Cash for Clunkers

Cash for Clunkers or CARS is a new government program. I’m sure by now most everyone has heard about this. Basically your are given a trade-in value of between $3500-$4500 for your older less efficient (18mpg or less) “clunker” in exchange for a more fuel efficient car. Not only is it a government program but it also has the logic of a government program. The program is only available for new car purchase.

Why would a cash strapped government ask it’s cash strapped citizens to spend even more money that they don’t have? People who have old fuel hogs typically can’t afford to buy a new car. That or they are shrewd enough to choose not to. If they could and wanted to, they probably would have traded in these older vehicles before now. If they do this now, many of them will be even more cash strapped or will default on the loans they would be given. Hmmm, loan defaults? Over spending? This sounds familiar.

Church Economics

While getting ready for church, I asked myself this question. "How many families does it take to financially support a full time pastor?" Interesting question, especially for us western thinking Christians. Assuming that each household was self supporting and they tithe their "local storehouse" the answer is pretty easy. For the example, let's say each family makes $50,000 and that's what is required (minus tithe) to "make a living." With each family giving 10% or $5000, it takes 10 families to support a pastor and only 9 if the pastor doesn't tithe. (Not the kind of pastor I'd want). Just ten families! That's it! Of course, funds for a church are needed for ministry/outreach, but ten families? Really? Wow!

It brings a lot of other questions to my mind regarding how we "do church."

Encountering God

This is what I read this week from John Piper in his book, “Don’t Waste Your Life:”

No one ever said they learned their deepest lessons of life, or had their sweetest encounters with God, on sunny days. People go deep with God when the drought comes. That is the way God designed it. Christ aims to be magnified in life most clearly by the way we experience him in our losses.

Facilitating Meetings

We all love meetings, right? I mean, we go along doing legitimate work all day and then the meeting comes. It breaks our flow and makes us stop all the productivity we had. I don’t know too many people who like meetings. One of my primary functions in my current role is to facilitate these things. Meetings can be like herding kittens, especially when strong personalities are in the room. Frequently they become stages for those who desire to show their importance. That happens frequently in Academe. There are a number of tips on how to run effective meetings at various websites, but here are two in my opinion that are perhaps the most critical:.

1. Meetings, at the very least, need a goal; at the most a detailed agenda. If this is written in front of each attendee on a printout, or seen on a whiteboard or overhead, then it will help all people be cognizant of why they are there. Meetings that do not have a formal purpose will become frustrating to the attendees, even if things are accomplished. Another reason why you need this is because like I said, it’s like herding kittens. They need to be reminded of the purpose frequently to keep it from being a stage for the one or two difficult personalities in the room.
2. End your meeting early! When you are facilitating a meeting, do whatever you can, including tabling the lower priority agenda items if need be, and end it early. I have never once walked out of a meeting where I have heard someone say, “You know, we seemed pretty efficient in there, but I really wish we would have spent more time discussing all the agenda items.” It is my belief that attendees will think the meeting is successful if you start them on time and end them early. If you can’t end early, end them on time. If that’s not possible, schedule a second meeting. Show your attendees that you value their time and they will appreciate you.

Clearly this isn’t exhaustive, but these two usually start me in the right direction.

Laying it Down, Bono Style

This morning, as I began the Epilogue in “The Reason for God” by Timothy Keller, he quoted a book/interview regarding U2 lead singer, Bono.  The book is called Bono: Conversation with Michka Assayas.  Many of us have heard or read the Lord, Liar or Lunatic argument before, but I’m encouraged to know that Bono has a pretty good grasp of it too.  I loved this: 

Assayas: …Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. … I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

Later in Bono’s book he says the following:

Bono: … [I]f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. …When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s--- and everybody else's. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that's the question. And no one can talk you into it or out of it.

And there you have it.  Preached by Bono himself.

Differences between British and US sports/sport

First, we Yanks say “sports” and the Brits opt for “sport.”  I don’t care to into the linguistic aspect, just a quick note on sports.  Consider the following photographs taken from a recent Cricket match in England.  These are English batters celebrating among Australian fielders:

What are they celebrating?  Well first let me tell you a little bit that I know about Cricket.  There are different types of cricket, two of which I’ll mention here.  First there is “Limited overs” Cricket which is roughly analogous to a baseball game where both sides get a maximum number of pitches thrown to them.  Then there is “Test Cricket” which is considered the “highest form” of the game.  These are usually played on an international level with one country traveling to another for a series of matches.  The first known match and longest rivalry is between England and Australia.  This has become known as  “The Ashes” series and happens about every 18 months if I’m not mistaken.  The first of five matches was recently completed and the pictures above are from the end of that match.  Now Test matches are different than any other team sport in the US.  They are scheduled to last 5 days!  Each team bats twice and they play for about six hours each day!  For those of you with short attention spans, you may opt to watch a “limited overs” match which only lasts a day.  :-)

