I'm sure by now you've heard of the tragedy in Boston. It now looks as if the perpetrators will soon be accounted for, humanly speaking. Human justice is definitely a good thing, and I want to see it continue, but situations like this bring about a sense of awe and wonder for me. The wonder goes a little like this:
First, you have the wretched souls dripping with utter depravity who symbolize all that is corrupt in the world. To senselessly go about and try to injure others is heartless and evil. I cannot fathom the mind that wants to do it, yet shortly after the smoke has cleared, we have news agencies speculating that it is a right wing extremist. Those on the right are taking offense, because they are certain it is a group of Muslim terrorists. Now both of these positions are rife with sinners, to be sure, I find it ironic that both sides will point fingers until one side is given "vindication" and proven correct in their assertion.
This is the second part of the situation I view. Those who will sit down and cast judgment on others. Now, to be sure, these depraved people who attacked the marathon runners, baseball fans, and general populace of Boston, are villainous. They are guilty, but there seems to be something about the sins of others (particularly others that we find loathsome) that makes us joy or revel in their demise. This, to me, seems to be a necessary step of our growth. Can we want justice as God wants it, yet allow the Lord to take vengeance (Romans 12:19)?
Finally, there are those who are earthly heroes. The stories we hear about fellow humans that give us goose bumps and make us swell with pride. I heard Jim Rome speak on the radio yesterday about Paul Norden, who was the man we saw in the wheel chair missing legs being run to the hospital. At the hospital, his life was saved and when he first woke up, still loopy from the pain-killers, he was able to draw a sketch that allowed the FBI to use computer programs on their millions of hours of footage to narrow it down and find video of the suspects sooner. This is a man who acted selflessly.
As we were talking about this story to our children, my wife was able to point them in the correct direction by saying that we hope that man finds the Lord also. Jacob postulated that he may, in fact, already be saved (Matthew 7:16-20). Jacob may be correct, but Kelly was quick to point out, that it is impossible for us to be good enough to save ourselves. Paul Norden saved many lives, and it would be an honor if one day, I could meet him, shake his hand, and interview him. Yet the reality remains that his works are not enough to save his soul.
That is my rather large take-away from tragic events. I think of a song that Greg leads us in during worship that says, "No one is good enough to save himself. Awake my soul tonight to boast nothing else! I trust no other source or name; Nowhere else can I hide. This grace gives me fear; And this grace draws me near!" We all need a rather large helping of the gospel. This is why, if you are free tonight or tomorrow morning in the Orlando area, I urge you to attend my church's conference, where we can hear about living in the grip of the gospel. In a depraved world, the gospel is our only hope!
Friday, April 19, 2013
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Wanna be My Friend?
We want to be liked. We want to feel needed. George Costanza is laughable in his attempt to get his best friend's girlfriend to like him, while completely ignoring his own girlfriend. And while that is something all outsiders can look at with their belly fully engaged in the laughter process, the fact is that many of us do small versions of this in our every day life.
I honestly have gone through life and never noticed this phenomena on myself until recently. I have an acquaintance that for one reason or another doesn't care for me. As shocking as this is to you (and my own ego), it just seems to be a fact backed up by years of data. Yet, I find myself going overboard to try to please him, rather than just let it go and realize that there are a couple other people who like me.
It isn't about agreement. My list of friends is not limited to those who agree with me on every single issue that might come up. In fact, I have befriended democrats, those who dislike sports, SEC and Big Ten fans, people who like rap music, those who love to celebrate birthdays, those who are vegetarians, and even the occasional non-Christian. Some people agree with me on all of those things, yet still can't seem to find the common ground of friendship with me. I find myself trending towards conversations that harp on agreement, and it feels forced.
Friendship is almost impossible to quantify or formulate, and I think I may give up. Maybe I am old and crotchety enough, that I should begin to revel in those who don't like me. Perhaps, I should take solace in the fact that even Jesus wasn't liked. The only problem is Jesus was perfect, and I know that some of my foibles are some of the things that cause me to be disliked. Yet, I feel that even if I could completely mortify those actions, I would still not receive a 100% approval rating.
