... Manly Man, "Ugh, ugh, ugh!"

So I was having this discussion this evening with a couple of guys.  Any time you get some guys together these discussions are always a potential.  One of the fellas observed something very interesting and very true about what words men use and what words we do not.  

For instance, the words "top" and "bottom," when referencing clothes.  You will never hear a man say (especially to another man) "Wow, that's a really nice top you have on today." or "Those bottoms match that top nicely."  NEVER.  Instead, a man would say something like this, "Dude, I like that shirt." or maybe, "Bro, that shirt looks good with those pants."  Of course, when complimenting another man, saying "dude" or "bro" either before or after the body of the sentence legitimizes the compliment behind the mask of masculinity.  It's kind of like telling another man you love him (close friends, church buddies, college buddies, etc.).  It's always OK if you follow it up with "bro" or "man."  Using these add-ons is, of course, optional.  But it definitely adds to the manliness.

Other words you will never hear a man use in normal use: "Accessories."  For instance, "You always have such nice accessories."  Again, NEVER.  From the mouth of a man... "Dude, nice watch." or "I really dig those shoes, bro."   "Accessorize."  For instance, "You could accessorize that outfit with those shoes."  Instead... you might hear, "Dude, you could wear those shoes with that."  

Of course, there are other words out there that fall into this category, but I will discuss those at another time.  If you have similar words to these, let me hear about them... dudes!

... (an) Adventurer

So, I have been blogging on some fairly serious/heavy issues as of late and the whole election thing is getting to me a bit.  So, I want to put out something more on the lighter side...

Knowing that everyone's different in how they deal with the every-day stresses of life, I recently figured out a key to how I function best.  I realized I am a vacation goal setter.  I can't remember hearing of any demographic that this places me into, but It's a very real part of my coping mechanisms of doing life.  

In order for me to function with hope, a positive attitude, and looking forward to each day, I have to have a vacation project looming on the horizon.  For instance, Steph and I had plans to use a free gift vacation to Vegas (one of those give-aways you get if you show up to a time-share sales pitch).  We failed to return a registration form in the alloted time to take the trip when we wanted (there are about 5 hoops you must jump through to actually go on the trip, I'm sure meant to deter people from actually following through and using the "free" vacation).  When I found out we weren't going on our trip in about two months, I felt this feeling of despair and hopelessness sweep over me like a wave.  I was not expecting this, but it all made sense.  

For as long as I can remember I have always had something I was working on and toward to look forward to.  College graduation, youth group events when serving as a Youth Pastor, wilderness expeditions when serving as a wilderness guide, my wedding, hikes and trips and day-trips with Steph, the birth of Madeline, a trip to Yosemite with a friend (cancelled just before the incident described above, adding to my feeling of hopelessness), etc.  When I found myself without an event to look forward to in the following couple of months, it was hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel of everyday stresses.  

When we were able to reschedule the freebee trip for February 2009 it got a little better, but it was still too far away to really feel any anticipation.  Then Steph, the genius and loving wife that she is, booked four days and three nights at one of our time-share properties.  The monotony of dealing with every-day stresses had just been lifted.  I had an adventure to look forward to.  There's something from John Eldregde's Wild at Heart there.

That's what it is... the lure of an adventure on the horizon...

Anyone else have this same or similar personality trait?  

...person interested in the single issue voter

Below I've quoted a blog on single issue voting, specifically in regards to abortion.  The author, Randy Alcorn, is a well known anti-abortion activist and author.  This is definitely his passion.  I must say that this particular argument is very compelling and I agree with most of it.  I'm sure this will ruffle some feathers with some of you, but we're all bigs kids and can hopefully handle it.  The portions I've quoted here are not the complete article.  If you'd like to read it in it's entirety, feel free to visit the web-site at the bottom of the post.  Enjoy... and feel free to comment...

“As a Christian, should we vote for who we think should lead our country solely based on their stance on abortion? I have been thinking about this question and I am having a hard time putting my thoughts into words.


Is the unborn an innocent human being? If you claim to be prolife in the historical meaning of the word, then your answer is yes. Is abortion the shedding of innocent blood, the taking of human life created in the image of God? If you say you are prolife, your answer must be yes. (Please do not redefine the meaning of the word prolife and say "I'm prolife" if you're really not.)

So, is the candidate’s stand on the issue of shedding innocent blood important enough to disqualify him as a candidate? Yes. While a single issue can’t qualify a candidate, it can disqualify him. In my opinion, this issue clearly disqualifies Barack Obama, just as it disqualified Republican Rudy Giuliani.

I don’t think someone is a good candidate just because he is prolife. But he cannot be a good candidate unless he is prolife. Personally, if he is committed to legalized child-killing, as a matter of conscience I must vote against him.

