Succeeding in Your New Year’s Resolution

Tired of defeat?  Does the thought of making another New Year’s resolution only to see yourself fail yet again leave you depressed?  Do you feel as if your New Year’s resolutions are mere wishful thinking?  They need not be.

Make it happen.  Reach your goal.  Succeed!  Keep your New Year’s Resolution.  You can do it.  Here’s how.

Let’s say your New Year’s resolution is to spend less money and save more in the year 2016.  Your finances are out of control, money is tight, and it’s not because you’re out of a job and aren’t bringing in a good income.  It’s your spending habit that’s doing you in; hence, your New Year’s resolution to “spend less and save more.”  How to succeed?

First, whatever the resolution may be, move from the general to the specific.  In this example, “spend less, save more,” you want to move from the general idea to a more specific target: exactly how much do you want to save this year and how much less money do you want to spend?  Hence say: I want to save $500 by the end of the year and spend $50 less per month on frivolous purchases.

Secondly, take a measurable and quantifiable inventory of the situation you want to change.  Again, in this example, you need to identify and quantify how much you seem to be overspending—monthly, weekly, or daily—to know what you’re in for.  In other words, “Know your enemy.”  Why are you making this resolution?  What are you presently doing that dissatisfies you or makes you want to change?  Ask yourself why you want to change this behavior.  After you understand the “what and why of it,” apply your WILL and “make it so” by developing a “how” plan.  How are you going to tackle the change?

This is the “awareness” stage.  Begin to see where, how, and why you are in the situation that you want to change.  In this example you already know that you are overspending and saving very little, if anything.   But you may not know how or why you’re doing it.  You now need to begin to monitor your spending pattern.  Look and see!  Become self-aware about your spending habits.  Then identify what you would define as “frivolous” spending; this is where you want to cut back or stop spending altogether.

Three, dig deeper; get in touch with your deepest motives and values.  Again, in this example, your spending habits may reveal some deeper values of which you are not consciously aware.  You may discover for example that you routinely splurge in one category of things while remaining tightfisted and quite stingy in another, like splurging on electronic gadgets while remaining very tightfisted when it comes to purchasing clothes or dining out for example.  This reveals a personal value you have: you like what you can do with electronics but have little interest in dressing up nicely or couldn’t care less about what you eat.  You now have a motive, something that will give you energy and interest to reach your goal for saving money and a good reason to spend less money on other things.  Or perhaps you need to come to terms with an out of control indulgence in buying electronic gadgets.

Four, see your New Year’s resolution as a paradigm shift in the way you view yourself in the bigger picture of life’s trajectory.  Where are you taking yourself in this life’s journey?  What is your place in life?  In short, fit your New Year’s resolution within your global self-identity as to who you are becoming.  Visualize the kind of person that your New Year’s resolution points to: instead of seeing yourself as a slave to money, e.g., visualize yourself as a master who is in full control of your money.

Five, break it down into workable, bite size, doable chewable steps.  In terms of savings, for example, you may have a goal of saving $50 per month by the end of 2016.  Start off by saving perhaps $12 in the first month.  And, do that by saving a mere $3 a week, possibly by simply putting $3 in an envelope each week and placing it in a secret drawer.  Now that’s realistic and workable, wouldn’t you say?  The next month you may want to set aside four or five dollars a week.  By the fifth or sixth month, you’ll be surprised at how good you will feel and how tangible and workable it really becomes by having taken such small concrete steps toward success.   Indeed, most major goals and tasks can and should be broken down into small workable steps.  That’s how NASA took us to the moon!

Six, exercise bragging rights; that is, take pride in your accomplishment(s).  Confide in a close friend or friends that you trust.  These are carefully chosen friends, friends that will appreciate your successes and cheer you on, without judging or condemning you, should you slip and falter a bit.  These are friends that will love to hear you brag when you succeed and will compassionately embrace you when you stumble forward.  Note: there is no shame in stumbling.  Just keep moving forward (hence the idea of stumbling forward); don’t stay down and don’t quit.  Your well-chosen friends are there to help you do exactly that.

Finally, be realistic but make it a real challenge.  If it is not challenging, it is not a viable resolution.  If it is unrealistic it is a setup for personal defeat and demoralization.  Remember to state your resolution in the most positive and specific manner possible.  For example, instead of saying something like, “This year I am determined to watch less TV.”  Rather say, “This year I will commit fifteen minutes each day to reading that novel I’ve always wanted to read.”

Have a Happy New Year’s and best wishes on your resolution(s)!

Wanted! Candidates with Bad Character

What do we want in a president, that is, what kind of person?

I have to ask.  Because it seems that nice guys—sincere, honest, transparent, respectful, considerate, measured and well balanced, wise and insightful—are not respected and would certainly not score well in a debate.

Apparently we Americans like a good hostile attitude.  We seem to prefer politicians with a lot of anger, impatience, arrogance, haughtiness, and in-your-face attitude.  Could it be because this is how most of us Americans might be described when it comes to getting what we want?

It also seems that we prefer simple-mindedness, black and white and simplistic all-or-nothing thinking.  We don’t like complexity and prefer to believe that there are simple one-step solutions to everything.  If the problem is complicated, we don’t want to hear about it.  Come up with an easy solution and solve it quickly and make it go away, whatever it is.

Yes, we hate to wait.  We want immediate results, as in “what has the new president done in his/her first 100 days in office.  If there is no evidence of major strides, major changes, he/she is already failing.  What?!

So, when it comes to politics and politicians none of the quality character virtues apply.  They are not to be patient and kind or humble and wise, for that translates into weakness in our minds.  They are not to be deep thinkers and penetratingly insightful, for that makes us suspicious as to their decisiveness and we can’t easily predict exactly where they’ll come out on major decisions.  We prefer the, “don’t think, just do” approach to decisions.

They are also not to be considerate, respectful, and inclusive, for that is tantamount to fraternizing with the enemy.  It would seem that, for most of us Americans, anyone that does not think, believe, or act and conform to our way of thinking acting and being, should be identified as the enemy—as in “If you are not with us, you are against us.”

We even appear to dislike the virtue of integrity in our politicians.  Yes, it’s true.  For example notice how we prefer smear campaigns over campaigns that respect truth in substance and content.  We love it when our candidate exaggerates and stretches truth, even to the point of basically telling “little white lies” about his/her opponent, if it makes our favored-candidate look better and win votes.  We also love it when rich powerful people clandestinely throw huge amounts of money into the process, backing our favored-candidate with no accountability as to source, cost, intent, and effect.

So what character traits do we really seem to prefer in our candidates?  Apparently we like hubris, pride, and arrogance—an exaggerated sense of self in a candidate.  We like hate, anger, and mean-spiritedness in our candidates with an exaggerated sense of righteous-indignation who are more than willing to condemn anyone that falls on the wrong side of things.  We seem to prefer power-hungry, grandiose, self-aggrandizing pompous types with a self-conceited Superman self-image that basically says, “Give me enough money and power and I will save you; trust me, I am your answer to all your worries!”

It is no wonder that our country seemingly has so few quality good leaders from which to choose.

Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas?

What does “inclusivity” mean?

A town had an argument.  Are they lighting a Christmas tree or a Holiday tree?

Those wanting to call it a Holiday tree argued for inclusiveness.  They don’t want non-Christians to feel left out.

But tell me, why should Christ be left out of Christmas for the sake of inclusivity?  In other words, why should the opposite happen; why exclude Christians from their own celebration for the sake of inclusivity?

Is it not just as disrespectful and offensive to Christians to have them deny the reality of the Christmas season and its real meaning so as not to offend those who have no belief in the message of Christmas?

Yes.  Christmas IS about Jesus, the very Christ in Christianity.  Christmas IS about all that is believed-in, believed-about, and hoped-for, surrounding the person of Jesus.   That is why Christmas is celebrated.  Yes.  Jesus is the reason for the season.

Why take offense at the obvious?  All religions have their Holy Day (hence “holiday”) celebrations, their liturgies, symbolisms, and dramatic reenactments.  No one seems to take offense at Buddhist, Hindu, Judaic, or some other religious celebrations.  When the Jewish community celebrates Hanukah, I hear no one demanding inclusive language for that occasion.  And I dare say that I should not expect to.

Okay, perhaps it is because, unlike other religious celebrations in America, Christmas (along with its Christian message) pervades our popular and dominant culture.  If so, why is that a “sin”?  (Indeed, secularism has its own list of mortal sins that people must not commit and, it would seem, this is one of them.)

The problem to some degree is a controlling one, a question defining reality—that is, who gets to do so.  This becomes a question of power and authority and of course control.

True, Christianity and Christmas pervades our American culture—TV commercials, businesses, town squares, etc.  But that is because, thus far, the majority of the American people have been Christian or at least nominally so.  (Granted, this may change over the years.)  Nevertheless, our towns and schools and communities are presently bending over backwards to allow each religion their special days and have their recognition.  However, this should not mean that Christians must abrogate their own faith and redefine their celebrations—such as Christmas trees, Nativity scenes, and Christmas hymns and carols in order to be all-inclusive.  We must not deny the faith of the many for the want of faith of a few.

Let it be what it really is.  A Christmas tree is a Christmas tree—it is the reason why the tree is decorated in the first place and it has a more intentional meaning than merely saying, “Have a happy festive time.”