I feel that when I finally grasp that friendship is not agreement on everything, but rather the gift of being determined to not let the disagreements cause an elimination of that friendship, then I will have a more firm knowledge of who my friends are. Yet, the question remains, at least in my mind, "Can I overcome those who, for reasons I cannot fathom, are not (nor do they want to be) my friends?" In my own way, I struggle as much as Costanza, and I don't like it.
I honestly have gone through life and never noticed this phenomena on myself until recently. I have an acquaintance that for one reason or another doesn't care for me. As shocking as this is to you (and my own ego), it just seems to be a fact backed up by years of data. Yet, I find myself going overboard to try to please him, rather than just let it go and realize that there are a couple other people who like me.
It isn't about agreement. My list of friends is not limited to those who agree with me on every single issue that might come up. In fact, I have befriended democrats, those who dislike sports, SEC and Big Ten fans, people who like rap music, those who love to celebrate birthdays, those who are vegetarians, and even the occasional non-Christian. Some people agree with me on all of those things, yet still can't seem to find the common ground of friendship with me. I find myself trending towards conversations that harp on agreement, and it feels forced.
Friendship is almost impossible to quantify or formulate, and I think I may give up. Maybe I am old and crotchety enough, that I should begin to revel in those who don't like me. Perhaps, I should take solace in the fact that even Jesus wasn't liked. The only problem is Jesus was perfect, and I know that some of my foibles are some of the things that cause me to be disliked. Yet, I feel that even if I could completely mortify those actions, I would still not receive a 100% approval rating.
I feel that when I finally grasp that friendship is not agreement on everything, but rather the gift of being determined to not let the disagreements cause an elimination of that friendship, then I will have a more firm knowledge of who my friends are. Yet, the question remains, at least in my mind, "Can I overcome those who, for reasons I cannot fathom, are not (nor do they want to be) my friends?" In my own way, I struggle as much as Costanza, and I don't like it.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Second Chances
It's that time again, where I am forced to look forgiveness in the face. I think we all are forced to dwell on what forgiveness looks like every now and again in our lives. There are times where we are looking at it because someone has wronged us and is not repenting. Sometimes we evaluate it, because that person who wronged us is requesting our forgiveness and we're not sure what that should look like. Finally, we sometimes need to evaluate forgiveness, because we are in need of it ourselves.
While all of those are times when our life itself mandates that we look at forgiveness. Sometimes, there are situations to which we aren't parties that we get to observe from afar. Recently, I have been introduced to such a situation. Coach Rice of Rutgers has apparently been physically and verbally abusive to his players. After seeing the video, I saw an interview with the Athletic Director, where his boss stated the punishment was a three-game suspension, a fine, and a few other things.
Honestly, my initial reaction was one of disgust. When you are dealing with young men, specifically, young men who are relatively powerless to answer back or retaliate, treating them poorly is a sign of character. There are some actions which mandate removal from the situation, regardless of what may come later. Mike Rice needs to be taken off the job immediately and the rest of his salary never paid, in addition to any punitive action against salary already paid.
I say this as someone who recognizes that he was hired to do a job. He did things that indicate he did a poor job, perhaps even fine-able elements. He also does not deserve to keep his job. How can I come across as so unforgiving when I myself have been forgiven? Do I not believe in forgiveness? I think to answer that I need to give my complete definition of forgiveness, then my picture of what restoration needs to look like.
First, I believe that forgiveness involves the release of your irritation over someone that wronged you. It does not include forgetting what that person has done so that it may never be remembered or considered. I can certainly (easy for me to say, as that isn't my son who's having the ball thrown at his head, otherwise, I might feel like LeBron) forgive him for his actions. Nevertheless, I would certainly not be looking to hire him to coach my basketball team anytime soon.
