Job Hunt

Ugh. I'm really hating looking for a job... its not just the rejection letters, but the whole process. I can imagine it is a lot easier when you have a specific profession in mind with a solid resume full of experience. But when you only have a vague notion of the profession, and have a woefully lacking resume, it can be downright depressing to even get started.

But this isn't just a blog to whine about the hunt.... but to reflect on the importance of work and being productive.


The last 2 months have been some of the least productive in my adult life, and I can honestly say I don't know how people endure it. I remember growing up around people who were on welfare, or people who had been retired for a number of years, and I don't know how people can get by with that. There is such a lack of purpose, such an emptiness, and such a sense of failure as a human being. Its not just the male role of being the bread winner, but some sense of purpose as a part of the human race. This is a very biblical principle after all.

I remember thinking fondly of this type of time off, and I know for sure that most would look on my last 2 months with envy. But the reality is that in a nation that is suffering financially, jobs being cut, and being a young married couple with lots of bills and loans, it is overwhelming and difficult not to panic.

But I don't want this blog to be all dark and whiny...
Having such a sense of emptiness and useless has caused me to notice all the more those things that I should value the most. Not only small things like ministry and friends, but most importantly my beautiful and loving wife. She has been so patient with me, has yet to nag me about the job thing, has yet to complain when she goes to work each morning and I'm sitting at the computer, and has yet to show any jealousy over my responsibility-free life.

But even more important than her is the fact that I know God will provide. He has already provided, and I know he will continue. More than that I know I need to keep relying on his strength and guidance. That can sound cliche, but it is certainly times like this when faith is challenged, and what we /really/ believe shines through, not just the propositions we half heartedly affirm. So I hope that I can look back on this time in my life and praise the Lord that I held firm to the faith, and continued to follow him and trust him.

Read more...

Religious

For those (very few) who happen to stop by here, I apologize for not posting anything in a long time. I wrote several blogs and just haven’t posted them because they didn’t seem worth the time. I also started several more, but out of fear of breaking the fear of breaking the patterns in my life, I restrained from finishing them.

What I want to write a note about is our notion of “religion”. I’ve been asked several times “are you religious”, and that term is so weighted with the expectations and assumptions of our society. Religion is something that people cling to in order to bring meaning and order to a chaotic life. Religion is a group of people usually along socio-economic lines who meet together and try to make themselves feel better about themselves. Religious people are ones who bicker over inconsequential details about abstract concepts such as God and faith. But the most important assumption is that religions are all basically the same, even though they package the same basic philosophy in different flavors. Its almost like stopping by to buy ice cream: everyone has their own personal tastes, but we’re all eating ice cream.


I honestly hate this definition. Its impossible to answer, because I know that by the popular definition, I fit into the category of religion (I got to church regularly, I believe these things to be true, I talk about them, etc.) But I do not believe I fit that category because in order to accept it, you are accepting the full load of responsibility for all of these assumptions.

Lets just take a step back and examine these assumptions. First, lets just assume there is some transcendent being God who does in fact exist. If he does exist, then he has to have characteristics, first of these being the fact that he is in some way transcendent. Now whatever other characteristics are true about him, we can at the very least say they are his attributes. In other words, they are true attributes. We cannot just say that everyone’s concept of God is true, because if he really exists then he must have a specific set of attributes. There is no such thing as a being which is the catch all for everyone’s list of qualities.

But lets take it a step further. Lets assume this being God decided he wanted to reveal himself in some way to humanity. If this being has a specific set of attributes, then at the very least we could say it would be odd for him to reveal himself in a variety of ways. It seems odd that he would want one group to think he was white, and another black, when in fact he was truly orange. This means that if he exists, and if he chose to reveal himself, then how he revealed himself would be important to really know who he was.

But even more, if he exists, having a specific set of attributes, and if he chose to reveal himself, then it is likely that he would want some kind of response. Very few people do things just to be seen, they want a response, whether it be acceptance, money, encouragement, love, or whatever. But if all of these assumptions were true, then the response he wanted would be important to know who he is.

All of this is to say that it is impossible for the popular notion of religion to be true. God cannot encompass all of people’s beliefs about him, because each religion has very different beliefs about who God is. It is impossible for all religions to be different avenues to the same God, because each religion has very different definitions of God’s response. And for both of these, it is not just different, but outright contradictions. Is God triune as the Christian says, single as the Jew says, or are there really only many gods as some Asian traditions believe? These can’t all be true. If God exists (or the gods), then only one of these is true.

So “religious” is not fair, because it tries to lump together things that must remain separate. But even more so, “religion” in the popular sense attempts to trivialize the whole notion of believing in God. If he really does exist, and wants to reveal himself to humanity, then this is worth paying attention to. I can’t help but think that if aliens existed and had contacted humanity, most people would be very interested in their expectations and what they have to say. We would want to know the truth of their message and intentions. We could not have a plethora of interpretations, and be satisfied with “well they are all each person’s view” and leave it at that: especially if they had giant space ships that could do serious damage. More than that, we would not just be satisfied with the fact that “aliens do exist and want to talk to us, but each person has his own view”. This news would impact everyone’s lives, we would put everything on hold because of how huge it would be. It would be the most important thing on everyone’s minds, and it would change how we view our universe and how we live our lives.

Part of this is our own fault though. Because many have bought into the lie of pluralism, even though we might not believe it. Whenever we say we believe in God and trivialize it with the pop-psychology / neo-pagan / new age / whatever notions of faith and feeling better about ourselves, we’ve admitted defeat to the notion that God really doesn’t exist, or at the very best, does not matter. If God exists, then religion is not shopping for ice cream: It is the attempt to learn who God is, what his message is, and what he wants, and if this is true, then everything else is secondary: this is the most important thing we can know, and it changes everything.

Read more...

My Camp Experience.

I had the privilege of serving as camp staff for my churches youth summer camp over the last week. This was probably the most overwhelming experience I have had since my wedding.


First, going into the week I was uneasy. Even though I have been teaching for a year with the High School, I knew only a small portion of the High School group, and many of them graduated this last semester and weren’t going to be at camp. So I knew I would be forced into making some new friendships and trying to connect with students in a new way. I was also worried because I have never been staff at a camp, and I knew there were many things I would have to learn along the way. But more than this, I was concerned that I would not be able to impact students lives spiritually.

But despite all this, God really did some amazing things this week. I never imagined that camp could be more intense and more fun as staff than as a student. The intensity is obvious enough, leading a bunch of young students, keeping track of them, and always engaging them and keeping them interested in what is happening can be very challenging and exhausting. But more than this, it is a blast. As a student, I remember how fun all the activities were, and how exciting it was to be around friends and having the “camp experience”. But as staff, I think not only were the events fun, but being able to connect with several different kids and in many ways be the center of their attention for a week only added to the fun.

