Why we hate

I have very little to do in this post surgical immobile and drugged up state. This took a very long time to write and I hope it's coherent.

The media has their panties in a bunch over what to call the shooter.  Is he a terrorist, a thug, mentally ill, racist... I say, yes to all of those. But if we are looking at the most descriptive name, it would seem "white supremecy extremist" should do the trick.

Not that it matters! These kinds of issues - what label we use, that he got apprehended peacefully, that the Confederate flag still flies over some building in SC - pale in comparison to the real issues that need deep and meaningful conversations. In this case: what is truly at the root of racism.

To really understand this, we need to go deeper than why some white Americans hate black Americans. The real question is why does anyone hate anyone? And the answer is not all that complex. Once understood, we can plot a path forward, and be realistic in our expectations.

So why do we hate? We hate what we fear, and we all fear things that are dangerously different. I do. You do. We all do.

The reality is that for a very long time people from other races were considered dangerously different. This reality is not new. We have a long history as a species of anyone-not-like-me being considered dangerous and as a result, feared and hated. Think about every war ever fought. Think about every border ever establish, every wall ever constructed. All to keep people of sameness away from something or someone who is "other".

There are two reasons for this in my worldview.

The first is because it helps a lot when it comes to survival. It is a natural instinct bred in us. By natural I do not mean we were designed that way, only that it is now a part of our nature.

In the opening of Genesis, the bible talks about the "good" version of human life. Man and animal living in harmony. Enter the fall; killing starts. Killing (danger) leads to fear, fear leads to hate. Whether that's a literal thing 6000 years ago or just a word picture of how things got this way is irrelevant. Today we fear things that are dangerous and we hate what we fear.

In Isaiah (11:6), when the perfect is restored, the bible says "wolf will lay down with lamb." Why is that imagery used, because right now the wolf would eat the lamb. Perfection means no more danger; no more fear. Fear is gone in a restored humanity.

If your not of the bible believing type, just look at natural selection. Same theory. Fear keeps us alive. So fearful species survive to make more fearful versions of themselves. We fear otherness in our core being. All of us. What we fear we inevitably hate. 

This leads to a ton of other ideologies like:
-We are better then them
-We need to control them
-They are not as valuable as we are
-We need to protect ourselves from them
-We should concour, enslave, or annihilate them because they are lesser than us

You get the idea.  This is our history as a species from early tribal wars to the Roman empire through the crusades to Hitler and the Islamic terrorists of today. It's ingrained in our makeup. It's who we are.

I am not saying on one hand, that there is no such thing as a just war, or on the other that we cannot or should not change. I'm only detailing the question of why - why do we hate. We hate what we fear, we fear what we consider dangerous, and we (as a species) have considered people from other races dangerous.

Knowledge is what brings us the ability to realize that skin tone is meaningless and that we are truly the same, but we as a species still fear what is dangerous and different. The majority of us in recent history have moved past the idea that other people are dangerous, but we still respond to danger the same way. Just go to the zoo and remove the cages. You will have fear of the lion walking up to you. Some people, like this individual still have the idea that people of other races are dangerous. Therefore racism continues.

The second reason in my world view is related to the first, but it is far more spiritually grounded and it speaks to why we seem slow to change... why people like this individual still exist. 

Of course if you are a naturalist, then we have nothing but our own will to try to undo millions of years of evolutionary process. It can't happen like it does in the Croods - one generation shaking off this great fear. We need to establish that fear of other people is not a hindrance to survival before we begin to see that tendency replaced with the opposite - that loving people leads to longer life. This will take a very long time and we should expect there to be remnants of the old model during the transition. In fact, if evolution is the only force at work, this should take generations upon generations to work through.

I do not believe that evolution is the only force at work. In fact, I believe the progress we have seen in destroying these long held ideals is evidence of something greater at work.

We forget some times that good and evil are battling. This is not passive and it is not based on our physical actions alone.  We have an enemy of our souls who is actively seeking to destroy us. He looks for people with bad ideas and actively works to continue, strengthen, and perpetuate those terrible ideas. He breeds fear and he encourages those destructive fears trying with all his might (and he is strong) to make things like Wednesday night, or 12/14 happen.

However, good is also battling, and I believe we are winning. We have access to more and better information then we ever have. We understand why our skin tones differ. We understand why people differ in personality and character. We need to be careful to not lose our ability to think for ourselves because of easily accessible knowledge, but in general these kinds of ideas (extremism, racism, etc) are being removed from society and replaced by love for one another. This may be happening slower than we would like, but it's happening overnight in humanity's terms, and it's undoing a really long time's worth of conditioning.

We know we are winning because for every one person who the enemy gets to the point of  this extremism, there are a million good souls capable in theory of the same savagery, yet willing to love, care, and give instead.

When these events happen we should be saddened, and challenged to double down on our commitment to end these ideals, but we have no right to be shocked by it. We are built from the same stuff. It's what we have done to each other for ages.

Since we know that fear is the root, we should ask ourselves what things generate fear of people? What things continue to reinforce an us vs them mentality?

Does that thing you post on facebook reinforce our differences or celebrate our sameness?

Does the news anchor asking if a black senator is impacted differently then a person from another race help the cause of unity or just reinforce division?

Do you add to the 'people who are different are dangerous' dialog? Do you call tea partyers tea baggers, or democrats demoncrats, just because you disagree with them? I know I have. I must stop.

What I've seen of the Charleston community is 99% good. People praying together. People giving. People worshiping. Yet the news keeps asking divisive leading questions. At one point Megan Kelly was stopped by Tim Scott saying that he was not dwelling on those negative items, she commended him for that, but turned around and asked the same abhorrent questions a minute later.  It's repulsive. If you want the biggest problem slowing our progress, look to the main stream media. Social media is often no better.

Another thing we need to address is the stigmas around mental illness. We all understand mental illness to be dangerous, but danger with knowledge and wisdom does not need to be feared. Why? The same reason we don't need to fear other skin colors. We are the same. Every one of us has the same capability of a destructive mental state.

