Gots iPhone Money?

I held off as long as I could. You knew it was coming. Here it finally is ... THE iPHONE RANT!

I am among the millions of Americans who have invested large parts of their lives into the hunt for the ever-elusive iPhone 4. My journey toward wireless phone nirvana has been a long and treacherous one filled with clamshells and candy bars, Missing Sync and eternal contracts. Fully four years after the release of the first iPhone, I was finally in the perfect position to bag one. My Verizon contract expired in May; the new release was due in June. I was as giddy as a geek at WWDC. Little did I know my quest was far from over and I would have to endure retail travails not seen since Tickle Me Elmo before I could pierce the Apple veil and lay hold of the sacred circuitry.

I won't detail all of those hardships because to do so would produce a tome worthy of Tolkien and probably crash Wordpress servers. But I will mention that it would have been handy for Apple to let people know that Family Talk plans cannot be ordered via their website. And to the manager of the Southlake Apple store who sought to reassure all 200 of us by saying that his team had almost gotten the duration of each transaction down to seven minutes: Sorry man. You looked cool in your cargo manpris. But we were not reassured.

All of this has got me thinking (and now writing) about Apple, iPhone, Steve Jobs and Just Bieber. And I've come to the following conclusions about the (now) most valuable technology company in the world.

1. Apple: if they weren't so dang good, they'd be bad.

Apple is on the verge of making a classic branding blunder and the only thing, in my opinion, keeping them from shooting themselves in the PR foot is that they're so good at what they do. The problem is, they're losing sight of what they do.

Five years ago, if you had asked any random man on the street (henceforth to be referred to as "Streetman") what Apple does, he would have said, "Oh, they make iPods."

Ten years ago, Streetman would have said, "Apple? You mean like IIe? Yeah, we had those in school. I dunno."

Twenty years ago, Streetman would have said, "They make computers."

Today, Streetman might say, "They make and sell gadgets."

The devilish detail Streetman has given us is not in the ever-shifting Apple product line. It's in the subtle insertion of the words "and sell."

(Thank you Streetman. You may put your branded white earphones back in now and continue on your way.)

I understand the reasons Apple decided to get into the retail business a few years ago. Namely, no one wanted to sell their stuff and no one who did sell their stuff could answer questions about it. But now that Apple has seemed to clear those hurdles, I think staying in the retail business only hurts them. After all, what can you do at an Apple store that you can't do at other stores? (Save for getting ideas for where to get your next body piercing.)

Apple is not a retail company at heart. At heart, they are a technology company. By launching into the retail marketplace, and then Bogarting product launches to the point of overwhelming themselves, they are moving dangerously close to messing up the heart of their business.

Apple makes the best consumer electronics in the world. They should stick with that. They don't make the best retail machine in the world. Wal-Mart has that one cornered.

Now, I am not one to just point out problems without offering solutions. Here's my solution: Apple would be wise to seek out the best retail partner to help them with sales and delivery. A big one. One with a stellar logistics machine. One that can handle product launches with 1.7 million sales the first weekend. After all, the best of both worlds would be to purchase the best product in its class (iPhone) from the best store in its class (Best Buy?).

2. Steve Jobs: has just taken a bite of hot chili

My high school ag teacher (yes, I went to a school with an "ag" class) used to say that certain mistakes were like taking a bite of hot chili: whatever you do next is wrong. Jobs has backed himself into a similar corner. Based on the blundered release of iPhone 4 (not to mention the "just don't hold it that way" issue), I see only three possibilities:

1. Stevo and his friends are enormously humble. "Oh, we had no idea so many people would like what we make. I mean, we just do it for the love of the game. We weren't really expecting people to line up like that to buy this stuff. We're humbled and thankful."
2. Steve and company are enormously short-sighted. Maybe they rushed the launch? Maybe they had production delays they didn't want to make public? For whatever reason, they might have just decided, "Meh, we're going to sell out and make people wait, but who cares? We'll be alright."
3. They are incompetent at retail. A friend of mine tried gamely to come to Apple's defense in this iPhone4 bungle by saying, "Can you imagine what would happen if millions of people started lining up at Office Depot to buy toner? They'd sell out too." I think a lot of Apple defenders take this view. But the effective rebuttal is obvious. If Office Depot had four years to figure out their toner supply chain, I guarantee they would figure out a way to stock enough, sell enough, and deliver enough so that people weren't asked to order online and wait three weeks for shipping. The difference, of course, is that Office Depot has to compete with other stores who carry toner. Apple can afford to be laissez faire about sales because no one can compete with their product. And by hoarding the launch for a week, they ensured that no one was allowed to compete with their stores.

I guess the bottom line is that they flubbed up, but they can afford to. I and millions like me are sticking with them because for all of the headache involved in the delivery of their product, I'd rather endure the headache to get a phone and then enjoy it than get a phone easily with a BOGO coupon and then spend the next two years screaming at it. That's why I paid more for the Mac I'm using to write this. It's why I'll wait two weeks for an iPhone.

If you're waiting with me for you online order to arrive in seven to 10 business days, may the force be with you.

Getting My Head Around John's Beheading

This morning I read the passage about the beheading of John the Baptist. I let the scene sink in a little more than I usually do. And I was repulsed. If it has been a while since you took a minute to sort through the details of that story, take a minute. But be warned: it's not a feel-good story.

The main player is Herod and here's what we know about him. He's a tetrarch which means he's a governor of some sort. Mark's gospel gives him the title King. He's a powerful man. He is married to his sister-in-law Herodias. John has pointed out to him that he probably shouldn't have taken his sister-in-law in marriage and so Herod has put John in prison. He would have preferred to kill him on the spot for pointing out his sin, but Herod didn't get to be tetrarch without some craft. He knows that wouldn't be a savvy political move. Instead, he'll just let John rot in prison.

For her part, Herodias seems just as depraved as Herod. She, too, is murderously angry at John for pointing out her sin.

So that's the situation with this royal family when we pick up the scene in Matthew 14. What happens next is even more sordid.

Herod is having a birthday party. Probably not an ice cream social. Mark says he invited many powerful men to a banquet. There was much food and girls dancing. The modern equivalent is pretty easy to see. Imagine our president treating his cronies to a good time a local strip club. We don't know the nature of the dancing or who performed, but we know that at least one dancer was particularly popular. The text says "she pleased Herod and his dinner guests."

Now I'm a recovering Baptist so I know what it means to assume that all dancing is suggestive. I don't do that. I don't mind dancing at times. But given the hints in the text, I don't think it's out of the question to assume that Herod wasn't pleased at the cleanness of her lines and the strength in her pose. We're not talking Ballet Folklorico here. My guess is that Herod was pleased by a lurid dance from his stepdaughter and pleased to share that lust with his buddies.