Needless to say, this is a bit different than what we’re used to in the states.  We don’t like long games.  Looking at our top three sports, football and baseball last about three hours and we complain that they last too long.  Imagine, five days!  I suppose after all of that you’d celebrate like the batsmen in the pictures are.  Imagine the thrill of victory after a five day epic!  That’s what they’re celebrating, right?  Nope.  They’re rejoicing in a draw!  A tie!  Five days of cricket, and the English side, as well as English cricket fans were elated that they didn’t lose!  Could we Americans imagine this?  Of course not.  We work it so that the only draws possible are in professional football and even then, that is only if neither team scored in an overtime period, which rarely happens.  We hate ties so much that we changed college football rules so they wouldn’t happen anymore - ever.  They don’t happen in basketball, and the closest thing to a tie in baseball is when two teams play a doubleheader and each team wins one game.  And in the words of Marty Brennaman, splitting the doubleheader is like kissing your sister.  (No offense intended to my wonderful siblings out there.  I’m sure you understand the sentiment).  So when it comes to cricket, I doubt the United States would ever be able to field a decent squad.  We just don’t have the patience for it.  But regardless.  Congratulations to England!  Good job not losing that first test series!

Biased Media?

Recently I mentioned to some friends that I listen to NPR. Most of them remarked by saying that this was part of the “liberal media.” However, I also have one friend tell me she believes NPR is actually leaning conservative. Go figure. How does this happen? I think that the media, in general is biased. There is going to be a tilt one way or the other. Granted some are tilted more than others. There was a time when I actually thought Fox News was Fair and Balanced. Perhaps they were and have since changed. Or perhaps I have changed. Actually, I know I have, but what I’m saying is that since we have our own thoughts and agendas, we can’t declare someone neutral. It’s not possible. It’s all relative to us.

So relative to me, I submit the following. My wife has taken to watching the nightly news. Specifically, she is watching CBS Nightly News with Katie Couric. That’s fine with me since Gibson (ABC) sounds condescending and Williams (NBC) sounds whiny and sensationalistic. Couric seems to be the most tolerable of the three. So, never mind left or right here. Let’s just mention Dick Cheney. They mentioned him last night as it related to this CIA story. Before the story ran, of course Couric introduced the story in which these two pictures were shown behind her. Now tell me this was the best they could do for the story. Really? Look, I have no affinity for the former VP, but I doubt anyone could look at these objectively and think the network was trying to paint Cheney in a neutral way. I won’t go as far as to say they lean to the left, (even if I believe they do), but I will say they are clearly not big Cheney fans. I’m just saying there is no unbiased media.

Retirement: Addendum

To follow up on my previous post, I would like to provide the following quote from the back of the book, "Don't Waste Your Life," by John Piper. I'll be starting this one later this week:

John Piper writes, "I will tell you what a tragedy is. I will show you how to waste your life. Consider this story from the February 1998 Reader's Digest: A couple 'took early retirement from their jobs in the Northeast five years ago when he was 59 and she was 51. Now they live in Punta Gorda, Florida, where they cruise on their 30-foot trawler, play softball and collect shells. . . .' Picture them before Christ at the great day of judgment: 'Look, Lord. See my shells.' That is a tragedy.

I'd like to tell you more about the book, but I haven't begun to read the inside of it. That being said, the cover alone will get you thinking.

Retirement? Bah!

This morning, I was reading my Utmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers.  Chambers wrote the following about 100 years ago:

“The real danger in spiritual laziness is that we do not want to be stirred up— all we want to hear about is a spiritual retirement from the world. Yet Jesus Christ never encourages the idea of retirement— He says, ‘Go and tell My brethren . . .’”

In this age of entitlement where we now live, something has been bouncing around in my head for some time.  For my Christian friends, I’d like to suggest the following:  There is nothing (that I know of) biblical about our modern day idea of retirement.  I have discussed this a few times with some folks and the only thing that has been mentioned is that the Levites were to work in the temple from ages 25-50.  Well, ok, fine.  Did their service stop then?  I’m doubting it.  Besides, I personally do not know any Levites personally who work in the temple, so I think we shouldn’t necessarily consider this a good reference for those of us in secular vocations.  As for those in “full time ministry,” I doubt this is a good example either.  (On a personal note, my pastor is over 50 years old and I’d prefer he not retire any time soon).  So, then, what is biblical about modern day retirement?  Or more importantly what is it we should be asking God to do with us now and in the future?   When Paul writes in Romans 12:1, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.”  I don’t think he means to go fishing without sunscreen.  This life we live now, is no longer ours.  We gave it up when we committed it to God.  Does this mean we don’t save money for what we suspect will be our “retirement years?”  No, but for me I think it is important to keep in mind that I can’t take it with me?  I have my 401K from a previous job and money in other retirement accounts.  It isn’t much and maybe even should consider putting more in, but, again, what for?  I will slow down as I age.  I may not be able to pull the same sort of paycheck to take care of things as I get older and that is what those funds should supplement.  But should I stop?  I hope not.  That would be laziness which is what Chambers refers to in this morning’s devotional.

