How to Avoid Sippin' That Hatorade

For as long as I can remember, it has been one of my core philosophies of life to not hate unnecessarily. In urban terms, having unnecessary hate is referred to as "sippin' that Hatorade." In case you didn't know, Hatorade is bitter, unattractive (except to fellow Hatorade drinkers), and contains no electrolytes. I don't want to have a lot of hatred, so I try to reserve it for things that really matter.

For example, I may not care much for teen pop idol Justin Bieber, but it would be trivial and wasteful for me to actually expend energy on bashing him or trying to convince other people to not like him.

Another example: just because I absolutely LOVE the TV show Lost, it doesn't mean I have to feel threatened when someone tells me their favorite show is 24. We don't always have to compete about everything (cf. Twilight vs. Harry Potter for definitive proof that this kind of behavior is indicative that one has the mind of a middle-school student.)

Another example: speech and grammar mistakes are not moral issues, nor are they very good indicators of whether a person is intelligent or not. If you are one of those self-appointed grammar police, I am begging you, for your own sake, just relax. Your life would be more enjoyable. : )

Another example: it's so much easier to hate when the issue isn't close to home. It's easy to say all kinds of terrible things about homosexuals when you have no gay friends. It's easy to talk about what Muslims "really believe" when you have no Muslim friends. Here's a good rule of thumb: don't post something on a Facebook status or write it on a sign unless you would actually say it, face-to-face, to someone whom you know personally and care about.

In conclusion, while Hatorade can certainly quench our thirst for feeling superior to others, the long-term effects are proven to be hazardous. Next time you're tempted to pick up a bottle, try some chocolate milk instead. You can never go wrong with chocolate milk.

A Muslim President?

I'm sure you've heard about it by now, as it's been pretty much the top media story of the day. A recent study by the Pew Research Center shows that the perception that President Obama is an adherent of Islam hasn't changed much over the past year. The poll indicates that a whopping 12% of Americans are under the impression that the U.S. currently has a Muslim president. Here are the numbers if you want to check it out: http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=509

Aside from the dearth of evidence to the contrary, it baffles me to think that so many people believe that there would even be a POSSIBILITY of a Muslim president right now. Just 50 years ago, it was a HUGE deal that we elected a Catholic president. Obama is our VERY FIRST black president. We still have never elected a female president. And unfortunately, Muslims are even further down on the social totem pole than Catholics, blacks, and women.

This does raise an interesting question though. When, if ever, would we elect a Muslim president? It doesn't seem like it would happen any time remotely soon, and if it were to ever happen, there would need to be some MAJOR changes in popular perception.

During my lunch breaks, I often watch videos on TED.com (Which, by the way, if you've never check it out, PLEASE do.) They add a new video every weekday, and today's video just so happened to be a talk by an Iranian-American who is a founding member of the Axis of Evil Comedy Tour . These are guys who are all of Middle-Eastern descent, and they are making a noble effort to use their comedic skills to both entertain and change perceptions of Middle Easterners. If you want to view this highly entertaining and inspiring video, here it is.

The thing is, fundamentalist, extremist Muslims make up a minute percentage of the total Muslim population. To the extent that we allow the few to dominate our perception of the many, we make the same mistake that has plagued humanity for millenia and has lead to so many atrocities in our world. And of course I wouldn't want a fundamentalist Muslim in the White House, but neither would I want a fundamentalist Christian. So I'm not saying that religious beliefs are irrelevant to what makes a good presidential candidate, but they are not as important as a sense of human decency, justice, and a desire for the common good, which are things that can be held by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists alike.

Surrender

"Mine" is a word we tend to learn pretty early in life. When we, as children, first begin to realize that there are things that we can call our own, we are, no doubt, thrilled to elation, judging by the overwhelming horror children seem to manifest when "their" toy is taken away. What a cruel reversal of fortunes then, when we reach adulthood and realize that maturity is about responsibility, sacrifice, and other such concepts that go utterly against that "mine" instinct. And it gets even worse if we decide to follow Christ, and he asks us to surrender--not simply making some sacrifices and compromises here and there, but actually saying, "My most precious possession, my life, is no longer mine."

I'm speaking in worldly terms, as if it's a bad thing, when it's actually the best thing in the world. When we first decide to surrender, we feel the liberating power of it, and then how quickly we begin to think, "What have I done?!" Because even though in the moment, we know, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, that's it right, we can't possibly understand all the implications. Fortunately, we serve a God of infinite kindness and patience, who allows us to work out the details as we go along. He doesn't make us sign a prenup!