I definitely felt that God gave me the strength to set aside some of my inhibitions and introversion in order to engage the students (especially the guys in my tent). I’m sure I made many mistakes as a staff person, but I know God carried me through the week there too. The other staff were so talented and things moved along so smoothly, that there was room for my mistakes so that things kept moving smoothly.

Did I make an impact on their lives spiritually? I really do not know. I had a group of good guys, and I raised several (what I think are) important and deep questions. I can only hope that they will continue to pray over and pursue these, and with God’s help grow in that. I do know that whether or not I individually had an impact, that I was a part of a team that as a group impacted several students. Being a part of that team, and helping out in whatever ways that I did were a blast and totally worth the sacrifice of time and energy.

I’m very excited about youth ministry now, at least much more than I was. I made several new friends, and many of them are just starting high school, so I look forward to getting to know them more over the next few years. I feel very dumb for not having been more intentional in the youth ministry over the last year. I feel convicted for not having taken it more seriously, and set aside more time for events so that I could really connect with the students.

Although the intensity and fun were greater as staff, I think saying goodbye was also harder. I remember that as a student, when camp was over it was sad because the week of fun and friends was over, and I got to return to my home and the boring routine of life. This is certainly true as staff too, but there is an added negative. This was the fact that I got to see kids that I had gotten to know (even if superficially) and love and having to watch them return to broken homes and painful lives. It was sad to see a few of the kids flourish in a loving environment, and knowing that their home is anything but that. Fortunately most of the kids I know I'll still have opportunities to interact with during youth meetings, and many of them are in solid discipleship groups.

The group is made up of solid, mature kids, but there are some that I worry for. All I can do is pray and trust that God will continue to work in their lives and protect them from circumstances outside of their control, and hope that they will continue to pursue God.
Read more...

Love/Hate Relationship Part 4

The 4th thing I hate about SoCal is the big city life. This is literally directed at the fact that LA and its suburbs cover so much land that SoCal is mostly made of concrete. It is ugly, smoggy, dirty, and busy. But more so, LA is a large city, and with that comes all of the blessings and curses of a large city. Traffic, fast paced life, impatience, frustration, and so on. There is also the culture of the big city, where everyone pursues extravagance, and everyone tries to cram as many things (whether productive or entertainment) into their days.

But I also love the big city. There are so many opportunities that I missed in Ga. that the big city offers. Not just shopping opportunities, but also music and culture. There are lots of fascinating events that take place, fancy movie theaters, concerts, and a great diversity of people. Since I came to California, I’ve seen over a half dozen amazing concerts that would not have stopped anywhere near where I lived in Ga. There is also a lot more talent in this area. It is just mind boggling how many kids are talented in some form of art or production, whether college or high schooled aged. Back east, I do not remember anywhere near this degree of talent. Further, there are so many unique and interesting people. So many varying backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives on life. It can be overwhelming and exhilarating at the same time.

So that is part 4 of why I love and hate SoCal.
Read more...

Things I forgot to take to summer camp

Inevitably, I always forget to take things on trips. This year for summer camp, I did alright, but I still forgot a few important (funny?) ones:

• Money for a shower (results in interesting smells)
  
• Extra pair of shorts (also results in interesting smells)
• Beach towel (fun times drying off after shower with a sandy towel)
• Chair (I like to sit on ground anyway)
• Watch (because phone doesn't get reception)
• Sunscreen (yay for blistering sunburns)
• Real sleeping bag (Marcy's kid sized one just can't cut it)
• Audio adapters (Needed for sound system, fortunately we were able to rig up an alternative)
• Hat (also helps with sunburn, and keeps hair from whipping eyeballs while riding the buss)

So lessoned learned... maybe....
Read more...

Back

I'm back from a crazy fast paced week with Bridges youth camping out at the beautiful Lake Lopez.

It is so disorienting being back, trying to figure out whether or not I want to fall back into the inevitable "routine" of life.

It is also annoying because for whatever reason, all of my sunburns from the week decided to start hurting the moment I got home. Most of them are your standard "oops I forgot to put sunscreen there" burns. However, my feet are the most impressive: they are bright red on the tops from Tuesday @ the beach. Because of how bad that burn was, I decided to stay barefooted for most of the week (so my feet collected a nice layer of dirt). The dark brown and bright red were rimmed with the pale white where neither burn nor dirt had touched.

The best part though was Friday, during one of the games one of the staff accidentally tripped over my feet several times. This ripped off a few layers of skin, adding to the already beautiful collage that is my feet.

Fun times :)

I'll write more about this week tonight at work.
Read more...

Love/Hate Relationship Part 3

This probably should have been my first blog. After all, anyone who knows me knows I complain about LA weather almost on a daily basis. Its so ugly. Its all the same. Always warm, sometimes hot. It never rains, and when it does, it is the most pitiful excuse for rain. Californians thrive in boring weather, and they run in terror at interesting weather (and make sure to complain about it too). I love a little bit of snow each year, lots of rain, and especially 4 distinct seasons. In California the seasons are:

Summer: Hot
Fall: Hotter, with fires
Early Winter: Warm
Winter: Warm (some days cool), with a little bit of rain
Spring: Warm, getting hot

LA is also a desert, but we have artificially made it green. I remember hiking up a mountain, and seeing a big yellow valley, with square patches of green. It was very ugly and sad.

What do I love?

Summer’s aren’t as humid as in Georgia. It can get very hot, but it is no where near as miserable as I remember on the east coast. The consistent weather can be nice, because it is easier to plan outdoor events. Although I miss rain and thunderstorms, I do not miss those 6 week stretches of rain. I have a feeling I probably enjoy the constant “paradise” temperatures more than I realize. I am sure I will miss it (only a bit) if we move.


So that’s part 3 of why I love and hate SoCal.
Read more...

Analogy of Scripture

I want to talk a bit about the analogy of scripture. This is also known as the principle of scripture interpreting scripture. The reasoning behind this goes something like this:
God is the source of truth and is unified without contradiction
Scripture is God’s revelation, so it to reflects his character of truth and unity
Because of this, we can use scripture to interpret scripture
Because of this, the more difficult passages should be interpreted by the clear passages


However, I think there are a number of dangers with this reasoning.