Mental illness (be it purely chemical, or spiritually influenced -both can happen) is real and as a society we need to find ways to both increase mental health, and detect and correct for mental illness. My problem with our current measures are they only address the physical side (drugs and therapy). There is a group of wonderful Christian counselors who do what they can during therapy, but they are often tied by the law or corporate policy to not address the spiritual side when it is obvious that is what's needed. Those who can  (like those in specifically Christian practices) have successes, and I'd like to see that studied more clearly.

But we need to invest in reducing the stigmas and finding real solutions to increasing mental health. That does not need to happen from a place of fear.

These are areas we can move forward in, but I want to close by reiterating... it is painful to see another reminder that we are not finished removing racism, but we should be so encouraged by the response of Chucktowniens. In the battle, good is winning. We have not won, and we should not be surprised when evil is seen. Double down on love, community, unity, and restoration. Avoid adding to the division, even in small ways.

Be #CharlestonStrong

Welfare... an idea

I was recently commenting about limitations on food stamps. I have been thinking a lot about this topic and feel that I just needed to put pen to paper as it were.

The welfare system is broken. We are unfortunately left with trying to fix a symptom of the welfare system instead of correcting the problem. You see, the discussion is on limiting the items someone on food stamps can purchase. The problem is that there are people on food stamps wasting that money; junk food on one extreme; steak and lobsters on the other. Folks buying these types of items are either taking advantage of the situation or are in a mentally unwise state. So like all government solutions, more regulations is the only answer: Limit the things someone can buy on food stamps.

But that does not feel right. It’s just more government control.

As a good libertarian leaning right winger, I want government out of the process. The Christian in me agrees with the spirit of the left wanting to help people in need. At times, the right of center folks forget the realities of hurting people. It’s convenient to complain of government spending and ignore the very real needs of people when your job is solid and you can make ends meet. We get a bad rap on this topic because we tend to do so.

At the same time, the left will use this as an advantage saying that those who are against welfare don’t care about poor people who are hurting. This is simply not true. It’s good rhetoric, but it’s ultimately fallacious.

People are generally good and want to help others. There is a powerful force in most of us to do good for others. Depending on different world views, that is based on various items, but it does not matter. In spite of the ugly selfish side of humanity, there is a stronger side that cares for others. That side may not have the same way of drawing viewers to the 24 hour news cycle, but it is by far the majority of people. Just look at the outpouring of generosity in the face of disaster or tragedy. We all want to help people in need. The question is how best to accomplish that with as little waste and unhealthy enabling.

A good democratic friend said to me one time, welfare is just me helping you out when times get rough. My reply, “No, that’s charity.”

In fact, welfare is charity with a nice government cut taken off the top for “processing.” We have plenty of charitable organizations in this country that are already being funded by people who see the good work that a charitable organization does, and funds its mission.

So if I were president, this would be my solution.

Create a food bank fund type for existing non-profit organizations. Every person filing their taxes can donate some dollar amount (perhaps $100 for an individual or $150 for a family) into the food bank fund for a full tax credit. In other words, you are going to send that $100 to the government anyway. You can optionally redirect those funds to a fund managed by the non-profit organization of your choice. 100% of the funds donated must be used for feeding the poor in that community within 12 months. Anything left over goes to the government. There will be no preacher salaries paid out of the money. If you need funds to run your church or community center you raise them another way. Every dollar must be used directly to feed or clothe the poor.

The beauty of this solution is it respects both points of view. If you want government to manage those funds, you simply do nothing. If you want to get involved personally with your charitable giving, then you do so. Then we run some data analysis to see if the food banks are better stocked or if the homeless are able to get food in areas where people are donating. We can look at people on assistance and see if the needs are being met through the system. If 10% of the population takes advantage of it, then the plan is killed. If 50-75% of people take advantage of it, then I believe we would see food banks overflowing with food and necessities because there is no government overhead.

If it works it has the ability to wean our society off the government’s teat one social program at a time. It retrains our people to give regularly which is good for the human spirit.  It also leverages the large network of charitable non-profits this country has and allows us to ultimately get rid of another government program that is full of abuse. Most of all it allows for the human touch. When a welfare worker issues an EBT card that can be used anywhere for anything, there is no community built; there are no human souls impacted by that transaction outside of the important fulfillment of a real need. However, when a person admits they need help, and asks a local food bank or a church for food, they get a person coming along side of them. They get moral support as well as nutritional support. They often find a family able to connect them with work or training programs.

And more importantly, the people giving get to see people in need. They get to see the realities of the 

situations people are in. There is compassion instead of annoyance. There is humility instead of pride. There is gratitude for what we have and generosity toward those who have not. Every mouth that is fed is also feeding the soul of both the giver and receiver.

I’d like your vote…

I’m Dwayne Boulden and I approve this message.

Lunch at the diner

Today I walked into the local diner for lunch. Being mindful of such things, I immediately noticed the guy at the end of the bar with a 9mm Glock on his hip.  He was not in uniform, but did have his badge next to the gun. 

Immediately I felt happy to know a cop was there in case anything went down, not that I assume that will happen, or live in fear, but simply as a matter of factual recognition. My co-worker and I sat down next to him leaving the obligatory We're-not-with-him space at the bar. I did not really think twice until I saw another person, in plain clothes approach our weapon carrying neighbor. A second; and third openly carried firearm, this time by an attractive young lady in a pants suit and gentleman in a golf shirt; their badges the only indicator that they were law enforcement. At this point, I took a quick look around to take a better inventory of my surroundings. This is important because as a citizen who carry's a gun with me every day, I have to stay mindful that officers can sometimes react poorly to cries of "a guy with a gun" so I take a quick nonchalant check on my shirt to make sure I am covered completely.  I am. As I looked around though, I notice two more officers, another lady and another guy in a t-shirt and jeans (who had the most built shoulders of anyone I have ever seen) openly carrying their weapons in normal everyday clothes.  

Five semi automatic firearms in a diner that seats 25 people. More importantly, I look over and see families. I see kids 6 year olds, 10 year olds with their moms out for a play date perhaps. I see people, moms and dads and business men and servers completely comfortable surrounded by weapons for the sole reason that those weapons are wielded by someone that although they look like normal citizens has a badge.

