An Oreo Slave

I love Oreos.

The Double Stuf Oreos.

I love the original ones, but I also love the mint-filled ones.  This summer I found some with berry flavored filling which was also good. . . I mean, you can't go wrong.

Every time I buy Oreos, they own me.

I bring them home.  I open the package. . . they've made it even easier to open.  I have one or two. . . hands full.  I feel slightly satisfied, and I proceed to put them away and think about the next time I'll be able to have another one . . . or two!

I know they will own me when I buy them.  There's a little thing in the back of my brain running the whole time I own a package of Oreos.  That little thing has one function: to focus all it's energy on Oreos.  The net result is that I eat the entire package in a very short time.

Since I know this about myself, and I tend to be somewhat systematic, I have devised a rule to protect me from my Oreo slavery.  I buy Double Stuf Oreos in little sleeves.  They come in sleeves of about a half dozen Oreos.  Maybe more like eight to a package.  This way, I can eat all of the Oreos in the sleeve in one sitting without hurting myself!  This is better than having to eat a whole family pack of Oreos, eight at a time, over the course of one day!

Mrs O and I were talking the other day about church and Oreos.  Churches are full of little rules like my rule about buying Oreos in sleeves instead of family packs.  The trouble is, these rules are only methods of keeping on track with bigger purposes.  I mean, my bigger purpose is avoiding a stomach ache, an extra five pounds. . . nothing wrong with eating Oreos.  Nothing Holy about eight Oreos to a sitting as opposed to twelve. . . or six.

If I see someone in the grocery store buying a family pack of Oreos, I cannot assume they will have the same struggle I do.  It is not necessarily the same for them.  The other person may have no trouble rationing his Oreos.  Perhaps, he has avoided buying bacon, or cheese for similar reasons.  Perhaps food is not a problem at all.

I have to remember the main goal.  Avoiding stomach aches and an extra five pounds. . . there is more than one method to achieve this goal.  Even more important than five pounds would be a generally healthy lifestyle.  If I put my Oreo sleeve rule ahead of the greater goal of a healthy lifestyle, the unfortunate possibility is an unhealthy lifestyle due to some other vice, and a lack of enjoyment of life for the lack of Oreos!

Hijacking The Good News

Mrs O and I were talking about the church the other day.  I mean, The Church as a whole, not any particular congregation.  We were talking about how we really have a bad PR problem.  People don't think of christians as rescuers, they think of us as oppressors.  They don't see our love for each other, they see our rules for each other.

What happened?

Are we the victims of the rumor mill?

Have lots of people been badly misinformed?

Well, I don't think so.  I think, in a lot of cases, our reputation is well deserved.  I think history is repeating itself.

Galations 4:29 begins: "But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law. . ."

You know, when I read a story from the Bible, I always put myself in the position of one of the characters in the story.  I assume to be one of those personalities and to have the task of acting like they did, or perhaps, as they should have acted.

Funny thing: I never put myself in the position of the Pharisees.  I never assume I am acting like one of them.  When I look at myself honestly, though, sometimes I do act like one of them.  Sometimes, I look at today's church and wonder if we are really growing christians, or if we are actually growing Pharisees.

My analysis of the Pharisees concludes they were well-meaning, diligent, self-disciplined folk.  Trouble is, they forgot who gave them their laws.  God is the one who provided the law, but God came before the law.  God had a plan and purposes before the law ever came to be.

God's purposes are higher than the law.

What are God's purposes?  Well, the Bible says his purpose is to love.  Feed the hungry.  Clothe the naked.  Defend the orphan and widow.  The list goes on.

The law just gives me a picture of what holiness would look like, if holiness were humanly possible.  But, strict adherence to the law without consideration of God's higher purposes, however, will result in failure.  Every.  Time.

Worse yet, is strict adherence to what I call guardrails.  These are rules contrived by me or others in my family or church culture.  Rules designed to keep me from violating the law.  Going to church every Sunday, for example, is one of these guardrails.  It's a good policy.  It is supposed to encourage me to stay on the right road--toward God's purpose.