1) This reduces the theology of scripture to basic formulas of logic. We must assume that the Bible in all its diversity (of authors, times, etc.) results in a perfect mathematical unified picture of theology. The reality is that this simply is not the case. Good biblical scholarship rightly recognizes the tension of various themes. For example, we presently experience the kingdom and its blessings in Christ, the promises of God have been fulfilled in the present. Thus, we have a realized eschatology -- the future is now. But in tension with this is the reality that things are not all right, the promises are not fulfilled entirely. We still wait for the return of our king and fullness of his kingdom. This is a future eschatology. The New Testament clearly points to both. We cannot reduce this tension to a simple philosophical formula. Any understanding of the Trinity or incarnation of Christ clearly reflects this tension. Any good study of the issue of divine sovereignty and human freedom should reflect this.

There is fundamentally a difference between biblical tension and biblical contradiction. The Trinity might be construed as a contradiction, but biblically it is a tension. There are themes that stress both the division and unity of God. The reality is that God’s truth is complex and infinitely surpasses our finite human understanding. This does not allow for God’s truth to be clearly a contradiction, but it does mean that there are aspects of God’s character and action that we cannot fully break down and understand. This is a very difficult line to walk, as there are plenty of theologians who affirm tension, but for all practical purposes describe contradiction. This is also difficult because there is a lot of ambiguity as to how to avoid affirming contradiction without “ironing out” a tension.

2) It is difficult to decide what “clear” and “difficult” passages are. There are no biblical criteria. The reality is that there are biblical themes that lie in tension. It seems as if there are no checks and balances for the exegete in deciding what passages are clear. It is all to easy to instead reduce passages which contradict one’s theological system as the “difficult”, and the passages that are in harmony as “clear”. The best example I can think of is Hebrews 6:4-6. This passage brings out some of the worst of some of the best exegetes. Calvinists come up with a number of different options for how to understand this apparent “difficult” passage (because they reject that believers can fall away) and appeal to John 6:37-39 (one of the strongest affirmations of Calvinism). Arminians likewise stumble over this passage, not because it apparently teaches that believers can fall away, but because if it happens it is permanent.

3) This principle can circumvent the basic principles of exegesis. Unlike #2, some theologians will simply rule out some interpretations while exegeting a passage based on prior theological conviction (which in turn is based on certain passages). It is unfortunate, but these same theologians will describe how “the whole testimony of scripture” stands against this interpretive option, so it cannot be allowed. But this is not good exegesis. If the option is reasonable within the bounds of literary and historical context, then it should be given a fair hearing.

4) This reverses the exegetical process. The process of exegesis begins with the smaller parts and works towards the whole. This means you have to start with each sentence, putting together what it means. This then is interpreted in the context of paragraphs, chapters, and books. (This is essentially Osborne’s hermeneutical spiral: the spiral from small units of thought to context and back again, ideally ever spiraling closer and closer to the truth). Once one has a good grasp on the themes and meaning of a book, then we can gather together all these themes and build the big picture of scripture. We cannot start with a theological system, because this will impose meaning on exegesis.

Of course, nobody actually can function this way. We all have a theology even if we do not think we do. The point is that we must always be letting the text itself challenge our theology, so that in the same we the hermeneutical spiral uses context to interpret words, and words to interpret context, the text will shape our theology, so that our theology conforms to the text and not our presuppositions.



What are the benefits of this principle, if the above cautions are heeded? First and foremost, it is necessary to achieve the “big picture” of scripture. Each book has its own set of themes, and each author has a purpose and intended shape for these themes. But these themes also build off of each other. For example, Sailhamer argues that all of scripture is essentially a commentary and exposition on the Pentateuch. That the themes of the Pentateuch are repeated, expanded, and commented on by every biblical author. This means that if Paul’s doctrine of justification is such a commentary, then we first need to understand the themes of sin, grace, debt, redemption, forgiveness, etc. in the Pentateuch. Once we have a grasp of how those themes operate there, then we can move through the rest of scripture and observer those same themes, ultimately arriving at Paul and seeing how Paul maneuvers these themes. In a sense, this process is just that: the text interpreting the text. But it is more watching how later authors comment and manipulate (in a positive way) prior biblical themes.

This is not an easy task. It requires a lot of work, and requires a solid comprehension of scripture. I would love to see somebody approach systematic theology in this way. Instead of repeating the questions, grids, and debates of the last 2000 years, they would assimilate the biblical themes and paint a systematic theology of biblical theology. Something like Ladd, something like Grudem, but something altogether different.
Read more...

Dream Theater’s Compositional Style

I have loved Dream Theater's music for a long time, over 10 years now. I've watched an amazing band explore new territory, and mature musically far beyond most. Many people I've talked to find the band revolting. They either can't stand the vocalist's style (which was difficult for me at first), comparing it with 80's hair bands. Or, because some songs are heavy and have fast solos, they instantly put it into the mindless shred category. Most will recognize their talent, but add the qualifier that its just not "my style".

I can respect this, but I think that if you can get past the vocal style, there is a lot every musician can learn from the band. Its not the crazy time signatures, or how fast they can play, but their compositional style. I thought I'd collect a few of my thoughts here on what currently is impressing me about this.

1) First, they use repetition and restatement creatively. In a lot of ways, Dream Theater's music demonstrates many of the qualities of good classic music. This means that a given song might only have a few themes, but throughout the song these themes are not just repeated mindlessly (like so much other music would with just 1 or 2 themes), but develop them. This can mean different instruments will play the theme each time it is repeated, or the theme is changed slightly, or there will be radically exposition on the theme. Sometimes a vocal theme from early in the song will make up a lot of the exposition in the instrumental section.

2) Second, they incorporate a lot of themes into one song. In contemporary worship, all too often songs only have 2 themes, with a possible third as a bridge. The better recording artists will often have a creative intro for some songs, and might even have a pre-chorus. However, Dream Theater songs rarely have less than 5 different themes.

For example, a normal song probably has something like:

Intro > Verse > Chorus > Verse > Chorus > Bridge > Chorus

That's 3-4 themes (depending on the intro).

However, with that structure, Dream Theater would do something more like this:

Intro > Transition Riff > Verse > Pre-Chorus > Chorus > Transition Riff > Verse > Pre-Chorus > Chorus > Bridge > Riff 2 > Riff 3 > Chorus

The point is that they repeat riffs, but they have a lot of other creative riffs added. This brings an inexplicable depth to a song. There is enough repetition that the song is memorable, and the themes are related enough that the song flows. This is the hardest part. Coming up with a series of 5-6 riffs that connect in an obvious way can be very tough.

