Just Thinking

Farmer Cal's Geese

2009-05-30T10:08:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time there was a wonderful farm by the sparkling sea. The sun was gentle, the mountains nearby were beautiful, the beaches were warm and the geese who lived on the farm were very happy.

True, farmer Cal took an egg from most of the geese once a year. From those who didn't lay eggs he took nothing, but from quite a few he took a golden egg.

But that was okay because Cal sold the eggs and used the money to keep the farm tidy and the water running, and he kept a little for himself, but that didn't bother the geese because he did a good job and deserved to be paid for his work and the geese got to keep most of what they made.

But farmer Cal grew old and died, and his children took over the farm. They looked enviously at the geese who laid the golden eggs, and came up with a plan.

"Oh geese," they said. "It is not right that some of you live in poor twig nests. We will collect a few more golden eggs and provide better things for the poor among you."

"Yes!" said the poor geese.

"That sounds good," said the geese who laid the golden eggs. "We're willing to give more so everybody can have nice things." But two or three grumbled that if they wanted to help poor geese, they didn't need Cal's children to help them.

So farmer Cal's children collected more golden eggs and built themselves very nice houses, and spent part of the money to help the poor geese.

And everything was still fine on Cal's farm.

But soon Cal's children wanted more, so they said, "Oh geese, some among you still are poorer than the others, so we will take a few more golden eggs and use them to help the poor.

"Yes!" said the poorer geese.

"Well... I guess." said the golden geese.

So Cal's children took more golden eggs and bought themselves Mercedes and spent part of the money to help the poor geese.

Some of the golden geese began to grumble, and some flew away to neighboring farms and some decided to retire from the golden egg business since they didn't get to keep as much as before. But most kept working and stayed. After all, they did want to be kind to the poor, and besides, the weather was still very nice and the mountains and sea were still beautiful.

Soon Cal's kids found they were not collecting as many golden eggs as before since some of the golden geese had left and some had retired and very few of the younger geese wanted to get into the golden egg business - at least not on Cal's farm.

And so Cal's children came to the geese once again:

"Oh geese," they said, "the supply of golden eggs is down and the poor among you are suffering! We will have to take more golden eggs to continue helping them."

"Yes!" said the poorer geese.

"No!" said the golden geese.

But now there were many more poor geese than golden geese, and so the objections of the golden geese were lost in the roar of approval.

But soon, when farmer Cal's kids came to get more golden eggs, they didn't find as many as before because many of the golden geese had left, and those who stayed had decided to get out of the golden egg business.

And with so few golden eggs Cal's children barely had enough eggs to pay for the gas and insurance for their Mercedes and for heating their swimming pools, so there was almost nothing left over for the poor geese.

So Farmer Cal's children went to the geese and said: "Oh geese, you can see for yourselves how greedy the golden geese are! They want to keep all the eggs for themselves! They don't care about the poor."

"Yeah!" said the poor geese, and they spat on the few golden geese that were left.

And the golden geese said nothing. They just flew off to a neighboring farm.

The Google Book Deal

2009-05-02T08:27:00.000-07:00

This is a little bit dated, but a while ago I was asked to give my thoughts for a small missions books publisher about the recent Google book settlement. (As background, Google was sued for copyright violations by a consortium of book publishers because it has been scanning and making available online portions of books, or complete books.) I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as having any legal weight, but here are a few wild speculations that might be interesting:

One big problem in the publishing industry is trying to figure out who owns the copyright to what. There must be tens of thousands of copyright owners, and companies that own copyrights are started and go out of business with great regularity, and people die, and who owns the rights to what is often very mysterious. Google wanted to digitize all the books and publications it can get its hands on, but tracking down all the copyright holders to get permission from each one would have been a continuing nightmare.

So - and this may be my imagination, but I'm tempted to see a grand design by Google - Google executes this plan:

First, it does something that some would say is of dubious legality by digitizing in-copyright publications. This, of course, ticked-off the copyright owners, who generally have no more cohesion than a herd of cats, and forced them to band together to fight for their interests.

Ah-ha! Google has now forced its legal opponents to form a single, unified group. Now Google only has one organization to bargain with instead of tens of thousands of mostly-unknown copyright holders. Nightmare solved!

Google then seals a deal with the copyright-holders group, thereby covering itself legally and opening new business possibilities (such as putting ads on the pages of the digitized books). But since the basic legal issue (whether Google was within the law by digitizing the books) remains undecided, this would appear to mean that any competitors who want to copy Google's digitizing plan will have to overcome these legal hurdles on their own.

Also, and I think most importantly for society and the publishing industry, the deal creates an independent, nonprofit organization tentatively called "The Registry," which will represent copyright holders in their relations with Google. The Registry is being given the task (among other things) of keeping track of the contact information for the rights owners and doing business deals for their benefit with Google.

Wow! This registry could be a very positive thing. It could facilitate publishers and authors contacting copyright holders to obtain permission to excerpt or reprint their works. Wedded to the Internet, it could be the basis for a "Permissions Marketplace," where copyright holders could offer a license to their works for sale at whatever price they choose. People could simply pay the price online and use the material without any further fuss. I think this could be a big boon to publishers in general.