Sometimes, church feels like it gets in the way, though.  It feels like I become beholden to the good rule of going to church more so than simply following God's law of keeping one day per week set apart for Him.  Going to church starts to feel like the law, and I forget all about the direction church is supposed to be taking me.  I feel as though I need to be in church every time the doors open.  Sunday morning, Sunday night, Tuesday night, Wednesday night. . . no time left over for serving.

"Can't love you today, got to get to church and learn about how I am supposed to love you."

Hijacked.

The Good News is better than that.  Now, if I took Sunday and spent all day serving the poor. . . would this be a fine way to keep one day per week set apart for God?  Would this not be the most perfect form of a worship service?

The punch line is simply this: the church is failing if it is not encouraging people to find Jesus and serve Him by loving people in practical ways.  If church gets to the point of preempting, precluding or preventing people from fulfilling God's purposes and demonstrating love, it has become worse than ineffective.  It has become evil.

Isaiah 1:10-15

Getting out of church!

This is my response to a blog post by Donald Miller.  You can read his post here.

He asked some thought provoking questions about the goals and traditions of church leadership.

Love this topic!

Some time ago, I began to wonder if the methods of church are actually self-defeating in some cases.  It seems that we have mission statements and visions statements, but the organization itself is at odds, in some ways, with those goals.  

I felt guilty at a Christmas Eve service.  Guilty, because I was taking up space.  The place was packed--full of visitors.  All of a sudden, I thought, "Why am I here?  I know the Christmas story.  I feel like I am doing something selfish because I came to church and occupied a seat that could have otherwise gone to someone who needs to hear this story for the first time.  I should either be serving these visitors, or better yet, visiting some lonely person who can't be here."

Yes, I go to church. . . still.

I think we need to balance our focus.  I wouldn't say that we should change it altogether, but balance it.  We focus mainly on the community part.  We focus on Sunday morning.  A percentage of really committed 'members' go to small groups (whatever they happen to be called at your church.) And a smaller percentage still really build the habits of reading the Bible and praying all of the time.

Where does the balance come in?  Church is about discipleship, right?  Well, that sounds like it should be educational.  However, the church is the only educational organization insofar as I'm aware, that holds no graduation ceremony.  There should be a graduation.  The disciples had a graduation. . . or rather a commissioning.  There's a period of learning, and then you are ready for on-the-job training.

If we modeled church after Jesus and his disciples, wouldn't we have some finite amount of formal training?  We would start you out focusing on the individual, personal relationship with Jesus.  We would encourage people to begin reading the Bible all the time from the very beginning.  This would not be a habit practiced by only the most mature or learned, but by everyone.  From there, it seems to me that the process would be somewhat natural in its progression.

Goals for the educational leadership:
1. Teach people to read the Bible (focused on individual)
2. Teach people to discover their gifts and passions (focused on individual)
3. Support and encourage people to use those gifts and passions to show love in practical ways(focused on community)
4. Teach people how to mentor the people they are loving (focused on both)

Chick-fil-A

I love politics, and I hate politics.

I love it because it's all about people.

I hate it because it's all about rhetoric.

I love it because it's all about values.

I hate it because it's all about sound bites.

Someone starts out with facts, but then there's this flood of opinion which turns into rumor and stereotype.  We form opinions based on other people's opinions and we don't actually take the time to look at the facts.  The news becomes saturated with blame-shifting, name-calling and  accusations.

Have you ever seen a really smart person that invents really ingenious ways of causing evil?  Take the people who write computer viruses, for example.  If they could just turn their brains onto something productive, they'd be unstoppable.  I think this is like the computer viruses.

We've got a bunch of people who want to protect traditional marriage and they are ticked.  They want to make sure that we haven't lost our freedom of religion and freedom of speech.  I understand that.  I respect that.

We also have a bunch of people who want to make sure that everyone has equal access to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right?  I understand that.  I respect that.

I understand both sides.  Both have respectable goals at the core of what they believe.  The thing I can't respect is that we don't use our passions for real change.  We get offended and we are instantly on the defensive.  You know what happens when you're on the defensive?  You don't make any real change.  You're just reacting.

