The One Thing You Must Do To Break A Bad Habit

Replace it with a good habit. Easy, right? Well, it depends.

When I was a kid, I had to deal with overt racial tension in school. So, life wasn't easy. I had learned to cope by waking up every morning before school to ruminate on how the day would go. I believed that if I could imagine the worst, it will help make the day go better.

What's The Truth?

I am not asking what is the nature of truth. I will assume that truth is the authentic nature of all things. Truth is the way things really are, and the basis for the way things are. With truth we arrive at solutions, deal with reality, and are capable of navigating the world the way it actually is.

The title question is something much different. It sets the stage for true discussion and genuine dialog. Rather than angry diatribes, ad-hominem attacks, and evil suspicions. The question follows the agreement that truth can be had or arrived at. We have the ability to know and abide by truth. Therefore, the title question is the natural result.

Since something is true about the nature of reality, what is that truth? What school of thought is in line with this truth? What way of living is consistent with this truth?

Let's Just Get Along By Skirting the Issue?

I know some folks want to skirt the issue by saying either there is no real truth, or that truth cannot be arrived at. My question to that line of reasoning is, How do you know? If you claim that you don't know, logically my evidence should trump your lack of any evidence. If you claim that you do know, then you have arrived at truth yourself. And you've just contradicted yourself.

So, let's leave this immature attempt at not accepting responsibility. For everyone has the responsibility to work at arriving at a consistent worldview, and live by it. This work involves dealing with real events, their consequences, and their implications. We need to deal with our observations of reality, and line those observations up with a consistent overarching principle. Even if someone were to believe there is no overarching principle, that in itself is an overarching principle &mdash by the way, is the principle of chaos.

The Fear of the Truth

The overarching principle is called a Story by some. But I don't think that is accurate. Stories tend to be subjective in interpretation. And when we talk about stories in this manner, we tend to personalize stories or meld them with our own personal stories. And we get weird ideas about culture and community that are wholly devoid of a unifying principle. This attempt tends to lean more toward a lazy communal-ism rather than a serious arrival at truth.

I understand people's reluctance to discuss matters of truth. For truth invites arguments about matters that matter. Truth invites pain and struggle. Truth resists error. Truth can be hard to face. And truth can split families and communities. That is an essential nature of truth. It excludes other claims to it.

But truth is also beautiful. Truth lights our path through life. Truth can give genuine hope. Truth can adjust our course. Truth gives us wisdom and a sound mind.

What's So Good About Good Friday?

Courtesy demondimum of MorgueFile.com.

Today is the day Christians celebrate the suffering and death of Jesus, the Christ. Although some people have chosen to celebrate Earth Day in lieu of this, believers from all over the world recognize the significance of remembering the day Jesus gave his life for the life of the world. However, some people celebrate with no real understanding of its true significance other than a powerful gesture of love. So, what sort of significance is it suppose to hold?

First of all, Jesus is God in human flesh. This is both an exclusive claim and an inclusive claim. It is exclusive in the sense that God is clearly only One God. There is no other. (Isaiah 45:5; Isaiah 45:14-22) God, Himself, discounts the existence of any other god besides Him. (Isaiah 44:8) He is the only Savior, and every knee will bow to Him. (Isaiah 43:3; Isaiah 45:20-23) Yet, Jesus shares not only the glory of the Father, but His authority. And as such, holds a place of worship along side the Father. Jesus is fully God. (Philippians 2:5-11; Acts 4:8-12; Colossians 2:9-10)

It is also an inclusive claim because he came in human flesh. He shares our humanity, thus is a perfect substitutionary sacrifice (being fully man, and fully God). (Hebrews 1:1-4; Hebrews 2:14-18) He identifies with our sufferings, our temptations, and our limitations. Yet, he was without sin or guile. (Hebrews 4:15-16) He understands what everyone is going through, and offers a hope and peace that he knows we need. He is the hope of the whole world. Yet, the world doesn't accept him.

