playing between the lines

It is not normal to think about an abundant life, freedom, and the law as companions. We generally think about the rewards of obeying the law and punishment for not. This idea of the law makes us feel constrained not free and limited not abundant. Maybe the difference is in the notion of abiding vs obeying?

Suppose you thought about abiding in the law versus obedience to the law? Is there a difference? If so, what does it look like? Does this difference change how abundant life, freedom and the law are complementary, not contradictory?

Years ago a friend and pastor used the analogy of a basketball game to describe the Christian life. It goes something like this. If the game were played without any boundary lines and rules, then players would be free to go anywhere and do anything to win. The game would have no form and the opportunity to be a great player would be limited. Michael Jordan was considered great, and maybe the greatest, because of what he could do abiding within the boundaries and the rules. Going anywhere in the arena to get around people to score and pushing people off of him to get the freedom to make a basket would not be very impressive. 

The game would ultimately disintegrate. Winning would have no real gravitas. It would be difficult to discern who was really great. Yet, it was not the boundary lines and the rule book that Michael Jordan focused on. He conditioned himself and absorbed himself in the dimensions of the court and the right ways to play. Playing the game was nothing about obeying the rules but as Michael Jordan would abide within the court of play and and the rules of the game, he was free to exploit all of his talent and creativity to the amazement of all.

Thus it is with us. God prefers we abide in, not obey the law. Absorb our self in His law, but 

do not make obedience to the law synonymous with playing the game. 

Freedom to do and be everything we desire as we abide is what produces abundance. Freedom to do whatever we want without regard to the law results in obliteration of the game, not winning.

Maybe this is why "abide" is used all the time by Jesus and obey is only used to refer to the storms and the swine. Its probably worth pondering. 

Remember, Jordan was at his best, enjoyed the game the most, and felt the most free when he was playing between the lines.

I have often over the past 25 years since I heard my friend share this view.

If its free, who cares if its speech or press?

Often we hear journalist and other news media defend their reporting, regardless of its standards, as "free speech." Both the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are listed in the first article of the Bill of Rights. These freedoms are referenced in light of insuring Federal Government constraint or interference. 

Two questions seem glaring to me that are relevant today in our public discourse: 

Are the freedoms of speech and press a totally unconstrained right to speak and report with no standards or is the right dealing only with protection from government control? 

Why are the implications of freedoms afforded the press NOT covered in freedom of speech? In other words, why do we need both freedoms? 

At its core meaning and application, "freedom" focuses on the lack of constraint or external control. Notice the Bill of Rights does not say, all citizens have the freedom of speech or all press are free to say what they wish. The Constitution is only establishing the right of people and journalists to be free of government control. This does not mean there are no constraints that should be placed on speech and press. It is up to a civil and free society to determine the limits on rights of both speech and journalism. Thus, for speech we have the common standard that no one should "yell fire in a crowded theater" because this act of speech produces risks to others.

Its is less common for us to grasp the boundaries on the freedom of the press, except maybe in areas of direct damage to someone such as libel. There must be some reason the Founding Fathers listed both speech and press as separate freedoms? Maybe it is that there are standards that apply differently. They don't really say, so I get to offer my own perspective. This leads us to the second question, why are freedoms of speech not enough to cover freedom of the press?

First of all, the press represents an organized, even institutionalized, form of speech. Thus, the press is an agent of society as a whole vs simply activities of individual citizens. This gives the press a power not available to ordinary citizens, even if the citizen is famous like an athlete or movie star. 

It appears that the press is listed separately in rights protected from government control so that the power of the press could operate as a legitimate check and balance on the power of government. The question then is what kind of check and balance does the press perform? There are at least two: 1) to advocate opposing views and 2) expose fraud and corruption in the government.

Thus, the Constitution establishes advocacy and exposure as two distinct roles of the press that must be kept from the influence of government. BUT, what happens when the press becomes recognized as a dominant advocate for one power base over others? Are there any risks? One possibility is that the press ceases to have the role of exposing fraud and corruption if that power base has control of government OR the press becomes an "attack dog" to mitigate the power of the opposition that is in charge. 