What if we turned all of this emotion into something productive?  What if we really meant it when we said that we wanted to protect marriages?  What would that really look like?  I'm pretty sure eating chicken sandwiches wouldn't be the crux of the operation!  But, there are hundreds of thousands of marriages that are struggling.  About 1 million marriages will end in divorce this year.

What if we put down our chicken sandwiches and started talking with one of the 2 million people who are likely to divorce this year?  Who is protecting those marriages?

What if we put down our picket signs and talked with a few of the 4 million people who will marry this year?  Could we, perhaps, help some of those newly-weds find their happily-ever-after?  Who is protecting those marriages?

Am I going to boycott Chick-fil-A?  No.  I'm not a boycotter.  I don't boycott things as a general rule.  Did I attend Chick-fil-A Day?  No.  Those are really just distractions.  None of those chicken sandwiches saved a marriage.  If you want to protect marriages, love on hurting people.

Early Retirement

The following is a 'modern parable' that I recently heard from a good friend, Bill Turner.  I don't know where he got it.  Maybe he just came up with it.  In any case, it resonated with me and I wanted to share it.  This is a paraphrase, but the original is available at the link below.

A wealthy banker from New York visits a small coastal fishing village in Mexico.  While he relaxes in the sunshine, he sees a local fisherman coming in and tying up his boat.  On his boat, he has just a few fish.  Puzzled by the meager catch, the banker approaches the fisherman.  "How many fish did you catch?" asks the American.

"A few," replies the fisherman.

"How long did it take you to catch those fish?" asks the American.

"Not long."

"What do you do with the rest of your time?" asks the American.

"I sleep late, play with my kids and take a siesta with my wife.  Then each evening, I stroll into town to sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos.  I lead a very full and busy life!"

The American banker was irritated by the fisherman's answer.  He said, "I can help you!  You should spend more time fishing and with the extra cash, you could buy a bigger boat.  With the bigger boat you could catch more fish and with the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats.  Then, you could sell your fish directly to the processor and eventually buy your own cannery.  Then, you'll be able to move to Mexico City, then Los Angeles, then New York where you'll run your expanding enterprise."

"How long will this take?" asks the fisherman.

"Fifteen to twenty years," replies the American.

"What then?" asks the fisherman.

"When the time is right, you'll announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich!" replies the American.

"What then?" asks the fisherman again.

"Then, you will be able to retire!  You can move to a small coastal village.  You'll sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, and stroll into town each night to sip wine and play guitar with your amigos."

To hear the whole sermon by Bill Turner dated July 15th 2012, visit the Highland Vineyard website at www.churchdonedifferently.com and click on "Media Library."

The good Republican

Image courtesy of
champagnecountydemocrats.org

Image courtesy of en.wikipedia.com

                                                     

A long time ago, I read the Bible all the way through.  I was about 12 years old.  I wanted to know what it said.  I knew what other people told me it said.  I wanted to know for myself.  I still had questions.  That was the beginning of my journey.  A journey of faith.  Political things followed by necessity.

It was probably my second time through that I really started to change some of my political views--not all of them, but some.  I mean, I can't just agree with either party across the platform and I have some views that are out of line with both parties, altogether.  

The thing that got me is that the Republicans are always talking about money.  Their OWN money, and how no one has any right to take it and give it to poor people.

Wait.

Back up.

How does my family claim to love Jesus and hold these views?  We're so against taxes and government programs.  But this stuff doesn't exactly line up with what we say in church.  

In church, it's not OUR money.  It's a gift from God.  

In church, we're supposed to be the good Republican Samaritan.

In church, when we have two of something, we give one to someone else who doesn't.

In the ballot box. . . what happens?

In the ballot box, if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.

In the ballot box, it's not the government's job.  The church should be taking care of that.

These are all sound philosophies.  

Trouble is, there are still poor people in church.  

Trouble is, Jesus didn't say, "Teach a man to fish."  

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep."

Jesus said that there are two kinds of people.  He called them sheep and goats.  The sheep are the good guys.  You know what makes you a sheep?

