2012

What's in a year? There are few years for which if you name it, I can recap the year right away. Some years are benchmark years, which for one reason or another, I can recall an event or two. I have a feeling that this will be one of those years for our church. This has been a huge year for Orlando Grace. I'm not sure all the things that you remember about this year, but I will name a few landmarks for me this year.

This was the year where I was officially welcomed into membership. As the first act at a church, I now believe membership is more important than I believed as a new Christian. January continued with changes to our leadership team. This was especially important to me, as my assigned elder, Will Powell, was recognized as someone through whom God was working as an elder.

2012 is a 53 Sunday year! While those who make the budget and get to do scheduling may like or dislike the extra week, it is always nice to think that we got a little extra time together. This year we learned that we were able to see Greg stay with us for another year! At the same time, we learned that Evan and Katie would not be staying with us. We produced our three-year "rotation" for our adult education.

Of course the event that will largely be remembered is the opening of the new facility. There were numerous things that accompany that like a first wedding, a first funeral, our first time helping park cars for an event at the catholic church across the street, first party, first picnic, first Sunday School, er, Equipping Hour, class, and the list could go on. But in this year of firsts, I love the fact that we are continuing with the things that defined us before the new building.

We took nominations for new church officers. We've had some 40-50 people join our church. We are continuing to assist other churches who are finding themselves in crisis. We are keeping solid theology as a pillar of the church. We are basically staying committed to everything and are not using the "new building" as an excuse to become stagnant.

Many of us came into the year with huge expectations and many of us had wonderful years, while some had horrendous years, but more than anything, we all recognize that 2012 is just a year. Most of our lives will not be defined by what we do in a single year, but rather defined by the accumulation of years that create patterns in our lives. And, with that, I cannot wait to see what God has in store in 2013!

Christmas!

Christmas comes this time each year! I don't believe it is frequent enough. Not just because there are a lot of cool things you can do at Christmas, or because Christmas is a great time to party, but also because the story of Christmas never gets old.

I have a Christmas speech that I give each year at Christmas breakfast, and I use a 25-page manuscript. I am constantly tweaking this document that will certainly end up over 100 pages when I am done. Each year, I accent a certain part of the document, as the Christmas story is really just the focal point of all of Scripture, beginning with the first chapter where we were create in God's image.

Many people would say that the middle of a document is where you find the meat of that document. Certainly opening your Bible to the middle and landing on Psalm 8, where it talks about how we were created just a little lower than God. We were once again re-asserted as the rulers or dominion-holders of creation!

As great of a position as that is and as much dignity as it gives us, we are reminded frequently in our every day lives (at least I am) of the fact that we live in a cursed world. There is pain, suffering, tragedy, difficulty in cultivating, rampant depravity, anti-God sentiment, and people generally living godless lives. There are people who in just the last couple weeks have shot defenseless school children, shot those who protect us in shooting firefighters, or try to burn down a veterinarian office. Not to mention the slaughter of the unborn or recently born that occurs every day in America and China, to name a few.

The fact is that in order to overcome this curse, we needed someone to defeat it. That someone came in the person of baby Jesus in a stable a little over 2000 years ago. His life ended with him having conquered over a defeated death and a sting-less grave! While the curse has been defeated, we still look forward to the Consummation, where Christ will complete his "mop-up" work!

We sing about this great day in the great "Christmas" song Joy to World. When the "earth receives her King," and "No more let sins and sorrows grow, Nor thorns infest the ground; He comes to make His blessings flow Far as the curse is found"! The wonder of the great gift that we needed befuddles me to this day. Why Christ would come to die for my sin when I was still a rebel to His will, awes and amazes me. The Christmas celebration is celebrating the genesis of this gift.

While I need to recognize this all the time, I am thankful for the reminder of Christmas! I am thankful that Christmas is here. And I am sorry that beginning tomorrow, the world will return to its "normal" life and Christ becomes an afterthought for most. So, yeah, I wish Christmas was celebrated all year. But, O What a wonderful thing to celebrate!

All Mine to Give

Last Christmas I bought a four pack of movies at Sam's. Last year, I detailed how and why I got the set of movies and then reviewed one of them. It is certainly a set of movies that had fallen beneath my radar and, seemingly, are not well known to the other people who exist.

My first thought process is how certain movies are more successful than others, even when the lesser-known movie is dramatically superior. For example, many have probably heard of the movie, Ace Ventura. Yet, I believe a far greater detective-based comedy, which was released around the same time, is Undercover Blues. In fact, of the many people I have shown the latter movie, the results aren't even close. We all agree that Undercover Blues is a superior movie in just about every way.

Clearly, money can be the primary factor, as the more money put behind a movie, the better it tends to do. But sometimes these decisions defy logic. What causes people to spend so much money on such a terrible movie or to not spend money on a real good movie? I bring up this thought process, because of a discussion with my wife about watching one of the movies on the aforementioned four pack of movies.

SPOILER ALERT!

The movie is All Mine to Give. Kelly can not understand why anyone would create a movie that is so sad. The premise of the movie is that a couple of newlyweds travel across the Atlantic Ocean to begin a life here in America. After some initial difficulty, they get a group of friends to help them build their house, and after a couple of difficult jobs, the husband settles on one that seems to be beneficial.

Then, the couple begin to have children, and it seems to be a lovely story. After they had their sixth child, the story advances several years. It seems like a wonderful family, and then one of the children gets sick with a deadly disease of which I have never heard. Apparently, kissing his quarantined son goodbye was the death kiss of the father (though the son makes a recovery).

When the mother is then forced into work and the thirteen year old eldest son becomes a man (ie, working and paying for familial needs, while taking care of the younger siblings while at home), the story could stabilize there. But no! We then watch the family go through the tragedy of the matriarch dying. It is from that point, from whence the title cometh. The oldest child, who is about 13, is given the responsibility of giving away his siblings one-by-one and the highlight of the movie, where he rebuffs a women for whom his parents did not care from getting the youngest.

I do not know from which place in a human spirit this movie could come. I don't know what it is that makes this kind of sadness appealing to watch. But I know that Old Yeller is also a sad movie that made it big. And honestly, I am not sure why such a sad movie would be created. The question I really have is why my eight-year-old son, Jacob likes the movie so much.

At any rate, if you are a sucker for tearjerkers, you should go see this movie. You can probably borrow it from me, but just know that I think it is impossible to not cry at some point in this movie. It does show children growing up before we would like them to, difficult decisions made, and a weird movie to ever be classified as a Christmas movie. But it is a sad story!

The Reason for the Season!

Even the largest pessimist around is, at this point, likely to concede that the Mayan calendar is not an accurate end of the world prognostication. I would assume that is not likely a surprise to most of us, but it is amazing how much our culture is willing to look at things other than the True Source of Knowledge for knowledge. Disregarding the similarities to y2k for now, where we put our faith in computer technology now disposable as thirteen years old, I think the core issue is the same as it always is—we put our faith in something other than God.

As we are in the season of Advent and looking to Christmas, I see the exact same tendency here. Culturally, it's easy to see that people want to give a lot of dap to a mythical, cheery, fat guy (I'm generally all for giving credit to phat guys). They want to invent myths about magical reindeer and snowmen. They want to create stories that do not, at their core, point back to Christ.

Some of us will now point to our holiday liturgy and its noted absence of these worldly foci. However, we are quite competent at taking God's glory on our own, without the aid of these cultural icons. For many, particularly those who are (or those who have) kids, the focus is often on presents or a tree or planned events or familial one-upmanship. There are so many idols that this holiday can generate that I feel bad naming some, as I have naturally skipped many others.

While there certainly is nothing wrong with any of these things on their own, and many can use these things to point to Christ, most of us do not. Most of us are content to find some socially compatible method of celebrating where we can give a little lip-service to The Baby coming without really worrying about the true reason that it actually happened.

My music leader and pastor, Greg, has been leading us in a song with some frequency lately that has a chorus which asserts, "All I have is Christ. Jesus is my life!" Anything that takes away that focus from Christ is an idol and just because someone else is able to use it to point to Christ does not mean it is naturally something that we should do.

I believe we must be super-intentional about what we do. Realizing that everything we do can be an opportunity to do something that points to Christ in one way or another, to give way to things that point elsewhere is misuse of, or bad stewardship over, our resources.

So as we celebrate this holiday, let us not be like the culture that seeks to discredit the only One to whom credit should be given. Let us be characterized as those who seek to do all we can to point people back to The Baby born all those years ago. Even more so than that, let us tell why He came.