In the first case society runs the risk that the press becomes an arm of tyranny, letting those in government go unchecked. In the second case the risk is that the press is dismissed and seen as too subjective and biased to fulfill the role of informing society of government shenanigans, losing credibility. 

I know I have rambled a bit and you may still be trying to figure out my point. 

Freedom of speech is designed to exercise the freedom we have been given while freedom of the press is to keep us free.

In essence, when journalism takes on an advocacy role biased to one power base, it is protected as a right to free speech, but quits being perceived as a free press. The Founding Fathers envisioned that journalists would play an objective role in informing society so that government could not operate behind curtains and deceive the public. In doing so, free press would keep society free. 

What we have witnessed in recent times is a mainstream press that has become an advocacy for the progressive, liberal agenda. When the Democrats have control of government, the press looks the other way or rationalizes actions that may work against the freedoms of many in society. This results in a government that is "unchecked", seeds of anarchy. When the Democrats lose control of government, the media works as an "attack dog" to report selected facts and contexts that delegitimize the Republicans in power. 

I know that many could and would argue the above conclusion about the media ties to Democrats. I don't wish to debate that here. We certainly know that the majority of media is NOT an advocate of conservatism and smaller government. Beyond this argument is a compelling picture of our current state, that is that the press has become a "bully" voice and because of free speech, is free from government constraint to be so. BUT in doing so, they can no longer legitimately call themselves the press. While the Republican controlled government cannot silence advocacy, they have the right to deny that the press is being the press and treat the press as an advocacy group. 

I think this explains what we see to day with so much antagonism going both ways between the so-called "press" and the Trump administration. The media revolts at not being treated as "press" all the while the government sees them as advocates for their opponent. 

Its really not hard to ponder why both sides are talking past each other .... 

"Alternative Facts"

Kellyanne Conway responds to accusations that reports from the Trump White House are lies. She calls the White House claims merely ‘alternative facts’. What might she mean by that? Of course falsehoods can be used to contradict an opponent's claims. BUT, "alternative facts" could very well have a different meaning and a useful role in public discourse.

Consider how you tend to focus on part of a whole to explain the whole, like two sides of a coin. Normally in human nature a party will stake a claim for truth based on what they already believe and then collect the evidence to support that claim. This generally involves both a selective subset of the facts as well as a selective context within which to present the facts. This selective use of facts and context then forces people with the opposing view to select facts and context not included by the original party.

This choice of evidence excluded or slanted from an opposing argument can be called "alternative facts."

These are not false hoods or lies, but a different orientation driven by an opposing belief. Let's look at two common examples. When economic "experts" predict where the stock market will go in the future, they usually start with an intuitive sense of whether it is going up or down. This establishes a belief that then influences the facts they collect and present as evidence to support their claim. If they believe the market is going down, they may point to high interest rates, large amounts of debt and valuations. If they believe the markets may go up, then they point to higher GDP growth and low unemployment. They would usually pick different time frames as context that best support there position. All of these "facts" provide evidence for a position already taken. Otherwise, how can you explain two smart economists with two opposing claims about the future of the market? This is actually normal and managed with civility in public discourse among economists. Neither claims the other is lying, but rather accepts that each puts a different priority on different facts. An opposing view could claim they are using "alternative facts."

There are many debates in public discourse that are not so civil. Climate change and abortion are two. Both stem from two opposing basic belief systems. Climate change advocates believe the government needs to play a major role in choices society makes about energy sources because of the long term risk to the world's environment. Opponents belief energy choices should have a market driven outcome to produce the highest standard of living and economic prosperity. Climate change advocates pick scientific studies and time frames that advocate their position and opponents choose studies and time frames that support their opposing view. I am not sure why this topic results in protests and major divisions among people, but ti does. Each side uses the facts they claim support their position and therefore the opponents "alternative facts" must be lies. BUT, maybe they are not, just a different subset of evidences that do not support the other sides beliefs.

With abortion, the debates even get nastier. One party sees abortion as the right of the woman who is pregnant to choose what is best for her. It is a fact that an unwanted pregnancy disrupts the life of the mother.Opponents claim that abortion violates the rights of the yet unborn child. Facts show that at some point an embryo is a child. Each position is anchored in a belief about the woman or the child and then supportive arguments select the facts that favor their position. The opposing side's facts are not necessarily lies, but simply an alternative set of facts.