³⁵ For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. ³⁶ I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’  Matthew 25:35-36 NLT

On the GOP and Jesus

"I felt so far from my upbringing, from my narrow former self, the me who was taught the Republicans give a crap about the cause of Christ.  I felt a long way from the pre-me, the pawn-Christian who was a Republican because my family was Republican, not because I had prayed and asked God to enlighten me about issues concerning the entire world rather than just America."

From Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller

Sometimes, when reading Blue Like Jazz, I feel like I'm reading a biography of my own life.  I, too, grew up thinking that everyone who loved Jesus had to be a Republican.  I grew up thinking that Jesus hated government and taxes.  I grew up thinking what everyone around me was telling me to think.

One winter, I was spending a weekend with my grandfather in New Hampshire.  It was a nice break.  At that time, I was going to school at one of Boston's sixty-odd universities.  One of grandpa's friends came by and greeted me, "Why aren't you down in Massachusetts learning how to be a democrat?"

"You, shut up," Grandpa retorted.  "We're trying to keep him from that!"  That was a critical moment in my introspection.  I began asking myself what I really thought and valued. . . or, rather, if I thought and valued anything for myself.

Funny thing is, I considered myself a Republican all through my days in Boston.  I don't anymore.  I don't really consider myself a Democrat, either.  Maybe I am, and my history just won't let me admit it.

What changed?

Well, I read the Bible.

Bad Things. . . Good People

Why do bad things happen to good people?  How could a loving God allow bad things to happen?

Growing up, I had this picture of God sitting on a throne making judgments about individual scenarios allowing or disallowing each one.  In other words, I imagined that God was dictating both good things and bad things, when and to whom they would happen.

What if it's not like that?


A few years ago, I was struggling with the idea of my own failings.  I was praying a lot asking God why he made me with all of the brokenness and weaknesses that I saw in myself.  Then I had a dream that changed my whole paradigm.

In my dream, I was decorating a Christmas tree.  I would examine each ornament and enjoy the work that had gone into creating each one.  One of my favorites is a very detailed, egg-shaped, ceramic ornament that my in-laws got on an Alaskan cruise.  It's beautiful!  In the dream, I held that ornament up and said, "I'll put this one right here."  Then, my perspective changed.  My focus zoomed in on the ornament, and it was different--it was me.  Someone was holding me and saying, "I'll put this one right here."

Then it hit me.  I was like one of those ornaments--unique and beautiful apart from my surroundings and situation.  What if those things that I hate in myself are not weakness and brokenness at all?  What if those things are gifts?  What if I'm looking at them from the wrong perspective?  What if I am a work of art apart from my situation--I am not defined by my situation.

The new paradigm: each one of us is a unique and perfectly crafted individual created on purpose for purpose.  The weakness and brokenness come from somewhere else--from the way I choose to react to my surroundings and situation.  Every weakness represents a poor choice I made in response to my situation.  I could have made a better choice and avoided the baggage and brokenness.  The good choices are not always as easy as the bad ones.  Sometimes, my situation does not depend on me alone and other people's choices can make my choices difficult.  However, my choices determine my baggage.

What if God is sitting up there saying, "You're not broken.  I made you that way on purpose.  Instead of hating those things about yourself, start by asking me why I gave you those gifts."

What if God isn't dictating the bad things?  What if God simply chose to give us the freedom to fail?  What if those failures are the cause of all of the brokenness?  What if God is giving us only the good and allowing us to choose what to do with it; not dictating evil, but rather allowing us to do some of the dictating?

The 'S' word: submit

Does that word give you hives?


We don't really like to talk about submission very much.  Recently, I heard a co-worker talk about how much she HATES to hear sermons on marriage because she can't stand the subject of wives being 'submissive' to their husbands.  I think this comes from a misunderstanding or rather misrepresentation of what the Bible says about wives and husbands.  The thing that is so despicable is not the way a wife would be submissive, but the way of a husband--am I right?  No wife wants to feel like she's under the thumb of her husband.

She doesn't need to be.  I don't believe the Bible is asking for that at all.  Let's start with what the Bible does say:

Ephesians 5:21-26


^"21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
"²² Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
 "²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . "


Ok, so we see the word submit in there, right?  'Submit to one another. . . ' that doesn't sound so bad.  But, when we get to the part about the husband being the head of the wife, we all get a little tense, don't we?