Recently during the Newtown Starbuck's situation an overly emotional editor for a local paper attempted (and in many ways succeeded) to elicit negative response toward gun owners by painting a picture. It went something like, "Image you are sitting in Starbuck's with your kids, when ARMED people walk in!" Is that not exactly what happened in my diner today? People with kids and people with guns in the same room, eating the same greasy food, drinking the same average coffee.

See the people who do not understand the gun culture imagine that if law abiding citizens take to regularly carrying guns then the result would be a bunch of crazy gun owners walking in to a coffee shop with camo outfits, face painted with green and black stripes waving a Gadsden flag, or maybe even a guy in a ghillie suit, holding their weapons out shoving their weapon down your throat literally or figuratively. Its just not like that. Why? Because I am that guy. I walked in with my firearm on my hip. If those armed officers were not there today, there still would have been people with kids and (at least one) person with a gun sitting together in the same diner. You may not have seen it, you may not have known, but there I was, weapon holstered quietly concealed eating my lunch. 

This is a scene that plays out all over the place. People with guns in our everyday life. However, because they are mostly concealed society has forgotten they are there. As generations pass, less people carry because its not visible. Out of sight out of mind. When a person stops a tragedy, they are called a hero, but quietly and with no regard for what they used. When a person succeeds in committing a crime however, their weapon is what is demonized.

I'm circling here because there is a point. Lets go back to the officers in the diner. If guns are evil and need to be removed from our society, then officers should conceal their weapons. We adults would know they are there as a necessary evil, but kids should not even know they exist. If on the other hand guns only take on the character of those wielding them, then why leave open gun carry to criminals and cops. why should a business man, or a mom out shopping with her kids not also be seen regularly to be carrying. The gun is there either way. Enough people carry on a regular basis that in any situation where more than 20 people are around, there is likely a gun. Why should our society not want to see firearms being associated to responsible citizens as opposed to only seeing them in the hands of criminals and cops, or worse, as depicted by Hollywood. It would seem we are not showing our true colors. 

There is a growing movement around the country, including here in CT, that where it is legal to openly carry a firearm, law abiding people are doing just that. Many prefer to carry concealed from a tactical point of view, but are carry openly to raise awareness. The next time you are out and see someone with a gun on their hip take a look. If you don't see a badge, don't worry. Its legal, good and right. If you want, feel free to ask the person about it. I'm sure they would be open to discussing. 

4 Temperaments

The Four Temperaments takes the traditional psychological categories and adds spiritual insights. As a protestant, I don't agree with all the theology here, but this has been amazing to reflect on (something as a Sanguine I am terrible at doing).  If you have ever thought a DISC profile was helpful, this will knock your socks off.

Atlas Shrugged

"You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was "only a compromise": you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe. A man who has no right to life, has no right to values and will not keep them." -John Galt

Having spent 6 months reading this monster of a book, I find it only fitting to convey a few takeaways. If you have not read it, it is incredibly difficult to sum up an 1,100 page book. To try would be foolish. Take the below comments as thoughts and ideas as you read.

The plight of the industrialist has not changed. 
Modern society leans too often toward marginalizing the affects of the real game changers.  The men who built this country, the men who truly innovated, names like Rockefeller and Westinghouse, John Pierce and Barney Oliver... we pretend to think that we now deserve inherently the fruits of their invention as if we could have thought of it ourselves, or worse, that their innovations are now meaningless because they have been copied so often or enhanced through iterative improvement.

We must restore a sense of value in ones work. When an individual provides value to millions, or provides a lot of value to a few, they should reap the rewards of that value.  It is only fair for a successful person to be successful financially.  Too many people live under the false notion that their need dictates what they should be paid, either by an employer or by welfare. For a company or community or nation to be successful, people must add more value than they take.  For ever person who fails to do so, another must add that person's value without taking it.  Would that we would return to that ideology.

Our morality of selflessness
"I swear-by my life and my love of it-that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Ms. Rand is unapologetic in her lack of appreciation for selflessness. It is not an altogether undesirable position.  Is not the cry against the "greedy corporations" or "evil wall street" that they are living for their own sakes at the expense of other men? Can you simply add the second clause, nor ask another man to live for mine,  and make selfish ambition work?  Alternatively, is the total and utter pursuit of selflessness found in many religious circles really godliness?

One need only look to the critics of John Piper's Christian hedonism to find a visceral reaction against the idea that allowing yourself to be self-serving is evil. However, his position is not without support from some of the greats. CS Lewis writes: If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and to earnestly hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I suggest that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling around with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. 

I believe that in either case the root evil is found in the idea of allowing or expecting another person to live for your benefit. To combat this evil, Ayn Rand proposes a society where you live fully and only for your own benefit and so long as you expect everyone else to be doing the same it will all work out.  I would propose that a less radical solution is possible, and far more realistic.  If every man would take the position that while still refusing to ask another man to live for their sake, they pursue adding more value than they need and consuming less than they make so that if they should succeed they are in a position materially and mentally to assist others and if they should fail, that another might show the same charity they were willing to give.

This moral code is consistent both with the selflessness required to avoid hedonism and fulfill our communal obligations to those less fortunate while acknowledging that the pursuit of our own good is right and honorable.


Politics
It would be easy to normalize this book into the political landscape of today, but doing so would not do the work justice. The complexity of Ayn Rand's pure capitalism approach is unrealistic, and while I would love to think that it could work, it won't. The libertarian in me would love to have the freedom to do whatever I wanted. However, its obvious that people are going to take advantage of others both by accepting what is unearned, or earning more than they should via others.  Short of a catastrophic meltdown akin to the book's version of events, human greed and lust for power will be an ever present force by which we need to have some measure of control and regulation. The only way to change that is through a return to love and respect for other individuals.  The best way I know to do that is a return to true godliness (not what we see in most of the Christian community today). No political ideology will change the root problem of man's evil.

Gun Control, Demystified

Or, We are more together than apart


With so much hate and divisiveness being used in this debate, my goal rooted in love, is to point out a few observations, hopefully build a framework for real dialog, and challenge each side to come together.

All gun control laws can be grouped into one of three categories. Laws that punish criminals, laws that attempt to limit criminals’ access to guns, and laws that attempt to limit everyone’s access to guns. (There is a fourth, laws that track all guns. This is a non-issue as no one has made any real headway in trying this, so we will leave it out of this discussion.)