The Unity of The Bible

2009-04-10T09:11:00.000-07:00

One of the things that struck me hard during my study of how the New Testament views the law is how neatly the Old and New Testaments are tied together.

Obviously, the Old Testament starts with the beginning and the New Testament closes with the end, but aside from those obvious bookends, what really hit me is the progression of the two.

The Old Testament is the outer, and the New Testament is the inner; or, as the book of Hebrews puts it: "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves (Heb 10:1)."

After this study I am willing to take a bit of a leap and suggest that everything in the Old Testament has not only the everyday reality described by the Old Testment, but also a deeper, spiritual meaning.

As I've mentioned in the previous post, the New Testament uncovers the inner law beneath the outer law of the Old Testament, but also, the New Testament gives a new meaning to circumcision (Acts 15:1-2, 5-11, Rom 2:25, Gal 6:15, Titus 1:10, etc.), to the Passover lamb (it is Jesus himself), to unleavened bread (1 Corinthians 5:7-8), to the Temple in Jerusalem (Hebrews 8:5), to the implements used in the Temple (Hebrews 9:2-5), to the activities in the Temple (Hebrews 9:6-7) to individuals in the Old Testament (Sarah and Hagar) (Galatians 4:21-25), to places in the Old Testament (Jerusalem and Mt. Sinai) (Galatians 4:24-26), to the rock providing water in the desert (1 Corinthians 10:1-4), and so forth.

I think that perhaps everything - or just about everything - in the Old Testament also has a deeper, spiritual meaning. This struck me in part in an earlier post I wrote about how I was stunned to see how the history of the nation of Israel was a foreshadowing of Christ. I see now that this foreshadowing is far more extensive than I realized.

Now, I hasten to add that realizing that there is a deeper spiritual meaning to everything in the Old Testament doesn't mean we have to figure it all out. The apostle Paul condemns bickering over genealogies and the law (Titus 3:9), so I'll be safe and go along with Paul and say that if a discussion about the deeper spiritual meaning of some Old Testament passage leads to bickering, the wise - and biblical - thing to do is just drop the matter.

But anyway, it just excited me to discover this amazing unfolding in the Bible, going from the beginning to the end, proceeding from the outer to the deep, inner, spiritual reality.

Are We Under the Law or Not?

2009-04-09T10:43:00.000-07:00

Even a casual reading of the New Testament will highlight two themes, each of which is clear in itself but not at all clear when put together. One: We are free from the law. We have died to the law and are no longer under it's authority. Two: There are things we must do; laws we must follow. Jesus came to fulfil the law, not abolish it. Not a stroke of the pen will disappear from the law until heaven and earth disappear.

Confusing? Well, yes, at first, but when you look at it more carefully it makes excellent sense.

So, the question is this: Do Christians need to obey the law?

On the one hand we have Jesus saying that he has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and that the law will remain until heaven and earth disappear, and that nobody should teach otherwise (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). But then we find him almost making a habit of apparently violating the law by performing healings, i.e. working, on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13, Mark 3:1-5, Luke 13:10-16, 14:3-4, John 7:22-24), and then we find him telling a man to work on the Sabbath when he tells him to "take up your mat and walk" (John 5:10-11), and we find him defending his disciples who were accused of picking grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-27).

Hmm. Seemingly two different messages here.

And then there is Paul. Paul is famous for saying that we have died to the law and been released from the law (Romans 7:6) and that we have been saved by grace, not by works (Ephesians 2:8), and that Christ is the end of the law for those who believe (Romans 10:4). Sure sounds as if Paul is saying that the law no longer applies, but then Paul also says that the law is good if used properly (1 Timothy 1:8), and that faith does not nullify the law, but upholds it (Romans 3:30-31) and - oh my! - Paul gives lists (Romans 12 and 13) and lists (Galatians 5:19-6:10) and lists (Ephesians 4:25-6:20) of instructions on how to live - "laws," if you will.

Again, seemingly two different messages, but, they are the same two messages. You may find it confusing, but it is consistent.

So, what is going on here?

Well, the writers of the New Testament are simply saying that the outward law of the Old Testament is a shadow of the true, inner, spiritual law that was always at the heart of the Old Testament law, and that inner law is just as alive as it ever was.

This inner law is what Paul calls "the law of the Spirit" (Romans 8:2) or "God's law" (Romans 7:22, 25) and what James calls "the perfect law that gives freedom" (James 1:25, 2:12-13) and the "royal law" (James 2:8).

We can see this emphasis on the inner instead of the outer throughout the whole New Testament.

For example, the writer of Hebrews says that "The [old] law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves" (Heb 10:1). And Paul says that we "serve in the new way by the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:6), and that the dietary laws and special celebrations of the Old Testament are "a shadow of things that were to come; the reality, however is in Christ" (Colossians 2:17). And again, Paul says says that "a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart", (Rom 2:28). And he adds that there is "a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). And there is lots more.