Second, Jesus died to satisfy the wrath of God. As previously said, Jesus is the perfect sacrifice. Whether we have realized it or not, when we were non-Christians, we were God's enemies. (Romans 5:10; Colossians 1:21) We were at war with God. Yet, God loved us and every non-Christian. But God is not mocked either. There will be an accounting which we will all have to pay. And pay dearly. But, God made a way to both satisfy His righteous retribution and to offer us freedom from judgment. (Romans 8:1-2) So, upon Jesus, God in human flesh, He made a way out of no way. He sacrificed Himself in our place. The wrath of the Father upon His Son for the life of the world. (Isaiah 53:10-12) Now, for those who become disciples of Jesus — who place their total trust and allegiance in him — there is salvation..

Last, Jesus rose from the grave. This is one of the most attested to account in all of history. It is the most scrutinized too, because it sounds so fantastic. Yet, it is virtually undeniable that it happened. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) This leaves a powerful testimony that Jesus is not only more than a mere man, but that he is telling the truth. (Acts 17:29-31; John 14:8-11) And this truth is that he is God in human flesh, giving his life for the life of the world. His followers may experience physical death, but they will never die. (John 11:23-25)

For some people Jesus is all about their organization, denomination, or affiliations. They place their hope in these things as a replacement for following Jesus. But Jesus is the hope. His sacrifice is the only act. His resurrection is the proof. And no organization or affiliation can do that for you.

Now, that's what I call good news.

Marriage According to Jesus

Any questions?

Why Christian Boundaries Are Necessary

Yeah, we all want to be welcoming and friendly like Jesus. And yeah, we can be cautious about dealing negatively with other people. In fact, we may believe that agreeing with people is the best approach for dealing with differences.

But the truth of the matter is that Jesus wasn't a pushover either. He was very clear about who he was, and he wasn't backing away from that. He was clear about what he was about (seek and save the lost), what he would do (die despite what Pete thought; Matthew 16:13-28), and where people stood with him (he didn't trust them; John 2:23-25, John 6:25-27). He was kind and gentle with people, but he did so in truth (John 13:1-5). He didn't back away from what he stood for. And that made some people very uncomfortable.

People either loved him or hated him. He didn't allow for any middle ground. There were no centrist or reasonable accommodations. "You are either with me or against me," he would say. This included folks who were on the periphery — observing him from a distance, afraid of being associated with him, but believed his message (John 12:42). Jesus did not allow people to believe whatever they wanted to concerning him or God the Father.

So, what business is it of the church to be embarrassed about Jesus in order to not "offend" other people? What sense does it make for the church to be off mission in order to make peace with the world? How should the church respond to people who hate what it stands for?

Whether individuals or a corporate body of believers, we have to have boundaries. Even if we choose to relax those natural boundaries of beliefs and practices, we still erect boundaries unconsciously. We choose to sacrifice our allegiance to Christ to win the approval of men. Or we sacrifice our integrity to "go along to get along." In doing so, it causes a great amount of pressure internally — even if you choose to ignore it. So, why not just be real.

Let's just be the church. Let's just be truthful about Jesus identity. Let's just say that the message of salvation is critical to all mankind. Let's accept that not everyone will agree.

A Hero is More Than a Sandwich

After the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — and the Martin Luther King Jr. birthday celebration — it got me thinking about the idea of heroes. What is a hero? What makes a hero? How do we decide who a hero is?

Some people would call those, who eventually stopped the gunman's rampage, heroes. Some may even call Ms. Giffords a hero for fighting to survive. Though others would disagree and say she was simply a victim. This discussion was also around right after 9/11. Who are our heroes? Were our heroes victims, or just those who risked their lives to save others?

I think the national discussion misses an important point. If we define heroes by the demonstration of courage to bring about a social good, we have to ask what we mean by "good." What is good? How do we determine what is good, if we do not consider God? And if we do consider God, doesn't it only matter what God thinks is good, not what we say is good? Because we don't all agree. If we don't agree in what is good, how can we agree on who a hero is? We may have some consensus on public servants such as teachers, firefighters, and police officers as heroes. But what about people like Carrie Prejean, Sarah Palin, Margaret Sanger, Barak Obama, or George W. Bush? We can't agree on them.

