My Focused Wandering

Muraho update #2

2010-09-01T12:33:00.004-04:00

Muraho again! An update I wrote for our group trip, soon to be posted on the church website (http://www.rezchurch.org/). Check there every so often for more updates, but I thought I'd include it here since it's fairly personal since I wrote it. Enjoy...

==========================

Muraho again! Yesterday, the Rwanda team departed from Nyagatare,visited Bishop Alexis in Gahini, and safely arrived at the As WeForgive house in Kigali. Our brothers and sisters in Nyagatare sentus off with monster hugs and greetings to everyone. It is going to bedifficult to describe the intensity and impact of these newfoundrelationships with words, so we hope everyone will be able to see iton our faces and hear it in our voices when we return. We also had agreat time with the amazingly adorable children of Nyagatare, as wewere able to play football and dance with them, visit their schools,and receive informal lessons in Kinyarwanda (the native language,although many speak very good English).

Many of you will also be happy to know that the Rwandan prayers formarriage and children in our church have been fervently renewed byPastor Emmanuel and several members of their Development Committee(our Rwanda Group's counterparts).

Bishop Alexis and, today, Archbishop Kolini were incredibly gratefulto have us and shared wonderful advice and prayers in encouraging ourministry here in Rwanda and especially back home.

We got a real sense of the (material) poverty and desolation resultingfrom the genocide yesterday, yesterday visiting Jon's friends Aishaand Gloria, whose entire families were killed, and today visitingKininya, a reconciliation housing association in which victims andkillers are living and working together. As Blake said, in the Biblepeople went up mountains to meet with God. And as we were there in Kininya, we met Him as well. Friends, He is here and moving mightily.

Today we also attended a screening of As We Forgive at a local prisonhousing 5,200 inmates, over half of whom are there for genocidecrimes. The message of repentance and forgiveness was powerful andopened some wonderful doors for conversation.

We give thanks for the work that the Lord has done already, and forthe favor and protection He has shown us. We miss everyone from homebut are grateful for your prayers and the opportunity to be sent outon behalf of our churches. Please continue to pray for our health andsafety, as well as the As We Forgive church leaders' conference thatwe'll be attending the next couple of days.

Grace and peace from our Almighty God,

The Rwanda Team

Muraho from Rwanda!

2010-08-31T17:40:00.002-04:00

Muraho! (Hello!) I am sitting in our hotel lobby in Kigali, Rwanda right now. This may be the first indication of one surprise from this country: it is not nearly as desolate and forsaken as we (or I) tend to think of it. Kigali is a great city, very safe, plenty of things around, even an Italian place we went to dinner tonight! (A welcome change from traditional Rwandan food...not the highlight of the trip so far.)

Many, many more thoughts, emotions, and reactions will be coming probably as I get back. But almost halfway through the trip, I can confidently say that my world has been sufficiently rocked. We'll see how this other half goes. The moral of the story so far is that I love this place and the people here, and as much as I expected similarities and differences, I am finding the scale tipping heavily to the similarities side. We've been embraced and loved and shared laughs and joys with our new Rwandan friends, many of whom I feel like I've known for years. And that is nothing to say of their individual and national coping and recovery from their 1994 tragedy. This stuff is crazy, but good.

Much love to everyone back in the States. It will take me a while to process everything about this trip, but it should provide some interesting food for thought, or at least some good blog ramblings.

Matt is going to Rwanda...tomorrow!!

2010-08-25T11:14:00.001-04:00

Dear friends and family,

Mwaramutse! (That's "good morning" in Kinyarwandan. Tomorrow we're off! I'll get picked up around 6am and fly out around 10. Truthfully, I can't believe it's finally here. We've been talking and planning and fundraising for so long, in some ways the thought of actually going to Rwanda somewhat escaped me. But ready or not, here I come.

A few more details about the work we're doing that have come up. We're spending the first half in Nyagatare, as I mentioned, working with our sister church there to help them develop their relationship with our DC church, help with the students our church supports, and communicate with the new pastoral staff there about how this partnership can work best. Later, we'll be bringing the As We Forgive film to the folks in Nyagatare for a viewing (they haven't seen it yet) and training on discussion leading. The second half we'll be in Kigali, helping to put on a prison screening of the film and attending a training conference for community leaders on the film. Overall, a big focus of the trip will be a needs assessment and relationship building, but we're hoping to put some of our harder skills to good use as well.

Personally, I am excited and feel mentally and spiritually ready, at least as much as possible. I definitely have no idea what to expect, but I think that's a good thing. I anticipate my mind being blown, my heart broken, my body exhausted, and my spirit revived. I expect my understanding of the world and of God to balloon beyond what my American culture and experience can provide. I hope that my future calling and dreams will be re-shaped to take into account the people I encounter. And of course I hope and expect to leave the country better than we find it. In small ways in small parts of the country, we'll have a few days of influence, and I hope people are blessed by our meager offering of ourselves and whatever service we can provide.

I'm so grateful for the encouragement and prayers I've received so far. And here are a few specific ways to join us in prayer during the trip:

for health and safety during the trip and on the ground, plus smoothness of logistics and traveling
for an open, soft heart, not bent on my own agenda but eager to listen and serve
for an eye to see and ear to hear all that God is revealing to me about myself, the world, and especially Himself
for relationships with the church in Nyagatare, solid communication, and fruitfulness in the reconciliation efforts
for the As We Forgive Rwanda Initiative, our sister church, President Kigame, and the Rwandan people as a whole

We're hoping to blog a little when we're there, but if not will certainly put up some posts when we get back. My personal reflections will be on my blog, and the team reflections should be on the blog on the front of our church site. And I'll send out a brief recap when I get home and recover a bit.

Much love from DC today and Africa tomorrow,

Matt

Rwanda update: a hand and a thumb

2010-08-20T15:18:00.003-04:00

That makes 6 days to go. And gosh, I'm ready. We have a big fundraiser event tonight, which should be really fun, but in all honesty my mind is way past that. And to be more honest, my mind has only made it as far as the plane ride at this point. I'm guessing that's because I have been on planes, so I have an idea of what that'll be like, but I've never been to Africa, so can't really begin to picture what to expect. I think I'll be pretty antsy on the flight, and eventually books and cards just aren't going to cut it.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have been nominated treasurer of the trip, which means that I have to make sure everyone has enough money to pay for transportation, food, lodging, etc. every day. So I'll be carrying a few thousand dollars' worth of Rwandan money around the country, which is slightly intimidating. Don't tell any robbers you know in Rwanda about that.

It's also been fun to start thinking about fun, non-traditional things to pack. I just bought a few soccer balls and a pump that I'm excited to bring over and play with some kids there. Jon asked if we could go running, which will be pretty sweet, so I'll pack my running shoes. I also will pack my solar shower to attempt to have a warm-ish shower some nights. Otherwise, I think a lot about shoes. I feel like shoes have a big impact on experiences like this. And lastly, for now, is a guitar. What a privilege to lead some folks in music worship in Africa!

For now, it's time think about Groovin' for Rwanda tonight. Maybe I'll see some of you there!

Countdown

2010-08-16T13:03:00.003-04:00

Can we just take a quick look at the ridiculousness of things coming up in the next few weeks? Here is a brief countdown of significant upcoming events:

10 days until I leave for Rwanda
12 days (I think) until my 2-year DC anniversary (which I'll be abroad for, ironically)
14 days until the start of the Fall semester (although I'll miss the first week)
20 days until college football season (again, I'll miss the first week, but Go Irish!)
22 days until the infamous Katalou Labor Day bonanza and mega-slip-n-slide
32 days until I go back to see my family in Michigan for the first time in a while
34 days until I attend my first 2010 ND game (at MSU)

What the heck? Ready or not, here comes fall!