None of these authors want to throw out the true law, but only its old, outer expression. When you crack open a peanut shell, you throw away the shell and eat the peanut. Underneath the outer law is the inner law, and that is the law we Christians need to keep. As Christians we can observe the outer law if we feel like it - for example to avoid causing offense (as Paul attempted to do by being ceremonially clean in Acts 24:18; he explains his logic in 1 Cor 9:20-21), or to avoid violating our consiences (Romans 14:1), but it serves no further spiritual purpose.

Okay, but does Jesus agree with these writers? Oh yes!

Right after Jesus insists that he had not come to abolish the law he starts giving the true underlying meaning of a lot of Old Testament laws. He says that the deep meaning of the law is that murder is not just the physical act, but is a sin of the heart (Matthew 5:21-22); that adultery is not just the physical act, but a sin beginning in the heart (Matthew 5:27-28); that we should speak the truth because it is the right thing to do, not because we have spoken an oath (Matthew 5:33-37); that the deeper truth behind the eye-for-eye rule (which limited revenge) is that we should not return evil for evil but instead we should love our enemies (Matthew 5:38-44). And he teaches that our good deeds (Matthew 6:1-4) and prayers (Matthew 6:5-6) and fasting (Matthew 6:16-18) should not be done with people as our audience, but with God as our audience.

And as for Jesus violating the Sabbath, I think he was actually pointing to the deeper meaning of the Sabbath, that it was set aside by God to give people a time of rest and restoration. In obedience to that deep meaning, Jesus provided restoration to those who needed healing, just - as he pointed out - the Pharisees would provide restoration to an ox by pulling it out of a well on the Sabbath (Luke 14:3-4). Jesus is the lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), so he knows exactly what the Sabbath is about.

Also, notice that Jesus complains that the Pharisees were clean cups on the outside, but dirty on the inside, and whitewashed tombs - pretty on the outside but dirty on the inside (Mat 23:23-27), and he says that it isn't what goes into a person that makes them unclean, but what comes out of them (Mk 7:14-23).

Deeper, deeper, deeper. Inner, inner, inner. It's a theme that pervades the New Testament. Jesus and all the writers of the New Testament agree that the real core meaning of the law is deeper than the mere outward letter of the law.

Okay, but what is that deeper meaning?

If you are a Christian, you know what it is! You've heard it countless times. In fact, I found it a little humbling to spend months studying this topic and end up right back at what every first-grade Sunday school student knows:

The deepest meaning of the law, Jesus says, is first to love God and then to love our neighbor (Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 10:25-27, John 15:12, 15:17). And Paul agrees. The one thing that counts, he writes, is "faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5:6), and, he adds, we should serve one another in love (Galatians 5:13), and - of course - Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13, the famous "love chapter," with the great line: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." And James agrees as well: "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right."

So, for the Christian, the outer law is irrelevant, but the true inner law of love underlying the old law remains as valid as it every was.

Picasso and God

2009-03-19T09:13:00.000-07:00

I had coffee the other day with my friend Chumly (not really; I'm making up a story) and between sips on his grande, half-caff extra-hot latte with two (not one) packets of Equal, he explained to me there is no God because if there was, he would have designed the human eye to be like the more-efficient octopus eye.

I thought maybe God figured we could be dangerous enough with the eyesight he gave us, but instead, I stared vacantly out the window and then said, "Hmmm ... Did you know that Picasso never existed?"

"What are you talking about?" Chumly asked.

"Have you ever looked at the portraits they say were painted by him? The nose is pasted on sideways, the mouth and eyes are in the wrong places and are the wrong size and the colors are garish and not human?"

"We were talking about God, not Picasso! But I will digress long enough to urge you not to be an idiot. There are books about Picasso; there are people alive today who knew Picasso; there are photographs of Picasso. Of course Picasso existed!"

"But what about the portraits? They're all wrong!"

"Look, just because you don't understand or like Picasso's style doesn't mean he didn't exist."

"I rest my case."

"What?" Chumly said. (Chumly never was very quick on the uptake.)

"Just because you don't understand or like God's style doesn't mean He doesn't exist."

Dirty Spiritual Feet

2009-03-15T15:53:00.001-07:00

In John 13: 2-17 is the well-known story of Jesus washing his disciples feet. At the end of this sermon-by-demonstration, Jesus tells the disciples that he has given them an example that they should follow. Most teachers I have heard understand Jesus to be saying that we should serve one another in all sorts of ways, not just by washing feet.

All well and good. I agree.

But as I read the passage recently, I suddenly noticed in the middle of the story an interesting little sermon-within-a-sermon. Jesus replied to Peter - who had in his impetuous Peter-like way insisted that Jesus wash all of him, not just his feet - that, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."

As is so often the case, Jesus takes an exterior example to make an interior point. If Jesus was talking about dirt on the body, it seems unlikely he would have excluded Judas from the ranks of the clean. And this seems especially unlikely since John specifically indicates (13:11) that the reason one of the disciples (Judas) was not clean was because he would betray Jesus. So it seems quite clear that Jesus is saying that his disciples (except Judas) were spiritually clean, and - if I may extrapolate a bit - fit for heaven.

But, if they were clean, then why did Jesus need to wash their feet?