It appears that Trump's election has put the debate of opposing positions on steroids. It may be because those with liberal beliefs have been in power with a media that supports their beliefs. Now that there is another sheriff in town, the power has shifted and so must the approach. Without the political power, liberals and their media buddies must delegitimize those in power. It seems that their choice of modus operandi is to claim that their "alternative facts" are mere lies.

If those in power wish to effectively participate in the public discourse, it seems they need to be able to discuss "Alternative Facts" as an alternative perspective, not a false one.

We just have so much to ponder these days ....

right about "rights"?

Have you ever been in the position to say, "that's the wrong question." Generally you respond by comparing the question to the unanswerable question,  'have you stopped beating your wife?'. It is quite frustrating when some one puts you in that position because you do not seem to have a legitimate way out.

Rep Price found himself in that situation at his Senate confirmation hearing when Sen Barnie Sanders asked him, "do you believe its the right of every American to have affordable health insurance?" This question came within the context of explaining that every country in the developed world provides their citizens with affordable, if not free, healthcare. Rep Price gave the typical republican line that he believed every American should have access to healthcare they could afford. Sanders pressed, "do you believe it is a right?" Dr Price could not agree and failed to adequately say why.

Here's what I wish he would have said (of course I was not there in the heat of the moment). "Does someone have a right?" is the wrong question. There is no such thing as a "right" unless there is someone or something that bestows that "right". What Sanders was really asking (but would not ask it this way)is, "do you believe that the US government should grant the right to every citizen to have affordable healthcare?" The answer to this question is much easier, "no, the federal government has not been granted the right to be the grantor of such right".

In other words, the US Constitution deals with rights of citizens to be protected from government, not protected by government, except from attacks by alien forces. So, if the US government assured you of the right to insurance, then the government must violate my right to decide if I want to pay for your health insurance if you could not. The Constitution protects my right from being forced by the federal government to pay for you.  

Senator Sanders represents a movement started over a hundred years ago to PROGRESS beyond the original intent of the founding fathers to change what we mean by "rights." This is why liberals, or big government advocates, are called "progressives." 

Dr Price could have said, in due respect Senator Sanders, your question is more of a philosophical question about "rights" than it is about legislation I would support regarding the healthcare of our citizens. I believe the US society should work diligently to find ways to provide services as basic as healthcare to all its citizens. However, this is a moral responsibility of society, not a right of the citizen bestowed to them by the government. There are many ways to fulfill this duty than by federal government mandates. That is what I believe and am working towards. 

So, what would you believe is the right answer to questions about "rights"? Will you be pushed into frustration to answer the wrong question, like Dr Price, or will you learn to push back at the wrong question and change the narrative to the right question?

The way you see what is right about "rights" is an assumption of whether you believe the Constitution as given by the Founding Fathers declares the "rights" of US citizens to be protected from government intrusion or whether you believe we have progressed beyond that to where the citizens have granted rights to the government to impose its will on its citizens. Rights are all about who can grant them, not what someone inherently deserves outside the will of the grantor.

Whether you have pondered this or not, you do have one or the other assumption. I believe Dr price would agree with me, I just wish he could have used the occasion to share this insight on camera for all to see and hear.

I can only ponder what would have then happened had he done so .....  

Who are the "fortunate"?

The report is out! Eight, yes 8, individuals have as much wealth as the rest of the world combined. This is down from 16 just a year ago. Some say they are VERY fortunate. Some believe the fortunate are getting more fortunate at the expense of everyone else. Some say their fortune makes them "privileged." Some of course say they are greedy and this is unfair. 

The judgment one makes depends of their assumptions of fortune, greed, and fairness. In fact everything we think, feel and do is influenced by several basic core assumptions like these. In this case, fortune is assumed to be material benefit from one;s own hard work and effort. Fair is assumed to be either that people deserve what they earn based on what they risk or everyone deserves the same regardless of what risks they take.