He came that our sins may be covered, as we were caught in the clutches of sin. He came to live a perfect life, then to pay the penalty reserved for us. Now, we have the Gift that He offers, and imputes to us His own righteousness. And, thankfully, He is no longer angry with me. Hopefully during this season, we will call out more with whom He can be no longer angry.

Life Before This Century was Rough

I took a shower this morning. Shocking as it may be, it occurred. As exciting as it is, the fact that I went from filthy to clean in less than thirty minutes was not the most impactful thing that happened to me during the daily ritual.

You see, as a person coming to grips with technology, I have begun using my cell phone as the alarm clock. While the elimination of the previously universally-accepted nine minute standard for the snooze function is disheartening, the convenience and ease have made that one issue very overcomable. This morning was no different.

As I have heard complaints about the length of my showers as far back as 2001, I usually leave my cell phone on the counter to give me a reminder every five minutes (the five minute snooze is ridiculous, but until the old alarm clock makers manufacture a cell phone, we're stuck with what they have) that five more minutes of time has snuck away and I need to continue aiming for a quick completion. Today, however, my placement on the counter must have been slightly different than normal. I only know this because the behavior of the phone itself was a little different.

The vibration of the phone somehow caused the phone to slide a little bit, which then caused the phone to somehow catapult off the counter. As the sound jostled Kelly from her activities, she ran in and found my phone was now, much like Herbie in the Original Love Bug (check the last ten seconds of the clip for video proof), split into two yet sorta functioning. The odd thing is you can still hear the phone ring, make calls, and receive texts. Without a screen, however, I cannot read anything or see who made the call or converse with the person who did call.

So, I am now in a position of not being able to communicate with someone by cell phone. I am amazed at how much this little device has overtaken my life. I dropped my kids off at school, then drove to work. In that 30 minutes or so, there were at least five times where I felt the need to contact someone and began to do so, before realizing afresh that I could not.

At the same time, I feel as if I have let technology advance in some ways without me. Largely because I live my life within five feet of a computer, I have not gotten internet on my phone. This anecdote aside, I don't want internet on my phone. Of course, that is one of the maddening things about the situation. As I am looking online for potential replacements, they do not want to allow me to get a phone without internet capability.

Internet wouldn't be so bad, except then they charge you additional amounts each month. Since I don't need the internet, I don't want to pay for it! Of course, I will eventually have to give in and will, I guess, be forced to pay extra each month for that which I feel I don't need. I suspect, however, that there will come a day in ten years, when I will bemoan the fact that my internet enabled phone just isn't up to snuff.

At any rate, if you are trying to get a hold of me and cannot, the reason is I don't have a phone. If you've texted or left a message, I may never get it. And I am experiencing life circa 1999 (I know many of you got cell phones before that, but I was behind the times), where I don't know how people functioned. With life this difficult, maybe I should rethink this whole showering thing!

Ends Justifying Means

Did you make the correct decision? I must admit there are few questions I hear that I believe are more difficult to answer with regularity than this one. When you believe that ends-based correctness determination does not work, you are required to evaluate other things to determine if it was the correct decision.

For example, believing fervently in Romans 8:28, I necessarily believe that everything will in fact work together for my ultimate good, and that even those things which were intended with terrible intentions will be able to be redeemed. I am also readily aware of my own depravity and that I am, in fact, prone to sin, even after I accept the gift of God.

Because of this, it is never acceptable to me to determine if the correct decision was made based only on how it works. I do frequently watch sports, and while the argument is more acceptable there, there are certainly times where the totality of the situation is not addressed by that answer. Many times the answer you would get from that analysis is the incorrect answer.

In short, I almost always take the view that the ends do not justify the means, as it seems that often the morals behind the end which you are trying to achieve are frequently undermined by the immorality of the actions taken unto that end. Therefore, things are not always as they appear; it is sometimes a matter of perception.

This is also even more evident when you begin with doing something for someone else. If the reaction is proper, we may be tempted to say that we have a de facto justification. I think we all know situations where a parent, for example, has given their child too much rope. Similarly, we might be tempted to say that a decision was incorrect, merely because it didn't work out the way we wanted.

It is in that situation that I have found myself recently. A few people have questioned whether or not I should have done it. While I understand their questioning and I am readily aware that with hindsight, things might have been different, I also know that those arguments alone will never convince me whether or not I made the proper decision.

I guess I believe that it is not just the ends that are laid out for me, but that the means to those ends are also appointed. This is vitally important, and is something I feel is too often attacked in culture. If the ends were all that mattered, wouldn't doctor assisted suicide be a more favorable option? If ends based decision making were all that mattered, an uncaught criminal would be OK.

No, I am persuaded that the means to get to a decision are vitally important, and that sometimes an unfavorable conclusion to a line of logic or action is the correct way to go. While our eyes may only see results, we should be prepared to comprehend that sometimes results are deceiving. Sometimes we may never see the guy who is completely unprepared and unethical get a negative result, but that can never justify it.

Ours is not to set the results of the independent action, and for that, I am exceedingly grateful. I have enough trouble making sure my family is reasonably prepared, that determining the ends of everyone else's actions would not only be unfruitful, but also usurping God's authority. So, the next time we try to use the results as a reason to change the process, think about the fact that is not an acceptable way to make decisions.

Prayer

As I sat through the great class that Chuck Mitchell and Will Powell are teaching on Discipleship, I became intrigued by the discussion on prayer. Prayer is the easiest thing in the world at which to become proficient, and yet possibly the most difficult subject in the world to master. My preschool-aged children are experts, and yet the closer I get to God in my walk, the more inadequate I feel in the area.

Biblical prayer should be a part of discipleship, and it's easy to see why. The mature Christian is one whose life is devoted to prayer. I've heard it said that while some men try to promote themselves in town square, the man of God can be found on his knees in private. The Bible describes Daniel as someone who was known for his prayer life. Jesus, himself, was given to prayer. He taught us how to pray, exemplified good prayer, and valued its very existence.

Part of this discipleship involves helping encourage others to pray. We do this by encouraging planned prayer. We encourage the setting aside of time to pray. We encourage people to honestly report to God their frustration and inability to think of things for which to pray. As I grow older, I understand more and more the allegory of our Heavenly Father. You see, when my children come and tell me even the ways they are disappointed with me, I know that there is maturity and depth in the relationship. When they petition me with reverence, I can grow the relationship no matter the answer. To paraphrase Matthew, If I (being evil) know how to improve my relationship with my children, how much more can my Father in Heaven improve His relationship with us.

We often make excuses for why we can't pray. We'll claim to be too busy or too ashamed. We'll say we're too spiritually dry, God doesn't answer our prayers, or we're too ashamed to pray. While I believe, as was pointed out by a student in the aforementioned class, that these are all just ways of saying that we are not reverencing God the way we should and we are falling back into the natural man's way of thinking. Keeping each other accountable by praying with one another and keeping ourselves accountable by maintaining a record of our requests and answers are ways to make sure we stay the course.

I've given a run at dissecting prayer before and I believe there is great value in it, but I believe the most important thing to remember is that prayer is intended for the glory of God. Prayer is one of the primary ways that we can be changed. I love it when John Piper says that we pray because we are homesick. We are in our temporary home—a cursed world. We long to be with our Savior. The way to communicate with Him is through prayer.

So let me be one to encourage you that we should be a praying people. I pray that our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus, make us increase and abound in love for one another and for all, so that He may make our hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints! (Even if we don't feel like it).

Working Against Ourselves

You're fired. Those words that can cause fear to rise up in all of us. It's kind of ironic that they became a catchphrase on a TV show. I'm not sure if we revel in other people's misery or if we find the situation to be a benefit to them, even if they are fired on a grand scale.

Others, like George Costanza, want to get fired. It is like they just have this desire to not be employed. Sometimes people do it with panache, while other times it is just general incompetence. Most of us, however, need to keep our jobs for the sake that it supports the rest of our life. We find it difficult to eat, live, play, or just enjoy anything without a little money.

I just had a chance to observe a group where everyone was complaining about their job, and they were supposedly "desirous" of getting fired. This is a tricky situation, as getting fired means so much more, like the loss of income and the ability to make a living. Some think getting fired in the correct way is tremendous, as it can come connected to things like Unemployment if it is accomplished in certain ways.

Nevertheless, I posit that one's desire to get fired can be related to their reliance on the income. I know someone who has wanted to leave his job for years, but he just can't leave, because he needs the income to support his family. I know others who bound aimlessly from one short term job to the next, largely because the income is all superfluous to their need.

