Agalliao

Eunice Cornelia Bradfield Smith (Jan. 1, 1928 - April 17, 2011)

2011-04-22T23:55:00.002-04:00

My sweet grandmother, affectionately called "Nanny" by us grandchildren, passed away this past week. I was asked to speak to the family at the graveside. Below is slightly polished version of what I shared.

--

One reason I'm a Christian, and perhaps one of the more under-appreciated aspects of Christianity, is that Jesus has not left us wandering aimlessly through life trying to understand the meaning of it all. In fact, it is quite the opposite: God has given us an astonishing number of clear and concrete truths about ultimate reality upon which we can build our hopes and allay our sorrows.

Paul gives us such a truth in 1 Thessalonians 4:

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

The first thing I notice in this passage is that, even though Paul will go on to assure his hearers that those who die in Christ are secure and will be resurrected, he doesn't tell them not to mourn.

Instead, he teaches them how to mourn.

When a Christian dies, we mourn, but it is a peculiar mourning. There is apparently a way to grieve as if there is no hope (which is the wrong way), and there is a way to sorrow that does not undermine hope. And Paul says the latter is how we ought to mourn.

So what does it mean to mourn with hope? I think Paul gives us a hint in 2 Corinthians 6 when he says that in difficulty he is "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing." Even in a time of mourning, there is a deep river of joy that sustains us in the hope that death is dead in Christ; that, as my brother noted this week, the end is not the end for those who are in Jesus.

And that is the concrete truth we cling to now. We do not cling to vague optimism that Nanny was a good person and so she must be in heaven. We don't offer sympathetic platitudes to one another in an attempt place a band-aid on a deep wound.

Instead, we go to the truth Jesus has given us, and we find rest for our souls.

And so:

The end is not the end for those who are in Christ, because Romans 6 says that those who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his death; and if we have died with Christ we will also live with him.

The end is not the end for those who are in Christ, because if "Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep." (1 Thess. 4:14)

The end is not the end for those who are in Christ, because, in Christ, "Death is swallowed up in victory." (1 Cor. 15)

The end is not the end for those who are in Christ, because "the dead in Christ will rise first." (1 Thess. 4:16)

And the end is not the end for those who are in Christ, not just because there will be a resurrection, but because Jesus Christ IS the resurrection. (John 11:25)

On Sunday afternoon, Nanny reached the end of her life here, and it is right and good that we grieve over that. But I'm confident she would say, with Paul, that we should mourn with a settled joy, knowing that she is more alive at this moment than we could ever imagine.

As C.S. Lewis noted, we live in the Shadowlands; in less reality than we will one day know. But Nanny is no longer in the Shadowlands. She is basking in the light of ultimate reality in the presence of Christ. And though we miss her, we rejoice that we will see her again, and know her in a fullness of life greater than we have ever imagined possible, because we will know her in the full experience of the Resurrection and the Life: Jesus Christ.

The Tide Turns Now...

2010-12-24T21:04:00.003-05:00

Seven and a half months. That's a quite a hiatus from blogging, but I'm a firm believer that the first rule of public writing is "have something to say." Hasn't been the case for me for a while.

In fact, today is not even about what I have to say. I'm just gonna give Dustin Kensrue my blog for a minute and share the lyrics to one of my new favorite Christmas songs:

This Is War

This is war like you ain't seen.
This winter's long, it's cold and mean.
With hangdog hearts we stood condemned,
But the tide turns now at Bethlehem.

This is war and born tonight,
The Word as flesh, the Lord of Light,
The Son of God, the low-born king;
Who demons fear, of whom angels sing.

This is war on sin and death;
The dark will take it's final breath.
It shakes the earth, confounds all plans;
The mystery of God as man.

I hope, like me, you're unbelievably grateful for the Infant Warrior King who conquered sin and death. Merry Christmas!

The Essence of Christianity - Part Four

2010-05-07T13:45:00.000-04:00

This is the long-in-coming final installment of an answer to the question, "What do you consider to be the most important aspect of your faith?" You might want to grab a cup of coffee (or two) and start from part one.

--

I say the essence of Christianity, and therefore the most important aspect of my faith, is the Biblical truth about Jesus Christ. It's a dangerous overstatement, but you can basically deduce why I say Christianity must be Biblical. Whatever else we might think we know, whatever other ideas about Jesus that might seem novel or nice, at the end of the day everything we know about Jesus comes from the Bible.

(Maybe, like me, you've tired of "Sunday School" Christianity, where the answer to every question is "Read your Bible, pray, go to church...", but just because a truth is oversimplified and overused and misunderstood doesn't mean we should disregard it. )

Honestly, it makes a lot of sense to me that God would want to settle things about Christ once and for all. So instead of having us see Jesus through our own private séances or mystical experiences, God gave us a firm, concrete description of Jesus for us to take in and think about. Perhaps it was because He knew that in our time men everywhere would want to define truth and reality by the fraction of existence which they themselves can experience and logically explain.

Certainly most of us have sought some type of personal encounter with that mystical, unintelligible higher power which for some reason we have a suspicion exists and is interested in our lives.

The problem is, at what point is our desire for experience satisfied completely enough to offer us any bit of surety that we have indeed encountered the creator? It seems that we have an insatiable thirst for experience, and an uncanny ability to doubt that experience.

Perhaps we presume that we are better than the Jews who sought something more mystical than a text as proof of God’s existence (1 Cor. 1:22-24). Or maybe we, like the rich man in Jesus’ parable, think that if God would just manifest himself plainly through personal experiences, certainly more would believe in him (Luke 16:27-31).

But the reply given to the rich man is that his brothers have writings, the writings of Moses and the prophets, and if they do not believe based on them, they will not even believe if they encountered a miraculous display of divine power.

If knowing Jesus were based on sheer mysticism and personal experience, who’s to discern between those who really know Jesus, and those wolves in sheep’s clothing who would find “knowing Jesus” a great means of suckering a bunch of zealously generous people out of some major funds?

And after all, if we’re all sinners, can I even trust myself to discern my own mystical experience; to know what’s the real Jesus and what’s the latte that I shouldn’t have drunk at 10 p.m.?

So it makes sense that God would say, “You fallen people can’t trust each other; you can’t even trust yourselves! So I’ll go ahead and solidify everything you need to know about Jesus in one source so you can all get your fill.”

“But Wait!” you scream in frustration. “What about my EXPERIENCING Jesus? You’re telling me to read a book?! I can’t buy it. I need that mystical experience. I mean, what about all the ‘the Spirit testifies with your spirit’ stuff? Are you just throwing that out?” Glad you asked. I've felt that same frustration many times.

But I totally disagree that reading a book about Jesus, written by men who knew him personally and intimately, somehow interferes with you knowing him better.

It seems to me that if the Spirit is going to testify with your spirit about Jesus, then He’ll want to testify about the real deal, and not just some “buddy Jesus” that you’ve invented to make you feel alive and important, like some imaginary friend that only plays the games you want to play and always lets you win.

So, I come to the conclusion that the essence of Christianity, the foundation of everything I believe, is the historical, reliable, propositional, Biblical truths regarding Jesus Christ.

You may not buy that. And I will gladly affirm that it is your perogative to agree or disagree. But I would challenge you to be careful of the dishonest practice so common to our culture: Don't reject the Jesus of the Bible yet still claim to be a Christian.

If you're going to reinvent Jesus the way you want him to be with little regard to the biographies written by his closest friends, at least do him the courtesy of acknowledging that it's not really him you are following. It's not honoring to him, and it's not helpful to anyone when the shell of Christianity is preserved, but the heart of Christianity, namely the historical Jesus, is ignored or misrepresented.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Feel free to leave a comment here or email me at mpsmith82[at]gmail[dot]com.

The Essence of Christianity, Part Three

2010-01-22T14:14:00.000-05:00

In response to a question I was recently asked, I've been making the case that the most important aspect of my faith (Christianity) is the Gospel. I defined "Gospel" as "the historical, reliable, propositional, Biblical truths regarding Jesus Christ." Today I continue explaining why I think our faith must be based on the propositional truth claims of Jesus. You might want to read parts one and two to bring you up to speed.

---

A lot of people live under the misconception that the Bible is just a string of seemingly unrelated commandments designed to keep us from living out our natural impulses or inclinations. If you've bought that, hopefully today will give you a new perspective.

There's one particular over-arching reason why I'm insisting that we can't neglect or marginalize the truth-claims of Christianity. Here it is:

I've always found it interesting that throughout the New Testament, we are given arguments for why we should live a certain way or believe a certain thing. The New Testament writers rarely appeal to feelings or emotional experiences to assure their readers that Christianity is real and true. Rather, they formulate arguments based on something Jesus said or the order of creation, or at the very least they lay out a reasoned, logical sequence of thought for why we should believe.

For example, I just linked to Hebrews 13:5-6. The author urges his readers to keep their lives free from the love of money - don't be greedy. Don't strive to accumulate loads and loads of cash. Be content with what you have.

The natural response to that is probably worry (or defiance...). We have insatiable appetites for money and comfort and convenience. If we're honest, we never have enough money in the bank or in our kids' college funds, or enough to go on that dream vacation. We think, "In order to proactively fight the love of money, that means I have to give money away, which means less for me. How will I pay my bills? Will my kids be taken care of? What if something horrible happens? Will I have enough money to fix what needs to be fixed?"

See what the author of Hebrews says. He doesn't appeal to any kind of emotional experience or disposition. He makes an argument. Be content with what you have, for [Jesus] said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you."

Do you see it? What is he doing? He is offering you an assertion. A proposition. Don't be greedy and accumulate a ridiculous amount of cash - just be content with what you have. And that shouldn't make you nervous, BECAUSE Jesus said he will not leave you or forsake you, meaning he will be there to provide for all of your needs.

Which begs a HUGE question: Is that TRUE?!? Is it true that Jesus will take care of me even if some inconceivable tragedy hits me tomorrow? And if you think it's true, you start giving generously to those in need and try to be content with what you have. And if you don't think it's true, you ignore it and go on with your life.

But either way, you had to decide whether or not to believe what Jesus said. And that's why I say Christianity is propositional. It's not designed to just ease your pain or make you happy. The Gospel forces you to a point of reckoning: will you believe what Jesus said?

Which brings me to my final assertion - that true Christianity is essentially Biblical. More on that soon.

The Essence of Christianity - A Parenthesis

2010-01-21T16:06:00.002-05:00

I think this video dovetails nicely with yesterday's post (and the one I'll be posting tomorrow) on Christianity being propositional.

As I mentioned yesterday, when we emphasize the "emotional experience" side of Christianity and neglect the truth-claims made by Jesus and the other biblical authors, we lose the very essence of our faith.

We're left with a hollow, weak belief system. When people ask, "Why should I be a Christian and not a Muslim or a Hindu?", the only answer we can give them is, "I think Christianity will give you a more meaningful experience...?" That's a stark contrast to how Jesus or Paul would have answered that question.

In other words, if we don't build our faith on the propositional truth of the Gospel, we lose the ability to speak about Jesus with authority and conviction.

I don't know if Taylor Mali is a Christian, but he has definitely picked up on this flimsy, post-modern lack of conviction. This is great stuff.

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

The Essence of Christianity - Part Two

2010-01-20T15:01:00.003-05:00

I said yesterday that the most important aspect of my faith (Christianity) is the Gospel. I defined "Gospel" as "the historical, reliable, propositional, Biblical truths regarding Jesus Christ." Today I'll pick up with the third part of that definition: the essence of Christianity is the propositional truths about Jesus.

---
I also say the Gospel is propositional.

This is maybe the most academic-sounding part of the definition. Which also means it's probably where most of you will stop reading. But stick with me!

To say that Christianity is propositional means that it offers assertions that may be deemed true or false. (Obviously, I vote true.)

Why would I bother throwing in this terribly unexciting concept at all, much less saying it is one of the most important elements of Christianity? I include it because I think we have a tendency to think the most important aspect of religion is not truth, but experience. We don't want "cold doctrine", we want meaningful, vibrant, emotional experience. Look at what most churches spend their money on: lighting, sound equipment, staging, huge screens, video production, etc.

We're not so much concerned with, "Is it true?" as we are with, "Does it work? What does it do for me? Does it make me happy and improve my life and help society function and help me get through hard times?"

Don't get me wrong: experience is crucial to Christianity.