Then Herod makes an astounding promise. As a reward for her dance, he offers to give his stepdaughter anything she asks for - up to half his kingdom. Why would he do that? I can imagine a few reasons.

First, this is the reptilian impulse to contact and control the object of his lust, and to do so in front of his peers who might also have designs on her. He's flirting.

And he's showing off. What better way to impress your friends than give extravagant gifts? Besides, what could this girl possibly ask for? She'll want a bauble or a new room. Maybe a pony. She's inconsequential. We know Herod was a savvy politician. He would never make such an offer to a worthy adversary who might threaten his riches or power. But the girl is just a plaything. She won't have the mind to ask for anything that might truly cost him.

So Herod makes the promise which gives Herodias the opportunity to add violence and revenge to the list of improprieties in this story. She tells her daughter to ask for John's head on a plate. Herod, of course, grants the request because he can't be seen to back down in front of his buddies. Plus, a good beheading might serve as the perfect crescendo for a lovely evening with friends celebrating his birthday.

Besides the profanity of this story, two things stick out to me.

First of all, this is how John the Baptist dies? It's ignoble! It's sad. It seems like such a waste that the great herald of salvation comes to a pitiful end on the whim of an adulterer and a stripper.

But the hardest thing to face about this passage is our tendency to be just like Herod. I've been in his shoes: guilty of sin, aware of my sin, confronted by someone, and bitter at them. How many of us, if we had the power, wouldn't likewise imprison our accusers even if we knew they were right? We do it all the time - imprison them behind emotional or relational bars, accuse them wrongly out of spite. No, we probably aren't carousing as openly as Herod, but he comes to that end after making a start in unrepentance. Repentance is incredibly hard. Unrepentance is natural and easy. But Herod demonstrates that the easy way leads down a path of debauchery and violence and death.

In Defense of Fairy Tales

I have a different take than many on this cartoon getting passed around the interwebz. I think the cartoon is pretty funny, but I also think it's message is just as misguided as the Disney Princesses it derides. Here's why.

Put simply, it is good and natural and healthy and beautiful for a girl to have this desire to be attractive. I have a six-year-old daughter. She wants to be noticed. When she was two she started dressing up. I didn't teach her that. It's innate. And it doesn't go away no matter how much we praise her for what's inside versus what's outside.

Stasi Eldredge makes this idea abundantly clear in her book Captivating. Women and girls long to be captivating. They want to be noticed. My daughter is terrible at hide-and-seek, not because she doesn't know when I can't see her, but because she doesn't want to be hidden. If I don't find her in the first 10 seconds, she makes herself known. She wants to be found. And she wants the finder to be the object of her affection. She doesn't care so much if the neighbor finds her hunkered behind the shrubs. She wants me to find her.

Now, here's the disclaimer: Has our culture emphasized physical beauty too much? Absolutely. Has our society confined physical beauty to one narrow definition (this color eyes, that shaped body, etc.)? Yes. Is Barbie or Bratz or Disney Princesses giving our daughters unreal expectations of what they should look like? For sure. And do many of our little girls continue to pursue those unhealthy avenues toward getting "noticed" into adulthood? Sadly, yes.

But I contend that there's a reason for that and it's not a Disney conspiracy to make money or steal our daughters' innocence. Disney has made all that money because they found a theme that works. And the theme works because little girls love fairy tales. And little girls love fairy tales because they long to be captivating.

Couldn't we offer the same objection to our own favorite films? Should we complain that Braveheart encourages men to be violent? That Gladiator promotes revenge? That Saving Private Ryan glorifies war? We could, but we'd be missing the point. Those stories don't appeal to men because our culture has trained us so. They appeal to men because they call to something we're born with - something deep and unspoken that tells us we were made for something epic. Something that asks if we have what it takes. Something that makes us long to be brave and strong and offer that strength to a beauty.

I understand that fairy tales are fairy tales. No real girl can look as good as Arial. I mean, c'mon! And no real guy will ever fight a wicked sea witch and defeat her by sheer force of valor and his love for his maiden. It's a fairy tale! But the fairy tale shows us a glimpse of what can be - of the larger story that we can be a part of. Fairy tales, whether they intend to be or not, are visual metaphors for adventures that are available to us all. I can be found brave and strong and offer that strength to my wife, even if our enemy manifests in debt or bitterness rather than sea witches mean stepsisters. And she can be beautiful and captivating even if that doesn't mean fin surgery or 1,000 year naps.

Sure, it would be foolish for us to teach our daughters that blond hair and skinny legs are their highest goals in life. But it's equally foolish to deride fairy tales because they don't look like our day-to-day lives. The solution to this problem is not to disdain fairy tales. It's to offer a better story. It's to teach our little girls that they can be beautiful, no matter what their dress size. It's to teach them to look for men who will offer them strength and sacrifice, not take from them in weakness and selfishness.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think my little princess needs me to rescue her from some dragons in the back yard. Where did I leave that sword...

Unplugging

The Matrix was on TV last weekend and I plopped on the couch and watched part of it. I doubt the Wachowski brothers were making a statement of faith with that film, but it's hard to miss the parallels (for more on that, there are a ton of books, one of which I once owned, never got around to reading, and eventually sold in a garage sale.) The most meaningful metaphor for me is the Matrix itself. It's a fake world. A sham. An elaborate deception based on a former reality.

It's been a busy Spring. My company has had several very time-sensitive projects plus we've been busy with kid activities, church stuff, etc. And we've been sick a fair bit this spring. All of that combined has kept me "plugged in" more than is healthy. I have to get out of the Matrix often - and for at least a half hour at a time - to really get the stench off of me. To really see the Matrix for what it is. Otherwise, it starts to seem real. And important.

So after the movie I unplugged for a bit. Felt good. That's it. Gonna go unplug now.

Faith & Fandom

I want so much to fix Tiger Woods and Jennifer Knapp, don't you? I have been a fan of both. Have seen both of them peform live. Loved both shows. I've bought their records and the merchandise. Tried to swing like one and play guitar like the other. I'm a fan. And now I'm facing what every fan has to face eventually - the object of our fandom is broken. Tiger is not a Jedi. Jennifer is not an angel. They struggle. They're broken.

It's hard to have anything new to say about either case. I can't condemn either for their brokenness, nor can I dismiss their sin as unimportant. Like Professor Barry Jones says, "Sin is a big deal to God." The tricky part is how to respond as a fan.

First, let me say I think it would actually be easier to respond to them if I were a friend and not a fan. At least it would be easier to know how to respond. Carrying through would be tougher. How would you respond if a friend of yours confessed sexual sin to you? Before you answer, remember you've been there. You've had sin to confess before. Have you ever trusted a brother or sister with it? Have you trusted the whole world with it?