I think Jesus meant that though they were clean and devoted to God, just walking around in this dirty world tends to stain them (and us) with various sins. We say and do bad things on the spur of the moment, or in a flash of passion or anger or inattention or weariness, things that smudge us with the dirt of sin. And though we are basically clean inside - we really do love Jesus and we really are citizens of heaven - we still need to have Jesus wash away those daily sins.

Longest Words

2009-03-04T08:38:00.001-08:00

For a project I needed to repeatedly type a word (any word) and click the mouse button. I got annoyed taking my hand off the mouse to reach over for a key, so I wrote a little program to find the longest words that you can type with a single hand on a standard keyboard (without cheating and reaching over with the other hand), thereby allowing one hand to remain on the mouse.

Here are the results of my having too much time on my hands:

Longest words for left hand typing, winner is "reverberates" with 12 characters:

reverberates
abracadabra
aftereffect
desegregate
effervesces
exaggerated
reverberate
vertebrates
aftertaste
afterwards

And a few shorter left-hand favorites:

stagecraft
stewardess
beverages

Longest words for right hand typing, winner is "hypophyllum" with 11 characters:

hypophyllum
Plinlimmon
homophony
houyhnhnm
Killymoon
Kouyunjik
monophony
nonillion
pollinium
polyphony

Awful set of words, huh?

And a few shorter right-hand favorites:

Honolulu
lollipop
monopoly
million
opinion
pumpkin

Let me know if you can find any longer words for either category, and I'll add them. And let me know if you don't want me to use your name, otherwise I may.

15-Minute Church

2009-02-08T19:45:00.000-08:00

If I was the pastor of a little, dying church, I think I know what I'd try. I think I'd have about 12 15-minute services each Sunday morning, each separated by five minutes of coming-and-going time.

It's a shame, but people these days are so busy that I wonder if even an hour each Sunday seems like too big a committment to them. I wonder if it would be attractive for some people to be able to drop in just about any time throughout the morning, or even throughout the day, and maybe even on Saturdays, too.

People who don't normally go to church might stop by on their way to play golf, or on their way to the beach, or after Sunday brunch at the local restaurant, or whatever.

And as for content, I actually think a lot can be packed into 15 minutes. A couple good songs, a prayer and a short sermon. Shortening things often makes them better, more pointed.

I know! I know! It seems this encourages a rather casual, uncommitted attitude toward gathering together. It may, but I'd rather have 15 minutes of their time than none of their time, and I'm not aware that the Bible says exactly how long a church meeting has to be. In any case, I envision this as an introduction, and that some people would step up from this into a deeper and more active level of commitment, perhaps by getting involved in a Bible study group.

Just an idea.

Galatians 2:17-18

2008-12-14T12:46:00.001-08:00

In rereading the book of Galatians, it suddenly struck me what Paul was talking about when he wrote in verses 2:17-18 (NIV):

If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.

This has always been a bit perplexing to me. Why would it become particularly obvious that we are sinners while we seek to be justified in Christ? And why would anyone think that if we slip up in trying to follow Christ, that this means Christ promotes sin? Also, why does rebuilding what I destroyed prove I'm a lawbreaker?

I was reading the passage rather quickly this time, so I still had in mind Paul's rebuke of Peter (verses 2:11-14) for encouraging Gentiles to live like Jews when he himself had been living like a Gentile... at least until some Jews belonging to the "circumcision group" came along and he began to shy away from the Gentiles.

It occurred to me that in verses 2:17-18 Paul is still talking about Peter, or rather, about the type of sin Peter had committed.

So if I might paraphrase the passage, I would say:

If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are "sinning" by violating the old ceremonial law, such as the law of circumcision, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! In fact, it is the other way around: If I rebuild the old, ineffective, ceremonial law that I destroyed - the way Peter has just been doing - that would really make me a lawbreaker.

Evil and God's Existence

2008-10-12T12:50:00.000-07:00

One of the arguments I've heard repeatedly - and recently - is that the existence of evil in this world shows that God does not exist.

The argument is essentially parallel to this: "I've heard that there is a guy named Andrew who stabs people with knives. Stabbing people with knives is evil, therefore Andrew doesn't exist."

Sigh.

It may be that this argument is evidence that Andrew is an evil person (or is a heart surgeon), but by no stretch of the imagination is it an argument that Andrew does not exist. In the same way, the existence of evil in this world is not evidence that God does not exist.

I think people can legitimately look at evil and ask whether God is good and wonder how a good God can permit evil, and if they do this I think they will find answers to those questions since the whole Bible is essentially about that topic. All that, I think, falls into the category of reasonable questioning, but if they use the "evil-means-no-God" argument, then all they do is make themselves look exceedingly foolish.

Is Religion the Chief Cause of Suffering?

2008-09-03T15:58:00.000-07:00

I just read yet again about how religion is the main cause of inhumanity in this world.

This is such an absurd contention that I don't understand how it survives. But it does. So in what is probably a vain attempt to counteract it, I did a quick Internet search to compare Christianity (since it is Christianity that most concerns me) against the only specifically God-free political philosophy I am aware of - communism.

