What do Christian leaders in other countries, especially Third World countries, think of Christians and their leaders here in the United States?
The January 2005 issue of Charisma magazine has fascinating remarks by various people in ministry from other countries. Here is a sampling, with their comments edited for brevity. I think there just might be a few general themes here. Do ya think maybe?
From church planter and trainer Natalia Schedrivaya, Russia
"Church growth to me involves spreading the gospel to places where no one goes or wants to go."
I will come back to this phrase when I write about the topic of apostles in a few days.
She also says she believes in making disciples. I'm going to talk about that in a few days too.
She continues,
"Materialism is the No. 1 enemy of Russian churches. Today pastors are not praying about how to reach those who have not heard the gospel. They are praying, 'God, how can I have a megachurch.' This is where the church in America has been confused. What are our priorities?"
Are we listening yet?
From pastor Sunday Adelaja, Ukraine (largest church of Europe with 30,000 members)
"There is not a sense of desperation for God in the United States.
[Another] problem I see in the American church involves money. The American church is spending most of its money on things that are not priorities of God. If the church doesn't understand the priorities of God before spending its money, then abuse is inevitable."
From the president of the All India Christian Council, Joseph D"Souza, India (he does work among the Dalits--the untouchables)
"The American church has made four critical errors that account for its lack of substantial growth:
1. American Christians have put God in a comfortable box [so that they might have a comfortable life].
2. Faith in the United States has become consumer-oriented. What is God going to do for me?
3. There is an inadequate understanding of suffering and persecution.
4. The American church has ignored the fact that it is no longer the epicenter of global Christianity. The activity of the church has moved to the Southern hemisphere.
From pastor Samuel Lee, Holland
He asks the question, why aren't American churches growing compared to churches in other countries? Here are his conclusions:
1. We must embrace the miraculous. Because America has so many comforts, people don't seem to need miracles. But we need the Holy Spirit's agenda.
2. We must reject Hollywood tendencies. Some churches in the United States look like they are sponsoring fashion shows or TV programs.
3. We must forsake pride. Outsiders read our character, not our bulletins.
Then he says "I wish my American brothers realized how hurtful it is to the cause of Christ when they focus so much on material things."
From pastor Jackson Senyonga, Uganda
He says there are several key reasons why the American church has not grown as rapidly as churches in Africa:
*The American church is more program-oriented than 'presence-oriented'
*The people come to church on their terms and pastors serve those terms rather than God.
*The obedience level is too low.
*America has no time for God.
*The American church suffers from prayerlessness.
From pastor Kong Hee, Singapore
He says that Christians need to do four things to see the same kind of growth they are experiencing in Asia:
1. A commitment to soul-winning
2. A commitment to power evangelism
3. A commitment to discipleship
4. A devotion to missions
From overseer of the African-based denomination RCCG, Enoch Adeboye, Nigeria
"If the American church is to experience the rapid growth that other parts of the world are currently experiencing, then it must have revival. But revival is expensive. It is not cheap. There is a price to pay for revival. A revival takes us back to the basics of Christian principles that are fast disappearing from the Christian horizon. This includes a disciplined life of sincere holiness and a life devoted to prayer and fasting."
I see some patterns in these statements. For example, too much materialism was mentioned by most of the ministry leaders. It's seeming to me more and more that this is one of the key problems that will ultimately destroy the American church.
I hope we will listen to these people and of course some of our own "unpopular" prophets like David Wilkerson, Jacob Prasch and Andrew Strom instead of the wolf prophets with their vague generalities and 60-70% accuracy rate.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Excess
Abstain from the appearance of evil.
I Thess. 5:22
Let your moderation be known to all men
Phil. 4:5
The problem isn't people having money. The problem in both the secular and Christian worlds is....excess.
*Kenenth Lay [Enron] and his wife have successfully shielded much of their money in annuities which will bring them around $900,000 a year.
*Gary Winnick [Global Crossing] dumped his Global Crossing shares two years before the collapse, netting $700 million for Mr. Winnick.
*And this stuff is still going on. Case in point:
The new chairman of Krispy Kreme donutes, whose stock by the way is plunging as we speak, will earn $760.00 an hour. If we are talking about 20 hours a month, although he probably will work longer than that, he will still make a paltry $1,459,200.00 a year. The sad thing about these "hot" CEO's hired to pull their failing companies out of the ditch is it usually doesn't work. But what does happen as the companies finally fall, fall, fall is the CEO gets fired or resigns with millions in his pocket. Meanwhile the employees and the stock holders are left holding the bag. An empty bag.
*It isn't unusual anymore to hear of Christian ministry heads receiving one million dollars or more in salary. This doesn't include travel and "ministry" yachts, jets, condos, etc.
*One ministry head is currently building a 3 million dollar home overlooking the ocean in a very pricey area of Soputhern California.
*Another ministry person has built a seven mansion "compound" for her family and relatives.
Some people think this is fine. They think people can do what they want with their money. Well, yes, but it depends on how you make it. Do the people who contribute to these ministries understand these people are receiving these salaries? Do they also know that many ofo these heads pack their Board with relatives and sycophant friends? Most of their supporters have no idea where the money goes since they are never told. If they ask, the reply often is "none of your business."
It's interesting to me to how many churches never show their congregational members an accounting statement each year. I recall only being in one church that regularly did that. It was an evangelical Congregational church. There is a clue here. It was Congregational--get it? it was run by elders selected by the congregation. The presbytry form of government which in my opinion is the most Biblical.
Who selected, elected, or even appointed some of these ministry leaders to their positions? Oh I forgot...yes..Gaawd did. For those not form the South US..that's translated God. Sorry..South..I just could not resist..:) I don't mind if in your blogs you take potshots at my left coast state of CA.
Let's contrast this with Ben and Jerry, the ice cream guys. Their philosophy is to pay the top dog not over 7 times the person on the lowest salary rung. So if you want to pay the CEO $210,000 a year, then the custodian and file clerk gets $30,000 a year. But they probably don't pay that much to the CEO, so obviously he or she might not get alot of money. Does that compromise the quality of their CEO? A few years ago Ben and Jerry held a contest for a CEO. They asked candidates to write an essay telling why they wanted to be the CEO of Ben and Jerry's. The company was flooded with entries, many from people who were making a whole lot more working somewhere else. But people wanted to get in on this novel approach of concentrating on the product and the employees rather than the money.
I just read the list of the best of the Fortune 500 companies for whom to work. The number one on the list was a company I had never heard of since they are only in 4 states. It's a market. A market! Here is their motto: Employees first,; customers second. Amazing.
I wrote in another past post about this small ministry to the Philippines I support.
It is named Joint Heirs With Christ Ministry. It is run by a native Philippino and his American wife. I believe He's in his 70's now with a heart condition, but still tramps through the jungles at least once a year preaching the gospel to unreached tribes in the southern Mindinao section. 98% the money given to their ministry goes directly to the Philippines for ministry. The other 2% is for basically for their monthly neewsletter, ministry's accountant adn other such expenses. They take no salary and live in a low cost mobile home on his Social Security (which must not be much since he worked as a school custodian before "retirement") and her teacher's retirement.
They have a Board of Directors that are NOT their relatives and are under a denominational covering. They preach the [orthodox] gospel although with a balanced Pentecostal slant.
Why aren't we supporting these types of ministries? Why don't we take the Bible seriously and be more moderate in our own lives and support those that are also moderate, instead of the loud, arrogant, pitiful noveau riche ministry heads?
Tomorrow we shall hear from Christian ministers outside of the United States to hear what they think about our "brand" of Christianity here.
I Thess. 5:22
Let your moderation be known to all men
Phil. 4:5
The problem isn't people having money. The problem in both the secular and Christian worlds is....excess.
*Kenenth Lay [Enron] and his wife have successfully shielded much of their money in annuities which will bring them around $900,000 a year.
*Gary Winnick [Global Crossing] dumped his Global Crossing shares two years before the collapse, netting $700 million for Mr. Winnick.
*And this stuff is still going on. Case in point:
The new chairman of Krispy Kreme donutes, whose stock by the way is plunging as we speak, will earn $760.00 an hour. If we are talking about 20 hours a month, although he probably will work longer than that, he will still make a paltry $1,459,200.00 a year. The sad thing about these "hot" CEO's hired to pull their failing companies out of the ditch is it usually doesn't work. But what does happen as the companies finally fall, fall, fall is the CEO gets fired or resigns with millions in his pocket. Meanwhile the employees and the stock holders are left holding the bag. An empty bag.
*It isn't unusual anymore to hear of Christian ministry heads receiving one million dollars or more in salary. This doesn't include travel and "ministry" yachts, jets, condos, etc.
*One ministry head is currently building a 3 million dollar home overlooking the ocean in a very pricey area of Soputhern California.
*Another ministry person has built a seven mansion "compound" for her family and relatives.
Some people think this is fine. They think people can do what they want with their money. Well, yes, but it depends on how you make it. Do the people who contribute to these ministries understand these people are receiving these salaries? Do they also know that many ofo these heads pack their Board with relatives and sycophant friends? Most of their supporters have no idea where the money goes since they are never told. If they ask, the reply often is "none of your business."
It's interesting to me to how many churches never show their congregational members an accounting statement each year. I recall only being in one church that regularly did that. It was an evangelical Congregational church. There is a clue here. It was Congregational--get it? it was run by elders selected by the congregation. The presbytry form of government which in my opinion is the most Biblical.
Who selected, elected, or even appointed some of these ministry leaders to their positions? Oh I forgot...yes..Gaawd did. For those not form the South US..that's translated God. Sorry..South..I just could not resist..:) I don't mind if in your blogs you take potshots at my left coast state of CA.
Let's contrast this with Ben and Jerry, the ice cream guys. Their philosophy is to pay the top dog not over 7 times the person on the lowest salary rung. So if you want to pay the CEO $210,000 a year, then the custodian and file clerk gets $30,000 a year. But they probably don't pay that much to the CEO, so obviously he or she might not get alot of money. Does that compromise the quality of their CEO? A few years ago Ben and Jerry held a contest for a CEO. They asked candidates to write an essay telling why they wanted to be the CEO of Ben and Jerry's. The company was flooded with entries, many from people who were making a whole lot more working somewhere else. But people wanted to get in on this novel approach of concentrating on the product and the employees rather than the money.
I just read the list of the best of the Fortune 500 companies for whom to work. The number one on the list was a company I had never heard of since they are only in 4 states. It's a market. A market! Here is their motto: Employees first,; customers second. Amazing.
I wrote in another past post about this small ministry to the Philippines I support.
It is named Joint Heirs With Christ Ministry. It is run by a native Philippino and his American wife. I believe He's in his 70's now with a heart condition, but still tramps through the jungles at least once a year preaching the gospel to unreached tribes in the southern Mindinao section. 98% the money given to their ministry goes directly to the Philippines for ministry. The other 2% is for basically for their monthly neewsletter, ministry's accountant adn other such expenses. They take no salary and live in a low cost mobile home on his Social Security (which must not be much since he worked as a school custodian before "retirement") and her teacher's retirement.