Spiritual growth can essentially be summed up in this way, as a gradual working out of the terms of our surrender--a gradual loosening of this "mine" instinct that we formerly grasped onto with all of our power. I was in a church service recently, and one of the songs played during worship was the great hymn "I Surrender All" (if you know me well, you know about my love for hymns.) The refrain goes:

I surrender all
I surrender all
All to thee, my blessed Savior
I surrender all

I had a hard time singing along at first because I thought it would be a lie. I couldn't honestly say that I had surrendered quite everything to Jesus just yet. I'm not sure that I ever will on this side of eternity. But then I decided to make the words a prayer, that God would give me the strength to surrender more and more to him. I started to think about what I needed to surrender, and the combination of my love for hymns and the power of this prayer began to overwhelm me.

What was I surrendering that day, you ask? What had I been holding on to? My right to define my own self-worth. My insistence on obtaining significance and value from performance and from other people's opinions of me. I was surrendering my greed--greed for respect, admiration, honor, and the esteem of my peers. As I surrendered, and to continue to surrender, all of those things, I make room for God. He's the only one who loves us unconditionally. He created us; he died on a cross for us; he has forgiven and restored us; he has made us righteous. He should be the only source of our sense of self-worth. My value comes not from what I can do or the tasks I can perform or the things I can produce. It doesn't come from how well-liked or respected I am by the people around me. It comes only from God's unconditional, unimaginably high, deep, wide, long love for me.

Just earlier today I struggled with this issue again, as I'm sure I will continue to. Something someone did made me feel like they didn't respect me or value what I had to say. I felt rejected and excluded. And then I thought about the fact that I haven't been rejected at all. In fact, I've been accepted by the God of the Universe. And the only reason I got upset was because I had forgotten that, and was once again desperately trying to derive self-worth from others, even to the point of overreacting to a false perception of rejection that wasn't even intended to be mean or disrespectful. I apologized for my overreaction, and in doing so, I won a small victory against my "mine" instinct. I surrendered the mindset of, "I deserve and demand the respect that I crave," and I allowed the love of God to replace it.

I hope these words can encourage you to surrender something that you're holding on to.

How to Not Be Triflin'

While there seems to be some confusion, even among experts, about the exact meaning of triflin', it's negative connotation is universally understood. Of all the adjectives in the vast lexicon of English, triflin' would probably be in the top 10 of most people's "I hope no one ever calls me that" list. Lately, I've been trying to make sure I ain't triflin', and so I figured I would pass on some tips to everyone else.

Urban Dictionary gives one definition as follows:

to play with someone in a bad & poor way, like in destiny's child's song "bills, bills, bills":
"You triflin',good for nothing type of brother
Silly me,why haven't I found another
A baller, when times get hard he's the one to help me out
insted of, a scrub like you who don't know what a man's about"

This particular editor made a slight mistake in the definiton--the definition is for the verb form of triflin', while the example from the Destiny's Child song is clearly the adjective form. For our purposes, we should attempt to adapt this definition into a more adjectival one. Before we do that though, it's helpful to look at the dictionary.com definition for a different, but related, word: trifling. As usual, the commonly-used, online dictionary gives a plethora of definitions, but they all share a common sense, and that is of something trivial, meaningless, having little value, minor, etc:

1. of very little importance; trivial; insignificant: a trifling matter.
2. of small value, cost, or amount: a trifling sum.
3. frivolous; shallow; light: trifling conversation.
4. mean; worthless.
–noun
5. idle or frivolous conduct, talk, etc.
6. foolish delay or waste of time.

So, with both the Urban Dictionary and the dictionary.com entries in mind, if I were to take a crack at defining it, it would be as follows:

triflin': adj., applied primarily to persons; having the quality of habitually living for trivial matters, or treating life as a game or a drama; lacking substance in important areas of life (relationships, career, etc.), esp. in such a way as to make one unsuitable for dating.

More clearly stated, someone who is triflin' is pretty much someone who ain't grown. It's someone who is living for games and fun, reveling in lack of responsibility, and reaping destruction by not giving due thought to the consequences of such actions. A triflin' person is a man or a woman who still lives like a boy or a girl.

It may surprise you to learn that in the Holy Bible, the Apostle Paul actually counsels some of his readers to not be so triflin'. He writes, in his 1st letter to the Corinthians (who were a triflin' buncha suckas if there ever was some):

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." (1 Corinthians 13:11)

I don't want to be the "triflin' type of brother" that Destiny's Child sang about. I don't want to live according the "get-what-you-need-at-any-cost" ways of the world, like a child screaming in Wal-Mart till he gets the toy he wants. I don't want my decisions to be based on a need for approval, or a fear of rejection, or a desire to manage my self-image. These are the ways of children and teenagers. I want to live according to the wisdom of God's word, and love for God and neighbor, and the desire to honor and respect others above myself. These are the ways of a real man or woman.

In the words of Paul, let's put triflin' ways behind us.