The first, laws that punish criminals, is obvious. We have laws on the books for sentencing law breakers with time in prison, even the death penalty in some places.  The very basis for our criminal justice system is rooted in the idea that corrective discipline is normal and works.  It works as a deterrent to crime, and as a corrective system for those who have committed crime. The effectiveness of this model is outside of the scope of this discussion, but generally this is an area where people are in agreement. We want “easy wins” where we can make “real change” with "bi-partisan support"; this is where we can have it. Enforce and make stricter gun crime punishments.

The second, laws that stop criminals from getting guns, there is also large support from both sides. While I am disappointed at the NRA for not backing proposals in this category like universal background checks, etc., I am not surprised.  The NRA is a lobbying group, and you would expect them to take the far position.  However, more and more pro-gunners are following their lead and buying into this position of “give up nothing!” "I can sell my gun to anyone I want" just does not work today. As gun owners we need to recognize that we have a crime problem, and that we have a responsibility to limit access to criminals.

The last, laws that limit everyone’s guns, is where the majority of the division is happening.   On this topic, we are polarized.  Laws in this group include the so-called assault weapons ban, and the high capacity magazine ban.  The problem with these laws is that they are actually limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.  Now those rights are limited all the time, and there is precedent to do so, but the negative reaction from the gun community is based on the idea that we see no real benefit to society as a result of these changes. I have discussed this at length, so I do not want to do so here.

The problem is that all of these topics are getting lumped into one big group of “upcoming gun control laws” and because we do not have the proper framework to discuss them, we fall into all or nothing discussions.

Instead, lets work to understand each proposed law.  Classify each in one of these categories. Universal background checks are not at all designed to limit law-abiding citizens access to guns, therefore we should support them.  Those who support banning certain guns need to understand that you are squarely in the third section which has dangers, and yelling about it wont help. If law abiding citizens are going to give up more of their rights, there needs to be a solid discussion on the benefits of doing so before you will convince anyone.  Educate yourself. Its hard for the gun community to take seriously calls to ban “assault weapons” when you still think they are “spraying bullets into a crowd.” Even better, show some measure of respect for the people that actually have knowledge of the topic. Their, our, opinion should matter to you because we own these devices, and we understand them. Recognize that this is and will be the hardest aspect of these types of proposals, and you should expect pushback. Ignoring that pushback puts you no better than the change nothing crowd.

If we come together, we can gain real traction on the first and second groups of laws.  If we have open and healthy discussions on the third, there may be some compromises that can be reached.   However, if we continue to argue from opposing viewpoints with all or nothing positions, we are no longer on the same team fighting for the same goal. We have instead embraced us versus them, battling each other, instead of crime.

On guns, God, love and hate.

Nothing is so clearly and poignantly evil than the murder of innocent lives.  Evil is rooted in hate. Hatred of self, hatred of others when fully realized leads to the most deplorable of evil acts.  Perhaps this is at the heart of the apostle’s letter when he says, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” or in Jesus’ equating of murder to hatred in the sermon on the mount. 

The idea that at the root of murder is hate stands as a warning to us all.  When we allow ourselves to be filled with hate, we succumb to the evilest passions of our being.  To hate is to reject God and the message of our common depravity instead embracing our supposed goodness over the object of our hatred.  Hatred is the very antithesis to God, because God is love.

The recent communal discussion on guns and the role they play in our society has taken a significant turn toward hatred. With time passing farther away from the latest tragedy many pro-gun individuals feel free to express this hatred through mockery or disdain for anything or anyone who would ‘take our guns away.’ Similarly, still impassioned by the heinousness of this crime others are calling people lunatics, or wishing people rot in hell who simply believe their rights are being taken away. This too is rooted in the same hatred. 

It’s easy to hate. It’s our natural stance because we are evil. The sad irony is that the church who has supposedly been set free from evil control is leading the charge from both sides. 

Instead, choose Love.  Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your father in heaven. If you love only those who love you what reward is in that?  Everyone does that. Its time for us to recognize that we must love one another in spite of our differences. We must realize that people are in different places, and have different ideas.  We must remove the idea that we are better then anyone else.

I can foresee the supposed hypocrisy in this statement. Am I not saying the same thing; that I am somehow better than those that have chosen to hate. I am not. I have done the same things. I have enjoyed the quiet ridicule of those who have no idea the difference between a M-16 and an AR-15. I have, at times, allowed the idea that because I may know more than others on this topic, I am somehow better then they are. However, I am not the standard, God is. His rule, his morality is the standard, and I am consistently trying to reject those ideas and replace them with love. That love may not lead to my changing my opinion on a topic, but it aught to change the way I interact with another person who holds a different idea. I have seen very little love. 

We are a deeply divided people, which means the light that shines from our choosing love instead of hate will shine brighter than ever. 

Open Letter to our State officials

Many individuals are concerned over the upcoming barrage of new gun legislations. Obviously, emotional responses are strong as people weigh the freedoms we have vs the real danger of crazies and criminals. We are too close to Newtown to not be deeply effected.

What I fear is that we have succumb to the polarization of us vs them.

For the gun rights folks, we fear our reduction in liberty and invoke the spirit of Henry Tucker who said: "[The second amendment] may be considered as the true [safeguard] of liberty. Wherever the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty is on the brink of destruction."

Our counterparts say that the death of innocent children is just such a pretext worth prohibiting liberty. Theirs is a powerful and palpable stance in these troubled days.

Obviously, there will be outspoken people from both extremes however, I believe that most constituents want realistic measures put in place that reduce crime. It is critical that we recognize this mutual goal together and find the common elements where we can come together. Without setting that framework, we will argue and fight and nothing positive will prevail.

My request, my challenge as you go to Hartford is to fight the root causes. Those are the issues with bi-partisan support.

Those root issues are weak families, weak community, weak morals, and a culture of death.