They have a Board of Directors that are NOT their relatives and are under a denominational covering. They preach the [orthodox] gospel although with a balanced Pentecostal slant.
Why aren't we supporting these types of ministries? Why don't we take the Bible seriously and be more moderate in our own lives and support those that are also moderate, instead of the loud, arrogant, pitiful noveau riche ministry heads?
Tomorrow we shall hear from Christian ministers outside of the United States to hear what they think about our "brand" of Christianity here.
Friday, January 28, 2005
More from the Past
Two posts back I wrote a review of the book The Progress Paradox. The theme of the book is life in the past and how much better we have it today. But despite this, we seem to be unhappier than our ancestors. Here are some more descriptions of life in the past, specifically here the 1500's. It was sent to me in email from a chat room friend. I like to see these types of things because it brings me into the reality of today as the best time and place (The West)in history. In addition to the facts from the past are the history of certain idioms and phrases we use today but have no idea where they came from.
*Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
*Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
*Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
*There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other dropp ings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
*The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying "dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until when you opened the door it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway.
Hence the saying a "thresh hold."
*In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added thing s to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much
meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while.
Hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."
*Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and "chew the fat."
*Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoni ng death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
*Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or "upper crust."
*Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a "wake."
*Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
*Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
*Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
*There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other dropp ings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
*The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence the saying "dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until when you opened the door it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entranceway.
Hence the saying a "thresh hold."
*In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added thing s to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much
meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while.
Hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."
*Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around and "chew the fat."
*Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoni ng death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
*Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or "upper crust."
*Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. Hence the custom of holding a "wake."
Thursday, January 27, 2005
A Typical Day--Financially
In the last post I brought up the question the book The Progress Paradox asks, "when do you have enough?"
I want to challenge you to think outside the box than most Americans. So let's go through a typical day and see where we can cut costs. Then we will explore different options to do with the savings. For an average Christian family, let's say our "family" will be a husband, wife, and two children.
7:00-Family rises. They take their shower and baths. Then shave and do the makeup routine. Do we really need an expensive electric razor? Do we really need all the facial creams?
7:30-Breakfast. Do we really need to spend all of that money on expensive procesed juices and cereal? Can't we juice our own oranges? With an electric juicer it takes just a moment. Healthier too.
8:00-Get dresssed. Do we need to get our clothes from Saks Fifth Avenue? Well, it depends on what we do. If we are a lawyer, perhaps yes. But for most people, well...uh..no. We can get our athletic brand shoes at a discount place for $40 instead of a department store for $75. And do we really need to go to Macy's for our underwear? I mean, who is going to see it that much?
8:30-Go to work/school/shopping. Do we really need a Jaguar? What will suffice for our family? Do we need the latest knick knack while Chrisitans in other countries have almost nothing?
9:00-5:00-Do we really need to buy our coffee at an expensive place? Do we even need coffee? Caffeine is a drug you know. Do we need to go out to lunch everyday? Perhaps we do, depending on where we work and what we do. In some occupations it's expected to go out to lunch. For others, perhaps once or twice a week out instead of every day. But at lunch let's drink water, at least some of the time. All that sugar (or the sugar substitute in diet drinks) is bad for us. And soda, coffee/tea costs money.
6:00-Dinner. We don't need processed quick dinners or all that fast food. Let's cook fresh.
7:00-Why does every child and adult in the family need their own TV and computer? Is this really wise? And why do we need the newest one every year? Or even every three years?
Marketing-Are we taking time to cut out those coupons and to use our market card to double the coupons? I hope so.
I bet that family could save $100.00 just by toning down their lifestyle. And I bet their neighbors and friends would hardly notice. A single person could probably sve at least $30.
Now, what can we do with that $100?
*Pay down debt
*Help a friend, neighbor, relative, church member who recently was laid off; or due to sickness, cannot work; or has high medical bills they cannot pay.
*Give to a deserving missionary or small ministry (not those ones where the ministry leaders take a salary of a million a year and build 3 million dollar homes).
*Help support an elderly widow or widower who is at the point of having to eat cat food.
*Support a child through a good ministry like World Vision.
Any thoughts?
I want to challenge you to think outside the box than most Americans. So let's go through a typical day and see where we can cut costs. Then we will explore different options to do with the savings. For an average Christian family, let's say our "family" will be a husband, wife, and two children.
7:00-Family rises. They take their shower and baths. Then shave and do the makeup routine. Do we really need an expensive electric razor? Do we really need all the facial creams?
7:30-Breakfast. Do we really need to spend all of that money on expensive procesed juices and cereal? Can't we juice our own oranges? With an electric juicer it takes just a moment. Healthier too.
8:00-Get dresssed. Do we need to get our clothes from Saks Fifth Avenue? Well, it depends on what we do. If we are a lawyer, perhaps yes. But for most people, well...uh..no. We can get our athletic brand shoes at a discount place for $40 instead of a department store for $75. And do we really need to go to Macy's for our underwear? I mean, who is going to see it that much?
8:30-Go to work/school/shopping. Do we really need a Jaguar? What will suffice for our family? Do we need the latest knick knack while Chrisitans in other countries have almost nothing?
9:00-5:00-Do we really need to buy our coffee at an expensive place? Do we even need coffee? Caffeine is a drug you know. Do we need to go out to lunch everyday? Perhaps we do, depending on where we work and what we do. In some occupations it's expected to go out to lunch. For others, perhaps once or twice a week out instead of every day. But at lunch let's drink water, at least some of the time. All that sugar (or the sugar substitute in diet drinks) is bad for us. And soda, coffee/tea costs money.
6:00-Dinner. We don't need processed quick dinners or all that fast food. Let's cook fresh.
7:00-Why does every child and adult in the family need their own TV and computer? Is this really wise? And why do we need the newest one every year? Or even every three years?
Marketing-Are we taking time to cut out those coupons and to use our market card to double the coupons? I hope so.
I bet that family could save $100.00 just by toning down their lifestyle. And I bet their neighbors and friends would hardly notice. A single person could probably sve at least $30.
Now, what can we do with that $100?
*Pay down debt
*Help a friend, neighbor, relative, church member who recently was laid off; or due to sickness, cannot work; or has high medical bills they cannot pay.
*Give to a deserving missionary or small ministry (not those ones where the ministry leaders take a salary of a million a year and build 3 million dollar homes).
*Help support an elderly widow or widower who is at the point of having to eat cat food.
*Support a child through a good ministry like World Vision.
Any thoughts?
Monday, January 24, 2005
TheProgress Paradox
I just finished reading an absorbing book, The Progress Paradox, by Gregg Easterbrook, senior editor of the New Republic. The subtitle explains the theme of the book: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse.
Many Christians today are entering into discussions of how much is too much.
The Progress Paradox meets this question head on. The author’s central question is why Americans (and also some Europeans) aren’t happier today since most of them, including the poor, are exceptionally better off than even in the 1950’s. My interest in this [secular] book is to answer this question for Christians since many of them are also experiencing this same malaise. Is perhaps the goal of the seeker churches to try to seek to relieve this malaise by gearing their message and organizaiton toward the materialism-minded society, thinking this surely will "draw" them? Or will just plain old-fashioned gospel preaching do the same? Some good questions to ponder.
To begin this discussion let’s look at some of the statistics Easterbrook presents.
Average People Are Better Off Today
*Almost 23% of US households have an income of at least $75,000.
Contrast: In 1890 less than 1% of American households earned the then-equivalent of $75,000
*A cheeseburger at McDonalds in the 1950’s cost a half-hour of a typical worker’s wages.
Contrast: today the same cheeseburger at McDonalds costs 3 minutes of work.
*Of all important goods and services, only education and health care costs more in terms of work-hours than in the 1950’s.
*Compared to the 1950’s we have reduced mortality as advanced medical procedures exit today that did not exist then; less air pollution, the ability to fly anywhere at anytime at an affordable price, and the ability to talk to anyone at anytime affordably.
*In the 1950’s the average home had 2 bedrooms and one bath and had 1,100 sq. ft.. Contrast: Today the average home has 3 bedrooms and 2 ½ baths and has an average of 2,250 sq. ft. Houses today also have air conditioning and heat which was unthinkable just a generation ago.
*In 1900 21% of men and 20% of women were engaged in white collar work.
Contrast: Today 58% of men and 52% of women work in white-collar occupations.
*In 1850 the typical work week was 66 hours. In 1900 it was 53 hours.
Contrast: Today it's 40 hours.
*The typical man today has 29 more hours per week than their 1880 counterparts. Women today have 30 more per week than her 1880 counterpart.
"A century ago the rich lived in heated homes, rode in carriages, traveled the world, enjoyed unlimited food and wine, had a college education, had access to physicians, attended the theater and worked in a comfortable office. The typical person lived in a tenement, an unheated farmhouse, or a crowded brownstone with no indoor plumbing, worried about the next meal, walked or rode unreliable streetcars, rarely traveled further than their place of birth and if they did travel , did so in the steerage compartment of ships. They received minimal health care, ate heavily salted poor quality food, never completed high school, went to carnivals as entertainment that they could afford and either farmed or did factory work., mining or sweatshop sewing. There was no medical insurance until after WWI.
In the first decade of the 20th century air in the cities was thick with factory smoke and sparks from overhead steam trains. Pigs roamed the streets of New York and Philadelphia eating garbage thrown out of windows. The common mode of transportation was horse drawn wagons meaning there was horse manure everywhere. Only 2% of dwellings had running water. Most people died before age 45."
Without enumerating pages and pages of statistics, let me summarize the thesis that Easterbrook is provin. He lists stats that shows practically everything is getting better. Areas of improvement include crime, the environment, smog, oil reserves, health, traffic deaths, illegal drugs use, cigarette smoking , the divorce rate, alcohol consumption, children born out of welock, equal rights for minorities and women, global politics (for example, during the WWII era there were only about 12 democracies. Today there are about 80).
Men and women in the middle class or above in the United States live better today than 99.4% of human beings who ever existed. In fact they live better than past royalty.
Portable Carpeted Dog Steps
Easterbrook writes that the problem today is the blurring of needs and wants.
For example, here are some of the gizmos in a 2001 Christmas catalog he received:
Heated bubble-bath massager-$129.95
Electric cigar-tip cutter-449.95
Microwave flower press-$29.95
“High Performance” earmuffs-$24.95
Insect vacuum-$59.95
He then quotes George Will:
“A need is in contemporary America a 48-hour-old want.”
Easterbrook says that this becomes the tyranny of the unnecessary. Once focused on our wants, our thoughts can never be at peace, because wants can never be satisfied. It isn’t keeping up with the Joneses anymore. Now it is superceding them in a frantic race for more things. This is causing major health problems since we super size food, super size cars that take more gasoline, and super size everything else which makes us work longer to pay for these things.
