Tag Archives: Life

Aurora, CO

What happened in Aurora, CO is yesterday’s news, eclipsed by the latest media firestorm. That is an unfortunate consequence of our fast paced, super-technologically-connected modern life.

This facet of modern life tends to leave me in the dust, for I am not one to blog quickly about something. I do converse in the moment on an individual level, but try to avoid saying something large scale until things have died down a bit and until I’ve had time to sort through things.

So, for what it’s worth, here are some reflections on the shooting that happened in Aurora, CO, during the opening night of The Dark Knight Rises:

First, any response or reaction must start from copious prayer, compassion, and empathy for the victims. Even saying this runs the risk of cheapening it, because I do not know any of the victims personally nor will I be able to travel to Aurora to put boots on this compassion. I am but a distant observer, and I therefore realize a lot of this will sound hollow, so I reflect with a good amount of hesitation. But that makes the beginning point above no less true and necessary to acknowledge.

Second, I’m sure what the victims don’t need is a philosophical treatise on the problem of evil or anything like that. They simply need a silent shoulder to grieve on. I’m not going to offer an intellectual answer anyway. Nevertheless, people in wider society are discussing this event, and folks have questions and thoughts, so a certain amount of reflection is appropriate.

Third, reflecting on the lives of those affected rocks my soul.  Each one of these victims had lives, loves, goals, ambitions, and desires.  Reading of their lives and seeing their pictures brought to my attention their simple humanity.  Heavy stuff.  Thankfully, this event is not the end for those that lost their lives, though the victims left behind will carry this grief for a long, long time.

Fourth, there are a lot of words being used to describe the event, some of which are more accurate than others. Some, for instance, are calling it “senseless.” Why call it “senseless” as if it, well, somehow doesn’t make sense? This was, no doubt, surprising to the victims, for we all tend to assume that the next moment will be like the previous one. Were I to lose a loved one that I assumed would still be there in the morning, I’d feel surprised because I wouldn’t expect it. Afterall, when my daughter goes to sleep at night, I don’t worry at night that someone’s going to snatch her. I just assume she’ll be there when I wake up. Anything out of the ordinary would be an existential shock. But apart from the existential shock of the victims, it makes perfect sense to me. Far from this evil being something the Bible can’t make sense of, the Bible predicts it! Ever since the garden, humans have been deeply fallen. Cain slew Abel, and it was downhill from there. We humans have the divine spark still visible in us and therefore are capable of great things, but since we have chosen to go our own way and set up camp under our own terms, we are also deeply flawed and capable of deep and tragic evil. It’s only “senseless” if we are basically good and our natural inclinations align with True North. Sadly, they do not.

Plus, it’s not like our modern age is a grand utopia of love and good tidings. We haven’t “evolved” much, and to paraphrase C.S Lewis, education has simply made for a more clever devil. Witness the many mass shootings in the last 20 years or so. We’ve castrated and bid the geldings be fruitful. We raise men without chests and are shocked when they act sans virtue. I realize there’s the possibility that Holmes is genuinely mentally ill (or demon possessed!), but that does little to nothing to blunt this observation. This would have been surprising in another age (an age that would have its own shortcomings, sure), but after so many events of a similar nature, it’s no longer surprising now, at least to me.

Tragic? Yes. Wicked? Yes. Horrible? Yes. Incredibly, gut wrenchingly sad? Yes. That much is true.  Senseless? Not really.

Fifth, this tragedy shows that our world is a little too like Gotham, yes? Moral decadence, corruption, and injustice reigns, yet there is always a glimmer of hope. There is still good in Gotham, and that’s why Batman sticks around to fight the good fight, rather than torching the whole place. Yes, after watching our response to the shooting, the parallel is not lost on me.

Sixth, speaking of that “glimmer,” some who were present at the shooting are reporting that their boyfriends gave their lives to protect their girlfriends. Here is one example, Julia Vojtsek, recounting the actions of her boyfriend, John Larimer: “John immediately and instinctively covered me and brought me to the ground in order to protect me from any danger,” Vojtsek wrote in a statement. “Moments later, John knowingly shielded me from a spray of gunshots. It was then I believe John was hit with a bullet that would have very possibly struck me. I feel very strongly that I was saved by John and his ultimate kindness.”