Now, when someone says, "But still, abortion isn't the only issue," I agree. I care very much about the poor and racial equality. That's why if John McCain was committed to legalizing the killing of the poor and the killing of ethnic minorities, I would not vote for him either.

But suppose you have two candidates, one who has promised to defend and further the legalized killing of one group of people (any group: women, minorities, disabled, unborn, poor.) You disagree with the other candidate in areas that in their own right might be important, but do not involve the merciless slaughter of millions of people. Furthermore, the second candidate—whom you consider boring and disagreeable—believes that same group of people has the right to live, and he says he will defend their rights, and appoint judges who will defend it. Now, which candidate should you vote for?

If neither candidate were committed to the legalized killing of people, any people, then I would say, by all means weigh and measure those other important issues and make your choice. But can you seriously argue that these other issues trump the killing of millions of innocent children, not just now, but in the decades to come under a proabortion Supreme Court that could have been a prolife Supreme Court?

Don't you believe that though there were other issues in Nazi Germany besides the killing of Jews, Gypsies and the disabled, that all those other issues were trumped by that one? If Lincoln's platform involved ending slavery yet you agreed with Douglas (who wanted slavery to remain legal) in lots of other areas, would you feel right voting for Douglas, knowing you were voting for slavery?

So I say OF COURSE THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES. I don't minimize them. All I can say is the differences between the candidates on those issues don't stack up, even cumulatively, to the legalized killing of human beings. It's a matter of relative importance, not just a number of issues. A man who is a good husband in most respects, but who beats his wife, is not a good husband. That issue outweighs all the others.

In a previous blog comment, someone said they wouldn't vote for McCain due to his failures in his first marriage. I too am troubled by John McCain's treatment of his first wife. He has said it was a failure on his part, but whether he has repented, I don't know. This is one of several things I don't like about John McCain. But his past failure in marriage is not comparable to Obama taking a present stand for the legalized killing of children.

I am not excited about John McCain in every area. But when I compare him to Barack Obama in the overriding issue of our day, the right of preborn children to live, there is a stark and radical difference. In America right now, the rights of Jews to live and slaves to be free are not on the table. The right of unborn children to live is on the table. The killing of the unborn is the holocaust of our day. Where do you want to have stood on this issue? Where do you want the man you vote for to have stood on it? If your grandchildren ask you one day whether you voted for or against the right of children to live, what will you say?

Would John McCain be a great president? I don't know. Maybe he wouldn't even be a good president. There are so many claims by both candidates that their words seem like wind to me. I don't feel like I know a lot. But I do know for certain that one candidate defends the right of the unborn to live, and the other is utterly committed to be sure that it remains legal to kill them. And on THAT issue I know what God says is right and wrong.

Yes, I realize Obama is cool. As I said two blogs ago, I really wanted to vote for him, so I could be cool too. John McCain is not so cool. And he's a Republican at a time where being a Republican definitely isn't cool. The question isn't whether I'd rather have dinner or play golf with Obama or McCain. (I'd choose Obama.) The question isn't whether I'd like the Republican Party to change. (I would.) I'm not voting for the Republican Party. In one sense I'm not voting mainly for John McCain. I am voting for McCain because it's my only way in this election to vote for the right of unborn children to live rather than die.

Now, if you think that's an overstatement, that the difference between the candidates isn't that great, or they will not influence the future of abortion in this country, I challenge you to look at Obama's dogged commitment to the legalized killing of unborn children, backed up by his 100% proabortion voting record. And look at McCain's repeatedly stated commitment, also demonstrated by his voting record, to oppose the legalized killing of children. If you think your presidential vote is not for or against unborn children, you don't understand the significance of the Freedom of Choice Act or the significance of the balance of power of the Supreme Court with the Obama judges who are certain to be pro-legal-abortion and the McCain judges who are virtually certain to be anti-legal-abortion.

My conversations with fellow Christians who are prolife but are voting for Obama have common themes these days. They always emphasize "Obama is prochoice, not proabortion." To which I respond, "actually he is pro-legalized-abortion." This is emphatically true, based on his own words and 100% consistent voting record. It shouldn't be considered a matter for debate. What politician in the country is more strongly committed to legalized abortion than Obama is? Every radical proabortion group knows this, and everyone of them have been working tirelessly to get him elected.

Believing what I do that the unborn are human beings in the fullest sense, to be pro-legalized-abortion is exactly equivalent to being pro-legalized-killing-of-three-year-olds. Or pro-legalized-killing-of-teenagers. Or pro-legalized-killing-of-women. Or pro-legalized-killing-of-Jews.