A Brief Critique of the Intelligent Design Movement

According to Herman Wouk, the famous physicist Richard Feynman is purported to have described calculus as "the language God talks." Even though Feynman was agnostic and was waxing ironic when made that remark, I love the perspective it offers. Notwithstanding the flurry of attacks on faith by the New Atheists, this perspective has for centuries been a dominant, driving force for scientific inquiry. The very true idea underlying Feynman's ironic remark is that the more we uncover the hidden design of our universe, the more we learn of its designer.

How sad is it then, that this ancient human impulse to learn more about our Creator by studying his creation, has been tangled up with and made nearly inseparable from politics. Don't be deceived--Intelligent Design is neither a spiritual venture nor a scientific revolution. It is a political movement; its aim is to forcefully wrest scientific authority from the hands of scientists and place it in the hands of clergy.

The problem I have is not in simply saying that the Universe has a designer. I believe that. It needs to be asserted and held up against the aggressive proponents of dumb luck and purposelessness. The problem I have with supporters of ID is that they don't want to just say that there is a designer; they also want to define the parameters for saying precisely how he did it. I'm sorry, but that privilege should be the domain of science. Last I checked, most seminaries weren't offering advanced degrees in hard sciences, so I don't trust religious institutions on these kinds of issues. Flexing political muscle in order to advance our interpretation of Scripture over scientific evidence is a recurring mistake that has exacted a severe toll on the credibility of the Church.

I'm hopeful though. History attests that in the end, truth tends to win out over its suppressors. The atheists and ID people can launch rockets in each other's direction all day long; meanwhile, the quiet candle of truth will keep burning to illuminate more reasonable minds.

Harvard University's "Justice" is Edu-tainment at It's Finest!

Before you proceed, please watch the following highly compelling trailer. If you can watch the first few minutes without being interested, you need not continue reading.

href="">

Michael Sandel has recently become a personal hero of mine, as I believe he is doing our country a huge favor right now. He is providing a service to our college students, and our nation as a whole, by making sure that our political conversations are undergirded with a proper understanding of the moral and political ideas that shaped our government in the first place. By drawing out the philosophies that lie at the roots of our ideologies, party alignments, and voting habits, Sandel helps us to understand the full implications and consequences of whatever stance we happen to take.

In my prideful opinion, this is precisely the kind of thing that we need more of right now. In watching these lectures, I've come to realize that a vast majority of the political conversations going on right now are somewhat akin to people arguing about what it means to be a Christian, without ever having read the Gospels. Or about what it means to be a Muslim, without ever having read the Koran. Or what constitutes good fantasy literature, without reading a word of Tolkien. Or what it's like to be a pro wrestler, without ever getting elbow dropped from the top rope. You get the idea. (I'm sure you got it without all the examples, but I was having too much fun listing them.)

And I have a hard time imagining anyone doing it better than Sandel does. It's evident that he is a master at what he does, judging by the fact that his students are awake and fully engaged at every lecture.

If you have any interest in politics, in moral or political philosophy, or even in seeing the minds of bright, well-educated young people at work, you don't want to miss these lectures. This is probably one of the coolest things happening on a University campus, and the kind folks at Harvard have made it accessible to us. I highly recommend taking advantage.

Harvard University's "Justice" with Michael Sandel

Beauty and Taste (Part I)

I've had a number of great conversations with people lately on the nature of beauty and art, and how objective or subjective they are. Then I had this idea for a series of blogs that would keep the conversation going. So here's some thoughts to get us started. Please respond in the comments section if you have any thoughts on the topic whatsoever. I am fascinated by this, and I want to get some dialogue going.

For this 1st part, I want to pose a very simple question that I think is a key starting point for a discussion like this:

Is there anything, anything in the entire world that you would consider to be 100% objectively beautiful? Meaning, there's just no room for argument or disagreement. It's beautiful, and if someone doesn't find it beautiful, they must have something wrong in their heads.

Personally, I would say yes. A very simple, but perfect example would be a rainbow. I don't know about you, but I've never heard anyone say that a rainbow is ugly. I've never even heard anyone say something like, "Yeah, I guess rainbows are alright, if you're into that kinda thing." The beauty of a rainbow is inarguable, and if there is anyone who doesn't see the beauty in it, then their sense of aesthetic pleasure is either seriously dulled or somehow distorted.

Agree or disagree? Thoughts to add? Discuss amongst myself.

Adventures in Learning to Drive, Part III

1st lesson learned as an officially licensed driver: a little moisture in the eyes can obscure your vision.

I could recount the whole experience here, but it wasn't all that exciting. Kelsey Tomes let me borrow her car, Charles Gravely went down to the DMV with me, and Ken Taylor aced a freakin' driving test! 93/100. The end.

It was quite anti-climactic.