So, my question was this: Which has caused the most human deaths, Christianity or communism? I am very sure I have left tragic events out here, but even if I missed a lot, I don't think it would come anywhere close to changing the outcome. I am also including just events where the motivation for the killings was mostly Christianity. Frankly, I think that even in this list the motivation was not always purely religion. For example, in his book, For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark points out that the killing of witches was most frequent in areas where the church had less influence and was often done despite the church, and while religion was involved in the 30 Year's War, the fact that France (a Catholic country) often supported the Protestants in Germany in an apparent effort to weaken Germany suggests that nationalistic forces were perhaps stronger than religious forces in that ugly conflict. Nevertheless, I'm throwing them all into the pot because religion is generally considered to be the major factor in these events.

Okay, for Christianity:

Number Killed	Event
1-5 million	Crusades
20,000-900,000	"Witches" killed
14,000	Jews killed, scapegoats for Black Death
1 million	Albigensian Crusade
2-4 million	Catholic vs. Huguenot (France)
900,000	Waldensians
100,000	Peasants War (Germany)
31,912	Spanish Inquisition
11.5 million	Thirty Years War

13,445,912	High Total
6,565,912	Low Total

Now let's take communism:

Number Killed	Event
20 million	Joseph Stalin
40 million	Mao Zedong
2 million	Pol Pot (Cambodia)

62 million	Total

Source

Okay, so if we take the most wildly generous estimates of people killed by those who claim to be Christians, it is 13.5 million. For communism it is 62 million.

Communism wins! In less than 100 years it killed about 62 million people, more than four and a half times the number of people those who claim to be Christians have killed over the course of nearly 2,000 years, or more than nine times as many if you accept the lower estimate for Christianity.

My suspicion is that a lust for power and fame and loot and glory are far more central to man's inhumanity to man than every religion in the world added together.

So PU-lease! Don't tell me how religion is the major cause of violence or suffering in this world. It is nonsense.

Ministering to Poor Governments

2008-08-29T19:38:00.000-07:00

It occurred to me this morning just how much suffering in this world is caused by inept government and how much could be avoided by competence.

A lot of us in the United States think we know all about inept government (FEMA during Katrina, for instance), but I'm actually thinking of a level of ineptitude that is somewhere in the middle between, say, the old Katrina-FEMA on the mild side and Zimbabwe on the extreme side.

I'm thinking of nations whose officials are at least kinda-sorta trying to do a good job, but for lack of training they simply don't have the best skills.

It seems that for cases like this it would be good to have a Christian ministry made up of government officials from countries around the world who would occasionally take some of their vacation time and spend it with their governmental counterparts in poor countries. Public works directors matching off with public works directors, planning department officials spending time with planning department officials, ministers of finance hanging out with ministers of finance. They could just spend time with each other talking about how they do their jobs and how they might do them better.

Having suggested that, a big red flag comes to mind, which is that often ideas that seem good to western visitors are not good at all.

For example, I have a friend with a large organization that was doing work in Africa. The westerners had finished their work in the country and were leaving but still had a lot of their food left over, so my friend gave it to his driver, a national, who gave it to a group of nationals. They all ate the western food and all got sick because they were not used to such a high protein diet.

My point is that good intentions need to be matched with good understanding.

But having said that, it seems that with some cultural training and a large dose of humility, a ministry by government officials to government officials in poor countries might be very helpful. In fact, though I haven't heard of it, maybe it already exists. If you know about such an organization, let me know; I'd be interested.

UPDATE: After watching FEMA performing quite well during Hurricane Gustav, I felt I had to update this post to make clear that I was talking about FEMA during the Katrina hurricane. I'm delighted to see how much the agency has improved!

Top Christian Colleges

2008-08-24T15:31:00.000-07:00

I just saw a rating of colleges by Forbes Magazine and thought it would be interesting to pull out the Christian colleges and see how they compared.

I found a list of Christian colleges and was surprised how few (just 32) were on the Forbes List. Not even Point Loma in California. Weird. I think they need to expand their list a lot. Also, I don't think the Forbes rating considers all the factors a Christian would consider in looking at a Christian school, but still, I find it quite interesting. I would have thought Wheaton would have come up first on the list, but it doesn't. It is second, with a college I hadn't heard of, Huntington University, coming in first.

So, here is the list. The number at the beginning of each line is the Forbes rating:

65 - Huntington University Indiana
89 - Wheaton College Illinois
95 - Erskine College South Carolina
116 - Carson-Newman College Tennessee
117 - Covenant College Georgia
129 - Mississippi College Mississippi
149 - Master's College California
159 - Goshen College Indiana
163 - Oklahoma Baptist University Oklahoma
165 - Whitworth College Washington
185 - Oklahoma Wesleyan University Oklahoma
191 - Houghton College New York
205 - Biola University California
211 - Northwestern College Iowa
213 - Asbury College Kentucky
257 - Westmont College California
271 - Northwestern College Minnesota
281 - Grove City College Pennsylvania
282 - Union University Tennessee
308 - Taylor University Indiana
340 - Cedarville University Ohio
343 - Gordon College Massachusetts
352 - Baylor University Texas
357 - Messiah College Pennsylvania
358 - Vanguard University California
372 - Calvin College Michigan
374 - Dordt College Iowa
435 - Seattle Pacific University Washington
443 - Corban College Oregon
444 - Abilene Christian University Texas
456 - John Brown University Arkansas
465 - Azusa Pacific University California

Church Architecture

2008-08-23T17:34:00.000-07:00

I recently stumbled upon a curious old volume on Google Books called Housing the Sunday School, which you may wish to read if you are on the planning committee to design a Sunday School building, but it reminded me of a really excellent book I read a long time ago by 19th Century art and architecture critic, John Ruskin, called The Seven Lamps of Architecture.