I do.

There's something about my understanding of that verse that has just never really settled in my mind.

The issue comes up when we have a disagreement, right?  When we both disagree and our desires are mutually exclusive, who wins?  Who gets to break the tie?  I've heard one philosophy: the man has 51% of the vote.  I've seen that kind of philosophy carried out even more often than I've heard it or others like it.  That, I think, sums up the traditional conservative, evangelical view of a husbands headship--even from some of my more liberal peers.  When we disagree, the husband gets what he wants.

So, my question is: can we back that up with an example of Christ and the church?

Just this evening, I'm thinking about all of this and something occurred to me: maybe I should look at what the Bible DOESN'T say:

It doesn't say that the husband is the one to enforce the submission.

It says that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church.

I can't find any example of Christ enforcing his way on the church.

In the example of Christ, I see a servant.  A protector.  A kind-hearted friend, always choosing to do the right thing, giving everything up for his willing followers.  He never forces his way on anyone, he simply asks and lets each individual make his or her own decision, e.g. the rich young man(Matt 19:16-29; Mark 10:17-30; Luke 18:18-30) or the woman at the well(John 4:1-26.)

My conclusion: husbandly leadership is leading two people to a consensus rather than pushing one viewpoint aside when the two have not yet reached a consensus.

See also: leadership.

Love Wins . . . in review

I have a theory: if I get to the place where I am unable to read, listen to, or associate with things or persons that challenge my belief system, then I am in a dangerous place.

Strange place to start a post about a book review, you might think.  That is, unless you've heard about Love Wins already.  When I told some that I was reading this book I got responses like, "you're READING it?" or "Oh, I've heard about that one."  I had heard of Love Wins before I read it.  I first heard about it in a review that made it sound like the biggest piece of heresy in several millennia--which is of course, why I had to read it.  Not because I'm looking for heretical writings, but because I have to see for myself.

So, I set to reading it.  I actually got it as a gift from Nina--my mother-in-law.  Thank you, Nina.  I finished most of it on a plane ride, and the rest of it shortly thereafter.  I LOVED it.  I STILL love it.  The thing I love the most is that Rob Bell is encouraging "open, honest inquiry into the things that matter most."  This unapologetic, question-everything philosophy is present throughout this book.  This is less a book that tells you what to think, and more a book that longs for everyone to think. . . something, and to think it on their own.  I love books like that.

Bell has some interesting perspectives, and as far as I can tell, they are all based on biblical principles.  He simply isn't afraid to ask the tough questions.  He tests his faith and his tradition against what the Bible actually says, and he refuses to use tradition as an explanation of his faith.  This book is somewhat of a description of the fundamentals of christianity through the eyes of Rob Bell.  His perspectives are not as outrageous as I expected based on what I had heard and seen. . . I'm beginning to wonder how many people have formed opinions without having read the book themselves.

In his chapter, Here Is The New There, he talks about the concept of heaven on earth.  He suggests that this heaven, this healing, this new life that Jesus promises can start now.  In his chapter called Hell, he talks about hell on earth and addresses the concept of free will.  He says, "it is vital that we acknowledge that love, grace, and humanity can be rejected.  From the most subtle rolling of the eyes to the most violent degradation of another human, we are terrifyingly free to do as we please."

He also talks about the fact that some people just don't like the words sin and hell, but that there are very real physical situations happening in our world right now that require "words to be that intense, loaded, complex, and offensive, because they need to reflect the realities they describe."  In essence, he doesn't write off the person who doesn't like the stuff they've heard.  He doesn't pretend that the uncomfortable stuff doesn't exist.  He offers a perspective that allows us to admit that there are tough issues and uncomfortable questions, and invites us to discover "the good news" by embracing and engaging.  He invites us to believe in God rather than religious tradition.

This leads me to my second theory: I don't have to believe everything I hear or read.  That's why I feel so free to read this book.  Instead of being afraid of a book that may challenge my belief system, I will instead accept the challenges and set out to clarify for myself whether, in fact, my current system of beliefs needs an amendment.