When we start renaming things out of a demand for political correctness and a desire for all-inclusiveness we actually end up disrespecting and dishonoring everyone’s values and beliefs.  For, it becomes a lie.  Pretending that a thing is not what it really is or what it was really meant to be undermines true integrity and honesty and openness—and disallows authentic invitation and welcoming that leads to true inclusiveness.

That is to say that real inclusiveness honors and respects people’s differences of opinions, beliefs, values, and practices without forcing conformity or enforcing artificial unity by shutting people down for their differences or making people go underground with their precious beliefs and practices.

Let the Christmas tree therefore BE a Christmas tree.  This is the Christmas season.  Let it remain so.  Non-believers should also be free to have their secular generic and innocuous holiday parties running parallel to the seasonal Christmas parties, but don’t demand that Christmas be changed into something it was never meant to be in the name of watered down inclusivity.  For when that is done real exclusiveness begins to take hold, which is the disdain, rejection, and negation of a people’s true beliefs in the name of some vaguely defined vanilla flavored all-inclusive unity.

Is Peace a Choice or War Inevitable?

Next year on this day, 7 December 2016, will mark the 75th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  We still remember.  Yet, Japan and the United States of America are now friendly nations and have been since the end of World War II.  Friends become enemies become friends.

Like personal relationships, enemy nations need not be destined to always remain so.  There is always hope for peace.

We need not forget past harms in order to move forward with present healing in broken relationships, be they personal or national.  A vision for change, a faith in its possibility, and the will to make it so, is all that’s often needed to make that change.

We could be talking about Israel and Palestine, the U.S. and Iran, or Iraq and Afghanistan and the principle still stands.  We need vision, faith, and the will to see positive, constructive, and workable solutions for peace.

Vision: We need to see things differently, visualize anew.  We need to visualize our enemies becoming friends.  What does that look like?   Can we see the possibility?  What would it take for us to turn our enemies into friends?

The first step might be something as simple as re-humanizing them.  They, our present enemies, are not monsters or sub-human critters to be stamped out, wiped out, and/or otherwise extinguished, as if they were alien creatures with no right to life on earth.  They eat, sleep, and play as we do.  They have family dreams, love their children, and wish to prosper and enjoy life as do we.  They are, after all, only human, as are we.  The second step might be something as simple as listening to their cry: Why the hatred, why the anger, from whence is the pain and hurt that makes them make us their enemy?  How did we become so hateful to them?  How do we begin to see our enemies in a new light?  Can we see a future where our enemies become our friends?

Faith: Do we believe it’s possible, enemies become friends?  Do we believe that people and nations can change?  Do we believe in reconciliation?  Do we believe in the possible healing of wounded hearts and wounded souls, in mercy, compassion, and forgiveness?  If so, there is hope.  And there is evidence for such hope: Healing, forgiveness, mercy, renewed trust, and reconciliation—it IS possible and it is something worth believing in.  It CAN be.  This is no pie-in-the sky fantasy dream.  These are real, tangible, workable, and attainable possibilities.  We must believe this, believe in its realism.

Will: Believe, envision, and then do.  Action is born out of conviction, behavior out of belief.  We do what we think.  We live what we believe, and move toward what we see as worthwhile goals.  Possibilities are then made real.  We choose to will.  And we will into reality what we choose to believe is possible, investing our time, our resources, our energy, and our gifts and talents to make it so.

“Peace in our time” is often looked at as a nice but naïve peacenik slogan—shallow, unrealistic, even childish.

Notice how much easier it is to arouse the WILL to fight than it is to muster up the WILL to make peace?  The spirit of vengeance and retaliation, anger and hatred, is so much easier to arouse than the spirit of mercy and forgiveness or peace and reconciliation.  Sure, there are reasons for this, doubt and distrust, betrayal and deception, to name a few.

For that reason we must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, when seeking peace.  The choice is ours.  We can choose to lock ourselves into a state of perpetual hatred, violence, and war.  Or we can choose to be innocent as doves and seriously seek peace.  It takes will, vision, and faith.  It IS a choice.  We must believe in it and see its real possibility.  Oh, one more thing: Beware!  We often see only that which we CHOOSE to see.

A 40% Loss is no Small Matter…

Think 40%.

As far as percentages go, is 40% good, bad, or indifferent?

40% of what, you ask.

Okay, let’s say you see a sale sign that says “40% OFF” on something that you’ve been intending to buy.  Is that a good deal?  Would you run in and get it, thinking that you got yourself a bargain?  Most people would say that 40% off is a pretty hefty savings.  Wouldn’t you agree?

What if your auto-mechanic told you that your car’s engine is only running at 60% of its potential power?   That is to say that 40% of your engine’s capacity is damaged and/or ineffective.  Would you say to yourself, “Well, a 40% loss is tolerable; I am content to drive a car whose engine is only running at 60% capacity”?  Or would you want the mechanic to fix the problem?

How about a 40% salary increase or decrease?  In that light, is 40% a large, medium, or small percentage?

What about in medical terms, considering a healthy organ versus an unhealthy one.  If you lost 40% of your lung capacity, or kidney function, or heart function, would you feel the difference?  Would you still consider yourself a completely healthy person?  My guess is that, yes, you would feel the difference and, no, you would no longer see yourself as a completely healthy person.  Indeed, my guess is that you would become alarmed and worried about the state of your health if indeed you lost 40% functioning capacity in any one of these organs—lungs, kidneys, or heart.

That being the case, why then does it not bother us that, to date, we have lost 40% of the Amazon Rain Forest?

When I was a kid, I remember learning that the Amazon forest in South America was the largest rain forest in the world and should be considered to be something like the lungs of the world.  I never forgot that image.  The Amazon rain forest is the lungs of the earth, yet we now placidly receive the news that 40% of it is gone—for good?  What’s wrong with this picture?

And this is just one fact, one piece of evidence among many others that we humans are doing great damage to the earth’s eco system—glacial meltdowns, dying coral reefs, expanding deserts, and once pristine water resources becoming unfit for consumption and/or drying-up altogether, poor air quality causing asthma epidemics among young children along with other respiratory ailments, etc., etc.

Still we argue.  We stall.  We doubt and disbelieve.  We denounce scientific messengers accusing them of being Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling, so that we can go on about our business as usual.

Yet this one figure, 40%, shouldn’t that be enough?  The Amazon Rain forest is now only at 60% of what it used to be—and this is happening within my own lifetime.  I was born in the fifties.  I don’t know about you, but this worries me, and I think that it should worry you too.

President Obama is at the World Climate Summit Meeting in Paris.  How much concern do we have here, as United States citizens, with respect to the world’s climate change?  If we are naïve enough to think that it is no big deal and really not a problem, we are fools indeed.

A Thanksgiving Prayer

Dear Lord,

We thank you for your goodness.

It is too simple to blame YOU for all that is wrong in the world, all the evil and its consequences.

Likewise it is too easy to excuse ourselves from all the wrong we ourselves commit that brings pain and heartache to others.

Hence, we confess your goodness and acknowledge your worthiness.  YOU, O Lord, are worthy to be praised and to receive our thanksgiving.  And so, we thank you for your goodness.

We thank you for your love.

We know that we are loved.  For YOU, O Lord, so loved the world that you gave your only begotten Son, that we might have life—Salvation from condemnation for the wrongs we have committed.  We are forgiven.  For, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  We thank you for your love for us and for the gift of salvation in Christ, for which we are more than grateful.

We thank you for your truth.

YOU are true.  In YOU there is no lie.  YOU do not deceive.  YOU have no bent purpose or twisted motive.  YOU are consistent, ever so faithful, and even longsuffering in your commitment to us and our welfare.  We thank you for your trueness, for your endurance of humanity, for your constancy, for your truth.

We thank you for your transforming work.

Though imperfect, weak, and wanting, we thank you for our families.  For, YOU seek to redeem and heal our family brokenness and neediness.  Though battered, beaten, and broken, we thank YOU for our lives, for you redeem and renew and make whole again.  In Christ we are becoming new.

We may yet be hungry, thirsty, tired, and worn; nevertheless, we thank YOU.  For, YOU give strength to the weak.  YOU feed the hungry and give drink to those who thirst.  Indeed, YOU shall satisfy those who hunger and thirst for justice and righteousness.   We thank you for the hope that is in Christ.  For YOUR promises are true and faithful.

And when we cannot give thanks; when we are too shattered, too fearful and/or have lost our faith, so as to have given up on hope and become thankless in our attitude and posture, we thank you that YOU do not give up on us.  YOU sustain us and encourage us to remain faithful, enabling us to believe anew and to trust and to keep the faith. 

And so we thank you, and we celebrated this season of Thanksgiving by acknowledging all that is good and loving and satisfying and meaningful and caring and encouraging and life-giving that comes from YOU.

Thank YOU Lord!

Why ISIS and Terrorism?

Paris is in pain.  Families beyond France are dealing with the aftermath, hundreds of dead and injured.  ISIS (Islamic State) claims responsibility, a calculated well planned terrorist attack.  State leaders call it an act of war, including President Obama.

Question: Apart from their terroristic methods and their highly touted goal, which is the creation of an Islamic State, do we really understand the inner workings of ISIS?  What is the source of their anger and hatred?  What drives their passion so, or ignites their energy and motivates them so much.  Why are they so determined to wreak this kind of havoc with so much tenacity?