You want the Assault weapons ban in place? We already have it. You want magazine limits, they wont help, but go for it, or let Washington do it. But do not pat yourselves on the back when those are done because all you have done is slapped a bandaid on a bullet wound. Those are the simple, surface level issues. If CT is going to lead, we need to tackle how to restore strong families, communities and morals to our culture. We need to restore love and respect for every human being. We need to respect authority, serve those less fortunate, and ensure that people are free to talk about their problems with someone who loves them. I’m not sure how you legislate those issues. I have a few ideas, but that’s your job. However, simply banning a few guns is not enough. These deeper issues are what we desperately need resolved.

Newtown

So much has happened in the past week.  The Newtown shootings are on everyone's mind approaching Christmas.  We live close to the city and our church serves many from that school. Immediately after, I felt really prompted to declare this:

Evil is fighting, and I think I understand the game plan, for out of this tragedy we will place more restrictions on our people driving further division. We will place stronger locks on our doors, furthering the loss of community, and we will further outsource to our government the ugly business of working with the evil people around us. When the only fix to this is to restore our love and community to every person around us. Placing boundaries around ourselves is not the answer for evil will find a way through them. Restoring our love for one another, even, nay especially, those we find challenging, restoring a strong sense of community, and restoring the spiritual strength of God's moral standards is the only solution to these problems. We cannot rely on the government to do these things. Only the Church has the power and source of strength needed to rise above. We must stop the hate, the vitriol, and the obsession with earthly things and live our lives as if we are in a spiritual battle for the lives of individuals, because we are. That is no longer a cliche. Lives are at stake. Wake up church. Work in us, Lord. Start with me.

So far we have seen legislation for more gun control, talk of stronger doors in schools, and more mental health oversight from the government.

I too have, and expect to continue to engage discussions about practical politics, but I do not want to forget the main issue.  Without real community change on a spiritual level, all the politics in the world will not help. We need to keep this as the real front issue.  Fill us Lord, with your Spirit and have us engage in loving your creation.  

Love and sin and the Christian church

It would appear (at least by my facebook stream) that gay rights is the leading topic of the day, and that many of my Christian friends have decided that being gay today is basically akin to being black 60 years ago.

The running position is that the Bible does not talk about homosexuality, or that somehow those passages do not apply, and we cannot tell others how to live in this area. In 50 years we will look back and be ashamed that we had said, "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit" because that sentiment is left to old guys who make great chicken.

We (and I am speaking to Christians at this point) fear, for sake of offending, calling sin, 'sin.'  This fear is justified.  The church is notoriously bad at finding a pet sin and responding really badly to that. If I were gay, I would fear the church. The immorality of not loving our fellow man is absolutely the same as being black 60 years ago and for that the church in general should be ashamed.

If you are reading this and you are gay, then the message I would want you to know is that you deserve to be loved by your fellow man (something Christians have failed at a lot), and the message of the Bible is that you are deeply loved by God, just as you are. His desire is to reveal himself to you and to engage in a relationship with you. If that is intriguing, pick up a Bible. Try starting with the book of John. There are churches where you are welcome.

The rest of this is a theological exercise which is small and unimportant in comparison to that greater truth.

To my fellow Christians, I would propose that this issue of calling sin, 'sin' is of higher importance than we put it.  The ability to simply dismiss a Christian tenant because its no longer popular with our culture is dangerous. Being jerks to people we disagree with is just as dangerous and needs to be addressed (just not in this post.)

There are a few key theological premises in order to continue:

Scripture is authoritative.
Scripture has the ability to define boundaries to our actions that we are then obligated to follow as Christians.

The first is critical, because for many, the idea that scripture is authoritative has fallen out of vogue. We run to our "Spirit lead" thoughts for our basis of morality. We ended up with many Christians on either side of the pendulum.  One side worshiping scripture in place of God, and the other listening only to their own sinful minds attempting to discern the "will of the Spirit." There must be an authoritative foundation on which to build our beliefs and to test the ideas we come up with. That foundation is Scripture. Scripture needs to have been given to us by God, and the contents of it (including Paul's writings) need to be authoritative. Without that, there is no basis for this discussion. You are free to think whatever your heart tells you is right. I don't trust my heart that much.

The second question should be obvious as well, however, there are those who accept the idea of the Bible as an old and outdated book that has no practical meaning to our lives. If that is true, then there is also no basis for the discussion.

Assuming then that in order to have this discussion there must be an agreement that scripture is authoritative and can set moral boundaries (to which crossing them is sin), that leads us to the question of what "sins" are sins, and specifically is homosexuality one of them.

If you really want all the verses, a google search can provide a plethora of verses on the Bible and homosexuality, but I would focus primarily on this passage:

Romans 1:18-32

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

There is so much here to unpack as we see a clear progression.

God gives truth. Man is unrighteous and therefore suppresses the truth.  The truth is plainly obvious, but by not honoring God, they become self focused in their thoughts, and in what they worship. God gives them up to their natural sinful bents (one of which is homosexuality). After so much time, they lose sight of the moral framework God established so much that they start giving approval to those who practice immorality.

There is not a single integrous reading of this scripture that does not take homosexuality and place it into a list of sinful practices that is against God's revealed plan for morality.  There is no way around it.  However! there is also no way around reading this passage and somehow placing homosexuality as some higher form of sin than any other.  Gossips, slanderers, boastful, heartless, ruthless.  These characteristics are equated to the same state of debased mindset as homosexuality.  We cannot therefore treat homosexuality differently than any other sin* without having that be simply our cultural lenses distorting our view of sin.  All sins are equal.

For way too long, we have allowed certain sins to be acceptable, while others are absolutely unacceptable in any form.

Let me illustrate with an example.  I knew a guy once who was a liar. He was deceitful all the time to the point where people defined him as such. He was so comfortable with lying that he did so even when it made no sense to. He taught a Sunday school class. If a gay couple walked into their church it would be a total uproar, but this guy was fine.  His sins were acceptable. Theirs was not.  Both are wrong.

Sin is sin is sin.  We all deal with sin issues in our lives. A Christian recognizes they are sinning and allows the Holy Spirit to convict them, asks forgiveness, and attempts to change the immoral behavior. But when a Christian moves from "I am struggling with this sin" to living freely and openly in that sin, then something has happened. That difference is described in verse 24, 26, and 28 as God giving them up to their sinful desires. At that point, the person is living in unrepentant sin.  Does not matter if that sin is pride, strife, gossip, or homosexuality.