Rwanda update: 13 days to go!

2010-08-13T13:56:00.004-04:00

Today is Friday the 13th (which my family considers a lucky day), there are 13 days until we leave for Rwanda. Perhaps it's appropriate to list 13 things I'm excited about for this trip:

I will meet and live for a week with people whose background is entirely different from mine.
We will be bringing the message of reconciliation and forgiveness to leaders who will, in turn, spread it to their community. What a way to serve!
I'm excited to play soccer with the kids. Or should I say, "joue au foot"....my French is a bit rusty. But I love that completely different people can bond over the sport.
I'm going with quality people that I'm excited to know better through this time: Blake, Andrea, Josh, Jon, Kelsey, Sarah, Alicia, and Kaety. Not to mention the Rwandans we'll get to hang with.
I'll get to pray and worship in a way that is foreign to me. The God is the same, the understanding and relating to Him is different.
With 20ish hours of travel each way, I'm hoping to crank through some good books. I have a stack I've been meaning to work on.
We'll get to share stories, messages, and pictures with friends, family, and our church when we get back. It will be an awesome uniting of worlds for us.
Touring the country will be awesome. I have heard and seen that it is a beautiful place. I'm holding out hope for some gorillas too.
I'm excited to mourn and cry over the genocide memorials. Pain is not good but it's real. And I believe that realness is a higher good than painlessness. I'll get just a glimpse of what the people there suffered, but I will join with them.
Along with that, I'll rejoice and laugh and dance for the joy of hope in recovery and renewal.
My perspective of my life will change. Need will be redefined. I mean this in material and emotional ways.
We will make Rwanda a better place. We won't change everything and most people will never know we were there. But for the few people we do get to see and serve, we will leave that country better than we found it.
What an adventure! God is good and His provision is perfect. What more could I be excited about than taking a leap with Him and His people?

Rwanda update: shots...check!

2010-07-30T14:16:00.003-04:00

Okay, that's slightly misleading. I still need to get my yellow fever shot, so ask me about that in a couple weeks if you don't hear anything by then. But today I got my typhoid fever and polio shots, along with malaria meds. I had no idea that polio was required since I got the shot as a baby, but apparently for international travelers, they recommend a booster just to be safe. Cool with me, I'm all for not getting polio.

So with surprisingly sore arms, I count 26 days until we leave. The plane ticket is bought, the plans are mostly in place, and aside from a daunting fundraising event and packing, I'd say we're ready to go. Okay, that's not true at all, but I feel like it should be. Our team meetings are very interesting in the detailed planning we try to do, and I go back and forth between thinking that this is useful and just diving into the laid-back African culture already. Hopefully there's a happy medium.

Our new big project that we're excited about is bringing the As We Forgive movie to the town of Nyagatare (where our sister church is), which has never seen it. It'll be such a cool way to combine both of our missions of sharing the film with the country and building the relationship with that small community.

For me personally, I think I'm as ready to go as I'm going to be. I can't wait to get there, meet the people, see how they live and interact. It's kind of strange to think that the 9 days we're there will be a blip in the Rwandans' lives but incredibly impactful in mine. Maybe there is someway we can make a more lasting positive impression. I don't know what to expect, really, but I'm okay with that. This is a good thing and the right people, and the Lord of everything is with us in it.

Bring on Rwanda!

As We Forgive

2010-07-13T14:03:00.002-04:00

I watched the film As We Forgive for the first time last night. Now remember that this film is pretty much the basis for our trip to Rwanda, as the entire country is using it to promote forgiveness and reconciliation. So it's pretty important to understand what it's about.

Emotions during the film run the gamut, from hopeful to hopeless, exceeding joy to unending sorrow. But what I found to invoke the most emotion from me was the desire for the forgiveness that the perpetrators sought. I think it's easy to take this into a super-spiritual idea saying that we all need forgiveness and we're in no place to ask for it, et cetera, et cetera. This is true, I believe this to be true. But it is also true that I have never killed, or even seriously hurt, anybody, let alone several people at once with a machete. How can I understand the depth of the pain of that loss OR the pain of that guilt?

This film is still processing through my being. I don't know how it will come out of me or enact itself in my life. But my immediate, unhindered reaction was that this film portrays what is good. "Forgiveness isn't human, it's divine," Bishop John Ruchyhana said. The world hurts and needs and feels. And I think that to realize that this is just as true for someone else, especially such an enemy, as it is for me changes everything.

More on this to come, but I'm interested to follow this "reconciliation road", if you will. Good things are to come.

Enemies to friends

2010-07-09T13:55:00.003-04:00

First of all, 4th of July in DC is awesome. You should try it sometime.

This 4th of July, I did a little reflecting on the events surrounding the signing of the Declaration of Independence compared with life in America today. There are countless things you could point out as interesting, but this is the one that stuck in my mind: our Founding Fathers would probably be right pissed if they realized that the U.S. was now boys with Britain. In 1776 (and perhaps with the recent World Cup), I imagine that Britain symbolized everything that is evil to an American.

Then I thought if that was true for any other time/place in America's history. Immediately I thought of Germany and Japan, currently America's 5th- and 4th-largest trade partners (respectively), who, less than a century ago, we were rallying to fight tooth and nail.

I don't know my American history enough, but I would guess there are plenty of other examples (i.e. we now are happy to be connected to the South, right?).

So I think it's reasonable to translate this idea of reconciliation to today's enemies. Our biggest problems right now are probably with Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea. If other mortal enemies have become friends in our country's past, why can't these? Does that change our perspective on how we think of/treat them?

Overall, I leave this thought with a feeling of long-term hope. I hope my grandkids find it foreign on their trip to the Middle East that it was ever such a danger zone. Situations certainly look pretty bleak now, and we love to think and react in the short-term, but let's see what happens. Let's not close any doors just yet.

Matt is going to Rwanda!

2010-07-01T16:14:00.000-04:00

Dear friends and family,

It’s amazing to think that just 15 years ago, Rwanda suffered a genocide that claimed the lives of almost a million people in just 100 days. Now, I am excited to tell you about a trip through my church to spend ten days there. I am leaving DC with around ten others on August 26 and returning on Labor Day, September 6.

The Anglican Church I attend in DC, the Church of the Resurrection (or just “Rez”), has a sister church in Nyagatare,Rwanda. Our churches have an amazingly mutual relationship, encouraging and supporting each other from opposite sides of the world. They have blessed us with the vibrant spirituality and African tradition, and Rez has partnered with them, among other things, to send 120 students in the Nyagatare community to school. Everyone that has been to Rwanda to visit has been transformed, and I look forward to sharing that experience!

The mission for our trip is essentially twofold. First, we will be supporting the communication system between our churches and the Rwandan students. This involves the sharing of gifts and photos both ways and evaluating the system to see how we can improve it for the benefit of both churches. Second, we will be working with the “As We Forgive” project in the Rwandan capitol of Kigali, promoting and facilitating avenues of post-genocide reconciliation through a remarkable film produced by a woman in our congregation. The project has seen literally miraculous fruits so far, and the movement is gaining more and more! While I intend to be completely overwhelmed by the experience, I hope that my project organization and financial skills will be put to good use in supporting these projects.