What would you think if a politician said "I'm not pro-rape, I'm simply prochoice about rape. And though I would not choose to rape a woman, I believe that every man should be free to rape a woman if that is his personal choice." And what would you do if that politician promised the rape lobby that if he is elected president, the "first thing I would do" is to sign legislation that would invalidate all the state laws that restrict rape in any way?

Well, I think I would say that man is pro-rape, wouldn't you? But technically, no, he is simply prochoice about rape. Well, okay. Be prochoice about whether someone should eat Mexican food or Chinese food, or cheer for the Phillies or the Rays. But don't be prochoice about whether men rape women or kill children. Because that is to be pro-rape and pro-killing.

Now, no doubt Obama supporters will think this is an outrageous analogy. And those who don't believe unborn children are really human beings would understandably feel that way. (Though, both scientifically and biblically, they are absolutely wrong.) But what about all the people who keep insisting they are prolife, that they really DO believe the unborn children are precious human beings created in God's image? If that's what you really believe, then you must accept the analogy as valid. (On what basis is it invalid unless it's because the unborn aren't really human and therefore don't have human rights?)

Is rape, despicable as it is, really worse than overpowering and tearing apart an innocent child in his mother's womb? If you are REALLY prolife, not just if you say the words "I am prolife, but there are many other issues," but I mean if you REALLY believe these are children, then the analogy to rape, kidnapping, or killing teenagers or women or Jews or African Americans is perfectly legitimate. How could it not be? Don't skim over this—seriously, I want to hear your answer.

So, feel free to go against the clear evidence about who the unborn really are. Then just admit that you are not prolife. Sure, it's irrational, but at least it's a good explanation of why you would support the strongest pro-legal-abortion candidate for the presidency in the history of our nation.

But PLEASE don't just mindlessly say "I'm pro-life" then contradict that statement by saying you are supporting a candidate for president who is utterly committed to not only maintain legalized abortion through policy and appointment of judges, but who also HAS PROMISED (through the Freedom of Choice Act) to try to reverse all pro-life state legislation passed by vote of U. S. citizens in the last thirty years.

I've heard other prolife people say "I don't like either candidate, so I'm not voting at all." Well, ask yourself who you're willing to punish by not voting. If it's political parties who will pay, fine, I really don't care about them. Sure, it would be better not to vote than to vote against God's children's right to live. But if instead of abstaining you have a chance to vote for God's children's right to live, why would you not do that? (Don't vote for the man, vote for generations of children who will have a chance to live if he's elected, even if he's just a mediocre president in other areas.)” -Randy Alcorn 10-22-08 (www. randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/im-not-voting-for-man-im-voting-for.htm)

...US voter

Ok, I've held off from tossing my hat into the political discussion ring on my blog... until now.  Let me begin by saying that I really wish we could start all over with the candidates.  I really don't like my choices.  It's kinda like going to a restaurant and having the server ask me if I'd like blood sausage or haggis with my meal... uhhh, neither?  

Anyway... so after watching the first debate (twice) I am convinced, more than ever, that while neither candidate instilled much confidence in me, Obama just doesn't have the answers.  The first 40 minutes of the debate centered around the domestic economic situation.  Neither candidate really had much to say.  But, I must say that Obama's responses were completely empty of useful content.  "Change," yes we know you want change.  But HOW, exactly do you plan to affect change, Senator Obama?  You want to change the root of the domestic economic problem heh?  What, exactly, is your plan?  I noticed that, at one point, the mediator attempted to nail Obama down to answering the HOW in his plan of "change."  That was the first time I have ever seen Obama at an obvious loss for words.  He fumbled his answer (or lack thereof) like a clumsy Jr. High football player in his first game of the season.  

I'm not super excited about McCain's response to the economic situation, but at least he HAS a specific plan, or the beginnings of one.  It seemed as though Obama hadn't put ANY thought to the issue prior to the cameras turning on.  I will concede that neither candidate hit a home run on this issue since neither candidate really had enough information to confidently propose a definitive plan of action.  I give half of a point to McCain for at least stating a plan.

The next 50 minutes of the debate concentrated on foreign policy.  This is where Obama just scared the hell out of me.  Senator McCain took Senator Obama to school!  It actually seemed as though Obama was getting educated on legitimate foreign affairs.  Obama was speaking philosophy when McCain was speaking reality.  Obama talked about what he wanted, McCain talked about what was needed.  I felt like Obama was reciting and defending an event from a college textbook when McCain had actually experienced the event and could speak directly to it, from his personal experience.  The differences were obvious and so was Obama's lack of experience.  I'm not for doing things the "same old way," but Obama has no clue as to HOW to affect the "change" he desires and with the volatility of the world, specifically the middle east, this is just not an option.  I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it when McCain suggested at Obama's response to Iran, "So let me get this right, we sit down with Ahmadinejad and he says 'We're gonna wipe Israel off the face of the earth. and we say 'No you're not?  I don't think so."  Then McCain went on to put Obama in his place as to what Henry Kissinger did or did not say, who is a 30+ year friend of McCains'.  Senator Obama, you just look liked a fool, when it comes to international affairs.  Point to McCain.

