For Want of a Good Name

In Proverbs 22, God saw it fit to share with us this bit of wisdom: A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.

We live in an age in which we are often weighed by many different measures. How we look. What we do for a living. How much money we have in the bank. What car we drive. The neighborhood in which we live. The list goes on and on.

We become so wrapped up in elevating our value in the eyes of others that we often become lost in the process. Small business owners work seven days a week, sacrificing family and friendships to achieve their version of success. Stay-at-home moms fret over whether their house looks just right or whether their children look and act a certain way in front of others.  Corporate workers scratch and claw their way to the top of a spiraling pool of thriving humanity in an attempt to achieve that next promotion or a mere acknowledgement from their supervisors. 

We all do it.  We spend our time selling ourselves for monetary gain, for status, or both.  

And we sacrifice so much of life in the process.

Some of that sacrifice is necessary, frankly, and to be commended.  No achievement is worthwhile unless tempered with perseverance and sacrifice. We applaud the kind of fortitude, dedication, and commitment it takes to achieve any true form of success in any field. It's often called drive, grit, or determination.

The problem becomes apparent when we lose track of what we will or will not do in order to achieve that subjective goal of "success."

I'm finding a large number of people who have fought and struggled to get to where they are in life, and who come across as genuinely good people, but who have buried their moral compass beneath layers of the sediment of societal expectations and/or personal ambition.  By becoming so focused on "success" they often begin to lose sight of the way they treat those closest to them, or compromise on the ethical standards they once held in high regard.

Many will make a public show of being loving and compassionate when they have an audience, or when they think it will bring them recognition or ultimate financial gain. I once knew a pastor who repeatedly drilled into his staff the WIIFM principal: What's In It For Me? He would not authorize a charitable outreach unless it drew attention to the name of the local church or to himself as the pastor, a practice that flies in the face of what Jesus described as true religion.  

My dad invested a lot of time in the ministry.  He worked his tail off trying to help people in any way he could.  He didn't always get the balance right.  When he was a young minister, he sacrificed his family in order to build the ministry.  He was good at touching people's lives, but he gave up large swaths of time with his family, because he thought that was what you had to do when you were called to minister to others.  As he grew older, he realized that God had called him to minister to his family first, and then to others in the church and community.  He revisited the balance between family connection and Christian service, a restructuring that made him far more effective in both arenas.

I've worked in corporations and small businesses. One thing I've seen a lot of is the compromising of one's core beliefs while trying to get ahead.  Climbing the corporate ladder is a nasty game, and often involves mistreating others to get to one's goal. Building a successful small business requires tough business decisions, steeped in prayer and wisdom. Sadly, those two key ingredients are often left by the wayside.

Basically, we are all working toward an ultimate end.  We all have goals and ambitions.  The question we have to ask ourselves is am I using or abusing people to meet my goals? You see, the current self-centered approach to life is not Christ-like and is not honorable.  Stepping on others in the process of achieving something is not a model of true success.  Sure, you might increase your retirement fund. Sure, you might have a more prestigious job. Sure, you might save some money here and there. But you are undermining your reputation and you are wounding people in the process.

Being an honorable person requires making tough decisions, sometimes counter-intuitive decisions. Honor requires being outward focused rather than inward. Honor requires putting other's well-being ahead of your own. 

Basically, if you talk a lot about how much you do for other people and how the people closest to you tend to turn their backs on you, there's a very good chance you've either unknowingly or carelessly wounded them. Stop talking about how much you do for others. Start focusing on the way you interact with those closest to you and those who depend on you. You see, it's easy to put on a show for those who view your life from a distance, making them think you are charitable and kind, while quietly wounding those in your inner circle with careless decisions or self-centered actions.

Sometimes people turn away because they cannot abide by the righteous life you've chosen. We all like to convince ourselves that's the case. More often, though, when people consistently turn away from us it's because we haven't treated them very well. Rather than placing all the responsibility for the loneliness of your path on those who forsake you, pay close attention to whether you have truly dealt honorably with them.

We are all driving rapidly toward an ultimate end. How will you be remembered? Ecclesiastes 7 tells us that a good name is better than fine perfume, and the day of death is better than the day of birth. Will you die with a fortune or with a good name?  If you sacrifice one for the other, let it be wealth that is sacrificed. Beware, though, lest you surrender your good name in favor of money or community standing. Be honorable, and be remembered well. 

  

Arguing with Idiots

Arguing with Idiots

(apologies to other authors who have used this title.)

So, I’ve been taking a break from political conversations for a while.  I’ve refrained from becoming embroiled in conversations on “controversial” topics for a few reasons:

1.  My wife gets burnt out hearing my ramblings.
2.  I’ve been told I seek out confrontation, and I’m attempting to prove otherwise.
3. Stupidity is so rampant that any attempt to shine the light of logic and truth only gets one flogged and demonized, and…
4. The system, as we will discuss, is so broken and is leaning so far over the cliff that arguing with the masses is akin to trying to verbally debate with the wind in a tornado.  Sometimes it’s better to take shelter, wait for the inevitable destruction, and be ready to rebuild after the masses have destroyed themselves.