Are we the land of new opportunities? Yes, and no. Looking at the Final Four this year, we see Rick Pitino with the best team and probable national champions, despite the fact that he has a stormy past. Last year's champion was coached by John Calipari, who has gotten into trouble in multiple locations for violating the rules. I think both of them have been able to revive their careers, largely because they are winners.
Therein is the rub. America is the bastion of second chances if you provide some sort of proof that you can be successful. Sports are as easy an environment to measure success as exists in the world today, but this is not exclusive to sports. Good preachers who are inappropriate (or get divorced) get second chances at other churches or sometimes even in the same church. Good CEO's who are fired get hired again later. Even Hank Lawson got a second chance as a doctor (though, he may have made the correct decision in the first place).
I believe you would be hard-pressed to name a single profession where success at any level does not warrant you a second chance. The problem is that we do not, as a culture, give second chances to people if their shortcomings lead us to believe that they will not be winners, we are very quick to be sanctimonious in our statement that we will not allow them the opportunity again, which leads me to believe that we aren't so good at forgiving and then attempting restoration, but rather we're bad at having a memory of that which was bad, if it will work out for our own benefit (monetarily, winning, prestige, power, or whatever else we are seeking).
So, what do I think restoration should look like? First, it should always begin with trying to heal the faulty reasoning or action that precipitated the need for forgiveness. If that is not done, then everything else is meaningless, because similar to parenting, behavior modification itself is not the only thing that is important. Second, it is vital to realize that restoration is not about mirroring the current situation. To imply so would be to eliminate the growth God had for us in that situation.
We have to recognize that without the painful need for situations in which forgiveness is needed on one side or the other, we would not grow. Growth can be painful, but it is necessary. The maturation of my life from son of Paul and Ann to Husband of Kelly was not without its rough spots. Nevertheless, to not make those steps would have eventually been even more painful. "The day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom."
When things blossom there is a resemblance to the pre-blossoming existence, but it never looks exactly the same. How short-sighted and foolish of us to believe that a post-forgiveness existence would look exactly the same as the pre-forgiveness existence! Life is predicated upon several small moments. And, while You can never step into the same river twice, we must accept the fact that our further development will change. To properly forgive, we must be willing to accept that. We must further accept that our restoration, however different or painful we feel it is, is ultimately for our good. If we can't go through life with that belief, we are not ready to even begin a forgiveness process.
While all of those are times when our life itself mandates that we look at forgiveness. Sometimes, there are situations to which we aren't parties that we get to observe from afar. Recently, I have been introduced to such a situation. Coach Rice of Rutgers has apparently been physically and verbally abusive to his players. After seeing the video, I saw an interview with the Athletic Director, where his boss stated the punishment was a three-game suspension, a fine, and a few other things.
Honestly, my initial reaction was one of disgust. When you are dealing with young men, specifically, young men who are relatively powerless to answer back or retaliate, treating them poorly is a sign of character. There are some actions which mandate removal from the situation, regardless of what may come later. Mike Rice needs to be taken off the job immediately and the rest of his salary never paid, in addition to any punitive action against salary already paid.
I say this as someone who recognizes that he was hired to do a job. He did things that indicate he did a poor job, perhaps even fine-able elements. He also does not deserve to keep his job. How can I come across as so unforgiving when I myself have been forgiven? Do I not believe in forgiveness? I think to answer that I need to give my complete definition of forgiveness, then my picture of what restoration needs to look like.
First, I believe that forgiveness involves the release of your irritation over someone that wronged you. It does not include forgetting what that person has done so that it may never be remembered or considered. I can certainly (easy for me to say, as that isn't my son who's having the ball thrown at his head, otherwise, I might feel like LeBron) forgive him for his actions. Nevertheless, I would certainly not be looking to hire him to coach my basketball team anytime soon.