The reaction from other Christians should be the same.

So in order to understand how we should react to a gay person we should use a little golden rule tactic. Pick the sin you are most comfortable with from the list above. For me its envy. I struggle with a fair share of envy, so I can relate. Then ask the following questions:

Can a person be born with a natural bent toward envy?
If a person tells me they struggle with envy, would I feel a visceral reaction to them? How would I respond? Should I love them or hate them.
If I see that a person is envious, should I be disgusted by them, or love them in spite of their sin?
Would a person who is envious visiting my church for the first time feel welcome?
If it was obvious that the person had a serious problem with envy, would we let them serve as leaders?

Now, switch all the envy's to homosexualilty and while I will not tell you how to answer these questions, I can only say your answers must match.

You see, its time to stop picking and choosing our sins, and to get serious about holiness across the board.  That means removing the cultural stigmas of certain sins while getting serious about the lesser sins that we allow to grow in our hearts because we think they are no big deal.


* There is one caveat that sexual sin differs from other sin in that it directly involves the defiling of the Holy Spirit's temple (I Cor 6:18) but this would mean that homosexuality is a sexual sin akin to fornication or pornography, etc. 

One of my favorite pictures

I have some friends, some honest friends, and honest friends are few; 

My pipe of briar, my open fire, A book that's not too new.

Robert Service

Communication has changed, again.

Today I received a fairly frustrated phone call from my mother because we do not return phone calls. Her frustrations are warranted. Its not that we do not return calls as much as it is we never get those messages. This incident is the straw that is breaking a rather large camel back in my mind regarding a topic that I have been dwelling on for a year. Communication has changed, but some are reacting against it as bad.

There are a lot of facets to this. Different forms of communication, different age groups and what they expect, etc. There is way too much material to distill in one blog post (there's a measure of Irony in that statement), but there are a few big themes that need to be addressed.

Also, I want to make sure I am not sounding dismissive or disrespectful of my mother. I love her as much as the day I was brought home. She has had the largest single influence on my life, and I value her. It bothers me that she is frustrated, and partially, this post is an explanation and a plea to get her to understand that our “lack” of communication does not indicate a lack of care and love.

So here goes:

Communication has changed, again.

When humanity moved from oral tradition to written word, we did not end all oral communication. However, when something mattered, there was a realization that written word was a more efficient means of communication and therefore it was adopted as the method of choice. Oral tradition was used either when importance was lower, or when for nostalgic reasons it was preferred. As a part of that change, we created completely new ways of organizing our words. Instead of narratives we could use letters that were previously not able to be done well with oral tradition alone. The use of acrostics and other devises used to help memory were no longer needed. Communication changed.

The same cycle happened when telephones came out. We did not end written communication, but phones became the preferred method for important information. Letters were left for unimportant or nostalgic times, and we created new ways to have conversations via short person to person phone calls.

With the advent of digital communication (encompassing everything from email to facebook to IM), communication has once again found a better form of communication. In order to adopt that communication we need to recognize the deficiencies of telephone communication and change the way we communicate with one another. This is no different than the normal progression of advancement.

Better?

The jury is out in some folks minds that this communication is better. If it is not a better form of communication, then this is all moot, and we should all use phones. So why is digital communication better?

Its guaranteed. When you initiate a phone call you have an at best 50% chance of getting through to the person. That number is significantly lower as we increase the complexity of our lives. For me to take a phone call, I need to be physically near the phone and not already engaged with another person in conversation. This is a shift as in days past, when the phone rang, you stopped what you were doing and answered the phone. The world was constantly being interrupted by the Bell. Why? Why would we constantly interrupt our day when the phone rang? Because the message on the other line might not be accessible to us again if we did not answer right then! This is why answering machines were so fascinating to people. It allowed for a freedom that at least if we were not near the phone, the message would be received. It added a guarantee that the message would be heard at some point. This is at the heart of why email is so much better. It is guaranteed even more efficiently than phone call/voice mail.

Its Efficient. Digital communication allows you to initiate a communication when it is convenient (like phone calls) which allows the other person to receive and respond to that communication when it is convenient(unlike phone calls). This increases efficiency on both ends as the person initiating the communication is guaranteed it will be received at the first possible time, and the receiving person is not disturbed half way through a thought or conversation. Business know this. Even when you want to initiate a phone call, we send an email to ask the other party to setup a time that is convenient. People know this. Our phones were not good enough, we had to add text messages and email to the phone. The most ironic part of today was that I received the transcript of my mom's voice mail via email before I ever received the voice mail!

Facewhat?

Facebook, twitter, and blogs are amazing. They implement all that we just discussed on a macro scale. I get to log on when it is convenient to me and get updates on the people I follow. I have an amazing case study in my own family. I have two teenage neices and two teenage nephews. One each from two siblings. One is regularly on facebook, and one is not. In order for me to get a good understanding of the happenings of their respective lives, I need to find out what they like and dislike. I need to know every day what they are doing, and even how they are feeling about what they are doing. What is their dreams, who are their friends, etc. See where this is going? I get this every single day with one set. If I were to do this for the other set, I would need to call them every day, but we just said phone communication is inefficient and inconvenient. Lets put this into real mathmatical terms. I check facebook about 20 times a day. 15 of those are about 20 seconds where I read statuses and get quick updates. About 5 of those, I spend about 1 minute actually responding to a status update or two. Add in there once a day where I find a link from someone that I read which helps me understand that person better. So being generous, lets say I spend 10-15 minutes a day actually on facebook reading statuses hearing people's communications, and responding. From this time I know my neice likes All Star Weekend, Dr. Suess, and Anime. I know she cares about inner beauty more than but not exclusive of outer beauty. I know when she is down and when she is happy. I can normally infer when a boy is involved with either emotion.

Of my 250+ friends on facebook, the alrogithms assume I care about 25 or so, because I know this level of detail on about that many people. That is 15 minutes that I get to choose to understand 25 people. Imagine all of them were calling me every time I heard a cool new song or saw a sale on star wars cookie cutters or just watched the coolest trailer for The Lorax'. Now imagine they had to call all 200 of their friends! That's what it was like 20 years ago.