I've decided to dock Obama a point for distasteful disrespect.  Did anyone else notice that Senator Obama began referring to Senator McCain as "John."  Not just once, as two cordial debaters might do as an indication of a personal relationship with each other.  Rather, this was an attempt at stripping McCains' dignity and equality as a Senator.  Poor behavior Senator Obama!  Deduct one point from Obama.

One thing that jumped out to me, and probably most everyone who was watching, was the distinct difference in the candidate's pubic speaking abilities.  They're POLITICIANS, they are both adequate public speakers, but Obama is definitely smoother and more well spoken. McCain trips over his words and searches for what he wants to say and how he wants to say it a bit more.  It definitely takes more energy and discipline to listen to Senator McCain speak.  But, here's the catch; I'd rather have a President who takes a bit more time searching for the right words to say, even stumbling over his delivery a bit, than a President who is smooth, well spoken and always ready with a witty response but whose message is devoid of substance or depth.  I feel as though everyone is swooning over Senator Obama's oration skills, like a ship full of sailors chasing the siren's calling.  We all know what happened to the sailors.  I'll give Obama half a point for at least sounding good though.

Tally:

Obama: -.5

McCain: 1.5

In my mind, the win goes to McCain in this debate.  I look forward to the others and I will attempt to be as non-biased as possible in my analysis of those too.   

...grandson

I learned this afternoon that my grandfather is not doing well. The day after I last saw him (about three weeks ago) he was diagnosed with colon cancer following a colonoscopy. He went under the knife this morning to remove what they believed to be a limited amount of cancer. But, what they found was not what they expected. He has numerous lymph nodes in his sower abdomen that are very swollen (presumably cancer) and there are other cancerous areas the surgeon could not get to. It's in his system... Not good.

So, this has me thinking about my theology on healing. Allow me to backtrack here; about a week ago our church was asked to pray for a little South African boy who has been fighting brain cancer and it's effects. We began praying for him about 8 months ago (at least), when he collapsed while he and his parents were visiting Orlando, FL. He fought hard while surgery and treatment were initiated there in Orlando before he healed well enough to be sent home to S.A. Since then, our church family has been in prayer for him and his family, but no specific word his condition had been communicated to us (at least not to my knowledge). Then this last Wednesday we were informed that he took a turn for the worst. The church was asked to pray, and pray we did. But, I took a long pause as I soaked in all the voices lifting up their requests to heaven.

This is where my grandfather's cancer and this little boy's story connects.

As I was surrounded by people praying that our God would heal this little boy, I couldn't bring myself to pray for his healing. One thought stopped me... and I don't know the correctness or incorrectness of it yet. I don't really think there is a correct or incorrect side of this thought anyway.

"God, either miraculously heal him, totally and completely, right now... or just take him home to be with you. He's a kid and has been fighting this horrendous battle for long enough. So, take care of it once and for all right now, one way or the other."

My grandfather is 86 years old, has been in full-time pastoral and evangelical ministry for more than 60 years, has visited about a 100 countries in ministry (give or take), seen countless hundreds, if not thousands, come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, has loved... lost... and loved again, has seen all of his children and grandchildren come to the Lord, and has eleven beautiful great-grandchildren.

"Honestly, God, either miraculously heal him, totally and completely, right now... or just take him home to be with you. At his age, there's no need for him to fight this horrendous battle that will most likely leave him with less , physically, emotionally and mentally, than what he has now. He's fought for the Kingdom all his life. So, if he's done fighting for the Kingdom, let him take his armor off and come sit with the King."

I love you Papa...

... Budding Photographer

I have decided to begin offering some of my choice photos for sale.  I've been interested in this for quite some time now, and just offered some of my work in a local art and photography benefit auction.  About half of my work was successfully auctioned for a minimum of $15/piece.  I will be tagging them with a watermark then posting them on this blog, the the individual prices.  The far majority of my subject matter is natural landscape.  Everything from scapes of our National Parks to unique views flowers and spectacular sunsets.  The photos will have come from places such as Mt. Rainier National Park, Olympic National Park, Alaska, Las Vegas, San Diego, Pasadena, my back yard and many other locations.  It may be a while before I get everything set up, but when I do... enjoy!