I long, for this trip, to learn to know and feel deeper. The people of Rwanda have experienced more than I could ever imagine. Yet they love. They love God in complete abandon and dependence that I can’t comprehend. They love each other despite the slaughter of loved ones, rampant disease, and inadequate food, water, and shelter. By knowing the badness of the world, Rwandans can so richly know the goodness of God.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a complete mission trip update without an appeal for funding. In that spirit, please know that I have been blessed to be in a position to afford to make this trip mostly on my own if necessary, so any financial support from you is more a tangible symbol of partnership than a necessity for my going. If you would like to contribute to this experience, please send a check to Church of the Resurrection, P.O. Box 77211, Washington, DC 20013. Please make your check payable to “Church of the Resurrection” and include “Rwanda 2010” in the memo line. Please do not put my name on the check as the church is not permitted to receive checks designated to a specific individual. Instead, for a personal donation, include a separate note with my name. Your contribution to this effort is tax deductible as a charitable donation. The Church of the Resurrection has full discretion and control over donations for this mission.

And finally, please pray. Pray for me and for the team, for open hearts and courage. Pray for Rwanda, for its people and leaders and future. Pray boldly. God hears big and small, so I say we pray big. Our Father in Heaven desires to give His children good gifts, if only we would ask.

I’ll try to remember to update my blog with thoughts and expectations as the trip draws nearer, and will send out a follow-up email and blog posts when I return. I also promise that I will not tire of talking about this experience before or after the trip itself, so please feel free to ask and discuss!

Thanks already for you love and support,

Matt

Privacy and the internet

2010-05-03T11:25:00.002-04:00

Maybe it's just me, but I can't help but roll my eyes when people talk about things like Facebook and Twitter invading their privacy. "How dare you take the information that I willingly put on your site and share it with people who want to find it!" For all of the cries for more privacy, I don't think I've heard any rebuttals. So here's mine: sign off. The point of the internet was originally and is increasingly the free sharing of information. If you have pictures and "Likes" that you don't want freely shared, don't put them online. If Facebook is invading your privacy, cancel your account. It seems a little hypocritical and logistically impossible to demand "limited open sharing" when you have to give someone else your information for their public site but don't want other people to see it.

This leads to another question: Is access to the internet (or maybe specifically a Facebook account) a right that every American should have? I'll have to stew on that one for a bit...

"Good" Friday

2010-04-02T08:36:00.002-04:00

Today is Good Friday. I normally like to wish people (and myself) "happy Friday", but that just doesn't seem appropriate today. So that gets me questioning whether good and happy are the same. A lot of people will say that the ultimate good is happiness. But what if it's not?

Certainly we could take the idea of the Cross that we remember today, but there are personal anecdotes we could use too. A move, breakup, tough conversation could have been ultimately good even if it didn't make you happy. I would even go as far as to say that some of these good events will never make you happy, so good cannot even be equivalent with ultimate or long-term happiness.

So far, I've come up with two distinctions between good and happy. First, happy is temporal, good is eternal. Or to take the religious tone out of it, good is lasting. Second, happy is personal--an end in and of itself. Once you reach happy, that's the best you can do. Good, however, serves a greater purpose. To seek good means that there is something better to seek beyond feelings and personal satisfaction. It takes ultimate reality from being what is yours to what is universal. Happy may be the best state that you can be in, but good is the best state that the world can be in.

Something or someone cannot be truly happy without being truly good. But something that is truly good is not necessarily happy. Good must be higher.

Obviously, we'd ideally have both in our lives. But given the choice, and the nature of today, I want to know and experience what is good.

So Good Friday to you.

My take on healthcare

2010-03-23T08:27:00.004-04:00

Nobody asked me for my thoughts on the recent healthcare law, but I guess have some anyway.

My first thought is that it is completely unacceptable for the richest, most powerful, most prosperous and free nation in the world to have children dying daily of curable, preventable causes, simply due to lack of adequate healthcare. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. So I applaud the intent and effort to make this happen.

Is this the best way to achieve this? I highly doubt that, but so far it's the only proposal that even came close. I am highly skeptical of a 2,000-page bill that scrapes through without a single bipartisan vote, but I also think that (most of) the 219 House Members who voted for it are not complete idiots who have no idea what they're doing in voting for the bill, as many Republicans would have us believe. Like anything else in politics, this bill is a matter of values and tradeoffs. The Democrats thought the tradeoffs were worth it, the Republicans didn't. I wonder if there was no such thing as parties if we'd have the same divide in votes.

My biggest problem with this bill is that the writers chickened out in actually paying for it. While I'm certainly no expert, most of what I read indicates that a lot of the cost savings and revenue are to come later...maybe. And the revenues that are being accrued now will be paying for costs that don't start until later. Once they're even, it's unsustainable again.

The best argument I heard against the bill was that we need the competition and overtly high quality of healthcare to spur innovation, even if it leaves some out. This is a good, well-grounded point that I cannot refute. But I will go back to values that I hold, a bit of an egalitarian model. I am willing to pay higher taxes and sacrifice some medical innovation to care for "the least of these" that currently are not cared for. Both of these are costs and tradeoffs, but worth it, in my mind, to provide the basic right of healthcare to everyone in our country.

There are problems with insurance markets, problems with incentives, problems with information systems. But here we go, like it or not. Let's move forward with it as best we can, together.

The March for Life and the questionable power of vocal campaigns

2010-01-22T17:16:00.002-05:00

I ran into the March for Life on my way home from work today, almost literally in fact. Apparently, if you disagree with legalized abortion, you also disagree with looking both ways before crossing the street. Doesn't seem consistent. Wow, that may have gone too far...

But anyway, aside from my slight annoyance at the crowd (and enormous buses), I support their cause. But even aside from which side of the fence you fall on the issue, I got to thinking about the power and influence of this group of people gathered for this cause. My first question (not cynical, but true inquiry) was, "Can a one-time vocal campaign really cause change in the world, and, more specifically, politics?" I wanted to ask people, "Why are you here? What do you, personally, hope to accomplish?"

My thought then immediately turned to the Million Man March of the civil rights movement. That was similar, right? And pretty effective, if my history serves me correctly. But then, my uncontent mind challenged, was it the march that caused change, or something else? What about Dr. MLK, whose one voice was arguably louder than the "million men" (from what I understand, the actual number is likely much less)? What about politicians who really have the final say with their votes? One can legitimately argue that all of these are important, but I still consider that a cheapskate answer in the search for the real power of change or even influence.

In the case for the March for Life, as with the Million Man March, here's where I am so far (and up for debate or persuasion). With the abortion debate (as with civil rights), most people probably know where they stand, and a vocal gathering for a cause will either excite you with their passion if you're with them or incite you with their ignorance if you're against them. I don't see a lot of conversions here. Furthermore, I think it's safe to say that politicians know about how many of their constituents fall on which side of the debate. So Senator X isn't going to look out his window and say, "Gee, there's an awful lot of people out there. Is that Mrs. Jones from Punxsutawney? Hmmm...maybe abortion really isn't such a good thing. Mrs. Jones is a wise lady."

So if such an act isn't going to convert citizens and it isn't going to convert politicians, at least it will raise awareness, right? What? Raise awareness? Is there anybody in this country that would witness this march that is not aware of the abortion debate? Or that is not aware that people are opposed to legalized abortion?