For my other set that I uncle, I normally try to call my sister every so often. We do not always connect because of the way phones work. When we do connect, we normally try to get an update on all the family since we are finally connected. Those updates coupled with less facebook updates give me a pretty good overview of where they are and what is going on in their lives, but I definitely feel more connected with the facebook family with less effort - and we almost NEVER call.

Kids these days...

The argument I hear from so many older folks is that kids can't communicate. The same kids that carry 4 conversations at a time via facebook, text, chat, or IRC or are connected to 1000 friends and follow another 1000 tweeters somehow do not know how to communicate. What is true is that they are not great at communicating the way you do.

That is like the great story teller commenting that the author writing on paper can't communicate. Or when telephones came out, the art of writing a letter dropped significantly. Further, holding people accountable for how well they return phone calls today is like holding a person accountable for how well of a letter writer a person was when they could call, or how good of a story teller they were when they could write. The world is moving on to a better form of communication, and we cannot (or should not) expect people to be good at communicating poorly after they have tasted the better way.

For us, we have chosen to use the modern tools to communicate efficiently. If you try to call us, there is a small chance we will answer, but generally, we will not. This should not be seen as a failure to communicate or a lack of love or concern, but instead that we have chosen to make ourselves available on other, better ways of communicating. We will eventually check voice mails and return phone calls, but not nearly as quickly as we will respond to efficient means of communication.

Emergency!

In the case of an emergency, would you call or write a letter? The logic stays the same. In this age, sending an email or writing on my wall on facebook is the new phone call. It is far more likely to be received.

I love my family. Both those that choose to communicate primarily via phone or via facebook. I hate the fact that our choosing to communicate via newer means may lead to the impression that we do not care to communicate.  That is not the case at all!  

T-Mobile

I love T-Mobile.  There is simply no other way to define the feelings I have for this company. To build the proper context, I need to go back a bit. In college, I was a Verizon client. At the time Verizon was the best and had amazing phones.  The most amazing feature on this phone:

You could see the caller on the outside without flipping it open! w00t! This was a big deal, and was a specific reason I went with verizon.

I made the switch to T-Mobile because Verizon had a significant price increase about 7 years ago.  We needed phones for our new life in CT, and I did a full comparison and landed on T-Mobile. In the time since I have had multiple cell phones and T-Mobile's home phone service. Phones have included flips, sliders, Blackberrys, Windows Mobile and Androids. I am one of those clients that work the system.  Emboldened by a friend with connections at a T-Mobile store I learned tricks about how to get into the right section of customer care, and have over time found that there are multiple ways to tweak your account for the best cost savings. I also abhor contracts, so for many of my phones I have gone without a contract further complicating our account history with phone swaps and the like. All of this to say I am an atypical customer. When you look at my account, it is painful to figure out what is going on with it. However, I have never had a situation where the first or second person I talked to at customer care was not intelligent, English speaking and capable of fulfilling my request to my satisfaction.

In contrast, I had to work with the AT&T customer service for my former employer.  It was always trouble. I had to tell them where to look in their own system to find my information. Noone knew what they were doing.

So imagine my delight when the news broke that the AT&T deal to buy T-Mobile was officially canceled, and that T-Mo's mother company would get $4M out of the botched deal!  More importantly, they will get their joint roaming agreement.

T-Mobile has been ranked for 4 years as the highest in customer satisfaction.  They have the least expensive plans (less now with "value" plans). Call quality and coverage matters if you live in a major city.  Otherwise, most carriers have similar experiences in smaller cities. There is simply no good reason to go with a more expensive plan when T-Mobile has such a strong phone offering and quality service.  It simply is a great company, and I love it.

Please.  If you are considering cell phones this Christmas, think T-Mobile. I have no stake (I own no T-Mobile stock) except that as a customer I would really like to see this company succeed. With the AT&T deal off, T-Mobile will need to produce more sales. Fortunately, switching will save you significant money, so take the plunge.

Rooftops!

Watch "Jesus Culture - Rooftops" on YouTube

Forget if this song has made it to Sunday Morning Worship yet...

It is official

I officially gave my notice this week that I am resigning my post at my current company. I have accepted a new position with a small software firm here in CT, and I am thrilled to be coming on board.  This will represent a whole new set of challenges and opportunities.

Thank you to all my friends at Preferred Utilities Manufacturing Corp.  It has truly been a joy to work with the team there.  I wish you all the best in the coming season.

Occupy wall street

I was happily ignoring the recent political banter until I realized the OWS movement had tea-party like resilience.  I went hunting for what these folks actually want, and unfortunately, all I could find was a ridiculous list that I have to imagine do not represent the actual movement's desires.

From what I could find, this nebulous movement essentially claims that the 99% poorest people are frustrated at the 1% richest people, and wants those people to somehow alleviate those frustrations, though no one has said how.  Sub-issues include large CEO salaries for failing companies, "Corporate greed" (whatever that is) and re-unionizing america, etc.

What I do not understand is there is no better avenue for wealth building then a corporation.  I do not mean wealth building for the 1%, which happens to be true, but corporations are the best option for wealth building for the 99%.  A corporation exists to make money for its shareholders.  There is no greater accountability model than a publicly owned company making money for shareholders.  In OWS terms, the 99% work for the company which is run by a 1% person whose entire goal in life is to make the 99% more money.

The problem is, as always, one of education.  Our school system does not teach investing.  It does not teach the masses how to use the system to build wealth.  It says, go to work, pay into a 401k and don't worry about it.  Then, after years of realizing others are getting rich, and they are not, they revolt saying, "You should give up your money to me."  Because no one understands how the system works, corporations are left to run amok.  Everyone wants to blame the housing crisis on greedy bankers, because hundreds of thousands of people believed the bank had their best interest at heart.  You should never expect a corporation to make a decision that benefits you, unless you are a stockholder.  Knowing that is empowering.

Here is an example.  McDonald's goal is not to sell you a healthy meal.  Its goal is to build wealth for its shareholders.  It has determined through market forces what products will sell the most, and it sells it.  There are people who are well paid to determine which fries the people will buy, and how to do so profitably.    If you are invested in McDonald's, you want McDonald's leadership to make the very best decision that will build wealth since that is its goal. As consumers, our goal is (should be) to be healthy. If everyone decided McDonald's hamburgers were terrible for you, and stopped buying them, McDonald's would stop selling them.