Nonetheless, I did get just a little choked up when I found out I passed. And again while we were filing the paperwork. And while we were driving back home. And right now as I write this. Not that it's a HUGE deal; it's just like there was some big hurdle, and I had just been running around it for the past 10 years. And the few times I did try to jump it, I either crashed right into it and fell on my face, or my toes just knicked it. And now it's like I jumped it, turned in mid-air, did a giant DX-chop to it on the way down, and then karate chopped it into pieces from the other side. In slow motion.

Oh, and I'm getting a car from my parents now. So, the question is, with a license AND a car, what shall I do now? Here's what I'm thinking:

I want to be sure to be a good steward of what I've been given. I will use my resources to bless others: rides to places, road trips, bonding time, etc.

Speaking of road trips, 1st stop: The Crescent City. Besides the fact that I just love the city, I've been itching to check out the new Insectarium. And of course, this trip would also include hanging out with Stacey, Deanna, and other cool New Orleaneans.

I've been wanting to pick up a second job. And by "wanting to," I mean "not wanting to, but kinda needing to." I need to make payments on student loans. My very own mode of transportation should be of tremendous help in this endeavor.

And last but not least, I look forward to seeing my family more. Up until now, seeing my family usually meant getting a ride somehow and staying for an entire weekend, which is rarely feasible. Now, if I want to it, I can just go visit for a few hours on a Sunday or something like that.

To everyone who has loaned me their car, took me to practice driving, took me to the DMV, etc., THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Adventures in Learning to Drive, Part II

With a belly full of fish-fried chicken and biscuits, I went home discouraged but hopeful. How hard could it be to get a turn-signal fixed? I asked some of my more mechanically-inclined friends, who informed me that the bulb probably just needs to be replaced. Really? I didn't even know cars used bulbs! So as soon as I got home, I went and unscrewed the light bulb in my room and put it in my car. (Just kidding. I knew you had to get a special car bulb for cars, silly.) I was more determined than ever; I was going to change that bulb and drive that dang Lumina right back to the DMV and ace that test! And there wasn't nothing nobody could do to stop me!

A trip to Pep Boys and several hours later, I discovered that either changing a bulb on a car is a lot harder than changing a bulb in a house, or the bulb wasn't the problem. With the help of Zeke D'Avy and Chad Brown, I eventually figured out it was the latter. I called Charles and told him the problem. He took it to his mechanic. A few days later he called me:

Charles: I got some bad news about the car.
Me: What's that?
Charles: It's gonna cost exactly 1 arm and 1 leg to fix the dang thing.
Me: What?! An arm and a leg? I thought that was just a figure of speech!
Charles: Nope.
Me: That's a steep price, just to fix a blinker.
Charles: Listen, I'm willing to spot you an arm if you can come up with the leg.
Me: Meh.

Since we didn't want to fix it, and since it didn't seem like a good idea to drive around with no back left turn-signal (have you ever tried using the hand signals? It feels really stupid for some reason), we decided to just sell the car.

To be completely sincere for a moment, I felt like giving up at this point. Yeah, I get an "F" for Perseverance 101, I know. But I was so annoyed with the whole situation, and I just started to think it wasn't really worth it. The gas money, the insurance money, the have-to-fix-stuff-before-you-even-officially-own-the-freakin'-thing money. In fact, have you ever considered the undeniable, historical truth that 99.98% of the greatest people in the history of the world never owned a car or had a driver's license? Seriously. Moses, Gandhi, the Buddha, Jesus, the list goes on. I just wanted to be like Jesus.


As it turns out though, it's too late for me to give up now. (Sorry Jesus, but I'm going to have to trump you on this one.) Over the last few months, I've learned the truth of what Charles told me all those years ago. Whether I realize it or not, whether I admit it or not, I will probably never feel like a mature adult male in my society until I get that driver's license. Besides that, I've learned over the years to value the act of carrying out a goal to it's completion. When we give up, even though it may seem like the wise thing to do in the moment, we lose something. We can become habitual giver-uppers, who can never quite seem to finish a task. Well I don't want to be a giver-upper anymore, and I'm going to keep trying until I have that license in my hand, if for no other reason than my own dignity and self-respect.

And as always, the moral of the story: stay in school, kids!

P. S. I'm going to try to take the test again this Thursday. Pray for me. = )

Adventures in Learning to Drive, Part I

I think I'm approximately 27 years old. (I'm pretty sure. But I really do forget sometimes. So let's just go with 27, give or take a year). Anyway, I'm somewhere between the ages of 26 and 28, and I don't have a driver's license. That's the point I'm getting at.

I recently embarked on a journey to obtain one of these things. And by recently I mean about 5 years ago. I want to tell you the story of this journey, but before I do, I should tell you some of the steps that led up to it.

If, as you and I have so far assumed, I am indeed most probably 27 years old, that means I am 11 years past the age at which most people get their licenses. The reason most people get their licenses at 16 is because that is the earliest age allowed by law, and most people want their license at the earliest possible age they can have it. This was not the case with me.