More of Everything Except Happiness
As the gaining of things became more and more of a frantic race, charts of people considering themselves to be happy showed a falling line since the 1940’s.
Here is the problem in Easterbrook's words:
“In the 1950’s most American families lived in small houses, owned one car, and few attended college. But they were in good spirits because they had expectations for earning and possessing more . But today as those expectations have been met, there are not too many things look forward to. That is what is making the society unhappy. People have more time to be anxious over the smaller things now."
And that is the problem of our society today. Put in nutshell, I would summarize Easterbrook’s conclusions like this:
People have everything they need and want so there is no where else to go. Since Americans are competitive and always wish to progress further in every aspect of their life, this condition leads to frustration and eventually unhappiness.
So what is the implication of this for the church? I see many people, both Christians and those in the secular society, wishing once again to get back to the simple life. Many are leaving cities and suburbs for smaller cities and rural areas. Many are leaving high stress jobs in order to work for less at home or at smaller companies or different more non-power occupations.
But beyond this is the elephant in the room. And Easterbrook tackles this one in the last few chapters of the book.
Should we have more and more of a luxurious lifestyle while the poor suffer, both in our own country (and the poor members of our churches too), as well as in the world?
In the book of Acts, people sold their lands and other properties and brought them to the feet of the Apostles who then distributed them to the poorer ones in the Christian community. The BIG issue today would be trust in our churches to really distribute the funds appropriately. There are also sub-issues emanating from this larger one, like churches supporting their own widows instead of the government, what about capitalism--is it really God's gift to the economic world? I will be tackling these issues over the next few days.
Many Christians today are entering into discussions of how much is too much.
The Progress Paradox meets this question head on. The author’s central question is why Americans (and also some Europeans) aren’t happier today since most of them, including the poor, are exceptionally better off than even in the 1950’s. My interest in this [secular] book is to answer this question for Christians since many of them are also experiencing this same malaise. Is perhaps the goal of the seeker churches to try to seek to relieve this malaise by gearing their message and organizaiton toward the materialism-minded society, thinking this surely will "draw" them? Or will just plain old-fashioned gospel preaching do the same? Some good questions to ponder.
To begin this discussion let’s look at some of the statistics Easterbrook presents.
Average People Are Better Off Today
*Almost 23% of US households have an income of at least $75,000.
Contrast: In 1890 less than 1% of American households earned the then-equivalent of $75,000
*A cheeseburger at McDonalds in the 1950’s cost a half-hour of a typical worker’s wages.
Contrast: today the same cheeseburger at McDonalds costs 3 minutes of work.
*Of all important goods and services, only education and health care costs more in terms of work-hours than in the 1950’s.
*Compared to the 1950’s we have reduced mortality as advanced medical procedures exit today that did not exist then; less air pollution, the ability to fly anywhere at anytime at an affordable price, and the ability to talk to anyone at anytime affordably.
*In the 1950’s the average home had 2 bedrooms and one bath and had 1,100 sq. ft.. Contrast: Today the average home has 3 bedrooms and 2 ½ baths and has an average of 2,250 sq. ft. Houses today also have air conditioning and heat which was unthinkable just a generation ago.
*In 1900 21% of men and 20% of women were engaged in white collar work.
Contrast: Today 58% of men and 52% of women work in white-collar occupations.
*In 1850 the typical work week was 66 hours. In 1900 it was 53 hours.
Contrast: Today it's 40 hours.
*The typical man today has 29 more hours per week than their 1880 counterparts. Women today have 30 more per week than her 1880 counterpart.
"A century ago the rich lived in heated homes, rode in carriages, traveled the world, enjoyed unlimited food and wine, had a college education, had access to physicians, attended the theater and worked in a comfortable office. The typical person lived in a tenement, an unheated farmhouse, or a crowded brownstone with no indoor plumbing, worried about the next meal, walked or rode unreliable streetcars, rarely traveled further than their place of birth and if they did travel , did so in the steerage compartment of ships. They received minimal health care, ate heavily salted poor quality food, never completed high school, went to carnivals as entertainment that they could afford and either farmed or did factory work., mining or sweatshop sewing. There was no medical insurance until after WWI.
In the first decade of the 20th century air in the cities was thick with factory smoke and sparks from overhead steam trains. Pigs roamed the streets of New York and Philadelphia eating garbage thrown out of windows. The common mode of transportation was horse drawn wagons meaning there was horse manure everywhere. Only 2% of dwellings had running water. Most people died before age 45."
Without enumerating pages and pages of statistics, let me summarize the thesis that Easterbrook is provin. He lists stats that shows practically everything is getting better. Areas of improvement include crime, the environment, smog, oil reserves, health, traffic deaths, illegal drugs use, cigarette smoking , the divorce rate, alcohol consumption, children born out of welock, equal rights for minorities and women, global politics (for example, during the WWII era there were only about 12 democracies. Today there are about 80).
Men and women in the middle class or above in the United States live better today than 99.4% of human beings who ever existed. In fact they live better than past royalty.
Portable Carpeted Dog Steps
Easterbrook writes that the problem today is the blurring of needs and wants.
For example, here are some of the gizmos in a 2001 Christmas catalog he received:
Heated bubble-bath massager-$129.95
Electric cigar-tip cutter-449.95
Microwave flower press-$29.95
“High Performance” earmuffs-$24.95
Insect vacuum-$59.95
He then quotes George Will:
“A need is in contemporary America a 48-hour-old want.”
Easterbrook says that this becomes the tyranny of the unnecessary. Once focused on our wants, our thoughts can never be at peace, because wants can never be satisfied. It isn’t keeping up with the Joneses anymore. Now it is superceding them in a frantic race for more things. This is causing major health problems since we super size food, super size cars that take more gasoline, and super size everything else which makes us work longer to pay for these things.
More of Everything Except Happiness
As the gaining of things became more and more of a frantic race, charts of people considering themselves to be happy showed a falling line since the 1940’s.
Here is the problem in Easterbrook's words:
“In the 1950’s most American families lived in small houses, owned one car, and few attended college. But they were in good spirits because they had expectations for earning and possessing more . But today as those expectations have been met, there are not too many things look forward to. That is what is making the society unhappy. People have more time to be anxious over the smaller things now."
And that is the problem of our society today. Put in nutshell, I would summarize Easterbrook’s conclusions like this:
People have everything they need and want so there is no where else to go. Since Americans are competitive and always wish to progress further in every aspect of their life, this condition leads to frustration and eventually unhappiness.
So what is the implication of this for the church? I see many people, both Christians and those in the secular society, wishing once again to get back to the simple life. Many are leaving cities and suburbs for smaller cities and rural areas. Many are leaving high stress jobs in order to work for less at home or at smaller companies or different more non-power occupations.
But beyond this is the elephant in the room. And Easterbrook tackles this one in the last few chapters of the book.
Should we have more and more of a luxurious lifestyle while the poor suffer, both in our own country (and the poor members of our churches too), as well as in the world?
In the book of Acts, people sold their lands and other properties and brought them to the feet of the Apostles who then distributed them to the poorer ones in the Christian community. The BIG issue today would be trust in our churches to really distribute the funds appropriately. There are also sub-issues emanating from this larger one, like churches supporting their own widows instead of the government, what about capitalism--is it really God's gift to the economic world? I will be tackling these issues over the next few days.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
The Home Group: Where and When
WHERE
I am passionate about geographical home groups. Defined, they are groups of people living in the same or nearby zip codes. Here is why I feel churches need to organize their groups geographically, with the exception perhaps of churches in teeny tiny towns.
*People don't have far to travel to their group, thus encouraging attendance.
*If group memebers need help, group members are nearby to assist. It is more discouraging to help someone who lives 30 minutes from you.
*One purpose of the home group is prayer for their neighborhoods, their city, their schools; and for the people who run those institutions. If I am attending a group in another city, will I really be interested in who runs for their school board?
*If done correctly, and I stress the word correctly, prayer walks around schools and distressful areas can really change those areas as well as open up an area for evangelism.
*Does a visitor I wish to bring to the group really want to go to a group 30 minutes away?
With a database program of church members and attendees, it should be a snap to put people into groups by zip code(s). If on the other hand, a church wishes to allow people to pick their group, encourage them to pick one nearby.
One Giant Problem
I sense God talking to His church about integrating people.
-Poor people and wealthier ones
-Married and single
-Uneducated and highly educated
-Disabled and non-disabled
-People from good home backgrounds and people from abusive and severely dyfunctional home backgrounds.
-People who grew up in good chruches and people who didn't/or people who didn't grow up in any church
-Various racial and ethnic groups together in the home groups
If groups are geographical, this can actually work against integration since similar socio-economic-racial groups tend to live in the same area. One solution would be to meet at the church with each group consisting of perhaps two different zip codes.
So, people in a wealthier section and people in a poorer section would be in the same group. But instead of making one sub-group travel to another sub-group's area which might be uncomfortable, the church would be a neutral meeting place. I think the best way is to meet geographically in homes for about a year and then if a particular church is very racially mixed, begin combining two groups and meet at the church.
WHEN
The options of when to meet are:
once a week, every other week or once a month.
Once a month really works against people getting acquainted with each other and cohesing as a group. Once a week works for some churches but it really takes commitment. If people are too busy, evey other week works fairly well.
Some groups have a more serious study-prayer meeting the first meeting of the month and then a more relaxed dinner/picnic/potluck type of meeting the second meeting of the month. This accomplishes the overall goal of balance: prayer, teaching, sharing-fellowship.
And finally,
SOMETHING THAT NEVER WORKS
I am going to contradict many home group advocates including Rick Warren. I am absolutely opposed to the use of the home group as an evangelism tool--------
at least for the first year. The reasons for this should be obvious but for some strange reason isn't to many pastors. The group needs to meld together and trust each other first. This is difficult enough with new visitors (Christians) coming in. But bringing in non-Chrisitans IMO puts a fly in the ointment. The group will know when it is ready for outreach and can accomodate unbelievers. They shouldn't be pushed or made to feel guilty if they cannot do this right away.
However, after a year or so, groups that aren't outreaching probably should at least be challenged to do so.
In summary
In this series I've tried to bring basic common sense apporaches for beginning and maintaining home groups--home groups that last for years, not fall apart after three months. If good organization goes into the planning before the groups even begin, 3/4 of the battle is won. On the other hand, if churches think home groups will simply start and run by themselves, they are in for a real sad surprise.
I am passionate about geographical home groups. Defined, they are groups of people living in the same or nearby zip codes. Here is why I feel churches need to organize their groups geographically, with the exception perhaps of churches in teeny tiny towns.
*People don't have far to travel to their group, thus encouraging attendance.
*If group memebers need help, group members are nearby to assist. It is more discouraging to help someone who lives 30 minutes from you.
