Google, Easter and Not-Much-Ado About Anything

by | 2 Comments

google Google, Easter and Not Much Ado About Anything

 

ACCORDING TO THE PUNDITS in the 24 hour news cycle and people addicted to Twitter, there was a major confrontation between the infidels of Google and the entire Christian faith a couple of days ago. The cause of the supposed furor apparently was a maelstrom of frenzied Christians up in arms over Google’s decision to honor Ceasar Chavez rather than Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday.

In the opinion of this Christ follower the whole thing is Not-Much-Ado about anything.

Yes it was Easter, the day a huge segment of the world’s population collectively sets aside to remember the greatest event in human history. And yes, Google did choose to honor the semi-iconic figure of a revered labor leader.

Let there be no doubt that it was a conscious human choice on the part of Google to avoid Easter for the 13th year in a row. In fact Forbes Magazine reports that the doodle that appears on Google’s home page every day is one of the few decisions not made by algorithms:

“The Doodles are the company’s face; they are the first thing users see when they navigate to the page. Heck, for some users they are the reason to navigate to the page. And Google lets, well, people make the decision what will appear based on, gasp! Subjective reasoning.

But was Google’s decision a reason to get all up in arms? Let me say first, I am leery of the way the media presented the whole brouhaha. For most of us who woke up this past Sunday morning and headed to church, our minds weren’t on Google or what those offended by its choice of doodles were tweeting. Frankly, Google was the last thing on my mind.

In fact, I knew nothing of the supposed uprising in Christendom until that night when I noticed a comment from Facebook friend on his timeline. I was so in the dark about the goings on at Google that I had to do some research before posting a reply. From there, here is how our brief conversation went:

  • Friend – Any wonder why I no longer adhere to any religious faith? I’m so tired of the crazy and the hypocrisy.
  • Me – What Google does or does not do on this day or any other is of no concern to me. They, like a certain chicken joint, have every right to do with their business what they wish. Just so you know, not all who call themselves followers of Christ are the knee jerks these folks apparently are.
  • Friend – I understand that Tim. It’s just disappointing to see the “persecution complex” that seems to thrive in so many people of faith. They perceive injury in things that have zero effect on them personally. In fact, through their reactions, they marginalize themselves even more.
  • Me – And trust me, it was great thinkers of faith who warned of that very thing. C.S. Lewis and Carl F.H. Henry to name a couple. This is the reason my faith is not in a persuasion, sect, or religion but in a Person.

Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post, not exactly the first place I go for unbiased news, managed to get this one right when he wrote:

“The truth is that it didn’t matter to 99.9999999999999999999 percent of Christianity’s 2.2 billion adherents … It really does a disservice to people around the world — including many Christians — who suffer at the hands of actual persecutors.”

Now I say this is Not-Much-Ad about anything because all these words mean little on both sides. Some people of faith, angered by Google, immediately tweeted they were switching to Bing. Now there’s a great show of identification with the Resurrected Christ, switching from a web site that honored the birth day of a labor leader to one with a picture of a bunch of eggs.

And to good ole’ Jason over at HuffPo, I’ll take your concern for those persecuted for their faith more seriously when you start putting pressure on John Kerry and the Whitehouse to force Iran’s hand on the 8 year imprisonment of pastor Saeed Abedini.

To my Facebook friend, I stand as a force of one to say that you are right about how people of faith marginalize themselves over things that really mean nothing. We need only quote the words of the One we say we trust in to accomplish being marginalized …

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.”

As for me, if I am going to be marginalized, let it be for choosing Christ not because I chose Bing over Google!

5 Signs of Conversational Terrorism

by | 1 Comment

Winston Churchull 02 5 Signs of Conversational TerrorismCONVERSATIONAL TERRORISM is best defined by offering examples of how people pretend to want to have meaningful conversation while secretly planting land mines for the person with whom they are talking to step on. We witness these acts of conversational terrorism all the time but in this day of overhyped everything we tend to be hoodwinked into thinking a conversation has actually occurred.