I'm sure there are excellent newer books with a wider perspective, but I thought Ruskin's book was excellent. Even though it isn't exclusively about church buildings, a lot of it is. I highly recommend it, especially if you are on a church building committee.

In Praise of Mindlessness

2008-08-11T07:57:00.000-07:00

I am really not very tidy. And I come from a family of not-very-tidy people (my mother even has a sign that says "Neatness causes cancer in laboratory rats"), and generally I've considered neatness to show a certain lack of creativity and of a mind in a rut.

Well... I've been rethinking that and am now prepared to say I was wrong.

I think what changed my mind was reading David Allen's fine book, Getting Things Done, in which he advocates a very rigorous tidiness. One of his main themes, as I recall, is that if you put (and keep) everything in its place - especially schedules of things to do - then your mind can switch itself off on these topics because it knows that your "system" is doing the remembering. (My wife looked at the book and kind of yawned. She's been living this for years and kind of wonders what's taken me so long to see it.)

Anyway, so now I realize the value of mindlessness. If I'm tidy, I won't have to think about where I put my pen, or the sander, or the crescent wrench, or the computer files I've been working on for Ann. If I just put things where they belong, I can mindlessly grab them and do what I need to do with them. If I already thought once about where to keep the harmonica, why waste my time thinking about it again? Just put it back in its place when I'm done with it!

So I was wrong. Tidiness doesn't cause me to be uncreative or put my mind in a rut or cause cancer in laboratory rats. In fact, it helps by giving me more time to think and be creative; time I wouldn't have if I always had to spend it thinking about where I put stuff.

Why Have You Forsaken Me?

2008-08-05T21:28:00.000-07:00

I just finished a book by a notable Bible scholar who at one point discussed the difficulty of Jesus' words on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

He gave a long and scholarly answer, basically saying that Jesus' words were a quote from the opening line of Psalm 22 and that they reflect the depth of his passion.

Well, yeah, that's true and okay as far as it goes, but it should go a lot farther.

To me, it seems the question is, Did Jesus' cry mean that he didn't understand what was happening to him?

And the answer is a very straightforward no; it doesn't mean that at all. In fact, it shows that he understood very clearly what was happening to him.

I'm quite sure that Jesus - who in these last moments of his life was probably incapable of giving a lengthy sermon, but even then yearned to reach out to people - quoted the first verse of Psalm 22 as a way of saying: Psalm 22 is all about me and I am fulfilling it in your sight. Go back and read the whole thing and you will understand.

Encroaching on Charity - Hooray!

2008-08-03T07:27:00.000-07:00

I've always believed that charity should be mostly reserved for tasks that cannot be dealt with by profit-making businesses. So, for example, I'm not sure that stamping out smallpox throughout the world would pay a direct monetary dividend to the organization that did the stamping out, so that seems like a good project for a non-profit group.

But it always excites me to hear of someone figuring out a way to tackle a beneficial but seemingly money-losing task and still make a profit, because if they make a profit, they'll keep doing it and do more of it, and other people will do it, and relatively scarce charitable money can be redirected to those areas that can't be handled by profit making organizations.

With that lengthy preamble, I really want to recommend this article, Babble Rouser, a Forbes article about Denis O'Brien, who empowers poor people with cheap cell phone technology - often in defiance of their own corrupt governments - and thereby boosts the living standard of whole countries, and in the process makes a profit!

I wouldn't have thought it could be done, but I'm delighted to be proven wrong.

How to be Happy

2008-08-01T18:04:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'm serious. I'm going to talk about how to be happy, but just to clarify before I get started, let me lay out a few qualifications.

First, even though I'm a Christian and am tempted to talk about the ultimate happiness of heaven, I don't mean that kind of happiness (but if you are interested in becoming a Christian, see here).

Second, I don't mean swooning bliss; all I mean is the everyday kind of happiness that millions of people already have but is a little harder for some of us.

Third, there are some people who have an talent for being happy while laying on the beach or watching television all day. I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to people who start to get a bit antsy after spending an hour and a half in the cool breezes watching the palms sway and the waves crash on a beautiful beach in Maui. In other words, slightly driven people who are kinda like me.

Okay, ready for the very simple secret? Here it is:

Make a daily to-do list and work through it.

Wait! Don't go away yet. I know it sounds stupid, but hear me out.

For some of us, there is a lot of satisfaction in accomplishing tasks and scratching them off our list. It's what makes us everyday-happy. Maybe we're psychologically stunted, or maybe other people are. Whatever. But we gotta work with who we are.

Here's a little more detail.