Jonathan Edwards (arguably America's greatest theological mind) was a man passionate for truth. But one of his most famous books is Religious Affections, and a major point of that book is that Christianity without "affections" (i.e. meaningful, emotional experience) is not Christianity. It is cold, dead intellectualism.

I'm not hating on emotional experience. My blog is called "Exceedingly Glad" for crying out loud. I want an emotional, experiential Christianity!

But we can't divorce emotional experience from truth. Our joy and comfort and peace and love as Christians must be rooted in the truth of the Gospel. It is totally possible to go to church and leave feeling encouraged and excited, and it have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. Maybe it's because the music was great, or someone complimented you or thanked you for being so friendly. Maybe it's because the preacher was really funny and engaging and you feel motivated to finally take those old clothes to the Salvation Army. There are a million things that can give you a meaningful, emotional experience without regard to ultimate truth.

That's a problem, because when you stop being concerned with whether your emotions are tethered to the truth-claims of Christianity, all you have left is an experience that makes life a little better and helps us be a little happier, etc. And if you find that experience in Christianity and I find it in Buddhism, who's to say one is right or wrong? It's all good, so long as we both find something that makes us happy! (For you geeks in the class, that's called post-modernism.)

That idea would work really well if it weren't for one completely insurmountable obstacle: Jesus.

Sure, if you want to take the name "Jesus" and then superimpose whatever ideas you like on him, regardless of anything he actually did or said, you can make post-modernism work. But when you start actually reading what Jesus taught and how he spoke to people and the specific claims he made (namely that He IS God and there is no other true religion), you realize that he won't let us make him whatever we want him to be. He didn't leave us the option of regarding him as just an inspirational figure, or one of many valid ways to God, or even simply a meek-mannered, gentle man.*

What he does leave us is a proverbial mother-lode of statements, claims, and assertions for us to evaluate and determine if there's any measure of truth or reliability in them.

In other words, Jesus (and the apostles) literally left us a book full of propositions.

So we can't just talk about Christianity in terms of getting our emotional needs met or having some personal spiritual or mystical experience. We have to deal with truth-claims if we're going to deal with real Christianity.

Tomorrow I'll give you a little more insight into why I came to this conclusion, as well as some examples to make it a little more practical and personal.

----

*Jesus is indeed meek, gentle, and peaceful in many circumstances. But we can't take just those examples and pretend like Jesus wasn't also bold and controversial. The Jews didn't try to stone him on multiple occasions because he was so loving and friendly.

Everybody wants Jesus on their team (one of the many reasons I believe He is truly God), and many people will just take the parts of Jesus they like in order to reinforce their own particular biases. I'm as guilty as anyone of this, because we all have blindspots.

But the point is, there is a full-faceted person here. And we have to deal with the whole man.

C.S. Lewis makes a great argument in this regard: Based on everything Jesus said and claimed, he is either incredibly arrogant and deceitful, or insane, or he might actually be who he claimed to be. He can't just be a great model for peace or love or acceptance or whatever particular bent you and I might have.

He is either liar, lunatic, or Lord.

The Essence of Christianity - Part One

2010-01-19T01:25:00.003-05:00

In my post about formspring.me, I said someone had asked me a question that was too involved for that venue, so I would answer it here. Turns out, "involved" is the right word. I have been writing for almost 3 hours now in answer to this question:

What do you consider to be the most important aspect of your faith?

So I've broken this up into 3 or 4 posts. I thought about doing a "Theology Thursday" series, but I can't sit on a finished post for an entire week. So I'll give you a little chunk of my answer to that question each day for the next 3 or 4 days.

One point of clarification up front: I was asked what's the most important aspect of "my faith". As you likely already know, I am unquestionably a Christian. And, as the title of this series suggests, when I think about my "faith", I think the word "Christianity". There's a lot of baggage on that word. So let me be clear:

By "Christianity", I don't mean the formal institutions of Christianity (i.e. the Catholic church, the Baptist denomination, Protestantism, etc.). I really have no thought in my mind of any political position or influence, or social or moral bent that might be implied by Christianity. If it helps, you might want think in terms of distinguishing the Christian faith from the Christian religion (though I think that's a really tricky and probably impossible distinction).

So, what do I consider the most important aspect of my faith as a Christian?

In a word: The Gospel.

Or to be more clear: I believe the most important, most essential part of Christianity is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe this so strongly that I use the terms "Christianity" and "Gospel" interchangeably. They are one and the same - without the Gospel there is no such thing as real Christianity.

If you're slightly cynical, you'll immediately point out that this "one aspect" of the Christian faith has a thousand facets and implications and embodiments. So I'll try to narrow it down.

By "Gospel" I mean the historical, reliable, propositional, Biblical truths regarding Jesus Christ.

I know, I know. Those aren't fun, loving, relevant, relational words. They're big, loaded, academic words. That definition of "Gospel" doesn't sit well with people who like to describe Christianity in vague, feel-good, Jesus-is-my-boyfriend* language.

So give me a couple of minutes (or days) to explain why I chose that particular definition and why I say it is the most important aspect of Christianity.

I say the Gospel is historical.

What I mean is that Christianity is not a collection of contrived, mythical stories created to bring a sense of meaning to our existence or explain why the world is the way it is.

At its most basic level, Christianity is the true-life account of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh - the divine man - who lived and breathed and talked and healed people and turned water into wine and died and rose again and ascended into heaven. And I say all of those things are historical realities - in other words they really happened.

As I've said before: Ultimately, Christianity only matters to the degree that Jesus actually was who he claimed to be, and actually did what the apostles said he did.

Which is why I also say the Gospel is reliable.

Perhaps I could have simply said that Christianity is "historically reliable". Volumes and volumes have been written to show that Christianity is in fact historically reliable - that there is reasonable evidence that the Gospel corresponds and attests to historical people and events. But I don't want to limit "reliable" to just historical fact.

"Reliable" also implies a consistent trustworthiness. In other words, the Gospel continues to prove itself trustworthy over and over again. Consider the fact that, 2000 years after Jesus, millions still believe in him; people still experience radical life-change when they hear and believe the Gospel; Christianity finds a home and thrives in places with unbelievably different cultural dispositions and practices. The Gospel consistently transcends culture, race, color, background, and economic status. It has proven to be worthy of our attention (and acceptance!).

And so I assert that you can't have a Christianity without the historical, reliable truths of who Jesus is and what he said and did on Earth. Sure, you can have a religion and call it Christianity, but make no mistake: it will be an altogether new religion.

If you try and separate Christianity from its historic foundation, you will end up with a flimsy, obscure religion-of-convenience with no lasting power to transform hearts or do any real good. In other words, you'll have an ineffective, worthless "gospel".

Tomorrow I'll tackle the next "essential" part of the Christian faith: that it is by nature propositional. (It won't be as painful or boring as it sounds...)

----

*Jesus-is-my-boyfriend is most often used to describe "Christian" music that is ambiguous enough that it's difficult to determine if you're singing about Jesus or about your boyfriend.

I can't stand that kind of music.

But also there are a lot of Christians who want Christianity to be as vague and ambiguous as that music. They hate the thought of trying to "define" Christianity. Maybe they think it's cold and unloving to do so. Or maybe they think Christianity is more appealing to our culture if we only talk in terms of feelings and relationships and emotional needs - steering clear of any concrete "theology" that might be offensive or turn people off to Christianity.

Obviously I disagree. I'll really outline why tomorrow.

And, incidentally, Abraham Piper offers an insightful challenge to my distaste for Jesus-is-my-boyfriend music. Though I wonder how he feels about "You-could-say-Jesus-is-my-'boyfriend'-but-we-don't-really-like-labels" theology.

Step right up and ask the man a question...

2010-01-15T22:06:00.007-05:00

My brother introduced me to a fun new social media site this week. (If you read my last post, you'll realize I get a lot of ideas from him.)

It's a simple concept: you sign up and create a profile, then people can post anonymous questions to you and you answer them.

The site is formspring.me. You should check it out. It's probably not the next Twitter or Facebook, but it's still a fun idea.

You can view my profile and ask me any question by clicking here. And I'll answer as honestly as I can.

I'll spare you my thoughts on the dangers of narcissistic social media. But know that my reason for encouraging you to ask me questions is not because I think I have great answers - rather I'm confident you have great questions. And I'm learning that it's incredibly helpful to be forced to wrestle with and articulate answers to straight-forward, honest, and perhaps even personal questions.

Here are a few questions I've gotten already.

---

What is your favorite book?

Fiction: The Chronicles of Narnia - C.S. Lewis
Non-Fiction: John Adams - D. McCullough
Theology: Seeing & Savoring Jesus Christ - J. Piper

---

What is your biggest regret in life?

Soooo many!

Probably the biggest is not having my brothers standing with me at my wedding. I wouldn't have taken any of my other groomsmen away, but my brothers should have been by my side on that platform.

More of my thoughts on regret: http://exceedingly-glad.blogspot.com/2009/03/regrets.html

---

I ate Las Palmas for dinner and my back end is on fire. What's the cure??? Help.

On fire? Call a fireman! And whatever else you do, DON'T drink a lot of pickle juice. It will only complicate the situation. Listen to the voice of experience...

---

There's one more question on formspring that I haven't answered yet - because I don't think I can do it justice there. I'll post my answer here sometime this weekend.

If you want a teaser, the question is, "What do you consider to be the most important aspect of your faith?"

That might merit two or three posts.

Seeing [Christmas] With New Eyes

2009-12-22T03:16:00.005-05:00

My brother recently wrote a great post about seeing the world with new eyes; remembering how amazing everything is. I thought that was a pretty neat reflection - something we all need to hear from time to time. A nice perspective. A novel concept. Et cetera.

And then yesterday happened. Christmas snuck up behind me, grabbed me, spun me around and said, "Look! See! With new eyes!!" And my brother's post took on a whole new meaning.

Here's the deal: I'm a Christmas kind of person. A sucker for everything "Christmasy". Give me sleigh bells and scarves and mittens and snowballs and peppermint bark and tacky sweaters. I've no lack of appreciation for this season.

But I'm not naive enough to think I fully understand Christmas, with all its nuanced glory and infinite layers of meaning.

I got an email yesterday from some friends who live in a pretty dangerous place. At least it can be dangerous if you're there for the reason they are, namely because you believe in and love Jesus and think others should as well.

Fortunately they are not "American" enough to believe, like most Americans, that avoiding danger at all costs should be our default modus operendi - they understand that some things are worthy of risk.

But it complicates the situation when you know that the wife is 9 months pregnant, and currently there are Maoist uprisings happening pretty regularly in their city. It's risky enough to have a baby in the hospital where they are, but when the Maoists get riled up, their first order of business is usually to shut down the city - no public or private transportation; nobody really can get anywhere or do anything.

You can't really explain that to your baby who is ready to be born. "Seriously, son, can't we do this tomorrow? It's gonna be really inconvenient to try and get this done today..." So they were asking us to pray for them and all these crazy circumstances, that the baby's timing would allow them to get to the hospital and there wouldn't be any serious complications.

And then it happened.

Here's the paragraph that rocked me:

Pray that we would rest in God's perfect plan, knowing that just as he planned Christ's birth with all the ridiculous circumstances surrounding it (a junior high virgin single mother from the wrong side of town in a town far from her family when it's time for delivery) he has also planned the birth of our child regardless of Maoists or other circumstances that are completely beyond our control.

I've recognized for years that the point of Jesus being born in a manger is, for lack of a better term, irony. You would expect the King of Kings to be born in a palace with all the comforts the world could afford him, but Jesus turns human expectation on its head.

What I haven't recognized is that God is never doing just one thing. Everything God does, every story He tells, is rich with meaning and purpose.

And maybe one of God's millions of purposes in sending Jesus to be so humbly born is so that a dear friend who has traveled a long way to an unfamiliar place and will soon have a child might take comfort in the fact that not even a kingdom-wide census, or crowded hotel, or seemingly poorly-timed birth...

or Maoist uprising...

can prevent God from accomplishing His purpose.

That's a part of the Christmas story I've never rested in. But you can believe I will this year.

Hard Times for the Coop

2009-12-08T19:58:00.011-05:00

The Coop has had a rough go of it the past few weeks. Kelly and I went to the mountains for a little Thanksgiving getaway with her family. We thought we'd give Cooper a little getaway as well: so we sent him to my brother's place out in the country.

It should have been a fun-filled weekend, what with 5 acres of land to explore and 2 other dogs to romp around with. But alas, not for the Coop.