Are we, the average citizen in the West, Europe and the U.S., able to answer the above questions with insight and understanding?  If not, perhaps that is part of the problem and a challenge that we must address.

In short, we should know the ingredients that go into the creation of a radical Islamic group such as an ISIS?  If we are to be wise, rather than simplistic and reactionary, we can’t just blame the religion of Islam, in and of itself, as the sole cause of a terrorist group like ISIS.  There is more to it than that, much more.  Yes, religion and religious dogma, teaching, and influence, play a part in the creation of ISIS.  But it is only one factor, one ingredient among many.  What are the other ingredients?  Wisdom tells us that there must be significant cultural, historical, socio-economic, and political factors that are at play here as well.

In short, what we are lacking is a narrative; we don’t know the story and perhaps are unwillingly to acknowledge that there even is a story to be heard and told.  Collectively speaking, all we know is what’s on the surface, which is shallow and trite knowledge as it were.  Yes, we know that ISIS hates the U.S. and its allies, what is called “The West.”  And we know that they have no qualms about using terroristic tactics to make their point, using terrorism as a means to gain tactical advantage to reach their goals.  And we know that they claim that their version of Islam is supreme, which presumably justifies their terroristic tactics.  Yet, if we know only that much about ISIS, we actually know very little about them.

What we are not hearing is their story.  And, frankly speaking, because of their terroristic tactics, most of us have no interest in hearing their story.  We don’t care.  All we want them to do is to stop terrorizing.  However, the danger is that our own hearts will begin to mirror theirs, if this is not already the case.  Meaning: They hate us; so we hate them.  They kill us; and so we’re more than willing to kill them.  They claim God’s favor, shouting “God is great!”  Meanwhile we too assert God’s favor on us, invoking “God bless America.”  They see us as condemnable infidels and we see them as damnable terrorists.  To them, we are dirt beneath their feet; to us, they are mud on our shoes.  Thus, we have one thing in common—the desire to wipe the dirt off from beneath us.

So I wonder.  How would we respond differently if we understood them at a deeper level?  If we really knew their story, the narrative that explains their development and their reason for being, the story that paints their reality and shapes their identity?  Would it not help to know?  Would it not help to understand their deeper motivation?  Knowledge is power.  Know your enemy.  How well do we know them?  How much knowledge do we have of them?  I think we have some homework to do.

Obama Nixes Keystone Pipeline, Jobs Too?

News Head Liner: “Obama Nixes Job-Creating Pipeline….”

Underlining Message: Obama nixes jobs.  Implied meaning: He’s a horrible insensitive, uncaring president for not thinking of jobs for working people.

We know people need to and want to work so as to have a good living.  We know that a good economy is one that sustains maximum employment, not low-employment or under-employment but full employment with well-paying jobs that allow middle-class families to grow and thrive.

But does that de-facto mean that any industry having the potential for creating jobs should be given a green light, no matter what other negative side effects that particular industry may have on society, the environment, and other things?

Jobs!  Is that THE deciding factor, no matter what?  Is that the only measuring-stick that should be used to determine the acceptability of an industry’s growth plan?   Is job-creation the default standard by which an industry should be measured as to its necessity or usefulness or acceptability to society?  Are we not to concern ourselves with an industry’s long-term effect, not only in terms of its means and methods but with respect to its very product?

For example, the tobacco industry creates jobs.  Hence, so as to ensure the tobacco industry can continue to provide jobs, are we to ignore the fact that smoking or chewing tobacco is addictive and is a source of cancer and is therefore generally bad for public consumption?  We need more jobs.  Yes.  The porn industry creates jobs as well.  So, should we have no laws restricting or monitoring pornography for fear of causing job loss in that industry?

We know that we need more and more energy to power our modern day lifestyle, our digital and electronic devices, our homes and vehicles, and more.  We also know that there are so-called “clean” energy sources and that there are so-called “dirty” energy sources.  So, why wouldn’t we choose clean energy sources over dirty ones?  Why, because some industries have too much to lose or are too vested in the old traditional “dirty” sources—and so, they use the fear of job-losses as a weapon to avoid change.

It is always cheaper, easier, more convenient, and short-term more profitable to keep the status quo and avoid change.  But we need to shift our focus as a society and begin to seriously invest in clean renewable energy sources and move away from “dirty” sources—despite the initial expense.  It seems to me that the real unwillingness to sustain job creation is in the oil industries that refuse to envision, and invest in new clean energy sources.

Yes, it may be more costly and more difficult or challenging to create or tap into clean energy sources, in the short run; but we must think long term.  In the long run it may very well pay off great dividends for all of society.  Thus, real job growth should be created and sustained by companies and industries that effectively have long-term clean energy strategies who are thinking of more than quick profitable turnover and who are thinking of what is overall best for the present and future of society, community, and nation.

Ever Heard of a Witting Tree Service?

What’s a “Witting Tree” service?

Indeed, what does the word “witting” mean?

You’ve heard the phrase, “keep your wits about you.”  There’s that word, “wit.”  It’s an old word, archaic.  As a noun it means mind, memory, or senses.  Hence, to tell you to “keep your wits about you” is to tell you to stay alert and use your mind, or more to the point, to keep your sanity.  As a verb it means to know or to come to know or learn.  Look it up in the dictionary.  I found it in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition.

Thus, a “Witting Tree Ceremony” is a service of awareness, to make something known, to awaken one’s attention to a certain truth or reality. 

Did you know that this country loses 18-22 veterans a day—by means of suicide?  Now, keep your wits about you and realize that these are veterans killing themselves—AFTER coming home safely from serving combat duty overseas.  What’s happening?

Everyone hears about those killed in action.  And we are aware of injured veterans who have lost an arm or leg or eye or hand or something.  But we seldom think of the internal harm, the unseen damage that is done to the soul and spirit of a returned seasoned veteran who is otherwise physically unscathed.  And then, BAM!  We’re taken by surprise and don’t understand why he (mostly men) should take his own life—especially after surviving a tour of duty, having faced live combat action and managed to return home physically unharmed.

Why?  We ask.  We wonder.  We ponder.  For, we are completely puzzled by this.  And it seems as if the military does a good job of avoiding the subject, seemingly keeping quiet about the impact of veteran suicides before the public.

Hence, we have the “Witting Tree Ceremony.”

So, for example, our particular church, Wellspring Church of Skippack, will be having a Witting Tree Service on Sunday, 8 November, in honor of and with respect to Veterans Day of 11 November.

Dog Tags are used to identify servicemen/women who may be killed in action.  What we will be doing is hanging symbolic “dog tags” on one of our trees outside our church (near the cemetery) in recognition of those veterans who have died by taking their own lives—22 dog tags will be hung.  The number 22 being the average number per day that a veteran takes his/her own life.

Our Sunday morning service inside the church will lead up to this symbolic gesture (all are welcome to come and participate).  The particular tree that we will be using is one that was planted in memoriam of a son of one of our own members that died while serving in the Marines—Adam Conboy.

What it’s about is bringing awareness to the many deaths of our servicemen and women that happen after they’ve safely returned home.  It is a way for us to become more conscious of the fact that when veterans return home, for many, the war has not necessarily ended.  They bring the war home with them.  It stays in their head and lives in their guts.  They may be tormented, wounded or badly injured internally—mind, heart, soul, and spirit.  We civilians need to understand this and become more sensitive to this reality.

So, how do you plan to recognize Veterans Day this year?  You are most welcome to join us for our Witting Tree Ceremony on Sunday, 8 November, 2015.  Service starts at 10:00 a.m.: Wellspring Church of Skippack, 1183 Cressman Rd, Skippack PA.  610-489-2688.

Too Much Pressure on Nuclear Family?

Remember when?

Remember when it used to be that children were watched by the whole neighborhood?  If little Johnny was caught being naughty, a neighbor’s mom or dad or friend wouldn’t hesitate to call him out: “Hey Johnny, stop that now!”  “Yes, mam, sorry mam, I won’t do it again,” Johnny might have replied.

And the kids knew.  They knew that the whole neighborhood had an eye on them.  Hence, parents didn’t worry.  Kids were free to meander and wander from house to house, yard to yard, and family to family.   Every family watched every other family’s kids.  And if a youngster, however small, seemed to wander off or stray too far, the kid was immediately corralled and sent back to where the others were playing.

That was back then.  This is today.

We seem to have lost our community.  Worse, not only have we lost community, we now villainize parents for not being adequately vigilant in watching their own children.

In just one moment of inattention, a parent loses a kid.  And whether or not the kid is found in good time, the parent is in trouble, judged and condemned as an unfit parent.  Yet, what parent has not had such an experience?  The mother turns around just for a second, and boom, the toddler is suddenly out of sight.  “I don’t know what happened.  How could this be?  I just turned around for one second,” the mom cries with a flush of desperation and disbelief.  “Ah!  There he is!!  Johnny, get over here right now!!  You scared me.”

And what does the News Headline say?  “Mom lets her 2 year-old child wander off, while she shops.”  Blame the mom!  Villainize her.  Make her look like a bad, uncaring, selfish woman who is only too pleased to put her child second or third or even last in the priority-list of concerns.  It makes a good story.  It sells.  And it’s very hurtful and even damaging to the parent.