Get a little notepad (I use a 3" x 5" spiral notepad) and in the evening (or early morning), write down everything you want to do the next day, from the important to the trivial. Then put an A, B, or C in front of each item, depending on its level of importance. (Or, sometimes, I number them in the order that makes sense to do them.) Then, start working on the most important item (or the first item if you number them) and work your way through the list, scratching each item off the list as you complete it.

It may not sound exciting (who said anything about excitement?) but there is a lot of satisfaction in scratching off each item and at the end of the day seeing a bunch of completed tasks.

Now the really interesting thing that I've discovered is that it really doesn't make much psychological difference how important the items are! It is as satisfying for me to scratch off "Have coffee with Dad" as it is to scratch off "Complete programming task for Ann."

I have had long periods of not having a regular job and therefore not having anything important to do, and yet if I write a list of trivial tasks and mark them off throughout the day, the psychological effect is much the same as if the tasks were actually important.

Now, one objection I can anticipate is that I'm suggesting we all become workaholics. No! Not in the least!

I already mentioned "Have coffee with Dad." I assure you, that is not work. How about these:

Take nap
Go swimming
Go on bike ride
Paint cat (a picture of a cat, not a real cat)
See Batman movie

See? Just list goofing-off things along with the productive things and you get the pleasure of taking a nap and the pleasure of marking it off your list as an accomplished task.

What could be better?

Explaining Variations in Jesus' Words

2008-07-29T07:31:00.000-07:00

There are several good explanations for why each of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) sometimes carry slightly different accounts of what Jesus said: In some cases it could be that it is a different event being recorded and that Jesus said similar things on differerent occasions (just as any traveling preacher might do); in some cases one writer may have recorded one part of what Jesus said and another writer may have recorded another part of what he said; or it could be that the Aramaic words Jesus used could be translated into the Greek of the New Testament using different (legitimate) words, and the gospel writers chose different words to bring out a different emphasis in what Jesus said; or, finally, it could be that the authors are paraphrasing - legitimately giving the meaning of what Jesus said - but not always giving the words verbatim.

All of these are good possibilities and probably they all apply in various situations.

But in reading the letter of 1 John it occurs to me that there may be another good explanation, and that is, simply, that Jesus said the same thing multiple ways on the same occasion.

Listen to 1 John 2:12-14:

I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.

And then it repeats, but with differences:

I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father.
I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.

So, here we have John, one of Jesus' main disciples, who may well have picked up some of his teaching style from his Master, saying one thing and then immediately repeating it with some variation.

I suspect that Jesus may have done the same thing; say things one way, then immediately say them in another way. Then - in some cases - one gospel writer may have recorded one of Jesus' comments and another writer may have recorded another.

As I reflect on this, I recall that just this last Sunday the pastor at our church said the same thing four or five times in a row, sometimes repeating what he said verbatim, sometimes with variations, as a way of emphasizing his point.

If my pastor did this, and if the apostle John did this, I'm sure Jesus may have done it as well.

Accidentally Obedient

2008-07-21T20:03:00.000-07:00

Usually I'm a bit quiet among people I don't know, and, well, sometimes I'm quiet among people I do know, so obeying Jesus' command to let the world know about him has always been rather difficult for me to obey on a personal level. I'm okay with supporting missionaries financially and things like that, but personally talking to people about Christ ("witnessing," in Christian jargon) has always been very difficult for me.

But over the past few years I've discovered - accidentally - that it can be done without any difficulty at all. So I thought I'd pass along what I've learned for other Christians who are on the shy side.

Fortunately, in addition to being a bit shy, in some ways I'm also boringly predictable. I wake up early and go out to a coffee shop (the same one all the time) to have a cup of coffee, read my Bible, pray, and plan my day. I don't approach anyone or really attempt any conversation, though I try to smile at people who walk by.

Well, it turns out that other people are also creatures of habit, and a lot of them come to the same coffee shop every day at the same time. So after months and even years of just being there you get to know people by face, and eventually somebody is bound to come up to you and say something like, "Can I use this chair?" and I say "Sure!" But one way or another, you slowly get to know people.

And people see you reading your Bible, and when they know you a little bit they comment on that and you can respond. I've had spiritual conversations with several people and got one guy a Bible by just - basically - sitting there minding my own business.

And, of course, occasionally Christians will see you with your Bible and will say hello and sometimes share something from their own lives. I've prayed with people who have endured some deep pains (one woman lost her husband in a traffic accident and another was in real financial trouble).

But my point is that it all came about by just quietly sitting and reading my Bible. But - and here's the secret - doing it for a loooong time.

God of Mystery

2008-07-18T18:01:00.001-07:00

Speaking of mysteries (as I did in my last post) the thought occurs to me that if I believed in a God in whom there was no mystery, I'd probably be believing in a made-up God.

Why?

Because I think a made-up God would be a god who makes sense within the everyday knowledge that we have. I just don't think we'd make up a god who didn't fit our notions of reality.

Instead, the Real God must be greater than everything we perceive, or He couldn't have made everything.

And if there is mystery in what we perceive - and when we come to the edges of our perception of reality, things do begin to get really weird - then the God who created all this stuff, from the commonplace to the incomprehensibly baffling, must have a nature that in some ways is far more baffling than the weirdest mysteries of the universe.

