Expiration dates ......

Do you realize how often you have to be concerned about when something will expire? You cannot charge anything with a credit card without a valid expiration date. At Coca-Cola one of the most important aspects of a salesman's job is product quality. He or she must rotate product so the oldest will sell first and product will not expire. A long time ago when Andy Griffin was just a radio comic he used to tell the story of Romeo and Juliet. My favorite line was when he used the expression "and he expired" for Romeo's death. All through one's career there is one eye on retirement, the expiration of all that goes with one's life at work (income, relationships, recognition, identity, etc.).

Everything seems to have an end. Everything appears to eventually expire. This raises the question of the futility of everything. What has staying power? Is anything forever? How can we really enjoy what we have if we know it will one day EXPIRE?

We go through the motions in life as if our vacation, our car, our home, our relationships, our health, .... will not end. Only until we approach the expiration date do we begin to "panic". Yet all along we know it will end. Low grades of anxiety filter in from the start. When we drive off the lot with that new car, we fear the first scratch. Even in our wedding ceremonies we say "til death do us part," admitting from the start that there is an end.

Why is it we give allegiance, our utmost loyalty to anything knowing it will expire? Isn't this what "idol" means?

Being a "good person" and doing all the "right" things seems to be the main message of our culture and religion. You can focus on "good vs evil" as the main challenge of the abundant and virtuous life. But shouldn't it be expiration dates that keep you up at night and drive you to your knees? You can put expiration dates out of your mind for a while. BUT, at some point you must ponder, not the evil of this world, but the futility of things till you personally embrace the Eternal.

What are Republicans afraid of?

This is not a political advocacy blog. Its not even really a political blog. Its a blog about you and me and all other humans who walk this earth. Political positions do not define any of us, BUT our core assumptions make each of us a political "beast" and define our political position.

There are numerous reports in the media about Republican law makers being "afraid" to hold town meetings because of the political heat they will take from their liberal constituents. Of course there are the reports that the loud complainers are paid protesters to intimidate the sitting Congressmen so that they will not carry through with the Trump agenda. There may be some truth to this, but political opposition to Trump and the Republican agenda is about much more than the particular Congressman. Its even about much more than Trump's agenda or even Trump himself.

The political divide in our nation is not new. Its been around since the founding of our nation. Its been around since the beginning of time. As long as societies have organized themselves to meet their needs, there have been two distinctly different assumptions.

First, there are those who believe that society should provide a "fair" playing field so that people can work as hard as they want to earn the benefits they desire. The role of government is to protect the playing field by providing equal opportunity for all to win. This actually is justice or equity. the judgment that people should receive according to what they earn. This assumption does not care about a person's sex, race, age, appearance, handicap, or whatever. If the person can make and sell widgets, then they prosper accordingly. Personal responsibility and risk/reward are the prevailing values.  The needs of those who cannot fend for themselves (orphans, widows, mentally ill, etc.) are met by family and charity first and government as a last resort. This assumption seeks smaller government.

Second, there are those who believe that society should control the playing field so that benefits are "fairly" distributed to everyone regardless of what different people can earn. The role of government is to protect the playing field from those who can win better than others. This is entitlement, an expectation of a right not governed by justice but according to some central conscience of society. Entitlement is NOT social justice, as many portend. It is the absence of justice. This assumption tends to use sex, race, age, appearance, handicap, or whatever as an alternative basis for why everyone deserves the same benefit. People should be not be at risk or subject to harm is the prevailing value. The needs of those who cannot fend for themselves (orphans, widows, mentally ill, etc.) are met primarily by government with family and charity as supportive to government. This assumptions seeks bigger government.

At the core of all the shouting and finger pointing is simply competing assumptions.

Republicans should not be defensive and timid in advocating the position of personal responsibility, justice, and smaller government. Democrats should quit bullying those claiming the first assumption and boasting they have some moral high ground. An assumption of personal responsibility is not bigoted and mean spirited.

As a society we should clearly see and willingly debate the different assumptions behind justice and entitlement. 

Once society can debate the two assumptions and quit spewing vitriol at each other, maybe, just maybe we will have a reasonable approach to voting for which assumption we collectively wish to govern our land.

BUT, human nature has been around forever. We didn't get here overnight and we won't resolve it overnight. Until we can and do, we must just PONDER what could be .......

the power of little words

Anyone who has read or listened to my pondering knows full well my obsession with words. I think the integrity of the meaning of words is at the heart of the issue of subjective and absolute truth. The reason I am so passionate about the precision of words is the stealth power words have on how we think, feel and act.

I have written before about the word "suffer" and how the different ancient ideas are collapsed into the one English word "to suffer". In doing so, the nuanced differences are lost and the impact of an ancient writing about truth is impotent. So, power is definitely found or lost in the precision of words.

Interestingly, it can be the very little words that can send us down the right or wrong path in our thinking. I have written about "obligation" and how two different views of its meaning makes a huge, if not life changing effect on us. The difference actually manifests itself in two little words: "for" and "of".