Maybe he's a snob after living in the city for so long. Or maybe he just didn't realize how amazing 5 full acres of undiscovered territory could be. Whatever the reason, Cooper rejected all that open space and decided to play on the only strip of concrete he could find: the road.

A week-and-a-half and one hip surgery later, he's recovering well from his run-in with a car.

So, if you're up for it, you can check out the pictures below. And remember kids: stay away from the road. It's a big, dangerous world out there.

**Warning: Not for the faint of heart!**

This little number is what the vet put on him to hold his gauze in place.
(Our friend Brack calls it the "Flock of Seagulls" outfit.
I guess Coop would fit right in with these guys...)

I'm actually sparing you the worst of it - the underside of his legs.
But he's taking it like a champ and getting better everyday!

This look says, "Okay, I'm done with pictures."

Another Top 5 List

2009-12-04T16:11:00.004-05:00

It's been a while since I've done a "Top 5" list. But I was in the car yesterday, driving to Chick-fil-a (which is, incidentally, number 1 on my "Top 5 Fast Food Restaurants" List), when inspiration struck. It's a long story, and I'll spare you.

But I had to share these "Top 5 Musical Moments of the Last Decade" with you.*

Fred Jones, Part 2

One of two songs on Ben Folds' Rockin' the Suburbs album about being fired. This is the sad one. Everything in this clip is perfect: the piano, the pizzicato strings, the haunting harmonies by John McCrea. This is unbelievable music.

Stop This Train

John Mayer's reflection on the fleetingness of life. Obviously the guitar is flawless, but what really caught my ear was the piano. Often when you throw a piano into an acoustic-guitar-dominated song, it just overwhelms the guitar and ruins the mood. Not here. The piano adds amazing depth to this clip.

1234

An absolute smörgåsbord of sound. Again the piano really makes this moment, handing off to the trumpet halfway through. At 2:31, just throw your hands in the air and enjoy the ride. Amazing.

Gone

The moment that made this post happen. Smack dab in the middle of the most raucous break-up song you've ever heard, Ben Folds tosses out this little gem. Doubling the melody across the octave creates a perfectly ethereal moment, with the higher vocals provided by Ben Folds' wife Frally Hines. Ironically, she's now "gone" - they divorced in 2007...

Eskimo Friend

When my friend Erin first introduced me to Damien Rice, it took about 15 seconds of this song to convince me to buy the album. For two and a half minutes he cooly avoids any actual singing, and then suddenly opens the floodgates to an amazing minute and a half of richness.**

Fix You

Of course I can't stop at 5. You can't create a Top 5 Musical Moments list without this glorious bridge from Coldplay. They should have kept this going for about 5 full minutes.

----------
*Disclaimer: It's possible that one would need to listen to the full song to appreciate these particular moments. If you've never heard any one of these songs in its entirety, it's probably worth listening to. Some of them do have explicit lyrics, but in my opinion they are minor compared to the amazingness of the music. Finally, I couldn't find the audio of Derek Webb's "Beloved", but it would certainly have found a place on this list if I could've.

**Ignore the video on this one. The only audio of the actual studio recording I could find was this one. (Although I must admit, it is kind of funny.)

HIStory

2009-11-24T12:50:00.004-05:00

Story is king these days. You don't have to look very far in the worlds of leadership, business, or Christianity to see a marked emphasis on the value of using stories to communicate truth.

Stories connect with people in a way that bullet points can't. They're personal and memorable. Kids will quickly forget if you tell them that slow and steady persistence is better than random spurts of hard work. But put that in a story about a tortoise racing a hare, and suddenly they get it!

But in Christian practice, there is a dangerous point of over-emphasizing story. And there is an ever-growing trend pushing Christians closer and closer to that point. It is this:

Instead of talking about theology or doctrine, we should tell stories. Tell stories of how Jesus has affected our lives and how our relationship with Him has changed everything. Tell stories about how God's love heals broken-hearted people and transforms hard men into gentle, peace-loving fathers.

Here's my problem with that:

Christianity is not mainly a subjective, pragmatic religion. In other words, Jesus is not a neat idea that helps make our lives a little better, or helps people get along.

Christianity is not one of Aesop's fables: just a good story with a practical moral to make us better people.

Certainly every Christian has a subjective experience of how Jesus has transformed them. And certainly true Christian love heals wounds and changes people for the better.

But at its core, Christianity is about Jesus: who he is, what he did, how he lived and died and rose, and what he promised to us as his followers.

In other words, Christianity is all about HIStory - the historical, propositional truths about Jesus.

If we emphasize our own subjective experiences of the love of God in Christ over the historically reliable facts regarding Jesus' life and death and resurrection, we undermine the very foundation of our own belief in Jesus. Ultimately, Christianity only matters to the degree that Jesus actually was who he claimed to be, and actually did what the apostles said he did.

If those aren't accurate, then Christianity becomes what we have basically already made it: one of many valid, albeit slightly misguided, belief systems to help us make sense of the world and perhaps give meaning to our existence.

To the degree that we marginalize the historic truth-claims of Jesus, we render our own stories irrelevant and meaningless.

So, tell your story of how God has transformed your life. But never cease to make sure that your story is grounded in HIStory.

Seriously? Well, clearly not... So, lightly?

2009-11-03T01:30:00.004-05:00

There is an ongoing joke between myself and a good friend about how I don't have a very good "filter" in social situations. What I mean is, I often (usually in an attempt to be funny) just say whatever comes to mind without thinking through it too much, which tends to create a certain level of awkwardness no matter the particular social setting.

I say it's an "ongoing" joke, though we haven't had opportunity to laugh about it too much lately. I like to believe that's because I'm finally maturing past that, and learning that what sounds clever and funny in my head does not always translate into actual humor when spoken aloud. In fact, the resulting awkwardness is often not just because I'm not that funny, but also because I'm usually trying to make a light-hearted comment about a serious subject, instead of giving it the appropriate seriousness it is due.

Forgive the ridiculous preface: My point is that I am quickly losing patience with people (especially myself) who treat serious things lightly.

Oh no. Michael's getting all fundamentalist on us.

No, I'm not. But I am pondering seriously, and publicly, that maybe it's time for us to grow up. Sure, trendy pastors wearing designer jeans and flashing their winsome, golden-boy smiles (with the soul patch accent) are not all bad. They add a cool edginess to church which often attracts those who might not otherwise tolerate a full hour of talking about Jesus.

But it becomes problematic when the sermon has about as much fluff as the pastor's hair has gel.

Stereotype? Probably. Serious issue? Absolutely.

I listen to a lot of sermons online, many from hip, trend-setting pastors whose churches are growing faster than the collection of weeds behind my house which we affectionately refer to as "the yard" (even though we know it doesn't really count - you need actual grass to have a yard). And while there are a few extremely notable exceptions, most of them share one common trait: the trendiness which is so effective at attracting people to their church is also effective at keeping their sermons trite, flippant, mildly cynical, and perhaps useless in effecting true heart-change in those who hear them.

There's such a wide spectrum of this out there, there's no way I can write about it all. But the one embodiment of this mentality that's particularly bugging me tonight is this: I see a growing trend of pastors (and authors and musicians) using cool-headed cynicism and reckless provocativeness to attract people who are disenchanted with their current circumstances, or are maybe not very grounded in their faith and are easily influenced by an elitist approach to religion. Here are a few examples of what I mean:

1. A Christian "humorist", author of incredibly entertaining books rich with irony, who makes outrageous, provocative statements which illicit the "I can't believe he said that!" response, then laughs them off as if we should know to not take him so seriously. He also enjoys a good laugh at the expense of those who are really serious about holiness, evangelism, missions (unless they are predominantly social-driven), etc. etc.

2. Churches who pride themselves in scrapping everything traditionally associated with church, then market themselves to members of other churches as the alternative to the same-old-boring-church-as-usual. This one is particularly terrible, because it's more than just being edgy and radical (which is sometimes cool): it's a way of growing YOUR church by undermining other churches and creating (or at least fueling) discontentment in believers. I hate this.

3. The growing trend among young pastors to preach through the Song of Solomon and use as much provocative, explicit language as they can to titillate their audience and keep them coming back for more. I agree we shouldn't ignore the explicit imagery of the book, nor should we overlook the clear sexual overtones by claiming it is JUST about Christ & the church. But we should also realize that there is a reason the book is guarded with metaphorical language: it is subtle, soft, and delicate. We dishonor it when we turn it into a "Christian" excuse to speak with raw, unguarded, sensuous language.*

Just a few examples - there are plenty more. But all of these have in common that they take incredibly serious subject matter and treat it flippantly in order to look cool, hip, or trendy. And I used to think it was so AWESOME!

But I'm starting to see that it's not just a waste of time to live like this, it's incredibly shameful and dishonoring to all that Jesus calls us to be.

One passage that jumps out at me on this subject is Ezekiel 13:

1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel, who are prophesying, and say to those who prophesy from their own hearts: ‘Hear the word of the Lord!’ 3 Thus says the Lord God, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!

10 Precisely because they have misled my people, saying, ‘Peace,’ when there is no peace, and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets smear it with whitewash, 11 say to those who smear it with whitewash that it shall fall!

Verses 10 & 11 are particularly striking. "The prophets I despise are those who tell my people, 'Peace,' when there is no peace; those who whitewash the walls my people build."

Do you get it?

God is saying, "I despise those who tell my people that they should take things more lightly when they shouldn't. I can't stand leaders who tell my people, 'Relax, we're at peace,' when a war is raging. I renounce those who see my people building walls to protect themselves from destruction and gloss over that preparation. Those who 'whitewash' serious walls will see their walls collapse. Truth is a serious matter, so don't treat it lightly, and don't teach my people to handle it carelessly."

It's a very dangerous thing to treat lightly what Jesus treats seriously. Maybe I do sound like a fundamentalist, but we can learn from them here.

Not that I'm condoning a morbid, joyless life here! (If you know me, you know how detestable that idea is to me!) I'm simply saying that we should take serious matters seriously. I'm suggesting what C.S. Lewis described (in a slightly different context perhaps) in The Weight of Glory:

This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously—no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner—no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment.

I believe eternal joy awaits those who have faith in Jesus. So if I'm going to err one way here, I would rather take Jesus more seriously in the Word than lead my easy, happy-go-lucky life here, only to find out I should have been a little more serious about things Jesus told me to be serious about.

I continually fight my own cynical, elitist tendencies. I'm thankful Jesus is teaching me now, while I don't have an "audience" per se. I can fight this battle in private for now. I pray and fear for those who are already established as leaders and are trading serious, weighty dealings with Truth for fleeting, indulgent strategies for building a movement, or growing a church, or selling more books or albums.

May Jesus deliver His Church from harmful, pedestrian methodologies and mindsets, and remind us of the immense privilege we have to share in His mission.

--

*Maybe the best example of how we SHOULD handle teaching the Song of Solomon in all its delicate glory is Tommy Nelson's Song of Solomon series. (I'm sure you can find it less expensive elsewhere on the web.)

'Til Death: 4 effects of knowing we're both in this for the long haul...

2009-10-27T00:23:00.001-04:00

My wife and I have a pact. It's not a secret pact; I can tell you about it. As a matter of fact, you may already know, because you may be one of the 400-or-so friends and family members who were there when we made our pact.

Most people call them wedding vows. Really they are just promises. Solemn, serious, holy, life-changing promises.

Most wedding vows include a phrase that goes something like, "'til death do us part." And, according to the stats, most people are just saying that to be nice - because it would be weird to say, "I promise to love you as my spouse and be faithful to you. And I'll keep my word - I mean, until it gets hard. Or until you screw up. Or until it just doesn't feel exciting anymore." Wouldn't make for a warm, happy wedding.

Well, we made the same promise. But we didn't make it flippantly. We thought through those words and begged God to give us strength and wisdom to make good on that promise. We still verbalize it occasionally. And we intend on following through.

So here are 4 things I think come as a result of us not having a Plan B:

1. We're patient with each other.

It might take me 10 years to finally learn to put my dishes in the dishwasher instead of leaving them in the sink. It might take Kelly 10 years to... well, I can't think of much she needs to change (and even if I could, I'll let her tell you about her own shortcomings!).

But what is 10 years if we're in this thing for the next 60 (assuming we live that long)??*

2. We take each other very seriously.

Marriage isn't a game in the Smith house. This is not a trial run. What we have today is what we'll have tomorrow - and we can make it a little more enjoyable or a little more frustrating.

That's important, because one might think the natural response to knowing we're both here for good would be to say, "She can get over it. I know she's not going anywhere." But we both know that mentality won't get us very far.

3. We communicate more openly.

Again, this marriage is our one-shot. We don't waste time swallowing deep frustrations only to let them explode 3 weeks later. Kelly knows I've got nowhere else to go, and that I'm serious about making this the best marriage it can be. And I know the same about her. So we have no qualms about speaking openly and honestly about our frustrations or worries or disappointments. Sure it's painful, but we both understand that we're not taking cheap-shots. We're working together to make each other better.

4. We don't freak out when the goosebumps and butterflies aren't there.

Probably my favorite part of our vows: "I promise to love you as an act of my will for the rest of my life, in the presence or absence of romantic feelings."

This is what every couple who's been married for 30+ years could tell you, and what most 28-year-old divorcees probably need to learn.

I didn't marry Kelly to make me feel better about myself. I'm not banking on goosebumps and butterflies. Sure, they're what everyone wants - and if they're NEVER there, you have a big problem. But I'm not gonna burn the ship because I don't sweat like a 15-year-old every time Kelly looks at me.

I'm not trying to make a statement about folks who have been through divorce. And God-knows 2 1/2 years does not make me an expert on marriage.

But 2 1/2 years isn't nothing. It's enough time to begin seeing some trends in a relationship - and to understand that sticking together, come hail or high water, makes a world of difference in how we relate on any given Monday night.

--
*If you think that means I'm not really trying to get better at putting my dishes in the appropriate place, see point #2...

A simple, but effective portion control & weight loss strategy...

2009-08-20T21:35:00.004-04:00

Use salad plates instead of full dinner plates. Simple. And you still feel like you're eating a "full plate" of food.

Kelly and I have done this for a while now. Who knows how many unnecessary calories it has saved us!

The only catch: two small plates is worse than one large plate. Watch those extra helpings!

A letter to my local paper about healthcare

2009-08-12T12:24:00.006-04:00

I received an email this morning from a non-profit organization I absolutely love. They are committed to social justice and working with government leaders to ensure that the poorest Americans are protected and cared for - something I believe all of us should be concerned about. Along with them, I despise the mentality that all poor people are simply a product of their own lack of hard-work and self-respect, and need to pull themselves up by the boot-straps and make a better life for themselves. I agree there is a "vicious cycle" to poverty, though perhaps it's not as extreme as some claim and not as benign as others claim.

I took exception to this particular email, however. The author spent the first half of it condemning all the misinformation being spread about healthcare reform, and the second half calling all caring citizens to act immediately to ensure that this bill passes so that the poorest of the poor will be taken care of.

I agree that misinforming Americans, especially deliberately, must be stopped! And clarification must be made about what actually is "at stake" in healthcare reform.

But my fear in this debate is not necessarily what changes this healthcare bill produces immediately, but rather how many hundreds of doors it opens for the future - how much easier will a government healthcare option make it to eventually transition to a government healthcare system.

Couple that with the fact that many Congressmen don't know what's in this bill, yet the President has consistently pushed for a hurried passage of it, and you have a perfect storm for public fear and even outrage.

I think this is the heart of the issue for conscientious, "free-market", fiscally-conservative Americans: The Government healthcare option is being touted as a means of competition for private insurance companies, which is necessary to force costs down across the market and therefore make healthcare more accessible for all Americans.

The problem is that the government doesn't play by the same rules as private corporations. The government does not have to be efficient or profitable - if it needs more money to continue providing services to consumers, it can simply legislate "profit". Private insurance companies cannot reach into my pocket and take the money they need to keep operating, but government can.

Unless some extensive restrictions are placed on how the Government engages in competition with private healthcare providers - unless we construct some very robust levees to contain the ever-rising river of government - I don't think this will turn out as well as any of us hopes.

Something must be done to fix healthcare, but if we take this route and realize 5 years from now that it was a bad idea, it will be nearly impossible to turn the ship of government healthcare around.

Let's spend this Congressional District Work period really evaluating whether this is the best solution for our broken healthcare system. Be clear and careful with the facts, and remember that we are a people who agree to be governed, not a people at the mercy of government.

Michael Smith
Rome, GA

--

One point I failed to state: Yes, there is a lot of ignorance and misinformation and even deception out there, but the appropriate response to all of that is not, "Some people are lying about this, so let's show them by passing it as quickly as possible!"

If someone claims your knife isn't sharp, it's stupid to cut yourself to prove them wrong.

--
UPDATE: For an excellent perspective on other options for healthcare reform without risking additional government control and increased deficit spending, see this editorial in the Wall Street Journal by John Mackey.

Don't "plot-spoil" me, bro...

2009-06-16T21:33:00.007-04:00

Photo via Daniel Mencák

We all know them. People who, in sincere desire to create meaningful and relevant dialogue, begin telling you about the latest, greatest movie you definitely need to see. And in their attempt to sell you on it they manage to spoil every major plot twist or cinematic moment that would make the movie worth your time. Those people used to absolutely annoy me to no end.

Used to.

But I had a small epiphany tonight. I was having dinner with a friend who brought up Clint Eastwood's newest flick: Gran Torino. I had heard good things about it, but wanted to get his opinion.

Fortunately, Ricky is not a plot-spoiler. He gave me a great synopsis of the movie without any crucial details that would detract from the experience. But at one point he paused with a, "I don't want to spoil it for you." and I realized...

I don't care. I am no longer offended by people who accidentally* spoil movies for me. I think the change stems mainly from one thing:

I'm reading a lot more books. And when you compare the time and effort involved in reading a 600-page novel with the time and "effort" involved in watching a 2-hour movie, there's really not much to spoil.

Now, if you called me right now and revealed to me the dénouement of The Idiot, I might punch you in the face. Because if I could simply get the story from you in 5 minutes, why have I wasted the last 3 weeks trying to understand 19th-century Russian social mores and taboos? (Which, incidentally, is why I haven't read the Wikipedia article I just referenced above.)

So, if you have a great movie you want to recommend, lay it on me. Give me everything you think I need to know to sell me on seeing it.

But if you want to recommend a book, be careful.

Don't plot-spoil me, bro.

------------------------

*Emphasis on accidentally. For you intentional plot-spoilers, there can be no forgiveness.

The Library

2009-06-14T21:49:00.005-04:00

I'm back. I'd love to say that for the past 2 months I've been working on a dozen new posts with really entertaining subject matter.

I haven't. I've just been reading, trying to find time and motivation to keep writing. And boy did I find it today! I did something this afternoon that I haven't done since I was probably 12 years old: I went to the public library.

I had totally forgotten how amazing the library is. It's like an enormous Barnes & Noble, but I can pluck any book off the shelf I want and take it home for up to six weeks without paying a dime! (And if I keep it for 6 weeks and 1 day, I pay ONLY a dime!)

So today I brought home Catch-22 by Joseph Heller as well as David Herbert Donald's biography of Abraham Lincoln.

The only downside to my excitement about the library is that I'm about two-thirds of the way through The Idiot by Dostoevsky (which I paid money for - this was pre-enlightenment). I'm really enjoying it, but the last 40 pages have been rather slow, so it's a fight to conjure up the discipline to push through to the end.

I learned something else at the library today: Most people don't take advantage of their local (free! well, funded by tax dollars...) library. My friend Bonnie, the library employee, said a very small percentage of people in our area visit our local library. I assume that's probably the case everywhere.

So be the exception. I understand that sometimes you just want to own your books. I don't think I'll ever check out a substantial theological work from the library because I won't be able to underline and circle and mark all over it. But for easy, entertainment reading, take advantage of the library you're probably already paying for with your tax bill.

That's it. More to come soon.

Random, Fun...

2009-04-12T21:11:00.004-04:00

Sorry for the hiatus on blogging. I'm working on a couple of posts that I'm really excited about - though it's taking longer than expected to get them together.

In the meantime, here's just some random stuff to keep you entertained:

One of my favorite commercials. (From an insurance company of all things...)

My favorite post from my wife's blog

My favorite Easter-themed posts from the past few days:

John Piper's conversation with death on Good Friday

Al Mohler's sweeping articulation of the importance of the Resurrection

David Mathis's reminder to us that Christ died alone - and just a great post title

My brother's post on the Paschal Lamb and his ranking of Easter candies.

That's all. Look for new stuff in the next couple of days.

Spurgeon

2009-03-23T21:36:00.006-04:00

I've been thinking about productivity today - trying to assess how much time I waste in an average week and how I could accomplish more with the time and resources I have.

Usually when I'm doing some self-assessment, I think it's helpful to find someone who sets the standard ridiculously high and try to imitate them.

Usually.

This time I've made a horrible error. I faintly recalled hearing something about Charles Spurgeon being a ridiculously hard-worker; that he managed to accomplish an impressive amount of work each day.

"So," I naively said to myself, "I'll read about Spurgeon as a little motivation to work harder and get more done."

Well, my friends, I pulled up a biographical sermon on Spurgeon by John Piper. And here's what I read:

Take a glimpse of this man's capacity for work:

"No one living knows the toil and care I have to bear ... I have to look after the Orphanage, have charge of a church with four thousand members, sometimes there are marriages and burials to be undertaken, there is the weekly sermon to be revised, The Sword and the Trowel to be edited, and besides all that, a weekly average of five hundred letters to be answered. This, however, is only half my duty, for there are innumerable churches established by friends, with the affairs of which I am closely connected, to say nothing of the cases of difficulty which are constantly being referred to me" (see note 21).

At his 50th birthday a list of 66 organizations was read that he founded and conducted. Lord Shaftesbury was there and said, "This list of associations, instituted by his genius, and superintended by his care, were more than enough to occupy the minds and hearts of fifty ordinary men" (see note 22).

He typically read six substantial books a week and could remember what he read and where to find it (see note 23). He produced more than 140 books of his own—books like The Treasury of David, which was twenty years in the making, and Morning and Evening, and Commenting on Commentaries, and John Ploughman's Talk, and Our Own Hymnbook (see note 24).

He often worked 18 hours in a day. The missionary David Livingstone, asked him once, "How do you manage to do two men's work in a single day? Spurgeon replied, "You have forgotten there are two of us" (see note 25). I think he meant the presence of Christ's energizing power that we read about in Colossians 1:29. Paul says, "I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me." "There are two of us."

Okay, if you missed it, let me hit the highlights:

- He oversaw an orphanage.
- He pastored a church with 4,000 members.
- He managed the responsibilities of that position (marry 'em, bury 'em, preach, etc.)
- He edited a monthly "magazine": The Sword & The Trowel
- He received 500 letters a week to read and respond to.
- He read on average 6 books a week.
- He wrote books in addition to having his sermons published.
- He founded and oversaw over 66 organizations.

So I'm not going to attempt to emulate Spurgeon. I'll simply be encouraged that, at one point in history, one man managed to accomplish this much stuff. Unbelievable.

Maybe you can give me someone more reasonable to imitate?

This is what I call vacation...

2009-03-21T17:15:00.008-04:00

Kel and I are on vacation. That's right: no work, no obligations, no responsibility. Nothing but doing whatever we want to do, which has mostly been nothing.

There might be more to write about tomorrow, but while we're wasting a few hours at an independent coffee shop with free wi-fi, I thought I'd give you all a little glimpse of how the Smiths roll:

Welcome to the Dillard house!

This is the view from where we sat in the restaurant.

And this is the view from Kelly's side of the table:

Chilling in the rocking chairs after dinner. So relaxing!

That's right people. Vacation complete with horseback riding.
This is me & Frank (who had the personality of an accountant... boring) and Kelly & Tonto.

That'll do pig. That'll do.

One of us pretty much does what he wants.

Regrets

2009-03-18T22:35:00.005-04:00

There is an interesting mentality I've seen a lot of lately, particularly on reality tv shows just before or after someone does something ridiculously stupid. Or I hear it from celebrities when they've just made a horrible mistake and everyone knows it.

It goes something like this: "I've gotta live with no regrets." Or: "I choose to live without regret." Or simply: "I have no regrets."

I understand what they are trying to say. They mean something like, "Whatever's meant to be, will be. So I'm choosing to make the best of things rather than live in the past. This will all work out in the end." I call this vague optimism. There's no concrete scientific or theological reason they believe this. It's just post-modern psychobabble.

The problem I've found with this mentality is that, at its root, it usually really means, "I refuse to admit that I may have done something stupid." Or perhaps it is code for: "I'm about to do something stupid, and I want you to know that I'm conciously deciding to neglect any responsibility or obligation I may have in this situation."

Or my favorite: "My feelings and emotions are in overdrive, so no matter what negative consequences may result from my actions, and despite any promises I may have made or implied, what's more important here is that I do what I feel right now."

This post is already too long. I'll save further thoughts on regrets for later. But for now, let me tell you out-right several things that I regret, will never regret, and perhaps will soon regret.

List 1: Things I regret.

1. Not saving more money when I was single and had virtually no expenses.
2. Not building a habit of exercise and healthy eating when I was in high school & college.
3. Not writing more music when I had an abundance of free time.
4. Not being a better student in college. (But see #4 below...)
5. Quitting piano lessons and never learning guitar. (Does that count as 2?)
6. Dating a lot before I met Kelly.

Okay, I have to comment on that last one: By "dating" I really mean "being in serious relationships". I'm glad I went on a lot of 'dates', because I learned a lot about how to respect women and relate to them in a mature way. But when I think back on how much time I spent in "exclusive relationships" with girls that now I don't even talk to, and how much money I spent on flowers and extravagant dates, I just wish I would have spent more time with the guys I never see now and saved all that stuff for Kelly.

List 2: Things I'll never regret.

1. Marrying Kelly.
2. Getting the Coop.
3. Living in a house with 7 other guys during college.
4. All the golf I played with Ricky and Albert while skipping Music History.
5. Spending my summers in college doing crazy things with Campus Outreach like Beach Project and CCP Australia. Some of the best times of my life.

Things I'll probably regret:

1. Not stretching before push-mowing our half-acre backyard.
2. Not sinking all our savings into Cement stocks. (Since Congress is investing $150 billion in infrastructure projects...)
3. Waiting 'til almost 11 p.m. to write this blog. Still have to prep the crock pot meal for tomorrow night and have a big sales meeting tomorrow.

Time for bed. Feel free to share any regrets or non-regrets. Or perspectives on regret. I'd love to hear them.

A story in pictures...

2009-03-11T09:53:00.006-04:00

I became an uncle yesterday. Pretty exciting times! My sister-in-law gave birth to a beautiful, tiny little girl. The baby was 4 lbs 2 oz - 4 weeks early! Both mama and baby are recovering and have a couple of hurdles to cross, but it looks like everything will be just fine.

Just a few more days before I can start spoiling my niece!

That's just an update. It has nothing to do with the purpose of this post.

As I was browsing through pictures for my anniversary post, I came across 5 hilarious pictures in a row. We were on a cruise, and were trying to take a nice photo before going to dinner.

"Oops... sorry babe. Didn't mean to hit the button. But I think it's good to go now."

Kelly: "Ugh! My right arm looks awkward, and I'm hunched over."
Michael: "No, it's fine!"
Kelly: "No. Let's take another one."

Michael: "Hey there, Buckaroo! How's my old buddy?"
Kelly: "Seriously, that looks like the last day of summer camp."

red light flashing to indicate picture is about to be taken
Kelly: "Wait, I'm not ready!"
Michael: "Are you SERIOUS?!? How many tries does it take to get a decent picture?!?"

Okay - ONE more! Let's get this right people...

red light flashing...

deep breath...

We both crack up. Can't take the pressure. I attempt to throw Kelly on the bed. She jumps to higher ground to defend herself. We decide dinner has waited long enough - pictures will wait for another time.

I love my wife.

2009-03-10T07:38:00.004-04:00

10 reasons I'm thankful for my wife on our 2nd anniversary:

10. She loves the little things.

She is as happy about me washing the dishes as she is about me planning a surprise vacation for us. And lest you think that's just because I never clean the dishes, let me assure you that it's simply because she doesn't need extravagance to make her happy. I love that.

9. She's practical.

We don't own a Mac. We're not in debt. These two things are related, and are just a small example of how nice it is to have a wife who is not afraid to lovingly restrain my inner spendthrift.*

8. She's practical.

Did I mention this? Well, here it is a second time because it's not just limited to money. Kelly has a great way of letting me concoct really amazing, totally unrealistic ideas, and then gently bringing me back to earth.

7. She's compassionate.

To people, dogs, squirrels being chased by dogs, etc. Kelly has a genuine soft-spot, especially for people in hard situations. It reminds me of two things: how privileged we are, and how we shouldn't become calloused to people in less-fortunate circumstances.

6. She's stubborn.

I'm a salesman. My job is to talk hesitant people into parting with their money in exchange for something I think they should have. I often try to sell ideas to Kelly that involve us doing crazy things or spending lots of money or taking some big risk. She's usually not buying it. I love that.

5. She respects me.

Lest you think, with all the talk about her "bringing me back to earth", that she constantly shuts me down when I come up with crazy notions, let me just say that she takes big chances on me. When she can tell that I'm sold on something, often she defers to my judgment even if she disagrees. She asks my advice on things. She tells me how much she respects me. That's priceless.

4. She's not afraid to speak her mind.

She lets me know when she's upset or frustrated or when she disagrees with something. She doesn't let things just sit and get worse. She doesn't blindside me by bringing up something I did 2 weeks ago and explaining why she's been mad about it ever since. She forms strong opinions on weighty matters and we have fun and healthy debates about them - and she often winds up winning me over.

3. She loves Jesus.

It would take 4 additional blog posts to explain how important and amazing this one is. I mean, in a million ways, big and small, this makes all the difference. (Keep checking back, maybe I'll try to explain this one more in a future post.)

2. She's patient.

She's been married to me for two years. Need I say more?

1. She's beautiful.

Seriously, people.

And one BONUS reason (because I used 2 items for "She's practical"):

I don't even know how to say this one: She's hilarious. She's easy to hang out with. Even on days when she's a "boring" homebody, I NEVER get bored with her. We play; we laugh; she would die before singing in public, but she'll belt it out like there's no tomorrow when this song is playing in the car. She's my best friend.

If you understand, you understand. If not, call me. We'll hang out. You'll see what I mean.

Happy anniversary, Kel! I love you.

------------------

*Addendum in 2 parts:

1) "Mac" here is simply a metaphor for a hundred things I would have spent money on if I didn't have a practical wife to remind me of more important things.
2) I should say, "We don't own a Mac... yet." I'm still lobbying for one.

What would you miss seeing?

2009-03-03T17:36:00.012-05:00

On Friday, my brother published a fantastic post over at his blog asking what you would miss seeing if you lost your eyesight. (You really should read his post.)

Here's my response (all things I've seen and hope to see again):

But most of all, of course:

Something to say?

2009-02-09T19:16:00.004-05:00

I'm torn between two opposing perspectives on songwriting, particularly, but everyday writing, generally:

1. Anyone aspiring to write should simply do it: write like crazy and any "gems" will become self-evident in the long run.

Many people don't write (especially publicly) because they feel they have nothing to say. But if every great author or songwriter had waited for profundity to strike, we probably would have much fewer engaging, thought-provoking works than we do.

2. If you give a man a microphone, he'll think he has something to say.

There is a great deal of superfluous writing in the world. Horrible songs that say absolutely nothing make thousands of dollars for their authors each year (Exhibit A: contemporary Country music). Blogs are a dime a dozen. On my very own bookshelf, I have enough worthless paper to heat my house for an entire winter (note: hyperbole). People should be a lot more thoughtful about what they write and especially what they make public.

I'm sure the best perspective is somewhere in the middle (as it almost always is). What do you think?

Happy Birthday, Mozart

2009-01-27T21:49:00.004-05:00

So today is the 253rd birthday of the greatest musical genius of all time. I had no idea it was today, until I heard it mentioned in passing on NPR.

And with it garnishing such little attention (even on a classical music program), I wonder how many (or few) people realize what makes Mozart such a fascinating, and mind-blowing, historical figure.

So for you non-music-nerds, here's a few reasons you should appreciate Mozart, even if you don't like his music:

1. He is the ultimate child prodigy.

He began "tinkering" at the keyboard at age 3, mastered his first piano piece at age 4 (in about 30 minutes!), was composing small pieces for piano by age 5, and touring Europe with his sister at age 6. He was by all standards a "professional" musician in his early teens.

2. He understood music in a way that perhaps no one else ever has.

Bold statement, I know. But here's a story:

Gregorio Allegri composed a setting of the Miserere to be performed at the Vatican during Holy Week. For some unknown reason (perhaps because the Pope enjoyed the piece so much), soon after its composition the work was banned from being transcribed and was only allowed to be performed for the Wednesday and Friday services during Holy Week in the Sistine Chapel. The penalty for transcribing the piece was excommunication from the church.

In 1770, 14-year-old Mozart visited the Sistine chapel during Holy Week. He heard the Miserere performed, and later that night he transcribed the entire piece from memory. He returned to the chapel for the Friday service, made a few minor corrections to the score, and eventually allowed the transcription to be published in England.

Now time to have your mind blown.

Allegri's Miserere is written for two choirs: one with five voice parts, the other with four. So at times there are 9 distinct parts being sung simultaneously. And the piece is about 14 minutes long.

So a 14-year-old heard the piece once, and hours later was able to recall it well enough to write out a near-perfect musical score. I know. Ridiculous.

(By the way, the Pope didn't excommunicate Mozart. He congratulated him.)

3. He composed some of the most enduring melodies of all time.

For example, you may not recognize any of these works by name, but I'll bet you know the tunes:

Rondo alla Turca
Eine Kleine Nachtmusik
Le Nozze di Figaro
Symphony #40 in G minor
Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman"

4. He displayed unparalleled creativity while strictly adhering to the "rules" of music composition.

Okay, this one's for the music nerd in me. Bach and Beethoven stretched the rules quite a bit to create their distinct styles and achieve their musical ends. Bach wrote parallel-fifths like a champ. Beethoven saw no need to consider what key he had been composing in - only what key he now wanted to be composing in. Even freshman music theorists can find fault with Bach and Beethoven.

But not with Mozart. His compositions are flawless. They are a "how-to" manual for musical part-writing.

And yet they are engaging and exciting. Imagine having your life changed by a sentence in this book. That's Mozart.

Unique, flawless, unbelievable.

As my music composition professor used to say, "Mozart always gets an 'A'."

Learning to trust new authors...

2009-01-14T22:33:00.002-05:00

I always try to give a lot of grace to authors I'm reading for the first time. I expect to encounter a lot of extreme statements: no one can qualify everything they write - and no one else would want to read that person who qualified every statement they made.

I usually make a note of statements that strike me as new or not-quite-right so I can come back later and evaluate them further. That way I'm not simply swept away by the newness of an argument or idea, but I'm also not rejecting a statement out-of-hand because it doesn't immediately jive with what I think or believe. (There are exceptions to this.)

Usually it becomes clear pretty quickly whether or not I can trust whoever I'm reading: are they honest, well-reasoned, engaging? Do they write with conviction? Do I agree with their diagnosis of what makes the world the way it is? Am I wasting my time reading them?

As a new author earns my trust, the less grace I need to give, and the more I can let the writing challenge and shape the way I view the world.

Quote of the day...

2009-01-12T20:40:00.003-05:00

"But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."

- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

That quote just pushed Orthodoxy to the top of my "books to read" list.

Hypocrite much?

2009-01-04T02:14:00.001-05:00

Is it ever acceptable to criticize something in another person that I tolerate (or even approve of) in myself?

Eight years and counting...

2009-01-01T23:14:00.003-05:00

As of today, I have been a Christian for exactly 8 years. I'll spare you the anecdotal reflections on the past near-decade, but suffice it to say that on January 1, 2001 everything changed.

I understood nothing of Ultimate Reality then. Jesus meant so little to me. I had such little concern for His honor.

I hope in eight years I look back on today and feel the same way.

Indisputable logic

2008-12-31T08:03:00.003-05:00

I'm probably not the only one who does this, but I often write notes on my hand of things I need to remember. I do this because I figure if I lose that note, I'll have a much bigger problem than simply forgetting the milk.

Also, it's highly unlikely that, if I arrive home with a severed hand, someone will say, "Dude. That's really inconvenient. How am I supposed to enjoy a bowl of cereal with no milk?"

22 Word challenge...

2008-12-18T13:13:00.008-05:00

I realize this will make the 3rd reference to Abraham Piper in my last 6 posts - but I couldn't turn this one down.

Abraham's challenge: tell a 'kid story' in 22 words or less. Winner gets books for kids.

Here's my best effort, involving our favorite little four-year-old:

Little Abbey: "LOOK AT HER DOLL!"
Kelly: "Don't point."
Abbey, exasperated, hands clasping head, eyes pointing more than finger did: "But LOOOOOK!"

This might qualify as a "you-had-to-be-there" moment, but it will always be priceless to me!

What to read?

2008-12-16T13:09:00.003-05:00

I have spent the last months crawling through the life of John Adams in the biography by David McCullough.

This is the third time I've tried to compose this post. I find it so difficult to articulate the experience of following Adams from the Boston Massacre (after which he served as defense attorney to the British soldiers responsible for the killings of the Americans) to Congress to Europe and back; then back to Europe and his return to Massachusetts; through the Vice-Presidency and Presidency and finally his retirement in Quincy, MA. The man lived an amazing life: spending numerous years away from wife and family, working more diligently than we can perhaps imagine as hyper-entertained modern Americans.

If I could find the words, I could write for days about my admiration for Adams and the effect his biography has had on me. But that's not my point here.

My reason for telling you any of this is to ask: What do I read now? How do you follow such an amazing literary experience?

I've been trying to go through John Krakauer's book about Chris McCandless - Into the Wild - but it's like I just finished the richest, yet most delicate cup of Ethiopian Sidamo, then refilled my mug with Folger's instant coffee. Just not the same thing.

I'm sure there are lots of angles for me to contrast Adams - the focused, hard-working, self-confident hero of 1776 - with McCandless - the soul-searching, wandersome, perhaps volatile 1990's cultural icon. But again, not my point.

So I'll stop typing and let you start. What should I read next? Do I need some fluff after such a weighty read? Or should I dive head-first into another deep well?

Brevity.

2008-12-09T01:47:00.004-05:00

Are there concepts that simply cannot be explained with a short, to-the-point burst of language?

Surely it is possible to summarize just about anything with a densely-packed sentence or two - perhaps even a word or two.

But are there certain ideas that absolutely necessitate a thorough and possibly, therefore, lengthy explanation? If no, is it simply a matter of finding the vocabulary that "packs the most punch" in order to maintain a reasonable economy of language?

Abraham Piper does about as good a job as I could ever imagine at this - just wondering what you all think about it.

If I were a musician...

2008-12-04T22:30:00.004-05:00

I would want to release an album entitled Dickensian Extravagance. I would follow that with one entitled peace:inveterate.

What should the title of the third album be?

When narcissism reigns...

2008-12-01T23:38:00.004-05:00

I wonder how historians will remember Americans at this point in history. Call me pessimistic, but in a hundred years or so you might find this in a book describing our generation:

It was a time of rampant, perhaps unhealthy introspection, yet there was a confounding lack of self-understanding. Never has a generation been so self-conscious, so reflective, yet had such little grasp of who they really are. Self-love reigned; self-perception waned.

The best compliment ever...

2008-11-20T07:24:00.004-05:00

Abraham Piper recently asked, "Does any non-biblical author warrant everybody's attention?"

I'm not sure of the answer to that question - he got a lot of interesting responses.

But it did remind me of this quote about Leo Tolstoy:

When literature possesses a Tolstoy, it is easy and pleasant to be a writer; even when you know you have achieved nothing yourself and are still achieving nothing, this is not as terrible as it might otherwise be, because Tolstoy achieves for everyone. What he does serves to justify all the hopes and aspirations invested in literature.

Now I should be forthright enough to tell you that I've never read Tolstoy. Just the thought of pulling War and Peace from the shelf, then having it drop on my foot because it weighs 47.3 pounds (effectively shattering my lateral cuneiform) is enough to deter me from tackling any one of his tomes.

So here's why I bring it up: the quote is from Anton Chekhov.

Perhaps you're not familiar with Checkhov. He was a famous playwright and author of classics such as The Seagull and The Cherry Orchard. I had forgotten about him until I searched "top 10 books of all time" on Google. The first search result brought up Time's list, compiled from the top 10 lists of 125 of the world's leading writers.

Chekhov's list of short stories is number 9 on that list. Impressive enough. Until you see that Tolstoy has 2 books in the top 5 - Anna Karenina and War and Peace.

So the author of one of the 10 greatest books of all time said that Tolstoy's writings justify "all the hopes and aspirations invested in literature."

Can you imagine that being said of you? That's like Paul McCartney saying of Bob Dylan, "He single-handedly makes being a musician worthwhile. If no one ever bought an album of mine, it would be okay as long as they listened to Dylan - because he justifies every aspiration we all have as musicians." That has to be one of the best compliments ever.

I don't know how accurate Chekhov's assessment is, since I haven't read Tolstoy. But do I ever want to know! Chekhov doesn't strike me as one who would "run off at the mouth." So when a very serious writer makes such a statement about another writer, I want to listen. And I want to understand what it is that Chekhov loved about Tolstoy.

Let me know if you've read any Tolstoy, and what your take on him is. I'll be here deciding if I have the chutzpah to find out for myself.

One more post on politics...

2008-11-18T23:01:00.002-05:00

Then, per my anonymous friend's request, I'll move onto something else.

But I couldn't help sharing this quote that blew me away yesterday as I was reading David McCullough's biography of John Adams.

From page 422:

That political parties were an evil that could bring about the ruination of republican government was a doctrine [Adams], with others, had long accepted and espoused. [now quoting Adams] "There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other,"...

I wonder what Adams would think of American politics now...

My two favorite post-election perspectives...

2008-11-12T08:31:00.002-05:00

1. My brother's take on why Barack Obama and Joshua Packwood are both good for America.

2. Matt Perman on how the strategy that won Obama the White House is in many ways the opposite of the policies he promises to govern with. Fascinating.

Red sky in the morning? we'll see...

2008-11-10T21:34:00.005-05:00

It's a new day in America. Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.

I am cautiously optimistic, but I will give it a while before I take my friends' lead by posting lengthy Obama quotes on my Facebook page and touting him as one of the greatest presidents America has seen.

I think there is so much potential good to come out of this administration. I really, really hope it happens. I hope race relations are radically transformed. I hope America earns back much of the respect we have lost in the rest of the world due to our current president.

I also think there is a lot of potential harm that could come out of the next 4 years. Obama clearly has an agenda for the nation that in many ways is in direct opposition to so much that I believe. With him as the president and a Democratic majority in Congress, I'm nervous of the legislation that could simply breeze through the political system without any truly careful consideration.

That said, I do think I can honestly say that I want to be able to look back in 4 years and admit that Obama was one of the best Presidents our nation has seen. Let's talk again then.

(Okay, like I'll really make it 4 years without writing about politics...)

A quick, last-minute, inadequate post about abortion and the election...

2008-11-03T20:19:00.004-05:00

I started writing a while back about why I can't vote for Barack Obama. In many ways (note: many, not every) it boils down to the issue of abortion.

I may continue to write about abortion for a few more posts, but since it's the night before the election, I have to do something I hate:

I have to make broad, sweeping statements about why I can't give my vote to the Senator from Illinois. I'll do it this way - I'll take common objections I hear about this issue and address them as quickly as I can.

Objection #1 - You can't legislate morality.

My gut reaction to that statement is: we do it all the time. Murder and theft are legal issues because they are moral issues.

I heard a great quote the other day. It went something like, "I don't care about abortion being illegal - I want abortion to be unthinkable."

I love the spirit of that quote. I long for the day that, as a country, we see abortion for what it really is. (Websites like abort73.com help.) But we have a long way to go. So the question becomes: do we just wait for an overwhelming cultural tide to swell before we make any legislative moves to decrease abortions?

I say no. I probably couldn't say it better than it was said in a previous comment: "If I decide to kill my neighbor today, there are laws that will severely punish me. Regardless of legislation, people will still commit murder. But because of legislation, murder is drastically reduced."

Objection #2 - Abortion is an issue for the states.

Abortion was an issue for the states. Roe v. Wade served to override the authority of the states on this issue.

Not that I think it would simplify things if it were left up to states. It would probably complicate things if Alabama allowed abortions but Georgia did not. I don't think that would be a better solution. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't say that abortion doesn't factor into the presidential election because it is constitutionally left up to the states - because it's not anymore.

Objection #3 - How much power does one man have?

It is enough for me that the President has veto power as well as power to appoint Supreme Court justices. It is true that the President cannot appoint justices without the approval of Congress, but with Obama in the White House and both Houses of Congress dominated by Democrats... you get the idea.

Objection #4 - One-issue voting is wrong/ignorant/immoral.

Let me start by saying that I am not a one-issue voter in the sense that I think just because a candidate is pro-life that they would make a great President. But I am a one-issue voter in the sense that I think certain issues disqualify a person from receiving my vote for President.

Let's say Candidate X was running for President and he seemed to have the charisma, intellect, experience, and respect to change the world for the better. His economic plan had been reviewed by leading economists to rave reviews; he had real solutions for the health care problem; he had established solid relationships with other world leaders - he seemed to be the perfect candidate.

Except for one thing: he did not really see any problem with slavery. He believed if people had slaves, or even wanted slaves, it was not the government's place to tell them otherwise.

That candidate would never be elected. The reason is that generally speaking in America slavery is unthinkable. A candidate who believes otherwise would be disqualified from public office in the minds of the people.

My point is that there are certain issues that carry enough weight to disqualify from office anyone who falls on a particular side of the issue. My argument is that abortion is one of those issues, and any candidate who can not or will not see abortion for what it is should not be given the power and privilege of leading our nation.

About Barack Obama

I commented previously that if I could believe in any way that Barack Obama would do anything to decrease abortions in America, I might could vote for him. But Obama's record gives me absolutely no indication that he will work to reduce the number of abortions performed in America.

In fact, here are some interesting thoughts:

- Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University claims that Obama is not just pro-choice, but rather the "the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States."

He further argues that, based on his Congressional voting record and statements regarding the issue, "[Obama] is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress."

- Obama believes the Hyde Amendment (the legislation that prevents using tax dollars to subsidize abortions) should be repealed.

- Three times Obama voted against legislation in the Illinois Senate that would protect the life of an infant if it survived a botched abortion. Three times!

A similar bill passed through the U.S. Congress with unanimous support around the same time. Obama later stated that he would have supported the federal bill because of the wording. But in fact the third time the bill was proposed the wording had been changed to match the federal bill, yet in committee Obama voted against it again!

- Obama has stated that his first act as President would be to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" which would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.

---------------------

Believe it or not, but I could keep going. I find myself writing out of emotion now, so I'm going to wrap it up here.

I simply cannot support any candidate who so boldly and neglectfully promises to work to make abortion as accessible and convenient as possible.

But I should also add that, at the end of the day, I don't put my trust in government. I think government will be a mess forever. I know whatever candidate is elected will do some good and much bad. So I rest easy, believing that:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

That's it. Go vote.

Choices, choices...

2008-10-21T13:25:00.004-04:00

If you could boil the entire abortion debate down to a single word, I suppose it would be either choice or rights.

The real question is: who has rights at stake here? Or to be a little more specific: does a woman have a right to make a choice to override nature - to tell her body that it will not be pregnant when in fact it is?

As clear as the issue may be to some, it gets a bit fuzzy when you have to deal with one other question: does the fetus also have a right in this situation?

I phrase it that way because we should all be aware that the fetus has no choice here. It is at the mercy of its mother's decision. In the same way that a tree has no say in whether it is cut down or not, an unborn child is wholly passive in this issue.

But we can't take that analogy very far, because we must admit that an unborn human carries an incomparable amount of moral significance over a tree. (While I am confident that there is some obscure group in the world who would argue for a tree's moral worth, no sensible person would argue that a tree is as or more significant than a human life.... would they?)

So does the fetus have a right to life? This is perhaps the most important question anyone can ask in this debate.

I say yes. Absolutely. A fetus has rights at stake in this issue - certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (sound familiar?).

The founders of America put that language in the Declaration of Independence not merely to ensure the recognition of those rights to their contemporaries, but also to every generation who would follow after them. And those generations start somewhere.

I think it would absolutely astound our founding fathers if they knew how we circumvent recognizing those rights for beings who only differ from us in environment. A baby in the womb is made of the same stuff as you and I - cells, tissue, organs. The difference between a 21-year-old man and a 21-week-old fetus is a difference of time and environment, not a difference of species. As I've said previously: if we just leave it alone it will grow and develop and come out of the mother's womb with undeniable humanity.

I am taken aback at the philosophical gymnastics I read from people trying to argue that an unborn baby does not have rights here. As a matter of fact, most do not even take up the argument, sticking rather to a more reliable argument that the mother certainly has a right over her body.

So the final question I'll ask here is: when two rights conflict, how do you decide which right takes precedent?

I argue that the right of greater significance takes precedent. Here's an example:

I have the right to hit golf balls in my back yard. No one can tell me not to hit golf balls if that's what I want to do.

My neighbor has the right to have a nice car. No one can legally prevent him from driving the nicest car he can possibly own.

What happens when I hit a golf ball in my back yard and it smashes the windshield on my neighbors Mercedes?

I am held liable for the damages, because while I have the right to hit golf balls, my neighbor has a more significant right to the protection of his possessions. My right is limited by his more important right.

One could argue that perhaps every single law we have limits one right to give preference to another. That is the way laws are constructed. You can't drive 150 miles per hour in your neighborhood because there are people who live there who have the right to safe roads. Your rights are limited by their more significant rights.

So a woman has a right to not be pregnant. We might could even say she has the right to choose to not be pregnant. But once she IS pregnant, there is another right at stake: the right of the baby to have a chance at life.

Which right is more significant? You know what I think...

A quick, clarifying post...

2008-10-20T22:27:00.003-04:00

Just for the record, I want to take a moment and say this:

I'm a really reluctant McCain supporter. Supporter is not even the right word.

My goal in all of this blogging is not to promote John McCain as a great option for president, because I don't think he is that great. As with pretty much every American election, I feel forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

My one and only point in all of this blogging is to try to articulate why I think abortion is a make or break issue, and why I don't believe that conscientious voters can say they are committed to justice and life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, yet marginalize an issue like this.

As I wrote in the first post in this series - I wanted to be an Obama supporter. And if I could believe that he were even marginally committed to reducing abortions, I might could vote for him.

But I can't, for reasons I'll outline later. I'll also try to deal with some of these topics:

What "rights" are at stake in the abortion debate?
Is abortion really an issue for the states?
Can we legislate morality?
What is "one-issue" voting?
Where does Obama really stand on the abortion issue?

I don't think I'll get to everything before the election (though I've probably said a lot of it here already), but the one big thing in my life that has kept me too busy to blog lately is now over.

So I'm back at it. Expect some new posts really soon.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Note: This is the second version of this post. I took the first one down because I felt like it was written in haste and not as well-reasoned as I would like. If you got that one in a feed-reader, sorry.

Where do we begin? Or, when...

2008-09-12T00:32:00.011-04:00

I believe life begins at conception.

There are a lot of circumstances in my life that lead me toward this stance: My parents believe it; they raised me to believe it; the Bible teaches that we are "knit together" in our mother's womb by our Creator; etc.

I recognize that there are millions of people in the world who share none of those things with me, and therefore are just as predisposed to believe in a woman's right to choose an abortion as I am to believe that the moment of conception is the absolute beginning of human life.

This is one reason why the abortion issue is so tricky: there is no absolute, indisputable, scientific evidence to support conception as the definite beginning of human life. Surely it's difficult to be dogmatic on this point - there is no way to interview an embryo to find out if it views itself as a human. There are questions of viability, and an underlying ocean of philosophical and ethical debate on what it means to be 'alive.' It's not cut-and-dry.

Some say this ends the debate altogether. If pro-lifers do not have indisputable evidence that life begins at the moment of conception, then they have no right to accuse others of ending that life in abortion. Until we are sure that it is a life, we need to shut our mouths and let people decide for themselves. Lack of proof leaves a gray area, and it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to legislate gray areas.

I think it is exactly the opposite.

It is precisely because there is so much uncertainty as to when life begins that we should legislate against abortion. We have no rock-solid evidence that, in the moment of conception, a fully-vested human life is created. But we do know this:

A process is initiated at conception that, if just left alone, will produce a human being the vast majority of the time.

John Piper recounts the story of a manslaughter conviction in Minnesota as the result of a hunting accident. Two men were out hunting, stationed at separate stands. One of them saw a large, brown object move nearby, so he shot it with his bow. His friend died from the arrow wound.

The striking part of the story is that the shooter was convicted of manslaughter, even though it was a total accident. But it's less striking if you're a hunter - because hunters know that when a human life is possibly at stake, you don't shoot.

We can probably agree that there can be no perfect rule of law. There are just too many circumstances to govern. I'm sure we would also agree, though, that we must have some rule of law, imperfect as it may be. And where the rule of law is imperfect, should it not err on the side of protecting every human life, even potential ones?

The burden of proof in this argument does not fall on those of us who believe life begins at conception. Rather, it is those who marginalize the consequences of extinguishing a potential human life who have the task of explaining why it is acceptable to essentially play Russian roulette with life.

If you press me for proof that life begins at conception, I would only say: Aren't you the proof? You started as a sperm and an egg. And so does everyone else.

----------------------------------------------------------------

For a more explicitly Christian argument, watch this video. And I would be remiss at this point if I didn't tell you that John Piper deals with this issue so much more thoroughly than I ever could. It's stupid how much of this either I've taken from him or my independent thoughts were initiated by something he said. You can check out almost all of his writings on this subject here.

First Things

2008-09-12T00:04:00.008-04:00

If there is an elephant in the room, introduce him.

I know in taking up a subject like this, I have at least 3 things against me:

1. I'm a white, middle-class, conservative, republican-leaning male.

Also known as "The Establishment" (though we all know the Establishment is really upper-class white men...), we are historically the ones who have screwed everything up. We are the oppressors of women and minorities, the self-interested, greedy, hypocritical group that has created so many of the problems we're now trying to fix. I know in many peoples' eyes, everything I just said is absolutely true. And it doesn't help that I'm a Southerner.

2. I'm a devoted Christian.

Which, to many, means the end of the discussion. It's just gonna be the same-old "conservative Christian imposes his views on everyone else" that most of my generation is now fighting to escape.

3. I'm by no means a medical, philosophical, political, or ethical genius.

I don't have any credentials. I'm just an ordinary guy who reads the paper and wants to be responsible with what little influence I have.

That being said, let me lay out my presuppositions for this discussion:

- I assume that you're reading this because you're not just a hard-line Republican or Democrat.

You want to really think about the election and make the most informed and responsible choice you can possibly make. You want the country to be better, not just your party to be in power.

- I assume that life begins at conception. Or at least by the 7th week of pregnancy.

Wow - what a jump! The first real thing people might have a problem with. It is hard to be dogmatic about exactly when life begins, but I err on the side of caution. (More on that later.)

But surely by week 7 - when the heart has been beating for over 2 weeks, brain waves can be detected, organs are mostly in place, and the fetus is moving on its own - surely this is life. So it astounds me that 89% of abortions are performed by Suction Aspiration, a procedure that most abortion clinics do not recommend before the 7th week.

- I assume that I can't cover everything.

This is a ridiculously complex issue. And it's just one consideration in a political campaign - though my hope is to show you why it's an incredibly MAJOR consideration.

There's no way I can cover all the aspects of this issue. It's too complicated and I'm not smart enough, nor would I have enough time if I were smart enough.

- I assume this is a real issue affecting real people.

Abortion doesn't occur devoid of human experience, feelings, or emotion; which is why it KILLS me that we often discuss it so academically. But frequently it's the pro-life stance that takes the heat for being inconsiderate, so I want to say up front that I don't think this is an issue just for the political stump. Not to be overly dramatic, but this is an issue that cuts to the core of humanity.

- I assume that a President will never fix all of our problems.

That could go unsaid. But a President can have a profound influence on the direction of our country, which we'll talk about later.

But I do want to acknowledge that simply electing the right man will not be the answer to everything. Personally, I fight political cynicism a lot in my own heart. But, cynical or not, I think we can all agree that, as Derek Webb says, "we'll never have a savior on Capitol Hill."

Now that I've gotten all this on the table, let's start the actual discussion.

Here we go...

2008-09-09T12:12:00.003-04:00

I’m taking a chance here.

So far on this blog I’ve written mostly about harmless, fun, entertaining things. Nothing that has required me to take a stance one way or another on a controversial issue. I’ve avoided politics like the plague and still would except for one thing:

I see lots of my friends getting on the Obama bandwagon.

And in some ways it’s for good reason. Not since John Kennedy has there been such a charismatic figure running for the highest office in the land (or so I hear, since obviously I wouldn’t know first-hand). I love the fact that Obama has been possibly the only political candidate I have ever heard admit that he might not have the answer to everything. (Though as the election gets closer, that kind of transparent, winsome honesty is appearing less and less in his politicking.)

I like that he thinks America should not be the policeman of the world. I like that he cares about the lower class and has a serious commitment to helping them. Even if you disagree with his methods, you have to respect that he would take politically precarious positions on taxes and healthcare to prove that he is committed to helping the working man.

I like that he, almost single-handedly, roused Americans from their politically apathetic slumber and brought out record numbers of voters in primary elections.

Last December, I was on board. I really thought he could be it – that he could genuinely be the candidate who begins the transformation of our broken political system.

There was just one little nagging issue that kept tugging at me.

I was raised in a radically pro-life environment. I grew up listening to people like James Dobson bemoan the “feminists” and “liberals” and the horrors of “Roe v. Wade”, etc. etc. And I never really gave it all much thought, simply because the politicians I’ve supported in the past for other reasons happened to be pro-life as well.

So I never had to decide just how much weight the abortion issue should carry. It has always been icing on the cake – until this year.

Once I thought Obama might be the candidate for me, I had to figure out how big of a deal abortion really is. Is it as pressing and important as classic right-wingers would have us think, or is it in fact just another issue, like healthcare and gun control and taxes, where there are multiple valid opinions that we have to find a balance between.

You probably already know what I decided.

But it wasn’t a flippant or ignorant decision. I really wrestled with this one, fighting to avoid the hasty deductions that conservatives often use to gloss-over any real objection to the pro-life position.

So for the next few posts, I’m gonna give you my best shot at explaining why I think abortion is not just another issue that we have to live with, but it is a true measuring stick by which we should gauge who is qualified to run the country. I won’t write much about “when life begins” or abortion techniques or timelines of development, though some of it will be necessary.

Mainly I just want to show you why I think abortion is not something that we should treat as secondary or less important than the economy, or national defense, or global warming; and thereby show you why I think it is a major deciding factor for who we elect as our President.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Another thing I wish I could get paid for...

2008-09-08T21:40:00.007-04:00

Editing videos. There is something so fun about putting stuff like this together.

First 5K - check!

2008-08-18T21:29:00.003-04:00

So I ran my first 5K this weekend.

My friend Michelle and I have been running pretty regularly for the past month and a half or so. (Though if you read this blog you would have no idea... but that's another post altogether.) We typically run/walk (I call it ralking) a 2-mile course, 3 days a week. Right now we can't make the whole thing at a good, brisk jog - we have to slow to a walk occasionally - but our goal is to get that down at a solid pace, then work our way up to 3 miles, etc. etc.

Also, we typically run at a local park with a great path that follows the river for a nice long stretch. You don't really need to know that except for the fact that the trail is incredibly flat - only one small hill right in the middle.

So when our friend Marcie suggested that we run the Clocktower 5K here in Rome, our initial response was "Absolutely..."

"...not!"

First of all, it's 1.2 miles more than we've been ralking. Second, it climbs a couple of the steepest inclines in Rome. Third, two fat kids ralking the biggest road race in town might be a perfect "inspirational moment" for the local media - not what we want to be known for.

So we signed up for the 2-mile Health Walk instead. We registered the day of the race and were taking our t-shirts to the truck when the moment of truth came: amidst the hundreds of 5K-ers milling about, there was a small collection of those who were registered for the health walk.

They were all 106 years old. Every one of them.

And they were all in better shape than me.

So we had to decide which is better: being shamed by 10 people who, had they lived consecutively instead of simultaneously, would have witnessed not only 2 World Wars, but the Great Awakening, the first Thanksgiving, the Reformation, the invention of the printing press, the Hundred Years' War, and the Norman Conquest,

or death.

Needless to say, we opted for the 5K. And I have to say, I'm a believer. It was incredibly enjoyable to run with hundreds of other people around one of the most beautiful little towns in the world (though I'm slightly biased).