There are some ancient writings that suggest a different core assumption on what makes someone "fortunate." You may ASSUME that what was known thousands of years ago is not relevant today. The world has changed quite a bit since then and truth must keep pace with progressive cultures. Others may ASSUME however that truth is more stable and doesn't waiver across time and advances in science and technology. You are quite familiar with the market economy and the ways people build fortunes by risk and reward. You may not be as familiar with the ancient view of "fortunate" that relies on a totally different assumption about privilege. That is, fortune is bestowed on us by some power that has the resources and will to provide us everything we need independent of our efforts. This is not an assumption of fairness that is risk free. In contrast, in this assumption of fortune, the risk is not trusting the one who has the power and will to act on our behalf.

Here are a couple of points made about this assumption of "the fortunate":

1. being "fortunate" is recognizing we are absolutely destitute in our ability to even produce one breath of our own life. In this case we have the privilege to receive all that our soul needs from the one who can provide it. Our soul needs purpose, hope, freedom, esteem and a sense of belonging to something greater than ourselves. These needs are fully met as someone has gladly chosen to satisfy them because he wants to.

2. being "fortunate" is recognizing that every thought and emotion is under the control of the one who meets our needs. This guarantees that we do not have anxiety, fear, despair, and even pride because we no longer depend on exchanging our actions with the world around us for our fortune. 

3. being "fortunate" occurs as our motives have not one iota of self-centeredness. When we have no desire to meet our own needs through our own efforts and can trust the one who desires to bestow on us everything we need, then we can fully see (hear and interact with) the one who loves us so much. Now that is being fortunate!!!

These are only a few of the ways we are "fortunate" that contrast to what our culture says makes us "fortunate." We can sit by and trust that material wealth would come our way and make us fortunate if we could figure out the best way to earn it. OR we can connect with the one who waits patiently, willing and able to bestow on us all that makes us "fortunate".

Before you have a clear and accurate view of the world and "what makes you fortunate", you have an important set of core assumptions that determine your b4worldview.

Your b4worldview is our business @ www.b4worldview.com 

"feltified"

I heard on the business news today from a representative of Honeywell. When asked why his company has performed so well in the past few years, his response was, "we focus on something that is accomplished, not just something that is 'feltified'." I had never heard that term before, but I expect it may make our dictionary soon because it so adequately captures a cultural phenomenon. 

I remember in the 1990's when I was with a Coke bottler and we were meeting with employees of the Coca-Cola Company. When they would go back to Atlanta Corp office, they would be asked, "how did the meeting go?" They would respond either it was 'good' or 'bad'. If you asked those of us at the bottler, we too would answer 'good' or 'bad'. The difference is, we would assess the meeting based on whether we solved a business problem and they would answer based on how they felt following the meeting. In other words, our perspective dealt with accomplishment and their perspective was based on how they were "feltified".

I started thinking about our current political environment and see this notion of "feltified" all over the place. It seems when Rep Lewis claimed Trump was not a legitimate President, Lewis was "feltified". He gave no basis for his conclusion except reference to Russian interference in the election. There was no well thought out rationale beyond how he felt.

During Obama's reign as President, he would often be criticized by opponents that "if he felt something was a certain way, then it must be that way." If he felt the Iranians would cooperate, then they were cooperating. Obama even confessed that while he was popular among the people, his policies were defeated in record numbers at the polls. Some say his popularity was because the electorate was "feltified" with him.

I heard recently that many claim we now live in a "post truth" culture. "Post truth" is explained as a societal norm. What people feel is true is more important than what is true. Is this another way to say that our culture has been "feltified"?

Maybe, or maybe its just existentialism wrapped in new paper with a nicer bow. Maybe being "feltified" has been around as long as humans have. Even so, I now have a new word to throw around and ponder .....   

from generations to generations

There is plenty of angst today in the Western world about threats from bully states like Russia, ISIS, North Korea, etc. More importantly there is heightened angst since Trump's election over the possibility he cozies up to Putin and puts the world at greater risk.

Let me share this with the generation X, Y, millennials, and whatever comes next. I grew up in the 50's and 60's. This was a time right after the previous two generations (they didn't have labels then) had defeated Nazi Germany and an imperialist Japan, who had been quite active at bullying the world. This also was a time when the communist USSR began to stretch its muscles with global sights on ruling the world. As a child I lived under the constant threat of nuclear war, the expansion of communism, of having civilization as I knew it destroyed by bully states.