Finally, and perhaps most interesting or most specifically applicable to the topic of abortion, is the fact that the crux of the debate lies with the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case. The end of the March for Life is the Supreme Court itself, where I imagine a fantastic rally is held. But then I think of the role and purpose of the Supreme Court. Is justice not supposed to be blind, oblivious to the will of the people? Isn't the point of the judicial branch to be an unbiased, uninfluenced evaluator of legislation against the Constitution alone? Does such a public influence really, then, have any bearing?

So here's my conclusion. I support the March for Life--not just the cause, but the activism. I'm skeptical of its power to impact change on its own, but I think its value lies in the rallying of its people. I hope they encourage each other--emotionally, intellectually, spiritually--to keep fighting for what they believe is important. I hope they determine practical ways to weave their opinions into the fabric of the government we've created. I also hope they lose ignorance and reject mob mentality. I hope that as they support the lives of the unborn, they respect the lives of the people who disagree with them. I hope that God's name is not used in ignorance or condemnation. I hope that they don't just yell, but listen and search for common ground with their opponents, establishing a debate and not a war.

I hope that they win. I hope that legalized abortion ends. Peacefully. Civilly.

May God be with those who fight to end abortion and with those who fight for its expansion. May Truth and Goodness reign.

The "R" word (3 of 4) - Men

2009-12-02T16:18:00.006-05:00

As I ponder this topic, I think it is almost harder for me to generalize the topic of men in a relationship than the topic of women. This is because when I think about this topic, I usually think mostly of personal experience, not the experience of men in general. But when I think about the topic of women, I am not one and thus don't have personal experience, so I have to generalize. But anyway, these thoughts on men and relationships are about good men who I like and respect and try to be like, and the topic of jerky men who give us a bad name are a whole other issue that doesn't pertain to this post.

Physical attraction is not just about physical attraction
We men get a bad rap for the fact that physical attraction is so important. But I'm convinced that just about any guy can be attracted to just about any girl. Of course, without knowing a woman a man will mostly judge his interest on her appearance, but what else does he have at that point? Logically, that's not as shallow as it usually seems. Also, the word "appearance" is important in that statement because how a woman carries herself and the aura she gives off (smiley, apathetic, energetic, depressed, etc.) is as much, if not more, impacting to how a guy first perceives her than her natural portrait looks.

I have a friend who writes a blog called "There's no amount of hot that makes up for crazy", and it's so true! I've found that, regardless of how well you know them, women can become incredibly more or less attractive based on how you do know them. I don't know why this translates to physical appearance, maybe it's an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing, but a woman can literally become instantly more physically attractive to a guy if he sees or learns or realizes something that he really likes about her. For me, that's a huge indicator of the quality of a relationship.

Fear of rejection is overrated
Guys do stink at asking girls out, in general. I apologize to all the single ladies (all the single ladies, put your hands up...) who are frustrated by this. But I think the "fear of rejection" excuse is way overrated and really not as true in most men. Instead of this theory, I propose the "fear of opportunity cost" theory. I like to think of dating in terms of economics (not really, but it fits here). But the point is that by choosing and committing to one person, you have essentially said "no" to all the others, at least for the time being. And since men are insecure and somewhat ADD, it's not easy to trust that you've picked the "right one", even if you're not looking for perfection. So they don't ask because they aren't sure. They aren't sure that they'll be accepted, of course, but they also aren't sure that they won't find something better later. It sounds terrible, but it's true.

Creating interest
One of the great things about women is they might have no interest at all, but then if a good guy shows interest, she may start thinking about it and may very well become interested. Men are not like that. If he's not interested, he's not interested. End of story. It may be for any variety of reasons, because of himself or her or anything else, but there is very little she can do to convince him if he's not open to it. If she pushes too hard when he's not interested, he will either run from her or cave to her, neither of which will lead to a decent relationship. I feel bad for women in this case. Their best bet really is just to be open and available, and men really ought to be able to be honest about whether they're interested or not, and decisively act one way or another. If he's smart and worth it, ladies, he'll eventually see you as you want him to as he sees different sides of you. We're slow, but be patient! If that can't work, it may be time to move on. Gosh, isn't confusion terrible?

What men want
In terms of relationships, what men want more than anything is trust and encouragement. This is good for women to know because the same is true pre-relationship. One of the most attractive things in a woman is consistency and positivity, both of which can be shown at any stage of any relationship. Our biggest insecurity is doubting that we're fun/smart/good-looking enough to keep her interested. I can't tell you how helpful it is for a girl to go out of her way to thank a guy or tell him he's doing great. We men need to do a better job or leading and moving and acting, but a little encouragement along the way is a huge help.

Men take the perception of their woman very personally. If I can't be impressed by who you are apart from me, I'm not really going to be really impressed by who you are with me. And this point is interesting because it is different for every man and woman. Each man will have certain attributes that impress and attract him, and each woman will have her own impressive and attractive attributes. But when they meet, it is a beautiful thing. The key here is for men to know what's important to them, and for women to be themselves for the sake of goodness and not for him. We can usually tell when you're putting on a show.

Un-PC
I believe in gender roles. I believe that men are suited, equipped, and called to be leaders of relationships of many sorts. Not dominating, not of more value, just leaders and initiators. So we really need to man up. Women can and do step up to fill these roles as best they can when necessary, but there is wholeness when the men lead. Those are the great relationships. Not just for the sake of ourselves, but for the sake of the women in our lives, we need to act like and truly become good men. Women can encourage us and (please) pray for us, but when it comes down to it, I believe the buck stops here. This is where we separate good from great, better from best. If I ever live contrary to this, please call me out.

I don't know what you think about faith, especially in the context of relationships, but I think it's interesting and important to discuss and think about. So that's the next post, wrapping up this little series. It's been fun to reflect on the relationships I have experienced personally and externally.

Defining "me"

2009-11-11T13:24:00.002-05:00

Sometimes life is stressful. For me, this is one of those times. But I'm learning something interesting this time. In particular, I am stressed out by school right now. With papers, projects, and exams all barreling around the corner ready to blindside me, I'm just not seeing how it's going to all get done. And done well. I don't know that I can succeed. What am I going to do? I will be a failure.

Doubt is one issue that this brings up, but that's not what I'm thinking about now. I'm thinking about the idea of failure and how much that means to me. Essentially, in these stressed out times, the idea of failing at school (or work or relationships or whatever the stressful situation) the essence of my existence is being defined by this one situation, at least in my own head. Thank God that's not true.

Remove yourself from that stressed moment and mindset. First of all, I'm not likely to fail fail at school (or get fired from work or completely lose touch in this relationship). But in my head I project the worst possible scenario and build my thought pattern around that has assured future reality. What the heck? Second, if I am lucid enough to grasp this first truth, I am still deeply wounded by the idea that I have achieved less than perfection or less than expected of me. I think this is true for even us non-perfectionists.

But think about it. I fail all the time. I fail to show up to work or a meeting on time. I fail to get a project turned in when I say I will. I fail to clean the bathroom when I know it's my turn. I fail to follow up on a conversation that I meant to. Even though I am sorry for situations as these and wish that I had come through, I do not define myself by them, they do not consume my soul like these super stressful situations. But why?

Life is made up of a countless number of successes and a (hopefully smaller) countless number of failures. It seems awfully arbitrary for me to pick one to hang my hat on to tell me and who I am and what good am I. Running through life with the main purpose of avoiding failure just sounds exhausting and, ultimately, futile to me.