It is sometimes difficult to verify stories like this. Whenever intense media attention surrounds chaotic events like this, certain things can get exaggerated, some forgotten in the moment, some details changed, etc, by no fault of anyone. Just happens. Nature of the beast. We saw this pan out in the Columbine shootings: some reports turned out to be a little inaccurate, so I confess a certain sense of caution here. Nevertheless for now I’ll give the benefit of the doubt. These reports speak very deeply to me as a man. That instinct in men to shield and protect is not totally dead. When the chips are down, we men are to protect, yes even sometimes at the cost of our lives, and we know it. That is deep in our dna. Would Julia have been killed had John not protected her? We will never know, but it is possible. These four men deserve recognition, for they saved the women in their lives.  Their deaths leave their loved ones in the wake of incredible grief, but I think it’s also appropriate, as these women are doing, to recognize their sacrifice as sacrifice, not stupidity.

This is not to deny that women also seek to protect, especially children. I simply seek to applaud the men here, in this situation, who in a moment of crisis instinctively used their strength to protect women.

Seventh and last, some are asking, understandably, “where was God?” Seems to come up whenever a grand evil like this happens. Answer: closer than you think.

Taking Religion Seriously

Do you ever get the sense that talking religion is something that’s not done in polite company?  It is easy to talk about religion at a distance, perhaps as a sociologist would, but talking about religious convictions–especially one’s own–is kinda a faux paux.  We don’t take religion seriously around here, so it is uncouth to bring it to the public square as if it was a serious matter.  Keep it where all hobbies belong–in your own closet.

At least that’s the feeling I get. It often turns out differently when I actually do have conversations about religion–most people I’ve talked with are quite willing and don’t find it offensive–its just a subjective sense I get and, judging by how other people, especially Christians, talk, I sense I’m not alone in feeling this…sense.

Sorry for all the vague speak so far.  All I’m suggesting is that many people feel somewhat uneasy when it comes to discussing religious claims on one’s life.  Why?

Well, there’s that whole “claims on one’s life” bit.  People don’t want to have their autonomy breached, and they recognize that the claims of many a religion do just that.

That’s true enough, and deserves to be confronted, but the reason I want to challenge today is that most believe there’s really nothing to say about religious convictions besides, “well, good for you.”  That is, we’ve gotten the notion in this culture that once someone has finished talking about their convictions, they can’t be evaluated.  All we have to do is nod, mumble something about it not being “my cup of tea,” and move on.  That’s all that can be said about a subjective choice from the smorgasboard, and that’s how we see religion–as an endless buffet of equally good, subjective, choices.

I want to challenge that.

Consider this: religions make claims that can be verified or falsified.

Are all religious convictions like that?  No.  Do all adherents of religion think of their beliefs like that?  Again, no.  Talk to many who sit in the pews on Sunday, and they’ll describe Christianity as the smorgasboard above, or at least they’ll describe it as something that cannot be evaluated by logic and reason.  More of a feeling than anything else.

Notice how many times people categorically assert, without hesitation, without thinking about it, that it is all about “faith,” and you can’t “prove” it?  Ask them what they mean by “faith” and “proof,” and they really struggle to put something sensible together….well, there you go.

However, the core claims of many religions can be evaluated by logic and reason, and science also has something to say about them.  This is why they should be taken seriously.

Take, for instance, the lynchpin of Christianity: the resurrection.  The Bible claims that at a time in our actual history in this world, a real man named Jesus a) claimed to be God, b) predicted His death, c) predicted that He would defeat death by rising from the grave three days after his execution, and d) He actually, truly pulled it off.

That is, the Bible claims that the empty tomb is a figment of history, not imagination.

This puts it in the realm of verifiability.  Not in the same sense as a claim from a biologist can be verified, granted, but verified nonetheless in that evidence and reason has something to say in evaluation.  It is possible to offer reasons for its truth, and vice versa.  This means that it, along with any other claims logically connected to it, are real players in the game that deserve to be taken seriously in the public square.

Other claims from other religions and worldviews are no different.  Mormonism and most forms of Hinduism, for example, are committed to an eternally existing universe (in the sense that matter is eternal for Mormons), and thus you betcha–science has plenty to say about that.

Islam is committed to the notion that Jesus of Nazareth did not die on the cross, and history has plenty to say to that.

I could go on. The point: much can be offered in terms of evaluating religions for truth and falsehood, since they make claims about reality.  Arguments from philosophy can be offered pro and con, complete with premises defended from various other fields of knowledge–like science and history–that deductively lead to rational conclusions.  We don’t have to stop at “well, I’m glad you are happy (pat on the head).”  In fact, we shouldn’t even go there.  Treating religion like that is a radical category mistake.  Since religions make claims on reality, they should be treated like anything else in the public square.

They are not second-class belief systems.  They get a spot at the table.

The Effects of Cohabitation on Children

Brad Wilcox of Univ. of Virginia was recently interviewed in the Wa Po about the effects of cohabitation on children.  Interesting interview.  The title says it all: “Why Cohabitation is Worse than Divorce for Kids.” Like I tell my students all the time who ask about my life as a father, I recommend it…but get married first.  That helps.