The times we are in now look and feel nothing like those days and the ones my parents and grandparents shared with me. The US is unequal in economic and politcal power. Of course none of us know what the future will bring, but let me offer this idea to the younger generations who may be feeling the threat of bullies in the uncertain times we live.

Regardless of what the optics of a Trump as President looks like, the Trump team will operate in the following manner:

1. they will help Putin and the Russian people feel respect and dignity in their own sovereignty
2. they will seek and embrace Russia's help in dealing with our enemies
3. they will work to diminish Russia and China's economic leverage on our friends
4. they will say to Putin, (paraphrased) "if you in any way hurt the American people or harm our friends, there is a gun pointed right at your head and we are not hesitant one bit to pull the trigger."

Peace through strength. This has been the way the US has brought more peace and prosperity to the world in the last 100 years than at any time in history. The bomb dropped on Japan was horrific. It cost many lives, but the Japanese ceased being a bully and their nation has prospered. Kennedy and Reagan looked tyrants right in the eye and said, "quit it", and they did because they knew we meant it. Bin Laden acted up and was wiped out.

The past eight years have been different. We have believed people will quit being bullies if we just speak to them kindly. Elections have consequences. "Making America Great Again" may be viewed as a campaign slogan to many of the young people, BUT to my generation and the ones that have passed on before us, it means a world at peace because America is strong.

Ponder this and rest a bit easier ......

it makes more than a little difference

Those of you that know me are WELL AWARE of my focus on precision, especially with words. I have written often about this topic but it keeps coming up in many different settings. Recently I've had several instances where I was responding to assumptions Christians make about circumstances and suffering. Let's take this verse as an example. I saw a Utube video of one of the giants of Western theology use this verse to show a Christian how to understand what God is saying that can influence how we think, feel and act. Some of the confusion that many Christians have was not made clear in this expert's explanation.

"Beloved, do not be surprised concerning the fiery trial which is to test you, as if some strange thing happened to you: But rejoice, in as much as you share in Christ's sufferings; that when His glory is revealed, you are glad with exceeding joy." 


The carnal mind assumes that joy is really happiness. However, happiness is a feeling of delight when my circumstances benefit me. Joy on the other hand is a kingdom view of contentment and cheerfulness regardless of my circumstances. What this really means is that when our emotions are determined by trusting our circumstances, we are walking in the flesh or our human nature. BUT, when our emotions are determined by trusting the faith (unobserved evidence) in what God has and is doing on our behalf, we are walking in the Spirit.

"Fiery trial" simply refers to circumstances that work on our emotions as we live humanly in this world. The "test" is to prove God is faithful to His children. We can fully trust that our soul's needs are not met by the world around us, but from God Himself through the work of His Spirit. Joy is associated with "sharing in Christ's sufferings". The word for "suffering" means emotional experience. That is, the sufferings of Christ are the emotions He felt as He walked as a human on this earth, experiencing all kinds of circumstances, some favorable to His human nature (such as praise) and some unfavorable (such as rejection and injustice). SO, the notion of "sharing in the sufferings of Christ" simply means that our emotions are determined by trusting God's provision to us, not by depending on how our circumstances affect us.

THIS is why God's word tells us to consider it joy regardless of what is happening. We can be both unhappy and joyful at the same time. Unhappy feelings are attached to our human experience of difficult circumstances and joyful feelings attached to God's provisions of His Kingdom. Many Christians feel guilt when they are unhappy because they equate happiness with joy.

Too often, suffering is equated to pain and to the circumstances that cause the pain. The circumstance is the trial, which is an anticipated circumstance (no surprise) that demonstrates (tests or proves) our faith in God's provision.

Our core assumptions about happiness and joy are what ultimately influences how we think, feel, and act. Often Christians have plenty of head knowledge of theology, but lack the b4worldview of the Kingdom.

At least this area of assumptions is worth a bit of pondering .....

It just ain't right!

Have you noticed how the progressive liberals are reacting to the election? There's a form of denial. They cannot seem to reconcile how people who are so stupid, so bigoted, so deplorable, so wrong can be rewarded with the Presidency. There is a desperateness to their thoughts, feelings and actions. They are completely baffled and in their very core being cannot comprehend

                        the way some people are and what they receive!