3) They don't get overburdened by a typical "full" sound. This is especially pointed towards worship music again. I just can't get over how so many worship bands think that they need 1-2 people on acoustic trying to do all the jobs of the entire band (rhythm, bass, soup, lead, etc.). A lot of Dream Theater songs are actually very simple. Some riffs are only one chord, but the melody and riff are strong enough to carry the riff. I've heard several professional worship bands that sorta get this. Now, undoubtedly there are appropriate times when you want such a huge sound that it just smacks people in their faces, but this must only be used for effect. So many worship teams have 1-2 people over-playing on their acoustics, + 1-2 on electric, piano, etc. This results in a very messy, overlapping sound that is just ugly.

This really means separating out the rolls and keeping it that way. Percussion takes care of the rhythm, "soup" instruments provide the necessary filler, and melody instruments drive alongside the bass. Keeping these rolls tasteful and distinct really gives a riff character.

4) They have very interesting chord progressions. So many songs just rely on the basic I IV V chords, and only use open voicings. This is beyond cliché, for me personally it is to the point of sickening. First, you don't need to fill empty space with chords, you can simply have a riff that builds off the chord in an interesting way. Second, Dream Theater often only uses simple chords, but uses very tasteful filler chords like secondary dominants. Very simple theory, but they know just the right spots to throw a sweet substitution in.

5) Dynamics. This simply cannot be overstressed. Dream Theater songs build, fall off, and weave through a storyline. So many other songs follow very simple patterns, or just maintain throughout. This is boring, and very unmusical. Music is supposed to tell a story, and it does that through dynamics, who plays what where, the intensity, the fullness, etc.

6) Riff length. This falls under a couple of the above, but it has always fascinated me how Dream Theater almost never repeats a simple 4 measure progression as part of a riff. Many of there riffs are 8 measures long, and if the riff repeats, there will usually be substantial variation on the last few measures of the repeat. This again requires a lot of work and creativity, but it pays off in having very original material, and again, the music tells a story.

Anyway, I could probably rant all day about this, but I'll stop for now. I might add more later though.

Read more...

Love/Hate Relationship Part 2

The second reason why I hate SoCal is its culture. I remember watching TV as a kid, and shows like “Saved by the Bell”, while interesting, just seemed odd. The kids ideals, the problems they struggled with, and their culture were so foreign and unattractive. Living out here for 8 years has not changed that perception. I will never understand the “surfer” cult, nor find its lifestyles and aspirations (what few there are) appealing. I cannot stand the “indi” cult. It is ugly, encourages bad art, and reminds me all to much of my adolescent attitudes. Further, the Hollywood cult is equally repulsive. Seeing what extravagant lifestyles these people live is sickening. It is not because I am envious and want that life, but because they have so much and are so empty. Further, they really do not produce much of anything of lasting value. So much of what comes out of Hollywood is filth, either because it is immoral, but mostly because it lacks any substance and is so commercialized. There are very few films or TV anymore that are genuinely good art.

Finally, I am tired of being uncomfortable because I cannot speak Spanish. I have no problem being a minority in SoCal, but it bugs me so much how so many people out here refuse to assimilate. This is America, English is our language. It is frustrating to know that if I have to find a retail job, it will be difficult just because I am not bilingual. It is frustrating to realize that there is at least a chance that if somebody hits me on the road, they might drive off because they do not have a license. But more than that, it is frustrating to be around people who have so much they do not know what to do with it, and seeing so many more who have almost nothing and are content with the scraps they do have.


I do however love SoCal because it is a great place to do ministry. There are so many strong churches in the area. I have a friend back east who cannot find a good church. His criteria are like mine, and are very basic. Biblically centered teaching, authentic worship, and a heart for ministry and discipleship. These are so basic, but so few churches get it right. For whatever reason, (perhaps the number of good Christian universities?) there are a number of very solid churches out here.

Additionally, there are a plethora of ministry opportunities. Back east, our ministry outreaches were washing people’s cars. Out here, there are so many opportunities to serve people in real need. I am at a church that gives me plenty of opportunities to teach (and to fail at it so that I can learn and grow), opportunities with music, leadership, discipleship, mentorship, and so on. One of the biggest problems with larger churches is they have a large enough congregation to recruit only the best for ministries. This seems counter intuitive, there should always be enough opportunities for available talent, but for whatever practical reason, this is not always the case. But it is exciting to be a part of a church that values its entire body, and pushes hard to get everyone involved. I have grown so much as a result of this, where if I had been in another church back east, I might not have grown at all.

So that’s part 2 of why I love and hate SoCal.
Read more...

On Chomsky

I cannot say I’ve read much Chomsky. But, I recently read this interview.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18257

He is a very interesting fellow. I find it a bit humorous that he is “America’s greatest intellectual”. From what I understand, I do not know if he is really academically qualified to be an expert on politics, (I thought his field of study was linguistics), but really in our society today, this shouldn’t be surprising. After all, it is far too common for somebody to speak with “authority” outside their sphere of expertise.

Chomsky’s article is interesting, humorous, and infuriating. He has a lot of insights, but draws a lot of wrong conclusions in my opinion. Chomsky certainly thinks himself a scholar of popular thought. He seems to pride himself in identifying with the vast majority over against the oppressing powers. This dichotomy already is difficult. I am not convinced that such a clear oppressive power system is in place in America. Certainly public opinion of the government is extremely poor (and Congress has been far less popular than Bush for a long time now).

I think part of the problem is two fold. First, everyone thinks that the world around us is not right. We think and recognize that policies are wrong, we realize that others are using power to take advantage of us, we see injustice, we experience powerlessness, and so on. I cannot help but think that this recognition of the wrongness of the world goes beyond politics and to something more profound. Chomsky would not like this (I imagine), but I think he is hitting on our innate, spiritual recognition of sin in the world and our need for God. We all recognize that the world is flawed, we see injustice and oppression, and even if we do not like the term, evil in a variety of forms. No political philosophy will solve this problem, only the Gospel. Though, I do think that conservative politics ultimately are built on a recognition of evil and are thus more effective at properly (and Biblically) restraining it.

Second, just because we recognize oppression and evil does not mean that there is an “establishment” that is doing this to us. It seems a common thing to try and explain this evil in the world by vilifying an organization and imbuing it with almost divine like qualities (which in itself could be significant of the real issue at stake). Of course there are not extraterrestrials controlling the world secretly, nor is there (likely) an evil government conspiracy to subdue the population. These are simple explanations, but are far from plausible. After all, if the government was capable of that level of organization and efficiency.... well, it obviously isn’t. I’m not saying Chomsky is Fox Mulder, but he definitely has his Mulder moments.