His nature is true and constant and good, but to us limited human beings elements of his nature must be impossible to understand. I guess that's where faith comes in.

Mystery for Christians and Atheists

2008-07-15T15:59:00.000-07:00

Whenever either Christians or atheists get to a certain point in a logical examination of their beliefs, they find mystery.

For example, let's take the topic of free will.

For the Christian there are two seemingly incompatible truths:

First, that human beings have a free will and can make real decisions. You can see this throughout the Bible in every command and every bit of praise and every bit of blame. If we were mere puppets then we couldn't make real decisions - for good or for bad - so there would be no need for commands and no point in praise or blame.

Second, there is the truth that God is in control of everything, down to the last little thing.

So how do those two beliefs fit together? I don't know.

But the atheist faces a similar dilemma.

On the one hand, most atheists seem to believe that people can make real free-will decisions, otherwise, why would they write books and give lectures and otherwise try to persuade people to become atheists?

But on the other hand, athiests believe that everything is based on purely natural processes: one thing leading to another to another to another, the previous things causing the next things, from the beginning of the universe right down to their lives. But that means their decisions are not really decisions, but are just the inevitable result of preceeding events.

So, they believe in free-will and they believe that free-will is impossible, two clearly contradictory beliefs.

Okay, so what is the difference between the Christian's dilemna and the atheist's?

Well, as a Christian, what makes the seeming contradiction acceptable to me is that I know the One who understands how they fit together and who wouldn't have told us these two truths if they did not fit together. So I can reasonably assume that the logical conflict I face is resolved in dimensions or ways that I can't begin to imagine.

But the atheist - by definition - cannot appeal to God or any "higher power" who might assure him that, despite appearances, his contradictory beliefs fit together. Therefore he has no reasonable cause for believing that the logical conflict he faces can be reconciled, and he is left with nothing but contradiction.

Where Did God Come From?

2008-07-12T08:27:00.000-07:00

I thought this question had been adequately dealt with years ago, but it seems to have made a reappearance, so I thought I would address it.

If you ask, "Where did God come from?" you are incorrectly including in your question the idea that God is a part of time, rather than the creator of time.

It does not make sense to ask what came "before" God because words like "before" and "earlier" and "previous" and so forth are all are about time, but God made time and therefore is separate from time. And if something is separate from time, then there is no "before," and asking what is before God is as silly as asking, "What is before blue?" It is not a time question so you can't get a time answer.

Think of time as a line you draw on a sheet of paper. If someone asked what comes before you on that line, the question wouldn't really make sense because you are not part of the line. It's the same with God.

Encyclopedia Trivia

2008-07-10T08:18:00.000-07:00

I've been slowly adding an old encyclopedia to the web, reading it as I go along, and occasionally stumbling on interesting tidbits.

For instance:

- Did you know that "Captain Bligh ... betrayed a singular capacity for making himself disliked by his subordinates." Oh, you did know that.

- I like James Brindley's method of solving problems.

- Did you know that a French engineers' report concluded that it would be virtually impossible to build the the Panama Canal?

- Did you know Sunday School had an inventor?

Abusing Human Resources

2008-06-26T14:12:00.000-07:00

I don't know what reminded me of this, but for years I've been bothered by some of the harrassment rules that have governed companies - at least in California. While I totally agree with the principle of not permitting harrassment and I agree with coming down hard on it when it occurs, and while I know at least one woman who used the process quite correctly, I've also seen the process abused over the years by some women who seem to think that it was invented expressly to prevent them from experiencing any inconvenience in their social lives.

Let me give a couple examples:

- I was a manager at a computer software company. A guy who reported to me asked a woman in the company if she would like to drive together to a meeting of a professional association they both belonged to. She reported him for sexual harrassment. He was not punished but he was crushed and humiliated.

- At another company a woman who reported to me told me that a guy from "the other side of the building who didn't have any business on our side of the building" had come around a number of times and had spoken to her on a few occasions. And, although she had not told him her name, he knew it. She was deeply offended. Sigh. I dutifully told the HR department and dutifully told her she needed to discuss it with the HR department directly and dutifully kept my mouth shut, but I really thought what she did was wrong. Here, some poor fellow, probably some nerdie tech guy, had the temerity to like her and find out what her name was and - horror of horrors - speak to her. And for that crime he was undoubtedly dragged into the HR department and humiliated.

I want to make clear that I don't blame HR departments for this. The HR people I've dealt with have been very professional and know some of the rules are absurdly vague, but they're stuck with them just like everybody else. I remember at one mandatory meeting on harassment the presenter essentially said that if you "look at someone" you may be guilty of harrassment. It would have been vague enough if she had said that you couldn't "look at someone in a lascivious manner" or something like that, but it was just "look at someone." She knew it was stupid and she was uncomfortable when I pointed out that everybody at that meeting was - at that very moment - guilty of harrassment, and that we were all guilty from the moment we walked into the building until we left at night. But what was she supposed to do? The law may be stupidly vague, but it was the law.

So, I reserve my contempt for those who make vague laws and for those few women who use HR departments to turn down (and humiliate) poor guys they do not happen to like.