*One purpose of the home group is prayer for their neighborhoods, their city, their schools; and for the people who run those institutions. If I am attending a group in another city, will I really be interested in who runs for their school board?
*If done correctly, and I stress the word correctly, prayer walks around schools and distressful areas can really change those areas as well as open up an area for evangelism.
*Does a visitor I wish to bring to the group really want to go to a group 30 minutes away?
With a database program of church members and attendees, it should be a snap to put people into groups by zip code(s). If on the other hand, a church wishes to allow people to pick their group, encourage them to pick one nearby.
One Giant Problem
I sense God talking to His church about integrating people.
-Poor people and wealthier ones
-Married and single
-Uneducated and highly educated
-Disabled and non-disabled
-People from good home backgrounds and people from abusive and severely dyfunctional home backgrounds.
-People who grew up in good chruches and people who didn't/or people who didn't grow up in any church
-Various racial and ethnic groups together in the home groups
If groups are geographical, this can actually work against integration since similar socio-economic-racial groups tend to live in the same area. One solution would be to meet at the church with each group consisting of perhaps two different zip codes.
So, people in a wealthier section and people in a poorer section would be in the same group. But instead of making one sub-group travel to another sub-group's area which might be uncomfortable, the church would be a neutral meeting place. I think the best way is to meet geographically in homes for about a year and then if a particular church is very racially mixed, begin combining two groups and meet at the church.
WHEN
The options of when to meet are:
once a week, every other week or once a month.
Once a month really works against people getting acquainted with each other and cohesing as a group. Once a week works for some churches but it really takes commitment. If people are too busy, evey other week works fairly well.
Some groups have a more serious study-prayer meeting the first meeting of the month and then a more relaxed dinner/picnic/potluck type of meeting the second meeting of the month. This accomplishes the overall goal of balance: prayer, teaching, sharing-fellowship.
And finally,
SOMETHING THAT NEVER WORKS
I am going to contradict many home group advocates including Rick Warren. I am absolutely opposed to the use of the home group as an evangelism tool--------
at least for the first year. The reasons for this should be obvious but for some strange reason isn't to many pastors. The group needs to meld together and trust each other first. This is difficult enough with new visitors (Christians) coming in. But bringing in non-Chrisitans IMO puts a fly in the ointment. The group will know when it is ready for outreach and can accomodate unbelievers. They shouldn't be pushed or made to feel guilty if they cannot do this right away.
However, after a year or so, groups that aren't outreaching probably should at least be challenged to do so.
In summary
In this series I've tried to bring basic common sense apporaches for beginning and maintaining home groups--home groups that last for years, not fall apart after three months. If good organization goes into the planning before the groups even begin, 3/4 of the battle is won. On the other hand, if churches think home groups will simply start and run by themselves, they are in for a real sad surprise.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Home Groups: Who
There are three "WHO's" to consider to have successful home groups.
First, WHO is going to be in charge of forming the home groups and WHO will be assisting them? Sadly, in some of the churches I've attended as well as churches of people I've talked to, the church puts someone in charge of forming the groups who really has little or no interest in doing this task. It's either part of their job description or the pastor asked them to do it. I find that if the coordinator doesn't have a passion and understanding of the WHY of these groups, the groups ultimately wither away.
Second, WHO will lead the groups? You would think churches would be more selective in choosing their group leaders. But I am finding that more and more churches are simply asking "who wants to do it"? I think this can be dangerous. I mean the axe-murderer could lead a group. Or, someone who is cultic and leads the group astray.
Holding "training" classes won't mature people in a few weeks. I recommend elders or what I call "near-elders" to be home group leaders. Near-elders are those who in a few years will probably be either elders or certainly eligible in a spiritually and emotionally mature sense.
Third, WHO will be supervising the groups? In one church I attended, some pastoral staff/elders had certain groups they were over and visited them regularly. It wasn't a big brother appraoch as they were just to be of assistance if needed. But they could also make sure the groups under them were on track. In my present church we have coaches over groups. He or she essentially does the same thing, except they don't visit their groups. That might be something they would rethink in the future.
So, if a person who believes 100% in the home group concept and understands the WHY of them--if this person is the coordinator with able assistants who also share this commitment, a third of the the home group formation is settled. And if mature, capable leaders are chosen who also share the home group vision, the second third of the formation is laid. The final third leg is correct and effective supervision of the groups.
Tomorrow we find out the WHERE.
First, WHO is going to be in charge of forming the home groups and WHO will be assisting them? Sadly, in some of the churches I've attended as well as churches of people I've talked to, the church puts someone in charge of forming the groups who really has little or no interest in doing this task. It's either part of their job description or the pastor asked them to do it. I find that if the coordinator doesn't have a passion and understanding of the WHY of these groups, the groups ultimately wither away.
Second, WHO will lead the groups? You would think churches would be more selective in choosing their group leaders. But I am finding that more and more churches are simply asking "who wants to do it"? I think this can be dangerous. I mean the axe-murderer could lead a group. Or, someone who is cultic and leads the group astray.
Holding "training" classes won't mature people in a few weeks. I recommend elders or what I call "near-elders" to be home group leaders. Near-elders are those who in a few years will probably be either elders or certainly eligible in a spiritually and emotionally mature sense.
Third, WHO will be supervising the groups? In one church I attended, some pastoral staff/elders had certain groups they were over and visited them regularly. It wasn't a big brother appraoch as they were just to be of assistance if needed. But they could also make sure the groups under them were on track. In my present church we have coaches over groups. He or she essentially does the same thing, except they don't visit their groups. That might be something they would rethink in the future.
So, if a person who believes 100% in the home group concept and understands the WHY of them--if this person is the coordinator with able assistants who also share this commitment, a third of the the home group formation is settled. And if mature, capable leaders are chosen who also share the home group vision, the second third of the formation is laid. The final third leg is correct and effective supervision of the groups.
Tomorrow we find out the WHERE.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Home Groups: Why?
In this series on home groups I am going to ask these journalistic questions:
who, why, where and when? How and what do not really apply.
By way of background, I have been in a few churches who have either had home groups or wanted ones but never could start them. I've learned what works and what I believe fails.
Today let's start with the question...why even have these groups? I mean afterall, they are a BIG pain to most church leaders. They take time and planning which = lots of energy.
I personally have come to believe they are mandatory no matter how small the church (well unless it is 10 people...:).
So here is the WHY.
For some reason, fellowship doesn't seem to be on the same level as worship, prayer, teaching and evangelism in most evangelical churches. And, fellowship doesn't happen while sitting in a pew or on a chair in a church service; or even a Sunday School class where the bulk of the time is teaching. Congregants vitally need to interact with each other on a weekly or at least biweekly basis, not twice a year at the church picnic or Sunday School class Christmas party.
Although I often disagree with some of the Vineyard's theology and approach, they do have one thing right--they are the kings of home groups. The Vineyard doesn't mess around with home groups..they STRESS them as almost mandatory. In fact at one time (they may still require this), in the main Vineyard in Anaheim, they only offered the prayer team ministry to those in their home groups. The rationale for this was people rattling around alone really have a more difficult time changing and growing in the faith than if they are interacting with others. When we get to the WHO post I will talk about the group makeup.
If churches don't have the "WHY even have home groups" question firmly settled, I find they waver and are not as supportive in the long run. This tends to allow groups and group leaders to drift off by themselves, many simply closing, and sadly a few wandering into cultic activity and teachings.
who, why, where and when? How and what do not really apply.
By way of background, I have been in a few churches who have either had home groups or wanted ones but never could start them. I've learned what works and what I believe fails.
Today let's start with the question...why even have these groups? I mean afterall, they are a BIG pain to most church leaders. They take time and planning which = lots of energy.
I personally have come to believe they are mandatory no matter how small the church (well unless it is 10 people...:).
So here is the WHY.
For some reason, fellowship doesn't seem to be on the same level as worship, prayer, teaching and evangelism in most evangelical churches. And, fellowship doesn't happen while sitting in a pew or on a chair in a church service; or even a Sunday School class where the bulk of the time is teaching. Congregants vitally need to interact with each other on a weekly or at least biweekly basis, not twice a year at the church picnic or Sunday School class Christmas party.
Although I often disagree with some of the Vineyard's theology and approach, they do have one thing right--they are the kings of home groups. The Vineyard doesn't mess around with home groups..they STRESS them as almost mandatory. In fact at one time (they may still require this), in the main Vineyard in Anaheim, they only offered the prayer team ministry to those in their home groups. The rationale for this was people rattling around alone really have a more difficult time changing and growing in the faith than if they are interacting with others. When we get to the WHO post I will talk about the group makeup.
If churches don't have the "WHY even have home groups" question firmly settled, I find they waver and are not as supportive in the long run. This tends to allow groups and group leaders to drift off by themselves, many simply closing, and sadly a few wandering into cultic activity and teachings.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Cell Churches vs. Home Groups
There has been a lot of discussion in the past few years about a phenomenon called cell churches. Cell churches are usually outside what is called the institutional church. The institutional church is basically what you would refer to as the denominational church, or at the very least a non-denominational church organized like a denominational one.
In cell churches there really is no supervisory bishopric. Many cell churches are in a loose confederation that are submitted to each other. Others aren't submitted to anybody. There usually is a teacher-leader of the group but the emphasis is on ministry for and by everyone in the group. Meetings are often held in homes but not always. Some rent a building or a room in a hotel. Some have children present and some have a separate service off in another room for the children.
Churchhome groups on the other hand are groups actually formed by churches. They either ask for volunteer leaders or ask certain mature ones to be leaders. They meet in homes, often being geographically organized. In other words, you go to the home group in your zip code. In most home groups the organization is similar to the cell church in that members have the opportunity to minister more. Also, the home group leader doesn't teach as much as the cell group leader since fellowship and ministry are the primary goals of the home group, unless of course it is designed around a Bible study.
So what is the difference then? ONE BIG difference. The cell church is not submitted to those that really can help them. On the other hand the home group at least has the capacity to be correctly supervised, although many churches flub on this point. In other words, the hoem group leaders are under the church, not out there "alone."
My prediction for the cell church is cultism because we have gone through this at least twice now since the late 60's and that is what has usually happened. But what about the church home group?
This will be the first of a series about home groups and what makes them successful....and what causes them to fail.
In cell churches there really is no supervisory bishopric. Many cell churches are in a loose confederation that are submitted to each other. Others aren't submitted to anybody. There usually is a teacher-leader of the group but the emphasis is on ministry for and by everyone in the group. Meetings are often held in homes but not always. Some rent a building or a room in a hotel. Some have children present and some have a separate service off in another room for the children.
Churchhome groups on the other hand are groups actually formed by churches. They either ask for volunteer leaders or ask certain mature ones to be leaders. They meet in homes, often being geographically organized. In other words, you go to the home group in your zip code. In most home groups the organization is similar to the cell church in that members have the opportunity to minister more. Also, the home group leader doesn't teach as much as the cell group leader since fellowship and ministry are the primary goals of the home group, unless of course it is designed around a Bible study.