It is very easy to idealize the situation into “bad guys” oppressing the “masses”, but this is unfair. Part of this is because it will be very difficult to decide who is in these different classes. Further, humanity cannot function without leaders, and leaders will always have to make decisions. Chomsky rather seems to idealize a “pure” democracy, where popular opinion dictates everything. I am not a historian, but I do not think there is evidence that this actually works. Even at the smallest level, leadership is always needed in order to provide organization and direction. Further, leadership is about seeing the big picture in a way that might not be possible for those who are in specialized roles. Of course human nature corrupts leadership, and we have far more examples of bad leadership in history than good, but I sure hope Chomsky does not really believe that removing all leadership and making every person on the planet have equal say in decisions is really a good thing. But it definitely appears that is his opinion.

Chomsky also seems to assume a lot of the American public. He points out that if it were up to the public, we would have had a universal healthcare system 20 years ago. I think at the heart of this is he believes Americans are liberals, and although this sounds unfair, I get the impression he feels that businessmen and politicians are the ones who are pushing foreign ideas on the people. This certainly is not fair at all. Chomsky likes quoting statistics, but I do not believe this accurately reflect people’s opinions. People will respond to attractive promises like “free healthcare”, but they might not be informed to understand the drawbacks.

Chomksy sees an uninformed society that makes decisions based on attractive images that convey no substantial content. He is insightful in realizing that people are attracted to superficial images, and I think he really hits the nail on the head with Obama. Obama is a “blank slate” of sorts that people can easily project their ideals on. He is charismatic, and is full of short and simple platitudes that convey no content at all. “Change” is not always a good thing after all, the real question is not “change” for change’s sake, but “change to what?”.

This gets at one of Chomsky’s biggest weaknesses (at least in this interview). Its the whole chicken and egg question. Is the society uninformed because of the (oppressive?) business powers and their propaganda, or are businesses and politicians able to get away with such superficiality because people no longer know how to think and are saturated in an entertainment driven society?

I recently read in a WoW forum an application for one of the better guilds on my server. Because this guild is very good, the applicant recognized that he needed to make a strong case for his commitment to weekly raids. He pointed out that he plays the game 8-12 hours every day of the week. He was in college (now he’s 27), but he dropped out partly due to the game. He currently only works a basic retail job so that he can play the game the rest of his day. This is horrifying! This person has gave up any real productive future in order to play a video game seemingly for the rest of his life.

This is not what humans were meant for. This is not a meaningful life. But this is our society: we work 8 hours a day, and then try to cram as many forms of entertainment into the rest of our free time. We are not interested in thinking, studying, or engaging in philosophical discussions. We are cynical of “scholars” and possibly even afraid of them. Is this because of an oppressive propaganda machine, or is the propaganda a result of a fading society? I think it is the latter. This is partly due to the quick rise of technology and the resulting forms of entertainment. It is also due to our entitlement attitude towards a life of luxury. I think we can also put some blame on our educational system for loosing sight of the value of a real education in place of themes of “tolerance” and a post-modern epistemology.

A final critique of this interview is Chomsky’s liberalism. One of the scariest things about liberalism is its forceful equality. This is the heart of socialism. It is scary because it is so counter human nature. Our differences are what drive us to improve on ourselves. Chomsky uses terms like “free market” which I would think imply this principle. But, I’m pretty sure for Chomsky “free market” means a market where all players are made equal. This simply does not work. My definition of free market is where hard work are rewarded. Humanity is not productive when we are not allowed to work for our own greed and ambition. This is not a pretty picture, but we cannot “fix” humanity with a political system. At least this approach works, and under the right checks and balances can work very well.

Chomsky is a very insightful man. I should read more of him, because I know he is popular in many circles. He is challenging because his conclusions and perspective are so entirely foreign. He is humorous because at times he becomes overly sensational viz. Michael Moore. (Like in implying that Europeans are healthier than Americans because they are taller, or that America orchestrated our victory in WW2 in order to have global power). He is also frustrating because he does get at real issues and real problems. Guys like Chomsky will always be good to break misconceptions about leaders. Bush is not God’s gift to man, he is a flawed leader, and has made plenty of mistakes. I still think the man has done far more good than evil, but history will have to be the judge.
Read more...

A love/hate thing with California

I've decided to do a 5 part series on things I love and things I hate about living in SoCal.

The first reason why I hate living in SoCal is the drivers. I'm sure every big city has its host of bad drivers, but in my mind drivers out here are the worst. I have to admit, it is kind of nice that there is the unspoken rule (well, not quite so unspoken) that everyone drives 10 over. I still get nervous around police, but when they are obviously cruising at 15-20 over, I guess its not that big of a deal. But SoCal drivers are some of the most arrogant and reckless drivers around. I get overwhelmed with the most powerful anger whenever I am cutoff by somebody weaving through dense traffic, or think its just funny to drive on the shoulder to pass you on an on ramp.

Its not just that people are arrogantly pursuing the futile goal of getting just one more care ahead, but its the fact that their doing so not only slows down traffic (as everyone breaks to avoid an accident), but also endangers lives. And worse, when there is an accident (which is very frequent), that slows everyone down even more. And all of this is for the sake of getting someplace faster, which in the end this kind of recklessness only shaves seconds off of your arrival time. I'll be addressing this more later, but it is an attitude of entitlement, an attitude of selfishness, and an attitude of... stupidness. :)

I've been in so many close calls where somebody was acting foolishly, and its only by the grace of God that I have yet to have an accident out here. My wife can attest to this though, every time I get in any kind of traffic, I am a very angry person. Such emotions of frustration and even hatred wash over me, and it really surprises me how intense these can get.

Although this is unrelated to the drivers, stop lights definitely do not help my attitude. It seems like you hit almost every one when you are running late, and many of these are for old ladies to cross the street, or one car to make a left turn.

The first reason why I love living in SoCal is family, friends, and church.

Right now, I only have an uncle out here (who I really wish I made a greater effort to get to know better), but most of Marcy's immediate family is still only a short drive away. I still have not grown as close to them as Marcy has to my family, but they are my family, and I do love them. If/when we move, I will miss being close to them, even though I do not always take advantage of their close proximity.

I also have a number of good friends out here. I'd wager that I have more close friends out here than I ever did in Ga. I've also plugged into a church that I feel is unique. It definitely has its share of problems, but the leadership seems to really "get it" about some of the more important things, and it is a solid community that is ministry focused, and biblically centered. These are such basic qualities that should be a part of the church, but many churches fall short today.