...SoCal Scardicat...

Most, if not all, of you know that the Orange County area was rocked by a moderate earthquake on Tuesday morning.  So, being relatively new (almost four years) to SoCal, I thought I'd give a play-by-play of the event, as I experienced it.

I was in a staff meeting with the Summer Conference Staff in a second floor conference room in the Student Center building here on the campus of HIU.  As we were beginning to wrap up, what felt and sounded like somebody dropped a truck onto the roof of the building shook the entire building.  It was like a pop, similar to what you'd think a car bomb going off outside the building might feel and sound like, with a concussive feeling.  Immediately after this most of us around the table either froze or sort of half stood up.  I looked out the window to see the trees violently shaking, unlike from a wind.  At that point, I knew it was an earthquake, but before I could even process the thought it felt like the entire building slid about a foot to the left and then swooshed back to the right.  Right then I yelled for everyone in the room to get under the conference table and I didn't have to say it twice.  As I dropped to the ground and squeezed under the table, I seriously thought the building was going to collapse, based on the violence of the shifting of the building.  I imagine there are some people that, when a situation arises they believe is a possible catastrophe, immediately fear death or think they may die.  But, as I seriously thought the building would collapse, I never once thought I would die.  Rather, my mind did a shift to a place of survival at all costs; duck, grab, run, push... whatever was coming my way, I felt hyper-aware of.  It was a bit of a strange feeling, emotionally, yet also gives me a sense of confidence.  I think some people freeze.  I felt the opposite of frozen.  I felt... totally engaged.  The rumbling continued for about another 20 seconds or so, gradually tailing off.  While I was under the table I realized the building was not going to collapse and began to pray (out loud) that God would protect Stephanie and Madeline.  My fear was for them being in 42 year old dorms that are falling apart, regardless of earthquakes.  As soon as the shaking seemed to stop I told everyone to stay put and I opened the conference room door to see what the Student Affairs lobby was like.  Many people were coming out of offices making their way to the lobby, toward the doors to exit the building.  I heard good friend and co-worker, Chris Williams, holler from down the hallway for everyone to evacuate the building, in case there was any structural damage.  I turned and told everyone in the conference room to get out and make their way to the parking lot.  At that time, I ran as fast as I could down the stairs, out the front door, and to the dorm where my wife and baby were.  As I barged through the door hollering my wife's name, I heard her shakey voice saying that they were alright coming from the back yard.  I followed the voice and hugged my wife and baby girl for a good long time.  Steph was pretty shaken up, no pun intended.  But she did great in getting to Madeline and getting them both to safety.  She was scared for the dogs too.  She doesn't remember exactly what they did, except that they "freaked out."  Madeline, on the other hand, never even woke up!  

Ok, I know this must sound a bit over dramatized for a "moderate" quake.  But, I'm telling you, I have no problem telling you that it scared the CRAP out of me!!!  I really don't want to experience that, or worse, ever again.  The one thing you always feel you can count on, the ground under your feet, is no longer safe.  Tornados and Hurricanes you know are coming... earthquakes?   Uh, no.  I told Steph last night that she needs to begin looking into other places in the country she wants to live, because I REALLY don't want to experience "the big one." (I was partially kidding)  Someone told me this afternoon that there is a 99% chance that "the big one" will hit SoCal in the next 30 years.  Yikes!!!!

... thankful father

So, last night was a bit frustrating.  We put Madeline down at about 10:00 pm and she wasn't having any of it.  She cried until about 11:00 as we held her, fed her some more (in case she hadn't gotten full on the first feeding) rocked her, swaddled her, unswaddled her and generally did everything we, as new parents, know to do to calm her down and get her to sleep.  Then, I took her to her bedroom and was walking and swaying her (while she continued to cry) when I impulsively pressed play on her little stereo/CD player.  One of Tommy Walker's CD's was in there and the song "I Have a Hope" was playing.  Since she was crying good the song was fairly loud in order to hear the music over her.  Within 2 seconds she was completely quiet silent, eyes closed and seemingly asleep.  I was astonished.  We stayed in there and listened to the entire song.  When it was over I foolishly thought she was really asleep and took her to her cradle and laid her down.  Well, she wasn't asleep deeply and within minutes was whaling again.  It was fun while it lasted.  