So what is the difference then? ONE BIG difference. The cell church is not submitted to those that really can help them. On the other hand the home group at least has the capacity to be correctly supervised, although many churches flub on this point. In other words, the hoem group leaders are under the church, not out there "alone."
My prediction for the cell church is cultism because we have gone through this at least twice now since the late 60's and that is what has usually happened. But what about the church home group?
This will be the first of a series about home groups and what makes them successful....and what causes them to fail.
Monday, January 17, 2005
The Exciting Adult Sunday School Class
Yesterday I started attending a really exciting Sunday School class. What made this class so different?
In the usual ho-hum class, the teacher, who is many times a non-teacher type, drones on about something. But the next day you can never quite remember what that something was. In this type of class there is little or no application, challenge, or thinking required. And many times the students are treated like third-grade drop-outs.
Wittenberg Gate has a good post about how apologetics benefits believers. I say amen to that! Why not get a more apologetics approach into those boring Sunday School classes.
In the class yesterday we were asked to consider what the early Christians did as described in the book of Acts. Specifically we looked at the part about selling their property and laying the proceeds at the feet of the Apostles where it was distributed to those in need. Then we were asked these questions:
*Are we doing this in our lives and in our church?
*If not, why not?
*Should we be doing it? In other words, was the early church mistaken in how they carried out their mission? Did they misunderstand Jesus' message?
*How is this carried out in the larger society? Or can it be? Can it only be carried out in the church?
Some of the class members began to talk about the term social justice. Since we ran out of time, our teacher promised we would discuss this term next week.
Why can't every Sunday School class be like this one? But in order to carry this off, the teacher has to treat his or her students as mature and intelligent. I really don't come across this attitude much in most churches. There are however exceptions. In one church I attended, and it was a Pentecostal one at that, they had a lot of ex-druggies whose brains were so burned out it was amazing they even knew where they were. But the pastor didn't treat his congregational like dysfunctional idiots. His teachings were on a mature and at least a high school grad level,and were clear and understandable to anyone. And you know what happened? The congregation actually began to rise to that level of health and intelligence.
I am very tired of the "TBNish" approach of treating people like they are uneducated. Among the idiocy and dyfunctionalsim, there actually are a few who have risen to a better level. For example, one pastor on TBN that used to drive me loco has changed somewhat. I'm not sure I will be watching him every week, but yesterday I actually got something out of his teaching as it was so much more encompassing Biblically than it was before. And get this: he was making his congregational think Biblically instead of propagandizing them.
So, Let the Sunday School teachers reassess their approach and maybe the adult Sunday School hour could be the most exciting and productive on Sunday mornings.
In the usual ho-hum class, the teacher, who is many times a non-teacher type, drones on about something. But the next day you can never quite remember what that something was. In this type of class there is little or no application, challenge, or thinking required. And many times the students are treated like third-grade drop-outs.
Wittenberg Gate has a good post about how apologetics benefits believers. I say amen to that! Why not get a more apologetics approach into those boring Sunday School classes.
In the class yesterday we were asked to consider what the early Christians did as described in the book of Acts. Specifically we looked at the part about selling their property and laying the proceeds at the feet of the Apostles where it was distributed to those in need. Then we were asked these questions:
*Are we doing this in our lives and in our church?
*If not, why not?
*Should we be doing it? In other words, was the early church mistaken in how they carried out their mission? Did they misunderstand Jesus' message?
*How is this carried out in the larger society? Or can it be? Can it only be carried out in the church?
Some of the class members began to talk about the term social justice. Since we ran out of time, our teacher promised we would discuss this term next week.
Why can't every Sunday School class be like this one? But in order to carry this off, the teacher has to treat his or her students as mature and intelligent. I really don't come across this attitude much in most churches. There are however exceptions. In one church I attended, and it was a Pentecostal one at that, they had a lot of ex-druggies whose brains were so burned out it was amazing they even knew where they were. But the pastor didn't treat his congregational like dysfunctional idiots. His teachings were on a mature and at least a high school grad level,and were clear and understandable to anyone. And you know what happened? The congregation actually began to rise to that level of health and intelligence.
I am very tired of the "TBNish" approach of treating people like they are uneducated. Among the idiocy and dyfunctionalsim, there actually are a few who have risen to a better level. For example, one pastor on TBN that used to drive me loco has changed somewhat. I'm not sure I will be watching him every week, but yesterday I actually got something out of his teaching as it was so much more encompassing Biblically than it was before. And get this: he was making his congregational think Biblically instead of propagandizing them.
So, Let the Sunday School teachers reassess their approach and maybe the adult Sunday School hour could be the most exciting and productive on Sunday mornings.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Laura Bush and the Boys
Laura Bush, the first lady of the United States, says that a priority of our country is to help boys. She states girls have been our focus for the past 30 years but boys have largely been left to fend for themselves. According to Mrs. Bush, this has taken a temendous toll on our young men. She cites statistics showing more girls now attending college than boys. Also boys are the ones with the most drug and alcohol problems.
To alleviate this problem, Mrs. Bush thinks we ned to start at the home with the parents and then reach out to Boys and Girls clubs, Big Brothers and then especially coahes. Shes she wants to work with coaches to find ways to better mentor boys.
I say hooray to Mrs. Bush!
To alleviate this problem, Mrs. Bush thinks we ned to start at the home with the parents and then reach out to Boys and Girls clubs, Big Brothers and then especially coahes. Shes she wants to work with coaches to find ways to better mentor boys.
I say hooray to Mrs. Bush!
Christians--Republicans or Democrats?
You must read Bob's blog at TotemtoTemple entitled, Are the Christian Republicans Really Spiritual Democrats?. This has to be one of the most interesting and unusual posts I've read in blogdom land in a long time.
Do check it out.
Do check it out.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Organic Bath Gel
It seems that many Westerners don't always understand the needs of Sri Lankan victims of the tsunami. Among the donated items are organic bath gel, body lotion, canned creamed vegetables (which Sri Lankans hate),and fleece baby clothes as well as adult polyester clothes which are deadly in a hot tropical climate found in Sri Lanka. Instead of these luxuries, the people might need more essential things....like....ya know...food and shelter. Which brings us to what the Netherlands donated. They meant well but their tents were so huge that they couldn't be put up practically. So they are sitting in a warehouse in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Donors are also giving expensive clothes, sometimes with the price tag still on. For example designer children's shirts have arrived with the $40 price tag still attached. The aid agencies would rather have the $40 in cash which would buy as much as 20-30 times the needed local items. This would not only be beneficial to the refugees since they would be getting food and other items that are a normal part of their life, but also help local producers and vendors get back on their feet.
Actually the outpouring from donor nations has been so generous that almost all Sri Lankan refugees are getting three meals and two snacks a day.
*A side note:
Aid agencies are crying for women's feminine products. The modest Sri Lankan women are desparate, especially since mostly men run the refugee camps and don't always "understand" these things.
Donors are also giving expensive clothes, sometimes with the price tag still on. For example designer children's shirts have arrived with the $40 price tag still attached. The aid agencies would rather have the $40 in cash which would buy as much as 20-30 times the needed local items. This would not only be beneficial to the refugees since they would be getting food and other items that are a normal part of their life, but also help local producers and vendors get back on their feet.
Actually the outpouring from donor nations has been so generous that almost all Sri Lankan refugees are getting three meals and two snacks a day.
*A side note:
Aid agencies are crying for women's feminine products. The modest Sri Lankan women are desparate, especially since mostly men run the refugee camps and don't always "understand" these things.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Prince Harry's "fun"
I realize that many of the young, especially the rebellious ones, have a fascination for Hitler and all things Third Reichish. In fact, James over at the Rooftop blog points out that it was all in fun as the party's theme was "costumes of the colonial period in bad taste." But he also says he doesn't understand why the British don't have a sense of humor about this.
Well, yes, I understand...kinda. But then I wonder if (and I am not trying to be mean or flippant here. It's just that I feel strongly about this) Rooftop blogger has met Jews who were in concentration camps. Or even Jews who had to escape their countries with only the clothes on their backs.
My closest friend in high school has parents from Vienna, Austria. They are Jewish. They had a marvelous life in Vienna, her mother being a high school teacher and her father a financial manager. When Hitler entered Austria, they were both fired and forced to wear the dreaded yellow star. People spat on them. They couldn't find any work. There was also something they noticed; something sinister. Some of their Jewish neighbors and friends were "disappearing." So they figured out that life there was gong to get dangerous to put it midly. Fortunately they were able to emigrate to the United States but they had to start completely over. She was a maid and then a nanny. and he worked in a shoe factory. But they were happy just to be here with their lives and a few possessions. The happy ending to this story is the success they made of their lvies. My friend's father was ultimately a licensed CPA and her mother worked for her Master's of Education Psychology. He started to buy business buildings and today is more than a millionaire.
But for many Jews, the ending wasn't so happy. And for many soldiers from both Britain and America (as well as from so many other Allied countries), the end wasn't so happy either.
Add to that this fact: in a recent survey, 45% of Britains never heard of Auschwitz [the concentration camp]. In most surveys of this type both here in the USA and in Britain, the overwhelming number of those who know next to nothing about the holocaust are younger. In fact some don't even believe it happened.
Maybe that is why many [especially older folks] both here in the USA and in Britain as well as other countries aren't getting the "joke." Ya think maybe?
Well, yes, I understand...kinda. But then I wonder if (and I am not trying to be mean or flippant here. It's just that I feel strongly about this) Rooftop blogger has met Jews who were in concentration camps. Or even Jews who had to escape their countries with only the clothes on their backs.
My closest friend in high school has parents from Vienna, Austria. They are Jewish. They had a marvelous life in Vienna, her mother being a high school teacher and her father a financial manager. When Hitler entered Austria, they were both fired and forced to wear the dreaded yellow star. People spat on them. They couldn't find any work. There was also something they noticed; something sinister. Some of their Jewish neighbors and friends were "disappearing." So they figured out that life there was gong to get dangerous to put it midly. Fortunately they were able to emigrate to the United States but they had to start completely over. She was a maid and then a nanny. and he worked in a shoe factory. But they were happy just to be here with their lives and a few possessions. The happy ending to this story is the success they made of their lvies. My friend's father was ultimately a licensed CPA and her mother worked for her Master's of Education Psychology. He started to buy business buildings and today is more than a millionaire.
But for many Jews, the ending wasn't so happy. And for many soldiers from both Britain and America (as well as from so many other Allied countries), the end wasn't so happy either.
Add to that this fact: in a recent survey, 45% of Britains never heard of Auschwitz [the concentration camp]. In most surveys of this type both here in the USA and in Britain, the overwhelming number of those who know next to nothing about the holocaust are younger. In fact some don't even believe it happened.
