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.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
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
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
Tuesday, September 25, 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.
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.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, September 21, 2012
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!
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!
Monday, September 17, 2012
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!
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!
Saturday, September 15, 2012
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)