I believe in a God that defines me by Himself. I believe in a God that runs to greet me when I come crawling back, famished and mucky, and a God who invites me in for a feast after a day of good work. I believe in a God that is infinitely demanding and yet infinitely patient. I believe in a God that knows that I will not succeed on my own and has decided to take matters into His own hands. I believe in a God who is the Creator of the entire universe and yet knows the number of hairs on my head and calls me His son.

That is the best definition of "me" that I can grasp. That's who I am.

The "R" word (2 of 4) - Women

2009-11-10T15:49:00.006-05:00

Before I begin, let me disclaim that I don't know that much about women. Shocking, I know. I am only writing about this subject because it constitutes 50% of the main topic of relationships. I have been blessed by a number of women in a number of circumstances that have been very open to me about all sorts of things, so these thoughts come from those conversations and from observations over my limited years.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place
I think it is safe to say that very few good relationships began with both people equally liking and being on the same page with each other. Interest has to spark in one and the other has to pick up on it. In these situations, then, women are often stuck going one of two ways.

On the one hand, if they are interested in a guy, their hands are often tied according to the traditional view of waiting for him to initiate. What is she to do in the meantime? How can she express her interest? If she does, they usually go one of two ways again: either he's not interested and runs, or he likes being pursued and they get into the pattern of him following her lead and focusing on her approval, which she gets tired of (be a man, man) and he resents. If she sits and waits... well, I understand that there's a lot of tension in the silence.

The flipside is if a guy is interested in the woman. He shows interest and pursues, then she decides how to react. Now, she's likely pretty excited that there is interest, regardless of the person, and I have a feeling that her girlfriends have a pretty significant impact with how much she initially lets him in. I could be wrong. So on one side, she could not be interested at all, and either run from him and drag him around until he figures it out for himself (sometimes we are slow though), or she (mercifully) just tells him straight up. Or, and I find this interesting, she may become (if she wasn't already) interested, realize she's interested and thus becoming vulnerable, or "not ready", and double takes back into situation #1.

Of course, there is a narrow path of bliss and perfection. But most women I know haven't found that often, if ever. So there's a rock, and there's a hard place.

What women want
I think if I actually knew the answer to this heading, I would have already written a book about it and been a gazillionaire. (Side note: I find it fascinating that it is so often discussed "what women want", and so infrequently discussed "what men want". Not that that's wrong, but why is that?) I would submit that all women have a "list" of some sort that their ideal guy is going to fit, whether rigid or loose, there are certain qualities that a man has to have if she's going to give any part of her life to him. And that's usually good, except when she's crazy. Women also seem to have an idea of how their relationship is going to go: how fast, how much commitment, what friends and family can be met when, etc. Men, generally, don't do this as much--the list or the ideals. I think this creates a good deal of tension in a lot of relationships.

But overall, I think it's pretty safe to say that women want, more than anything in a relationship, is to be loved. That is their deepest desire and the root of their deepest fear of being known. Whichever of those wins her internal battle will dictate her openness to the relationship. Much more than a man, a woman can be persuaded by pursuit. Men decide what they want, then they go after it. Women I think have some ideas (specific or general) of what they want, but are naturally and culturally in a more reactive position. So if a guy that they hadn't really considered before comes in and makes the right moves and meets the right criteria, she can hop on board pretty readily. A movie I watched recently said that men want a game but women want a story. Men want dragons and princesses to rescue, women want to know how they both got their in the first place and what's going to happen to them.

What you can do, ladies
The greatest curse on man-kind (emphasis on the "man") is passivity. Adam was the first when he just let Eve do her thing because she (or the serpent) may have yelled at him had he stepped in. But a good woman has the ability to draw out the strength of a man like no sport, game, or friendship possibly can. The two recommendations I can make to women interested in a man: be encouraging and be honest.

Internal masculinity is affirmed by other men in a man's life, but external masculinity is affirmed by a woman. If he reaches out to you, openly affirm him, let him in. You're not as good at hiding your barriers as you think you are. If you want him to come into your life, you have to let him and invite him. Don't pull him, but as he approaches, resist the temptation to hide or run. Once again, you'll notice that this takes an understanding of yourself and how open you are to this relationship and vulnerability. If you aren't truly aware of that, how can you expect him to be? But there is nothing better than a woman who tells a guy that he is great in the initiative and leadership he takes, who makes him feel confident and strong.

Be honest. Know that men don't work at the same pace that you do. I've heard it said that women search and find the right guy that they want to marry, whereas men wait until they're ready to get married and then find a woman that will fit. The point being that women move forward when they find the right guy and men move forward when they are ready. This is clearly a gross exaggeration, but I think the principle is true. Sometimes, even if you want him to be, he's just not ready to be dating. And sometimes, to borrow one of my new favorite phrases, "he's just not that into you". I think it's pretty clear that you should be honest with other people in your life, but my point here is to be honest with yourself. If he's not ready or not interested in pursuing you there is nothing you can do to change that. And quite honestly, you wouldn't want to. You don't want that guy that you can manipulate and turn to your liking. You want to wait for a guy who's interested in you because he's interested in you. Be honest with yourself. If it's not happening, you've probably done nothing wrong, and it's just where he is. I hear that waiting can be treacherous, but I think it is better than the alternative.

So that's my take on women. Gotta love 'em. Some of the things I find most attractive in women are an understanding of herself and her place in the world, physical and emotional modesty, and a smiley, affirming attitude. It's really fun to see relationships work as they ought, a woman filling in the man's weaknesses and vice versa. There really is not much better.

Now, onto the men. This one should be a little easier for me...

The "R" word (1 of 4) - Where it begins

2009-10-22T16:12:00.007-04:00

Reeeeeeelationships. And I don't mean simple, inoffensive, unambiguous general relationships. I'm talking about what you actually think about when you hear the word "relationships". I mean a guy and a girl, 20s and 30s (had to include "30s" for Dennis), admittedly irrational yet incredibly real. Emotions, feelings, confusion, excitement, sorrow, joy. That's what I'm talking about. So allow me to contribute to the conversation. Consider the following much more observations than recommendations, and we'll see where it goes. This might take a while...

Where to begin?
I've heard it said that relationships are easy. Or at least ought to be easy. Take that slowly: Relationships ... ought to be easy. The argument here is that if a guy and a girl fit together well, they will slide through the good times and bad times, have highs and lows, but ultimately know that it is good. If that is not experienced, you probably haven't hit relationship euphoria. What do you think?

On the flip side, some say relationships are a game, at least at first. Whether these result from personal insecurities, social norms, or anything in between, there seem to be standards that are expected to be met in order to proceed. It's like a chess match where each person not only thinks three moves ahead from where they are, but has to anticipate scenarios of the other person's reactions to their moves. Do you observe this?

Maybe a better question is: is there a difference between the way relationships generally are and the way they should be?

Staying in control
Here's what I've noticed. Without being explicitly said, relationships almost always begin with both sides exhibiting an exorbitant amount of control. This is kind of ironic because, if the relationship reaches its fulfillment (aka marriage), both sides ultimately give up the control of self (not the same as self-control) so that the union would be greater. But people seem to have a need to control how they are perceived. They put on a show of what they think the other person will like.

Have you ever avoided calling back immediately because you don't want to seem desperate or pushy?

Have you ever dressed down from what you normally would so as to appear more casual? Or dressed up to appear more classy? Or dressed more sideways to appear more hip?

