the numbers of people without insurance. But the reality is worse than that, for many of those who signed up already had insurance; they just shifted from private plans to the government exchange to take advantage of subsidies or lower rates. So while we don't know exactly how many just shifted their insurance we do know the number is substantial, and the real number of "newly uninsured" is conservatively closer to 3 to 3.5 million people.
Second, as of February 1st, roughly half of those 4.8 million people who signed up have failed to make their premium payments, which, in effect, means the insurers are not honoring their policies, which means they are being counted as "insured" by the administration but should really be added to those "newly uninsured" numbers. Adding those numbers to the others we now find that the reality of Obamacare is we now have somewhere between 5.5 and 6 million people without insurance thanks to Obamacare. We also have more and more doctors retiring, quoting all the restrictions of the new law as the reason, thus lowering our "choice", and making the promise, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" nothing more than another lie. We have insurers restricting networks, and hospitals, thus restricting our "choice" further, thus making the promise of "more choice" another lie.
We could go on examining all the promises versus the resulting reality of the Affordable Care Act but it is clear to any rational human being that, at this point, the whole of Obamacare was not an effort to make healthcare affordable to those who didn't have it. Rather it's design was to take over the healthcare industry, approximately one-sixth of our private economy, changing it from a privatized system to one that is government controlled, thus increasing the size and scope of government, and ultimately increasing the number of people dependent on that government. Otherwise, we can only conclude, if creating affordable healthcare was its goal, that this administration is the most bumbling, inept, and totally clueless administration ever, for they doubled the number of uninsured, cut back many hundreds of thousands of workers jobs from full-time to part-time, increased the cost of healthcare while narrowing its offerings, and made many more Americans dependent on government.
No, Obamacare was a socio-political act to increase the scope and power of the left, a power grab of historic proportions. For the more people the government controls the more votes its politicians control. America was built from the ground up, from the people, by the people, for the people. Big government is nothing short of ultimate Socialism, built from the top down, to control the people. You may not mind the government dictating to you what insurance you buy, or even if you have the right to own or carry a gun, but one day you may regret allowing them to grow so strong when they're dictating to you how many kids you can have, whether you can own property, how many cars you can buy, and so on. The day is coming, my friends, unless we wake up and put a stop to it. Beware when your government offers "protection" at the cost of your freedom, for the sacrifice of freedom ultimately places you in danger from the very people who promise to protect...
Food for thought...