I’ve found from rubbing shoulders with people out in the world that very few people actually think through decisions like this.  Raw desire and convenience are often the forces driving the decisional bus (“convenience” defined in a very narrow sense…really, given the stats, cohabitation isn’t at all convenient in any robust way).  The ‘ol analogy between choosing a mate and test driving a car is often all that’s needed to justify cohabitation, despite that fact that if the significant other paused to think about it, s/he wouldn’t really appreciate being compared to an Audi or Honda.

I know this subject is politically incorrect, and it will hurt the feelings of some because it suggests their lifestyle choices are wrong and/or unwise.  Oh well.  Truth is truth, and, however untasteful, we do people a disservice if we shield them from it in the name of protecting emotions.  And even on the emotional plane, such a shielding just might be counterproductive in the long run.

To somewhat ironically paraphrase feminist Naomi Wolf on a slightly different topic, to insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy.

HT: Wintery Knight

Why Evangelicals Should Keep Evangelizing

…In short, because Jesus and His disciples did, and I have every reason to think both Him and the Bible writers expect us to as well.

I can see why folks like Carl Medearis would write books on the Art of Not-Evangelizing, and why guys like him encourage Christians to stop.   It’s hard to keep doing what’s unpopular, and evangelizing is definitely not popular in our postmodern age that tends to equate exclusivity (and evangelism is, of necessity, exclusive) with all that’s wrong with the world.

It’s almost like Medearis and friends are downright evangelical about not-evangelizing….at least when it comes to Christians.  Muslims, secularists, and new agers, go ahead.  Others may, Christians may not.

Which is weird, because Jesus, Paul and co. had no problem with it, and they had no problem encouraging disciples of Christ–that means us Christians…today–to do the same.

When Paul writes

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:  Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.  For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.  But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

and when Jesus said

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

I don’t know how you could miss it.  Yes, I know, Paul was writing to Timothy, a pastor, but I don’t think it follows that we’re exempt from that.  Hey, when Jesus said “teach them to obey everything I have commanded,” that means everything. 

In addition, why would we want to keep the Gospel from others?  Put aside, for the moment, the fact that telling others about the Gospel, with its message about the universality of sin and need to be saved, and its message that only in Jesus is the proper solution found, is incredibly unpopular in our ear-itching age.  Gospel means, even though exclusive,  good news.  Hey, if a cure for cancer was found, that’d be exclusive too, but we’d unequivocably call that good news.  Why would it be any different for the cure to spiritual cancer?

I get that Christians might need to communicate that message differently in the twenty first century.  No need to rely upon sandwich sign and bullhorn, and you don’t need to share the whole gospel in every conversation, but we must be willing, able, and ready….communicate it we must.

Christians, think for a moment.  What if–just go with me here–the things that Jesus said are actually true–not just “true for us,” but true in every sense of the word?  (That’s part of it, right?  If this stuff isn’t truly true, then why be a Christian?  Just hang it up.)

We hold that humans are many times over criminals in God’s court.  Every day we break His law.  What we’ve earned for our rap sheet is hell.  Not nice, but it’s justice.  God, in His mercy, offers us a pardon, but its on His terms, not ours, and His terms are forgiveness through Jesus, who was not just a great leader, but God incarnate.  Take it or leave it.

What if that is actually true?  Then we’d better tell it to people, if we really love them.  Just like if a loved one had a fatal disease and was using ice cream to cure it…if you had the cure in your backpack and refused to give it to him, just encouragaing him to be a better “ice cream eater,” you could not lay claim to love him/her.  If we stick to seminars about how Jesus was a great leader, we are being derelict of our duty.

Some of what Medearis says sounds great, but the problem is that upon inspection, his words do not bring clarity, but confusion.

Here’s a sampling:

Even the Apostle Paul insisted that it’s faith in Jesus that matters, not converting to a new religion or a new socio-religious identity.

What if evangelicals today, instead of focusing on “evangelizing” and “converting” people, were to begin to think of Jesus not as starting a new religion, but as the central figure of a movement that transcends religious distinctions and identities?

Jesus the uniter of humanity, not Jesus the divider. How might that change the way we look at others?

When I used to think of myself as a missionary, I was obsessed with converting Muslims (or anybody for that matter) to what I thought of as “Christianity.” I had a set of doctrinal litmus tests that the potential convert had to pass before I would consider them “in” or one of “us.”