I think it would be easier to respond to Tiger or Jennifer if I was in community with them. I'd give them a hug. I'd cry with them. And I would try to do the really hard thing of facing the sin with them - of telling them that what they've done does not reflect the heart and character of God. I would hold hands with them and pray and ask God for healing and clarity and redemption. And then we'd meet for breakfast at Corner Bakery every Friday and have to answer the question, "How is God redeeming your sexuality?" I would invest. I would carry burdens with them. That's how we do things in the Church. And actually I think we're pretty good at it. For all the mishandling that makes news (I'm looking at you, Pat Robertson), I know many cases of loving restoration, including my own, that never get reported.

But I am not Tiger's friend, or Jennifer's. So I have to decide how to react from a distance. Do I stand on principle and cheer for bogeys? Burn Kansas? Or do I go buy some tickets to show that I believe in forgiveness?

I don't know. If I'm gut-level honest, I have to confess that I'm skeptical of their repentances. Tiger's seemed forced, and Jennifer doesn't seem to think there's anything to repent of. I have a lot of thoughts about both - about how soon I expect Tiger to start carousing again; about how Jennifer seems misguided in her Christianity Today interview. Those thoughts are actually why I started writing this entry. I have piping hot opinions about their restorations and, in Knapp's case, about defense of the truth. But, it turns out, I can't issue those opinions. At least not with any genuineness. And not to anyone but Tiger and Jennifer.

In fact, I think to do so would be sinful on my part because who am I to judge that? I can't tell you if Tiger is sincere. And I can't tell you if Jennifer is using smoke screens or really struggling to understand scripture. And I would certainly be hurt if someone who doesn't know me decided to start scoring my confessions as if they issued passing grades for contrition. I've got my own plank to worry about and even if I didn't, I wouldn't be qualified to know their hearts. God judges the heart. We have to live with skin and bones. And that - especially the skin part - really seems to mess us up.

Puking Prayer

Warning: This post is not for those with feeble stomachs...

The past 36 hours have been pretty rough at the Sanders home. This weekend, all four of us were hit with the same nasty stomach bug. On Sunday night, three of us (me, Christine and Bethany) were shooting off one after the other like geysers in Yellowstone. I counted 15 barfs in the span of 30 minutes. I'm thinking of calling Guinness.

But the barfing also taught me something about prayer.

Sunday night's trouble started with Christine. Just before the kids bedtime, she grabbed a barf bucket, collapsed on the couch and said she felt queasy. Being the spiritual giant that I am, I paused the Mavericks game and said a quick little prayer for her.

Lord, please heal Christine's tummy. I pray she'll get some rest tonight and feel better in the morning. Amen.

That was at 7 p.m. By 9 p.m. Bethany and I had both thrown up several times and I felt I had already met my annual quota of gallons-of-pizza-barf-cleaned-up. The Mavs lost and we all went to bed, each with our own bedside bucket.

This particular stomach bug was not only strong, it was punctual. For the rest of the night, we awoke at exact one-hour intervals. Every hour on the hour someone was puking. 11 p.m. Midnight. 1 a.m. 2 a.m. 3 a.m. 4 a.m. 5 a.m. All within 11 minutes of the top of the hour. Uncanny. The constant interruptions were not good for our rest or our recovery but somewhere around 3 a.m. I realized they were good for our prayers.

Lord Jesus, please come and heal us quickly. Just as you had mercy on Jairus, just as you had mercy on the centurion, please have mercy on us now. Heal us and our children. Remove this disease from our household and any foul spirit set against us, and we will praise you for it. We pray in the name and the power of Jesus Christ. Amen.

I prayed a radically different prayer at 3 a.m. than I did at 7 p.m. With my guts in a tangle and my head worried about my little girl getting dehydrated, I was much more invested, and willing to sacrifice much more than pausing the game to get an answer. I was getting desperate.

And that's when it hit me: I was praying down angels because of a stomach bug. My tummy hurt. I had to take some Pepto and clean up some mess. I cannot even imagine what Matt Chandler's prayers are like right now. Or Andy McQuitty's. Or Melinda Wells'. I had a tiny taste of desperation and I prayed with much more urgency. Lord, teach us to be pained by what pains you and pray with urgency for your healing in the world.

2010

In 2010, I want to:
create more
stress less
write
design for purpose
play
play at work


I want to value:
glory of god
providence of god
redemption
ministry to poor


i want to work on:
telling stories
creating beauty
making my way


I want to engage projects and clients that are:
globally aware
personally satisfying

Remember Me?

Just felt like blogging for some very random reason today. And so here are a few very random things on my mind this morning:

1. I love crisp, cool mornings. I really don't want to be inside right now.
2. I love March Madness. I really don't want to be working right now.
3. I have a funny habit of looking at my feet after I saw hi to someone in passing. I don't know why, but if I walk past you on the sidewalk or something, I'll say, "Hi" or "Mornin'" or "Sup" and then immediately look down. Seems weak and sheepish of me. Don't know why I do that.
4. Talking with some close friends over breakfast this morning and I realized that I'm always saying the same thing - that our walk with Christ is not about behavior but about relationship, passion, desire. That the fruit of the spirit is FRUIT - byproduct. Will I ever get tired of making that point or hearing it made?

I read this quote by Thomas Merton this morning and really liked it.

Is there any vestige of truth left in our declaration that we think for ourselves? Or do we even trouble to declare this any more? Perhaps the man who says he “thinks for himself” is simply one who does not think at all; because he has no fully articulate thoughts, he thinks he has his own incommunicable ideas. Or thinks that, if he once set his mind to it, he could have his own thoughts. But he just has not got around to doing this. I wonder if “democracies” are made up entirely of people who “think for themselves” in the sense of going around with blank minds which they imagine they could fill with their own thoughts if need be.
Well, the need has been desperately urgent, not for one year or ten, but for fifty, sixty, seventy, a hundred years. If, when thought is needed, nobody does any thinking, if everyone assumes that someone else is thinking, then it is clear that no one is thinking either for himself or for anybody else. Instead of thought, there is a vast, inhuman void full of words, formulas, slogans, declarations, echoes – ideologies! You can always reach out and help yourself to some of them. You don’t even have to reach at all. Appropriate echoes already rise up in your mind – they are “yours.” You realize of course that these are not yet “thoughts.” Yet we “think” these formulas, with which the void in our hearts is provisionally entertained, can for the time being “take the place of thoughts” – while the computers make decisions for us.

A few months ago I critiqued a book on this blog by Susan Jacoby called The Age of American Unreason. My assertion was that the author’s idea that Americans’ use of common language was a signal that Americans were getting dumber. For Jacoby, there seemed to be a correlation between the use of the word “folks” and the corporate IQ of the nation. I found that absurd.