So, we’ve not only lost a sense of community, it’s been replaced by vigilante accusers and condemners.  Community members no longer support, defend, and care-for, rather they accuse, divide, and condemn, ripping families apart.  “The mom is unfit to be a mother, take the children away from her!”  “She should never have had children in the first place.”

Truth is that a nuclear family is not big enough.  It is insufficient.  Children need more than mom, dad, brother, and sister.  Children need community.  Children need community place and space where a community of other parents and other children are watching out and caring for their livelihood.  Children need neighborhood friends as well as extended family, neighborhood families—in addition to one’s own aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents.  One’s home should include one’s neighborhood, that is, a whole collection of families.

When are we going to acknowledge that it is just too unrealistic and too taxing and tiresome and just too much responsibility for one person (usually mom) or one set of parents to keep an eye on their own children?   Parents need community.  Parents need other parents.

Raising children is actually a social, communal responsibility, involving a whole network of adults.  Oh yes!  It does take a village to raise a child.

Deadly Faith

A young man, only nineteen years of age, was beaten to death.

He was not the victim of a robbery.  He was not mugged.  He was not attacked by street thugs.  He was not in the wrong place at the wrong time in the face of gang-bangers or a drug crime.

He was in church.  Lucas Leonard was beaten to death by people of faith, members of his own church, which also included his own parents.  Why did they beat him?

Lucas died as the result of religious fervor, or what might be called righteous indignation.  He was being punished.  Lucas was expected to confess his sins and ask for forgiveness.  And he wasn’t alone.  Christopher, Lucas’s seventeen year-old younger brother, was also beaten.  Christopher survived his beating, Lucas did not.

These beatings were done in the name of God, in the name of faith and righteousness.  The beaters were trying to elicit a confession from these brothers so that they’d receive forgiveness for their sins.  Meanwhile, those who were doing the beating were oblivious to their own perpetrated sin as they beat these two brothers, the one unto death.

What a twisted application of faith!

It is these kinds of acts in the name of God that turn people off toward religion.

God, however, is not the problem.  People are the problem.  In the same way that it is not money that is evil but what people do with money that makes it good or bad, so it is not faith in God that is the problem, it is how people define and/or practice their faith in God. 

Read the words of Jesus carefully.  There can be no justification for beatings of this kind.  It is impossible to claim that Jesus would have approved of such beatings, especially as a way of extracting a confession for the sake of providing forgiveness to the confessor.  Yet such actions have been perpetrated by religious types in the name of Christ over the centuries.  Remember the Inquisition of the middle ages?  It is the same dynamic, dark and twisted, perverted misapplied and ill-practiced religious fervor.

Jesus did not hesitate to denounce the abuse of faith and religion.  In his day it was the Pharisees and Sadducees and the religious Scribes that he denounced because of their high-minded, self-righteous, holier-than-thou oppressive, judgmental, and mean-spirited attitude toward those whom they thought were condemned by God; which was just about anyone whom they felt did not conform to their own particular religious standards, practices, and expectations.

Here’s the thing: all religious teachers and preachers and practitioners (including myself, a pastor) have the potential and are in danger of becoming Pharisaical in the worse sense of the term.  Indeed, all passionate devotees in religious faith also have the same potential to become Pharisaical—that is, it is not just found among religious leaders.  (Pharisaical: to be holier-than-thou, self-righteously high and mighty and therefore extremely judgmental, critical, and condemning of others, showing no mercy and having no love or grace for the lost and forsaken.)

According to Jesus, a true heart for God is demonstrated by having compassion for the down-and-out, showing mercy to the lost and forlorn, and offering love and grace to the guilt-ridden shamed sinner. 

So, no, don’t blame religion or faith in God or Christianity, as the cause of such terrible abuses, as in the beating of a young man to death in the name of saving him from sin.  Indeed, it is the lack of Jesus that is the real problem.  It is the lack of knowing and understanding what Jesus is really about, the lack of truly embracing His way, His truth, and His example.

Before you quickly judge Christianity or faith in general, I challenge you to read Jesus for yourself.  Truly listen to what Jesus Himself says and teaches and see how he Himself lived, what He did and why He did it.  And you will see that the problem is not with Jesus whom we call the Christ; the problem is with humanity, human nature, and our own need of grace and mercy.

The New Gun Debate: It’s About More than Guns

The Oregon shooting resurrects more heated debate on Gun Control/Regulation.  And of course we hear more of the same quips such as:  “Guns don’t kill people, people do.”  Or “It’s a heart problem not a gun problem.”

Hard core pro-gun proponents not only will not budge on the issue, they become all the more adamant in their stand against any further consideration for stricter gun laws.  They continue to insist that guns are not the problem and that gun regulation is not the answer.  Meanwhile, the NRA continues to find ways to make it next to impossible to do and/or reveal scientific sociological studies that give evidence that good solid gun regulatory laws along with appropriate enforcement actually do reduce gun fatalities.

So what do guns mean to them?  What do guns represent to the gun owner, especially to that particular kind of gun owner that resents and fights against any, ANY suggestion that guns should be regulated?

From what I can tell, it can only mean something like this: “When push comes to shove, my gun(s) represents my ability to take a “last stand” in absolute defiance against a government I disagree with and/or distrust to the core.  Thus, I stand ready.  That is, if and when I ever feel threatened by the government, I may have to resort to my guns to fight to the bitter end in defending my God-given right to determine my own destiny and make my own way in life.  Therefore, I must not only resist the government’s encroachment on my right to bear arms but must also resist its desire to know whether or not I have any guns at all, or how many guns I have if I do, or why I have them, and/or what I use them for; because, to give the government that kind of information is to give them the upper hand.  And I will NOT do that!  This is why I so adamantly stand against any and all gun regulatory laws and defy any suggestion that we need more gun control or any control at all.”

This is a worldview statement.  It is a philosophical mindset.  It runs deeper than mere right wing versus left-wing politics.  It is a way of looking at the world and one’s place in the world, especially one’s place with respect to one’s idea and definition of freedom, power, and authority, or of one’s ideas respecting the rule-of-law and the government.  It is a mindset that says something like this: “In the end, when all is said and done, I am my own best authority and rule of law; and only I can guarantee my true freedom.  My guns give me a fighting chance to do this, if that’s what it should come down to.  So, no way am I going to allow the government to take away my guns or to regulate my use of and/or ownership of them!”

This is why any and all arguments from the pro gun-regulatory side fall on deaf ears.  There is no rational argument that will be heard.  There is no “making sense,” no common understanding to be had, no ability to come to terms in agreement.  What we have here is a fundamental worldview and philosophical mindset difference between the two sides.

The pro-regulatory side trusts the government.  They see no need to keep the government in the dark or to hold the government at bay about who owns guns, how they purchased them and what they plan to do with them.

On the other hand, the anti gun-regulatory side sees the government as the core problem and core problem maker.  For them, less is more; the least amount of government is the best amount of government.  Hence, a government that meddles with one’s firepower (gun ownership) is a government that is meddling with one’s core freedom—one’s fundamental right to defend one’s self against tyranny.

This, it seems to me, is why pro-gun lobbyists (such as the NRA) and anti gun-regulators will never agree to what (for the rest of us) may seem to be quite sensible and reasonable gun laws or gun-regulatory action or gun control, in this country.

2015 Memorial Day is Behind Us, Veterans Day is Coming

We celebrated Memorial Day this year on the 25th of May.  But Veterans Day is still ahead of us.  Veterans Day always falls on November 11th of each year, whatever day of the week it may be.  This year it falls on a Wednesday.

What’s the difference?

While Memorial Day is the day we specifically remember and honor those who DIED in service to our country (particularly those who died in battle), Veterans Day is the day we honor ALL military veterans, a special time to show our appreciation for any and all LIVING veterans.

It is important to realize that our living veterans have also sacrificed their lives for this country; perhaps not unto death, but their personal and family sacrifices can be as real and palpable as were those who have died.  This point is often overlooked.  Indeed, for some surviving Vets, life can have become a kind of living-death, uglier than death itself.  Consider the many Vets who commit suicide back home, after having returned from active duty in war.

What is war like?  We civilians have no idea.  We can’t.  How could we?  It is something that has to be personally and directly experienced up-front and first-hand, to really “get-it.”  And we can’t just walk up to a veteran and say, “Tell me what war is like?  What did you do over there?  Did you actually kill people?  How did it feel?”

We civilians also have no clue as to what we really expect from our veterans.  For example, a young man (teen?) enlists in the army.  Civilians that we are, what do we assume will happen to this young man during basic training?  Do we realize that he is literally being trained to become a killing machine?  And in the face of real battle, actual war, what happens to him inside?  Do we really understand what this means to his psyche, his soul, his spirit, how it affects the core of his inner being?  His family lovingly sends off a once open, happy-go-lucky, life-enjoying kind of kid, only to have him return dark, sullen, taciturn, angry and closed-off to everyone he once held dear to his heart.  In short, how is it that we civilians actually expect that such a young man is to return from war and enter back into civilian life, picking up where he left off, unchanged for the worse?  What are we thinking?!