Dean and Laura VanDruff have divided this kind of anti-conversation into five categories, each of which should serve as warning signs:

  • Ad Hominem Variants - Attacking the person instead of the subject at hand

  • Sleight of Mind Fallacies – Mental “magic” to cheat logic and fair dialog

  • Delay Tactics – When the brain freezes, the lips flap on…

  • Questions of Opportunity – A favorite of politicians

  • General Irritants – Verbal grenades, irritants, and ploys

You’ve seen all of these and, if you are honest, have been guilty at times of strapping on a conversational suicide vest before engaging a group of unaware bystanders. Here are some examples of typical comebacks and comments that hint a conversation is about to suffer a sneak attack:

  • “You support capital punishment because of a deep-rooted death wish common among those who have suffered emotional traumas during childhood.”

 

  • “You oppose capital punishment because of an irrational suppressed death taboo common among those who have suffered emotional trauma during childhood.”

 

 

  • “You weren’t breast fed as a child, were you?”

 

These are all Ad Hominem code for, “What you have to say doesn’t matter because you can’t possibly speak objectively about this subject and I can.” Other variants of this include the classic, “You can’t possible understand because you’re a man” or “you’ve never had children” or “are you are at that time of the month?”

Trust me; any of my fellow men who utter that last one are not only conversational terrorists but delusional and suicidal as well.

Before you feign innocence in the Ad Hominem category, be aware there is also the Reverse Ad Hominem remark. Just make it sound as though the other person is attacking you rather than making a simple point or correction. Rather than staying on topic, act like a victim. This subtle form of conversational terrorism occurs when the person in question suspects they are wrong or about to lose the case for his or her line of thinking.

The reverse Ad Hominem goes something like this:

  • Wife – “Honey I think the reason the guy in that truck is honking at you and waving his hand like that is because that sign back there said STOP not GO FASTER.”

 

  • Husband – “So you think I don’t know how to drive?”

 

The issue is not whether the husband knows how to drive but whether he observed that street sign, noticed the guy in the truck giving him the one finger salute, or heard his little girl praying in the back sit while her brother whispered “Cool.”

Winston Churchill is remembered as a statesman capable of astounding oratory. The man was a wizard with the English language. However, one of my favorite quotes from Churchill concerns the art of saying nothing.

“Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”

At this point someone is saying to themselves, “I notice you said ‘you’ a lot and not ‘I’. The reason you go on about how other people talk and not yourself is because you have a deep-rooted need to point out the wrong in others common to those who have suffered emotional traumas during childhood.”

To which I respond with my much more clever and insightful …

“You weren’t breast fed as a child, were you?”

Are you Persperistent?

by | 8 Comments

Bradbury Are you Persperistent?Tuesday’s Reality Check
When Trying Hard Isn’t Cutting It

Ray Bradbury, a great in the world of speculative and Science Fiction died a few weeks ago after living a long and full life dedicated to writing and reading. Among other things he wrote The Illustrated Man, Something Wicked this Way Comes, and the classic Fahrenheit 411.

One might attribute his success to luck, or perhaps even the ability to confidently appear on camera barefoot in shorts, sweater and tie. But that would be way off the mark. In this video clip from a few years ago, he talked candidly about his path to writing success.

Bradbury was a writing success because of what another writer, Steve Ramey, calls persperistence. Like fellow Science Fiction great, Isaac Asimov, Bradbury just couldn’t keep his hands of a typewriter (he never trusted many modern machines). He wrote constantly, undeterred by rejection.

There is no doubt Ray Bradbury had persperistence. But what is this illusive quality available to all but realized by only rare few? Ramey helps us understand the term by first making sure we understand what it is not.

Persperistence is not Insistence

Writing the same kind of story over and over while making the same mistakes is a cheap knock off of persperistence. Plowing on ahead in life, refusing to learn from the wisdom of others and one’s own mistake expends a lot of energy but offers a pitiful return on the investment.