Call it weird, but I just didn't have that itch. Call it fear, more accurately. The thought of driving scared the piss out of me, which is a terrible thing to happen to you while you're driving because there isn't much you can do about it. Everyone seems to think a guy should drive a car so he can take girls on dates, but if you pee your pants on the way to pick her up, it automatically negates all other potential benefits.

What kept me from driving wasn't just the thought of my rampant absent-mindedness resulting in the death of one or more other human beings, including-but-not-limited-to myself. That was part of it, but I was also a very inert adolescent. I didn't do things that I didn't feel like doing, and most things happened to fall into that category of "Things I Don't Feel Like Doing."

I finished high school with no license. I entered college with no license. Didn't want one, didn't need one, didn't care. Charles Gravely and I had some conversations that went like this:

Charles: Ken, I think you should try to get your driver's license.
Me: Meh.
Charles: Seriously Ken, as your brother in Christ and as someone who you trust to challenge you and encourage you toward spiritual maturity, I think getting your driver's license would be an important step. It's like a rite of passage in our culture.
Me: I definitely see your point . . . but . . . meh.

Charles's prodding must've been somewhat effective though because a few summers later, I started learning how to drive. I drove my friend's truck, stick shift and all, up and down a long gravel road a few times and I thought I was ready. So then I went and took the test in my mom's van, and I failed. I kept turning into other lanes of traffic. The instructor was really friendly at first, so I thought I was doing well. She preceded to ask me kindly if I was nervous, and when I replied, "very," Satan entered her and she barked, "WELL YOU'RE ABOUT TO FAIL YOUR TEST!" And that would have helped me out a lot, except for the fact that it didn't.

She told me to turn left at the next light. So I put my left blinker on and waited for the light to turn green. When it did, I turned right. She said, "What are you doing? I told you to turn LEFT! Pull over into this parking lot. I'll drive us back to the DMV."

If my confidence could be compared to a baby bird in a jungle, fluttering it's little wings and hopping around on the ground, that experience was like a tree falling on top of the bird. And that instructor was the lumberjack that fell the freakin' thing. She fell the tree; she failed me.

So what do you do when you fall off a horse? Well, you get back on and try again, five years later. Charles Gravely (the same one I mentioned earlier) got married to another good friend of mine, Amanda J (btw, they have a blog, too). They recently decided to give me Amanda's old 1990 Chevy Lumina. Yes, you read that right, they GAVE it to me. They decided they didn't need the car, and though they very well could have sold it and used the money for their soon-coming stint as campus missionaries in Belgium, they determined in their godly, giant hearts to just bless me with it.

Before making it official though, we mutually agreed it would be best for me to obtain my license first. So, with my hand forced in the most gracious way, I got back on the horse. I got my permit renewed, and I started driving the Lumina everywhere. Most of the time I would get my licensed friends to ride shotgun, and on a few occasions I even drove it by myself (until Amanda found out one day and politely requested that I immediately cease and desist that particular habit).

For the first time in my life, I actually started to feel good about driving. I felt natural behind the wheel. Not to the point of arrogance; I just started to feel like I could react calmly and reasonably should something unexpected happen on the road. So, me and my most frequent traveling buddy, Lance Dunn, planned an excursion to the DMV. We went, waited for my number to be called, filled out the paper work, etc. I was a little nervous, but overall I had a pretty good feeling that I was about to finally get this thing over with. The instructor and I walked out to the car, and as she does the routine inspection of headlights and such, we discover, oops, my back left turn signal isn't working! I can't take the test!!!

I was overwhelmed with frustration and disappointment, but I felt better when Lance and I went to KFC and got some comfort food. I got a filet of fish, which actually tasted oddly similar to chicken, fried in fish fry. Oh well, meat is meat. I ate it, along with 3 biscuits and some potato wedges, washed it down with a Pepsi, then got up and ordered some fiery hot wings for dessert. Ah, much better.

So what happened next? And am I ever going to get my daggum license?!?! Hate to leave you on a cliffhanger, but I will answer those questions in the next installment, to be posted tomorrow. = )

On Memorizing Scripture

I've been reading a book by Ed Dobson called The Year of Living Like Jesus (full review forthcoming at my book blog, kendlebooks.blogspot.com). Dobson, inspired by A. J. Jacobs and his Year of Living Biblically, decided to spend a year living as closely to the way Jesus lived as possible. He grows out his beard, observes Jewish customs, such as the Sabbath and the Passover, and tries to fully apply Jesus's teachings to his everyday life, among other things. Included in this project was lots of Scripture memorization, something Jesus surely would have done, just as any rabbi of his day was expected to. The book is inspiring me in several ways, including making me want to memorize Scripture.