I quickly grabbed the computer, bringing it into the bedroom and, as fast as I could, opened iTunes, found Tommy Walker and hit play.  It didn't have quite the same response, but when I picked her up, began swaying and sang along with Tommy and the rest of the worship team (including her auntie Becca), she quieted right down again.  As I held her swaying, listening to the songs and singing along, I began to really worship the Lord.  During the song "To God Be the Glory" I began to do exactly what the song says, giving God the glory for this little bundle of beauty, joy and blessing.  Tears began to flow and I couldn't continue to sing.  But my heart was singing loud and clear as I was as thankful for God's provision and blessing as ever.  May He receive all the Glory of Madeline's life and our happiness with her.   *

... astonished young father...

... astonished young father.

Well, Im a new father!  On July 3, 2008 at ten minutes to 9:00 in the morning my little princess was born.  Apparently she didn't want to come out, as what was supposed to be a 5 minute extraction, took about 20 minutes due to her being so high up in Steph's abdomen (she hadn't dropped yet) and the doctors having a difficult time gripping Mad's head (the anesthesiologist said is was like the docs trying to grip a wet basketball).  Since they couldn't get a grip, they chose to use the vacuum.  They tried with that dumb vacuum at least 10 times before tossing it out due to it's persistant malfunctioning.  They had the nurses break out a brand new one and out she came on the very first attempt.  Although she was covered in blood and caked in this white gunk... she was the most beautiful thing I'd ever seen.  When she cried out for the very first time, her mother and I glanced at each other with grins the size of the Grand Canyon and both of us cried at hearing the most beautiful sound in the world.

Since then, Steph and I have been learning a ton every day and loving every minute of it.  Madeline has her days and nights flip flopped, but we're working that out one day (and night) at a time.  

From the moment Steph told me she was pregnant I was more convinced than ever that children were a true miracle.  But this last Wednesday this idea was driven home to a whole new level.  Mads had developed an eye infection on Monday and Tuesday, to the point where her eye was sealed shut with an orange gunk and was very swollen.  So, we made a docs appointment (Mad's first) for Wednesday.  We're sitting in the waiting room of the office and I received a phone call from my friend, and mentor, Nick Saltas.  I told him what we were doing and what Mad's issue was.  He told me a story about when he and his wife, Karin, had their first child in South Africa.  Karin's midwife told her that whenever any of her children got an eye infection she should "squirt" breast milk on the eye and it should clear it up.  When I heard this info., I laughed heartily and told him he was nuts.  He reassured me he was serious and that this treatment has been used on all three of his girls with amazingly positive results.  We hung up and I told Steph about the proposed treatment and we both got a good laugh.  

Five minutes later we were in the exam room and the doc verified that it was, in fact, an eye infection (didn't take a genius to figure that one out).  She immediately turned to us and asked if Steph had tried putting any breast milk in her eye yet.  We both just about fell out of our chairs!  She told us that she wanted us to put breast milk on Mad's eye each time she was fed for the next three days and if that didn't take care of the problem to fill the prescription she would give us before we left.  

Well, in less than 48 hours, the eye had completely cleared up and the swelling abated.  Who would have guessed!!!  Amazing!  Anyone who doesn't believe that God created us is ignoring facts that are more obvious than the sun in the sky.  And that creation is so intricate and perfect that I'm more amazed each day.  We truly are created in His image.  

...thirsty socialite

I was hanging out with a good friend yesterday and a point that is circulating in popularity and profile hit me a bit harder.  Our society has convinced itself that virtual communities are satisfactory and fulfilling.  Cell phones, Facebook, MySpace, email, etc.  I have about 200 friends on Facebook.  The speaker at the LTT on Thursday night claimed to have over 2500 friends on Facebook (he has had to open two accounts because Facebook only allows 1500 friends per account).  I can guarantee that neither he nor I have that many friends... real friends.  This is not a new revelation... I know.  But it really hit yesterday as my friend (real friend) and I talked the entire way to, and back from, where we were going.  I've noticed I have had the same feeling when just sitting and chatting with my wife.  

I'm thirsty for real community and relationships.  I get this with my wife, of course, and then there are a few friends and church (which is extremely relational and an awesome community), but I read what my Facebook friends are doing in their lives and it actually makes me feel like I know them even less than I really do.  

This feeling reminds me of when I was attending a megachurch (McChurch - see my last post).  Seriously, going to church with thousands of other people you claim to, "go to church with" but have never said more than two words to in your lifetime.  It's like flying to New York City on a full Boeing 757 and saying that you went to New York with 3oo "friends."  

Now, I do think these virtual communities can be helpful, as I have reconnected, albeit ever so briefly, with some people I went to high school with (GO HORNETS!) and then others from college (GO SPARTANS!).  But friends?  They may have been at one time.  They may be again in the future.  But right now most are an acquaintance, at best.  