Persperistence is not Resistance

Writing a different kind of story every week but making the same fundamental mistakes is egoism disguised as hard work. Most of us are guilty of this at one time or another. “I know what the problem is,” I say. “I just need to work hard at something else then I will succeed.” But if I carry the same basic resistance to learning from my mistakes I am doomed to sweat a lot and accomplish little.

Persperistence is not Perfection

Writing a different story each week and then refusing to submit until it’s perfect is, to put it bluntly, stupid. Allow me to let everyone in on a secret. Is everyone listening?

YOU WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING PERFECT!

Now let’s translate all of this for daily life. What is persperistence? Oh sure, you can visit Mr. Ramey’s blog and see the acronym that defines the word. If you are a writer it wouldn’t be a bad idea to print it out and tape it to your wall. But for all of us, writers or not, here are the basic things you have to do to be persperistent:

  • Put your butt in the chair, hand to the plow, or whatever cliché you need to understand everything begins with someone doing something.
  • Learn to embrace rejection. The only people that have never been rejected are those who have never tried anything.
  • Don’t quit!Rest sometimes yes. Allow yourself a day of doing nothing but staring at the ocean, or mountains, or a good book (mine preferably when I get published). But just don’t quit.
  • Live today. It has been said that too often our todays are lost between the cross of tomorrow (worries about what might happen) and the cross of yesterday (regrets for what already happened).  Have dreams, plan for the future, work hard for a calling but for goodness sakes don’t waste the gift of today.

So even though you still don’t have a definition for persperistence do you think you have it? Are you willing to learn from your own mistakes and the mistakes of others? Can you embrace rejection, learn from it, and move on?

And most importantly can you learn to be cool enough that you don’t mind appearing on camera like Ray Bradbury for the entire world to see?

Monkeying Around With the Future of America

by | Leave a Comment

image4 Monkeying Around With the Future of AmericaTuesday’s Reality Check
Who’s Aping Who in Washington?

 

Mark Twain once said, “Congress may be America’s only distinct criminal class” and that still holds true. Consider these findings from Capitol Hill Blue about members of the United States Congress a couple of years ago. A cursory search found among sitting members of congress:

•    29 accused of spousal abuse.
•    7 arrested for fraud.
•    19 accused of writing bad checks.
•    117 bankrupted at least two businesses.
•    3 arrested for assault.
•    71 with credit reports so bad they can’t qualify for a credit card.
•    14 arrested on drug-related charges.
•    8 arrested for shoplifting.
•    21 defendants in lawsuits.
•    84 stopped for drunk driving, but released after claiming Congressional immunity.

So the question rises, if Congress as a body continues to have abysmal approval ratings why do voters keep reelecting their own Congressman term after term? Why do we rail about corruption in Washington but then turn around and reelect serial law breakers? I think in some ways because at our collective core we have been corrupted along with them.

This was illustrated to years ago when the late Jamie Whitten of north Mississippi was running to keep his seat in Congress after over 50 years in Washington. He served in about as conservative a corner of a conservative state as one could hold office in. So sure was he of the vote of yellow dog Democrats that he didn’t even bother to campaign any more. Though his constituents gave lip service to conservative stands on social issues and offered loud amens when their pastors preached against such things, come election down he could count on the vast majority of them to ignore their conscience and cast their vote for him.

“Why do you keep on voting for him?” I asked a man I knew was not pleased with the Democrat’s stance on things like abortion and other social issues. The old farmer thought a moment and replied without blinking, “Because we would lose our dairy subsides without him.”

So I ask you, what bothers you more – A spoiled rich girl like Lindsay Lohan getting herself in trouble or someone who knows better but places his own profit above the greater good? As much as it feels good for a moment to rail against the “bums in Washington” maybe it’s time to look at the resident bum in our own soul.

They say “monkey see, monkey do” but perhaps we don’t realize they are aping us as much as we are them.