What is the value of such a practice, you may ask? Well, I can think of many potential benefits, but I'll just say the one that has cropped up already as I've restarted this practice (I say restarted because I've done it a few times before. I've simply never been committed to it as regular and ongoing discipline). I decided to begin with the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-10) and work my up to the whole Sermon on the Mount (Chpts. 5-7 of Matthew). So today, I just kept reading those 10 verses quietly to myself until I could recite them from memory (which isn't that difficult with these particular verses, due to their poetic structure).

Now, it just so happens that lust has been a major struggle for me recently. I won't go into detail here, but I've just been having a lot of trouble keeping my thoughts in check. So as I kept repeating Jesus's words, the ones that really stuck out to me the most were, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." At first, I wasn't quite sure why I was connecting with this verse the most, out of all the others, but it became obvious when I put 2 & 2 together. The living Word of God was speaking directly to me, the Double-Edged Sword cutting simultaneously into the lustful state of my mind and the rebellious state of my heart. Honestly, I may not have had that experience had I just read over the passage once and kept going.

And now I keep repeating these words, "Blessed are the pure in heart. For they will see God." I want to see God. And as I say these words, their force becomes almost tangible, like a breath of pure air, that I breathe right back in to myself. The temptations that I'm facing become weaker, and my desire for purity, stronger.

I'm definitely going to try to make Scripture memorization a long-term habit. I'll let you know where it takes me.

Some Moderate Thoughts on Global Warming

Most of my friends and the people that I'm surrounded by on a daily basis are politically conservative. Most of them probably think I'm liberal, primarily because I often critique conservative perspectives. However, though I can't be sure, I get the feeling that I would do exactly the opposite if most of my friends happened to be liberal. I take it as a God-given gift that I am often able to help people see other perspectives. Socrates is a personal hero of mine.

And I have to admit, when it comes to politics, I tend to be extremely moderate, probably to a fault. I can't help it; I am thoroughly attracted to the idea that there must be some better way of framing most political issues than the tired old conservative vs. liberal paradigms.

Thus, when I approach the issue of global warming, I really want to find some middle ground between the conventional conservative and liberal positions. And maybe this desire colors my vision a little bit; maybe one of these sides really is 100% correct and the other is 100% wrong. I'm not ruling out the possibility. However, as long as I can reasonably do so, I will continue to try to consider the strengths and weaknesses of all the various arguments that are presented. (And yes, I do realize I'm speaking of global warming as a political issue, rather than a science issue. It's a sad but true fact that that's what it has become. More on that later.)

So here's my real thoughts on global warming:

1) The evidence is NOT conclusive. And, surprisingly enough to many of the skeptics, most scientists AREN'T claiming that it is. Science has learned its lessons over the years. It takes overwhelming, undeniable evidence for scientists to come to a consensus that a certain hypothesis is proven to be true. And with global warming, that just hasn't happened yet. It doesn't mean that evidence isn't there. It is. There is indeed a consensus that the evidence is currently pointing towards global warming being real, and that it is at least partly related to human activity. But there's more work to be done, more measuring, more testing, more debating. And contrary to popular misconception, most scientists simply AREN'T asserting that human-caused global warming is absolute fact. (Though, there are some people who are saying that, but I'll get to them in a second.)

A century or two ago, many scientists thought that there was little left in the world to discover. That Newton had pretty much mapped out the underlying fabric of the Universe, and all that was left to do was to make more precise measurements. Then Maxwell, Einstein, Heisenberg, et. al. came around and flipped that all upside-down. Scientists today know better. It's part of being a good scientist to know that any given hypothesis or theory can be seriously called into question by some new discovery or idea that no one had accounted for previously.

2) The scientific discussion of global warming has been co-opted by highly-influential, politically-motivated people. It's hardly possible anymore to have a discussion about global warming that isn't somehow tainted by the left or right leanings of the involved parties. Real scientists, unfortunately, don't have as prominent a role in the public forum as do pundits and politicians. The people who are influencing public opinion on the science of global warming the most are people who are . . . guess what . . . NOT SCIENTISTS! We are being "educated" about this subject by people on TV who have NO CREDENTIALS for such a task. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this? Then again, why go and spend all the time required to read something academic when I can just have my pre-existing opinion affirmed by that really confident-sounding guy on TV?

This goes for both sides of the debate. As I was saying earlier, scientists are not overwhelmingly claiming that global warming is a scientifically airtight theory. However, there are SOME politicians and even SOME politically-motivated scientists who are. I, for one, do not believe that we should act in such a way as if the most alarming of the reports are true. Let's continue to fund research and act gradually as we get more information. The people who act as though there's simply not a single reason to doubt global warming are just as guilty of unwarranted extremism as those who act as though there's not a single reason to believe it and that it's a vast conspiracy.