I think the best definition for a hero is whomever God would commend. And specifically, whomever Jesus commends. That is our best objective criteria. Otherwise, we pick our heroes by opinion polls, likes, or political alignment. God doesn't see it that way. That's why people such as poor widows or working parents can be heroes — worthy of emulation.

Why The Reason for the Season Isn't Jesus' Birth

I was in a Christian book store not too long ago. And an older woman was in there talking on her cell phone quite loudly. It was very annoying. I tried to ignore her, because I am nervous about approaching an older woman. But she had very bad manners, and the conversation was way too loud. So, I started to approach her when, thankfully, she hung up. I quickly went back to browsing the books as I was before, relieved that I didn't have to talk to her.

I think sometimes we live our lives oblivious to how we come across. We get so engrossed in our own worlds we don't notice how our behavior affects other people. Sometimes we just don't care because our concerns are so important to us at the time. And we do this on a grand scale as well. We don't realize how our thoughts and behaviors offend God. We assume our actions and attitudes are minor infractions (if any) to a busy God.

During the Christmas season I was struck with the thought that the season has little to do with Jesus' birth per se. Rather it has more to do with who Jesus is and why He came. God came because our sin was going to damn us. And he entered the human race to become the perfect sacrifice for our sin — to divert what was coming to the whole world. So now we have the opportunity to be at peace with God through Jesus, only because of who Jesus is — the Son of God — and what Jesus did.

To truly understand the reason for Christmas, we must understand the reason for Easter.

Young People Don't Want This Type of Sex, But Are Too Afraid To Admit It

Fear of man will prove to be a snare,
but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.
—Proverbs 29:25

A new study done by psychologists at James Madison University demonstrates that college students overwhelming prefer traditional dating over "hooking up" even though they "hook up" almost twice as much as date. (Hooking up is the term that refers to casual sexual encounters, while traditional dating refers to enjoying activities with a member of the opposite sex to develop a romantic relationship.)

Turns out—according to Arnie Kahn, one of the co-authors of the study—students are afraid to admit to this due to pluralistic ignorance. In other words these students feel like they are out of step with everybody else, and so they are mostly motivated to surrender their bodies to strangers out of social pressure.

How sad. Young men and women are willing to surrender their bodies to virtual strangers because of their fear of rejection—either by society or by their potential partners. That's so sad. Sex should be a joy, and bring a husband and wife closer to each other in total trust and commitment. Yet, when sex is used as a social tool, it disintegrates people's personalities, and makes their bodies a cheap commodity. And, sadly, for those too young to realize what is being lost, they are the ones being destroyed by this.

How sad.

7 Mistakes Churches Make When Building a Website

In my design blog, I discuss 7 common mistakes I've encountered when churches design their websites. The problems center around handling content and site maintenance. I believe this is so because churches often lack the man-power, vision, or expertise to pull it off properly. However, churches that do this well tend to have a staff of designers and content providers, or simply out-source the design.

Hopefully my blog post can help those churches that can't afford to hire a design firm or staff. But there is value even for those that can afford to do this, because it sheds some light on considerations to make when building a website in general.

Let me know your opinion.

7 Mistakes Churches Make When Building a Website

Why Liberals and Conservatives Can't Get Along

WARNING: This observation is not meant to be comprehensive. I am purposely using broad generalizations, and don't mean to be offensive to anyone. This is just a general observation, and I realize that I may be wrong in specific areas.

It seems to me that liberals and conservatives are not all that different. They agree, in principle, on many core issues. But they seem to disagree on how those principles should play out in practical life.

What I mean is that among the issues that tend to define someone as liberal or conservative—such as perceptions about greed, the role of government, individual freedom and responsibility, and helping the poor—they seem to agree. Yet, at a glance, they only appear to differ in degree, not substantive, when it comes to these core issues.