Have you ever spent more than a minute thinking about what color socks to wear, even though your pants and shoes cover them? Or shoes? (Ladies, we really don't notice.)

Have you ever started a conversation or gone to an event that you don't really care about because you think someone else would be impressed?

Have you ever embellished how far you ran, how many hours you worked, or what kind of activities you did to impress someone? Have you ever de-exaggerated (what's the word I'm looking for here?) these so as to not be intimidating?

Maybe it's just me and the people I hang with, but I've personally done all of these things. More than once. But why? I do it without thinking about it. Am I afraid of who I am? Am I afraid that she won't like me? Wouldn't that be better to know now than after we get going and she finds out? But no. I like her to see and think about me just as I want her to. I like to be in control of how I'm perceived. But it's exhausting!

Just the tip of the iceberg
So when thinking about relationships being easy or a game, I would say yes to both. I think there is always, inevitably some degree of play or show, but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. It kind of keeps things light and interesting. Obviously, if that is where the foundation is laid there will be problems, but I think people learn about how they work with different styles as they flirt or date or court or whatever.

So at some point, you start with the game, but at some point the relationship has to transition to real and "easy" if it's going to be sustainable. That's a tricky transition because real things come out. The things you pretended away before. It gets quirky. It gets personality. It gets real.

Coming up next...
I also think it's interesting how men and women approach relationships differently. So I'll be thinking and writing about that in my next few posts. The next post I'll share some thoughts and observations on women, admittedly from a biased and unclear male perspective. Then I'll do some reflecting on men, which I think I have a better grasp on, seeing as I am one. Lastly, I think it'll be appropriate to think about the aspect of faith in relationships--where it fits, how it works, successes and failures that I've seen and experienced.

Wow, I am unqualified for this...

No such thing as freedom

2009-09-11T15:21:00.003-04:00

Living in DC and now taking classes on the formation of policy in government really challenges me to think about what it means to live under a system of rules and laws that you don't personally construct. I mean, if I made all the laws for me and you made all the laws for you, we'd have no problem abiding by them; heck, we'd even appreciate them. But these laws on Social Security tax, drinking age, healthcare, [insert other controversial law here] don't necessarily jive with rules that you or I feel should be placed on society. But it doesn't really matter, does it?

I had no say where I was born or where I lived for the first two decades of my life, which means that I had no say about what laws I have to follow. Why should I pay for public schools I don't send kids to or roads I don't drive on? Why should I stop at the red light if it is clear and going through would cause no harm to me? But if I don't comply, they write me a ticket and/or throw me in jail. So essentially, I'm bound to these rules I never agreed to but am somehow subject to as a result of where I physically am. This is what government is. It is an entity that creates rules and regulations that establish a societal framework--or "govern"--a society as a whole, regardless of individual consideration. The same laws apply to you and to me, regardless of how we feel about them. And it doesn't change unless there are some serious problems that build up.

This is true for a democracy like the United States as much as it is for a dictatorship like Cuba. It doesn't matter who makes up the laws, it's just always true that we're all subject to them.

But why?

Voluntarily or involuntarily, we give up some of our freedom as a result of having these laws imposed on us. The idea is that you gain freedoms and benefits as a result of the same laws imposed on others, individually and collectively. It is up to the lawmakers, then, to decide which freedoms are given and which taken, however they choose to weigh them.

But we most concede, then, that we are never completely free. Either there are laws restricting our desires but protecting us from harm (I can't just go take someone's 2010 Mustang if I want it, but you can't take mine either) or there are no laws but we are subject to the will of others more powerful (physically, mentally, socially) than us. I think you could also argue that social or cultural laws are just as important as written legal laws.

Yet I am an eternal optimist. I love America, I think government is important, I value society as a whole far greater than any one person. I simply think that it is fascinating to look at the idea of "government" and "freedom" from an ultra-individualistic perspective.

But what if we were never meant to be completely free? What if we are always subject to something or someone for the rest of our lives and beyond? What if the ideal of "freedom" is something that we made up because it makes us feel powerful and in control? America would have trouble coming to grasp this, but I'm just wondering, "What if..."

Baseball's superiority

2009-08-26T14:49:00.003-04:00

I think baseball is the best sport there is. Forget multi-million-dollar whinos, steroids, scandals, etc. I'm talking pure baseball as it is meant to be played by people who love to play it, regardless of how much they do or do not get paid for it. Here are some reasons.

It's the ultimate combination of team and individual achievement.
Baseball comes down to individual pitches. For any given pitch, you have batter versus pitcher, and that's it. But then, the ball goes in play, and all of a sudden you have fielders that need to move themselves and the ball in sync to make things happen. Or, if the hitter is successful, he needs to rely on his teammates to also find success so he can score, or else his personal success is pointless. I think of other team sports as more heavily reliant on team achievement. LeBron James was great, but he couldn't win because his team was no good. Kobe was good, but only won because of heroics from Derek Fischer and his other teammates. Examples abound in football and hockey as well. In baseball, one player can be dominant for a game, but not for a season. A pitcher can be lights out but lose if his team doesn't score. A hitter can hit three home runs, but his errors could be just as costly to his team. Sometimes a spectacular individual performance can win a game for a team, and at other times a team can beat out spectacular individual performances.

It's the ultimate combination of power and finesse.
Hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports. You have a round ball flying at you at varying speeds moving in varying directions, and you are supposed to take your round bat and make good contact, even though both the bat and the ball are only a few inches in diameter. Oh yeah, and you have about half a second to decide if you want to swing and then swing. That takes finesse. Say what you want about the 'roided hitters, they have some amazing agility even despite their hugeness. At the same time, a guy who hits weak grounders or lazy fly balls is not going to do very well, and home runs can turn a game. So power is crucial. Fielding works the same way: it takes finesse to field a grounder or fly ball, but if you can't make a strong throw you aren't going to get anyone out. All sports require both power and finesse, but baseball ultimately combines both. I would argue that hockey and basketball require more finesse (even bruisers need to be able to move around well to be where they need to be), whereas football requires more power (the game is won in the trenches, right?).

Every moment matters.
In baseball's case, we'd say that every pitch matters. Any pitch can change the game completely. And even pitches that seem meaningless, because nothing significant happens, influences every other pitch from every player's perspective. I think you can make the same argument in football, in that even if a play doesn't lead to a score, field position makes a huge difference. But in basketball and hockey, if one team has a great offensive set and comes up empty, most of that time is lost and they have to just start from scratch the next time down.

It is a great equalizer.
Baseball is not a game that is fair. One player can come up, crush a ball, and if the outfield makes a spectacular catch, it's just an out. While another player might barely tip the ball, and if it happens to roll to where no one can get to it in time, he'll be safe. Pitching works the same way. Sometimes the perfect pitch will end up in the seats, while a mistake will get a strikeout. And sometimes it won't. But over the course of a season, trends emerge. The hitters who do hit the ball harder will be safe slightly more often than those who don't. It's crazy that even the best hitters of all time failed 3 out of every 5 times. An MVP (say, hitting .350) might only get 1 more hit per 10 at-bats than any schmuck out there (hitting .250). And all pitchers will get beat every once in a while, but the best ones trend to more success and failure. Baseball is a game where everyone has a chance. Every team in the league will win a third of its games (even the Nats) and lose a third of its games. Teams can get hot or cold. Anything is possible.