I recently have been threatened with the loss of a couple of different jobs. (Yeah, I have multiple jobs). One struck at the very core of my need and really scared me. I did nothing wrong, and yet I was concerned that my way of life would need to change. It was the state of Florida inadvertently removing my license.

I also am the volunteer coach of my son's flag football team. Someone threatened to have me removed from that job. Oddly, that threat gave me no extra consternation. Losing that "job" was almost a thought of exuberance, because it is a lot of work and no benefit, other than the joy of watching my son play. This knowledge kind of made me emboldened. I spoke with authority and without fear of repercussion.

It was then that I realized that the lack of fear sometimes makes you better, yet when we need to be better, we have that fear. I don't know if that is fixable, but the human condition seems to make us worse at certain tasks when we need to be better. Therefore, I determined to move forward with the same courage when I cared, as when I didn't. Let's see if I can last one minute or two in that new resolution!

Thanksgiving

As I sit on here on so-called "Black Friday," I consider the irony of our culture. We set aside a day to supposedly give thanks for all we have, just so that the next day we can get a bunch of new stuff that we didn't have the day before, yet wanted. Seems similar to the concept of "Fat Tuesday" to me, where people decide to load up a bunch of sins from which they will abstain during the Lenten period beginning on the very next day—Ash Wednesday.

There are few things that must flow logically from this concept. The first is that we are not (as a culture) truly thankful. I like to think of it in these terms. When my child says, "Dad, thank you so much for what you've given me. Can I have something else?" I follow that they don't really want what I have given them, though I am happy that they were at least nice about it.:) I would assert that the only way to be truly thankful is through the regenerating work of Christ, but that is food for a different meal.

The holiday of Thanksgiving itself is a weird one. There are some out there who attempt to spiritualize it, which I believe is a good thing mirroring the very nature of God. On the other hand, I feel that many who do this believe that Thanksgiving itself, as celebrated in this culture, is Christian or of distinctly Christian roots. I believe just as important as taking something devoid of Christ and injecting Christ into it is the reality of understanding what is actually occurring. We must see that the American culture itself is not crying out to God with thanks on this holiday.

Perhaps it is an over-bias of mine, but I feel like it is a real problem that we have a set of people attributing to God the mandation of the American Thanksgiving Day. The holiday was officially recognized by a President who didn't even claim to be a Christian. The main reason of the holiday was for the earlier boost it gave the economy with earlier Christmas shopping. This is clearly not the championing of a new Christian cause. Further, even the element that seems to be the genesis of this argument (the giving of thanks) is distinctively wrapped in language that completely removed Abraham Lincoln's allusion to God in his hope decades earlier.

All of this to say that this should be one of the good things about the holiday for us. As Christians we should be distinct from the world and their practices. Living in a culture so addicted to consumerism and the infatuation with "things" to make us happy, it should be easy for a group of people whose only sufficiency comes from Christ to stand out. We should be able to easily be seen as the group that gives thanks in ways that are different.

As we let the peace of Christ rule in our hearts, we should live in state of thankfulness for the Lord and what he has done 365 days a year. When we get this down, then we will know what a holiday called Thanksgiving actually should be about. And maybe we could start on transforming our culture to look to a God who gives us peace, instead of the "stuff" we can accumulate, which is forever being augmented. This is where I am really trying to focus on the concept Richard Parker taught us at the Men's Recharge Conference last week. The Bible tells us to count it as joy WHEN WE ENCOUNTER VARIOUS TRIALS.

This is the true meaning of what our thanksgiving should be. When we can be thankful for the trials we are put through, when we can be thankful for all the things that our "Tough Providences", when we can be thankful when culture considers us outcasts, when we can love in spite of attacks on the very core of what we believe, when we can be thankful enough for what God has given us that we don't covet the sales on Black Friday, when we can be blameless and harmless, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, then we may shine as lights in the world and be celebrating a Thanksgiving that God would have for us!

Don't Provoke your Children

There are countless verses on this in the Bible, because I think this is our tendency as parents. As children, we want to rage against the machine and fight the power. We just don't want to obey, because, as humans, we naturally dislike authority. Yet something strange happens along the way. We get some authority, and all of a sudden, we want to assert our authority.

Our kids work hard on some things. Sometimes it is in areas we encourage and sometimes it is in areas where we might prefer that they not devote so much energy. It is vitally important that we help focus them on the proper things. At the same time, I think it is important that we not frustrate their purpose.

I was watching some television where the parents were attempting to get their child to "behave" and it was clear they were thwarting her joy. While they were legitimately trying to teach their child a lesson, it was clear that more than a lesson they were teaching her that they were unreliable and that she could not achieve the things she wanted.

Now, I do not think that children should be completely isolated, but acts that seem arbitrary or confusing do not assist the growth of our children. While it is clear that it easier for me to see this from the outside, I find that it is true to life. There are many people I know who frustrate their children with unbalanced discipline and questionable tactics.

I am sure that I fall into that category as well, and I need your help to point it out. But the thing that absolutely frustrated me is when I see parents, whose kids have been rightly encouraged to do something. Then those parents seemingly become inconsistent by not allowing their child the ability to capitalize on that work.

To me, it's like Archie Manning telling Peyton that he couldn't play in a football league after teaching him all the reads a quarterback needs to make. It sends a mixed message and is not beneficial. Archie would have been better served to tell him nothing about QB reads. And I have seen this several times recently. Sending children a consistent message is something on which I am sure I fail, but at the same time, I see others failing in grand fashion.

The lives of children are hard enough. We should do what we can to give them a consistent message and not provoke them to not know to what they should listen and what they should disregard. And if I am failing my own easy test, please let me know!

Whatever Happened to Customer Service?

Last week, I wrote a blog post about Zaxby's and their terrible customer service. For some reason, it was one of my most popular posts. Most of the email replies fell into two camps. One, I agree with you and your boycott. Two, you are correct, but I put up with their atrocious service because their product is good.

I have become convinced that the reason so many of us put up with terrible customer service is because it is so prevalent that it doesn't stand out. Bad public relations and customer service are everywhere. As I think about the things I have consumed in the last week, I realize that I am generally treated poorly. Now, I still believe that Zaxby's customer service is above and beyond (or should I say, below and before), and I am continuing with my boycott conclusion, but this is chapter two of my complaint corner.:)

This time my complaint is about Teco Peoples Gas. They are the local provider of natural gas in my area, and yes, they are a complete monopoly. Now I don't really like the idea of protected monopolies, in general, but I do understand how the prices of utilities are, in general, benefited by doing so. Nevertheless, I had my second run-in with them in the past few years (though since they only bill once a month, that's relatively frequent).

This happened after I paid my bill during the extended weekend. They then decided that this (Wednesday) afternoon was the perfect time to turn off our gas. Everyone makes mistakes, and I am willing to forgive, but apparently, they feel we need to pay them to turn our power back on. They concede that we paid the bill. They just say that they didn't have time to update the records to the guy who was turning off the gas. Yet, their records being the issue, I figured that we would not need to pay a "re-activation" fee.

They told me that I should be more prompt in paying the bill. That is probably true, but they don't mail out bills (this is another pet peeve of mine). They only let you pay online. I'm not really offended by that, but I have no idea when the bills come. And if I do decide to pay, they have assigned me a password that I cannot change to what I want to change it to. So, in order to pay online, they have to mail me a new password (wouldn't it just be easier to mail the stupid bill?).

I guess this situation is better than the last time they frustrated me. That happened when they disputed that I actually paid the bill. I showed the money coming out of my bank account and yet, they refused to credit me the $30 and made me pay the $70 reconnect fee. I guess the worst part is I CAN'T boycott them, unless I decide to only take cold showers and never run the heat. As motivated as I may be, I think that is cruel to my children. So, I put up with it. But I don't have to like it, do I?

Dissent is not Disloyalty

Faithful are the wounds of a friend. In the sub-vocalization of Scripture in my mind, the voice-over I hear is my father's voice. His voice is the voice of many, probably only ranking behind my own squeaky childhood voice and that of my sister quoting chapters to me, but this is one that I think of often.

Fortunately, I hear a lot of Scripture clunking around in my head. But this verse, in particular, is one that I think needs to be accented. As I am alluding to the famous Murrow quote, so many of us feel as if loyalty is shown only in agreement. Agreement is not a virtue. In fact, mindless agreement, is in my mind, a waste of energy.

If you read the second half of the verse, you see that those who mindlessly agree (even rising to the level of "kisses") are enemies. The fact is you won't agree with someone on everything. I've written over 250 blog posts, and if you don't disagree with one, you probably haven't read very many. The fact is even those who love us most will occasionally disagree with us, if they are attempting to be close at all.