Are we the land of new opportunities? Yes, and no. Looking at the Final Four this year, we see Rick Pitino with the best team and probable national champions, despite the fact that he has a stormy past. Last year's champion was coached by John Calipari, who has gotten into trouble in multiple locations for violating the rules. I think both of them have been able to revive their careers, largely because they are winners.
Therein is the rub. America is the bastion of second chances if you provide some sort of proof that you can be successful. Sports are as easy an environment to measure success as exists in the world today, but this is not exclusive to sports. Good preachers who are inappropriate (or get divorced) get second chances at other churches or sometimes even in the same church. Good CEO's who are fired get hired again later. Even Hank Lawson got a second chance as a doctor (though, he may have made the correct decision in the first place).
I believe you would be hard-pressed to name a single profession where success at any level does not warrant you a second chance. The problem is that we do not, as a culture, give second chances to people if their shortcomings lead us to believe that they will not be winners, we are very quick to be sanctimonious in our statement that we will not allow them the opportunity again, which leads me to believe that we aren't so good at forgiving and then attempting restoration, but rather we're bad at having a memory of that which was bad, if it will work out for our own benefit (monetarily, winning, prestige, power, or whatever else we are seeking).
So, what do I think restoration should look like? First, it should always begin with trying to heal the faulty reasoning or action that precipitated the need for forgiveness. If that is not done, then everything else is meaningless, because similar to parenting, behavior modification itself is not the only thing that is important. Second, it is vital to realize that restoration is not about mirroring the current situation. To imply so would be to eliminate the growth God had for us in that situation.
We have to recognize that without the painful need for situations in which forgiveness is needed on one side or the other, we would not grow. Growth can be painful, but it is necessary. The maturation of my life from son of Paul and Ann to Husband of Kelly was not without its rough spots. Nevertheless, to not make those steps would have eventually been even more painful. "The day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom."
When things blossom there is a resemblance to the pre-blossoming existence, but it never looks exactly the same. How short-sighted and foolish of us to believe that a post-forgiveness existence would look exactly the same as the pre-forgiveness existence! Life is predicated upon several small moments. And, while You can never step into the same river twice, we must accept the fact that our further development will change. To properly forgive, we must be willing to accept that. We must further accept that our restoration, however different or painful we feel it is, is ultimately for our good. If we can't go through life with that belief, we are not ready to even begin a forgiveness process.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Good Friday
Good Friday. As a child I always thought that it seemed an unfortunately simple name. Good seems to be a catch-all word for positive circumstances to younger individuals and the name of the day just seemed to lack punch. Further, it seems like the worst of possible days, as our Savior was crucified for crimes that He did not commit.
I was discussing past decisions with my Uncle Joe, knowing what we now know, we wonder how we could have missed the incredible signs that were there. Not to argue the importance of God's timing at this point, but it is a fact that knowledge changes perspective on past events. You see, with the The knowledge of Easter Sunday, we know that Good Friday is not simply Jesus being Wrongfully Accused.
Even with that knowledge, I think we downplay the significance of the momentous day of Christ's death. Parenthetically, I, for one, am not that interested in having the debate of whether the death happened on a Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday; we can celebrate it on Friday if any of those is the case (e.g., is Christmas less impactful just because Christ was probably not born in December?) To understand the downplay, Understand that Christ's death could be said to be the center of all human history.
If humanity was created to bring glory to God, then our existence is at its zenith when we are most glorifying God. Having work that is worthy of the glorification of God is a tricky subject, perhaps even a blog post or three of its own, but many will tell you that it can be accomplished by exemplifying the life of Christ. Everyone will (or at least should) tell you that the only reason we have the ability to glorify God is because of Christ's death. The only reason we don't have to answer for that inability is because of the imputation of Christ.
So, wherever one falls in the theology of salvation or theology of ability to work, it is clear that the life of Christ is central to bringing about God's glory. So, why then did Christ live? God putting on human-ness for us is nice, but what was the reason? To borrow a phrase from Ron Hamilton, Jesus was born to die. He came because we needed a propitiation. He came that he might impute to us that which we could never do by ourselves. The reason Jesus came to earth was so that "His wounds could pay our ransom."