Baseball playoffs rule.
The only thing that comes close is the NCAA tournament. But to win 11 games against the best teams in the league after already playing 162 is just a huge feat. There's so much tension on every pitch, and especially as you get in to Game 7s and into the World Series. The best team in the league is not the one that wins, but the hottest team that made the playoffs. To get out of a slump and get energized for playoff games must be such a challenge. But it's a lot of fun to watch.

So that's probably enough on that. I do love football and basketball and hockey and other sports. But none compares to baseball. From tee ball to beer softball to the major leagues, it is just a beautiful game.

"Chronological snobbery"

2009-08-07T15:01:00.003-04:00

In Surprised by Joy, C.S. Lewis coins the term "chronological snobbery", defining it as "the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited." In other words, what is old and has been replaced by some modern facet of culture is inferior to the novelty of the new concept. Or even simpler, it is the preference of the new to the old with the all-too-common assumption that newer is better. I'd like to think about that for a minute, and look at both sides of the argument for chronological snobbery in life.

Pro-chronological snobbery
This assumes that newer is, in fact, better. You could make a pretty good case for this. New medicine is better than old medicine. New cars are better than old cars. I'd even say that new science is better than old science. It is pretty logical to say that things that are new are improvements over things that are old. We've taken an idea and made it better. If it wasn't better, we'd still be using the old one.

Anti-chronological snobbery
But I'm not sure that's exactly what Lewis was talking about. The term does not judge based on the effectiveness of the idea, but just the order of it. I think it is more applicable to theology and philosophy and literature and art and culture, where the modern is assumed better than the ancient. In fact, it seems that "modern" is no longer good enough, and now we're talking about "post-modern" as the new thing. (In my mind, "post-modern" means "after now", or "future", which doesn't seem to fit its colloquial meaning. Irrelevant now.)

Examples
The most significant example that comes to mind regarding chronological snobbery is church. I happen to attend a church that is steeped in tradition dating arguably back to the time of Christ Himself. Meanwhile, others outrightly reject these traditions, often claiming to get back to the "Acts model" of church. (Another paradox: we liturgists claim to be following the ancient church model, and so do the more "modern" non-liturgical churches. Hmmm.) So is one type doing church better? Can you even compare them?

Another striking example is literature. How great does our culture consider the Harry Potter series, or even Twilight? Do these blockbusters even compare to classics like Homer's Odyssey, Shakespeare's Hamlet, or Tolstoy's War and Peace? Maybe they do.

Conclusion
I'm going to have do side with Lewis on this one, that chronological snobbery is an issue to address today. While we have to be careful to not go the other way and favor the old to the new, our culture tends to focus on the latest and greatest. So if that's where our attention is naturally drawn, our forced or focused attention ought to seek the dated and traditional. We ought to consciously examine why certain things have been done and celebrated by so many people for so long, rather than just follow the hype. If we can add to that, or reform it based on new information, great. But let's be mindful of jumping from one marginal idea to another, forsaking the roots in which they're grounded. There's something to be said for what stands the test of time. I, for one, want to be more associated with what is good and solid and lasting than flashy and new and unproven.

And I end with a quote that is awesome:

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.” - G.K. Chesterton

Jesus' sex drive

2009-07-30T13:38:00.003-04:00

The Bible is pretty clear about 2 things (among others):

1. Jesus was perfectly divine, as evidenced by His healing, prophecies, and, most notably, rising from the dead.
2. Jesus was perfectly human, as evidenced by His sleeping on a boat during a storm, asking for food when He was hungry, and crying in a sad situation.

How these really fit together, I have no idea, but I'd like to ponder about point #2 for a minute, if I may. And I may because this is my blog. So if we believe that Jesus really was a "normal" man and had normal cravings and desires (i.e. food, water, sleep, warmth, etc.), then it logically follows that He also had a desire for sex, just like any normal man would. If we stop thinking of sex as inherently sinful and start thinking of it as great in its proper place, I think this is easier to swallow. So we assume that Jesus had a sex drive normal for any young man.

Let's also consider that the Bible is pretty strict on sexual immorality and declares that, under God's Law, sex is reserved only for a marriage relationship. We also know that Jesus adhered to God's Law perfectly, which means, since He never married (go away, DaVinci Code conspirators), that He remained celibate His entire life. Now we have to reconcile this with his natural sex drive, and we have some interesting ideas.

I wish the Bible was more explicit about how Jesus addressed this issue. I mean, hanging around 12 guys in their teens and twenties, surely it came up. And probably fairly regularly. Granted the culture was very different (probably more closed) than modern America, but men are men and some things go beyond culture, if you know what I'm sayin'.

The only specific instance where Jesus talks about sex in the Bible that I can recall (yet I'm no Bible scholar) is Matthew 5:27-30. He first says that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart, which, according to the Law, is punishable by death. That's kind of a scary accusation then. He then goes to say that it is better to gouge your eye out than commit this sin. Then (and this is interesting), He says the same thing about cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin. Now how could your hand have anything to do with lust? Think about it. (Answer: I think He's talking about masturbation.)

So where does that leave us about Jesus teaching about sex from His experienced desire and restraint? First, even lust is sinful, but thankfully He has experienced the temptation to lust so is aware that we need forgiveness for that. Secondly, and more importantly, He understood, and wants us to understand, that sex is so much more than the physical act. For sexual sins we deserve the death of our souls, not just our bodies, and therefore are to do whatever it takes to prevent this. Sex has eternal consequences. Maybe that's His advice: think of sex as so much more than a one-time act. Even though He had sexual desire, Jesus understood its place in the eternal scheme of life and that enabled Him to be free from its bondage. I have a feeling that if we really took that perspective, sexual temptation wouldn't hold as much power over us either.

Something to pray about, for now, I guess. My view of God and how He made life is so small and limited. Open my eyes to Your fullness, Jesus.

Our fascination with blame

2009-07-15T13:52:00.003-04:00

There's been a lot of bad stuff happening in the news lately. I think there probably is always bad stuff happening, but I'm beginning to notice it more. Something else I've been noticing is that one of the first questions the media (and maybe people in general) asks is, "Who's to blame?" I look at all the recent airplane crashes, the Metro crash, even Michael Jackson's death. Everyone wants to know whose fault it is. Now, I make no judgment as to if or where fault really lies. Perhaps someone did do something terribly wrong, or maybe they were just (gasp!) tragic, unavoidable accidents. But why are we so focused on placing blame so quickly?

The idea of immediate blame first implies that we don't believe in pure accidents, which is actually a pretty Christian, theistic point of view. If we believe that God is omnipotent, to Him there are no accidents. But I don't think these cases imply that God is to blame (at least in the mainstream discussion of it). In assuming that someone is at fault, we imply control that we don't really have. Essentially, we're saying that if that person/people who we are blaming hadn't done this terrible act, this would have never happened. In other words, the entire situation is under control and going "as planned" until someone acts outside of their, what we see in hindsight, appropriate role. It's like the idea of inertia, that everything will always continue going in a straight line as it has been until an outside force acts upon it. I don't think human life really works like that.

I wonder, too, if the idea of placing relatively unexamined blame also carries some self-serving applications. For example, if Tragedy X happened to Person Y, but it was Person Z's fault, well I don't really know Person Z or anyone like him, so I should be safe from Tragedy X. Is that sound logic? Or it might even contain the age-old idea that by putting others down (by "legitimately" blaming them) we feel better about ourselves. "Well, I may have done A, but look at this person in the news who did B. That is way worse!"