• Each agrees that greed is wrong. But liberals define greed as the desire to make large profits. Conservatives define greed as the desire to find security in wealth. In other words, you don't have to be rich to be greedy.
• They both agree that the role of government should be limited. However, they differ on the amount and kind of limits government should occupy. For instance, liberals believe that government should not take all of a person's income, but as much as possible to achieve equality (in wealth) and justice (for the poor). Conservatives believe that government has no right to confiscate a person's income at all—except whatever needs to be given for the government to able to enforce the law.
• They would both agree that individual freedoms should be protected. The problem is that freedom brings responsibilities. Liberals define those freedoms as being able to do whatever one feels is right, and not being told otherwise. However, they also believe we have a responsibility to respect the freedoms and rights of other people. Conservatives believe that freedom is the right to not be controlled by government fiat, our a minority of people. Yet they want government to curtail any encroachments upon individual freedoms by those who do not respect that.
• Both groups see helping the poor as a social good. The problem is that liberals define helping the poor as a government mandate of redistributing wealth. Conservatives see it as an extension of individual freedom and responsibility. In other words, some people are free to fail or succeed financially. However, those who do well are to offer help to those who do not do well as an act of freewill kindness, not a government responsibility.

In all these cases, it seems evident that liberals and conservatives share common concerns, and it even seems logical that working out differences would be mutually beneficial. However, what appears on the surface as simple disagreements is anything but simple. Each difference stems from a central assumption that cannot be reconciled so easily. And that's the issue of truth. Are there values and realities that must be "conserved" or appealed to when making sense out of life? Is there a central reality that we must adhere to in making decisions that exists outside ourselves?

Each group answers that central question differently. As a whole, liberals say that human decision-making is not dependent on some mystical or ancient reality called Truth outside ourselves, but on practical outcomes. "Whatever works is right." Solving immediate concerns is more important than the possible impact of antiquated beliefs or historical lessons.

On the other hand, most conservatives disagree with this approach. They think, "Whatever works may not always be right." They favor the idea that there are proven values and truths that have existed for a very long time that will have an impact on our decisions whether we believe in them or not. Therefore, they must be preserved (or conserved) as foundational when making any decisions.

This fundamental difference is what causes conflict. Not the issues themselves.

The Responsibility of Churches to Foster Serving Members

Last time I wrote that giving in churches is usually emphasized in one of two ways: as sacrificial or as equipping. Although most churches try to do both, they tend to emphasize one more than the other. There is no real problem per se with this. But as I had said, the problems and success of these approaches lies within the heart of the giver, not the methodology.

However — and this is a big however — churches have a responsibility in fostering good or bad attitudes about serving. (Now, when I talk about a churches responsibility to its membership, I am referring more to leadership than to all its membership makeup. The general tone of a congregation is primarily determined by its leadership. But, this does not diminish the responsibility of every member, because the collective membership of a congregation can determine it's tone as well.)

What I find most frustrating is when those who want to serve out of their love for God are discouraged in doing so, in favor of encouraging obligatory sacrifice. People who give all sorts of time and energy to serving in a driven need to be accepted and appreciated are held up as good examples by leadership and congregational members. Those who desire to make a godly investment in the kingdom are sometimes seen as lacking in commitment, because they don't "sign-up" for everything. This encourages an unhealthy approach to service. Only seeing the sacrifices, not the quality investments.

And to make matters worse, these churches are lax in equipping its membership. They expect much, but invest little into those who serve. They can't even spend money to have people trained or financially supported. "They're volunteers after all," I've actually been told before.

On the other hand, when churches feel secure in their equipping, they sometimes lack a certain level of accountability. Some even hate the word "accountability." They favor a more live-and-let-live attitude. And when people step up to serve they may do so with clear expectations for job performance, but very little concerning character development.