I've often been afraid that if/when we move, we'll be hard pressed to find a church as strong and vibrant. Its such a great balance where we are at, the community is small enough that you can easily know many people in the body, and large enough that we are able to undertake some ambitious ministry and missions tasks. It is also nice (and frustrating) to be in a community where you do not have to be an expert in your field to be needed / used.

So that's part 1 of what I love and hate about living in SoCal.

Read more...

Perversion and Culture

I am utterly amazed at the acceptable perversion in our culture. I get the privilege of listening to kids 8-12 play in the pool and not only use some of the vilest language, but also comfortably navigate all types of sexual innuendo. I know this is no startling revelation, but I have been coming across teenage girls more and more that seem innocent enough, but will match any boy of equivalent age in sexual and coarse joking.

It seems our American culture is at an impasse of sorts. We want to be open and free with all forms of ..I've heard it said in the good tradition of European sexuality). But we still have some remnants of a previous age's morality. There is an invisible line that dictates acceptable standards of content for broadcast material, yet all forms of media are not trying to walk that line, but significantly push it. After all, some of the "best" television is "edgy", "pushing the standards", etc. This might be all in the name of a freer sexuality, but the end result is always a more blatant sexuality.

We could lament our culture and predict that this is the worst humanity has ever gotten, and the parousia must be around the corner. I do not think this is the best line of reasoning. A friend of mine once argued that it is almost better the way things are now, because apparently people still thought the same way 50 years ago, they just were forced to act and think in hiding. It was a sexually repressed culture after all.

I do know whether this is true or not, but I definitely cannot agree that it is better with "everything out in the open". First and foremost, a culture that is so openly vulgar and perverse can only move in one direction. Western civilization has lost any conscience, and all that is left is only the most minimalist morality. It is sad that children are growing up in a society where they experience not only peer pressure to have premarital sex and unheard of young ages, but also that they are quickly conditioned into the mindset of unrestrained freedom and entitlement to acting in the most degraded ways. This "open" and "free" environment might seem ideal because depravity isn't being hidden, but I think it is worse because its not only encouraging, but I think forcing many into bad lifestyle choices. Its like we're trying to socialize ourselves into thinking that whatever we want is okay, kids should be having sex, and if you are a guy with even the slightest bit of effeminacy you should rightly choose a gay lifestyle.

Of course humanity is naturally depraved, and this isn't just about sustaining an empty idealist facade. But it is sad to see a society fall as low as we have, especially one that was built on Christian virtues. Perhaps no society is immune to this, but we certainly have made a lot of progress in falling over the last 50 years. Just because this does not relate to salvation does not mean it is acceptable, it is still a sad state of things, and I think at some level something we should try to reverse.

Christians are called to endure evil societies, and live as lights in them. This does not mean that Christianity is about Christendom, but it does mean that if the church is functioning, one would hope to see a positive effect on society. At some level, it is hard not to wonder if the church has failed rather miserably, and the quick degeneration of Western society is the result. Sinful humanity will always be sinful outside of Christ, but shouldn't we see progress in the church instead of regress? I am no historian, but I can easily think of a few areas where this has been clear.

First, the enlightenment and later modernistic movements brought some terrifying blows on the church. It seems especially in the early 20^th century that many Christians took a defensive stance rather than went on the offensive. We "turtled" up, removed ourselves from society, and did everything we could to protect our children from the world. The more extreme side of the fundamentalist movement clearly demonstrates this, though the original movement was itself a good thing). It is almost as if, as soon as some powerful and dangerous ideas entered society, we quickly gave up and tried to hide.

They tried to kill God, and we surrendered. Again, this is only my impression from a limited knowledge of history, maybe I'm horribly wrong. But it deeply bothers me that some of the most profound thinkers during this same time period were shunned by many Christians (Lewis immediately comes to mind). In all honesty, it seems like the church is only recently beginning to recover from the initial attack of the enlightenment, and only now beginning to get together a counteroffensive. It only took us 200 years.

I think the battle against wrong ideas is important. It won't save people, but it will help affect the world for better, and who knows what kind of seeds this will sow? In the same light, I think we need to fight the battle for American culture. We cannot continue with an attitude of retreat. I doubt we will be able to transform culture, but I think we can at least expect to make an impact. There is no excuse for Christians giving into the cultural peer pressure on issues like morality. As Christians, we should never be ashamed of Paul's words in Phil. 4:8:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Christians who are in the film industry should not give in to compromising their morality in order to be "edgy". Nor should we sacrifice ideals of purity and righteousness in the name of not being legalists. Legalism and righteousness are very different things: one is an attitude of doing what's right for credit, another is doing what's right out of love. We need to stop acting like rebellious children who want to act in whatever way they want. We need to spiritually grow up, start being men and women of God who stand up for truth and purity.

I'm speaking as much to myself as to anyone else. I tolerate far too much, and have become desensitized to things that should be revolting. I've bought into the lie that "its not really that big of a deal", I've succumbed to this childish attitude of rebellion against all standards, and trivialized purity.

------

So, a bit of a harsh blog, and a bit random… perhaps I'm randomly connecting things that shouldn't be connected, I dunno.

Read more...

Leadership

A humorous moment from Atlantis was when McKay was recording his "final words" before he was about to die. They consisted mostly of ramblings and emotional introspection, but the humor was that every beat he would say "ah yes, back to my topic... Leadership."And every scene that came back to that recording, he had apparently yet again diverted from his topic.

For whatever reason, I feel compelled to offer some reflections on leadership. Whether or not this will degenerate into me rambling has yet to be seen. Further, it is possible (if not likely) that my presentation of thoughts on leadership (as with McKay) points more to a lack of leadership ability on my part, of which I freely confess.

So what is leadership? More importantly, what are the qualities of a good leader?

Here are a few thoughts of mine: (in no particular order)

1) Knowledge. This does not mean omniscience, or even specialized knowledge. Good leadership requires good comprehensive knowledge. Enough knowledge to always be able to see how thoughts ought to work, and how their parts generally should operate to accomplish their goal. A good leader will also have some degree of knowledge about how people function, and know how to recognize people's needs, reactions, etc.

2) Perspective. Good leaders are always able to see the big picture. As with knowledge, there is a need for awareness of the details, but a good leader will always see how each parts each function, and each step reaches the bigger goal, and is keenly aware when group diverts from its goal. On some level it is ideal for a good leader to be able to see when the smallest unite diverts, but this is not entirely necessary. What is more important is that the leader has a clear sense of the goal and a clear sense of how the parts will function to accomplish this goal.