The thing that needs to be understood is that disagreement doesn't have to be the end of it all. In fact, as I always tell my wife (and anyone else who will listen), "If one situation can ruin your relationship, your relationship wasn't that solid to begin with." A relationship based on agreement is less of a relationship and more of a contingency connection.

I have often written about the things on which we need to stand firm. Nevertheless, if we recognize someone as a friend, the fact that they are willing to tell us when they disagree, is a blessing. The fact that we are held accountable and willing to have someone continue to sharpen us is a blessing. And the Bible tells us that we should count those people as faithful.

So, the next time you have a friend who says something that makes you revolt or just flat get irritated, remember the need to talk to one another about it. Be willing to, in love, tell that person your disagreement. That is a way to be a faithful friend.

Fewer People Should Vote

I started to talk about voting during the primary, but today I will focus on the fact that I believe we should allow fewer people to vote. Voting is, by its very nature, taking a set of factors and determining which are the best way to take a country (or state or county or soil & water management district or city or...). Obviously, it is exceedingly rare that two people will agree on everything (to quote Joel Hunter, "When two people always agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary"). Therefore, we must determine whose foibles with which we can most readily live. That is what we do when we vote.

Now, as I went to the polling place surrounded by people who couldn't speak English, I felt like we need to re-institute literacy tests. Of course, they are currently illegal in this country, but it seems to make sense to me. If you can't read the ballot, you shouldn't be allowed to fill it out. Sort of like the person who can't answer the SAT practice questions correctly, if you can't read a basic ballot, why should you get a say equal to mine?

There was a lady at my polling place that voted for only three people on the whole ballot. The problem was all three were running for President (Roseanne Barr, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama). They got her another ballot. Should we really be bending over backwards to get that person a say in who the next President in the United States is? I can handle someone disagreeing with me (like the ref in the Steeler-Giant game), but it's another thing entirely to leave the decision with a group of people that have no clue. Like if they had polled people in a Bangladeshian bar for that football call. The call may be right or wrong, but those people should't be making it. Why is this lady allowed to potentially be the deciding vote in swing state Florida?

As they begin to pass out sample ballots to the people who want one, and as people are reading it for the first time, they ask questions that should allow their vote to be disregarded. I literally heard, "Is Dowdy the guy who had that nice girl in jeans waving on the way in?" asked as someone was reviewing the ballot. People were asking if 8 were a prime number to determine their vote on that numbered amendment. My wife has a rule that I like. If you don't know what you're voting before you get there, you can't vote on that issue or race.

My next soapbox is early voting. I am wholeheartedly against early voting. Now let me make two big disclaimers. Do not confuse early voting with absentee voting. I am in favor of, and have even taken advantage of, absentee voting. It allows for people who might have another commitment (ie, those with a life) to accommodate that. It also mandates that you follow certain rules and procedures to get your vote in. I like it. Additionally, if your state and/or district allows for early voting, I have no problem with your taking advantage of it. It is a right given and, if exercised, feel free to do so.

Contrariwise, the very premise of early voting is to make access to voting easier. I believe access to voting is something that should be limited. Congress Standardized Election Day in 1845 and while I am fine with that date being changed, why should individual counties and states be able to overrule Congress? The argument that today's society needs greater access is absurd. In 1845, many people missed three days of work to vote (one to vote and two to travel [one day each way]). The reality is getting around to voting is easy enough. It is further undisputed that the more restrictions put on voting, the greater the education level of those voting.

This recent concept I commonly hear, "It doesn't matter for whom you vote, so long as you vote" is just silly. The thought that increased numbers in voting means superior things is ludicrous. Do 5,000 additional votes on either side do anything rather than tax the people and equipment used for voting? Keeping those early voting facilities stocked adds expense to the taxpayer without a benefit other than arbitrarily increasing the number of votes.

All that having been said, it is great to live in a place where voting happens and there is a legitimate competition (as opposed to votes in, say, Cuba). I just wish the people voting were actually held to some standard so that the vote actually represented more than a coloring contest.

Walking Worthy, even in Voting

As I celebrated Reformation Day with some fellow church family members, I began thinking as we spoke about a myriad of Reformers. We talked about their boldness in proclaiming the gospel, and I felt too timid. We spoke of the volume of Scripture they had memorized, and I felt inadequate. We spoke about the sacrifices they made to better our lives, and I felt blessed.

The more I considered these great men of the Reformation, the more I began to think about the conversation I had recently with a fellow Christian. She felt that you should look to Christ for an example and looking anywhere else was problematic. Coming out of the Reformation, where worshiping others was somewhat normal, I see the point.

By the same token, extrapolating from that situation that judging someone else is stepping out of bounds and indicates that you are being haughty or self-righteous is just not correct. I seem to hear a similar sentiment often these days. And while I wholeheartedly agree that we should always be looking to point others to Christ, I disagree with the point that we should point people away from us.

The apostle Paul says that we should do the things we see him doing. We should live our lives in such a way where we feel comfortable telling people that they need to emulate us. Doubtlessly we will make mistakes and we must be aware of our own depravity, but living a life that mirrors what God wants should be the major part of our reputation. And we shouldn't be ashamed to have people watching us.

It is a balancing act, to be sure. It reminds me of something else we need to balance—political elections. We need to be concerned with elections. In four days there are a series of elections, which I think are very important. And if you want to know how you should vote, I’ll be happy to tell you. Voting is a privilege not to be taken for granted. Those of us who reap the benefits of living in a republic should play a part in upholding said republic. Voting is part of our stewardship to use all the resources we have been given in ways that honor God; to waste a vote is to squander a gift over which we should be stewards.

On the other hand, to think that we are in control of the world, merely because we vote is a mistake. As Joe pointed out earlier this week, we have a way of turning things into gods. When we think we are in control, we tend to put faith in our ability. Maybe we can convince enough people to vote the correct way, so that we may experience better life. While noble, the reality is that we are failing (whether we "win" or "lose") because we are putting our trust in our own strength.

Finding that proper balance can be exceedingly difficult. Fortunately, I know that I can trust in God. I know that He is working to change me so that my actions and my voting mirror Him. Most of all, that I recognize that He is in control, no matter how messed up I feel things are, is important. Perhaps one day we can, as Joseph did, say that the things which were meant for our destruction were ultimately used for God's benefit.

Zaxby's Must be Boycotted

Those who know me well will be shocked by this blog post. I have long been a fan of Zaxby's. I've been known to skip a meal (I know, shocking) just so I can be ready for a full meal and a half of their tasty awesomeness. Their Chicken Fingers are still exceedingly tasty, which is really the only time a boycott matters or makes sense. I mean, I've been "boycotting" creamed spinach since before I had teeth. See, not really a boycott, but rather just discerning taste buds.

Now, in order to tell this story fully, a back-story is demanded. I live at least a half hour from the nearest Zaxby's, so I need to go out of my way to go there with any regularity. I go every time I can fit a meal around going to Sea World. I go every time I visit my sister in Tallahassee. I even try to go every time I visit my father-in-law in Deltona. I have long been infatuated with their delicious chicken. My friend, David Poston, and I try to go at least once every year when we are at Bible Quiz tournaments.

Therefore, almost every experience I have had with them has been with a new store. So, I will guess that it is possible that there is a local store in your area that is the exception to this rule, but unfortunately, the 17 different stores I have been to in the last year (according to my saved receipts that is the number) all suffer from the same condition—their service is terrible.

Now terrible service is acceptable. As recently as ten years ago, I was running a McDonald's and while we prided ourselves on 90-second Drive-Thru experience on average, I know there must have been a customer or two that received statistical outlier service of over 3-4 minutes. And there were even days where, for whatever reason, we were understaffed and gave poor service to many on that day. I can accept that. But one thing, in my opinion, that a manager must understand is that when you are giving poor service, you need to own it. My pattern was to Admit it, apologize, and do my best to correct what I could.

Now, a manager who does not do that could just be having a bad day. He may just not want to admit, for whatever reason, that he didn't accomplish top level service. I get that. What I don't understand is why every Zaxby's manager I've ever spoken to has been rude. Not just defensive of their job, but downright unconcerned about keeping the customer happy. While I am not a "regular" at any of these stores, I do (er, did) consider myself a "regular" of the franchise in general, as I ate there over an average of once a week so far this year.

Now, my frustration began shortly after I wrote a blog post about Chick-Fil-A. Someone joked with me about meeting a rude employee of the chain. As I thought back, I realized that I had never experienced that. I'm sure it happens, but that is certainly not the norm. I would guess that if I told you that there was a bad customer service experience at Chick-Fil-A, you would be surprised. It's part of their culture to give good customer service. Whether you have connections or not, if you give them the impression in the interview that screams poor customer service, they just won't hire you. My McDonald's was like that, though chain-wide they aren't, I do find that in general, McDonald's is pretty good also.