We civilians don’t understand and we don’t know.  And because of this, there are many, many veterans living among us who are in deep pain and are suffering severe mental and emotional anguish while they can’t trust us or believe in us enough to share their pain and turmoil and hurt with us.  Why?  For one, we offend, though not intentionally.  We are too shallow and insensitive in our thinking or in our behavior or expectations of them, or in our assumptions about war and what we think it’s like to participate in war.  They see this in us and thus close themselves off to us.  They know that we just don’t get it and perhaps never will.

Consider the simple act (however good intentioned it may be) of a civilian thanking a military Vet who has seen live action while serving.  Might it not come across as shallow and somewhat out of touch?  Why?  First of all, we civilians are really clueless as to what it is that they have really done, experienced, and participated in, and we have no idea as to what motivated them to enter the military in the first place.  Our light hearted and perhaps even naïve thank-you may actually represent the selfish ease with which our nation now uses and expends a volunteer army while the rest of us go about our business.

In such a context, what does it really mean to be patriotic while only a volunteer force shares the real burden of securing the safety of a whole nation and its people?  Is saying a mere “Thank you” really adequate in the face of those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us?  One military Vet commented that such a “thanks” feels self-serving for the civilian; it suggests that the “thanker” somehow really understands the sacrifice that was made and the resulting mental anguish, night terrors, and feelings of loss and bewilderment that a war-torn veteran may feel and experience daily: “I pulled the trigger,” he said, “you didn’t.  Don’t take that away from me.”  One has to wonder.  If we still had the draft, where all able young men/women between the ages of 18 and 25 must enlist in the military, would we so readily support military strikes and engage in all-out war, as we seem to so easily do now?

We seem to forget that war has an undeniable impact on all survivors, not just those who were killed in action.  It traumatizes.  There is mental, emotional, and psychological impact leading to things like stuffed inner rage, anger and/or shame for having survived coupled with a loss of faith and a kind of spiritual desolation.  There can be excruciatingly painful memories leading to cycles of violence and extreme distrust of one’s surroundings.  Loss of sleep, unpredictability, and self-destructive behavior are also symptoms.  Again, we civilians are often left clueless.  This is why a veteran’s re-integration into civilian life can be so difficult and sometimes seem to never actually take place.

Veterans Day is a day to honor all veterans.  Perhaps it should also be a time to really consider what war really is and what it does to all its participants.  Perhaps it is a time to take a serious look at the pros and cons of entering into war and to consider why a nation should see war only as a very, very last resort, only after absolutely every possible means to international diplomacy has been exhausted and every avenue of conciliatory terms has been tried, so as to avoid a “Declaration of War”—especially since we now only use a volunteer army.  With such an army, it is all too easy for the rest of us civilians to gung-ho support war (“We support our troops!), knowing that any particular son or daughter or grandchild can escape its effects simply by not volunteering.  In such a context we can have our cake and eat it too (or so we think)—support our troops AND keep our own child out of harms way.  How easy is that!

White Collar Crime as Deadly as Gun Toting?

Did you hear about the peanut company CEO sentenced to 28 years in prison?  What was the crime?  His company is directly linked to the death of nine (9) people.  Apparently he, that is, his company and his executive decisions within the company, is guilty of poisoning them with salmonella.

He and his family pleaded for mercy, leniency in sentencing.  To them, the thought of even considering the death penalty was excessive.  Yet, nine people are dead because of his executive decisions as then CEO of Peanut Corporation of American based in Georgia.

Excessive?  How is it that a robbery gone wrong, such as, for example, a street thug waving a gun to rob a local liquor-store in inner-city USA and ends up shooting and killing the store’s attendant, readily gets the severest of penalties with no argument while a CEO who is responsible for the death of nine people believes with all his heart that he deserves leniency?  After all, the motive between the two crimes is exactly the same: money!

It is believed that he knew.  He knew exactly what he was doing.  He knew that he was cheating and lying and putting peoples’ lives in jeopardy and all for what, for money, to avoid loss, to keep up profit.  It was a so-called “white-collar” crime, but still a crime nevertheless.

We stereo-type and generally assume that the “bad guy” is black or brown or Muslim, inner-city, poor, uneducated, and addicted.  Thus, we give little thought to the more egregious crimes of secrecy, duplicity, and fraudulency happening daily in our high rise executive offices.

You may balk at this thought, but bankers, lawyers, industrialists, and CEO’s of any number of companies can also be guilty of murder, rape, and thuggery.  Sure, they may not directly use guns and knives and chains or brass knuckles, but given their flagrant exercise of power, privilege and position, their executive decisions can and do cause harm—even to the point of causing death to others.  And the thing about it is that it is far easier for them to get-away-with-it.

Stewart Parnell is the gentleman in question, the once CEO of Peanut Corporation of America.  He is quoted to have said: “This has been a seven-year nightmare for me and my family.  I’m truly, truly, sorry for what’s happened.”  It’s good that he is sorry.  He should be.  Still, I can’t help but wonder, would he have been sorry if he had never been caught and prosecuted, given the knowledge that nine people still lost their lives because of his greed (keeping company profits up by refusing to recall bad peanut butter from the market place)?

And then there is the Volkswagen scandal.  You have also heard of that one, I’m sure.  Here again the CEO is extremely sorry and apologizes profusely.  Again, I have to ask, is it because the company was caught?  Why did the company do this in the first place?  (The company rigged millions of vehicles around the world to cheat on emissions testing so that they appeared to be in compliance with emissions controls when they actually were not.)

More white collar crime and more harm done.  This harm is indirect and subtle, falling under the radar screen of detection, almost impossible to directly link its cause and effect to any harm done, but it is still harm done nevertheless!  And that’s what we’ve got to realize.  Indeed, because of its very nature—subtle, indirect, almost impossible to link to direct harm—I have no doubt that white collar crime is more dangerous and does more harm than common street thug crime, because it affects many, many more people.

This is why it is dangerous to allow companies and corporations to become “too big to fail.”  This is also why it is irresponsible to legally deem corporations as persons.  Why?  It is irresponsible because real people can too easily hide behind the façade of corporate personhood and avoid personal responsibility themselves, blaming the corporation.  Yet, how does one prosecute a corporation for murder?  How do you arrest and incarcerate a corporation?

We have given too much power and control to corporate America.  And this has resulted, if I may generalize here, in the raping of our lands and the polluting of our air, etc. etc. while they claim to be bettering America.  Of course it’s our fault for believing this to be the case.  Yet, how much unseen and undetected crime is being committed?  No, I’m not saying that all of corporate America is guilty or untrustworthy.  But I am saying that we over trust them and have put too much blind faith in big business and in corporate America in general.

The trouble is that our real American value system can be reduced to one thing: profit and consumption!  Greed is good!  As long as corporations employ us and pay us high dividends for our investments, we pat them on the back and congratulate them on a job well done.  It’s only the bottom line that really counts.  It’s all about the money.  Corporate profit is always good, often making us turn a blind eye as to its means and methods for obtaining said profit.  This is a big reason why our nation is in trouble and why we have CEO’s that do in fact lie or cheat and steal from us while we remain clueless.  One has to wonder, for every Volkswagen or Peanut Corporation of America that is caught, how many corporate deceptions go undetected and scot-free or are just ignored?

An Answer to the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict?

When speaking about the Middle East, specifically with regard to the Israelis and the Palestinians, it seems inevitable that mutual hatred is a given, conflict is a foregone conclusion, and that war is inescapable.  Not necessarily so, says author and Middle East mission’s worker, Andrew Bush, in his book, Learning from the Least: Reflections on a Journey in Mission with Palestinian Christians (Cascade Books: 2013).

But where exactly do Christians, who supposedly follow The Way of Christ, stand with respect to the Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestinians?

Many Evangelical Christians side with Israel, hands down.  Why?  Because of the central role that the people of Israel play in Biblical history, theology, and prophecy; Christians learn early on that those who bless Israel shall be blessed and those who curse Israel shall be cursed.  (See for example Numbers chapter 24 and note especially verse 9.)

But perhaps Christians have forgotten that we must interpret and apply Biblical lessons through the lens of Jesus Himself.  For, Jesus is Lord of all Lords and King of all Kings.  Hence, we must follow the way of Christ.  In that light, note that it was Jesus who said things like, “Love your enemies” and “blessed are the peacemakers.”  Assumption: All serious followers of Christ must take Christ’s teaching and example as his/her practical guide for life’s values, principles, and practices.  Hence, theology matters, how one lives-out and practices his or her understanding of God’s Will, expectations and commands, in the person of Christ, matters!

This brings me back to Andrew Bush’s book, Learning from the Least.  What should be the Christian response to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict?  Bush has an answer.  And I believe it is a viable, Biblical, Christo-centric, Godly answer at that.  All Christians who care about Israel and are concerned for peace in the Middle East need to read this book.

The exercise of privileged status and the power that comes with it, militarism, the oppression of the weak and lowly, nationalism (specific to any nation, region, or people group) over-against loyalty to the Rule of Christ (the Kingdom of God), are contrary to the Way of Christ.  Hence, Christ would have His followers be supportive of BOTH the people of Israel AND the Christian Palestinians.  Indeed, Christ would have us care for anyone who is poor, oppressed, and/or cruelly and unjustly treated—regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

Thus, in his well written book, Bush encourages Western Christianity to undertake a radical renewal in its Global Missions as regard to its spirituality & motive and its Gospel underpinnings—vis-à-vis, by means of grace, mercy and re-embracing the way of the cross, especially as it affects the Middle East.