While understated, that is why this Friday is so Good! Against the backdrop of a society that is making the argument of whether or not it should allow homosexuals to get married, we see the culture slipping away from even arguing what is right, other than a standard they have created themselves. We tend, whichever side we are on, to make our arguments based on our own definition of fair or right. I would assert that virtually noone thinks it is fair or right that someone else should pay the penalty for all of my sins.
The reality is that God is not bound by our definition of fairness, but we are bound by His definition of how to treat individuals kindly. We are responsible for our reactions to others, whether they be appropriate or not. And I'd also look at those who believe the whole thing is a decoy, and they are excited (one way or another) about President Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act. My excitement needs to not come from these things in the world, but rather on the force of the gospel in my life.
I celebrate Good Friday not only because it is central to human history, but I celebrate it because it is essential to MY history (and present and future, and my life in general). Good Friday was the center-point of Christ's work, which enables me to live for Him. Good Friday is the day that provides meaning and context to so many other days, like my birthday, Christmas, Easter, or anything else I want to color with the gospel. That is most certainly a reason to call Friday, good, even if it seems like a cheese-monkey name. And to think, all the banks are closed on a day in October to celebrate Columbus finding that which Jesus created millenniums ago, yet we all work on Good Friday. How messed up is that?
I was discussing past decisions with my Uncle Joe, knowing what we now know, we wonder how we could have missed the incredible signs that were there. Not to argue the importance of God's timing at this point, but it is a fact that knowledge changes perspective on past events. You see, with the The knowledge of Easter Sunday, we know that Good Friday is not simply Jesus being Wrongfully Accused.
Even with that knowledge, I think we downplay the significance of the momentous day of Christ's death. Parenthetically, I, for one, am not that interested in having the debate of whether the death happened on a Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday; we can celebrate it on Friday if any of those is the case (e.g., is Christmas less impactful just because Christ was probably not born in December?) To understand the downplay, Understand that Christ's death could be said to be the center of all human history.
If humanity was created to bring glory to God, then our existence is at its zenith when we are most glorifying God. Having work that is worthy of the glorification of God is a tricky subject, perhaps even a blog post or three of its own, but many will tell you that it can be accomplished by exemplifying the life of Christ. Everyone will (or at least should) tell you that the only reason we have the ability to glorify God is because of Christ's death. The only reason we don't have to answer for that inability is because of the imputation of Christ.
So, wherever one falls in the theology of salvation or theology of ability to work, it is clear that the life of Christ is central to bringing about God's glory. So, why then did Christ live? God putting on human-ness for us is nice, but what was the reason? To borrow a phrase from Ron Hamilton, Jesus was born to die. He came because we needed a propitiation. He came that he might impute to us that which we could never do by ourselves. The reason Jesus came to earth was so that "His wounds could pay our ransom."
While understated, that is why this Friday is so Good! Against the backdrop of a society that is making the argument of whether or not it should allow homosexuals to get married, we see the culture slipping away from even arguing what is right, other than a standard they have created themselves. We tend, whichever side we are on, to make our arguments based on our own definition of fair or right. I would assert that virtually noone thinks it is fair or right that someone else should pay the penalty for all of my sins.
The reality is that God is not bound by our definition of fairness, but we are bound by His definition of how to treat individuals kindly. We are responsible for our reactions to others, whether they be appropriate or not. And I'd also look at those who believe the whole thing is a decoy, and they are excited (one way or another) about President Obama signing the Monsanto Protection Act. My excitement needs to not come from these things in the world, but rather on the force of the gospel in my life.
I celebrate Good Friday not only because it is central to human history, but I celebrate it because it is essential to MY history (and present and future, and my life in general). Good Friday was the center-point of Christ's work, which enables me to live for Him. Good Friday is the day that provides meaning and context to so many other days, like my birthday, Christmas, Easter, or anything else I want to color with the gospel. That is most certainly a reason to call Friday, good, even if it seems like a cheese-monkey name. And to think, all the banks are closed on a day in October to celebrate Columbus finding that which Jesus created millenniums ago, yet we all work on Good Friday. How messed up is that?