3) The recent scandal involving certain scientists (actually, primarily just one scientist named Phil Jones) is not sufficient evidence that the whole thing is a hoax. For one thing, what the man said and did is being blown way out of proportion by the conservative media. Check out these 2 links here and here for two different sides of the issue.

Regardless, if a scandal regarding a single individual or a relatively small group of individuals is sufficient to discredit an entire idea or movement that has lots of other evidence for it, Christianity would have been discredited a LONG, LONG time ago, before it ever even reached Rome and Emperor Constantine. This is not a fair method of assessment.

4) Snowstorms are not evidence against global warming. Short-term fluctuations do not accurately represent long-term trends. I might as well trim my beard and then present its recent decrease in length as evidence that it's not growing.

5) Finally, while the jury is still out on global warming, I have trouble seeing how it could possibly be a bad thing for us to reduce carbon emissions, clean up our energy, etc. All the people with strong anti-environmental views still enjoy breathing clean air and drinking clean water. Of all people, Christians should be leading the way in this area. We are the ones who know that God gave man dominion over the Earth (Genesis 1). Dominion does not entail a right to use and abuse as we see fit. This kind of mentality is akin to sexual immorality--taking a gift that God has given and getting what we want from it, without any appreciation for the true purpose of the gift or its ultimate Source. The belief that the activity of the billions of human beings on our planet has absolutely zero negative effect on our environment is not only willfully ignorant, but also unbiblical. God gave us a job. He gave us a domain and set us up as rulers; inasmuch as we mishandle this responsibility, we have become tyrants.

BOTH AND

The Word of God, but not His pen.
Not his ink but that of men.
Creation, yes, but not His hand.
Simple obeisance to his command:

"Let there be . . . "

And so he told the world to spin,
But I've often thought it may have been
The constant work of the musician
That makes it go round and round again.

What is a Christian Nation?

Over the last 200+ years, many have claimed that America is a Christian nation, as many still do today. And yet, two centuries of lexicalization have done very little to clarify the meaning of this phrase. Thus, the titular question of this essay is just as relevant to us now as it would have been to 18th century colonists.

David Barton, a writer for an excellent website called Wallbuilders.com, defines "Christian nation" in a way that seems fairly uncontroversial. He says:

"A Christian nation as demonstrated by the American experience is a nation founded upon Christian and Biblical principles, whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition was reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for generations 12 but is widely ignored by today’s revisionists." (Is President Obama Correct:Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?, http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909) If this is the definition people are working with when they use that term, I can accept that. How could America not be shaped by Christian and Biblical principles when indeed Christianity had been the dominant cultural force of Western civilization for over a millenium prior to the formation of our Constitution? This much seems obvious and undeniable.

The problem that I have is that when people use this term, while they may indeed have a definition in mind similar to the one I just cited, they often have MUCH MORE in mind than just that. They seem to mean that America is a Christian nation in a way that, say, Great Britain is not, nor ever was, even though the Bible and Christianity most surely shaped its values, society, and institutions as well. They seem to mean that America is a Christian nation in a way that no other country ever will be. They seem to mean that the angels of the Lord's army lead the Americans to victory in the Revolution, that God himself ordained our laws on stone tablets for us, that Jesus Christ sat down on a mount with our Founding Fathers and taught them how to form a government, and that the Holy Spirit divinely inspired the Declaration of Independence.

These things I do not believe. And no matter how Christian or un-Christian our nation becomes, I will not waver in my belief that Israel and the Church are the only 2 institutions in history that God has sovereignly ordained in a special way (Romans 13 does teach that God establishes earthly authorities. So yes, in this sense, and only in the sense that God has established ALL authorities, God has indeed established the American ones). And while the Bible does teach that the nations are in God's hands and that he uses them to accomplish his purposes (Psalm 22:28), it also teaches that God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:11).

The penultimate line of our national anthem asks, "O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave?" The answer is "no," as it is now the fashion to drape it over a wooden cross.

Do Pets Go to Heaven? Rethinking the Question

You can tell a lot about a person based on how they answer this question. And I don't mean whether they say "yes" or "no," but rather in precisely how they formulate their answer.

I've been thinking about the question recently, and honestly, there are lots of sound, Biblical reasons to answer it in the negative. Biblically, there's no good reason to think that animals have the souls that we image-of-God-bearing human beings do.

That may all be true. However, in thinking about this whole question, I have come to a conclusion that has little to do with the "correct answer" to it. A lot of people who say "no," especially the people who just dismiss the whole idea of animals in Heaven as silly to begin with, do so based on a distorted view of the nature of God. In other words, even if they are technically correct in their answer to the question, they may have a shallow and cold understanding of who God is. (Please note that I said "a lot of people who say no," not "everyone who says no.")

In the same vein, many who believe that pets do go to Heaven, even if they are ultimately incorrect, do so out of a very good understanding of God. It's possible that bad eschatology can arise from good theology.