Today, however, I stumbled upon a quick post by a friend of mine on Facebook.  He’s been dealing with some physical and financial issues lately, and has experimented with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Like it or not, Obamacare is the law of the land.  It was fraudulently forced upon the people of the nation by dishonest politicians who were supported by lazy politicians, who were elected by brainwashed, unwitting, self-absorbed citizens whose ignorance is only matched by their unwillingness to research facts from reliable sources (such as HISTORY and SIMPLE MATH). 

…but I digress.

I’m going to share screenshots from my phone of the conversation.  I’m doing this so I can’t be accused of taking anything out of context.  I’ve scribbled out the names of the participants so that nobody can sue me for publishing their names (a case they would lose on the grounds that they freely published their names, photos and comments on a public forum, but again, I digress).  Actually, I’m blotting out their names because when aided by a “cooling off period” and a little reflection, coupled with the logic I’m about to use, I’m hoping against hope that they have enough intelligence to be embarrassed by their own statements.

Here is the initial post.  Harmless enough and needing no rebuttal.

 As you can see, my friend is rightfully displeased with the cost of his government mandated, publicly subsidized coverage as provided through the "Affordable" Care Act, or Obamacare.  This is a very common issue, as vast numbers of subscribers are faced with dramatically increased medical costs from this "landmark legislation" that was touted to decrease the costs of healthcare for the average family by over $2000 a year.

The initial post was liked and responded to by numerous people, most of whom sympathized with his plight and/or criticized the legislation.  I began following the post after sharing a silly joke in an attempt to be the comic relief in a fairly somber conversation.  My joke didn't take a stand on either side of the issue, but was a random attempt to make my friend laugh.

Here's a small sampling of the kinds of comments my friend was receiving.  It wasn't a heated debate or argument.  It was just a group of people generally pointing out the folly of the ACA...and occasionally the President whose name is associated with it.

Then someone took issue with the comments you just read.  I responded with what I thought was a polite, but direct question.

This question has been asked many times in various forms by people who have yet to receive an adequate answer.  One radio talk-show host usually boils it down to "please tell me what percentage of my money you're entitled to."  I thought I asked it in as non-confrontational a way as possible (again, attempting to prove false the allegation that I enjoy conflict.) Bridget, an apparent fellow conversation follower, responded with the following opinion.  I tried to reply as nicely, yet truthfully, as I could.  

I think we can all identify with Bridget's position to an extent, if not necessarily her language.

My response was not intended in any way to be hostile to Bridget or her daughter.  Just a simple statement of facts and logic.  Bridget did not respond, so I'm assuming either she didn't disagree or didn't see the need to converse further.  (This is a lesson I am desperately trying to learn, as the voice in my soul when I become involved in a conversation like this usually says something like: "Wait, it's not worth it... Don't... Um... You should just... Oh, you're going to... Crap.  You are, aren't you?  This will not end well.")

Now, in case you've forgotten midst all my rambling, I asked Miranda to morally justify holding her fellow citizens financially responsible for her medical insurance.  The first clue that Miranda finds her own position weak is that she doesn't even attempt to answer the question.  She merely asks another question in an attempt to make herself appear victimized by her circumstances.  It's the equivalent of asking a child why he did something wrong and hearing the response "but HE did it first!"  The response doesn't answer the question.  It's a common smokescreen used as a tool to distract from the speakers inability to adequately respond.

In an attempt to get a clarification, I asked another question.  I've found I ask lots of questions.  If you ask enough questions, you'll: 

1. ...get the speaker to clarify his/her position to the point that, whether or not they can sway your opinion, at least they've fully explained why you disagree with them,
2. ...come to understand a different viewpoint, which you can ponder and process until you can decide whether to agree or disagree,
3. ...entertain yourself with the inability of the average person to formulate a well-thought-out position or adequately defend it, or...
4. ...give the speaker enough rope to hang him/herself by revealing how ludicrous, self-centered, and/or self-destructive his/her position is (thereby, vividly illustrating reason number three--as stated in the beginning of this post--of why I've been avoiding such conversations in the first place.)

Now, let's look at Miranda's math skills for a moment, shall we?  Miranda proudly stated that she works "50+ hours a week," lives in "KC," and divides her time among two jobs and college.  Now she's sharing her bills.  $614 in rent, $120 in car insurance, credit card bills from car expenses (also a symptom of the same "I have to have it now" mindset she'll display throughout this conversation...common among liberals and young college students). She also mentioned the $60 a month she is happy to pay for her health care costs, while apparently being nearly giddy about passing on the "$600 medical expenses" to the rest of us.  She's identified $794 of her income each month that goes to bills.  Granted, she's probably not enumerating all her bills.  That's fair.  But working two jobs, "50+ hours" a week and making "more than minimum wage by a lot" should be able to cover $794 with ease, since the minimum wage in Missouri just increased from $7.50 to $7.65 an hour.  That's a gross (at her figure of 50 hours, assuming she works six days a week) of around $1657 per month.  Take into consideration that she'll probably pay $39 a month in state tax and about $248.55 a month in Federal tax withholding.  