Maybe that is why many [especially older folks] both here in the USA and in Britain as well as other countries aren't getting the "joke." Ya think maybe?
Thursday, January 13, 2005
I Rest My Case
Case 1
Gee I'm sorry that the homosexual-bashing Christians may be facing 47 years of jail. But when you refuse to convert people the way the Bible says in the power of the Holy Spirit, what do you expect to happen?
The interesting thing to me is why the "Christians" who are so adamant in harrassing homosexuals; and abortionists and women getting abortions; never seem to harrass drug dealers. Well, a few brave inner city women stand up to them but no white evangelical men--the same ones who usually are leading these crusades against homosexuality and abortion--come against the dealers.
Why do you think that is? Let's see. Homosexuals, abortion doctors and nurses, and women who are seeking abortions usually are not carrying weapons. But drug dealers are and wouldn't hesitate to use them.
I rest my case.
Case 2
In many churches one will hear at times sermons and teachings against homosexuals (as opposed to homosexuality) and abortionists (as opposed to abortion). But you almost NEVER hear any pastor or teacher railing against drug dealers and those who use drugs, or against alcoholism. I wonder why. Let's see...ummmmm.....could it be that many pastors were druggies themselves and really never were delivered from that mindset although they may have been delivered from the drugs themselves? Or they were alcoholics?
I rest my case.
Case 3
Psychologists tell us that at times some people come against that which they subconsciously are fighting themselves. it is amazing to me when I read the statistics of how many Christian young women are getting abortions, including pastors' daughters. And it is also amazing to me how many Chrisitans are afflicted with the secret of overpowering homosexual feelings (although many do not practice it or ever have). I'm sure that must include some pastors. In fact recently a well-known pastor and a well-known prophet have been found guilty of practicing this sin.
Could this be a factor as to why so many are railing against homosexuals and abortionists? That is they need to cleanse their own souls. I have a news flash for these people. Confession (I John 1:9) does wonders for the soul and gives you a much better perspective on the so-called enemies of the faith--homosexuals and abortionists.
I rest my case.
Gee I'm sorry that the homosexual-bashing Christians may be facing 47 years of jail. But when you refuse to convert people the way the Bible says in the power of the Holy Spirit, what do you expect to happen?
The interesting thing to me is why the "Christians" who are so adamant in harrassing homosexuals; and abortionists and women getting abortions; never seem to harrass drug dealers. Well, a few brave inner city women stand up to them but no white evangelical men--the same ones who usually are leading these crusades against homosexuality and abortion--come against the dealers.
Why do you think that is? Let's see. Homosexuals, abortion doctors and nurses, and women who are seeking abortions usually are not carrying weapons. But drug dealers are and wouldn't hesitate to use them.
I rest my case.
Case 2
In many churches one will hear at times sermons and teachings against homosexuals (as opposed to homosexuality) and abortionists (as opposed to abortion). But you almost NEVER hear any pastor or teacher railing against drug dealers and those who use drugs, or against alcoholism. I wonder why. Let's see...ummmmm.....could it be that many pastors were druggies themselves and really never were delivered from that mindset although they may have been delivered from the drugs themselves? Or they were alcoholics?
I rest my case.
Case 3
Psychologists tell us that at times some people come against that which they subconsciously are fighting themselves. it is amazing to me when I read the statistics of how many Christian young women are getting abortions, including pastors' daughters. And it is also amazing to me how many Chrisitans are afflicted with the secret of overpowering homosexual feelings (although many do not practice it or ever have). I'm sure that must include some pastors. In fact recently a well-known pastor and a well-known prophet have been found guilty of practicing this sin.
Could this be a factor as to why so many are railing against homosexuals and abortionists? That is they need to cleanse their own souls. I have a news flash for these people. Confession (I John 1:9) does wonders for the soul and gives you a much better perspective on the so-called enemies of the faith--homosexuals and abortionists.
I rest my case.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Evangelical Outpost has issued a challenge. We are to read an article on the theme, Is Americanism the Successor of Puritanism? I will not be entering the contest. The reason is because Brad at 21stCenturyReformation has done a 300% better job than I could ever have done in presenting the same things that I would say. So I hope you will go over there since it is an excellent read.
The link to Brad's post is
Americanism: The Enemy of Puritan Hope.
The link to Brad's post is
Americanism: The Enemy of Puritan Hope.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
The "V" Word
Today was my mother's memorial service which was held at her church. She was a month and a half short of 97 years old. In prior posts here I have told how I was her caregiver for almost 6 years. I had asked her pastor several days prior to the service if I could make some comments and he heartedly agreed. Here is basically what I said.
A TRIBUTE to a LEGACY
I could say many things about my mother but what I want to focus on today and what I wrote her obituary around is the word Volunteerism. Like many in her generation my mother displayed her gifts and talents as a volunteer. Her volunteerism started like so many during World War II when she joined other women at the local Red Cross sewing things for the military. It was here that she met her lif-long very best friend. In fact, most of my mother's close friends were those she met in volunteer activities.
The next volunteer job for my mother was as an assistant Brownie troop leader. By the time I was in 5th grade she became the Girl Scout leader of my troop. Several years ago I remet one of those troop members at a Christian conference. She had a tough time as a girl and told me that she felt my mother was one of the few people who defended her and believed in her. I told my mother that and she really was surprised. When volunteering you just do not know whose life you might touch and even change.
I dropped out of Girl Scouting in 7th grade but my mother continued for another 25 years. When I was in junior high she became the District Chairman of our town which was a part of the greater Pasadena (CA) Girl Scout Council. I remember that part of her duties as District Chairman was rounding up all the unsold Girl Scout cookies and returning them to headquarters. For weeks we had cookies (in their boxes) piled to the ceiling. In fact, for the next months I had those cookies in my lunch and to this day I have some trouble looking a Girl Scout cookie in the face....:)
The volunteer activitiy that she is most remembered for, however, in the Pasadena area, was her chairmanship of the Garden Tours, a local fund raiser. She took a stumbling program and made it hugely successful. Next she became the Chairperson of the Finance Committee. She had several top Los Angels CPA's on her committee and some of them told her that she was the best chairperson they had ever sat under in any of their volunteer or even business committees.
She also was on the Board of Directors of our town's Community Chest (which later morphed into the United Way) and on the Board of our local version of the YMCA. Now remember, this was all volunteer.
When my father retired in 1968 they traveled extensively since that was a love of theirs so my mother had to tone down her volunteer activity. After my father died in 1978 she was back at it again--this time as Treasurer of her condominium association, a postion she held over 20 years (she actually ran the place). In addition, she volunteered at her church becoming an elder after serving on what else--the finance committee as well as on the pastor nominating committee and the Children's Center committee (the church's award winning pre-school).
A year ago I read Robert Putnam's much talked about book Bowling Alone. In his book Mr. Putnum decries the lessening of civic involvement and especially volunteerism among the younger generation. That book was published in 2000. In 2003 he wrote a sequel, Better Together, in which he says he is now seeing some improvement of what he calls social capital. This is the word he uses to describe involvement in civic activities, clubs, associations, volunteerism, voting and so forth, instead of sitting in front of the TV/Computer.
My mother and her generation left a truly wonderful legacy which I do hope the younger generation will not allow to fall by the wayside. I know that for the last couple of years I have been looking in our local paper at the various volunteer opportunities available in our community. Will I walk dogs and play with cats at the local shelter? Or will I read to children at the library or in the schools? Or perhaps I will work at the YWCA shelter for abused women. I think I know where I will start but believe me I will be doing something. I know many of you volunteer and I see my neighbor here who when he is in town during Thanksgiving and/or Christmas volunteers to feed the homeless at the downtown missions. And before he started doing that he volunteered at an AIDS hospice when AIDS was just a new and uncurable disease. But let's challenge the younger generation to take up the mantle of the legacy my mother and her generation left to us.
My mother died on December 17th but her legacy of volunteerism is still alive and well--if we will just keep it going.
A TRIBUTE to a LEGACY
I could say many things about my mother but what I want to focus on today and what I wrote her obituary around is the word Volunteerism. Like many in her generation my mother displayed her gifts and talents as a volunteer. Her volunteerism started like so many during World War II when she joined other women at the local Red Cross sewing things for the military. It was here that she met her lif-long very best friend. In fact, most of my mother's close friends were those she met in volunteer activities.
The next volunteer job for my mother was as an assistant Brownie troop leader. By the time I was in 5th grade she became the Girl Scout leader of my troop. Several years ago I remet one of those troop members at a Christian conference. She had a tough time as a girl and told me that she felt my mother was one of the few people who defended her and believed in her. I told my mother that and she really was surprised. When volunteering you just do not know whose life you might touch and even change.
I dropped out of Girl Scouting in 7th grade but my mother continued for another 25 years. When I was in junior high she became the District Chairman of our town which was a part of the greater Pasadena (CA) Girl Scout Council. I remember that part of her duties as District Chairman was rounding up all the unsold Girl Scout cookies and returning them to headquarters. For weeks we had cookies (in their boxes) piled to the ceiling. In fact, for the next months I had those cookies in my lunch and to this day I have some trouble looking a Girl Scout cookie in the face....:)
The volunteer activitiy that she is most remembered for, however, in the Pasadena area, was her chairmanship of the Garden Tours, a local fund raiser. She took a stumbling program and made it hugely successful. Next she became the Chairperson of the Finance Committee. She had several top Los Angels CPA's on her committee and some of them told her that she was the best chairperson they had ever sat under in any of their volunteer or even business committees.
She also was on the Board of Directors of our town's Community Chest (which later morphed into the United Way) and on the Board of our local version of the YMCA. Now remember, this was all volunteer.
When my father retired in 1968 they traveled extensively since that was a love of theirs so my mother had to tone down her volunteer activity. After my father died in 1978 she was back at it again--this time as Treasurer of her condominium association, a postion she held over 20 years (she actually ran the place). In addition, she volunteered at her church becoming an elder after serving on what else--the finance committee as well as on the pastor nominating committee and the Children's Center committee (the church's award winning pre-school).
A year ago I read Robert Putnam's much talked about book Bowling Alone. In his book Mr. Putnum decries the lessening of civic involvement and especially volunteerism among the younger generation. That book was published in 2000. In 2003 he wrote a sequel, Better Together, in which he says he is now seeing some improvement of what he calls social capital. This is the word he uses to describe involvement in civic activities, clubs, associations, volunteerism, voting and so forth, instead of sitting in front of the TV/Computer.