Thursday, March 28, 2013
The State of the NCAA Tournament
A lot of people will claim that Florida Gulf Coast making the Sweet Sixteen is a sign that the tournament needs to be expanded. Even a condensed field would be likely to include conference tournament winners, so the better argument is that LaSalle is in the Sweet Sixteen (or that VCU was in the Final Four in 2011). So the argument goes that if teams at the very bottom can make a deep run in (or perhaps even win) the tournament, there should be more teams invited, as some of them have a shot also.
The flattening of the college basketball level doubtlessly means that there will be more "Cinderella" stories and that more teams have a chance to win the tournament. This is the premise under which Dicky V and many others would claim that we need more teams. The argument follows that we should include all the teams that have any chance of winning (or at least a chance of beating the teams that might have a chance to win).
I believe this is a mistake. You see, if every team that has any chance to win is included in the tournament, what was the point of playing the regular season? The best teams always have the best chance to win because they are...the best teams. As the gap decreases between that top layer and the next teams, definitionally differentiation becomes more difficult. The more difficult it is to differentiate, the more important it is to use the maximum amount of information at hand to differentiate.
Clearly the regular season is the best source of this information about which teams deserve a shot. The conference tournaments already give every team a shot to make the tournament. These factors, however, have contributed to the most ludicrous of seasons. Who really is eliminated from championship contention in the college basketball regular season? This year, one of the "first team's out" was Kentucky, who couldn't even beat Robert Morris in the NIT. I'm not saying that Kentucky couldn't have created some damage in the NCAA tournament, because I believe they could have.
The mere fact that we allow a team to be under par all year and then sneak into a tournament and potentially win as our way of crowning a National Championship is ludicrous. I am not advocating a system like NCAA Football, where there are good teams who had worthy seasons, which don't make the playoffs because (wait for it...) there aren't any. On the other hand, a system where making the playoffs is an accomplishment unto itself is better. You need look no further than the difference between the college football and college basketball regular seasons to see, a season that matters is just better.
I state that a reduced field is the way to go. There are still approximately 30 conference champions who get automatic invitations. If we restricted the number of "at large" bids to about 18, that would include the top teams who had earned a spot into the field. It would also mean that most of those teams around #20 would have to give a full out effort to win their conference tournament, thereby increasing the urgency there. It would also allow for six rounds, just that the top 16 teams would only need to win five games. Of course, that would take away the dream that one day a 16 would beat a 1, but truly few of us lose sleep awaiting this opportunity.
If the regular season were given immediately more significance, a North Carolina-Kentucky game in December might have more meaning (and therefore, more viewers). A regular season which involves people watching more games, increases the tournament where most of us are just introducing ourselves to the teams. A tournament with fewer teams would also do little to take away the "Cinderella" stories and would eliminate the glut from the major conferences. A team that went .500 in the Big East would no longer be a shoe-in. And when has the insistence on excellence ever been a bad thing?
The flattening of the college basketball level doubtlessly means that there will be more "Cinderella" stories and that more teams have a chance to win the tournament. This is the premise under which Dicky V and many others would claim that we need more teams. The argument follows that we should include all the teams that have any chance of winning (or at least a chance of beating the teams that might have a chance to win).
I believe this is a mistake. You see, if every team that has any chance to win is included in the tournament, what was the point of playing the regular season? The best teams always have the best chance to win because they are...the best teams. As the gap decreases between that top layer and the next teams, definitionally differentiation becomes more difficult. The more difficult it is to differentiate, the more important it is to use the maximum amount of information at hand to differentiate.