Granted, the balance of $575.45 is not a massive windfall of cash.  However, it is substantially more than a lot of families have left over at the end of the month.  Heck, half that figure dwarfs what I have left over at the end of many months! 

...yet again, I digress.

But Miranda said she makes "more than minimum wage by a lot," so the $575 would be a relatively conservative surplus from which she would purchase her food, fuel, utilities and entertainment requirements.  Meaning, her income should actually be "a lot" higher than the $1675 per month, right?  Yes, because $1675 is 7.65 per hour, 50 hours per week, figured on six workdays a week (since she mentioned that she has two jobs I figured she's probably not working just five days.  An admirable work-load for a full-time college student.)

(And wait... Didn't she say she was a student in Kansas City?  Why in the world is she bringing up the job market in and around Springfield??!! Could it be that she isn't actually in "KC?" Or perhaps that's where all her extra money goes... the three-hour commute from Springfield where she apparently works to "KC" where she apparently goes to school.)

...oops...another bunny trail.  OK, back to my subject. (We'll revisit basic math later.)

I appreciated Grant's response to her, which is why I included it in the screenshot and why I didn't blot out his name. (Actually, I just noticed that I'd forgotten to blot out his name and picture, but since I admire what he had to say and am praising it here, I figured he wouldn't mind.)

No, Miranda, I am not "presuming to know" what you spend your money on.  I'm simply looking at your words and numbers.  You should check your work, or did your college professors not teach you that?

Okay, okay... maybe it's unfair to hold Miranda to the same standards to which I hold myself.  Maybe.  But as of yet, I'm going by her word that she makes substantially more than minimum wage.  If I can support my family month to month by myself while making a a low-middle-class wage, surely she could support herself on two jobs, 50+ hours a week, making a lot more than minimum wage.  Surely, right?  (Okay, the voice in my soul is wanting me to apologize for sounding snarky...and I almost feel bad about it...but...nah.)

(Okay, yeah.  I'll admit this comment was snarky.  Probably shouldn't have said that.  I publicly apologize, Miranda.  No, wait.  Not really.)

So, wait.  Let's go back to something I asked her earlier, in light of what she says in this statement.  She chose to go to school in Kansas City (which, if her rent is any indication, isn't any more expensive to live in than Springfield), chose to make purchases on credit (whether for a car, car repairs, car accessories, or what, she wasn't clear), chooses to work at two jobs that don't offer healthcare (one of which, apparently by a shady "I'll cut you one hour short of getting benefits" method) even though last time I was in Kansas City I could've sworn I saw more than two businesses at which someone could work.  

...and somehow her choices are our financial responsibility.

...Oh, and I haven't had healthcare insurance for a long time.

But that's OK.  As long as Miranda has hers, and can morally justify my paying for it...and your paying for it...and your neighbor paying for it...

Alright, you're probably noticing that my patience is wearing thin with Miranda.  First of all, if you hadn't picked up on it, she's full of crap.  $1600 a month doesn't even come close to "50+ hours a week, working two jobs" and making "more than minimum wage by a lot."  It's actually less than minimum wage at 50 hours a week.  BUZZZZZZ!!!! (Go figure, a dishonest liberal...or one that can't do math...either way, that's part of the definition of liberal isn't it?)  I don't like people who are full of crap.  They smell bad.

And when she finished her last comment with "Soooooo..." she really ticked me off.  First of all, sarcasm has two purposes:  either to demonstrate your intellectual superiority over your listener or to bolster your otherwise weak position.  Miranda apparently can't do the most basic of math, follow the simplest of logic, or carry on the most basic of polite dialogue.  She, as they say 'round these parts, "done ticked me off."  Stupidity is often the loudest and most adamant of voices.

And then this horrible person (yes, I said it, and I mean it) boasts a second time about debts she is more than comfortable passing on to the shoulders of others.  Seriously, what kind of vile, putrid, pathetic human being is so blatantly comfortable about passing on his/her debts for someone else to pay?  The ultimate in selfishness and "I'll get mine, no matter who it hurts" attitude!

At some point, one has to realize that arguing with an idiot a fools errand.  

Sadly, idiots like Miranda make up a substantial percentage of our population: people who transfer the responsibility for their own choices onto the backs of everyone else.  

She doesn't like the word entitlement.  That's because the political term entitlement has a negative connotation, no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on.  The liberals haven't been able to find a way to co-opt that term and make it sound positive yet.  But, Miranda, if you feel entitled to an education and health-care, and who knows what other assistance you are getting, and you feel entitled to have your neighbors foot the bill, you have an entitlement attitude.  If you need further clarification, I'd be happy to buy you a dictionary to go along with the basic math book I'd like to send to you...at no cost to you.