My mother and her generation left a truly wonderful legacy which I do hope the younger generation will not allow to fall by the wayside. I know that for the last couple of years I have been looking in our local paper at the various volunteer opportunities available in our community. Will I walk dogs and play with cats at the local shelter? Or will I read to children at the library or in the schools? Or perhaps I will work at the YWCA shelter for abused women. I think I know where I will start but believe me I will be doing something. I know many of you volunteer and I see my neighbor here who when he is in town during Thanksgiving and/or Christmas volunteers to feed the homeless at the downtown missions. And before he started doing that he volunteered at an AIDS hospice when AIDS was just a new and uncurable disease. But let's challenge the younger generation to take up the mantle of the legacy my mother and her generation left to us.
My mother died on December 17th but her legacy of volunteerism is still alive and well--if we will just keep it going.
Friday, January 07, 2005
The Internet--A Life
Some people think the Internet is like form the devil. They hear of abductions, molestations and scams and spams I offer the opposite view.
I have been on the Internet for 10 years now. It all started when I was looking for work and essentially had nothing to do until I found work which didn't happen as I ahve written about previously. My local branch librarian had just gotten a grant for her branch to set up an Internet station. But in order to receive that grant, she had to have someone from the community with a computer or training or speaking background to be the Internet trainer. Since I had all three, she chose me to be this person. We got to go to four hands-on training sessions at a very nice library about 40 minutes away. Two of the talking-only sessions were held 15 minutes away at a posh hotel including the nice lunch posh hotels serve. In one of these sessions the discussion included pornography and how libraries could deal with it. The consensus was basically that you can't. They pointed out that the filters don't work well and if you do have filters, the ACLU will get ya. We heard the horror story from some librarians in a neighboring county as it seems they were caught in the middle. Nothing they did was right. One group didn't like it if they used filters and the other group didn't like it if they did. Since when did the librarian become the community cop? This is something the chicken city councils need to determine along with their city attorneys. Dumping it into the librarian's lap is wrong.
Meanwhile, back at my local branch library, most of the patrons at that time were the elderly. Once I got them used to the mouse they were off and running. It was interesting for me to see what they did with the Internet. One gentleman was from another country and found it very expensive to subscribe to his country's newspaper. So he came in frequently to read it on the Internet, saving himself a ton of subscription costs. Another lady had been in the Peace Corps years ago teaching business in a small African country. She wanted to keep up with news from that country. Another gentleman loves golf and likes to read about golf tournaments and golf news. Many were grandparents who I taught to set up a free email so they could write their grandkids. A few had children and grandchildren in other countries working there or in the military. Phone calls were expensive and email saved them alot of money.
After my mother had her stroke and I became her caregiver, I couldn't be the library Internet volunteer anymore. But I could be on the Internt at home. I saw disabled people making a living from Internet businesses, mostly ebay. I saw shy people making friends perhaps for the first time. This gave a few so much confidence they ventured out into what we Internet people call the "real world."
I saw a few couples meet on the Internet and get married. While I don't recommend this, three of the four couples I knew so far have had happy marriages. The fourth one---well---bad...bad....news. You have to be very careful and discerning when talking to people on the Internet.
I have friends all over the world--in New Zealand, Australia, Iceland, Finland, England, Scotland, Canada, and of course in many states right here in the USA. For some reason I seem to get along well with people in Wisconsin. I don't know why this is since I have never been there....:)
The Internet saved me since I could not go anyplace for almost 6 years. It was my church, social life and much of my intellectual life. You might wonder whre I met all of these Internet friends. I met them in Christian chat rooms, Christian discussion forums and Christian email discussion groups.
Since my mother died three weeks ago, I once again am going out into the "real world," but I will always have my Internet friends to come home to.
Viva la Internet!!
I have been on the Internet for 10 years now. It all started when I was looking for work and essentially had nothing to do until I found work which didn't happen as I ahve written about previously. My local branch librarian had just gotten a grant for her branch to set up an Internet station. But in order to receive that grant, she had to have someone from the community with a computer or training or speaking background to be the Internet trainer. Since I had all three, she chose me to be this person. We got to go to four hands-on training sessions at a very nice library about 40 minutes away. Two of the talking-only sessions were held 15 minutes away at a posh hotel including the nice lunch posh hotels serve. In one of these sessions the discussion included pornography and how libraries could deal with it. The consensus was basically that you can't. They pointed out that the filters don't work well and if you do have filters, the ACLU will get ya. We heard the horror story from some librarians in a neighboring county as it seems they were caught in the middle. Nothing they did was right. One group didn't like it if they used filters and the other group didn't like it if they did. Since when did the librarian become the community cop? This is something the chicken city councils need to determine along with their city attorneys. Dumping it into the librarian's lap is wrong.
Meanwhile, back at my local branch library, most of the patrons at that time were the elderly. Once I got them used to the mouse they were off and running. It was interesting for me to see what they did with the Internet. One gentleman was from another country and found it very expensive to subscribe to his country's newspaper. So he came in frequently to read it on the Internet, saving himself a ton of subscription costs. Another lady had been in the Peace Corps years ago teaching business in a small African country. She wanted to keep up with news from that country. Another gentleman loves golf and likes to read about golf tournaments and golf news. Many were grandparents who I taught to set up a free email so they could write their grandkids. A few had children and grandchildren in other countries working there or in the military. Phone calls were expensive and email saved them alot of money.
After my mother had her stroke and I became her caregiver, I couldn't be the library Internet volunteer anymore. But I could be on the Internt at home. I saw disabled people making a living from Internet businesses, mostly ebay. I saw shy people making friends perhaps for the first time. This gave a few so much confidence they ventured out into what we Internet people call the "real world."
I saw a few couples meet on the Internet and get married. While I don't recommend this, three of the four couples I knew so far have had happy marriages. The fourth one---well---bad...bad....news. You have to be very careful and discerning when talking to people on the Internet.
I have friends all over the world--in New Zealand, Australia, Iceland, Finland, England, Scotland, Canada, and of course in many states right here in the USA. For some reason I seem to get along well with people in Wisconsin. I don't know why this is since I have never been there....:)
The Internet saved me since I could not go anyplace for almost 6 years. It was my church, social life and much of my intellectual life. You might wonder whre I met all of these Internet friends. I met them in Christian chat rooms, Christian discussion forums and Christian email discussion groups.
Since my mother died three weeks ago, I once again am going out into the "real world," but I will always have my Internet friends to come home to.
Viva la Internet!!
Monday, January 03, 2005
TotemtoTemple has a discussion concerning the emergent church and why the people involved want to get as far away from their parents' version of church as possible. He brings up the possiblility that it might be a rejection of their parents.
Oh yes indeedy. I have been saying that all along...that the Baby Boomers have messed up the church and they have messed up the country. And now it's payback time from their children.
Here is the history:
Most evangelical churches in the 1950's followed the holiness-legalism model. Don't do that; don't do this' don't, don't don't. That essentially became "Christianity." You were saved by grace and kept by the "don't" works.
Their Baby Boomer children for the most part rebelled against that. The Jesus Movement, Vineyard, Calvary Chapel, etc. came out of the Baby Boomers not wanting their parents' church.
Now the rebeliious Baby Boomer's evil spawn, the Generation X has decided that they do not wish their parents' church either.
However, the Baby Boomers for the most part did keep a semblance of the gospel message. From what I am reading about the so-called emergent church, they think all religions are kewl. And they don't care about the substance and teachings of the Bible as much as "doing the stuff." At least John Wimber understood the stuff. I'm not sure Generation X does.
Oh yes indeedy. I have been saying that all along...that the Baby Boomers have messed up the church and they have messed up the country. And now it's payback time from their children.
Here is the history:
Most evangelical churches in the 1950's followed the holiness-legalism model. Don't do that; don't do this' don't, don't don't. That essentially became "Christianity." You were saved by grace and kept by the "don't" works.
Their Baby Boomer children for the most part rebelled against that. The Jesus Movement, Vineyard, Calvary Chapel, etc. came out of the Baby Boomers not wanting their parents' church.
Now the rebeliious Baby Boomer's evil spawn, the Generation X has decided that they do not wish their parents' church either.
However, the Baby Boomers for the most part did keep a semblance of the gospel message. From what I am reading about the so-called emergent church, they think all religions are kewl. And they don't care about the substance and teachings of the Bible as much as "doing the stuff." At least John Wimber understood the stuff. I'm not sure Generation X does.
Sunday, January 02, 2005
My Story-Part 3
I grew up in an all-white upper-middle class community in the 50's. My father was from a well-to-do family in an upper-middle class suburb of Pittsburgh. His family had servants and his father owned a horse farm in the country besides the home in the suburb. My mother came from a solid middle-class family. Her father was the manager of the exclusive businessmen's club in Los Angeles in the early decades of the 20th century. Later he became a contractor in our city which is right next door to the city of Los Angeles. My mother was born in Los Angeles and then when she was almost 2 her family moved to the town where I live now (which isn't the upper-middle class community where I grew up--that is also next door to the town I live in now).
My mother went to high school with John Wayne; and lived on the same street as his family for a while. That was her claim to fame...LOL.
When you come from that background and grow up in the 3rd wealthiest community in Los Angeles County (Interesting enough, Beverly Hills is never on the top five list), you can become arrogant. It isn't something you try to do; it's just kind of in you.
So, during my 41 1/2 years of being a Christian, God has done interesting things to "cure" me of this affliciton. I began my teaching career in the Watts section of Los Angeles in a junior high a year after the 1965 Watts riots. That was very difficult as there were gangs and fights and drugs then too. However, thankfully, little shooting. Then for most of the rest of my teaching career I taught in what I call the outer inner city. It's those areas that are working class..lower-middle. However, I also taught in middle class and upper-middle class schools. I had a different kind of teaching career. Instead of one class or 5 in the case of secondary teachers per year; I was a traveling music teacher for the first part of my career after two years in the Watts junior High; and a traveling computer teacher for almost 6. In my 21 years of teaching therefore, I estimate that I have taught over 10,000 students, trained over 150 teachers and worked with over 50 principals. And that doesn't include my last job of 3 1/2 years selling educational software to teachers and principals. I have also taught every ethnic and racial and socio-educational group in Los Angeles County.
Why?
For 32 years I have felt called to teach in churches. The doors haven't opened yet but I see that this type of training as well as my intense interest in various churches and denominational structures and theology, has prepared me well for this task.
But getting back to the arrogance matter. I said yesterday that I went through 11 years of destitution. This has made me rather sensitive to the plight of the poor, especially those who have lost jobs or become sick and cannot work anymore. I look around at churches thinking that they surely will have an answer for these people--money to share, help in finding work, prayer for healing. And guess what?
NADA!
Where in the world are the churches? Or to paraphrase Doug Perry....why are we spending $10,000.00 for a church chandelier when so many people are hurting--right in our own churches.
Anyone know??
My mother went to high school with John Wayne; and lived on the same street as his family for a while. That was her claim to fame...LOL.
When you come from that background and grow up in the 3rd wealthiest community in Los Angeles County (Interesting enough, Beverly Hills is never on the top five list), you can become arrogant. It isn't something you try to do; it's just kind of in you.