Then, there are those who really are friends, but I minimize myself to the point of texting, emailing and posting messages on their Facebook, instead of calling them and letting them know I miss them, or I want to pray for them, or just want to catch up... verbally, if not in person.  How shallow am I?  OMG!

Time, postage, snail mail, time...  Is that what it is?  We've got ourselves so wrapped up in the business of our lives that we no longer have time for friends.  I guess it shouldn't come as such a surprise.  We've already sacrificed time with our families (around the dinner table) due to "lack of time."  And then there's time with God... shoved aside because we "have no time."  Friends are the next logical step I guess.  

How ironic that I'm discussing this via a virtual community? 

Oh, wait my wife just texted me...  "hi babe. jst blgn.  b home soon. luv u."  

:-)

...copious note taker

These are the notes from the Leadership Training Time (LTT) at Southlands Church International; Thursday morning's session.  I hope you enjoy and can glean something from God.  

USA LTT – Southlands

Chris Weinand

June 26, 2008 AM Meeting #1

 

Galatians 2:1-

 

Always Paul… AN apostle.  Not Paul, THE apostle.

 

The best way to see an apostle is to peek over their shoulder to see what they have done.  How many churches have they planted, lead to fruitfulness, been integral in bring back to health, etc.  Not necessarily leaders of large churches or even dynamic preachers/teachers.  What they truly have done is the defining principle.

 

We need multitudes of apostles to do the work ahead of us.  There are many more apostles in the Word than just the few who are highlighted.  We need more apostles than teachers or even prophets/prophetesses.

 

Are you looking for/wondering what God wants you to be doing?  Apostolic ministry is wide and varying.  Do not get caught up in believing that only preaching, teaching, etc. is the only apostolic ministry avenue.  Find, listen to and follow your calling. 

 

  He has served in ministry for 20-some-odd years, pasturing, associate pasturing, missions pastor, etc.  But he heard every year from God about go to the nations.  He thought he was heeding this message in his ministry positions, but he voice got louder ever year.  Mike had always wished that God had given him missionary’s blood, literally.  He wished that someone in his family ancestry had been a missionary to the nations.  Then after so many years in ministry, his mother called with information on an uncle and aunt who had go to the far-east in missions.  They were ministering to a group of people in a village when a bandit intruded and the end result was both missionaries being shot and killed.  This embolded Mike and he visited that village and their grave.  When the people of the village learned about his purpose for being there, they were afraid he had returned there to avenge his family’s deaths.  Instead he began to minister to them and when their youth began to be radically changed the people asked him to stay.  They ended up building a ministry/community center where multitudes have and continue to be ministered to.  He now is envading the sex-trafficking industry in east Asia.>

 

Chris then led the meeting in a very different direction.  He brought people up to the front who were in missions-type ministries both domestically and internationally.  He asked everyone who feels a stirring in the heart for going to the nations to come and be prayed for by these people.  He also called on anyone who felt as though they had lost their voice (not physically, but spiritually) to come up and be prayed over, that God would release them and give them their voice back to minister.  Over half of those in the meeting (200+) went up for prayer for one of these two reasons.  The rest of the meeting was spent in powerful prayer for these groups.  

... Blogging Learner

OK everyone, I've changed my settings correctly to allow anyone to comment, which is exactly what I want.  So comment away.  

Phil, thanks so much for your comments.  I will definitely check those books out.  You too Luke.  

Frustrated Church-goer

Today I am a frustrated church-goer.  Now I'm not frustrated at the church my wife and I are involved with.  I love our church and the people there, although it's not perfect.  No church is.  But my frustration lies with the American mega-churches that have become so popular in the last 10-15 years.  

So as to not unduly offend any readers, names of churches and most individuals will not be divulged in this blog.  My wife and I have attended mega-churches together as well as individually, before we met.  I will be commenting on our experience, the experience of trusted friends and acquaintances and the general situation.  

I was thinking about a comparison to begin this dialogue.  The American mega-church has become the "McChurch."  I say this because I believe the mega-church of America has become a religious equivalent to the McDonalds fast food chain.  Not in every way, of course, but as you will read, there are enough similarities for me to safely coin the name, "McChurch."

The most pronounced way these two entities resemble each other is what I will call the Supersize mentality.  McDonalds has made millions of dollars off people's desires to supersize their meals; extra-large fries, extra- large soda in addition to the sandwich of your choice... all for a small additional charge.  The meals, to begin with, are already unhealthy, at best, lacking in healthy nutritional value.  Increasing the size only increases our body's intake of non-nutritional/unhealthy food, ultimately burdening us with added weight, higher blood pressure and acne.