I've gotten to a point where I'm not ranting and raving about politics and economics as much anymore.  You see, twenty or thirty years ago it was time for people to boldly and loudly scream about these topics.  Twenty or thirty years ago there was a chance of righting the ship and changing the direction of our nation. However, we've had more than one generation of students who have been spoon-fed the philosophies of Mao and Lenin all their lives. These philosophies have so invaded every aspect of our daily lives that we look to the government for every need we have.  Government has replaced our sense of hard work, accomplishment, and personal growth.  Government is our provider, protector, and educator.  

...and only a sad few seem to see a problem with that.

Our society is no longer approaching a cliff.  We stand with the tips of our heels on the cliff and the rest of our bodies leaning at a forty-five-degree angle over the edge.  The fall is inevitable.  The momentum is too strong, and changing the direction of a nation takes far too long.

I've gotten to the point that I am just bracing for the upcoming collapse, gritting my teeth in anger, rage, and a deep sadness at the death of America as we've known her, and preparing to dig out from the rubble and start over once the mass of idiots destroys itself.

Cynical?  Conflict-seeking?  No.  Realist.

And now for the apology.  I should not have used the word "idiot."  It has been my practice to avoid using inappropriate words to insult people.  I failed miserably in this post.  You see, "idiot" is actually a term used to describe those with diminished mental capacity, those with a naturally low intellect or with a condition impairing their ability to reason at the level of an average person.  My heart goes out to those people, and I apologize for accidentally insulting them by using this term when I should have merely said "liberal."

RACIST! HOMOPHOBE! INTOLERANT! JUDGMENTAL!

We live in a society that has lost its grip on reality.  No longer are discussions based on facts, but on hyperbole.  People have given up their ability to debate philosophies and logic in favor of quick insults and sarcasm.

We live in a society where it's considered a more serious crime to murder someone who is of a different ethnic background, faith, or sexual preference than it would be to murder someone randomly.  We call it a "hate crime."

Now, I've faced hate in my life.  I've been on both ends of the hate spectrum.  I can sincerely say that I have never hated someone because of their ethnicity, economic status, or sexual preference.  When I've hated, it was in response to specific acts perpetrated against me or those for whom I hold great affection.  Thankfully, though, I've experienced the grace and mercy of God in my life and I no longer hate.

In today's society, though, mere disagreement is considered equivalent to hate.  Let's use a recent example from the realm of current events:

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.” – Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-Fil-A

Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-Fil-A voiced his personal religious belief.  It is a belief that coincides with traditional Christian beliefs.  In his quote, does he ever say that he hates homosexuals?  Does he ever say that they are less valuable as human beings?  Does he ever say he desires their destruction?

No.

He said that his business was founded on biblical principles, and that the traditional family dynamic is a part of that foundation.  He clearly shows his traditional Christian leanings in his statements.  But he never speaks hate.  He speaks his religious convictions, but he never speaks with hatred of someone who disagrees with him.

Yet, he's been called a bigot, a fascist (obviously by people who don't know the meaning of the word), a hate-monger, and many other things not suitable for a Christian to repeat.  Simply because he disagrees.

He disagrees with those who are constantly reminding us to be tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

And they've tried to destroy him. (Actually, it's very possible that the stress of this very public kerfuffle led directly to the sudden heart attack of Chick-Fil-A's Vice President of Public Relations, Don Perry.) 

Tolerant of them, isn't it?

I think back with a chuckle to the time I posted an image of Ronald Reagan online.  I was quickly referred to as a racist, even though I had made no comments, whatsoever, about anyone's ethnicity.  I had simply expressed my admiration for Ronald Reagan.  

If I quote a scripture that seems to convict someone of activities in which they choose to participate, I'm called judgmental.  

I find it fascinating that, in the absence of facts or a strong logical argument, many people resort to name-calling and insults.  We've become conditioned to fear certain labels more than anything else.  We fear being labeled a racist, a homophobe, intolerant, or judgmental.  It's really an interesting phenomenon.  

I googled "racism."  Now, if you use Wikipedia as your source for anything of substance, you need your head examined.  However, I found their opening paragraph interesting:

Racism is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that reflect the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others.

 Dictionary.com similarly defines racism as:

1.  a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races  determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.  a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.  hatred or intolerance of another race  or other races. 

Let me take a moment to evaluate myself.  Do I believe that people of any ethnic background are innately superior or have a right to rule others?  No.  Do I believe that people of varying ethnic backgrounds are innately more or less intelligent, moral, or carry specific personality traits based solely on their ethnicity?  No.  Do I refuse to tolerate someone of a different ethnic background?  No.

I just posted a picture of a man I admired.  Guess I'm OK.

Do you realize that a phobia is defined as a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it? Notice that it doesn't say "a disagreement with a specific object, activity, or situation."  It says an "irrational fear."

I submit to you today that simply because I disagree with homosexuality does not make me homophobic.  I don't fear homosexuality.  I see it as the sin that the Bible says it is.  I have no fear of homosexual activity.  I disagree with it.  Therefore, the term "homophobe" is inaccurate and demonstrates the user's ignorance of the subject.