3) Clarity. A good leader needs clarity in order to assess all the available information, filter out all of the irrelevant details, and then synthesize the correct decision. A good leader does not get confused when challenges arise. He does not get overwhelmed by their imposing nature, but is always sharp in seeing where such things actually pose a challenge to the goal, and what must be done to overcome these obstacles. This again does not require having the answer, but having enough comprehensive clarity not to be overburdened by an apparent challenge, and always maintaining clarity for the big picture. Further, the leader is aware of the needs of the individual parts, and is always factoring in the necessary steps in providing for these needs when appropriate.

4) Accuracy. A good leader probably will make mistakes, but he will always strive for accuracy. In our day and age, their is a common spirit of "fudging" the details, or getting by with the "gist". A good leader strives not necessarily for perfection, but that the parts function accurately, efficiently, and smoothly.

5) Lieutenants. A good leader will always assign skilled lieutenants. This means especially with bigger tasks involving several complex elements having people under the leader who work together well, and also posses some if not all of the qualities of a good leader. The lieutenant is necessary to supplement the leader's comprehensive knowledge with specialized knowledge, reporting the operation and needs of the individual parts (filtered appropriately), and advice and insight into problems based on their specialized knowledge. Lieutenants will likely know more than the leader in their specific field, but if the leader meats the criteria for knowledge, then they will trust his "big picture" knowledge, and submit their specialized knowledge appropriately. A good leader will also trust the input from his lieutenants, and filter this information through the "big picture" and direct them accordingly.

6) Confidence. A good leader recognizes his weaknesses, and also appropriately recognizes his mistakes. But a good leader never lets this lead to second guessing. This must be balanced with knowledge to that the leader is not overconfident, but also that when failures and challenges arise, that the group does not loose heart but can trust that their leader still knows what should be done and is capable of making the right decisions. Confidence does not mean being flawless, but a confident leader is astutely aware of what he can accomplish, what the group can accomplish, and does not let failure challenge what the group is capable of. Further, without confidence a leader will constantly second guess his decisions.

7) Communication. This will overlap with some of the above (especially accuracy). A good leader is able to communicate effectively. This means being able to convey information accurately and being able to accurately understand received information. This also means honest and accurate assessment of all input. A bad leader will simply ignore undesirable input of a subordinate.

8) Strength. A good leader may not possess physical strength, but definitely needs strength of will. This helps the group accomplish their goals when challenges arise, and helps maintain the unity and smooth operation of the group. Further, this is necessary when conflict arises.

9) Wisdom. This also falls under a few different categories, but essentially a good leader must have wisdom. This is not just knowledge or accuracy, but also knowing when and how is best to apply these skills.

The various difficulties that a leader may face:

1) Obstacles -- people, events, or things that get in the way of accomplishing the groups goal. These are either active or passive.

2) Conflict -- when the parts of the group no longer function together. This can be either interpersonal conflict, conflict of interest, or a breakdown of communication. This can also be when one part of the system is attempting to usurp leadership. A good leader knows how to respond to this in an appropriate, controlled, and rational manner. A bad leader will respond emotionally, or with inappropriate extremes.

3) Failure -- either part(s) or the whole fail, and the leader must know how to respond appropriately.

4) Decisions -- while decision making is an essential function of the leader, it is also the most difficult. Making good, rational, and accurate decisions is more than just the "flip of a coin". A good leader is able to assimilate all the relevant information, access the situation rationally, and conclude with an informed decision that he will stand by confidently. The most difficult time is when a decision has been made, and new information arises (either immediately, or later on). A good leader is able to assimilate the new information, and make any necessary corrections.

Finally, I will give some thoughts on what a good "follower" is.

First, he trusts his leader. Admittedly, this is something that at some level must be earned by the leader. In many situations, leadership is assumed and not earned, but the good leader will always take the necessary steps to earn trust. However, a good follower must respond with trust. For any leader to succeed, his subordinates must trust his decisions and perspective.

Second, he must submit. It is all too common that "followers" will attempt to challenge and usurp their leader unless he has demonstrated a strong ability to lead. This only breaks down the system further, resulting in some level or another of anarchy. This is especially difficult for followers when the subordinate has superior leadership abilities (whether perceived or actual). Submission is a necessary skill in life, as every leader is in submission to someone else. Learning to practice submission makes a better follower, and makes better leaders. This can also be difficult when the follower's specialized knowledge seems to contradict the leader's apparent perspective knowledge and decisions. This can either be a result of bad communication (the leader is not communicating how the big picture alters the perspective on the specialized knowledge), bad leadership (the leader is not assimilating the specialized knowledge), or stubbornness (the subordinate is not submitting to the leaders perspective knowledge).

Third, he must follow. This falls under submission and trust, but is separate. Even when the follower disagrees, he must follow the decisions of the leader. When he attempts to challenge or usurp the leader, the system only breaks down. This only breeds disloyalty and division.

Human nature is sinfully flawed, and so there are no perfect leaders or followers. But this does not remove the ideal of the perfect leader, and every leader, whether over large or small ventures must pursue this ideal and attempt to grow and better himself.

Read more...

I don’t buy it

I talked a bit in a previous blog about how a Christian's identity in Christ, and the truth about Christ should impact how we think and live our lives. This is something I think about a lot... and I wanted to add one more thought.

As Christians we rightly affirm that truth, and freely proclaim it. But as my preaching professor liked to say, I don't think we "buy it". We say we believe this, but it doesn't always translate to action in our lives the way the biblical authors assume. There is some disconnect at some level, where what we affirm we don't fully buy into. The Biblical truth is supposed to transform our lives, and the process of salvation is supposed to be conforming our minds to God's. But why does it seem like this sometimes fails? Or why do we sometimes forget about it?

I've put a lot of thought into this question, and have yet come up with a conclusion that is satisfying. This is a deeply personal issue to me, because I feel like I have a decent grasp of the basics of scripture, yet I see so much filth in my life. I think there are several different reasons, and here are a few that I have come up with.

1) Christianity isn't what we really want. This is a harsh statement, but what I mean is that God's way of things is not what we want. The process of salvation, the development of faith, and the lifelong pursuit of trusting God in a significant way is opposite of what human nature wants.

For example, suppose a Sunday morning sermon went something like this:

Everyone stand up. Now get out your Bible's. Now open them to the exact middle (the middle of your bible, not the text itself). Now hold your Bible flat in your left hand, hold it out. With your right hand, place your middle finger on the exact middle of the open bible, and position two fingers on each open page, in exactly symmetrical spots. Now, for the next 5 minutes, focus all of your concentration and energy on the tips of your fingers. Feel the page, and as you concentrate, begin to feel the power of God emanate from the page, and channel into your soul through your fingers.