Bush reminds Christians, for example, that Jesus calls us to the radical act of picking up one’s cross in following Him: Jesus calls us to love and compassion, mercy and grace, humility and servanthood; NOT to a self-aggrandizing privileged status of prominence and power and militaristic national triumphalism.  So, for example he also addresses uncritical Christian Zionism among our churches, questioning our Western Christian behavior that seems to assume that it is okay to use power and military force and oppressive tactics against Others, IF we believe it advances “God’s Will.”  (My note: and of course with such an assumption comes the belief that we Western Christians also have the right to define what God’s Will is).

In short, Andrew Bush calls us to reexamine our theology respecting the Middle East as it concerns Israel and Palestine.  Yes, Bush believes in and supports Christian Missions.  Yes, he believes in communicating and spreading the Gospel of Christ.  Yes, he respects and embraces Biblical truth and the People of Israel.  Because of this, Bush also believes there needs to be a spiritual renewal in Western Christian missions that brings us down from our lofty pedestal of presumed power and privilege that victimizes and marginalizes Palestinian Christians or that blindly supports nationalism (Palestinian, Israeli, or American) over-against the teachings, principles, and practices of God’s Kingdom rule—the rule of Christ in a believer’s heart and mind that surpasses any particular nationalism of any particular people.

Andrew Bush’s book is well worth the reading, especially if you are a Christian and have (1) a deep commitment to Christ and His Gospel (2) a deep respect for the people of Israel as inspired by the Bible (3) a deep longing for peace in the Middle East, especially as it relates to fellow Christian Palestinian believers and fellow Messianic Jewish believers, and finally (4) if you have a deep passion for spiritual growth and maturity to be a faithful follower of Christ, our Lord and Savior.

A Deal With Iran Is Like a Deal with….

Making a deal with the Devil?

This is extreme talk as always when it comes to politics.  But we seldom hear wise insightful and carefully thought through reasoned observations from extremists.  Rather, we get a whole lot of dizzying political spin—a whole lot of clanging symbols and pounding gongs—noisy and deafening political soundbites.  So, the deal with Iran is either the best deal we could ever have had, or the worst deal we could ever have gotten.  Which is it?

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  It’s probably not the best deal nor is it the worst deal.  Truth is, as nations go, Iran is not Satan’s Kingdom nor is the U.S. God’s Heaven on earth.  Is it un-American to say such thing?  I hope not, because it’s true.

Obviously there are times in which negotiating deals does no good.  The 1938 Chamberlain/Hitler “Peace for our Time” Munich Agreement is a lesson well learned to that effect.  Sometimes negotiating peace with an enemy merely gives the enemy wanted time to prepare a preemptive strike.  Is that what this Iranian agreement does?  Some extremist think so.  But that’s just it: It is exactly what an extremist would say.

Whole nations can act as foolishly as individual people do.  Why?  People run nations.  People can be laughably ignorant, ridiculously stubborn, foolishly proud, blindly arrogant, and just plain ole stupid.  Hence, so can national leaders be.

But the question is: how can a nation and/or its leaders know whether or not it’s being ignorantly stupid when negotiating peace terms, for example, with an enemy nation?   Or how does a nation know it is making the best decision by declaring war on an enemy nation?  For example, as a nation, were we being wise by agreeing with then President George W. Bush’s declaration of war against Iraq and supporting a preemptive strike against her?  Hind sight being what it is many would now say we were not being wise at all, rather the contrary.

Jesus told his disciples to be “innocent as doves but wise as serpents” (Matthew 10:16).  That’s good advice.  But what does that mean exactly.

One’s innocence has to do with one’s inner-being, one’s integrity, one’s inner wholeness or one’s moral and spiritual center.  And that touches upon one’s motives with any action taken and one’s purpose for any goals that are set.  The wisdom of the ages have always taught that where there is pride, vengefulness, abuse of power and wealth, greed, selfish interest, arrogant controlling of others, there is not only a lack of “innocence,” there is also much foolishness.  And this is true on a personal level as well as on a national level.

That being said, apart from Iran’s state of being as a nation, we should take a closer look at our own national state of being.  If I may be so bold as to engage in a little national self-criticism, when our nation chose to do a preemptive strike against Iraq back in 2003, we were full of ourselves with pride and were more than ready to have our vengeance; we were quite eager to throw our weight around, ready to flex our muscles and show our strength and exercise our mighty military power.  And where did that get us?  In short, we were neither “innocent as doves” nor were we “wise as serpents.”  We acted foolishly.

Know this: Jesus’ admonishment to his disciples does not equate innocence with weakness and foolishness.  Innocence is its own strength, has its own power.  Innocence means having integrity, which in turn means wholeness and wellbeing, being steady, balanced, solid and true, right-thinking and right-working.  All these add up to real strength.  It also brings clarity of vision and purpose—Wisdom.

That’s where the wise as serpents comes in.  When one is “green with envy” or is “red with anger” or is in a “blind-rage” or “drunk with power” or “flushed with greed” or is being “proud, haughty and arrogant” or is “on the attack,” or is being rude, crude, and uncaring, or abusive and demanding, or self-interested and egotistical, critical and dismissive, and so-on and so-forth, one is far from being wise as a serpent.

The question about dealing with Iran is as much a question about us as it is about Iran.  We may not like to hear it, but historically speaking the people of Iran have had good and justifiable reasons for distrusting America.  If we know our history with Iran we’d understand this.  Suffice it to say that our history with the people of Iran does not favor us or put us in a good light—yet most of us would probably defend our past bad behavior with Iran or even flat out deny it.  Nevertheless, the fact is that our previous history with the Iranian people taught them not to trust us.  Still, it can safely be said that the people of Iran (as opposed to many of its present core leaders) would like to have a better relationship with us.

Things are never as black and white, cut and dry, up or down, left or right, this way and that way, as we like to think.  There are complexities, mysteries, unknowns, complications, inaccuracies, and messy inexactitudes.  That’s reality.  That’s life.  So of course the Iranian deal is not perfect.  And of course there are (realistically speaking) unanswerable questions.  Do you have a crystal ball that can foretell exactly what will happen, deal or no deal?  Does anyone?  Of course not!  Deals are acts of faith and trust as well as acts of skeptical distrust requiring validation, verification, and other checks-and-balances for reassurance.  That’s reality.  Nevertheless, cautious deals often serve nations better than having no deals at all.

The real question then is whether or not we ourselves can be wise as serpents while also being innocent as doves in our own willingness to negotiate.  A willingness to negotiate with integrity has its own strength and “innocence” about it.  An absolute unwillingness to negotiate at all simply leaves both nations free to continue to hate, demonize, and threaten the other—ad infinitum.  Which road has a better promise?

Kim Davis, Religious Freedom Wrongly Applied?

It’s not a good witness.

Like Kim Davis, I am a Bible Believing Christian.  I share the same faith and convictions: The Bible is the inspired Word of God.  Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, the Son of God and Savior of humanity.  Jesus died on the cross, was raised again on the third day.  Jesus is Lord!

Kim’s Lord is my Lord.

Nevertheless, I think she is behaving wrongly.  Kim Davis disagrees with, and therefore chooses to defy the Supreme Court ruling on the issuance of marriage licenses for gay people.  In her position as County Clerk (Rowan County, Kentucky), she had stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether for that reason.

She claims that she is acting under God’s authority.  That was her response when she was asked by what authority was she presuming the right to deny issuing a marriage license to a gay couple intending to be married.

Several principles come into play here.  First of all, there is the principle of separation of Church and State.  Out of that comes the principle that distinguishes between a Secular Government and a Theocracy—a God Rules Government.  The U.S.A. is not a theocracy.  Indeed, Kim Davis does have personal religious freedom; churches have institutional religious freedoms as well.  However, Kim Davis is also an elected official working for the County of Rowan in the State of Kentucky.  She is not legally allowed to apply her own personal faith convictions in her government role as a County Clerk, representing the State of Kentucky.  If she were allowed to do so in that role, what would happen if a Muslim believer were elected to that same position and therefore wanted to apply Islamic Sharia Law in the same capacity?  We’d have a problem with that, wouldn’t we?

Alas such arguments obviously mean nothing to her.  And I am not surprised.   But the real argument I would have as a person who shares her faith in the Living Lord, Jesus Christ, is that she is fighting the wrong battle for the wrong reason.  Rather than being a positive and loving witness to the grace and mercy of God as found in the Lord and Savior, Jesus the Christ, she is coming across as arrogantly self-righteously judgmental, ungracious, unmerciful, and condemning.

It is clear that she believes herself to be a kind of martyr for her faith, willing to go to jail for her beliefs.  However, if she is willing to make such sacrifices, she should merely resign from her position and thus sacrificially lose her job as a statement of her faith and convictions.  She is mixing up Secular State authority with Kingdom of God Theocratic authority.

The State is not asking her to deny her faith in God, nor is it asking her to renounce her commitment to Christ.  However, the State is asking her to do something that she believes is condoning of immoral behavior—homosexual marriage.  In that case, to be consistent with her convictions, she must resign working for the State altogether. 