You know how in math classes the teacher always tells you to "show your work," and how that's usually more important than the answer itself? Yeah, I think when it's all said and done, God might want to see our work. In this and in everything else, let's make sure we're not consumed by simply having the right answer.

Thanks!

P. S., I would answer the question as "probably not," but I would definitely never say "absolutely not." None other than C. S. Lewis speculates in his book The Problem of Pain that just as Christ redeems human beings, it may be possible that human beings can, in turn, redeem our pets. God gave us dominion over the Earth and all the plants and animals in it. If the believer can be raised with Christ because we are under his Lordship, then perhaps our pets, under our lordship over them, can be raised with us.

Ode to the Moon

I composed this in honor of the 40th Anniversary of the Moon-Landing. When writing it, I was thinking about how all the star-gazers and astronomers throughout history must have felt, just dreaming about reaching the moon.

Ode to the Moon

Mystery in plain sight
Across a sea of space and light
Draws me to her every night.

Even when her back is turned
I hardly ever feel her spurn
I just embrace the dark nocturne.

When she’s new, still in my eye.
When she’s full, so am I.
The only thing between us: sky.

If I could see the mystery,
If I could sail the space-y sea,
I would, tonight, draw her to me.

In Praise of the Vibrate Setting

Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who is annoyed by today's cell phones. Aside from the fact that the pocket computers known as the iPhone and its ilk seems to me extremely luxurious and ostentatious, I mainly just get annoyed by the ringtones. Am I missing something or do most phones have 4 settings now: silent, vibrate, ring, and boombox? Seriously, I wonder, do you actually believe that everyone within a 50-foot radius wants to hear 10 seconds of the latest Miley Cyrus song every time someone calls you? Or, are you just utterly convinced that the one thing our world need right now is more noise and distractions?

I've actually had people get mad at me before because I keep my phone on vibrate and sometimes I don't notice it vibrating. Although, generally, a missed call won't go unnoticed for too long because I use my cellphone as a watch, and I like to check the time fairly frequently. But apparently, this is not good enough for some people. Apparently, they just NEED me to be accessible at an instant. Sorry, but I'm not a dog, so I prefer not to be on a leash.

I ain't turning Amish or nothing like that, but I do believe that the cellphone is one of the most obnoxious inventions of our day. Here's to reversing the trend.

P.S. While were on the subject of phones: If you and I are having a conversation, and you get a text, would it just ABSOLUTELY KILL YOU to actually WAIT until we finish our conversation to read and reply. I must confess that I've done this to people before, and I hereby repent.

Mission Missive

"Slow and steady wins the race."
"Pace yourself."
I have believed this for a long time
and still do.

But, maybe, there are times,
special, specific, spaces of time,
when the pistol in the air
hits the pistons in your heart,
and you dart into to the distance.

Wisdom is like oil.
But a Psalm is like fuel
that launches
a massive, inert,
Earth-loving, ground-bound
missile like myself.

Pressure

Living life surrounded by people that love you sounds like every decent human being's dream, doesn't it? I've been reading the Psalms lately, and it seems like the writer is constantly feeling the tension of being surrounded by people who wish him harm. When I read his fears and problems poured out on the page, I am suddenly grateful for the fact that I seem to be flanked by good friends who have a genuine desire to see me succeed and prosper.

While this is a most desirable position to be in, it has the unfortunate side effect of often being uncomfortable. It comes with its own tensions and anxieties, which can generally be boiled down to a single word: pressure. It doesn't sound like such a bad problem, considering the alternative: living a life that no one cares about. Regardless, there's an aspect of being loved and of people having high expectations of you that feels, at least to me, truly tragic. That is, I feel like I live my life in a perpetual and inescapable condition in which, in every action I take, I'm never quite sure whether I'm doing it for God, for myself, or for those people around me.

In other words, I live in a constant state of uncertainty regarding my motives. I'm not sure if this is unusual or not. I just have a sincere hunger in my heart that my motives would be pure. I hate doing good if I feel like I'm doing it to be seen or to fulfill others' expectations, almost to the point that I'd rather do nothing at all.

I guess the challenge is simply to find the will of God, obey, and be content in it. Easier said. But I'm learning. I know who I am in Christ. I know the gifts I've been given. I know the word of God and the will of God revealed therein. I'm going to try to set my eyes on those things and those things alone.

Forgetting Keys

All our lives we look for keys,
sometimes overturning cushions,
other times giving up, in hope
we'll find it when we're not looking.

In all our searching we fail
to see: There's no locks.

No doors.
No wall-surrounded holes.

No combination of numbers
will open up love.
Left, right, right, left
is just a longer way
of going straight ahead.

This isn't cynicism though.
I like it.
Life is more
than a padlocked door.