(Of course another matter for me is to be sure I’m not being lazy now, too!)

Renovations: Bonus Room

Here is a set of pictures showing the renovations inside.

View Full Album

Renovations: Our new Screened in Porch

This was my first post using an MS tool called Live Writer. I would love to know what people think about the format.

View Full Album

Pair o' Dime Props: Minnesota Politics

Just a quick raise of the glass to our friends in Minnesota. These folks know how to entertain us. This goes beyond Lake Wobegon or Fran Tarkenton infomercials. This is about politics and government.

After spending most of his life in the WWF, Jessie "The Body" Ventura left the wrestling ring and threw his hat into the political ring. A pro wrestler running for Governor of the State of Minnesota? That's insane. Actors and Athletes are one thing, but someone who has made his living being over-the-top arrogant, violent, fake and actually a "bad guy" in wrestling? That would never fly. The guy was sure to get body slammed in the election, right? Nope, not in Minnesota. In 1998, Ventura was elected governor of the state. (I must admit here, I sort of liked his style. I personally wouldn't mess with Jesse).

A decade passed and Minnesota was at it again. This time it was comedian Al "Stuart Smalley" Franken running for Senator. A comedian who rose to fame through Saturday Night Live running for Senator? The guy best known for wearing pastel sweaters and sweetly counseling people as Stuart Smalley? Surely he had no chance, right? Nope, he had a chance, and by just over 300 votes Franken is now the junior senator from Minnesota. Of course, lawyers and recounts were needed to secure the victory, but apparently, he was good enough, smart enough, and dog-gone it, people liked him.

Oh, and poor Norm Coleman. The former mayor of St. Paul lost to Franken....and Ventura! I wonder how that feels?!

(NOTE: I thought about discussing the 2002 Senate Race too, but that one wasn't quite as amusing...it was just sad.

Christian Fanatics

We all, on occasion will say we're a fan of something. You could be a fan of baseball, a musical group, ice cream, etc. Everyone is comfortable with that. When we say fanatic, we get a little less comfortable with it, don't we? Although fan is short for fanatic, when we say the longer version, it implies a greater intensity. If you were to add "Christian" in front of that, then the implication becomes something even more concerning and definitely has a negative connotation to it. Well, Timothy Keller, in his book "The Reason for God" explains what the problem is with Christian Fanaticism. I love this excerpt:

Fanaticism
Perhaps the biggest deterrent to Christianity for the average person today is not so much violence and warfare but the shadow of fanaticism. Many nonbelievers have friends or relatives who have become “born again” and seem to have gone off the deep end. They soon begin to express loudly their disapproval of various groups and sectors of our society—especially movies and television, the Democratic Party, homosexuals, evolutionists, activist judges, members of other religions, and the values taught in public schools. When arguing for the truth of their faith they often appear intolerant and self-righteous. This is what many people would call fanaticism.

Many people try to understand Christians along a spectrum from "nominalism” at one end to “fanaticism” on the other. A nominal Christian is someone who is Christian in name only, who does not practice it and perhaps hardly believes it. A fanatic is someone who is thought to over-believe and over-practice Christianity. In this schematic, the best kind of Christian would be someone in the middle, someone who doesn’t go all the way with it. Who believes it but is not too devoted to it. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the Christian faith is basically a form of moral improvement. Intense Christians would therefore be intense moralists or, as they were called in Jesus' time, Pharisee’s. Pharisaic people assume they are right with God because of their moral behavior and right doctrine. This leads naturally to feelings or superiority toward those who do not share their religiosity, and from there to various forms of abuse, exclusion, and oppression. This is the essence of what we think of as fanaticism.

What if, however, the essence of Christianity is salvation by grace, salvation not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us? Belief that you are accepted by God by sheer grace is profoundly humbling. The people who are fanatics, then, are so not because they are too committed to the gospel but because they're not committed to it enough.

Think of people you consider fanatical. They’re overbearing, self-righteous, opinionated, insensitive, and harsh. Why? It’s not because they are too Christian but because they are not Christian enough. They are fanatically zealous and courageous, but they are nor fanatically humble, sensitive, loving, empathetic, forgiving, or understanding—as Christ was. Because they think of Christianity as a self improvement program they emulate the Jesus of the whips in the temple, but not the Jesus who said, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7) What strikes us as overly fanatical is actually a failure to be fully committed to Christ and his gospel.

When put this way, I feel much more comfortable saying I'm a fan of Jesus...or even a fanatic.