So it may seem like a reversal now that I quote Merton saying the same sort of thing here. The thing is, when I first picked up Jacoby, I expected her to be onto something. I sensed, for reasons I couldn’t quite articulate, that America is getting dumber. I’ve sensed this for some time. It just seems like we are not a society of thinkers. Certainly not deep thinkers. I don’t have any real evidence to prove this suspicion. And I further suspect that if I were a better thinker I would have the capacity to identify some examples and articulate my point. But I think no one thinks. I suspect that less than half of the people I know generate original, critical thought on any regular basis (if you’re my friend and you’re reading this please assume you’re in the thoughtful minority).

But my duplicity is justified, I think, and not just because I have a lot more invested in Merton’s writings than in Jacoby’s, because I think Merton’s point is less about education and more about contemplation. Our Sunday school class this week was about margin – how in our finances and schedules we Americans have come to live without margin – without any room for error or rest. We heard Andy Stanley teach that good relationships happen in the margins, and I would assert that original thought happens there too. I don’t have time to think critically about things when I’m running from one meeting to the next.

And our whole society is like that because we’ve come to equate busy-ness with significance. If you’re an important person, you must be busy. I wonder if all of the important people in our government are too busy to think and “letting the computers make decisions.” I can’t imagine how my clients would react if I gave them an invoice with a line charge for “thinking time.”

And as I write these words, I’m running late so I have to stop. I suspect that there is more to think about here, but I don’t have time for it.

Gratitude

Just read a chapter in Erwin McManus's book Uprising about gratitude. McManus is kind-of wordy, but I've quoted a long portion of the chapter below because it's pretty insightful about how gratitude, forgiveness, optimism and wholeness are linked...

Forgiveness and gratitude are inseparable. When we receive forgiveness, we grow in gratefulness. When we grow in gratefulness, we are more willing to give forgiveness. Our ability to receive forgiveness is directly related to our willingness to give it. Beyond that our model for forgiveness is Jesus himself. Paul reminds us, “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

When we are grateful, we forgive freely. A direct benefit of gratitude is the freedom from bitterness. When we are grateful, we are not bound to grudges or vengeance. Gratitude enables us to be generous with love. Forgiveness is a significant part of this. When there is a deficit of love, there is also a reluctance to forgive. This is a significant dilemma for us in our journeys toward emotional well-being in that an unwillingness to forgive will circumvent the process of becoming whole.

In the same way that gratitude is intertwined with forgiveness, brokenness is often perpetuated by bitterness. It’s not that bitterness is the cause of our brokenness, but that bitterness will circumvent the healing process. What makes this even more complicate is that oftentimes a broken person is more than justified to be embittered. Sometimes when I hear the tragic stories and the horrific experiences others have gone through, it’s hard not to take on their offenses and become embittered with them. It’s not an easy thing to tell someone who has been deeply hurt that her own road to healing is to forgive those who hurt her.

Aside from the fact that offenders need forgiveness, to forgive is essential in the process of healing. You cannot remain embittered and find wholeness. Even when those who have hurt you neither seek forgiveness nor desire it, it is still necessary that we forgive. In a reminder that we should not grieve the spirit of God, the Scriptures call us to “get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Eph. 3:31-32). This passage beseeches us to replace bitterness with forgiveness. In a conversation between Peter and Simon the Sorcerer, Peter makes this assessment of Simon’s heart: “I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin” (Acts 8:23). When we forgive, it sets us and others free. Bitterness on the other hand holds us captive. When someone desires forgiveness, it is your gift to give out of the generosity of your spirit. Even if one does not desire your forgiveness, it is critical to be free from the bitterness that will enslave you.

Again, even as gratitude and forgiveness are inseparable, so are ungratefulness and bitterness. When we are grateful, we see and experience life with a healthy optimism. When we lack gratitude, we move toward pessimism and even cynicism. A ungrateful heart always see what’s wrong with life. The longer we live without gratitude, the more embittered we become. The more embittered we become, the more we find ourselves overwhelmed with depression. Bitterness in the end leads to hopelessness. If we are to enjoy lives of gratitude, we must break free from the gravitational pull of bitterness. For in the same way that gratitude leads to wholeness, bitterness will leave us shattered and broken. In this condition we will find ourselves unable to experience the life God dreams for us, and tat the same time we will leave others cut and bleeding as they press against our sharp edges.

Bitterness creates an illusion of control and power. Bitterness is a form of hate. It is anger facing backwards. When we are embittered toward someone, we hold him prisoner to an experience or action in the past. In our minds our bitterness hold him captive and does not allow him to move forward. The reality is that our bitterness traps no one but ourselves. If the offender genuinely seeks forgiveness, even when you are unwilling to give it, he or she is made free. The only person you keep trapped in yesterday when you are unwilling to forgive is yourself. If you remain bitter long enough, you will eventually move to despair. Bitterness requires that you live in the past; hope requires that you live for tomorrow. Gratitude not only allows you to enjoy the present, but keeps you looking forward to the future.

Contagious Laughter

In 1962, there was an outbreak of contagious laughter that infected hundreds of people and forced several schools to close in Tanzania and Uganda. I am not making this up. Read about it here or here.
Also, this is pretty funny:

If you've ever called for a point of order in church...

Christine and I invented a new comedy series this week that is sure to have evangelicals rolling in the aisles soon - and not from the Holy Ghost. With a nod to Jeff Foxworthy, let us suggest a few ways to know if you're a Southern Baptist.

• If you've ever done anything "in view of a call", you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever been upset about changing the name from "potluck" to "covered dish", you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If your church posts attendance on a big wooden board, you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've never sung a third verse, you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever asked God to bless "the gift and the giver", "this food and the hands that prepared it," or "this food to the nourishment of our bodies and our bodies to your service", you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever moved your letter, you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever voted in church, you might be a Southern Baptist.
• If you've ever checked a box verifying that you prayed, memorized scripture or brought your Bible to church, you might be a Southern Baptist.

These are the ones I can remember but there have got to be more. So jump in everyone! Let's get the "you might be a Southern Baptist" comedy series up and flying.

My one baseball post for the year

Ok, I'm not a baseball fan, but I listen to sports radio all the time and I haven't heard anyone make this point, so I'm going to make it.
Has anyone ever heard of major league baseball doing so many wacky things in preseason?

• Billy Crystal a Yankee for a day
• Opening day game in Japan
• And now some crazy game in LA with a left field fence about 3 steps behind the third baseman.

I just wondered if this looks like a desperate PR scramble to anyone but me: "Please forget Roger Clemens (et al) and think about Billy Crystal! He can't play, but at least now we can say that the league has one player who isn't juiced!