So, during my 41 1/2 years of being a Christian, God has done interesting things to "cure" me of this affliciton. I began my teaching career in the Watts section of Los Angeles in a junior high a year after the 1965 Watts riots. That was very difficult as there were gangs and fights and drugs then too. However, thankfully, little shooting. Then for most of the rest of my teaching career I taught in what I call the outer inner city. It's those areas that are working class..lower-middle. However, I also taught in middle class and upper-middle class schools. I had a different kind of teaching career. Instead of one class or 5 in the case of secondary teachers per year; I was a traveling music teacher for the first part of my career after two years in the Watts junior High; and a traveling computer teacher for almost 6. In my 21 years of teaching therefore, I estimate that I have taught over 10,000 students, trained over 150 teachers and worked with over 50 principals. And that doesn't include my last job of 3 1/2 years selling educational software to teachers and principals. I have also taught every ethnic and racial and socio-educational group in Los Angeles County.
Why?
For 32 years I have felt called to teach in churches. The doors haven't opened yet but I see that this type of training as well as my intense interest in various churches and denominational structures and theology, has prepared me well for this task.
But getting back to the arrogance matter. I said yesterday that I went through 11 years of destitution. This has made me rather sensitive to the plight of the poor, especially those who have lost jobs or become sick and cannot work anymore. I look around at churches thinking that they surely will have an answer for these people--money to share, help in finding work, prayer for healing. And guess what?
NADA!
Where in the world are the churches? Or to paraphrase Doug Perry....why are we spending $10,000.00 for a church chandelier when so many people are hurting--right in our own churches.
Anyone know??
Saturday, January 01, 2005
My Story-Part 2
Yesterday I started to tell you about me (My Story-Part 1.
Many years before my mother had her stroke in 1990, I had to live with her because I could not find a job, and when I did it was low paying for what I did and what my title said I did. Training Coordinator sounds like a great title, but when you are making less than the average public school teacher, it "ain't" so great. Yes I know ALL college graduates are supposed to find any great job around. However, that is a myth. As any employment agency can tell you, if they see a liberal arts grad, experienced teacher, social worker or librarian, they will tell you (after choking), "No way! We cannot help you. Please go away."
See, we are overqualified for everything and qualified for nothing. Teachers especially are the anathema of business hiring. Businesses don't like us. Not only can teachers not find a better job outside of teaching, they usually can find NO job outside of teaching. Do you really think McDonalds will hire me? Uh...no. Do you find anyone like me working at the mall? Not out here in Calfiornia malls and gallerias....no way. Yeah...right...LOL. So why the teachers can get a better paying job anywhere myth? I think this is perpetuated by teacher's unions and liberal politicians to influence the public for more pay for teachers.
And then there is the "you can always get a job teaching if you are credentialed teacher myth. That is because there is this great supposed teacher shortage. Here are the real facts. Shhhh..don't tell anyone but there is no teacher shortage except perhaps in science and the inner city because teachers wish to live. So why the myth? Two reasons. First, school districts refuse to incorporate any type of discipline in their schools and so many teachers are leaving for that reason and that reason alone. Low pay is usually NOT the reason for leaving since teachers understand that when they enter the profession. And the pay isn't that low anymore, at least not here in California. The entering credentialed teacher makes around $35,000+ a year (depending on the district) minimum. A lot of college grads in other fields, believe it or not, are NOT making that entry level pay. But the real reason for the myth is budgets, and many principals will admit it. To hire an experienced teacher, a district has to pay them up to 5 years for that experience. Even a beginning teacher will enter making around $7,000-$8,000 more a year than an uncredentialed teacher. And here is where the lie is exposed. Ask any surbuban district how many applications from credentialed teachers they receive per year. In my city, the paper last year reported that there were 3-4 applicants for every teaching job here. But they still had to hire 5% uncredentialed teachers and the average for Los Angeles County was around 15%. Something isn't computing. I smell rotten fish here. I had read about ten years ago the same thing--that most districts in L.A. County were receiving 3-4 applicants for almost every teaching job but they still had severe teacher shortages. Hmmm. See, if the districts can cry teacher shortage! then they can hire uncredentialed teachers and save around 7-8 thousand a year on each one. L.A. Unified did this 11 years ago after letting their 3rd year teachers (up for tenure) go in June because they had a "budget shortfall." But magically the following September of that year they found some money, but didn't have enough teachers (because they had let so many 3rd year ones go the previous June). So they hired 100 uncredentailed teachers thus saving the district almost a million dollars when you figure in teacher retiremnt contributions from the district. Get it now? Also, I read that year in our paper, the Los Angeles Times that a master teacher from another district moved to Los Angeles and applied at the school distirct. Guess what? She wasn't hired. A master teacher is a designation by the state for those who are the best and are used to mentor other teachers.
In the same year, the Times reported that MacDonalds wouldn't hire laid-off engineers (it was 1994 and we had a terrible recession out here). They are too overqualified. But I thought anyone who was willing to work could get a job in America. Hmmmmmmmm.
So, no please don't tell me I can easily find a job because I am:
1) a teacher
2) a college grad (music major actually)
I ahve an excellent work record and references. I don't do drugs, drink wine once in a while but never get drunk, and have never been arrested. In fact I have only received 3 tickets for driving in the 25 eyars I have been doing so.
But, I've tried for the past 14 years to get work and have fallen flat on my face. And no the private schools think I am too overqualified too. Many people I know have gone through the same thing but most of them are married and so have a support system. I am not married so had to live with mother. And, I lived without health insurance, dentist visits, etc. I had a small part-time job I created at home which basically fed me, got me a haircut once a month, paid for my phone bill and if I was lucky, I got to buy shoes and underwear.
Oh, I almost forgot. I am 60. People don't hire us older folks, despite what you are hearing unless they were some really speciallized person in some industry that is crying for them.
So, here I am asking God how I am going to support myself. But I am not worried which is amazing considering that I am a worry-wort type of person. Soemhow I got through the past 11 years with collectors all over me, no bank account, no health insurance, no dentist, few clothes, no car of my own (it was repossesed) but the use of my mother's around-town-only lemon car. It has an aversion to freeways and hills.
I had a fairly nice life and 27 1/2 years of perfect credit, paying off 4 cars and then this disaster hit 11 years ago.
Tomorrow: What did my arrogant little self learn through this desitution?
Many years before my mother had her stroke in 1990, I had to live with her because I could not find a job, and when I did it was low paying for what I did and what my title said I did. Training Coordinator sounds like a great title, but when you are making less than the average public school teacher, it "ain't" so great. Yes I know ALL college graduates are supposed to find any great job around. However, that is a myth. As any employment agency can tell you, if they see a liberal arts grad, experienced teacher, social worker or librarian, they will tell you (after choking), "No way! We cannot help you. Please go away."
See, we are overqualified for everything and qualified for nothing. Teachers especially are the anathema of business hiring. Businesses don't like us. Not only can teachers not find a better job outside of teaching, they usually can find NO job outside of teaching. Do you really think McDonalds will hire me? Uh...no. Do you find anyone like me working at the mall? Not out here in Calfiornia malls and gallerias....no way. Yeah...right...LOL. So why the teachers can get a better paying job anywhere myth? I think this is perpetuated by teacher's unions and liberal politicians to influence the public for more pay for teachers.
And then there is the "you can always get a job teaching if you are credentialed teacher myth. That is because there is this great supposed teacher shortage. Here are the real facts. Shhhh..don't tell anyone but there is no teacher shortage except perhaps in science and the inner city because teachers wish to live. So why the myth? Two reasons. First, school districts refuse to incorporate any type of discipline in their schools and so many teachers are leaving for that reason and that reason alone. Low pay is usually NOT the reason for leaving since teachers understand that when they enter the profession. And the pay isn't that low anymore, at least not here in California. The entering credentialed teacher makes around $35,000+ a year (depending on the district) minimum. A lot of college grads in other fields, believe it or not, are NOT making that entry level pay. But the real reason for the myth is budgets, and many principals will admit it. To hire an experienced teacher, a district has to pay them up to 5 years for that experience. Even a beginning teacher will enter making around $7,000-$8,000 more a year than an uncredentialed teacher. And here is where the lie is exposed. Ask any surbuban district how many applications from credentialed teachers they receive per year. In my city, the paper last year reported that there were 3-4 applicants for every teaching job here. But they still had to hire 5% uncredentialed teachers and the average for Los Angeles County was around 15%. Something isn't computing. I smell rotten fish here. I had read about ten years ago the same thing--that most districts in L.A. County were receiving 3-4 applicants for almost every teaching job but they still had severe teacher shortages. Hmmm. See, if the districts can cry teacher shortage! then they can hire uncredentialed teachers and save around 7-8 thousand a year on each one. L.A. Unified did this 11 years ago after letting their 3rd year teachers (up for tenure) go in June because they had a "budget shortfall." But magically the following September of that year they found some money, but didn't have enough teachers (because they had let so many 3rd year ones go the previous June). So they hired 100 uncredentailed teachers thus saving the district almost a million dollars when you figure in teacher retiremnt contributions from the district. Get it now? Also, I read that year in our paper, the Los Angeles Times that a master teacher from another district moved to Los Angeles and applied at the school distirct. Guess what? She wasn't hired. A master teacher is a designation by the state for those who are the best and are used to mentor other teachers.
In the same year, the Times reported that MacDonalds wouldn't hire laid-off engineers (it was 1994 and we had a terrible recession out here). They are too overqualified. But I thought anyone who was willing to work could get a job in America. Hmmmmmmmm.
So, no please don't tell me I can easily find a job because I am:
1) a teacher
2) a college grad (music major actually)
I ahve an excellent work record and references. I don't do drugs, drink wine once in a while but never get drunk, and have never been arrested. In fact I have only received 3 tickets for driving in the 25 eyars I have been doing so.
But, I've tried for the past 14 years to get work and have fallen flat on my face. And no the private schools think I am too overqualified too. Many people I know have gone through the same thing but most of them are married and so have a support system. I am not married so had to live with mother. And, I lived without health insurance, dentist visits, etc. I had a small part-time job I created at home which basically fed me, got me a haircut once a month, paid for my phone bill and if I was lucky, I got to buy shoes and underwear.
Oh, I almost forgot. I am 60. People don't hire us older folks, despite what you are hearing unless they were some really speciallized person in some industry that is crying for them.
So, here I am asking God how I am going to support myself. But I am not worried which is amazing considering that I am a worry-wort type of person. Soemhow I got through the past 11 years with collectors all over me, no bank account, no health insurance, no dentist, few clothes, no car of my own (it was repossesed) but the use of my mother's around-town-only lemon car. It has an aversion to freeways and hills.
I had a fairly nice life and 27 1/2 years of perfect credit, paying off 4 cars and then this disaster hit 11 years ago.
Tomorrow: What did my arrogant little self learn through this desitution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