Funny thing is, Jesus never said, “Go into the world and convert people to Christianity.” What he said was, “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

Encouraging anyone and everyone to become an apprentice of Jesus, without manipulation, is a more open, dynamic and relational way of helping people who want to become more like Jesus — regardless of their religious identity.

A few thoughts.  First, yes, Jesus united people, but He united people around Him, God incarnate, the only solution to man’s problem.  He didn’t come to simply inaugurate a general, vague, content-less unity centered on human good will and interfaith dialogue.  He came to divide too: those who embraced His Father’s offer of forgiveness, and those who rejected it.  If you miss that, just ask the Pharisees; they were often at the receiving end of His division.

This does not mean that Christians circle the wagons and adopt an “us-vs-them” mentality.  It does not mean we make our love conditional or that those who disagree with us are dirty or unworthy.  I don’t know why anyone would think it does mean that.

Our invitation (aka, the “Gospel”) to embrace Jesus as Lord is to always remain open to all.  But this “rough side” of Jesus is one that needs to be reckoned with, not ignored.

Secondly, “doctrine” is another four letter word in our age, and Medearis treats it as such, but it need not be.  Doctrine is simply “belief.”  Everyone, including Medearis, has doctrines.  You cannot separate apprenticeship to Jesus from doctrine.

True, no need to obsess over infralapsarianism or make the Five Points of Calvinism a necessity for salvation…but you cannot divorce devotion to Jesus from beliefs about Jesus.  I can’t even do that with my wife.  If I tried, sooner or later I’d end up smooching the wrong woman, which wouldn’t go over well with her.  Doing the same with Jesus wouldn’t go over well with Him either.

Third, his comments reflect a false dichotomy.  Yeah, I know, “religion” is a dirty word these days, but it should not be.  A religion is simply a worldview or set of beliefs, often accompanied by certain rituals or disciplines, about ultimate questions such as “who are we?  How did we get here?  What is the problem with humanity and what is the solution?”  Did Jesus teach about answers to those questions?  Yep.  In that sense, did He start a religion?  Yes, centered around Himself.

Fourth, I don’t know what the big deal about “conversion” is.  Conversion is simply persuading someone to adopt certain beliefs, practices, etc.  Medearis’ beliefnet column is an effort in conversion…he wants me to drop by current beliefs/practices about Jesus, Christianity, and religion, and pick up his.  Why does he do what he wants me to stop doing?

Granted, some methods of persuading are better than others.  Jesus was not a fan of the sword, but He definitely was a fan of vocal proclamation about all He taught and represented.

Finally, though it sounds nice to think someone can be an apprentice of Jesus and still remain a member of another religion–say, Islam–that is a bunch of hooey.

While some beliefs in the Islam religion overlap with what Jesus taught, much of it conflicts.  For instance, the belief that Jesus is *only* a prophet, calling Him “God incarnate” is a grand sin, and He did not die on the cross.  All these are central to Islam, and any good Muslim believes them.  Any apprentice of Jesus who is worthy of the name will categorically reject them.

You just can’t get around these things.  Trying makes you an apprentice of someone other than Jesus…or perhaps it makes you an apprentice of a Jesus-made-in-your-own-image.  Neither will be ultimately helpful to you and your loved ones.

On Criticism

I’ve found that people of my generation are generally pretty thin skinned when it comes to getting criticism.  Perhaps this comes from my generation being steeped in self-esteem talk and good feelings.  I tend to be that way, so taking some heat is usually pretty difficult for me.

How to take the heat well is one of the things I’m learning recently.  This is my second year as head coach of a high school wrestling program, and the program has a slew of very involved parents.  For the most part, that is a wonderful thing.  They care.  They lend a hand.  They support vigorously.

But from time to time, when I make a decision that doesn’t benefit their sons directly, they get upset and voice it.  A few parents haven’t thought some of my decisions particularly good, they let me know it, and they talk amongst other parents about what they think.  In times like this, it is very easy to get defensive and get upset back, becoming offended that everyone is not on the same page as I, and being incredulous that anyone question my ways.

That would be the wrong reaction, and would only make things worse.

It’s almost as if I expect them to always hold me as the all-star, the-guy-who-can do-no-wrong, the-untouchable-one-who-walks-on-water.  Well, God is thoroughly squashing that expectation through the criticism I’ve been taking recently.

I have to expect times like this.  It is, after all, part of being in the spotlight as the head guy.  It is part of my job description.  If I don’t become comfortable with that, I won’t last very long.

My Hesitation with Technology

I recently read a piece in Art of Manliness that perfectly summarizes the ambivalence I have towards technology.  Technology is great.  I’ve catalogued it’s benefits before on this blog.  This blog is made possible through technology.  But there’s always a trade off, and typically the trade-off is hard to avoid, especially for the young.  As a teacher at a public high school, I see the alter affects of being over-immersed in technology every day.