The Debt Clock Keeps on Ticking

by | 1 Comment

Saturday’s Reality Check

image thumb1 The Debt Clock Keeps on Ticking13, 574, 468, 725, 001

121,932

43, 724

 

Take a look at those numbers and ponder them for a minute. Unless you are a mathematician, the first number is too large to even conceptualize. But most of us can wrap our minds around that last figure. The national debt amounts to $43,724 for every man, woman, boy, and girl that lives in this fair land. And since tax payers are the ones who actually foot that bill, the second figure is even more telling. The load for each tax payer at this moment is approaching $122, 00.00.It doesn’t take Dave Ramsey are any other expert to explain the implications of these numbers. America is not up to its neck in debt. It is going under for the third time.

One would think the church would be at the forefront of leading its members to understand both the spiritual and national implications for a generation that is borrowing against the very hopes of generations to come. There was a time when Christians and church leaders saw the need to live prudently in the present and trust God for the future.

Consider the amazing life of George Mueller and the work he did throughout England in the 1800’s. In an era when orphans and the needy were seldom cared for, George Mueller of Bristol, England trusted God to be his financial advisor so he could he could help the helpless. Muller believed God’s Word instructed him never to solicit gifts and to never accept any government money for his orphanages. Mueller took his own rules seriously. He refused a salary from his church and abolished the practice of purchasing pews. Through prayer and faith, he trusted God to manage whatever monies came in to further His kingdom.

By the time of his death, Mueller’s society had provided homes and education for 23,000 orphans, given away tens of thousands of Bibles, and supported 150 missionaries including Hudson Taylor. Near his death Mueller said:

“It is not enough to obtain means for the work of God, but that these means should be obtained in God’s way. To ask unbelievers for means is not God’s way; to pressure believers to give is not God’s way; but the duty and the privilege of being allowed to contribute to the work of God should be pointed out, and this should be followed up with earnest prayer, believing prayer, and will result in the desired end.”

Now compare that to the cavalier way churches as institutions and their members as individuals treat debt. One recent study of churches in the United States shows that church indebtedness is common and pervasive. Almost 85% of respondents to that survey reported their church was in debt, just recently got out of debt, or was getting ready to take one more debt. The average debt of theses churches amounted 64% of their annual budgets. The most disturbing trend is seen among large churches often carrying debt loads equivalent to 115% of their annual budgets.

13, 574, 521, 725, 00 – Just a reminder the national debt has risen by around $50 million since I began writing this article.

It is not as though many church leaders are not trying to respond to the slavery debt imposes on the people they lead. Many churches have opened debt advice centers, begun group studies on sound principles of handing money, and sought to offer other encouragement to those dealing with the debt in their personal lives. At the same time, not everyone who says they offer “Christian” debt services is to be trusted. In fact, there are some companies that use the word “Christian” in the advertising and then offer obscenely inflated interest rates, supposedly, to help people consolidate their debts and break free of their financial slavery.

So the question arises; is church indebtedness a reflection of society or the other way around? In truth, our national attitude toward debt and the church’s part in that are linked. Christians can’t fault politicians and national decision makers for their irresponsible squandering of the national treasury when the church turns a blind eye to its own faithless ways of handling money.A number of churches are beginning to cut back on giving to mission, community outreach projects, and salaries for “non-essential” personnel. Often times these non-essential salaries involve things like pregnancy resource centers, missions to the homeless, and other endeavors that would reduce the burden to the federal government. And most problematic of all, are churches that are now looking to the government to fund what once were missions of the church.

Somehow it seems we need a few more George Muellers today. People of faith who live responsibly with the finances God has blessed them with and are a blessing to others through those finances. Perhaps we need more institutions like Hillsdale College. Recognized as one of the best private liberal art colleges in America, Hillsdale accepts no federal or state taxpayer funding of any kind. That includes student financial aid all while operating with very limited debt. Perhaps pastors would do better to present Biblical models of handling money rather than modeling irresponsible financial practices themselves.

Perhaps Christian parents could learn to say no to deepening their debt by giving that 16 year old a new car they have yet to work a day to earn. Perhaps we as voters could send a message on Election Day that we want our leaders to act responsibly even if that means cutting programs in our own districts. Perhaps, as David Platt has suggested in his book Radical, we could learn to adjust our lifestyles as a better reflection of the model Christ gave us. Perhaps we could just act like adults for a change.