A Folksy Review

Christine and I had a "nerd date" this week. That's where we go to Borders and each pick out a book and a comfy chair. We read for about 10 minutes and then discuss what we read. Do we know how to party or what?

Anyway, this time I picked a book called The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby. The jacket said Americans are dumber than ever before and I have watched enough Jay Walking to think that might be true. But, it turns out, that's not Jacoby's point. Her point, as far as I could tell, is that we must be dumb because we elected a Republican president.

Admittedly, I only read the book for 10 minutes but I got a pretty good idea of Jacoby's thesis - enough to make me want to write a negative review. So here is a poorly-researched, yet passionately-delivered pan of The Age of American Unreason...

I started in Chapter 1 (why not?) where Jacoby laments about the "dumbing down" of public discourse. She uses the example of the word "folks" and points out how "folks" is used by news anchors and politicians and presidents with regularity and impunity. Jacoby thinks our society's use of colloquial language is proof of its ignorance. She asks us to image Abe Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson using a word like "folks."

I think Jacoby is absolutely right that American discourse has gotten considerably more informal and redundant in the past century. I don't think, for instance, that anyone among the current crop of presidential candidates really has anything new to say or says it with particularly powerful prose. But I don't think that's proof of an Ignorant America. Poor standardized test scores - falling American wages - these may be evidence of Americans becoming less educated. "Folks" is evidence of Americans becoming less formal.

So I skipped ahead to about the middle of the book to see if Jacoby would warm up to a more salient point. She didn't. Instead, she spent a few pages railing on Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia (hmm, a conservative. whadya know?) and his position on the law (did I mention he's on the Supreme Court?) and God (he's also a Christian).

Jacoby disagreed with Scalia's idea that the authority to govern, while of course must involve at least tacit approval from those governed, ultimately comes from God. Then Jacoby attacks Scalia's comments about capital punishment. She quotes a speech in which Scalia said that the more Christian a society is, the less problem it has with the death penalty because, to Christians, death is "no big deal." Jacoby found this appalling on the grounds that it would, indeed, be a big deal for those in such a society who aren't Christian. But wait - didn't Jacoby just argue that authority to govern arises solely from those governed? And in an imaginary country where the majority of those governed are Christians who support the death penalty, aren't they entitled to establish government in whatever manner they see fit? By arguing in the negative, isn't Jacoby appealing to some higher law than majority vote and therefore shooting her previous argument in the foot?

Those are the only two points I read and then it was time to hear about Christine's travel book (we've gotta check out Kilimanjaro!) Bottom line: I doubt that folks who think critically will enjoy reading Susan Jacoby.

Continuing On Now...

Ok, I'm really just posting something here to put the PaulTor debate behind us. But I do have two web giggles to pass along:
1. Go to YouTube and search for Chris Christmas Rodriguez. Then pop a can of Tab, sit back and enjoy the polyester.
2. When you're done voting for Chris to replace Santa this year, check out my friend Holly's blog here. The comment about toddlers "finding holes in themselves" made me wheez-laugh.

Heresy: The Sequel

I'm starting a new post, but I can't promise it will be good. We posted FORTY comments on the last one. It was starting to bog down. If you haven't wasted hours of your life with us arguing ridiculous points with Paul and Vic, here's a quick catch-up.

• Bob, a friend of mine, found this wacky site called The Path of Truth that is managed by two guys who claims to be the only two true Christians on Earth. The site claims that Kyle Lake, the Waco pastor who was electrocuted in his baptisery two years ago, died at the hand of God because he was a heretic.
• A very good friend of mine recently lost a close friend of his who was also a promising young minister of the Gospel. The "Path of Truth" site really ticked me off because it kind-of hit close to home with what my friend was going through. So I wrote a scathing review and emailed the purveyor of the site to respond.
• He did.
• A lot.
• His name is Paul Cohen. He has a buddy named Victor. They are sinless, omniscient and smart. Also really funny.
• We argued earnestly for a while. Paul and Vic are still earnest. I'm bored.

That pretty much catches you up. I'm sure there will be more banter. Enjoy.

Path of Truth?

A very close friend of mine just lost a very close friend of his - a young man in the prime of his life and ministry who was reaching people with the good news of God's grace. It's really hard to deal with and it reminds me of the story of Kyle Lake - the young Waco pastor who was electrocuted in his baptistry two years ago.

In discussing these events, another friend of mine sent me a link to a website called "The Path of Truth" which included an article about Kyle Lake that I've quoted below. I really don't know why I'm taking the time to refute this guy. Heaven knows I'd have my hands full if I decided to debate every quack that has a website. But I guess just because of what my friend is going through, this one really got me hot under the theological collar.

The guy's name is Paul Cohen and his basic assertion is that if you're walking in the fear of the Lord, then nothing bad will ever happen to you. It's clearly a well-constructed argument with plenty of scripture, church history and gray matter to back it up. Below is a quote from a pretty long article on his site and then a short rant from me. :)

What Jesus said, and what He is saying for those with ears to hear, is that God is over all events, and if you are walking in the fear, or reverence, of Him, you can trust Him entirely. Indeed, it is your duty to entrust yourself to Him. If however, you are walking in the fear of man, which is denying Christ before men, then Christ will also deny you before the Father in Heaven. Then you will be subject to the sudden and violent endings to life in this realm that are your inheritance from "the Fall"

Gosh, how this makes me crazy! Let us count the ways...

First, he mishandles scripture. The verse he quotes in this article (Mtt. 10:29) doesn't say that the Lord causes the fall of every sparrow that falls to the ground. It says no sparrow falls to the ground apart from the will of the Lord. Thinking people understand the distinction.

Second, I guess what Cohen is saying is that Kyle Lake - a pastor, whose career and passion was declaring the truth and teaching the word of God - was denying Christ before men. I guess that's what he was doing in the baptistry that day - denying Christ. I guess that's how people's lives were touched by his ministry of denying Christ. I guess that's why he stood in a pulpit and spoke publicly and led a church - because it was a good way to deny Christ.

According to Cohen (and I really don't even have to extend his logic to this conclusion; he actually asserts this himself), if we are walking in fear and reverence for God, then nothing bad will happen to us - least of all death! I can think of quite a few Christian leaders who would disagree with that position. The short list would include Joseph, Daniel, Job, Jesus, Paul, Peter, Polycarp, Bonhoeffer, Cassie Bernall, and a brother from Gaza named Rami who was kidnapped and killed Saturday night because of his faith. According to Cohen, these people were killed because the Son had denied them to the Father. Maybe I should find Cohen's address, vandalize his house, and then stand in the front yard and declare, "Sorry, Paul. Guess you weren't walking in the fear of the Lord."

But even if his assertion weren't patently wrong, it would still miss the point. That is that God doesn't save us from bad things - including death. He never promised to. In fact, he promised just the opposite. ("In this world, you will have trouble.") If Paul Cohen is trusting Jesus to save him from death or accidents or difficult circumstances, I'm afraid he's in for disappointment. As for me, I'm not trusting God to keep hardship from coming my way. In fact, I'm trusting him to send hardship in my life so that I can know him more. Like Paul said, "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings."

There's plenty more fuzzy-headed stuff on "The Path of Truth" to rant about, but I'll quit for now. Partly because I want this post to be about upholding the truth and correcting it in a brother and - to be honest - I'm getting way too much pleasure out of bashing this guy.

Anyway, I've emailed the guy and invited him to discuss his position on this blog (his website doesn't allow for feedback/comments). We'll see...

Romney. Stealing. Period.

As of today, I am claiming credit for whatever success Mitt Romney's presidential campaign brings. I just saw a TV spot with this slogan:

Mitt Romney
Strong. New. Leadership.

Years ago, I created a tagline for Irving public schools:

Irving ISD
Growing. Strong. Learners.

The beauty of the above slogan is its flexibility. It can mean that Irving ISD is growing strong learners. It can also mean that Irving ISD is growing and strong and full of learners. But NAYOOOOOOO! All those English teachers in the district chided me for the periods. It didn't make sense! Was it a sentence or not? They didn't get it and they didn't like it. Well, now it's getting presidents elected! So how do you like me now, Ms. Bossyteacher!? Stick THAT in your Number 2 pencil and smoke it!!!

Marketing Guru out.

p.s. If anyone reading this is an attorney and would like to provide pro-bono services for what is obviously a slam-dunk intellectual property suit, please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Guru. Out. Again.

Game Notes

I decided to take notes on the A&M, Texas Tech game today. Don't ask me why; I just did. Here's my gameday stream of consciousness.

2:27 pm: Ron Franklin has already said “in the high plain” twice.

2:30 pm: He just said it again, but this time said “high plains”

2:32 pm: Now it's “south plains”

2:34 pm: those wide splits again – why can’t anyone defeat that with stunts?

2:26 pm: I don’t like the solid white unis. Did we have to do that because they’re wearing all black?

:47 left in 1^st qtr: A&M’s first 3^rd down of the game

3:06 pm: TT does a good job of “red out”

End of 1^st qtr: TT doesn’t look like they belong on the field w A&M. only success they’ve had has been on underneath routes when they need a lot of yards.

Start of 2^nd qtr: “south plains”

That shot from the top of the home side press box makes Jones Stadium look so high school.

10:15 in 2^nd: This is how TT always beats us – looking like they shouldn’t

9:52 in 2^nd: “south plains”

4:37 in 2^nd: mike goodson running harder than usual

3:43: our kind of drive – 11 plays. 60 yards so far

Last play of half: I hate give-up plays

Third Quarter:

8:04: I wish Bob Knight and Ron Franklin would quit making out and let me watch some football

2:52: “south plains”

Apparently no one told Gary Darnell that Tech runs the spread offense.

Fourth quarter:

TT converts 3^rd and 12. I start fast-forwarding.

10:57: ballsy call on 3^rd and 2

7: mcgee cannot throw down field. If we’re ever down by more than 14 in the 4^th quarter, we should always go with Jerrod Johnson.

5:30: qb keepers down 28 w 5 mins to go

A quick browse of various Big 12 columns/blogs reveals leading candidates to succeed Fran are Jeff Tedford (Cal), Tommy Tuberville (Auburn) and Bo Pilini (LSU).

Ode to a Granola Girl

We just got back from a trip to Colorado last week. Tough to re-enter the real world. I never get tired of the mountains. And I love what they do to Christine. She gets all giddy up there. And worshipful. I wonder if, had a few decisions gone another way earlier in her life, she wouldn't be waiting tables somewhere in Estes or Durango and hanging off rocks in her spare time and loving life. I hope I haven't robbed her of that tying her down with a husband and kids.

Contemplative Quick-Hit

"We must boldly repudiate the cheap values of the fallen world and become completely detached in spirit from everything that unbelieving men set their hearts upon, allowing ourselves only the simplest enjoyments of nature which God has bestowed alike upon the just and unjust."

-A.W. Tozer

Holy Land Sesame Street

Slate V posted this report a couple of weeks ago. It's still high in their rotation and still very disturbing.

Merton on Missions

When I read good writing, I'm inspired to write. I'm reading (again) Thomas Merton's Seven Storey Mountain which certainly qualifies as good writing. Even though I am completely swamped with work and other responsibilities, I'm taking a minute to just retype some of Merton's gold because I'm afraid of what will happen if I don't. I understand the progressive nature of neglect just the same as the progressive nature of sin. Another day of choosing to meet deadlines will be another day of neglecting my talent and another day toward the forgotten life of an American suburban family man whose highest ideal is to make a good living, send the kids to school and watch cable TV on a big screen.

So here's a page from Seven Storey in which Merton (at the time not a believer) is telling about a Hindu monk that he knew called Bramachari (which is actually not a name at all but an Indian word that means monk)...

He was beyond laughing at the noise and violence of American city life and all the obvious lunacies like radio programs and billboard advertising. It was some of the well-meaning idealisms that he came across that struck him as funny. And n eof the things that struck him as funniest f all was the eagerness with which Protestant ministers used to come up and ask him if India was by now nearly converted to Protestantism. He used to tell us how far India was from conversion to Protestantism - or Catholicism for that matter. One of the chief reasons he gave for the failure of any Christian missionaries to really strike deep into the tremendous populations of Asia was the fact that they maintained themselves on a social level that was too far above the natives. The Church of England, indeed, though they would convert the Indians by maintaining a strict separation - white men in one church, natives in a different church: both of them listening to sermons on brotherly love and unity.

But all Christian missionaries, according to him, suffered from this big drawback: they lived too well, too comfortably. They took care of themselves in a way that simply made it impossible for the Hindus to regard them as holy - let alone the fact that they ate meat, which made them repugnant to the natives.

I don't know anything about missionaries: but I am sure that, by our own standards of living, their life is an arduous and difficult one, and certainly not one that could be regarded as comfortable. And by comparison with life in Europe and America it represents a tremendous sacrifice. Yet I suppose it would literally endanger their lives if they tried to subsist on the standard of living with which the vast majority of Asiatics have to be content. It seems hard to expect them to go around barefoot and sleep on mats and live in huts. But one thing is certain: the pagans have their own notions of holiness, and it is one that includes a prominent element of asceticism. According to Bramachari, the prevailing impression among Hindus seems to be that Christians don't know what asceticism means. Of course, he was talking principally f Protestant missionaries, but I suppose it would apply to anyone coming to a tropical climate from one of the so-called "civilized" countries.