The best approach for church congregations is an acknowledgment of the purpose of service. It isn't to have functioning ministries, bring in more money, increase the size, or feel good about oneself — although these things are enjoyable fruits. The purpose of serving is the physical act of giving oneself to the Lord. It is the manifestation of genuine worship and thankfulness. The church environment ought to encourage the latter, and teach those who are young in the faith. The words out of the mouths of leadership emphasize the ideal, and calls to service are seen as opportunities to invest in eternal things, not temporal gain. And this type of service is exemplified by those in leadership.

Instead of calling people to sacrifice more, call them to invest in something that gives bigger dividends than whatever they own. Ask them to give themselves first to the Lord, and demonstrate that in service. And prove that you mean it by investing in them. Why should they sacrifice more when the church leadership is not willing to see them succeed?

When Giving Goes Wrong

I've found in my experience in different churches an interesting development. In some churches, usually under 1000 members, there is a tendency to call its members to sacrifice. They are required to use more of there talents and time in service to the church body. On the other hand there are also churches who place more emphasis on the training and development of membership to be better at service.

Each approach has an upside and a downside, and they are both needed. In smaller churches the call to sacrifice is admirable when people first give themselves to the Lord, and their service is an outworking of that commitment. However, it becomes either self-serving or detrimental when the motive is relief from guilt and people-pleasing.

On the other hand, when the call to service is centered around equipping, people who desire to serve the Lord with all their hearts are strengthened and encouraged to serve with excellence. And they see their service, not as a sacrifice, but a valuable investment in God's kingdom and in their own eternity. On the downside, when people in this type of community see their service as a necessary burden, they may be more prone to wander what's in it for them. Some will become perpetual learners, never practicing, while some will always be evaluating what they learn, but never implementing.

The root cause of both issues is the heart. Unless people give themselves first to the Lord, their service will be a burden. (2 Corinthians 8:1-5)

'Tis the Season for Weird Sayings

This is the time of year when people begin to think about the things that are really important in life. Many people want things for Christmas, but they also want to feel that they are participating in the true spirit of the season. What this means is that people want to give to the poor, be more hospitable, and teach their kids to be more grateful. They want to express that there is something bigger than themselves this time of year. And Christians support this attitude and participate as well, thinking it to be honoring to Christ.

But there is something a bit creepy about all this. I constantly hear things on the radio and from friends that we should think more about making a difference in this world — not just now but always. Then I hear that we should give back whenever we have the opportunity, or pay it forward.

I believe these are shorthand ways of saying that it is good to do good. But I wonder if anyone spends much time really thinking about what they mean. Atheist, nominal Christians, unbelievers, believers, and everyone in-between are saying the same thing. But they can't mean the same thing, unless doing good is reduced to a subjective sentimentality, and the act itself is equated to a subjective moral imperative.

For Christians, what does it mean to do good?

It can't be to make a difference. Our very existence makes a difference. What do we mean by that? Whenever we make a good or bad choice it makes a difference. Do we mean that doing something that gets noticed is what's important? I thought that if we follow Christ we were not seeking attention or to feel significant. (The very act of choosing to follow Christ is making a huge difference.) If impact is felt, the glory goes to God. And we are significant (make a difference) even if some of us are quadriplegic or suffering brain damage and can do nothing of significance but lie there. Am I missing something here?

Also, what do we mean when we say we want to give back? I can understand to some degree if we are giving to God because of an overwhelming joy at what God has done for us. But we aren't paying God back, as if we are giving him a tip for good service. We aren't attempting to keep God on our side, and ensure his blessings either. What do we mean by give back?

Last, what do Christians mean when they say they want to pay it forward? Since when does a gift need to be paid for? It doesn't matter whether it needs to be paid to the giver, or to be paid to an intermediary. It isn't a gift anymore. What do we mean by pay? Perhaps we are trying to say that we want to pass on the good that we have received. That makes more sense, but that isn't paying anything other than attention.

What I find contradictory is an unbeliever saying these things.