Is it hateful to disagree with someone?  No.  I don't hate homosexuals.  Their sinful choices are called an abomination in the sight of God, yet He extends His grace and mercy toward them.  God doesn't hate homosexuals, and neither do I.  I have acquaintances and relatives who live a homosexual lifestyle.  They know my stand on the issue, yet they will each--if they're honest--tell you that I have always treated them with respect and compassion.  Telling someone they are violating the tenets of scripture is not hateful, it's helpful.  We are called to "speak the Truth in love."  Telling someone that homosexual activity is sinful and destructive is no different than telling someone that using heroin is sinful and destructive.

Yet, in our morally relativistic society, disagreement equals hate.  

There is a segment of society that revels in using these terms as ammunition.  It's a form of emotional extortion, really.  They silence their opposition by threatening to brand them with a scarlet letter.  You disagree with President Obama?  You must be a racist!  You oppose homosexual marriage?  You're a homophobe!  You disagree with different lifestyles and philosophies?  You're an intolerant bigot!  You take the Bible literally and call Christians to live by that standard?  You're judgmental!

Probably the most quoted--wrongly--scripture by non-believers and followers of aberrant doctrines while calling themselves Christians is from Matthew 7:

1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ² For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. ³ And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? ⁴ Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? ⁵ Hypocrite!  

The quoters of  this scripture use this to justify their claims that the "Bible thumper" is judgmental and intolerant.  They wag their finger in your face and warn you that you're treading dangerous ground when you point to scripture and say "this is what the Word says.  Here's how your behavior doesn't line up with that Word."  It's the spiritual version of "racist, bigot, homophobe, etc."

What these people nearly always do is omit the next part of verse five.

First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

You see, Jesus did not tell His followers to ignore the sin in the lives of those around them.  He did not tell us it is wrong to hold up the light of scripture and cast that light upon the actions of those who call themselves Christ Followers.  He said, "First, remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

This insistence on throwing the "judge not" clause at people is simply a wicked heart's way of avoiding the light of Truth.  Can a person be judgmental?  Yes.  It's wrong.  Just as racism is wrong.  However, to hold up the Word of Truth to someone and point out how their behavior violates that Word is a service, not a judgment.

If it was wrong to call Christians to account for their behavior, then all of Paul's letters have no place in scripture.  Then Jesus was wrong for calling the religious leaders hypocrites.  Then it was pointless for the Bible to be written at all, since it is a book of instructions for our lives.  Throughout scripture we are instructed to judge our own behavior and, yes, that of others.  (Read 1 Timothy 3, where we are instructed on how to choose leaders in the church.  We are called to judge them according to their actions.)  How can it be wrong to do exactly what God has called us to do?  Is God schizophrenic? No.

To judge someone unjustly is wrong.  To write them off as a soul unworthy of being reached and unworthy of salvage is wrong.  To take someone who claims to follow Christ but lives in contradiction to His Word, show them that Word and call them to accountability for their actions is called discipleship.

We live in an "anything goes" society, and the church has adopted this same philosophy.  You can teach anything you want in most churches and be accepted.  Look at false teachers like Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn,   Joel Osteen and other charlatans.  They have huge followings because they make their listeners feel good about themselves, but never call them to a true biblical holiness.  They're frauds, and will be held to some very high standards by God, Himself.  We have the IHOP movement and the Emergent Church movement that reduces God to a touchy-feely "big papa in the sky" rather than a Holy and Just God who expects His children to be Holy and Just.  These are dangerous movements and dangerous people who are destroying lives.  Their followers are deceived by their flashy shows and the emotional outpouring at their concerts and gatherings.

Well, "anything" does not go.  We simply need more followers of Christ to be more interested in what the Bible says than what they feel.  We need to stop looking at worship as an "experience" and look at it as service to our Creator.  We need to present ourselves a "living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God."  That means setting aside our selfish desires, styles, and practices and doing what He commands.

So, you can call me a racist because I don't approve of our current President.  You can call me a homophobe because I disagree with the sinful lifestyle of homosexuality.  You can call me intolerant because I believe in right and wrong.  You can even call me judgmental because I point to scripture and display ways in which a so-called Christian wanders from it.  Simple fact is, you'd be wrong on all counts.  These are merely inflammatory terms designed to silence your opposition, usually because your opposition is making a solid point and you have no ground upon which to stand.

The Truth will always prevail.  The Truth will always shine gloriously upon the ruins of the world's lies.   You cannot silence it.  You cannot intimidate it.  You should embrace it.  It will make you free.

Two Roads

I have been asked to minister at a funeral.  The fortunate part of that statement is that the person is still alive.  Being able to consider the sermon one would share at a person's funeral with lots of time to spare is not a luxury often afforded to a minister.  Normally one hears that a person has passed, is contacted by the family, and must prepare quickly for the service.

Having the luxury of time, my prayers and overactive mind have given rise to some thoughts I'd like to share with my readers.