As I thought about it, I realized the only quick service restaurant I have been to that is defined by their bad service was Zaxby's. Nevertheless, I have been several times since then, and my experiences have just gotten worse. The last two were similar, yet in different states. When I went with my kids on the way to Sea World, I asked for a large water, as I was thirsty, and I drink water. The guy told me that I had to pay full price for a large water. I told him that I did not feel like paying for water, as I was going to be headed into Sea World in five minutes and [unlike CFA] their cups don't insulate the ice well at all. So I said to just give me a couple free waters. Now I ordered over $20 worth of food and paid for a drink for each of my kids. Yet I noticed later that they charged me for BOTH of the small waters (which was more than the total for the large water).

So, I called the manager and said they should at least tell me they are going to charge me, especially since I mentioned that I did not want to pay. The manager said that was policy. I said that while I think the Florida Restaurant department may require free water, I wasn't even upset at the policy at this time, just the fact that I was not warned. He said, "There's nothing I can do for you now" and hung up on me. I was so furious that I spent the first ten minutes in Sea World explaining my beef to their 1-800 complaint line. I was assured that this was an isolated instance.

About a week later I went to a Zaxby's in Georgia. The scenario played out similarly, except I was alone. I ordered $15 worth of chicken fingers (yeah, I like them and I'm phat—deal with it). I ordered a large water. They informed me that they would have to charge me, so I asked if I could have two free waters. She said yes and put them on the order. I very quickly realized that I was charged a quarter for each water. This time I didn't harp on the not telling me, but rather on the policy itself. The manager told me, "Here's your food; Kiss off." I was so irritated that I spent the next hours of my trip in the car, on my cell phone, reporting to the Georgia authorities, whom I found from the 1-800-GEORGIA line, where I was transferred at least a dozen times. Needless to say that restaurant will begin offering free water or close its doors.

All that to say that what troubles me is not the charging for water. I'm a big boy, and I can pay for it. It isn't really that they don't say anything when they charge you, which, by the way, I've never had done at McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Subway, Chick-Fil-A, Arby's, or any other quick service restaurant I've been to (and I go often and almost always order water). What bothers me is that Zaxby's has a propensity for hiring clowns who care so little about pleasing the customer that they are willing to be rude over relatively paltry sums.

For that reason, I will not be eating at Zaxby's for the next several months. There's only one problem—I'm jonesing for their Chicken Fingers.

If You Miss the Phat Man...

After 11 months of blogging essentially every other day, I am taking some time off to determine how often I should blog into the future. I know that I will return around Reformation Day. But if you need a fix, here is a link to my blogs at my church's website that are not otherwise connected to this blog. They were left off this blog largely because they are specifically geared towards the church. Nevertheless, they were written by me, and I am not yet recanting! Feel free to comment there, and check back on Reformation Day for my return!


Operation World Impacts OGC on March 16, 2012

Being a Better Friendship Champion on March 30, 2012

Do We Dare Look Back? on May 4, 2012

Should we Honor our Mothers? on May 11, 2012

God is Building Orlando Grace on May 25, 2012

Let me tell you where I was on Sunday! on June 10, 2012

A Tale of One Church on June 22, 2012

A Measurable Challenge on June 29, 2012

Can we Celebrate Our Independence Day? on July 6, 2012

How are We Good? on July 20, 2012

New Identity and New Potential on August 24, 2012

Comfort in Sovereignty on September 14, 2012

Does God have a Permissive Will? on September 28, 2012

The Sabbath on October 5, 2012

Living for God in our Golden Years on October 12, 2012

What is Parking Cars Really Like? on October 19, 2012

Refs Don't Win Games (or Lose them)

I played soccer when I was five. After my team won a few games, we lost a game. I got in the car with my parents, and I proceeded to tell my dad that we lost because the refs were bad at their job. He quickly informed me that you never lose a game because of the Refs. He told me that if we had done what we were supposed to do or were better at the game, we would have won. He said it in such a matter-of-fact way, that I immediately changed my tune.

My dad did not tell me to not complain about the refs. In fact, I never remember him doing so in all my years of having refs in a variety of sports and games. I do remember him showing me the foolishness of attempting to blame the incompetence of my team and me on refs. It became so ingrained in me that my first thought when people complain about the refs is that they must not be smart enough to realize the opportunities they had to win.

Now, Marc and I were involved in an event where if the Ref did not effect the outcome of the game, he certainly would have had we come closer to challenging. When a non-existent rule is called upwards of 15 times in a game, all on one team, then you know there is an issue. But that isolated instance aside (and the others like them, Tim Donaghy), I think the conclusion is correct.

Now, I watched the Green Bay-Seattle game. I will start by saying that neither of these teams tickle my fancy, and I would have quite content to see them both lose (or if they can keep the Saints out of the Playoffs, both win). I love football, but other than the NFC East, I really like to cheer for teams in the AFC. Having said that, the game was horribly officiated in the sense that bad calls were abundant, particularly Pass Interference on both sides. Granting Rodgers the first down on that replay seemed impossible.

My goal is not to list the litany of mistakes made by the refs, as I am sure if I received such scrutiny in my job, I, too, would be a failure. There is a reason why schools usually consider a 90% to be an A. Perfection just isn't happening. Neither the old refs nor anyone else would call a perfect game.

It is easy to realize that missed calls are always part of the game, but the main issue with new refs should be things like flow of the game, ability to communicate through dialogue with the players, and things of that nature. Nevertheless, I still think my dad's point rings true. While Tate definitely interfered with that pass, I have seen blatant Pass Interference on hundreds of Hail Mary's in my football watching days, but never once have I seen it called. Why the sudden desire to be strict now? Because the "real" beef people have is the interception-touchdown call.

Sidebar. I think the Refs made the correct call on the last play. The NFL isn't a game of 500 in elementary school, where the person who catches it the "best" gets the points. The offensive player clearly has the advantage in the rules. The defender in this case, M.D. Jennings (which doctors should confirm is an awesome name), clearly had the ball better. But before he hit the ground, Golden Tate (who has an even better name) also acquired possession. They both had it when hitting the ground. This isn't a test of who had the ball more, but rather did the offensive player have it before possession was established [in case you were wondering, establishing possession requires controlling the ball, having two feet, and making a football move]. I submit he did. End of sidebar.

Regardless of where you fall on the last call, the Packers were aided by an incredible number of bad calls. All three scoring drives would have been cut short without questionable calls on third down. Their offensive line is the Swiss cheese of the NFL. Clear issues abounded during that game. If Jennings had just knocked it down as Chris Berman and Tom Jackson have been preaching on NFL Primetime (or, its current iteration as The Blitz), the game would be over.

Aaron Rodgers was never held to 12 points last year (when they got 14 the one time, they lost). This year with significant aid from the Refs, he was held to 12. The Packers put themselves in a position to be beat by one call, and they were. While I understand that one call affects games, I think that is a far different thing than deciding them. I have a friend who is an ardent fan of Ohio State. He blames a bad call on the opening kickoff for Ohio State's loss in the 2007 BCS National Championship Game.

Clearly we can see that such a call may have affected the game, but it did not decide it. No singular play decides a game. Did Boston College only win against Miami because of Doug Flutie's pass? No, if they had not played well the rest of the game, that play would be meaningless. Any time you leave it up to one play, you leave yourself open to such a possibility. Green Bay, even if they were the victims of a terrible call, put themselves in that spot.

I think Mike McCarthy has had the proper response. He's clearly upset, just as anyone would be naturally, but he is not taking to blaming. This is the one chance at success, in my opinion. Because I believe that blaming someone else and not accepting personal accountability is a sure way to become less effective. But that will have to be another post.

Mourning

Torrey Smith will apparently be playing tonight, just hours after learning that his brother passed away in a motorcycle accident. I've heard people applaud him and even more talk about the travesty his playing creates. I'm not sure the decision can be made without being inside his head, and I, for one, would not presume to have that kind of knowledge.

We all grieve differently. This became abundantly evident to me in a real way a couple of years ago. I was helping coach a Bible Quiz team, of which two-thirds of the team had their aunt die during the first day of competition. After they advanced to the finals against all odds, they were given the terrible news. One fan insisted that they should not quiz in the finals. Their mother, however, felt that they needed to quiz to honor their aunt.

Brett Favre played in a football game shortly after his father died, and my list will end there, as the List could be endless. There are those who feel being with their family and skipping the game or event is essential. And dependant upon what you do for a living, how duplicatable the situation is, and your relationship to the deceased and those that survive the deceased, it may be plainly obvious that you should go one way or the other.

Yet, for me, I will not be the one to tell you. Because for every Elaine Benes who gets dumped because she went back for Jujyfruits, there is a Bo Kimble, who leads a mediocre team farther than imaginable in the NCAA tournament.

So, as I am now watching Torrey torch the Patriots, I wonder, "Did he do the right thing?" I can't be sure, but one thing I know. I won't question him, and I don't think we should (unless you are his mother or otherwise related to him). He made a decision that fits his situation. At this point, the best thing we can do is pray for his family's peace and recovery.

What is a Peacemaker?

As Christians, we truly have enviable lives. It is quite exciting to realize how truly blessed we are. It was also nice to hear Pastor Curt preach on the blessing of being a peacemaker this last week. In my past, I have been to many churches where a culture of peacemaking was just not the norm. Many of those churches are great churches and do many things well, but I cannot tell you the overwhelming sense of safety that comes from being in such a church.

While Pastor Curt did a phenomenal job unpacking that verse, I couldn't help but think about the context of verses as a whole. And while these are different character traits that are separable to a degree, I believe they are not so much prescriptions for the written reward. Rather, I believe these are descriptions of those who are regenerate. Those who live their lives for Christ will be characterized and described as poor in spirit, mourning, meek, hungry and thirsty for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, reviled and persecuted for Christ's name, and yes, peacemakers.

You see, if we are chosen by God, we will live these enviable lives that take on the characteristics Jesus named. I don't believe Jesus came up with a haphazard list based purely on a spur-of-the-moment emotion, like I've been known to do. This list of the fortunate ones is a comprehensive, connected list in my opinion. Therefore, when we look at how to be a peacemaker, of which PC's sermon did a fantastic job, we can further know that the other characteristics will be encompassed in our peacemaking.

A peacemaker will be poor in spirit. He will not be one who is setting his affection on this world or the arguments contained herein, but rather, he will be totally filled with a desire for redemptive conversation. He will be driven by what is important in the Kingdom of Heaven. To me, this means being kind, and remaining ardently supportive of the essentials of the Christian life and letting things that do not carry a Kingdom consequence to be glossed over. He will make peace by remaining poor in spirit!

A peacemaker will mourn. I, personally, believe that mourning is the first step to peacemaking. We don't attempt to solicit peace until we are brought to mourning by someone else. This is the impetus which drives us to superior desire to keep the peace with others. We will mourn, and we will be comforted. That comfort will come through our attempts to make peace. It gives us freedom to not dwell or be dragged down by someone else's life (even if it leads to our morning).

A peacemaker will be meek. I think the description of "how-to" achieve peace relies heavily on this meekness. My dad always gave the example of Hoss from the old TV show Bonanza. Meekness is strength under control. Often when making peace, we will forego our legal correctness and perhaps justified feelings for the assurance of peace with a brother or sister in Christ. We are not always doormats, and we know when the proper time to fight is, but we also are controlled in our strength. This is the heart of meekness. We are willing to give up something, because of the potential for peace. Peacemakers will be meek.

Peacemakers hunger and thirst for righteousness. Peace making is not merely about forgoing our rights, but rather seeking a righteous decision where God can be edified, rather than obscured. We hunger and thirst for this righteousness. And our peacemaking will draw us into a relationship with Him, where He is giving us a desire to pursue more and more righteousness. Peacemakers will hunger and thirst for righteousness!

Peacemakers will be merciful. Perhaps this is redundant, but there is a reason that Christ was repetitious. Sheep need things drilled in before they can catch on to such a concept. Mercy will define our actions. As Christ taught the parable of the one forgiven being required to likewise forgive, the mercy we have been given is so great, that we cannot help but to show mercy to others. This is a necessity to make peace, and peacemakers will be merciful!

Peacemakers will be pure in heart. True peacemaking is not about deceptively trying to get your way. True peacemaking is to purely achieve the best result for His kingdom. This is not the purity that describes us before our salvific experience. Nevertheless, it will be one of the enviable qualities that will describe us afterward. Peacemakers will be pure in heart!

Finally, peacemakers will be persecuted for the name of Christ. We will be reviled. Men will say all kinds of evil about us. This is one that the American church struggles to understand. We have lived lives largely devoid of persecution. I've spent many hours wondering if we could truly be part of the church with the lightness of our persecution. Even though Christians are attacked in many ways culturally (beliefs, actions, concerns, etc.), we lead lives largely of no persecution. But there will be. Even if we can avoid the persecution, people will revile us and speak all manner of evil against us. This is the call of a peacemaker.

So, as excited as you may be by reading the other characteristics, you may be just as depressed by hearing this. But take heart. Our Savior promised us that our reward is in heaven. He has promised us that we are blessed. And we can be excited that peacemakers will be persecuted!

Kindness

"And be ye kind on to another..."

I honestly have been torn apart by this command more than just about any other command. First of all, what is kindness? What is kindness not? Is kindness ever not required? What are the associated commands and how does that color our view?

Some may say that this is a silly internal debate, so I feel the need to clarify. Does kindness mean that you are always using soothing words or that you must always be nice to people? Does kindness mean that sometimes you need to tell someone the truth they don't want to hear for their ultimate benefit?

This is where I have my first sharp disagreement with some. I do not believe you are being kind to someone who needs the proverbial kick in the butt and does not get it from you, because of your quest for not offending. And since Ephesians 4:32 links kindness to God's forgiveness in Christ, I believe that we need to look to that for our guide. Christ did many things that others might not call kind. He criticized those who were "perfect" in their upholding the law (the Pharisees). He threw over tables when he saw others sinning.

Now, I don't want to put our righteousness on a comparable scale with Christ's, but we clearly are able to do things that are not politically correct and maintain the proper spirit. In fact, I would argue, that there are times it is UNKIND to be overtly "nice" to someone. For example, I know a person who is deficient enough that he is about to embarrass himself in a major way. If I do not warn him, I am not being kind.

Kindness is delivering the news in the least obtrusive way while continuing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Just as Proverbs 3:3 tells the necessary connection between truth and mercy, kindness without truth is worthless. Further, it is not the essence of the commandment. The call to be kind, merely refers to the delivery of the truth and our willingness to forgive those sins.

The kindest people are those who speak the truth to you in an effort to bring you into a restored relationship, and when it happens, they never speak of it again. Our kindness is in reference to our tenderheartedness. Further, it is the measure. The kind person is the one, who even when he is telling you the world's worst news is genuine. He is not looking to condemn, but to reconcile. This, to me, is the picture of kindness. And when people tell me to be sugary sweet while delivering half truths, I believe it isn't kindness, but rather cowardice that is being exemplified!

To go to School or not

As I watch Austin and Ally with my children, I find it easy to identify with Ally and her decision. Not to spend too much time breaking down the options of a fictional character (though it made Sophie famous), she basically was accepted at the best music school in the country and she had to either go to school or continue working in music with her friends.

Just as it is with all difficult decisions, there are real benefits and detriments to each decision. It is similar to the decision I hear about when a good athlete is considering leaving school to "go pro" instead of staying in school. There are certainly benefits in each place.

The first question that must be answered is "What is the purpose of education?" Obviously, the altruistic reason of wanting to become better and more educated people should drive us, but the reality is that for most people, education is a means to an end. That end is usually to provide a comfortable living for those to whom we need to provide.

It is true that most athletes will make far more money playing professional sports (and from the ancillary opportunities that will provide) than they would from the use of their degree. Similarly, this Ally Dawson character is less than likely to achieve a better paying gig because of her degree in music than she had achieved working with Austin Moon. Therefore, the economic decision can often lead people to choose against the education.

It is also likely that getting a further education is likely to help people that get these opportunities make wiser decisions to prepare themselves for after the current money-making opportunity dries up. It is also likely that further education can improve the end product. But it is my belief that education is under-valued in this society.

I hear more people talk about the people who made tremendous success stories without an education. This is certainly possible. Yet, the real question should be, "Is it a general rule that people without education can be successful?" I think asking that question would yield a better answer.

If you look at those select few, however, who can be a success, the question should be "Could those people have been more successful with a better education?" And then, if the answer is yes, then is the increased productivity likely to find its way into making a difference in an area that we care about (like more money) and if so, would that increase be worth the delay in making the increase?