When someone who doesn't believe in God says that we should make a difference by giving back, or paying it forward I wonder what they mean by make a difference. If they mean to do good, what do they mean by good? What is good except some sort of subjective standard or collective agreement. Eugenics was considered good by a number of people. Fascism was considered good by a number of people. Population reduction is considered good by a number of people. Elimination of religion is considered good by a number of people. Killing unborn children is considered good. When they want to pay if forward, what are they really doing?

So, why do Christians support these ideas? Could it be to appear good to the world? I hope not. Jesus gave Christians two criteria for doing good. Do them in secret, and do them to glorify God. Follow these and we get to the heart of the matter, which is to do the right thing for the right reason in the right way at the right time. And what makes them right is whatever Jesus says is right. And whatever Jesus says is right is true because he is the Alpha and the Omega.

When Questions Go Bad

You've heard the saying. "There are no dumb questions. Only those that aren't asked." This motto is used as an encouragement for people to engage in a process of understanding. People need to feel that their questions are welcomed and encouraged. They shouldn't feel like they need to self-edit themselves in order not to appear dumb. "Just go ahead and ask the question. Otherwise you only have yourself to blame if you leave without the knowledge you need."

Sometimes this motto is used outside the normal circumstances of a teacher-student relationship. And it may still apply. But there is an inherent flaw, if this motto is used as a legitimate argument that there are no bad questions. Is that really true?

The reason I bring this up is that my youngest daughter asks me some very good questions sometimes. Then there are times when she asks me bad questions. I thought about this. Am I simply judging those questions bad because I don't like them, or am I picking up a general principle? After considering all sorts of questions by all sorts of people, and noticing that Jesus answered bad questions differently, I conclude that there is a general principle here. Bad questions do exist.

He's what I've discovered. Bad questions are not bad simply because they are not formed well. When that happens, questions may be communicated badly, but that doesn't make them bad. What makes questions bad is mostly the intent.

But first, let's define the purpose of questions. Previously I said the motto, "There are no dumb questions," is something that is mentioned to encourage questioning. And the reason this is important is that understanding will be enhanced when questions are asked and answered, which encourages dialog. Therefore the purpose of questions is to encourage dialog and increase understanding. Ultimately it helps to bring clarity whether there are good answers or not.

Bad questions are designed not to do this. In fact, they are formed to do just the opposite. They are designed to bring confusion and chaos. How can you tell? Well, it's all in the intent.

Here's some samples of what makes questions bad:

1. Questions where the intent is to not comprehend the answer. People sometimes ask questions to never arrive at any understanding, because they don't want to for whatever reason.


2. Questions which are designed to simply trap the one being asked. Sometimes people want to use trickery to get their own way. It has nothing to do with clarity, just a "gotcha" is sufficient.


3. Questions people use to shape their public image. They don't ask to increase knowledge or to understand. They desire to appear in a certain way, and that's what motivates them.


4. Last, questions that are only for entertainment. The questioner likes to hear herself, or wants to make people say something silly. There is no value in these questions other than amusement.

Although bad questions exist, not all questions that appear bad are really bad. Sometimes we feel trapped by a question because it is actually a good question. It may bring clarity to bad assumptions we hold. Sometimes a question is truly clever and adept at getting to the core of an issue. Sometimes questions seem silly, but if thought about, may have profound significance.

So, how can you tell? It's often revealed in how the questioner responds to your answer or when you return a question to them.

The Day We Will All Wake Up

I was driving this morning and passed a cool sports car that had a young man and a pretty lady by his side. That car would have been something I would've wanted in my youth. And the lady was a fringe benefit. It all reminded me of a time when I thought that stuff was important.

Every guy understood that when you had a car you had a date. And having an expensive sporty vehicle would improve the type of date you could pull.

But we also all understood that when a woman came with the car, she was not likely to become a wife. It just wasn't that serious. We knew that our value hinged on that car. It was an acceptable compromise. Or so we thought.

As I drove this morning I also remembered the time when I woke up. You know what I mean? It's when we have an epiphany of sorts. We accidentally ask ourselves a question: "Is this all there is?"