The United States of America is NOT equivalent to the Kingdom of Christ.  It is a secular government, run by human beings, not Christ and his angels.  We Christians are IN the world but not OF the world.  The U.S. does not belong to Christian Evangelicals, nor does it belong to Muslims who may wish to apply Sharia Law.  Thankfully we have religious freedoms and religious rights as to our faith practices and beliefs.  But they are not guaranteed as long as we live in the world but are not of the world (My Kingdom is not of this world, said Jesus; see the Gospel According to John chapter 17).

It is interesting that the Apostle Paul had this to say about unbelievers choosing to live lives that are contrary to Biblical mandates: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexual immoral persons—not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world….  For what have I to do with judging those outside….  God will judge those outside.”  See 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.

Paul makes a clear distinction between those inside and those outside the Fellowship—believers versus non-believers in Christ.  Non-Believers will live and do according to their unbelief.  That’s all there is to it.  Christians must simply accept this.  In such an environment Christians are to be the salt of the earth and light of the world to bear witness to a better way, the Way of Christ.  See 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, where Paul summarizes his motives and says, “I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.  I do it all for the sake of the Gospel.”

It seems to me that Kim Davis is not doing this “for the sake of the Gospel.”  Rather she is engaging in a power struggle with the State and with unbelievers.  She seems more concerned about her personal self-asserting rights than about her witness for the Gospel that she might save some—perhaps the very people with whom she’d come in contact, but for her refusal to respectfully serve in her role as County Clerk.  The point is that one need not have to agree with non-Believers in order to serve them or to live side-by-side with them or to respect them.  Respect is a two way street.

But Kim Davis is showing neither respect for the law (regarding a Supreme Court ruling), nor respect for persons who have no conviction or ownership of her faith.  Ideally she could give witness to her faith and love for Christ by, let’s say, volunteering to care for and serve those who are dying of AIDS and because of this have been abandoned by their own family and friends.  Then shall the love and grace of Christ penetrate what may once have been a hardened heart to the mercy of God.  Now THAT is living by ones faith in the Grace of God, by the mercy of Christ, in the power of His Spirit!

Must We Have Only Polarized Candidates?

Imagine if the presidential race came down to Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton, a wild card versus same-old, same-old.

There are many who would hate the idea of a Hillary Clinton becoming our next president.  They are those who have nothing good to say about Hillary, period.  They oppose her because they simply can’t stand her.  I’m not one of those.  Nevertheless, neither am I excited about her prospects for the presidency.

Regarding Hillary, I would make the following observation.  There is nothing new and refreshing about her.  Yes, people who have liked her from the beginning still like her.  But how many new fresh and young supporters has she won over, will she win over?  My guess is that she has added few wildly energetic and newly committed young devotees to her many supporters.  Again, I’m not saying this because I dislike her.  I’m simply making a personal observation.  As I see it, her campaign seems to create no positive—“Let’s go!  We can do this!  Go get them!”—excitement.  She has too much baggage, always needing to defend some past action or decision.  What’s worse is that those who can’t stand Obama see Hillary as nothing more than an Obama copy, an Obama double, despite their ethnic/gender differences.

Compared to Hillary, there are those who apparently see Donald Trump as fresh, raw, and relevant (so it would seem).  He is obviously scratching where people itch.  But, thus far, that’s all he does—scratches.  Far Right Wing Americans seem to like Trump’s nastiness, although they wouldn’t call it that.  They think that he’s simply being honest and direct.  Never mind that he actually acts like a bully.  And as most bullies do, he displays a lot of bravado with very little substance.  They like his spirit.  He’s got attitude.  And they like him for that.  It’s as if having a fighting spirit and an in-your-face attitude is all that’s needed for the making of a good president.

So, if it were a choice between Donald and Hillary, it would seem that we’d be left with a choice between two tiresome polarized extremes: the Far Right—which always seems to be angry, stubbornly self-righteous, politically recalcitrant, mean spirited and bullying.  Or the Far Left—which always seem to be wishy-washy and evasive, hard to pinpoint and pin down, seemingly with little or no hard-and-fast limits or boundaries, apparently making up their own rules as they go along.

Is there no candidate for mainstream America, the majority of Americans?  I would like to think that most Americans want reason and balance, and mutual respect.  Is it too much to ask for integrity in terms of message and process as well as in terms of outcome and results?  Is it too much to ask for practical wisdom in terms of vision as well as in terms applied specifics?  Must our choice come down to the two most opposite and most polarized candidates?  Where is the voice of moderation and balance?

Would that we had a candidate that displays the wisdom of a Solomon?  Would that we had a candidate that respects all Americans, left, right, and middle.  (But our electoral process seems to exclude such a possibility.)  Would that we had a candidate that had the ability to unite rather than divide, to include rather than exclude.  Would that we had a candidate who knew how to lift the many with little expense to the few rather than lift the few at great expense to the many.

Would that we were a people willing to face hard realities and deal with them accordingly.  Would that we were not a spoiled, selfish people that only think of our own comfort, ease, convenience, and wants at the expense of others and at the expense of our natural resources.  Alas, would that we were all more responsible as a people and were a people that truly cared about our nation’s unity and future and were willing to give-and-take, respecting our differences.  And finally, would that we were more interested in caring-for and preserving our nation’s natural resources rather than merely exploiting them so as to find appropriate means for energy consumption and are able to create new jobs that support such a value.  I could go on with the “would that’s,” but you get my point.

Forboding: July 2015, warmest July on record!!

How many still do not accept the evidential truth of global warming?

Why the truth-distortion in the first place?  Meaning, why has there been such an effort to deny and counter the scientific evidence of global warming?  Answer: money and business.

There is a real potential for loss of money.  Major investments in certain industries and businesses stand to lose much—if and when we ALL finally agree that our present lifestyle (of exploiting and consuming the earth’s natural resources without check) is doing real damage to the earth.  We’re talking about damage to the earth’s ability to properly sustain life.  Such admittance would call for major change in the way we use our natural resources and of course the way we live.

Here’s a simple truth: What is good for the earth, in the long run, is always good for business—always!  What is bad for the earth, in the long run, is always bad for business.  The problematic phrase is, “in the long run.”  It is a matter of time and timing.  Businesses and people don’t like to wait.  We want immediate and instantaneous gratification.  Today’s investment must turn into the next day’s profit; forget about waiting months, years, or even decades!

However, some of our most common work ethic clichés still carry the most fundamental truths that must not be ignored, such as, for example, “Haste makes waste.”  Or take for example, “Penny wise and Pound foolish”: Nitpicking to save a penny on small items while wasting big bucks (the English Pound Sterling) on huge pricy items.  That’s how we are treating the earth.  We are so interested in seeing immediate profits and savings now that we have become willfully foolish about the potential major losses we are causing later-generations down the road (or perhaps present generations here and now).  We continue to exploit the earth in the here and now and turn a blind eye to its long-term effect on earth’s future.  It is, in short, a very poor investment strategy.  As I’ve already mentioned in many other blog entries, fracking is just one fine example of this type of willful short-sighted approach that in the long-term is damaging earth’s life-sustainability factor.  That is, in terms of earth’s health and its natural resources, we are being penny wise and pound foolish.

All major industries and corporations should be thinking “green.”  Sure, it may cost us a pretty penny, at first.  Nevertheless, in the long run (in good time), going green should be profitable.  But we need to do our homework and ask serious questions like, “What is sustainable, renewable, and life-supporting?  What are we presently doing in our industries that is destructive, damaging, and unsustainable long-term?  How can we best make the transition?”

Perhaps not easily answered, these questions, yet we must answer them rightly, collectively, and honestly.  Thus far, most of us have been unwilling to bother.  Because, as always, with us humans, it won’t be until we’ve thoroughly damaged and used up our precious resources that we’ll begin to unite in a concerted effort to save and/or restore them.  Take for example our freshwater resources; we’ll finally realize that we need to put our minds together to find ways to preserve and protect our freshwater sources only when we’ve lost them; only then will we wish that we had invested in saving and preserving our freshwater resources from the beginning.

EPA Toxic Water Accident, More to Come!

The EPA accidentally released toxic sludge mine water into the Animus River in the State of Colorado, Friday, 7 August 2015.  It was an accident.  But it was an accident waiting to happen.  The toxic substance was already there, from previous years of gold mining at the “Gold King Mine,” apparently its source.

It makes me think of fracking.  Fracking continues to be defended as a supposedly safe and clean method for extracting precious oil deposits deep within subterranean rock beds.  Fracking oil companies claim to be environmentally conscientious.  Still, there can be no denying of the fact that this method produces serious wastewater; wastewater that must be contained over decades.  Fracking requires the use of water, lots of it, turning good water into toxic wastewater.  That’s just how it is.

WATER!  WATER!  WATER!  One cannot stress enough the importance of water!

Just consider the effect of drought in regions around the world, including our own State of California.  Yet, we continue to defend fracking—despite the fact that its very method necessitates the polluting of fresh water used in the process of fracking.

Because of our want of oil, we ignore the telltale signs.  Nothing is full proof.  Accidents will happen.  And all it takes is one accident to cause great damage beyond its original source.  We just won’t learn, will we?