So to the OWS folks, I would say stop trying to force others to make good decisions for you.  It is not the corporation's job to keep you healthy, or wealthy. They have done nothing wrong by building wealth. Learn the system so you can benefit from it. Focus on educating the consumer instead of simply placing blame on executives who are doing exactly what they have been asked to do, make money.

----------------------

Now that that is said, there should be a question as to whether wealth building should be the primary focus of a company. In a corporation who answers to its investors, this is the goal by definition. In a small business, without the accountability to the shareholders, the owner/operator have the freedom to pursue whatever goal they want. That could be wealth, status, human equality, feeding the poor, whatever. I believe that companies should be driven by a higher purpose then just wealth building, but that is not what the corporation model is for.

Perhaps its time to forget...

I know it is unpopular to think this way, but I cannot help but wonder what real value there is in “never forgetting” a tragic incident. 9/11 is my generation's Pearl Harbor. We were attacked for sure. Our government has the responsibility to pursue justice and combat terrorist forces in the world, but what value do I personally gain by reliving the evil memories of what took place? If you have been personally effected by this event, the loss of a loved one is a terrible memory no matter the circumstances. For those people these events are significantly more potent, and they will truly never forget. For me, however, removed from any personal loss, I look at the events of 9/11 and see a different picture.

If you remove yourself from the emotional responses and look at the facts only, there were 2,800 innocent lives lost and a major economic cost. To put that into perspective, an estimated 6,000+ people die every day in America normally. Even worse, over 3,000 more innocent lives are terminated every day in America's abortion clinics. If you are like me, you are fighting inside yourself right now. “Every life is precious,” you say, “and every life taken by evil is something to grieve over.” But in perspective, we put up with as much evil every single day in this country as we did on 9/11 without the emotional response that you see on a day like today.

So what truly drives the “Never Forget” ideology? What is the emotional response to a tragedy that sends people to facebook and twitter with moments of silence, and proclamations of unending response?

Is it Patriotism?

There is certainly a lot of patriotism surrounding 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror. I have to assume that this emotion is definitely a part of the “Never Forget” response. There is a healthy amount of patriotism to have. Remembering our citizen's generosity to charities is an example.

Is it fear?

In the early response, fear ruled. This, of course, was the terrorist's goal. People are paralyzed by fear. The entire countries air industry was destroyed by the fear that was caused. I remember watching Dick Clarks' Rockin New Years Eve 2002 worried the whole night that an explosions was imminent. Fear is powerful. And it is healthy to a degree. Fear motivates us to be safe. If our goal in never forgetting is to stay vigilant against evil through awareness, then perhaps that can be of value.

Is it Hate?

My greatest concern is that hate drives our desire to “Never Forget.” Make no mistake: Muslims did this. It was a religious act in their “holy” war. Acknowledging that fact is not hateful it is fact. Harboring resentment and bitterness toward those responsible is. Being inflammatory in your conversations is hate-mongering. Unfortunately many comments made today were made in this manner. It takes “Never Forget” from a position of positive reflection on the response to evil to negative reflection toward evil.

Is it prejudice?

Does the hate we have drive us to be suspicious of ever Muslim we come in contact with? When we see women in the stores wearing a hijab do we second guess them as potential terrorists?  Are we going to be treating Muslims like two generations ago treated the Japanese?  Are we going to think about Muslims the way Vietnam vets think of the Vietnamese?  In those cases, there was a specific race.  In this case it is a religious group, but the response is the same.  Prejudice.  

For most people, I'm sure there is a mixture of the above. For me it was. I have found over the last ten years that my responses are changing.  Please read this in all humility, but I would rather be filled with love and care for others then for justice. I would rather see the good in a situation, then the bad. I am not always this way, but I am coming around, and I believe it to be the 'better' response. I understand the “Never Forget” sentiment as a whole, but there are aspects in my own response to this tragedy that I would rather forget.   

Sunday Morning Worship

A beautiful simple prayer!

Gloating - A test of character

"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles." 

Proverbs 24:17

This week's loss of Military life from the same group of soldiers that caught and killed Usama Bin Laden has seen some interesting responses around facebook and twitter. There seems to be a deeper appreciation for these folks than other military who have passed on before.  My theory is that the same vitriol and celebratory nature we saw when Usama Bin Laden was killed has now extended into the recent deaths and because they came from the same group that killed UBL, there is intrinsic value to their lives not otherwise given by the masses.  I do not blame folks for this.  We connected with that group of soldiers in May, and we still feel a sense of connection with them.

Thinking back, it was so easy to look at the loss of life and denounce the celebration.  I remember saying how each life is valuable, and that while justice is required, and God has given authority to the governments of men,  we should never celebrate a loss of life.  It seemed so easy to follow Proverbs 24:17 in that moment, and I felt rather good of myself.

Such feelings are rarely safe.  God has, in recent days, directed a series of events that have lead to a small measure of my justification and my "enemy's" fall.  It is a fairly minor thing, yet I find myself fighting the man inside of me who would love to celebrate and rejoice.

No matter what stage the situation is set, or how large or small its relevance to the world, God cares what happens in your heart's response (significantly more than your outward actions).  It shows the real position of your heart toward Him.

Books I've read so far

2011 has seen a specific uptick in my reading regiment.  I try to spend my free time reading as opposed to watching since reading helps me fall asleep better.  Here is the list of completed books:

1984
Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire
4 hour work week
Net Force
Hidden Agenda
PHP and MySQL Web development for dummies (yes I read a reference book - I'm a nerd at heart)
Alas, Babylon (my favorite book of all time)
The Bourne Identity
In fifty Years we will all be chicks (didn't actually finish this, but went far enough to say i read it)
Decision Points
The Zombie Survival guide
Freakonomics
Superfreakonomics

While I mostly read for entertainment and to "wind down" at night and these books have been enjoyable and interesting, the actual value of most of these books boarders right around superfluous.  For the last 1/3 of this year, I think I need to find some books that will challenge my "inner man" a little more.