Of course that question led me to other questions like, "What do I want out of life?" or "Why am I here?" and "When I die, then what?" But the effect is the same. I begin to question my identity and the nature of reality. When we do such things we cannot look at anything or any relationship the same anymore.

Imagine a guy, sitting in that sports car with his lady, suddenly blurting out, "What's the meaning of life? Where are we headed?" I can imagine the woman saying something like, "You're not getting weird on me, are you?"

The sad thing is that we can ignore these questions all our lives. We can live our lives like phantom dreams, looking for the next pleasure or experience. We can seek comfort and security, or just importance and never consider the deeper issues. We can keep ourselves asleep. But then there comes a time when we all will wake up and realize what we've gained or lost in this life. We will be confronted with reality no matter what we believe. There is no choice in the matter.

Judging Judgers

The Washington Post recently did an article about a young unmarried southern Maryland couple. They have two kids from the girl's previous relationships and one from their current relationship. The article noted how this guy is one of the few who is trying to stick around and be a father to these kids.

But this couple is struggling, both financially and relationally. The girl has some psychological issues (manic-depressive) that require medication to remain stable. The guy has rotting teeth that need serious orthodontic work. He lost his job because he got mad at his boss. Now he does some part-time work to keep up. His girlfriend works full-time at a restaurant. They get subsidies from the state that help with the kids food and education. And they live in her father's house in the meantime to help keep the bills low.

However, they spend what little they get on Wii's, toys, expensive game consoles, cable, and so forth as if they were necessities.

The commentaries following the article pretty much included people's objections to the couple's lifestyle choices. However one commentator objected to the objections. This person said something like, "You people are so condescending. Yeah, (the couple) made some bad decisions, but they are young. And your judgments aren't helpful. At least you should sympathize with them."

What?

It is true that merely making comments don't help the couple directly. But it is also true that the comment that they don't help doesn't help either. In fact, the idea that people shouldn't judge bad decision-making is strange and contradictory.

Think about it. The statement itself is judging the couple's decisions as bad. (Therefore, wouldn't it be right to help the couple by informing them as such.) Also, the commentator says that others are wrong for making judgments. In other words, the commentator is judging the comments of others.

And following, in evaluating the poor couple's decision-making, which are a series of bad judgments, the commentator is making an assessment about the quality of the couple's judgment skills. Therefore, the issue is not whether the couple made judgments, but rather that the quality of their judgments is poor (because they are unguided youth).

However, in evaluating the comments of others, this commentator is passing judgment that judgments themselves are wrong. So, the commentator shouldn't be judging other commentators! Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate the quality of other people's judgments, rather than telling them that their comments aren't helpful (to who)? What does that have to do with anything?

What's a better approach?

It can be argued that the other commentators are wrong in their assessments. Or it can be argued that they are missing something. (And if so, please explain what that is.) And if they are condescending, it would have been more helpful if the commentator explained why his or her assessment is true and why judging the couple's decisions is not helpful. It would've been more helpful if the commentator explained how sympathy would help, who it would help, and why that it would be a better type of comment.

Unfortunately I found the person's comment even less helpful than the comments of those who evaluated the couple. Maybe some of the other commentators did it with the wrong attitude. But their comments made more sense than this person's comment.

What to Do When You Don't Know What to Do

Original photo courtesy MorguFile.com

What do you do when you don't know what to do?

Try praying, do what you know to do, and wait. It seems to be such a lost art in our driven society. We want to work toward solutions. But as Christians we probably need to value God's role more than we tend to do.

I want to evangelize the world. But the world is too big for me. I want to live a life of holiness. But my flesh gets in the way of that plan. I want to love my neighbor as myself. But I love myself too much. I want to give, serve, understand, etc. etc.

But what I need to do is pay more attention to what God already said I need to do. I need to read His Word, pray for help, and rely on God. I need to trust Jesus and obey him as a result. Where does he want me to go and do right now? I don't always know or really need to know. I really just need to rely on him and trust him with the consequences.

I frankly don't know what else there is other than that.