Recently, a talented major celebrity passed away.  As with many celebrities, this one's life was pockmarked with drug abuse, erratic behavior and tumultuous relationships.  The lives of many celebrities vividly demonstrate the old adage that money (or fame) can't buy happiness.

One of the things my father taught me from his many years of experience in ministry, is that people tend to try to focus upon the positives in a person's life, usually to the complete exclusion of the negatives.  He described situations in which he'd preached the funerals of violent gang members who were buried with switch-blade knives and bottles of alcohol, and people spoke of what wonderful, caring individuals they'd been. 

I suppose it's a normal emotional reaction.  We, as loved ones, long to hold onto positive memories to help us with our grief.  Deep is the agony experienced by one who has lost a loved-one whose choices and actions have led them to an eternity of damnation.

The problem is, denial doesn't change facts.

We can attempt to canonize a person, turning that person into a saint in our own minds, when in fact, the person's life has been the complete opposite of an example of dedication to Christ.

Now, before I go any farther, let me acknowledge those of my readers, faithful as they are, whose sole mission in life seems to be attempting to remind me of my unworthiness to judge others.  We will not take this opportunity to resurrect our recent discussion on that topic.  The following statement will suffice:  Throughout scripture we are given the outward signs of a life of dedication to God.  Had God not wanted us to pay attention to those signs, He would not have included them in the Holy Record.  The fact is, some people follow Christ and some do not.  Those who follow Christ live lives that are different in obvious and evidentiary ways.  If your life does not show those outer differences, that's your fault, not those around you with eyes and ears.  Is the life in question accurately described by the biblical explanation of the fruit of the Spirit?  That's what we should all be asking ourselves.

Back to the funeral I've been asked to officiate:  the person's life has not been one of a believer.  It has been one marred with self-destructive decisions, sinful activities, and ultimately, the earthly consequences of those choices and actions.  This makes it tough for a minister.  One must be honest but comforting.  One must tell the truth while still offering hope.  Granted, the person is still alive, and therefore there is a possibility of salvation.  I pray fervently for that to occur.  However, this blog is an intellectual exercise based upon the suppositions outlined above. 

When I was a youth pastor, I ran into an interesting situation.  Another leader whispered in my ear that a friend of one of our young people had just died and the kid in our youth group had asked if he could say a prayer before our group.  Well, of course!  So the boy came up and began praying for the soul of the boy who had just died in a car wreck on his way home from a drug party.

Needless to say, this was a difficult situation.  Obviously this boy's heart was broken at the loss of his friend.  Obviously, he had not been taught what the Bible says about life, choices and judgment.  ...And...this was one of those unrehearsed moments wherein a leader must rely solely upon the prompting of the Holy Spirit and gently correct some misconceptions.

When he was finished with his prayer--imploring God to give his friend one last chance, to somehow offer his dead friend one last little bit of mercy and save his soul--I returned to the front of the room and gently explained that, according to scripture, there comes a time when there are no more chances.  I opened Hebrews 9 and described to them how we all have a date with death, and after that: judgment.  I shared with them how, sadly, many do not make the right choice and go on to an eternity without God.  But by the same token, we who are alive have the opportunity to choose to dedicate our lives to Christ, thereby sealing our destiny to be with Him throughout eternity.

We all have that choice.  Some choose eternal life, some eternal damnation.  This is not a popular subject, but it's a topic of which Jesus spoke.  In Matthew 7, Jesus spoke the following truth:  "Enter the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the road is spacious which leads to destruction, and many are those who are going in it. How narrow is the gate and strict the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it!"

Sadly, most of the world has chosen the broad path.  This superhighway, unlike the one in the image to the left, is a one-way road.  It's broad and easy to travel.  There is a smooth surface, graceful curves, and luxurious accommodations along the way.  It's the scenic route.  It is surrounded by beautiful enticements that grab the attention of all who travel there, like billboards pointing to the next attraction.  Every kind of human enjoyment can be found on this road.  Companionship, excess, fulfillment, it's all there.  While on this road, your self-image is protected by those who will reinforce it.  Of course, they reinforce it only because they are traveling in exactly the same direction, headed to the same unknown destination.

Many who call themselves Christians are on this same road.  Life seems great!  They have great friends, a promising career, big goals and plans... Life seems to be flowing so smoothly for them.  They go to church and walk away feeling better about themselves than when they went in.  The music they listen to assures them that they are on the right path.  They've discovered that they can still walk alongside their unchurched friends and do so many of the same things they did before they began to call themselves Christians.

There's a reason things are going so well for them.  One rarely finds opposition when one is traveling en masse with multitudes of others.  They are coasting on the same flowing river as their comrades.  They are going the same direction as their worldly friends, their boss, and sadly, many of their church friends.  Their life isn't a threat to the world because they, too, are worldly.  They're traveling the wide road.  It is the path of least resistance.  They don't need to take a stand, because their beliefs are secondary to their desire to succeed in their own eyes and the eyes of their peers.