And I learned something about runners: It doesn't matter if you are the fat kid - just the fact that you are out there - doing the deal - earns you a lot of respect, even with those a-holes who finish the 5K in under 20 minutes.

So, I'm looking for the next one. Anybody wanna get on board?

Five songs I could listen to over and over - 3 Lists

2008-07-29T07:55:00.006-04:00

List 1 - "For the Music, regardless of lyrics"

1. Beloved - Derek Webb
2. Fix You - Coldplay
3. 1234 - Feist
4. Centerfold - J Geils Band
5. Come On Eileen - Dexy's Midnight Runners

List 2 - "For the Lyrics, regardless of music"

1. Beloved - Derek Webb
2. Thankful - Caedmon's Call
3. 3x5 - John Mayer
4. I Boast No More - Sandra McCracken
5. Every Grain of Sand - Bob Dylan

List 3 - "A separate list for Ben Folds"*

1. Philosophy
2. Gone
3. Fred Jones, Part 2
4. Army
5. Fired

*If I hadn't done a separate list, almost all of those songs would have gone under List 1.

Maybe I'll devote an entire post to my mixed emotions regarding Ben Folds sometime soon...

It's been a good week. Sort of...

2008-07-04T10:52:00.004-04:00

So far this week I've stayed pretty active and tried to control my eating. I think I've done pretty well except for two things: a vending machine raid at work which resulted in an amazing snack of Reese's Pieces, and then this morning when Kelly and I started our new 4th of July tradition (maybe?) - breakfast at Waffle House!

I think this marks the second time we've been to Wa-Ho since we've been married. Obviously there is nothing healthy about a pecan waffle, bacon, grits, eggs, and toast. But any lack of healthiness is made up for with a lot of happiness...

On the positive side: I don't think I've had anything to drink other than water and 2 cups of coffee this week. I've stuck with the "healthier choice" gameplan which has saved me quite a few calories this week.

Oh, and I lost 4 pounds last week. That's a good shot of momentum to keep me motivated. I'm going to the gym tomorrow, gonna try to stay really active over this 4-day weekend.

Happy 4th of July! If I find time later today I'll post some thoughts on freedom and America. Should be fun.

It's 9:53 p.m., and I'm finally home.

2008-06-25T21:54:00.004-04:00

I left at 8 a.m. on the dot. What a day...

Needless to say, no exercise tonight. But I have exercised more in the past week than in recent history. Here's a recap of last week:

I ate consistently well until the weekend, when we went a wedding in Birmingham. Dreamland Barbecue catered the reception (complete with banana pudding), and they had a chocolate fountain. That is a deadly combination.

But I did manage to avoid wedding cake, and I didn't eat anything after about 8 p.m.

I also managed to mow the grass (a two day affair) and play some tennis last week. So far this week I've walked/jogged around the neighborhood and am planning on playing tennis tomorrow night. I'll have to figure out something for Friday and beyond (probably mowing more grass), but fortunately I have some free time this weekend, making it unique among all other weekends in May and June.

I've cut out all soft drinks. I'm trying to kick the sweet tea habit, but that's a lot like telling Brian Regan to lay off dairy. (2:45)

My brother is on board with the 100 push up challenge. Maybe I'll consider doing that.

I'll also be a lot better about posting food and exercise updates DAILY (or as close to that as possible). Thanks for the advice. No really, both of you, thanks. If anybody else has some good ideas let me know.

Two disciplines are better than one.

2008-06-16T21:20:00.003-04:00

Two things I fail at consistently:

1. Healthy eating and exercise as a means to losing weight.
2. Writing (specifically: blogging).

So, let's see if pairing two disciplines can serve as a form of checks and balances and help me be more consistent than history has shown me to be.

My goals:

- Lose 30 pounds by August 5th (my birthday).
- Blog at least 5 days a week.

The plan:

1. Substitute healthier food choices for less healthy choices.

Emphasis on the health-IER. I know myself well enough to understand that asceticism does not work for me. If I try to cut out sweets entirely, I'll just binge on the weekends or when I go to a wedding, etc. So instead I'll use the substitution method: instead of eating chips, I'll eat almonds; instead of a large cup of ice cream, I'll have a very small cup of ice cream; instead of the 12 piece wings with fries and texas toast, I'll have the 8 piece with no side and water to drink.

2. Exercise at least 5 days a week.

Initially, this will mean at least 15 minutes a day. Walk the dog, play tennis, cut the grass (yes, it counts; we live on a hill and it is a beast to cut), jog, etc. By July 12th, I should be up to a minimum of 30 minutes per day.

3. Keep a record of everything I eat and every time I exercise on this very blog.

So, there it is. My 3-step method to getting fit and maturing in self-discipline.

Your advice is most welcome. I need all the help I can get.

Or two a day

2008-05-16T12:30:00.002-04:00

Just recently I bumped into myself. That may seem awkward, but you know what I mean. I became aware of something in myself that I had never noticed before. Here it is:

I confuse cynicism with spirituality. I justify skepticism as 'discernment'. I embrace arrogance as 'deeper understanding'.

And while at the end of the day I'm not trapped by anti-intellectual emotionalism or religious cliche, I wonder why I'm not overflowing with spiritual joy.

Consistency, Persistance, Discipline

2008-05-16T12:23:00.002-04:00

Three words that don't usually describe me. But I'm gonna try.

I did post for a while over at Lifespeak.net, but that's being overhauled for now. I'll try to get some of those and re-post them here.

My goal is two posts a week. Aaand go.

Life's a Battle

2006-09-29T23:29:00.000-04:00

I am continually amazed at how fickle my heart is; at how quickly I abandon the well of satisfying water for a broken cistern that can hold no water. Often the gospel of grace has appeared so glorious to me, so attractive, so real that I could never imagine turning back to the emptiness of my former deadness. But always, with time, I find myself forgetting how amazing Christ is.

Today was a day of remembering.

Romans 6:1-14 has been so real to me today. It has reminded me of just how gracious the Lord is to unworthy sinners like myself, who, even though we have tasted of the satisfaction of God, find ourselves chasing after the fleeting, deceitful pleasures of this life and neglecting the hope of an eternally satisfying freedom with Christ. Let me tell you what amazed me today.

Romans 6:1 - "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!"

What struck me about this verse is the fact that Paul even addresses this question. I mean, one does not need to read very far into Paul's letters to see that he is incredibly serious about holiness for the believer. Yet, here, he feels the need to respond to an attitude he anticipates the Romans will have; an attitude that is flippant about fighting sin. (An attitude I find in myself more than I would like to admit!) And he seems to take the questioner very seriously, because he goes on for quite some time about why we should in deed strive to be holy.

The amazing thing is that Paul is anticipating this response because based on everything he has written thus far to the Romans this would be a seemingly logical conclusion! Paul has spent chapter after chapter detailing the truth that we are made righteous by simply having faith in Christ's righteousness, apart from any righteousness or good deeds or right attitudes we have in ourselves. In other words, my righteousness is totally and absolutely external. I have nothing to do with it. I cannot accomplish it, and I cannot secure it. It is all of Christ and none of me. My behavior has no bearing on my righteousness.

I am righteous in spite of myself.

That seems strange to say. Perhaps it is because I so desperately want something to do with my righteousness. I want to be able to say, "I did my part!" I want at least a little credit for being right with God. But "the Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." (John 6:63)

I've got nothing to offer.

And that is the beauty of the Gospel. If any of it were up to me, I would fall short. If there is room for rebellion, I will rebel. If opportunity for sin, I will be first in line.

But it's not up to me. God has declared me righteous by the death of His Son and I had no part in that righteousness. Even my faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9). I didn't earn it; I didn't create it; I can do nothing to destroy it. Where I sinned and fell short of the glory of God, He chose to lavish His grace on me. I have been declared righteous (Romans 5:1).

So, since my righteousness is so completely outside of me, irrevocable, without regard to my behavior, I can sin, in order to magnify God's grace even more and still enjoy the fleeting pleasures of the flesh!

At which point Paul begins to scratch his head.

But notice his argument. He doesn't say, "You can't keep sinning; look at what Christ has done for you! He died for you, so the least you can do is live for Him!" No, Paul does not speak in terms of duty or debt at this point. He argues in terms of identity.

You're a dead man.

"You died to sin. When you put your faith in Christ, you were united with Him in His death. And since Christ died to sin, you likewise died to sin. And he who is dead is freed from sin. So you see, Christ has died and been freed from sin and has been raised and is alive to God."

"In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:11)

And that's when I remembered.

Somewhere along the line, I have forgotten that life is battle; but maybe not like we think. The Christian life is not a battle to get prayer back in schools, or to influence the government for Jesus, or to evangelize the whole world, or even to do good works (though all of these can be good things). The battle of the Christian life is to "count yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."

It is a battle to simply believe the gospel.

And everything is against us: the flesh, the world, the devil; they all conspire to stifle belief, because they pale in comparison to the glory of Christ. One real glimpse of Christ's face will destroy the deceitfulness of the flesh and the world and the devil. And, even in the spiritual realm, when your back's against the wall you fight like crazy to survive.

And so the unholy trinity tries desperately to keep us entangled in "less-worthy affections" so that we will not see the truth of how amazing Jesus Christ truly is.

Therefore, we have to fight, I have to fight, tooth and nail to remember that Christ is so glorious and loving that even while I was a rebel, a sinner, He died for me and gave me a righteousness that I could never accomplish and never deserve.

And as I remember, the fleeting, deceitful pleasures of this world will be less and less attractive, as my Savior becomes more and more satisfying.

I think I really believe that.

He Is Good

2005-10-14T00:12:00.000-04:00

(Matt. 6:25-33; Rom. 8:28)

"Send rain! Send rain," he cried, "lest we die!"
"These crops must feed my family and I,
Or do You not care for the poor and the plain,
Who feed with their backs those who purchase their grain?"

"Don't fear. Don't fear," she said, "it will come."
"He cares for the sick and the lame and the dumb,
And should He not care for the poor and the plain,
Whom also He made to bring praise to His name?"

"But when? But when will He care quite enough,
To give us some rest? For our life is so tough.
For ought not the Father's true love for His child,
Desire to make pain and suffering mild?"

"I know, I know, it's not easy to see,
How so perfect a love can allow there to be,
Such trials as this one we find ourselves in,
From a viewpoint so twisted and tainted by sin."

"I see, I see, where you're going with this.
In the midst of despair it is easy to miss.
Are you saying that I should not fret without need,
When our Savior has promised His children to feed?"

"Indeed, indeed," she said, "that is true."
"But first there is something we must learn to do.
Before we can rest in His promise of grain,
We must see that, in truth, we deserve much more pain."

"So right. So right. Oh, how haughty I am,
To think that I'm able, His grace, to demand!
For, surely, I've neglected His glorious name,
And not lived each moment to increase His fame."

"And I, And I have but spit in His face,
By taking for granted His merciful grace!
So, let us be awed by His gift on the cross,
Through which we have gained all the things which were loss."

"What joy, what joy! We're not only forgiven,
But counted as righteous, and will soon dwell in Heaven!
He not only forgave us crimes worthy of death,
But also has given us His righteousness."

"So true, So true! And on top of it all,
He has sworn to provide when on Him we do call.
For He has not just saved us and left us alone,
But has all intentions to make us His own."

"And peace, and peace! We can rest without fuss,
For He always will do what is helpful for us.
May it be plenty, or perhaps meager fare,
We accept it with joy for, for us, He does care!"

"He does, He does! He cares for the poor,
And the plain who work hard to bring praise to Him more.
He cares for them all, purchased by His Son's death,
And will meet earthly needs, 'til they take their last breath."

Dear child, dear child, when the rain does delay,
Do not fear nor worry, for He reigns night and day,
And will not delay to bring praise to His name,
By doing good for His children, though they be poor or plain.

All of Grace

2005-10-11T00:13:00.000-04:00

(Ephesians 2:1-10)

So sickened by my fear, so desperate for joy,
Settling so quickly, with lesser things I toyed.
But, oh, what lavish grace toward me You did employ,
That when I offered nothing, for nothing was my lot,
Stretching forth His hands, with blood 'twas me Christ bought.

Withheld myself, I did, for painful was Your touch,
"Away with You!" I screamed, "For 'love' cannot be such."
But in my bitter struggle, You loved me far too much,
Drowning my resistance with a thimbleful of grace,
You fulfilled my deepest longing with the showing of Your face.