Clearly the regular season is the best source of this information about which teams deserve a shot. The conference tournaments already give every team a shot to make the tournament. These factors, however, have contributed to the most ludicrous of seasons. Who really is eliminated from championship contention in the college basketball regular season? This year, one of the "first team's out" was Kentucky, who couldn't even beat Robert Morris in the NIT. I'm not saying that Kentucky couldn't have created some damage in the NCAA tournament, because I believe they could have.
The mere fact that we allow a team to be under par all year and then sneak into a tournament and potentially win as our way of crowning a National Championship is ludicrous. I am not advocating a system like NCAA Football, where there are good teams who had worthy seasons, which don't make the playoffs because (wait for it...) there aren't any. On the other hand, a system where making the playoffs is an accomplishment unto itself is better. You need look no further than the difference between the college football and college basketball regular seasons to see, a season that matters is just better.
I state that a reduced field is the way to go. There are still approximately 30 conference champions who get automatic invitations. If we restricted the number of "at large" bids to about 18, that would include the top teams who had earned a spot into the field. It would also mean that most of those teams around #20 would have to give a full out effort to win their conference tournament, thereby increasing the urgency there. It would also allow for six rounds, just that the top 16 teams would only need to win five games. Of course, that would take away the dream that one day a 16 would beat a 1, but truly few of us lose sleep awaiting this opportunity.
If the regular season were given immediately more significance, a North Carolina-Kentucky game in December might have more meaning (and therefore, more viewers). A regular season which involves people watching more games, increases the tournament where most of us are just introducing ourselves to the teams. A tournament with fewer teams would also do little to take away the "Cinderella" stories and would eliminate the glut from the major conferences. A team that went .500 in the Big East would no longer be a shoe-in. And when has the insistence on excellence ever been a bad thing?
Monday, March 25, 2013
By what am I Known?
A year and a half ago, I wrote a series of blog posts on how people know me. I have come to realize that there is another way that people know (and often judge) you. We frequently are evaluated based on the recommendations we make. To me this may be more evident than it is to others. As an attorney, many have judged me just on the people I've recommended. As a Realtor, telling people other professionals to use often puts my reputation on the line. As the director of a ministry, my thoughts about a church often carry a lot of weight.
I have realized the tremendous benefit of recommending someone who changed a friend's life, for which they continuously thank me. I have understood the tremendous guilt of recommending someone who did not pan out and assist the person to whom I recommended. Neither were really a result of anything more than my giving a simple name.
The more I think about it, however, the more I feel this is a normal reaction. To many people, we are unable to assist them in everything they need. Our friends may want a mechanic, an appraiser, a tutor, a computer programmer, a type of car, or even a ride. When they do, we sometimes feel confident enough to throw a name out there. After they get that name, most of our interaction with them on that transaction is done, yet we are often not finished with the transaction.
I find that often an evaluation of me (and my supposed wisdom) can easily be broken down by how well the the recommendations that I made worked out. Friends tend to know where to go to ask questions. So, when you have a question about taxes, you may say to ask Susie or don't rent a car before asking Matt what kind of deal you can get.
This has become such a thing for me that last week, I had over ten conversations in a single day that people felt one way or another about a recommendation I had given them for something. I began to see that I am not known so much for the cool things (or even wretched things) I do or some salient facts, but rather for the people I have connected. Sometimes this gives me more credit than I deserve.
I should probably spend more time considering things before I recommend, but this also means that those who vouch for me are on the line when I work with others. So, if you are reading this because it was recommended to you, please don't hold it against that person, unless, of course, they were telling you to read it because they thought it was entertainingly bad.
I have realized the tremendous benefit of recommending someone who changed a friend's life, for which they continuously thank me. I have understood the tremendous guilt of recommending someone who did not pan out and assist the person to whom I recommended. Neither were really a result of anything more than my giving a simple name.
The more I think about it, however, the more I feel this is a normal reaction. To many people, we are unable to assist them in everything they need. Our friends may want a mechanic, an appraiser, a tutor, a computer programmer, a type of car, or even a ride. When they do, we sometimes feel confident enough to throw a name out there. After they get that name, most of our interaction with them on that transaction is done, yet we are often not finished with the transaction.