The context of the relevant passage (bolded below) is on being fully present as a man.  It’s good stuff, so I quote the context at length. AoM gives a good challenge at the end, and it’s one I recommend to the reader (the full article has links giving evidence of their claims, so go read the whole thing):

Being fully present in all aspects of our lives-emotional, physical, and mental-is a manful way to live. It involves the self-control necessary to focus and engage body and soul with the world, while avoiding being distracted from what really matters. And it requires the bravery to face the world head on-to open oneself up to both unmitigated pain and undiluted joy. The easier path is to pursue every shiny thing that crosses our way or to numb ourselves and sleepwalk through life. But the easy path is not the path of true manliness. Isn’t it about time you started showing up for your life?

Have you ever been cruising through a book, only to realize that you don’t remember anything from the last five pages you read? Have you ever conversed with a friend only to have them call you out on the fact that you weren’t really listening at all? A lack of mental focus is the reason you’ve got a dozen half-finished projects lying around the house. Dabbling in many things is easy; focusing on one is difficult. But great men of history knew that one of the keys of success was the power of concentration and the ability to hone in on a singular aim and see it through to completion.

Your wandering mind not only keeps you from achieving greatness, it also makes you less happy as well. Psychologists at Harvard University recently conducted a study on the relationship between our activities and our happiness. Using an iphone app called trackyourhappiness, they randomly checked in with the study participants from time to time, asking them what they were doing, thinking, and feeling at that moment. Not so surprisingly, they found that people were happiest during sex and exercise (activities in which we are fully present in our physical bodies!), while those engaged in commuting, working, and grooming felt the least chipper. But what was really interesting was the finding that not only were 47% of people daydreaming at any given time, but that the more a person’s mind wandered, the less happy they were. Focusing on the activity at hand increased a persons happiness. Of course some daydreaming is quite healthy for our minds and our creativity. But there is something to be said for giving yourself over to something-mind, body, and soul.

In our time, technology is unarguably the greatest challenge to being fully present in our lives. It affects each of the areas we just discussed. Socializing online can stunt our real world emotional growth and our ability to empathize with others. It’s harder to get outside and experience our physical bodies when there’s a 3-D flat screen television to watch and Black Ops to play. And it’s difficult to focus on writing the Great American Novel when you’re checking your email ten times an hour.

Technology can also greatly impact our ability to be fully present in social situations. When I see a man looking at his phone while his woman is trying to talk to him, I want to smack the chump upside the head. Everywhere you go, you see people staring at their phones, nominally present in social situations but really focused on these screens. They talk on the phone while surfing the web, text one friend while conversing with another, keep the television on while eating dinner with the family. The lure of the glowing screen can keep us from really listening to and experiencing each other, can prevent us from being completely present with the people in our lives.

What I personally find most fascinating is the way “social media” can affect our ability to be fully present in the moment by encouraging us to frame our lives for consumption by others. Online communities like Facebook provide new opportunities for connecting with friends and family. But it is a different form of communication. Instead of revealing ourselves to others in real time, we can very selectively pick and choose the version of ourselves we wish to show the world. Our pictures and tweets, our updates and avatars, are chosen not simply to express our personalities, but to create an image of how we want others to see us. But crafting this image can start interfering with our real self. In a column entitled, “I Tweet, Therefore I Am,” Peggy Orenstein explored this new phenomenon:

“The expansion of our digital universe… has shifted not only how we spend our time but also how we construct identity. For her coming book, ‘Alone Together,’ Sherry Turkle, a professor at M.I.T. interviewed more than 400 children and parents about their use of social media and cellphones. Among young people especially she found that the self was increasingly becoming externally manufactured rather than internally developed: a series of profiles to be sculpted and refined in response to public opinion. ‘On Twitter and Facebook you’re trying to express something real about who you are,’ she explained. ‘But because you’re also creating something for others’ consumption, you find yourself imagining and playing to your audience more and more. So those moments in which you’re supposed to be showing your true self become a performance.’”

With the over-consumption of social media, you may find yourself already framing how you’ll share an experience with others, while you’re still having the experience. If you’re already thinking, “Wait until my friends see this!” you’ve left the realm of being present in the moment.

AoM Man-Up Challenge: Pick three ways you can be more fully present in your life this week. Go for a run, talk with your wife, turn off the phone, block your favorite website (even if it’s ours!).

Wrestling Highlights

Looky at what I made!  Part 1 of the CVHS 2009-2010 highlight dvd.

If you want me to make one for your sport/event, email me at rdb268@hotmail.com