I believe that many entire churches are traveling together along this road.  They are rejoicing, singing, dancing and partying as they pass the billboards that declare upcoming attractions.  They pat each other on the back, rejoicing in their freedom as they live however they want to live, believing that the blood of Christ gives them that liberty.  They focus on a stress-free Christianity in which standards are all but nonexistent and anyone who stands by the doctrines that have been held for centuries is considered outdated and dogmatic.  They cast aside anyone who doesn't enthusiastically race down this broad avenue of reckless abandon, or who doesn't passionately pursue the enjoyment they claim while waving the banner of their type of Christianity.

This road, though easy, scenic, and apt to gain the affection of those around you, leads to destruction.  It is not a matter of if, but when, Easy Street finds its travelers plunging headlong into the abyss.

You may say I'm judgmental.  That's alright.  I've been accused of that by many on this road of which I speak.  Their accusations of judgmentalism do not dissuade me.  You see, I hold up the light of the Word of God and allow you to gauge your own compliance with it.  For, in that light, we are forced to come face to face with our own frailties.  It is not out of malice that I bring you to this light, but out of love.  For, if I didn't love you, I would let you blindly follow the broad path upon which you now travel.  I would stand idly by and smile at your enjoyment, rejoicing that you had found some temporal peace--even though that so-called peace and enjoyment will one day be your undoing.  I love you enough to warn you.  I love you enough to shout against the roar of the traffic and say stop! You're heading in the wrong direction!  This road will destroy you!

Recently, when I commented that it took more than sprinkling the name of Jesus on a life lived in debauchery, one well-meaning friend exhorted me that if I was going to err, I should always err on the side of grace.  What he seemingly meant was that my stance on that issue was too strong.  We were indirectly discussing the death of a celebrity whose drug habit and hard living had brought her life to an unfortunate end.  My stating that true Christians would be known by their fruits apparently, in this person's eyes, did not demonstrate grace.  This is a common approach to Christianity, although it is a failed one.  It is used often to chastise those who proclaim that there are still standards by which Christians must live.  It has become the churchy version of the philosophy "live and let live."


The problem is, when we follow that philosophy, we fail in the calling Christ has placed upon our lives.  We fail to tell the truth of the Gospel.  We fail to see changed lives because we aren't showing people how to change.

That's why I've chosen to walk the other path.  Its far more treacherous.  It's a difficult hike.  But it leads in the right direction.

How narrow is the gate and strict the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it!

This is often a solitary journey.  People turn away at the thought of such a long and laborious walk.  But it leads to Life!  Though the journey is long, though the gate is narrow, though the cliffs and obstacles seem limitless, Life awaits!  Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life!"  When you discover that He is the way, you realize that the journey isn't treacherous at all, for He is the journey!  Then you can stand up for the Truth, for He is the Truth!  And then you'll realize that in Him we live and move and have our very being!  The narrow way leads to Life, for He is the Life!

So it's alright when people reject us as we walk in the opposite direction as they, for they rejected Him as well.  It's alright when they attempt to throw obstacles in our path, for they rose up against Him, too.  It's alright when they call us old fashioned, for He never changes.  His Truth never changes.  His standards never change.

We all have a choice... a choice of two roads.  You can be like water, following the path of least resistance.  The problem with that is, though it's easy, it always leads downhill.  Or you can take the solitary road.  You can walk apart from the group, as you've been called to.

Friends will betray you.  They will try to make you question your stand.  They will--the very ones who have publicly professed their love of you--publicly chastise you and even call into question your Christianity.  It is the only way they can make themselves feel superior, for the life of the unregenerated is all about feeling superior to others.  It started with Lucifer before the dawn of time, and will continue until judgment day.  Don't be dismayed.  Don't give in.  Don't give up.  Follow the Way.  Walk in the Truth.  Jesus came that you might have Life, and that life more abundantly.  Don't lose sleep when they mock you.  Observe the haughtiness in their attacks and the false-humility they put on display.  Observe how their attacks come both publicly and in back-handed ways.  This is the deception in their hearts that is speaking.  Pray for them, weep for them, and keep walking.  When they see their destruction coming, they'll be calling out to you.  Keep your eyes on the Way.  Continue to speak the Truth.  Let them see the Life of Christ in you.

So dust off your hiking shoes.  We've got a hill to climb.  Are you with me?


So, I guess now I know what I'll be preaching at the funeral.

GSA Party Controversy... An Unusual View

My Name is Michael Land, and I have an opinion.  It is an opinion that is rarely popular with those of you with a liberal bent.  That's OK.  I don't expect my opinions to be popular.  I do, however, hope to make you think beyond what you've been spoon-fed by the media, unions, and the politicians who purchase your loyalty with handouts taken by force from others' bank accounts.

That being said, I sometimes tick off my more conservative friends, as well.  There are those on both sides who sit idly by like baby birds with their maws open to the sky, waiting for whatever regurgitated goodies their media stars and politicians will drop in.