Lead, arsenic, cadmium, copper, calcium, and other heavy metals contributed to the toxic wastewater that was released from the abandoned Gold King Mine.  We know that fracking water also has toxic ingredients.  But we don’t know what they all are.  Fracking companies refuse to inform the public of the full ingredients, what fracking chemicals and toxic substances they put into the fracking water.  All we know is that they definitely do put toxic stuff into this water that is bad for human consumption, such that the water becomes absolutely undrinkable!  Do we even care about this?

Fracking businesses want less governmental oversight.  They wish to block accountability legislation.  They hope to avoid having to answer to local homeowners and communities that are directly affected by fracking activities.  And when these fracking companies are done?  What?  They’ll simply move on, leaving behind the so-called “contained” toxic wastewater for future generations to cleanup.  For, it is a sure bet that there will most certainly be unintentional and accidental spills, seepages, and leaks down the road.  It’s a given!

Future news flash: “Toxic sludge fracking water was accidentally released into a once pristine water source.  It was an accident.  But it was an accident waiting to happen.  The toxic substance was already there, from previous years of intense fracking.  The water is no longer viable for life.  It will take years to cleanup.”

Donald Trump: Side Show On Center Stage

Apparently Thursday night’s GOP presidential debate was the most viewed ever.  I heard that there were 24 million who viewed it.  What made it so popular?  Sadly, it was the entertainment factor—Donald Trump!

He’s a side show to the main event.  I’m sure that few Americans really believe that Donald Trump has a serious chance at becoming the 45th president of the United States of America.  Yet, there he is on center stage, as if!  Why?

Yes, of course he’s “hit a nerve.”  Yes, of course, he speaks his mind.  Yes, of course, he dismisses political correctness.  Yes, indeed, he’s entertaining.  But is that what we want from our presidential debates—entertainment?!

What about substance, content, information?  What about concrete and practical ideas with substantial action-plans reflecting actual steps for implementation?  What about means to ends and/or statements that can be evaluated as to their potential applicability and viability?  I heard none of that from Mr. Trump.

Our nation has the largest economy in the world, a position which China aims to overtake.  What will be his approach to China’s growing economic and military strength?  We have serious national internal social issues (poverty, racism, a shrinking middle class, a deteriorating infrastructure, tax inequality, class wars and culture wars, a clash of traditional values with progressive values, to name a few).  How does he plan to unify us?  Global warming is real.  How does he plan to inspire our nation’s businesses and manage our nation’s resources so that we stand strong and become a leading nation for adaptation and innovation in the face of global warming’s effects?  The Middle East is just one locale in the world’s international scene where instability reigns and conflict is raw and explosive, endangering whole regions.  How easily, how readily, how willingly will Trump use American might to attempt to control these regions and at what cost, to what end, and for what kind of outcome?

When pressed for real detailed and concrete answers to such questions, it is clear that Trump is nothing more than awkwardly evasive at best and stubbornly caustic and offensive at worse.  He has no idea.  Yet, as reflected by the ratings from last Thursday evening’s GOP presidential debate, Americans still love to hear what he has to say.

How foolish we are.  We want our ears tickled.  We listen with our emotions.  We’re fickle.  We are also all or nothing, black and white thinkers.  We want everything to be so easy and so simple.  “Don’t get too complex on us” is what we effectively say to our politicians.  “Dumb it down,” is the message.  So, if our politicians are too serious, if they are too cool and reserved and too willing to see “both sides of the issue” with all its complexities and/or logical contradictions, we’ll have none of it.  We want muscle not smarts, brawn not brains, ego not wisdom, shallow celebrity rather than cerebral intellect.

But of course, Trump has a point.  We do need to stop this “political correctness” nonsense and learn to speak plainly and forthrightly, to speak our minds; but do so with complete respect for those with whom we speak, even if they are our opponents.  But no, we Americans like a good fight.  So we’re all too ready to see respect and politeness go by the wayside.  Again, we like to be entertained.  And besides, we’re lazy thinkers.  We don’t want our politicians to make us think too hard.

This is why Donald Trump has been given center stage and has been so popular in the ratings—for now.  He’s a good side show; he’s good entertainment as we begin to warm up for the real serious stuff ahead of us.

Our current issues seem more troublesome and more critically urgent than ever before, in the history of humanity?  (Is that an overstatement?)  So, will we elect a man or woman that has the depth of wisdom, the breadth of knowledge, the sharp skills and the quality of character, the expansive insight, the inner equilibrium and outer strength to lead well?  Let’s hope so.  But having the likes of a Donald Trump sharing the stage with other presidential hopefuls sure makes me wonder.

What Should Prison—Doing Time—Accomplish?

An ex-convict will say: “I did my time.  I paid my debt to society.  Now give me a break.  Let me start over, with a clean slate.”

But it seldom happens that way.  After all, an “ex-convict” is exactly that, an ex-CONVICT!  So, they pay the price over and over and over again.  They become unemployable—who wants to hire an ex-convict?  How can they be trusted?

What do we expect of our prisons?

You probably have given this little thought.  What about our prisons and our prison system?  What do we expect should happen to prison inmates, while they do time in our state and federal prisons?

Here are some thoughts about the purpose of prisons: Prison is punishment.  Prison is retribution.  Prison is protection, taking the bad guy out of mainstream society for its safety.  Prison is a reformatory, reforming the criminal.  Prison is a correctional institution, straightening-out the crooked.  Prison is a penitentiary—where the guilty becomes penitent and does penance for wrong doing.  Prison is a training-ground for crime, a school for scandal, hardening already hardened criminals.  Prison is for bad people, really, really bad people, evil types, reserved for the scum of the earth, low-level sub-human types that are worse than animals and should be treated as such.

So, what do you think?  What should a prison system accomplish?  How should inmates be treated, and to what extent and at what cost?

Perhaps you think that only hard-hearted and cold-blooded murderous types are in our prison system, like rapists and child-molesters and murderers.  And perhaps you think that they are getting exactly what they deserve.  And perhaps you also assume that “they will never change.”  And so, it is only right that they should lose ALL rights-and-privileges that society has to offer.

It’s more complicated than that.  Not everyone in our prison system is evil in the worst sense of the word. 

Is there no redemption?  Are there no second chances?  Do people never change?  Is the law always fair and just?  Are all criminals nothing more than throw-away human trash, worthless and useless?  Are all victims pure and innocent?  Is all law-enforcement equal, just, fair and equitable?  Is there no such thing as salvation, spiritual transformation, and the renewal of the soul?

Our prison system needs serious attention.  We are housing more “criminals” than ever before in our history.  Would that justice were a simple black and white matter; would that it were only a matter of identifying evil people, and sending them off to prison for life.

It’s not that simple.  And it’s not that easy.  There are more common people in our prisons than we’d like to admit.  I say common to mean people like you and me, people whose character-profile fit the general population of any society—neither viciously evil nor angelically innocent; most of us fall somewhere in-between.  We are neither angels nor devils.  We are human.  We all have our weaknesses, common human flaws and failures and short-comings.  Only a small percentage of any population is guilty of heinous death-deserving crimes.  And no one in any society is worthy of claiming absolute purity and innocence.

Why do we need to change our prison system and our prison policies?

First there is the racial/minority aspect.  Blacks and other minorities (like Hispanics) far outnumber the prison population in contradistinction to their percentage as represented in the general population.  So, for example, many studies have shown that for the same crime committed, the same illegal action, the same broken law, more often than not, whites are given a break and/or are given a much lighter sentencing than are blacks.

Then there is the cost aspect.  In the name of getting tough on crime (like the famous “three strikes and you’re out,” approach to crime), we are throwing more lives into prison than ever before.  Yet, what have we gained from this?  We have higher prison maintenance and building costs, more disrupted families, and less of a sense of safety and security in our neighborhoods.  Not to mention more deeper and longer lasting hatred and animosity between whites and blacks.  Our present prison policy/justice system is not working for us.

I must ask again.  Do we believe in redemption?  Criminals!  Does “locking them up and throwing away the key” really solve our society’s crime problem?  Does it get at the root cause of crime?  A man does wrong, commits a crime.  Is he now human trash to be thrown-away for good?  Is he totally beyond help, completely irredeemable?  To redeem something is to buy back; it is to repair and restore, to put value back into something that was thought worthless and useless.  How would you react if you were treated as totally worthless trash for a wrong you’ve committed?  Wouldn’t you like a second chance, a chance for redemption?

You know, it is far cheaper to redeem and restore a person than it is to keep a person locked up.  Why pay for their clothing, housing, food; why maintain a person in prison at tax-payer’s expense, if they are in fact redeemable.  For example, people get upset if they hear about special educational programs for inmates in prison (let’s say, crafts, skilled labor training, or even music and art) that might provide an inmate new skills or a new appreciation for a better way of life.  Why?  They believe that a criminal deserves nothing, no help, no support, no chance for redemption and renewal.  They prefer that a criminal pays dearly for what he/she’s done, and should not receive any help or aid or beneficial support at all.  Period!  Yet such an attitude and approach is counter productive and actually leads to more recidivism and more criminality.  It all comes from refusing to believe-in, accept, or appreciate the value of redemption.

So what do we really want to accomplish by filling our prison with so many non-hardcore men and women who commit non-violent crimes?  Is it not more constructive to treat their addictions and to give them better opportunities so that they can “make it” in life—giving them a chance to redeem themselves?