Although this is fiction and superstition, I guarantee church attendance would be up if this actually worked. If Christianity were about a literal infusion of "power" for 5 minutes every Sunday, people would be very excited. The point is not that true Christians do not want God, but that God's process of things is slow and hard, and is not always immediately experienced by our 5 senses. I think part of us deeply wants this, because this is how things appear "real" to us. We experience the world us with our five senses, and this is all that we know of what is "real". God is still real, and he is still experienced, but we don't see, feel, and hear him all the time.

2) We've bout into a lie about salvation.

I recently heard a sermon by Paul Washer that a friend directed me towards (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52906154239 ), and I think he might have hit on a significant part of why we don't buy it. We have a very unbiblical (he says heretical) pre-understanding about salvation.

For me, it started when I was a kid. I was told that Jesus lived in heaven, and that after I die I should want to live in heaven with Jesus (and presumably my parents and family). What I needed to do to get into heaven was say a prayer, and Jesus would come into my heart. As a kid, I imagined that when I said this prayer (something like magic words) then this little fairy like Jesus would flutter into my heart and let me into heaven.

Even though I know that this is far from the sum total of what it means to be a Christian, I think when faced with temptation a lot of times, even though I do not consciously think it, at some level there is the thought that "it is okay, because I said the prayer so heaven is not in danger". As I got older, I was taught the doctrine of grace. This meant that all of my sins were forgiven at the cross. This too can compound that unspoken voice when facing temptation, because not only did I say prayer when I was 5, but God will forgive me if I choose to sin.

It is said that the best heresy always has a good deal of truth to it, and just adds just enough falsehood in order to come up with a believable heresy. Paul Washer argues that our understanding of salvation as saying a prayer is such a heresy, because this "say a prayer and get into heaven" attitude removes all responsibility and action. He argues from Matthew 7 that Jesus says the road is narrow and the gate is small that lead to life. Although I do not agree with his strong Calvinist sentiments on the issue, I think he's really hit something here.

The biblical teaching is that the Christian life is tough. It is not about saying a magical formula and getting into heaven. It is about God's kingdom. It is about becoming a part of God's redemptive plan for creation. It is about joining the ranks of God's army and being on the front lines. It is about experiencing the transforming work of his Spirit, and experiencing his new life. But it is also about suffering and difficulty. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the Christian life is easy. In fact, Jesus' teaching of the narrow road points very clearly to the epic struggle that entails Christianity.

Washer says that if we're not living a life like God wants, a life that walks this narrow path, then we are not saved. I think things are far from this simple, because so much of the New Testament is written to assumed believers who are not always walking this path. Instead, I think that salvation is a process. There is a beginning, where the Spirit begins to open our eyes to the truth of God in the context of the preaching of the Gospel. At some point we choose to put our trust in that truth (not going get into the order of salvation issues). And from that point on, our trust is challenged. Walking the narrow path is about suffering, about having to sacrifice the pleasures we want to enjoy in our humanity for the sake of our love for God. It is about suffering at the hands of unbelievers who see these very odd people living weird and intolerant lifestyles. It is about rejecting the old way of life for the new life in Christ.

3) We don't really have faith. Faith is often defined as believing, and we treat evangelism as primarily changing people's beliefs. We must declare Christ as Lord, believe in his Gospel. This is surely important, but this is not the sum total of faith. Biblical faith also (equally if not more) includes trust. No Christian will deny this, after all trusting God is a huge theme in scripture. However, I think that truly developing trust is a long and hard process.

Part of this is the definition of trust. Trust isn't just "hope", nor is it just "probably". I am a person who has grown to not trust very many people, but I can trust that my family will always be there for me when I'm in need, I can trust the sincerity of my wife's love, and I can trust a few of my friends to fight along side me if the need arose. These are rare and special and rare things today. But can I say I trust God in all things? Trust and doubt are complete opposites. I think a significant part of the Christian life is having our doubts proven false, and God proving himself more and more trustworthy. The foundation of trust is knowledge, and we can clearly see that from scripture God is in fact trustworthy. All he asks is that people have faith in him, and he always does what he promises.

One aspect of God's order of things that sometimes causes me to doubt is that his intensions are not the same as mine. I wish I could say I trust God to give me an awesome job in the next month, (because my current one ends in a few weeks). I cannot say this, because I have seen far to many times when God's will is different than mine. However, I am fairly certain I can say that I trust God will provide, because no matter how many times it has seemed like we might not be able to pay next month's rent, he has provided.

Trust is more than just confidence. I think trust must manifest itself in action. You cannot say you trust God will do something, and then sit there idly. There is a delicate balance here, because we can trust God will do something, and then set out to do it in a way different from his plan. But trust also must result in action, because action is where the proverbial "rubber meets the road".

4) We aren't willing. I think this is one of the central defining aspects of Christianity. Are we willing to sacrifice what our natural desires want for God's way? I think initial conversion begins with this question, and the rest of the process of salvation is daily being confronted by this same question. After all, if we are really growing in the Spirit, then we are also regularly being confronted with new areas of our lives that God wants to work on.

This means that for true growth to happen, we need to be working through these issues as they arise. This is part of the danger of habitual sin in the Christian life: habitual sin means that there is awareness of sin, there is recognition that the associated desires need to be sacrificed, and it means that at some level, the person is unwilling to. The danger is also that habitual sin can lead to a hardening of one's heart, and I think this can be very dangerous for a Christian. The story of Israel in the desert is appealed too several of times in this context: they habitually rejected God's way, and ended up missing out on God's blessing in the promised land.

So why don't we always "buy it"? Why do we so easily forget the kingdom perspective, why do we fall into sin so easily, why do people so often fall into the "religion" of Christianity instead of the new life?

1) Its not what we really want. Christianity is a slow and hidden process, and we want to see, hear, and touch the reality of God instead of have faith in his work.

2) We've bought into a lie. At some level, we fall into the trap of thinking that since we said a prayer at 5, we're okay.

3) We don't really have faith. We don't really trust that God will do what he promises, that he has our best interest in mind. Our "trust" doesn't manifest itself in action.

4) We aren't willing. We do not always want to sacrifice the natural desires that God wants us to sacrifice in order to experience growth.

I'm not sure if this entirely answers the question, but I think it is a definite starting place.

God please reveal these wrong attitudes in my heart. Forgive me for not submitting to you. I repent of trying to make you into what I want, instead of letting you make me into what you want. Give me the strength and courage to trust you more, and I know you will continue you to walk with me and help me overcome temptation.

Read more...