The latest dust-up has been over an employee party near Vegas that cost the US taxpayers more than $800,000.  Apparently, the US General Services Administration held a "regional meeting" for around 300 employees.  Some of the costs break down as follows [according to The Atlantic Wire]:

Thanks to an investigation and report from GSA Inspector General Brian D. Miller, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press, we now know how Johnson and her team spent all that money. Here's how it breaks down (keep in mind that in 2010, according to Inspector Miller's report,  the meal and incidental expenses allowance was $71 per day):

• $31,000 on a "networking reception" that featured $19-per-person "American artisanal cheese display" and $7,000 in sushi
• $3,200 on a session with a mind reader
• $5,600 for in-room parties 
• $100,405.37 in employee travel costs to scout the event--meaning, these people returned to the Las Vegas area multiple times to visit hotels before settling on the fancy M Resort and Casino.
• $3,700 for T-shirts
•  $2,800 in water bottles
•  $1,500 for "Boursin scalloped potato with Barolo wine-braised short ribs" and a $525 bartender fee for a cash bar.
• Three officials spent almost $400 for rented tuxedos
• $1,840 for vests for the 19 “regional ambassadors” and other employees
• $146,527.05  was spent on catered food during the entire conference
• $6,325 was spent on commemorative coins in velvet boxes to reward all participants for their work on stimulus projects (because a certificate and the $800,000 party they're at wouldn't do)
• $75,000 for a “team-building” exercise — the goal was to build bicycles (which would later be donated to a Boys & Girls Clubs)

More details can be found here, here, and here. 


Conservatives and liberals alike have railed against the excessive and ridiculous spending of this organization.  People have been fired.  People have resigned.  And rightfully so.  It goes strongly against conservative principles to take money from taxpayers to spend on frivolous things like mind readers, tuxedos and "location scouting" pre-parties.  

Likewise, it looks really bad for liberals, especially after President Obama's speech in the early days of his term of office in which he called corporations to task for  their lavish parties and bonuses, specifically mentioning trips to Las Vegas in the mix.

It's a bad situation all the way around.  And, as usual, the taxpayer is the chief loser.

Now, here's my take on the situation.  It will probably ruffle feathers on both sides.  


1.  It's not Obama's fault.  Let's face it.  The federal government is HUGE!  By some counts, there are more than 2.65 million federal employees in over 1300 distinct agencies.  There is no way one president can possibly even know what all of those agencies are, let alone personally manage the activities of each one.  These types of debacles occur under presidents of both parties.


2.  I don't begrudge the employees of the GSA a party.  Look, my company had a staff Christmas party.  We enjoyed it very much.  It was a good time of recognition of accomplishments and growth.  We had some games, some good food, and a speech from my boss (a very long speech from my boss).  


That probably made my conservative friends angry.  At the same time, my liberal friends are probably sitting back with a bit of a smug look on their face.


Here's the thing:  While it isn't President Obama's fault this happened, he is in the position of ultimate responsibility.  He is the Chief Executive of the US Government.  Therefore, it is his responsibility to solve it.


Not only that, it is the very policies he embraces that cause these atrocities!  The liberal approach to governing is to create more programs, more agencies, and more bureaucracy.  Each time they create another agency they reduce their ability to effectively oversee them.  It isn't just Obama.  Under the leadership of the past several presidents, the federal government has literally exploded in size.  

Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution spells out the basic purposes of the Congress.  

• To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
• To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If a president and congress were to return the federal government to its original purpose, the number of non-military federal employees would be a fraction of its current size... and so would the budget and debt.


President Obama should stand up and disband the multitudinous agencies that do little more than suck up taxpayers' dollars.  Multiple, redundant, non-productive, and expensive agencies are not only unnecessary, but unconstitutional.  If the federal government were reduced to the proper scope of its constitutional function, I dare say, one president could easily be aware of what each department was doing and lead each agency more directly.  


As to my second point.  I do not begrudge the employees of the GSA a party.  Nearly every organization for which I've worked has held holiday parties, recognition ceremonies and other "regional meeting" style events.  However, there is a huge caveat. There is a difference between private companies and government agencies.  If my boss, who owns a wireless retail company, chose to hold a party that cost him $2,700 per attendee, that's alright.  It's lavish and over the top, but it's alright.  Why?  Because nobody is forcing the population, by threat of imprisonment, to purchase wireless phones!  My boss could throw as large and extravagant a party as he wished (and I wholeheartedly encourage him to do so) because he would be spending money that his company legitimately earned.  


A government agency, on the other hand, has a greater burden of accountability.  Those who pay the bills don't do it out of choice, but by coercion.  Failing to contribute financially to the federal government carries the risk of severe punishment.  Therefore, for a government agency to squander money on extravagance is not only bad form, it is misappropriation of funds.  It's fraudulent use of taxpayer's money.  It is criminal behavior.


The sad thing is, in a society where everyone thinks everyone else owes them something, getting this point through peoples' thick skulls is like trying to push a marshmallow through a rock.