Its like the person who deserves the least is getting the most - It just ain't right!!

While this is one example of the reaction that is currently very prevalent in our times, the idea that people get what they haven't earned offends all of us. Everybody at some time or another says - "it just ain't right." This is the theme of one of the most viewed Utube videos of all times and has become a tag line for many people when what someone gets versus what they deserve is out of balance. This is clearly a core assumption of human nature and is a central theme in the study of human behavior.

It should not be surprising that when Jesus explains the Kingdom of God, He must contrast core assumptions of His Kingdom with those of the natural (fallen) world. Since reciprocity (getting what you deserve) is central to the kingdom of this world, it must be addressed in His teachings on Heaven.

Jesus draws this contrast in what many call, "the sermon on the mount." Christians read this Scripture quiet frequently. However, its easy to pass right on by the profound challenge Jesus is making to our nature. Because it is in the Bible, we accept it without question. BUT, if we really attend to what Jesus is saying, would we be tempted to think, "that just ain't right."

What if we hear that a co-worker receives the absolute worst performance appraisal from the boss and gets a raise of an unimaginable amount, we would likely say, "it just ain't right." If the person who cleans the toilets gets paid $85 gazillion, we'd be flabbergasted. When we confront obvious and unfair outcomes of gigantic nature, our response is somewhat like the way the liberal progressives are reacting to the current Trump Presidency.

Yet, this "crazy" imbalance between what someone deserves and what they get is actually one way Jesus describes life in the Heavenlies. He says that there is great joy for those in His Kingdom. We like that. But, joy is available to the person who is most despised by this world simply because they love and trust Jesus. Jesus says the person who the world thinks the least of receives the most amazing and abundant reward. Now, the point Jesus is making is not that the Kingdom of Heaven has some fantastic reward/punishment system. What He is telling us is that we cannot think about His Kingdom thru lenses of reward/punishment.

The core assumption of Grace makes even the most amazing reward system seem absurd. Jesus really wants us to look past what "just ain't right" to the wonder of His righteousness.

Now, that is what we should be pondering, not Trump's tweets ......    

lessons of a sniffing dog

Occasionally, I take Spot, my wife's dog, with me when I go on a walk. I don't think I do this out of social exchange, so my wife will do something for me or because its my duty as her husband. It seems to be a nice thing to do when she is busy and cannot take him out and I am going for a walk anyway. Maybe its not really noble but just because I am always trying to be efficient and utilize time well.

Whatever the motive, I am not a "dog person", so I do not naturally understand dogs very well. However, I have learned a few things over the years. Spot will stop at least once to poop, but its unpredictable when and where. He does a quick pee and then he MUST stop often at random bushes and posts to pee again, even if he doesn't need to. I have learned that dogs pee on places they select to "mark their spot". These "dog acts" interrupt my walk, but I kinda understand so the interruptions do not irritate me.

HOWEVER, every 20 feet or so Spot stops and sniffs. Sometimes it is brief and sometimes it goes on FOREVER. It is very irritating and disruptive to my walk. It seems so pointless. I do not understand it at all. I could be really kind to Spot and my wife by walking her dog, BUT, this sniffing drives me crazy.

On a recent walk I was going through the same experience as always because dogs never waver in their behavior. I found myself yanking on his lease and saying, "come on Spot," as he seemed to excessively stop to sniff. Then it hit me!!

How often do we spend time like this with other people? Many things they do we understand and so we can manage our feelings and expectations, even as their actions create conflict and interrupts our desires. Its those things they do we don't or can't understand that build wedges between us. I don't think I will ever understand and appreciate Spot's incessant stopping and sniffing. Its just his nature and in no way a part of mine.

This can be a good lesson for us all - everybody we know has "strange" behavior that just flows from their nature. We have no way to grasp "why they do this", because we have no natural way of understanding. Maybe instead of being irritated because it interferes with our agenda, we should relax and enjoy them for who they are.

Sometimes

they need to "stop and sniff" and we do not need to know why.

It was worth a little pondering that day for me and a reminder always to accept in others things I cannot understand because I am not them .....