One meaning of "obligation" or "ought to" invokes a condition "for" and the other invokes a condition "of". For example, if we say that an introvert "ought to" be shy and quiet around people. We can mean that a condition "for" being an introvert is that a person act this way, OR we can mean that a condition "of" being an introvert is that a person acts this way. The first use of "ought to" ("for") implies that we choose to act a certain way in order to become something, like an introvert. The other means that because we are a certain way, like an introvert, we have no choice or at least it is natural for us to act a certain way. The difference is profound. The first assumes that we can become something (introvert) by what we do. The second assumes we do what we do because we already are that something (introvert). The difference is how we understand the meaning of personality and how personality affects our lives.

Let's look at another example. Suppose we say "in a good marriage the partners 'ought to' be faithful." If we take the first view of 'ought to', then we mean that fidelity is a condition FOR a good marriage. If we take the second meaning of 'ought to', then we mean that fidelity is a condition "OF, or what naturally flows from a good marriage. The implications of how two married people grasp the notion of marriage "obligation" of fidelity has monumental impact on how each partner views each other and the relationship.

If you take this same idea of "obligation" in your relationship with God, there is an even greater impact on the quality of your spiritual life.

You may think the difference is academic and makes no difference or you may just not like to ponder. That is, of course, your prerogative. Whether you consider the difference or not is not the deciding factor on whether the "little" difference really has BIG power......

Who invites whom?

One of the main praise songs in church today focused on our invitation to God to come join us in what we are doing. The words went something like this

"We are inviting You to stay

Make this home Your home

We prepare a place

Come in

The door is open"

and so forth. I think you get the point. While everyone was enjoying singing this song and feeling very praise oriented, hands up high and voices reaching their peak. I PONDERED.

Surprised that I would ponder? What could be wrong with this, Prof? Shouldn't we invite God into our lives? Isn't that a good thing to do for a Christian?

The sermon was from 1 Thessalonians 2. The theme verse was 

"to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own Kingdom and glory."

The preacher was emphasizing how Paul walked boldly in his calling. Wait, isn't a calling an invitation? Paul didn't call God to walk with him. Paul was not inviting God to join him. It seems its the other way around.

Paul recognizes that God has invited him to join in what God is doing, not vice versa. We are part of God's story, not the other way around.

Why then would an evangelical Christian church think that inviting God into our story is what we should be singing? Is it that our nature is a b4worldview which has such subtle, strong influences on how we think and feel that it is easy to confuse who is inviting whom?

I'll leave this for you to ponder, I already have ....   

"Justify Yourself"

I have written and spoke on Social Exchange for years now. Many have been blessed by the transformation of thinking that comes with grasping how our human nature, like all other nature, seeks balance or equilibrium. This is supply-demand in economics and the basis for justice, a quid pro quo reciprocity based on receiving in balance with what you give. Equity, "getting what you deserve", forms the foundation of most all institutions, especially when it comes to rewards and punishment.

Yet, when people are introduced to social exchange for the first time, it seems to be somewhat difficult to grasp. This is especially true when Christians must reconcile how this natural propensity wars against Grace. I was recently handed an article from Christianity Today, "Justify Yourself: Why we prefer the law 500 years after Luther reminded us of the Gospel." It is so endemic in human nature that we must make sense of life through lenses of cause and effect, that while we can embrace the Reformation in our head, our soul stays on exchange. That's been going on for 500 years, more if you consider Augustine and even more if you consider Paul's letter to the Romans.

No where does this issue manifest itself any more than in how believers view rewards in the Kingdom of God. Over and over people struggle with exchange because to cast off the notion of exchange in our Christian life is to deny the many verses in Scripture that speak of rewards. BTW, the notion of rewards is added by many preachers to scripture that does not even use the word because its so important to them to emphasize how the Kingdom must operate with a contingent reward system.

I was recently asked about a devotional that used Matt 19:29. The author starts the devotion saying
"There is a false spirituality in the church that insists we are never to serve God with an eye on the reward."

The passage in scripture actually goes like this

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life."

The emphasis in the passage of scripture focuses on "receive" and the writer calls it a reward. Maybe it is a reward, but Jesus didn't call it a reward. Jesus described what we "receive" as we become a part of His Kingdom, true. In fact, I think receiving is the main point of the Gospel. Not what we do to receive, but that the King gives, willfully and gladly. If you look at this statement in context of what is going on, its clear that Jesus is pointing us to the reward giver and a totally different idea about rewards than contingent compensation.

Think of it like this:
An orphan receives much when adopted. These benefits can be considered a reward but it is usually not viewed that way. It is usually seen as a condition of adoption. The adopted child receives all the provisions and privileges of the father.

Contrast this to how some view the scriptures as an employee benefits manual. This is what you receive contingent on remaining gainfully employed The more you do, the more you get. This is exchange. This is the core of fallen human nature. This is why we needed a Savior.

The cycle of pondering ... this message never gets old!!