Raising the Self-Esteem of Kids

Photo courtesy Mary R. Vogt at MorgueFile.com

Want to raise the level of self-esteem in your kids? Have them accomplish something.

But here's the problem. In our culture our kids tend to have it easy. They don't really have to wait for anything. They know nothing about appointment TV. They have no concept of missing a program. Not really. They live in a world of DVD videos, downloadable TV shows and music, internet entertainment, and TiVo ^®.

They also have little concept of limited choices. They've grown up in a world where customization and personal preferences are the norm rather than the exception. They take cable television for granted, with the various choices in programming. Internet sites, blogs, and special interest groups that cater to any interest are now a societal norm. Fast food menus have an array of choices that were unimaginable in the 70's and early 80's.

Today's kids are growing up in a world where most of their research is done online. They don't have to begin at the library. They don't even need their home encyclopedia's. They just jump online. A vast wealth of information and knowledge is at their fingertips. They have no concept of going somewhere to get information.

And think about it. Busy signals and unanswered phone calls used to mean that you couldn't reach the person. Now, it means that something must be wrong. All they know is that most people can be reached in multiple ways. People are a text message, IM chat, cell-phone, email, or an online social network away. And many of these kids have cell-phones themselves, let alone email addresses, websites, social networking profiles, and on and on.

So what do you do with kids who have so much to choose from, so much time to spend, who are doing so much to achieve maximum fun and community? You create the situation for accomplishment. You train them to persevere through trials, and achieve an end goal. Then you reward them for their successes. But you don't reward mediocrity.

It sounds old-fashioned, but it works.

God Made Us Creative

I wonder if Jesus left a lot of decisions up to his church because he wanted us to be creative. Maybe instead of fighting over stylistic differences, perhaps we are to complement each other. I know, some of those stylistic differences have theological implications. But I believe those instances are rare.

God gave us the capacity to think, to create, and to imagine. Christians of all people should be doing this the most, and with the proper glory.

Why God Doesn't Tell You What to Do

Photo courtesy Morguefile.com

I took my dad shopping recently. One of the items he wanted was some regular skin lotion from a particular brand. When we got into the isle where lotion was located, we found his favorite brand. But we were presented with multiple choices other than “regular” or “just plain lotion.”

There was skin lotion with aloe, vitamin E, cucumber, natural oatmeal, and on and on. But nothing that my dad could figure out. He just wanted skin lotion with nothing added. He didn't want to buy something he wasn't sure he wanted.

In our society we celebrate the ability to make choices. We think we want to be able to have anything, with the latest features and gadgets. We want our options. And we want them now. And we assume this is what we mean by the word freedom.

It is true that freedom allows us to make decisions. But it also means that we have the freedom to succeed or fail. Freedom is not a guarantee of success, nor is it an absolute.

So what does this have to do with
discerning God's will?

Plenty.

Let's say you are a Christian who wants to get married. But you want to find the right mate of course. (You know what I mean. The mate God has for you.) So, you look for signs of God's guidance. When you feel God is leading you to someone, you marry what you believe to be the person God wants you to have.

But then you find the person you married doesn't share your faith or values. And it's becoming a source of great conflict. And then you meet someone else. And this person is your real soul mate. Now you feel you've missed the “will of God.” So now you feel stuck because you failed to discern God's leading. Or worse, you feel God wants you to divorce and marry the other person.

Here's the problem. God's will is contained in his Word, not in our feelings. And success or failure is defined by God, not by what we perceive. Since we are responsible for our choices, we need to make a wise choice. There's no need to deviate from what God says is good and right. We just need to pay attention. Then make the best choice we can, having faith that God will be with us and guide us.

Following, we also need to define success the way God would. Not in the way we feel. When it comes to certain decisions like marriage, some of us may be better off letting a wiser older Christian pick a mate for us.

Ouch!

I know, we recoil at the idea of giving up any of our freedoms to choose. But it is much better than relying on feelings or impressions.

And, by the way, my dad picked out another brand of lotion that had a plain version. Problem solved.