So, do I agree with Rob Bell?

It doesn't matter.  This book has given me new excitement about discovering my faith, challenging the traditions, and getting into the Bible.

That matters.

Other books I recommend:

Sex God by Rob Bell
Soul Cravings by Erwin McManus

What's in a man?

I had a moment of revelation the other day.  Have you ever had one of those?  One moment I'm pondering this question and the next moment I know the answer--at least, I think I do.  Let's start with the question. 

What makes a man? 

I used to be really worried about this kind of question.  I didn't feel like I fit the mold.  I've never been much of a sports fan.  When I first heard of March Madness, I was in college and I thought it had something to do with Seasonal Affective Disorder!  I know more about cooking crepes and growing roses than I do about cars, basketball, or carpentry and I'm built like a broomstick.  Nonetheless, I eventually became comfortable in my own skin, but then I still wondered: what makes a man?  What is a manly man, anyway?

My moment of revelation came when I started to approach this question like I approach most others.  I started thinking in terms of my faith.  What does the Bible say about men.  What do I think God purposed in me, as a man?  I can't really find many--or any--verses that describe just what a man should be.  The one that comes closest is the one in Ephesians that talks about a husband: Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church.  Perplexing.  Profound.  Pointed.

So, what do I think the answer is?  I think I've had it backwards all along--and I'm not talking about March Madness.  I was aiming to become like a man when in reality, I already was a man.  How silly is that?  I should not be aiming to become like other men, but rather aim to be more like Christ in character.  God didn't create me to be a manly man.  He created me to be a godly man. 

Man of the house: the 50's man and the puppy dog.

(c) 2004, Lexington, KY.  Eric Graf photography.

I've been thinking for a long time about the conflicting thoughts and emotions I have when I think about my role as 'the man of the house.'  I think this is one area--one of many--where traditions, both social and religious, should be called into question.  I have thus far been dissatisfied with what I perceive to be the general consensus in either group.

I think about this a lot.  Every man wants to be 'the man of the house.'  I know that's a general statement, but I believe on some level, it's true.  It won't always look the same, but in some way I think we all want to be 'the man.'  I think that's why I have such a tough time with silly things like pink shirts, purses, matching attire and. . . the aisle.  Now, just to be clear, I do all of those things.  I don't think I've ever even complained about any of them, because I realize they're silly.  That doesn't mean I don't feel silly while I'm holding her purse, and I don't spend any extra time in the aisle.  But, she's never even tried to force any of these issues and for that I'm eternally grateful.  She's never been anything but grateful for the things I do. 

That being said, let's get back to my quandary about roles: there seem to be two major camps.  Most people I see fit one or the other. . . more or less.  I don't like either one.  I have seen both kinds all over the place, and the funny thing is, the happiest husbands--and correspondingly happiest wives--I've seen don't fall into either category.  I call them, the 50's man and the puppy dog.

The 50's man has 51% of the vote.  He of course gets input from everyone, and then HE makes the decision.  He always is employed full time.  His wife may work, but preferably not full-time and she can't make more money than he does.  After all, he is The Provider.  If she does work, she should still not neglect the household chores. 

The contemporary husband is very doting.  He does his best to fulfill the every whim and desire of his beloved.  Everyone knows how he has fallen for her and some might even feel a bit badly about how hard he has to work to keep her perfectly content.  He tends to follow her around like a little puppy dog.  I had one such friend that used to joke, "I'm the man of my house.  My wife said I could be."

So, it seems you can fall into a bit of a ditch on either side of the husbanding continuum.  Where's the middle?  Well, I don't think it's in the middle.  I think it's an entirely different philosophy altogether.  I think the husband and wife are happiest when they are a team.  When he dotes on her and she admires him.  When he responds to the things that undermine her security and when she allows him to be the problem solver that he wants to be.  When there's no hierarchy.  When we don't think of it as one being strong and one being weak, but rather one being strong here and the other being strong there.  When we are each free to give and receive input without judgment.  When we can each be loved as we are: fallible, imperfect, and wonderful.