The reality is that the vast majority of us will philosophize on these issues and never be able to exercise our decision other than our fan mail to the superstar who doesn't care what we think. So, in your own life, determine if education would help you, and realize that the answer is almost always yes!

What is the Core US Voting Value?

The conventions have past. I have talked to people and it seems that most of them came out of one of the conventions energized. Since that is what conventions are supposed to do, so I guess they were a success. But the problem is that the rhetoric hasn't really been significantly altered, so they certainly don't bring the country together in a unified way. As I stated before, it isn't always agreement on the issues that makes you vote for the same candidate, but agreement on the issue you feel is most important.

There is, of course, the less than five percent of the population that feels a reasonable chance at a favorable outcome is not a reason to vote for someone, and decides to cast their vote for someone whom they know has no chance. I've spoken in math classes about how casting a vote for one of these candidates is akin mathematically to buying a lottery ticket. A good explanation to this phenomena is here.

And some will tell you that is the best thing about the United States. If someone believes that the core value of American culture is that you have the ability to throw out a protest vote of saying, "I don't like what the establishment has to offer" then convincing that person to vote for one of the candidates is nigh unto impossible. Those of us who think that voting is definitionally recognizing peoples flaws (or disagreements with us) and then seeing which one we can accept the best will come to a different conclusion, even if we agree on all the other issues.

Others think that the most important issue is abortion. The reality is that most people don't debate the correct issue on abortion. If life occurs before birth, then it should be protected. If life doesn't exist, then it isn't worth protecting. Now, I believe human biology studies give an exact answer to if life exists, especially when babies can be delivered and continue to live at some of these ages. If you think this is the most important issue, you will vote on your belief of when life begins.

Still another group exists which believes that the preservation of economic freedom might be the most important issue. While some on the other side believe that providing for those who can't provide for themselves is of central importance. If you think this is the most important issue, the pendulum of where the candidates fall in this spectrum will mostly influence your vote.

We could think of a myriad of issues that people may think are the most important. Some believe that the most important issue is that we protect our right to vote. That right allows us to re-adjust every so often based on what we see as the weaknesses of the day, similar to baseball managers being hired who are the opposite of the preceding manager to fill in the gaps and hope to capitalize off the residue of the old manager. And those people will get frustrated at all of us for arguing some of these issues, as they think that is what the vote is for.

Now, there is no magical answer book that tells you which issue is the most important all the time, though I think many issues have Scriptural positions. The problem is that regardless of those issues or whether the candidate follows them, we are bound to support the winner. The Bible requires of us to obey those who have the rule over us. It requires us to honor the King. So, regardless of what your political persuasion is, you are required to come together.

Personally, I think that may be one of the greatest things about the United States. The fact that we can disagree vehemently with someone. We can debate. We can vote. Then, we have a capacity to come together, when it is important. On November 7, we will be one country with a set of leaders that God has ordained to bring about His purposes.

Sometimes that means that we are called to persecution, as much of the first century church was. Sometimes it means that we will be given lives of relative ease, as most of the existence of the United States has been. But we are always called to be good citizens and to be good followers of Christ. That should be our core Christian value, and if enough of us do it, we could make it our core US voting value.

We Call it...Potential

September 11. I consider myself to have lived in a reasonably good time in human history. I think, however, if you were to ask about the low point in my lifetime, I would mention this day in 2001. If you polled 100 people my age, I would guess the vast majority would agree. Now, some people have undergone immense personal tragedy and I don't want to discount that, but as a whole, this is a day that shapes our framework of history.

I was not around for the bombing of Pearl Harbor or D-Day or the any of the days in Vietnam or the day of The Shot Heard Round the World or the signing of the Magna Carta or Reformation Day or many of the other famous days in history. September 11, however, I remember very clearly. I was sitting on my couch as the cable repairman was fixing the TV during a wonderful Caroline in the City marathon on WGN. As he was fixing the cable, we noticed that Caroline and Richard were not on the screen but some newsman from Chicago.

As I sat in the room with that stranger, I didn't know what to think. Here were people taking everyday things (like airplane flights) in order to destroy iconic buildings (Pentagon, twin towers) and it seemed like it was somewhat successful. The things that have happened since have been too innumerable to try to encapsulate, but on that day, I was speechless. On a personal note, I had an interview with a non-profit organization the next day, which was canceled due to the giving pattern uncertainty, which certainly would have taken my life in a different direction.

More than anything, I just can't get over how easy it is. We live in a politically hostile environment where people argue things like the legality of weapons is hotly debated. I'm frequently contemplative of a line from a movie that I remember nothing else about—"I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons…I'm terrified of the man who only wants one." This is not the post where I argue the politics of gun control, but I will say that I agree with the sentiment of that movie.

The guy who is able to turn an everyday airplane into a torpedo is scary. I remember overhearing a teacher say (I thought about me, though I can't be certain) that he will either be President of the USA or a terrorist. I think that is why I wanted to be President for a good part of my life. I did not want to be a terrorist. Though, like my teacher, I believe that we all see that hankering for evil within us. We see the ugliness in our own hearts that wants the destruction of someone who disagrees with us.

We are so prone to these evil tendencies that I think we can understand how someone could train people to do such devastating things to their enemies. While I do not believe we all have it within us to do that precise act, I know we all have enough sin in us to do catastrophically terrible things that could cause great harm to some person or group. What excited me about her statement was that she saw potential the other way.

I have not (nor would I likely be able to) survey all my past teachers and see where they thought I would end up. If you are able to do so, let me know if most of them think of me as an overwhelming success or a disappointing failure. I've always thought that many of my teachers thought I would be a bum with a rap sheet, as I struggled in school, particularly in the early years. Not with the learning, but with the respect of authority, the obedience, the fitting in with the other rule-followers, and generally being the kid that was most likely to get his name on the board.

I do think that the best teachers want to see the potential in all their students. They want to see the best case scenario. I see this with my own kids. I see their shortcomings, and I attempt to help them correct those. I also see what they can achieve when they become focused on the right thing. As humans, however, being focused on the right thing is difficult. The enemy has traps of good things to sidetrack us (ever heard about the road that was paved with good intentions?) in addition to the innately evil things.

So what hope is there for any of us to achieve the better part of our potential? And how can we tell as we are living our life if we are actually achieving our potential or if we are purposefully sabotaging ourselves when we could accomplish more? I think the best we can do is surround ourselves with people who know us and care for us. If we do, I think they can be our guide. On the other hand, we need to likewise hold other people accountable.

In this mutual accountability we can avoid our own little September 11’s. We can help others avoid the most devastating of things they might do and they can help us avoid the ones that we might do. This is why I find it incredibly beneficial to have good friends who have helped me through many issues. My own personal worst day has been avoided a few times because of the faithful wounds of a friend. For that I am very thankful. I am also quite happy that I consistently have people hounding me to do better in certain areas. One day I may actually achieve my potential!

'Til Death

Do we remember time frames or moments? Recently on Phineas and Ferb, I heard Phineas say that our eye-brain combination is the best camera ever invented. I am quite aware of the wonder of catching a moment and remembering it forever. There are pictures firmly imprinted on my brain that I will always recall. By the same token, there are many time frames in my life that I remember quite well.

Before I drift too far off the tracks, let me define time frames. I met Kelly in the 10th grade when she decided to come to my school (yeah, it was my school; not my attending the school she decided to come to). We really got to know each other when she needed my help in computer class. In our senior year, we became best friends. And the time frame between when she followed me to college (around August 1995) and December of 1995, we remained great friends and decided that we would participate in the Western culture activity of dating one another.

That is a big time frame. Specifically, it is the time frame where I learned I could not live without Kelly in the sense of moving forward. There have been many small steps and things learned in the interim, but the newest time frame of confirmation happened this last week. Kelly went to go visit my sister in Tallahassee so they could enjoy the opening of Chick-Fil-A together. That part of the plan was disastrous and to hear them tell it is quite an entertaining tale.

Being the selfish human I am, however, that part of the plan is of minimal concern to me. I was forced to pick the children up from school for ONE day. I had to get them to do their homework. I had to take care of dinner for two evenings. None of this went as smoothly as it should have. Last year when the girls left town, Jacob and I were able to batch it. And since neither of us care what we (or our hair) look like, we muddled through a week together. He and I were able to accomplish a few things together and make do.

However, when you add my Emily to the mix, the entire equation changes dramatically. First, she cares what she looks like. She even cares what Jacob and I look like, as we reflect on her. She also doesn't enjoy all you can eat wings or sports on TV. Further, I am now outnumbered and completely unable to concentrate on both children at the same time. In short, I am inept as the father of two. Nevermind the fact that Kelly is completely competent as the mother of three.