I am, of course, not at all suggesting that every tragic situation is a pure accident or that there is never blame to be placed. That's just stupid. But I question our fascination with blame, with seeking fault, before everything else is lined up. Doesn't it make more sense to grieve with the afflicted, analyze the situation thoroughly, figure out what can be done to prevent this again and then (if appropriate) place blame and seek repercussions from the guilty party? Immediately seeking blame just implies a control over life that we don't have and brings shallow resolution to a likely very complicated situation. We should strive for better than that.

The logic of being created

2009-06-24T13:36:00.004-04:00

The very first assumption that I must take to be true is that there is a God and He created people. I can't prove this, that's why it's an assumption. But let's make no further assumptions as to the nature of this God. If we take that God did make people, there has to be an explanation as to why God made people. Again, the answer to the why is irrelevant, but, assuming that God is logical and not random (okay, I guess there's an assumption about this God), the fact that He created people implies that there is some sort of reason from His perspective for that creation, whatever it is.

Now move to our own experience, where we see that anything is at its highest good when it is doing exactly what it was created to do, nothing more and nothing less. A coffee grinder is at its very best when it is grinding coffee, not when it is chopping peanuts. A vacuum cleaner is doing what it was made to do when it is cleaning floors, but not when it is used to paint. My pen's ultimate function is to write on paper, but not to eat soup. See, we can modify any of these things that we use to serve a different purpose for us, but they perform best as they are for the purpose they were intended.

There is no reason to think that if this is true for everything that we (people) create, it is not true for us, as God's creation. We, too, perform best when we are acting in the purpose for which we were created--namely, in the service of the One who created us (just as the vacuum cleaner performs best in its created purpose--namely, to serve us by keeping our floors clean). So why are we so surprised or put off when we hear that we are called to serve God, our Creator? If we are like everything else in the world, wouldn't our own best be in His purposes, because that's what we were made for?

And here's another thing: we don't create things for them to exist outside of us. Name one thing that people have created that they don't interact with. Maybe there is one, but I don't think so. And I have no doubt that God is the same way. If we take that God created us, He must have created us to purposefully exist and interact with Him, otherwise why would He bother? I imagine we're kind of a pain to have around just for Him to sit back and watch or even abandon us.

So if God created people for a reason, and everything that is created is its best self when it is serving its created purpose, it follows that we are our best, most ultimate (and, dare I say, happiest) selves when we are living in His direct, face-to-face service. All this only from the assumptions that God created us and that He is logical and not random.

I have no problem with people seeking personal happiness. I think it is sad not to. But I think what we often miss is the correlation between happiness and purpose, especially when our purpose (as any other created thing's purpose) is to serve our Creator. We have the ability to modify and accomplish other purposes that we assign to ourselves, but by doing so we miss out on what we were ultimately made for and Who we were made for, therefore also missing out on our ultimate happiness.

Where we got the idea that serving God and personal happiness are mutually exclusive, I have no idea. But to me it seems illogical.

What is the chief end of man?

2009-06-18T16:50:00.000-04:00

Last week this question popped in my head and rolled around for a bit. I make no claims to being the originator of this question, but I felt like it is a pretty significant one over the past several centuries. So I did some research (and I'll be honest, I Wikipedia'd it, so be skeptical if you want). The question is the first of 107 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, written in the 1640s during the English Reformation to facilitate memorization of the basic principles of faith. So, as a child (or convert) growing up in Protestant England, you would memorize the answers to these questions during your catechism and present them to the priest to receive your first Bible.

As I think about it, it's a pretty bold question. There are certain things I can know about humanity, but the purpose ("end") of it can't come from humanity itself. Things are created for a reason or purpose by something that is greater. It is the creator that decides the purpose of the creation, so asking the created thing its reason for being is essentially pointless. Think about a chair. A chair knows it has 4 legs, an L shaped top and some padding, but it can't know on its own that it was made for someone to sit on until someone actually comes and sits on it. Until then, as far as it can tell it's just a random 4-legged, L-shaped, padded object. Likewise, to ask humanity what is the purpose of humanity...well, I guess you just end up with varying theories and worldviews (sound familiar?).

So here is the answer in the Catechism: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever." Whoa. That's it? For all the people in the history of the universe who have wondered the purpose and meaning of life, you sum it up in 12 words? It seems maddeningly simple. But soon after reading this I noticed a little reference mark that points to Scripture that supports the answer to this question. Brilliant. Of course, we cannot know by ourselves for what purpose we were created, but God knows. And He wanted us to know. So He gave us the Bible, His Word. But why did He want us to know? It must be because we're hopeless otherwise. Since the Fall, we weren't as He created us, so maybe Scripture is His way of saying, "No, no...I made you for THIS reason..." We got off track and we need divine revelation to define our purpose, because the alternative is sin and the world defining it. Maybe I should take the Bible a little more seriously when I read it.

I'm having a lot of other questions about this answer, but I'll keep mulling over those. What does it mean to glorify God? How do you actually do that? Do I always have to enjoy Him? What if I can't tell where He is? Is joy, then, a command of God, implying that non-joy is sinful? Do we have other purpose besides this, such that even if we fulfill this purpose there are other things we're meant to do or be? Yikes. I feel like this is one of those things that if you really understood it, you'd have no problem getting through life for the rest of eternity. So here's to at least trying to go for it...

P.S. I found a great site for the complete Westminster Shorter Catechism, with Scripture references for each answer. That would be a pretty interesting and comprehensive study, and probably a neat discipline to actually memorize it.

Blog

2009-06-17T14:32:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking about writing a blog for a few months now, and it's finally actually happening. My main purpose for it is pretty much just to keep track of the random thoughts, questions, and ideas that come and go so quickly in my mind. I recall the sticker saying: "My mind works like lightning: one brilliant flash and it's gone." I feel like that describes me pretty well. If anyone decides to read what I write and comment or add to the conversation, even better.

Clearly, the most important part of any blog is the title, and I think I came up with a good one. "My Focused Wandering". It's paradoxical, yet introspective, and the more I think about it, the more I think it fits in a number of ways. First, in my life. Most of my life I enjoy wandering, seeing new things and just seeing what comes up unexpectedly. Yet, throughout this wandering, there are a few things I commit to focus on, things that are a part of me that must accompany any wandering or musing that I happen to get myself into. One of those focuses is my faith, which I would also describe as its own "focused wandering". My faith is based on the principle of pursuing, knowing, and living in the grace of the God who created me and everything and still tangibly works in this world just as much as He did during the "days" of Creation. (Future post there?) I believe that this focus enables the greatest degree of freedom to "wander" through life, surely not carelessly, but with hope and certainty of goodness.

Lastly, I anticipate each post being its own "focused wandering" around a certain topic or subject. My mind often goes in many awkward directions in thinking deeply of something, but usually it comes back to point. I imagine I'll have obscure questions and ideas that arise that will be somehow related to the topic in some way. So the idea is to "wander" around a certain "focus" to see what we find around it.

This blog ought not to be an autobiography or play-by-play of my life, but rather a medium of questions, thoughts, and ideas that may or may not have any practical relevance at all. Who knows? I'll do my best to refrain from mentioning specific events or people unless it is warranted and non-incriminating. I'll try to keep each post short and concise (this one's getting long already), concluding with open-ended thoughts. And all comments are welcome, either here on the blog or in person, even and especially differing opinions. Although the level of following and commenting has little correlation to the "success" of this blog. Stating these rules is as much to give me some structure as to give anyone else an idea of what to expect.

So here we go. Should be a fun time!