For my own part, I see no reason for discouragement. Bramachari was simply saying something that has long since been familiar to readers of the Gospels. Unless the grain of wheat, fallingin the ground, die, itself remaineth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. The Hindus are not looking for us to send them men who will build schools and hospitals, although those things are good and useful in themselves - and perhaps very badly needed in India: they want to know if we have any saints to send them.

This conversatation with Bramachari happened in 1937 and I think our Western methodologies for missions have improved a lot since then. Still, it makes for interesting and not altogether irrelevant reading.

Cycling's Toughest Climb

I'm so frustrated with my sport I'm almost ready to give up on it. Who is left to root for? And how can any fan be confident that his favorite rider one day won't be exposed and make him feel like a fool the next?

Last week, Tour de Fance favorite Alexandre Vinokourov was suspended from his team for testing positive for blood doping. Last night, yellow jersey leader Michael Rasmussen was fired from his team, Rabobank, after it was discovered that he lied about his whereabouts when he missed a team-level testing well before the start of the Tour.

The upside is that these really are proactive, rather than reactive steps. Today, the tour took the yellow jersey off a man's shoulders and his team fired him without any positive test results - only on suspicion of doping. Race director Christian Prudhomme seems determined to root out dopers from his race, even if it means serious damage to the sport and the Tour. I'm glad of that, and glad that cycling is willing to take a serious PR bashing to do away with even a suggestion of doping even without any proof of it. Thanks goodness there is no players union in cycling or this would all be about legal rights to privacy and what-not rather than cleaning up the sport.

This battle can be won and here's what it'll take: It will take a Tour de France winner who everyone KNOWS is clean. Then and only then other riders will start to give up their long-held notion that you can't win the tour without doping. How can we know for sure if a winner is clean - extensive testing (already in place) and his employment by a team like Jonathan Vaughter's that is proactive and outspoken campaigner against doping. I think that'd be enough to at least make riders believe that the guy was clean.

Maybe we should have seen this coming decades ago when sports started becoming such a lucrative business. In the meantime, I guess we'll plod along up this hill along with just about every other sport on earth, hoping not to be robbed of magical moments again by someone else's paycheck, needle and poor judgment.

Witnessing

Talked with a Jehovah's Witness named Robert for almost half an hour yesterday in my driveway. I don't know why Robert's situation grieves me so much but I've been thinking about him and praying for him a lot since we talked. He says he'll come back to talk some more, but I kind-of expect that he was just saying that to get off my porch. It was pretty obvious that neither of us was going to change our minds. His theology seems awfully burdensome. I'm no expert on Jehovah's Witnesses, but if I understood him right, he believes that Jesus' sacrifice was not so much meant for propitiation and atonement as it was to "prove that created man can live a perfect life." In Robert's view, Jesus' life is only inspiring if he was fully man but not at all God. If he shared God's being, well then that would be cheating. Anyone who is God can live a sinless life. And so Jesus' sinless life is only to show us that it is possible to be perfect - to inspire us to do what he did. That must be an incredibly heavy burden to carry. I guess that's why I'm praying for Robert today. And why I'm soooo happy that God has afforded me teachers and opportunities to experience his grace. Heaven knows, if I had to "stand on my own two feet", as Robert said, I would be in serious trouble. Anyway, if you read this, say a prayer for Robert. I hope he comes back.

Among the Remnant

My good friend Steve surprised me recently when he officially bailed on Bush. His declaration of such to the world can be found here. Steve makes good points. It's easy to be frustrated with this administration or, more accurately, the lack of control this administration has exhibited over its intelligence services and world affairs. Most of Steve's reasoning comes from Peggy Noonan's column "Too Bad" which also makes good points.

But I've been giving this some thought and I am hereby declaring that...well, nothing new. I'm not changing my opinion of President Bush. I'm not blindly declaring him the greatest statesman ever, but I'm not ready to predict that history will remember him a massive failure, either.

Noonan's assertion is that Bush has squandered an enormous opportunity to be popular. And she doesn't like him for that.

Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

I understand her point, but it troubles me that she doesn't give me a cause greater than popularity to defend.

He sundered the party that rallied to him? This doesn't break my heart.
He threw away his inheritance? Hmm. Oh well. Hope he had a reason.

Should Bush have compromised to conserve the coalition of supporters and defend his high approval rating? Noonan declares that both Bushes (41 and 43) squander "political inheritance."

One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked.

After some thought, it strikes me that this is exactly what I want in a politician! Someone who places little stock in "chits in the game". Someone who is decisive and willing to take risks. Someone who leads on principal, rather than follow the latest polling data. It seems to me that people in America either love Bush or hate him, which may be the greatest testament to his success as a statesman. If everyone could take him or leave him, we'd have to question his mettle. We'll never question that with 43.

But the points I've made so far may seem of little consequence when considered against the thousands of U.S. dead and wounded from the quagmire that is Iraq. Indeed, Iraq will always rank in the top two - along with 9/11 - as the most weighty and legacy-shaping issues of this administration. So let me address Iraq.

I, like many of my conservative brethren, didn't care much for Bill Clinton. Still don't. Nor his wife. But I always wanted to be careful not to slander him where he didn't deserve (after all, he gave us plenty of fodder for things he did deserve - no reason to dig up more). If Bill Clinton were in the White House for Bush's term and had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and faced the same quagmire that Bush now faces - and I know this is easy to say since he isn't - I would not lay the blame for the deaths of American soldiers at Clinton's feet. Here's why.

I think both 9/11 and the strength of the insurgency in Iraq were both Black Swans. No one saw them coming. Indeed, no one ever would have. But in hindsight it becomes easy to think that someone should have. We think, "Someone should have known this would happen. Maybe not me, but someone in that arena. Who should have known and stopped this? TSA? Airlines? CIA? The military? The president? But such blame-gaming is both useless and senseless. If Iraq naysayers are so convinced that this war was a bad idea from the beginning, then where the hell were they at the beginning? The standard answer to that is that the country was in a patriotic frenzy following 9/11 and they didn't want to appear unpatriotic. They didn't want to rock the boat. To which I say, it's too bad they didn't share the president's lack of concern for popularity and save us from this mess!

I'll grant that it would have been better if America had the human intelligence network in place in the Middle East to warn us that Iraq was not ready - not socially, intellectually or morally capable - of welcoming democracy. If we had invested millions in intelligence in the region for decades before, then we might have had a clearer crystal ball to know that our actions there would not help bring peace and democracy but sectarianism and civil war. We also might have had the right answers about the existence of WMDs. But alas, we didn't have that knowledge. The knowledge we did have was flawed. And, again, blaming Bush for acting on the knowledge he had, now that we know what he didn't, seems like so much geopolitical armchair quarterbacking to me. "He shouldn't have gone for it on fourth down! Why? Because he didn't make it!"

Noonan's final paragraph - the summary of the damage this nincompoop president has done - is about squabbling within the Republican Party. About how Bush's actions have disappointed some in his own party. Again, it doesn't break my heart. I have trouble hating Bush for that. And I find it a little telling that Noonan can't help but call the president disciplined and daring while doing her best to insult him.

Our president is not a terrific public speaker. He hasn't proven to be a very good coalition builder (which was a big point in his first campaign - how he built cooperation and coalitions across the aisle as governor). He has made mistakes and he has rushed into decisions. But I won't go as far as to call him an idiot or a war monger as seems to be the case with a growing number of Americans. In fact, I have no doubt that America would face the same problems with Iraq - or possibly other problems, different but just as dire - had Al Gore or John McCain or John Kerry or anyone else had been in office for these two terms. Notice that none of those men are saying differently. No one but no one is daring to say that they would have acted differently, that they would have saved us from Iraq if they had been in office, because they know better.

Every president has his problems.
Bush has been overeager to strike back at terrorism.
Clinton couldn't keep his pants zipped.
Bush Sr. reneged on "no new taxes."
Reagan...well, I can't think of anything Reagan did wrong because he was freaking awesome!

But you get my point. So I'm not bailing on Bush. I, like the president, am staying the course. You may call it stubborn. I call it "strategery."

The Perfect Father's Day?

Yesterday, Bethany napped on the couch with me while I watched the U.S. Open. Christine cooked mom's chicken enchilada recipe. Church was really good. I bought a new book (The Dangerous Book for Boys). And I got lots of alone time. At this stage in my life, it doesn't get much better than that.

Never Trust A Pirate

Yeah, yeah. I know it's been a while. So here's a little something to ease the pain...

Who's the Loser?

It's frustrating to lose to losers. I'd like to be the stalwart Mavs fan but I really think we might have dug ourselves too big a hole this time. But what's most upsetting about that is knowing that Golden State will lose immediately in the next round and that they are such a bunch of punks. Every time they have fallen behind in a game this series they've started picking fights - with opposing players, coaches, officials. They don't lose well. And come to think of it, they don't win well either. Mostly I'm talking about Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson and Matt Barnes. (Monta Ellis might be a really stand-up guy but the antics of those three overshadow the whole team.) Last night, when it became apparent that they were going to lose, Jackson got himself ejected, purposely. That's a microcosm of how these guys behave. If the Mavs lose the series, you'll read quotes like, "We just didn't get it done." If the Warriors lose the series, you'll read quotes from Davis like, "I can't do it all," and quote from his teammates about officiating, and quotes from Don Nelson like, "Well, no skin off my back. I've got a house on Maui and a cooler of beer waiting for me."

A Walk In the Words

I’m finishing up A Walk In the Woods by Bill Bryson. It’s a delightful book. “Choke on your coffee funny,” quotes Washington Post Book World on the back cover. It’s the story of a middle-aged, overweight, decidedly civilized white guy who decides to hike the Appalachian Trail (yes, the 2,100 mile Georgia-to-Maine Appalachian Trail). The first half of the book had me rolling – literally laughing out loud and insisting that my family “sit down for a minute so I can read you this.” Bryson is a clever writer, and the stories are even more enjoyable if you’ve shared similar experiences with overpriced gear, over-worried camping companions, or over-zealous nocturnal campsite intruders. It really is a fun read.

But halfway through the book, Bryson reaches Front Royal, Virginia, the terminus of the first “half” of his journey. In fact, he never fully returns to the trail in earnest – hiking smidgens of the northern half in five-mile chunks on looping day hikes, rental car never far behind. As such, his narration never seems to find its trail legs again. Instead, he rants. He rants about evolution. He rants about the U.S. Forest Service. He rants about national parks. He rants about deforestation. He rants about the Civilian Service Corps. He rants about the Corps of Engineers. He rants about overdevelopment and he rants about underdevelopment. I don’t mean to suggest that the Forest Service (or any government body, for that matter) is above reproach. And I don’t mean to say that an author shouldn’t express his opinions now and then. I like getting to know what the author thinks. But after several rants, the reader starts to believe that, instead of thoughtful criticisms from which to learn, Bryson’s chapters spring more and more from the I- read- all- these- books- and- hiked- half- the- AT- and- by- golly- I’ve- got- to- write- something muse.

Hiking the AT is a monumental feat. According to Bryson, only 20 percent of those who set out to achieve it ever do. I can’t blame him for quitting. But I wish – for my reading’s sake – that he hadn’t. I suspect that if Bryson had finished the AT, he would have finished a completely enjoyable book. As it is, he’s written half a hilarious, warming, genuine, inspiring and human book. And half a rant. Read Part 1 of this book, then return it to the library and go for a hike.

Tough Love

One of the things I love most about my church is that people are real. I really don’t feel like anyone is putting on a show when they come to church. From the way they dress to their honesty about life, I think my church values genuine-ness (if that’s a word).

But it’s dawning on me that there can be a danger in genuine-ness. In saying things like, “I wish I was more passionate about ministry, but I’m just not there,” we sometimes move from honesty to mediocrity. I don’t mean to say that we should pretend to be passionate about something we’re not. That’s gross, and I really hate it. It’s easy to spot and it turns me waaaaay off. But often when I’m honest with a grace-filled brother about a struggle, regardless of how shocking or mundane the struggle may be, I get excuses from the brother rather than chastisement. The message seems to be, “You’re alright, man. We’ve all been there,” rather than, “That’s a bad place to be, man. That’s not where the Lord wants you and you need to get out.”

I know it’s really hard to chastise someone, especially if you’ve been guilty of the same sin in the past, but I think it’s necessary. Regarding ourselves as redeemed sinners doesn’t mean we should always keep our mouths shut because we’re sinners. It sometimes means we should remind our brother that he is redeemed. There are only a very few men in my life who have had the courage to talk to me that way. I respect them for it immensely.

Not long ago, I met with an older, wiser man and talked to him about my walk with the Lord. I mentioned my mediocrity when it comes to reverence for the Word. (I believe we were discussing Isaiah 66:1-2) and I said something like, “Come on. Who really lives like that? We’re all just people.” That’s when he stopped and looked at me with his head a little cocked to the side and said, “No, Ryan. There are a lot of people who live like that. I know several people who love God’s word passionately and hide it in their hearts.”

That comment has sort-of given me permission to be passionate – and a little eccentric – about getting the Word into my heart.