I am lost without her. As a man, it is hard to admit that I cannot do it all. It pains me to say that I can't make it happen, but the sad reality is that I think Emily is more capable of running a house than I am. My wife is an indescribable gift among a world full of talented women, but I just cannot comprehend how she does what she does. The song Mr. Mom comes to mind, but trust me when I tell you that Kelly's talents are far above anything that song can mention.

So, in the memory bank of life, the first week of September 2012 will always be the time frame where I realized my own incompetence. It is the time when I realized that without Kelly, there would be no me. Sure I might live and exist, but the human walking around would not have the rounded edges that I do (as sharp as I may still seem in some areas, I am rounding out). I can't make it without her and I am glad that I don't have to!

Who's the Bigger Sinner?

Almost two years ago, Jacob Yarborough, wrote a paper on the fact that there are degrees of sin. Fortunately, he decided to email me a copy so that I could be blessed by the thing. My initial reaction was varied. Growing up, it seems like everyone tells you things like "all sins are equal before God." Of course, our reaction to sins is, in general, very different. The person who confesses to having bouts with gossip is much easier to integrate into a church, possibly without even correcting their sin, while the person who one time commits an act of adultery with a strategically placed person can be forever shunned.

There is so much there, but I believe the reaction should be exactly the opposite. I believe we should recognize that a serial killer is worse than the person who runs a red light. Sins are undeniably different. The similarity they have is that every single one of them causes us to fall short of the glory of God. And this recognition of differences is important on one hand, but, in my opinion, should not affect us in the way we treat those among us who sin.

Let me be clear. We should, in fact, never have any affinity for sin. As a church family, we are called to hold each other accountable for the sins we commit. Yet, someone who is willing to confess their sin, allow us to hold them accountable, and willing to attempt to mortify that sin in their life should be looked upon as the rest of us—a sinner saved by grace. Remember, that before Christ, you were unable to do anything that ultimately meets God's standard. Until God decided to bless you with His life-giving gift, you were in the same boat.

Just because you happen to have a different sin of preference does not mitigate your reaction to the sin of preference of your brother or sister. Some will then ask, "If there are in fact worse sins, why shouldn't we recognize that?" This is where I like an analogy I learned in high school. If life is like trying to line up on the east coast and swim across the Atlantic Ocean, just because you make it ten times as far as the guy next to you doesn't mean anything. You're still going to drown. You need Jesus to pick you up and carry you.

If you need more, I am not sure we have a proper view of the gravity of sin anyway. A man after God's own heart, David, committed adultery and murder. The Pharisees were guilty of pride that ofttimes was not even vocalized. Yet Christ said they were just as whited sepulchers. I have a feeling that we would let the pride slide and really stick it to the murderer. Yet the contrition shown by David is the stuff we read when we know we messed up. Seems like we are missing something.

I think the first thing is that we, in general, just don't have as strong of an anti-sin view as we should. We let things like gossip, pride, and "white-lying", which are all things that the Lord hates in Proverbs 6. If we truly hated sin as much as God, I think that the fact that some sins are potentially worse than others, but when you're talking about totally depraved people, we just have no room to brag. Kind of like a great 4-year-old basketball player believing he's ready for the NBA because he's better than a three-year-old, our more acceptable sins are not really putting us in position to look down on anyone.

Therefore, if you have a brother in sin and he wants to do better, do all you can to accept him while still holding him accountable.

Football or Political Strategy

If you have not heard, the NFL season begins tonight. There is a large segment of the population that will start paying attention to life. Americans love their football, and the NFL is better than anyone at football. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, there has not been an NFL game played on a Wednesday since September 22, 1948. Now, if you aren't good at math, that's a long time ago.

Why was this game played on such an abnormal night? Well, it turns out that the normal night of Thursday contradicts with the presumptive acceptance speech of President Obama. Now, for everyone who doesn't remember, four years ago, the NFL moved the game time up an hour and a half, so that the Republican National Convention could have the NFL lead-in.

Should a football game compete with a convention? Should either care? I'm not sure, but I think this is a situation where the initial reaction may well be wrong. First, the convention is a four day event that culminates with the candidate speech on the last day.

The Democratic national Convention is particularly liberal in its bent this year. Now pundits may tell you that is because of base mobilization and this year, more than any in recent memory, has very few people who are undecided. Obama is leading with women and minorities, but he trails big time in men and especially, corporate men. Now, I am not the world's foremost expert, but the best link to these people within the democratic ranks and speech givers is Bill Clinton.

Clinton is a noted moderate who achieved success with a Republican-led Congress by adopting many conservative ideas as his own. Sounds like the people Obama needs to add to his base. And when did Clinton speak? During the fourth quarter, while Eli Manning was attempting to forge a great comeback. Who then, pray tell, is the largest audience for football games? Mostly men with higher than average numbers with corporate men.

You see, the person most apt to deliver votes in Obama's weak categories was up against the one program that tends to outpace (or at least compete with) convention viewers. And the people that are stolen are the very people that they need Clinton to pull.

So, the conservatives out there shouting conspiracy theory with Obama's speech being cleared out without football on one of the big networks, might want to re-think that position. You see, I'm not entirely sure the move to Wednesday helps the Democratic Convention. I do believe that it could possible aggravate the entire purpose of Bill Clinton.

Anyone else thinking about this?

Friendship

In High School, I had a group of friends. I have not kept up with all of them as well as I probably should, but we used to always talk about an assortment of things. We would go places together, we had a Bible study together, and we attempted to create things together that would live beyond our own tenure where we were.

While this sounds a bit like overactive nostalgia, I can't help but think about high school after my latest musings. As I have moved beyond high school, most of those friends are people I remember, yet somehow I just am not that close to them anymore. Whom did I really know? Does the separation indicate that there was no real friendship there?

I heard a quote about the difference in friendships once and I found out it was a poem. While I don't mean to chince out on the answer, I feel like there is some truth to it. Although I don't necessarily attach a negative connotation to those friendships that are not for a lifetime. The reality is that the existence of all speaks to the fact that God has a reason for each of them.

I don't think the existence of the categories gives any weight to those who would degrade a lifetime commitment. There is no doubt that making a marriage commitment necessarily requires a lifetime commitment, but I think back to my friends in high school. Some impacted my life in fantastic ways that are still very instrumental to who I am. Others encouraged me in great ways that sent my life in a positive trajectory.

This isn't limited to high school either. In college, grad school, and many of the other places I've been through the years, I have experienced many great impacting friends. Most of all, it gives me pause. Because I know that I might be in the same position to those with which I come in contact, and I don't want to be a bad friend.

My Musings

There are many things that I did with my parents about which I nostalgically reminisce with great fondness. Several of them are things I attempt to do with my children. Of course, some are easily duplicatable and meet with great favor on the part of my children. Others become forced until I realize that as much as they strike a chord with me, they just don't jive with the next generation of Wests.

One of those activities that has made the leap from one multi-generational enjoyment to the next is the watching of the Andy Griffith Show. It is something we find exceedingly enjoyable, and we even will call my parents during certain episodes. The show is highly entertaining and I never worry about whether something unknown will come up and I need to feel bad about my children watching it.

Almost every episode teaches a lesson, and the show has a general sense of a Christian culture. Those are just two of the many things I enjoy, and I wish that today's shows had that same idea. With the superior technology and ability to film things today, there is so much more potential, yet it seems as if they are in favor of cruder (or more profane) entertainment. As much as I think that could fascinate us, I was sidetracked by a specific episode of The Andy Griffith Show.

This episode was about a high school reunion and Andy's talking to his high school girlfriend. This had our children asking us if we remembered anyone from our high school. Seeing as how Kelly and I attended the same high school, we have an obvious person that we keep in contact with. And unlike Andy and Sharon DeSpain, Kelly and I didn't part ways after high school with different visions of where we should live. It kind of opened another road to tell our children about our story, which is always awesome!

Kelly and I then begin to watch with a critical eye, as we see Barney looking through the yearbook to attempt to identify people and wonder how he could forget so many people. Then we walk to the computer and see 15 people who have requested to be our friends on Facebook and we just cannot recall them. Even though we went to a small school that had just over 100 high school students, some people somehow did not make it into our permanent memory. And I thought I remembered everyone!

Why is it that we can spend every day for a year or two with people, know their name, create a special greeting for them, and then completely forget them years later, while I still remember that person in my neighborhood who broke my basketball hoop years later? The wonders of the human memory. It can be a great thing, but it can also be a terrible thing when someone I should remember wants to meet me for lunch, and I don't even know who they are.