By the way, our national debt has grown another $42 million since the last time I mentioned it. And of course all of the numbers are higher because I drafted this article a few weeks ago. The clock keeps ticking.

On Facebook, Food, and Sex

by | 2 Comments

image thumb5 On Facebook, Food, and SexTuesday’s Reality Check
How Social Are We?

Social networks such as Facebook and Twitter encourage the idea that we live in a world in which people are getting to know each other better every day. But are we?

Since I make my living as a freelance writer and social media consultant, allow me to be the first to say, “Are you kidding?” In spite of my opinion, there are a host of people who sincerely believe social media is making them, well, more social.

To add fuel to the fire of that viewpoint, we now have a recent study from Harvard University that seemingly supports it. According to researchers at the University, “the reward given by a person’s brain when a Facebook posting of theirs is viewed, liked, and commented on has proven to be comparable in pleasure to the response from food and sex.” The reason given for this response to social media is what the researchers call a drive for self-disclosure. Or, as the study put it:

“Just as monkeys are willing to forgo juicy rewards to view dominant group-mates and college students are willing to give up money to view attractive members of the opposite sex, our participants were willing to forgo money to think and talk about themselves.”

So does this Harvard Study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences make its case that our basic drive is toward self-disclosure? Only if we can set the rules as to what is disclosed and what is not; which is why if you think you are seeing much of the real person from Facebook postings or Tweets, you’re deluding yourself. Social media allows me to set all the rules of what is disclosed: how often I post, who I allowed on my friends list, what I allow them to see, whether I am really even who I say I am. In the end, virtual disclosure is a shadow of the real thing.

The Ghost in the Machine

Ultimately, we were created to live in total transparency with God and each other. But Genesis 2-3 reveals that sin became the “Ghost in the Machine” that makes it ultimately impossible to be completely transparent with anyone including, at times, ourselves. When Adam and Eve sinned, what should have been the most natural thing for a man and his wife became the focal point of what had gone wrong in their hearts.

The Drive to Conceal

Though created for relationship, the first couple hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden (Gen 3:8). Contrary to those who believe mankind is evolving away from its basic impulse to live in concealment, freedom from this impulse to hide one’s inner self will only happen when sin is eradicated (1 Corinthians 13:12).

The irony of this drive to conceal is that it rarely shows itself in isolation. In fact, more often than not, anonymity is much easier to find in a crowd.Some hide behind cliques, family, social and economic status, and even religion. Others hide behind their accomplishments, deluding themselves into believing their self-effort has overcome their inner nature.

Fear of Interaction

The first thing Adam and Eve did after their feeble attempt to conceal their true nature was to hide in fear (Genesis 3:9-10). Our problem is that sin leads us to distrust God, others, and even ourselves. The one sure way to protect ourselves is by limiting interaction with others. “Not so in our social media age”, you might say, “people are more connected than ever.” In his groundbreaking book, Future Minds, Richard Watson points to some disturbing trends that show our culture is actually becoming more isolationists rather than truly connected.

  • In our multitasking world we do more than one thing at once, but we rarely do more than one thing at once well.
  • Bite-size information leads to thinking in the lowest common denominator. Such thinking tends to be devoid of context or real personal interaction.
  • We live faster than we think.
  • We are finding it more difficult to focus on one thing, one idea, or one person.

Watson believes there is about to be a backlash against pseudo-relationships. At the core of our being we might fear interaction but we also yearn for it. And true, meaningful interaction is seldom a group activity.

When we quit looking to pop-culture to fill the empty places of our mind and pop-psychology to fill the empty places of our heart, we can then see ourselves and others as we all really are. There are no magic fixes for this drive to conceal. Instead, there has to be a certain looking to Christ for the power to overcome, and sometimes, simply to faithfully endure the tensions that will always exist between us until Christ returns.

Copyright © 2013 · Dare to Look
%d bloggers like this: