Trying to engage the Dones and Nones

A thought-provoking article talks about active, giving Christians dropping out of church. While others don't have an identifiable belief and are called the Nones, those committed Christians who drop out are called Dones. This may be disturbing to some or at least must-read and thought-provoking: Read about the Dones

My missionary-training classmate at the Navigators, Ruth Knutson, wrote Reflections from an Imperfect Beloved One that addresses some of these problems, namely, as stated in the article I cited, that the Dones don't like to be lectured and are tired of "plop, pray and pay."

Some remedies from Ruth's insightful book:

"Research has shown than after twenty-four hours, most people forget 90 percent of what they've heard."

"Wise facilitators will share their knowledge in bite-size pieces so that people in the group are absorbing and personalizing the information. Less really is more. Less knowledge that is personally and deeply understood and applied is more powerful and useful than too much knowledge that is not remembered, understood, or applied."

"In church services, the 'movement' goal might be accomplished by having people stand for a song or prayer at appropriate places in a sermon."

"God created us in His image as relational, communicative beings, not only as listeners."

Torture or enhanced interrogation techniques?

Angered by her computer being hacked and about to lose her chairmanship, Senator Dianne Feinstein released a report on the CIA that is political, biased and devoid of interviews of key people. It implies that killing non-combatants with drones is morally superior to capturing terrorists to for needed intelligence. It throws under the bus sincere, hard-working people who love their country.

Put it in perspective. Some 3,000 people had just been murdered by terrorist - some jumping from windows to avoid being burned to death. That's torture.

Let me say that from the beginning, I advocated banning torture in order to deprive the enemy of an excuse to torture American captives.

The problem is in defining what torture is. The left and right can shop for lawyers who will support either side.

Albert Einstein had joined an international group that tried to devise a moral code independent of Judeo-Christian ethics. They gave up in despair.

Professors teach relative truth - that there are no objective truths, and that what is true for you isn't necessarily true for me (how does that work at a bank?). Interestingly, the professors expect you to accept what they say about truth as objective truth!

In such a moral cesspool, there can be no consensus on what is torture. The report, thus, is meaningless.

I have a solution. It is based on "What would Jesus do?"

Clearly there were abuses, acts that went beyond the 12 authorized enhanced techniques.

I'm not sure what Jesus would do in each case, but we can infer from what he said ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and put in place a policy that might make sense: Whoever practices one of the techniques must first experience the technique in training themselves. Navy Seals must undergo water-boarding and sleep deprivation. Such a policy should be applied to all involved in using such measures. Ironically, this proposed policy can only be considered academic, since such techniques have been banned for the better part of a decade.

Next, we should ponder what Jesus meant by loving your enemies. How do you love someone who, more than life itself, wants to behead you and your daughter? Perhaps you can suggest a way. Praying for them is a start. "An eye for an eye" provides a clue about proportion: if my enemy destroys my house, I'm not to nuke his city.

Finally, why isn't this administration pursuing prosecution of CIA operatives? Because they want to avoid prosecution by the next administration.

Profanity, humor & Mother Teresa

I grew up around Catholics who told me their religion is very difficult. I never understood that. My Catholic friends could do all the things I was taught not to do.

One stark difference was profanity. They pointed out that profanity was OK if used properly - that is, to damn an object and not a person. They could even invoke God to condemn an object.

I know a devout Catholic who carries a reputation - waitresses won't serve him because of his verbal abuse. Other drivers are subject to his obscene gestures and filthy talk. Every other word, even in normal conversation is the "F"-word.

And yet he is one of the most charitable, giving people I know.

Unfortunately, few if any people are persuaded by his language to consider a life of faith if he is an example.

Wait a minute! Is profanity one of those gray areas that are not prohibited in the Bible? Are the faithful making themselves out to be Pharisees by requesting that profanity be curtailed?

Someone said, "Profanity is ignorance made audible." Is it? Yes, I've heard it from dunces. But I've also heard it from some of the best-educated people.

I wonder why the devil insists they all use the same words, as lemmings? Why not something different, such as "fungus-faced toad-sucker"? Something original? Nope. The devil won't allow it. Do profane people have no choice but to use the devil's very selective language and none other?

So what does God's Word say? I've heard some try to find a translation to suit their biases, prohibiting any form of joking or silliness. That's why it's important to compare several translations:

Ephesians 5:4

For a contextual discussion, I found this: Definitions

As for being a good, charitable person with a filthy mouth, consider this: James 3:10-11

Let me say this: unwholesome and unhelpful talk isn't confined to Catholics. We are all guilty at sometime or other.

Will Catholics be in Heaven? I'm convinced and met Catholics who trust in Jesus.

Someone had the audacity to say "Mother Teresa wasn't born-again."

In the Rome airport in 1980 I saw someone who looked like Mother Teresa. It was she! Some in our party got to talk to this humble woman whose clothes were tattered. I observed her for some time. If she's not in Heaven, we are all in trouble!

Surprise in Heaven

Anonymous
I dreamt death came the other night
And Heaven’s gate swung wide.
An angel with a halo bright
Ushered me inside.And there! To my astonishment
Stood folks I’d judged and labeled
As “quite unfit”, “of little worth”,
And “spiritually disabled”.
Indignant words rose to my lips
But never were set free,
For every face showed stunned surprise --
Not one expected me!

Bogus or legitimate?

A friend pointed out to me recently that a warning I posted about the dangers of terrorism, allegedly from an Israeli agent, was improperly attributed and that the cited "agent" was a fraud, as pointed out in snopes.com

As a journalist, I should have checked the source more carefully, and I should have attributed the piece clearly.

But here we have something of a dilemma. Dr. Gary Habermas defines a scholarly expert as someone who has a terminal degree in a specific field of study. But is wisdom confined to the experts? Can a layperson come up with profound insight that could change the world for the better? I think so.

In recent years authors, scholars in specific fields (e.g., biology), have feigned expertise in theology, for example. It is almost as if their theology cannot be challenged except by another scholar (in biology). They find no problem in attempting to discuss Someone immaterial in material terms.

Sometimes a so-called expert is too close to his or her chosen field to see the challenges. The expert may have too much at stake to challenge one's peers.

Accordingly, we find parents with high-school educations challenging a school's curriculum chosen by a panel of PhD's who missed the blatant revisionism.

The friend who pointed out my problems with attribution hops freely from history to science to theology. He brings to bear a lifetime of education in a number of fields. He suggests that we don't see matters in terms of right or left but, rather, wise or unwise.

And so my "bogus" source poses concerns:

Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan, that in the event of another terrorist attack, EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., will immediately be cut-off, as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated. (i.e. The government will shut off the cellular network in an attack!)

Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.

How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak to each other? You need to have a plan.

He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, of how to respond in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools too, develop plans of actions, just as they do in Israel.

OK, perhaps he isn't an agent. But he offers wise advice. Whether our government shuts down cell phones is immaterial, if I see foreign governments adept in cyber attacks targeting our electrical grid. Thus, a family formulating a plan demonstrates wisdom. 

Yes, challenge sources. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Do you really know me?

I've talked to skeptics who are sincere seekers of the real Jesus, but they are bogged down by stereotypes of Jesus and his alleged followers.

A parallel: what if someone tried to get to know me by challenging my background and education, investigating where I've traveled ("he lived in Germany - do you suppose he was influenced by Nazis?"), searching my tax records and store receipts. They looked into historical records, Internet and fictional accounts. They found a Dave Harris who lived in Borneo. And one in Moscow. One who married a witch. Dave worked for the Department of Defense, so he must be a belligerent. They interviewed a former disgruntled employee. "Aha! We know who Dave Harris is!"  They worked with the assumption I never did any good works, and that the real Dave would only speak in short, pithy phrases and denies the supernatural. Too bad. They never took the time to know me. To love me. To experience my love.

Sadly, they never bothered to talk to me, to know the real me.

And that's how they investigate the Ancient of Days who created them and knew them before the beginning of time, who loves them and yearns for their company, who wants to be their best friend.

Tragically, they cling to their stereotypes, and seek empty, meaningless lives. The enemy has robbed them of purpose.

Jesus said,  "The thief’s purpose is to steal and kill and destroy. My purpose is to give them a rich and satisfying life." John 10:10

Elegant dinner for the homeless

Let's get involved making some good news.

http://devour.com/video/prank-it-fwd/

Climate change and the 'Age of Endarkment'?

UPDATE: An excellent article.

When it comes to climate change, look for 3 factors:
- money: who loses and who gains?
- models: we're doomed; it's too late; climate will inundate us, melt all the ice and destroy our cities. These conclusions arise from models - predictions of things that haven't happened. Models can be wrong.
- euphemisms: oops, we can' call it "global warming" during a polar vortex. Let's call it "climate change."

For more thought on lockstep thinking and the need to be skeptical, see my post on lemmings.

An interesting and somewhat lighthearted discussion addressing opposing views:
Age of Endarkment

Should we or should we not follow the money? Lotta dough

Possible solution - a tradeoff: fund some sensible climate-change initiatives in return for a balanced-budged amendment, both of which might benefit of our children and grandchildren.

Transform your life with the wisdom of the ages

Skeptics often throw Bible verses at me, out of context. See my theses 42 and 72. Sometimes they tap into another skeptic on the Internet who borrowed out-of-context lists of verses to prove some goofy point.

A text without context is a pretext for a context.

You could not possibly read a book that can have a more profound impact on your life forever than the Bible, especially if you are a sincere truth-seeker. Even a non-believer can profit from the historical and insightful richness of the Bible.

Sometimes people complain that the Bible is too boring or massive to tackle, and they give up on the most enriching experience of their lives.

An article that can help spice things up and lead to more appreciation and understanding of God's Word is 5 Mistakes People Make When Reading the Bible

I recently finished listening to The Daily Message Bible, an audio reading I got free when I signed up for Audible.com - a truly enjoyable experience.

Get creative. Soak in the wisdom of the ages.

My Indy pastor nails sin

College Park Church's Mark Vroegop nails sin while preaching on Romans 7 

Whose rights?

How about the rights of women and minorities yet unborn? Unique viewpoint  

What I taught interns about making mistakes

"The better a man is, the more mistakes will he make, for the more new things he will try. I would never promote a man into a top level job who had not made mistakes, and big ones at that. Otherwise he is sure to be mediocre" -Peter Drucker [Don't miss the poem below]

From my 71st thesis above: Is the Bible sexist? Jesus lifted the status of women more than any other. "Many take offense at using the masculine word 'sons' to refer to all Christians, male and female. Some would prefer to translate Galatians 4:26: 'You are all children of God' (as the NIV 2011 does). But if we are too quick to correct the biblical language, we miss the revolutionary (and radically egalitarian) nature of what Paul is saying. In most ancient cultures, daughters could not inherit property. Therefore, 'son' meant 'legal heir,' which was a status forbidden to women. But the gospel tells us we are all sons of God in Christ. We are all heirs. Similarly, the Bible describes all Christians together, including men, as the 'bride of Christ' (Revelation 21:2). God is evenhanded in His gender-specific metaphors. Men are part of His Son’s bride; and women are His sons, His heirs. If we don’t let Paul call Christian women 'sons of God,' we miss how radical and wonderful a claim this is." -- Timothy Keller

By the way, I also had my staff eliminate sexism from government's prose and images. One feminist thought, however, some sexist literature was just fine, such as this:
As a rule,
A man's a fool;
When it's hot,
He wants it cool;
When it's cool,
He wants it not;
What it is,
He wants it not.

Lemmings

Have lemmings gotten a bum rap over the years?

Are you a lemming?

Put on your big boy or big girl pants and knock it off.

Lemming "suicide" is a frequently used metaphor in reference to people who go along unquestioningly with popular opinion, with potentially dangerous or fatal consequences, according to Wikipedia. You can picture lemmings following each other off a cliff. But just as "spending like a drunken sailor" insults a drunken sailor who knows enough to stop spending when he runs out of money, the furry fellows may not be as dumb as their go-along human counterparts.

We see the error of fickle crowd psychology or peer pressure a number of times in the Bible: Children of Israel rebelling against Moses and God; the masses crying "Hosanna" on Palm Sunday and "Crucify him" a few days later; the crowd condemning Paul as evil when a snake clung to him, and then revering him when he flung it into the fire with no ill effect.

Such is the danger in uncritically accepting dire warnings about climate change, foods, or tap water. More than those, think about this: the lemming hazard permeates even your most sacred halls of learning.

Take virtually any subject: OK, climate change, artificial sweeteners, Calvinism or entire sanctification. One pursues a higher degree and joins like-minded colleagues in the study of your chosen subject, be it in a laboratory, classroom, dig or seminary.

Let me take an example not so close to (my) home. On PBS, and perhaps still available today online, you could view the thoughtful series, "The Mormons." The series portrayed the good, bad and ugly. Long before the series, my own studies found the Mormon history bogus. The Book of Mormon talks about magnificent ancient cities in the Western Hemisphere. In a chat room, I presented to a Mormon historian the notion that the Bible had ample documentation in the form of archaeology and other sciences. And yet, no archaeological discoveries documented the existence of the Mormon cities. None.

The historian in my discussion responded, "Yes, Dave, you're right. There is no archaeological evidence. You must accept it all on faith."

The PBS backed up that fact. Professors of history at Brigham Young University approached the Latter Day Saints leadership with the discovery that the history was without evidence.

The church excommunicated the professors. Later, PBS interviewed them, and some dissolved into tears. Their premise was correct and courageous, but they missed the community terribly.

Accordingly, my "lemming" theory goes like this: You see error in the party line: the earth is cooling, not warming; Calvin never taught "Calvinism" as it is generally accepted today; you observe folks who claim to be "entirely" or "wholly" sanctified, but you don't see corresponding behavior.

But, you have invested half a lifetime in your denomination/hospital/university/lab/team. You have tenure. Gravitas. Speak up or write about what you have discovered as error and, though colleagues are kind, loving, cordial, they see you as something less than orthodox, no longer a team player, a fly in the ointment, marching to a different drummer. So much for that choice assignment, promotion or publication.

Here's the good news: Romans 8 says there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. That means you can live a life of risk, doing what no one else can do, things that would shock the world. Do the right thing. Do the courageous thing. Do the meaningful thing. Do the God thing.
Don't be a lemming.

The lemming myth may be a cruel joke on these lovable, furry animals, but humans too often act like the mythical conformists.