I find that often an evaluation of me (and my supposed wisdom) can easily be broken down by how well the the recommendations that I made worked out. Friends tend to know where to go to ask questions. So, when you have a question about taxes, you may say to ask Susie or don't rent a car before asking Matt what kind of deal you can get.
This has become such a thing for me that last week, I had over ten conversations in a single day that people felt one way or another about a recommendation I had given them for something. I began to see that I am not known so much for the cool things (or even wretched things) I do or some salient facts, but rather for the people I have connected. Sometimes this gives me more credit than I deserve.
I should probably spend more time considering things before I recommend, but this also means that those who vouch for me are on the line when I work with others. So, if you are reading this because it was recommended to you, please don't hold it against that person, unless, of course, they were telling you to read it because they thought it was entertainingly bad.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Count it All Joy
I've read quite a few books in my day. I'm quite confident there are people who have read more, but I'm not stating this to begin a contest. I remember quite a bit of the facts I have read in books. Fiction is not my favorite genre, but I've read a couple of fictions that stick with me. I've read quite a few nonfiction books also.
I feel the memory I have for these nonfiction books gives me a relatively wide array of knowledge, though my occasional Jeopardy viewing kills that dream. The reason this matters is because I think many people treat the Bible as if it is a non-fiction book being read for some mythical report we have.
The truth is that the Bible can teach you a little history or a little science. It can even teach you a little sociology, psychology, or literature. But reading it like a textbook in any of those subjects reduces it to human dispatching of information and knowledge, when the fact it is that it is a life-changing book.
This is why I made a suggestion that memorization become a part of your regular worship and walk. The knowledge of Scripture is different than the knowledge of any other book. Being familiar with it is different than being familiar with another text.
So, if, like me, you find yourself saying that you've got to get through your Scripture reading, so you can meet your goal of reading whatever amount of Scripture you want to get through, begin thinking about it. When I was a child I had to do book reports and "get through" books that I believe did me little to no good. But reading the Bible will always give me benefits, even when I do it out of drudgery. (I assert one of those benefits is making it less drudge-worthy).
This is why we should read the Bible with Joy. This is why you should make every effort to adjust your attitude. The reading of books is beneficial and can teach a lot. Yet, it should never be a substitute for a reading of the Bible, whose author can grant us wisdom and knowledge with the reading. Reading the Bible is one of the joys we get, where we learn more and more about the God who saved us and loved us when we were unlovable!
I feel the memory I have for these nonfiction books gives me a relatively wide array of knowledge, though my occasional Jeopardy viewing kills that dream. The reason this matters is because I think many people treat the Bible as if it is a non-fiction book being read for some mythical report we have.
The truth is that the Bible can teach you a little history or a little science. It can even teach you a little sociology, psychology, or literature. But reading it like a textbook in any of those subjects reduces it to human dispatching of information and knowledge, when the fact it is that it is a life-changing book.
This is why I made a suggestion that memorization become a part of your regular worship and walk. The knowledge of Scripture is different than the knowledge of any other book. Being familiar with it is different than being familiar with another text.
So, if, like me, you find yourself saying that you've got to get through your Scripture reading, so you can meet your goal of reading whatever amount of Scripture you want to get through, begin thinking about it. When I was a child I had to do book reports and "get through" books that I believe did me little to no good. But reading the Bible will always give me benefits, even when I do it out of drudgery. (I assert one of those benefits is making it less drudge-worthy).
This is why we should read the Bible with Joy. This is why you should make every effort to adjust your attitude. The reading of books is beneficial and can teach a lot. Yet, it should never be a substitute for a reading of the Bible, whose author can grant us wisdom and knowledge with the reading. Reading the Bible is one of the joys we get, where we learn more and more about the God who saved us and loved us when we were unlovable!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)