Similarly, the mega-church in America (in general) has taken watered-down theology (lacking in spiritual nutrients),  a hollow community (lacking in substance/relational depth) and wrapped it all up in flashy, multi-thousand seat, facilities.  The congregants fulfill their roles in this comparison as consumers, ordering up only what they feel like taking part in at that moment and if they don't get exactly what they think it should be, they take their patronage elsewhere.

Now, not every mega-church is like this, I'm sure.  But, I am still looking and listening for information on the mega-church that has not become the McChurch.  So, what makes a mega-church become the McChurch?   A number of things are contributing factors, beginning with the American church model.  I have not always viewed the church like this, but then again, I was surrounded by only those who thought like I did and did things the way I did.  

The American church is, in essence, a mirror of an American corporate model.  Take a step back and see this with me.  Today's Senior/Lead Pastor is the equivalent of a CEO.  When did it become acceptable to have the spiritual leader of a community of believers be viewed as the CEO of the church.  The Word of God speaks of pastors/elders being the shepherd of God's flocks.  I've never heard of a shepherd sitting in his office directing the flock from a ergonomically designed chair, behind a desk and staff that protects him from any of the flock intruding on him in his office.  Yet, that is exactly what I see in the mega-church pastor.  They seem to be more concerned with the management of the company, er... uh... I mean church.  Administrating the personnel, holding them accountable for making the right numbers and facilitating growth, in people and in dollars.  They want to keep their pastorate, yet be invited to speak at churches and conferences all over the word.  I actually know of a pastor who has stated that he IS the CEO of HIS church.  He also stated that taking care of the families of the pastoral staff is their problem and responsibility, not his (he worked the pastoral staff to the bone and gave very little time off).  I thought the shepherd was in the charge of taking care of all the flock, including those who help him lead the rest of the flock.  And then there's the corporate mentality taking precedent over Godliness, character, and integrity.  This same pastor actually knew that one of his senior associate pastors was lying to him and to others about issues that directly affected numerous others.  Instead of holding the associate pastor accountable for his actions, he allowed, in full knowledge, a subordinate to be let go, who had done nothing wrong, because it would "be less detrimental on the church body" if the subordinate left and not the associate.  Sounds a lot like a corporate cover-up to cut their losses.  Ok, enough on this guy.  Needless to say, I would have a very difficult time giving him any respect as a pastor, leader or man.  Honestly, I'm still praying that God gives me grace to not be so angry at this mega-church pastor, who is still leading his ever-growing church (which I will never darken the door of).  To give you a public example of the point I'm making, look at Pastor Joel Osteen.  This guy has become the public face of the evangelical church in America.  He's seen on TV in suites that the money spent on them could provide enough food for a homeless shelter for at least a week.  Flying around in your own personal executive jet?  Come on, are you kidding me?  The money it took to buy that jet could build a state of the art homeless shelter, or rehab center for addicts.  How many churches has Pastor Osteen's church planted in the US and around the world?  I don't know this guy personally.  I'm sure he's a very kind man with great, Godly intentions (as I believe most mega-church pastors probably are).  But he has gotten way off track somewhere.  Living in the blessings of our Heavenly Father is one thing.  owning and flying around your own executive jet and living in a mansion like his is a blatant perversion of every scripture reference that speaks of God's blessings for his children.

On to the next level of the McChurch.  The Associate Pastors (Associate Pastors, Youth Pastors, Children's Pastors, Seniors Pastors, Assimilation Pastors, Integration Pastors, etc...)  are equivalent to upper management.  I don't have such an issue with this group as I have with the Senior Pastors of mega-church.  The Senior Pastors set the tone, hire their yes-men, and begin the trickle-down effect.  My issue with this group is that they are specific, occupational ministers.  I've been here.  I was a youth pastor.  I was given the charge of "pastoring" the youth, 7th grade through high school and college.  I was not given the availability to minister to any other age group at the church.  When I did take an opportunity to speak what I know the Lord had given my for the church, I was basically shut down by the man who at the time ran the church, although he was not the pastor, had never been the pastor, but controlled everything that happened in that church.  That was the beginning of the end at that church for me.  Although I felt then as though God wanted to use me in that specific situation to speak to His church, which I still feel was God's message for them at that time, it was years before I began to believe that associate pastors should pastor, elder, lead, anyone God brings to them, regardless of age, demographic, etc.  When you look at scripture, do you find Youth Pastors?  Children's Pastors?  Integration Pastors?  No.  You find pastors, elders, teachers, prophets.  Of course, all people, regardless of calling or ministry must be aware of gender specific issues.  But other than that and a few other concerns (those with past sin issues ministering to individuals struggling in those same sins can very risky and potentially unwise... for the minister).  If you have a calling to pastor or elder, get trained, matured, descipled and when you're ready to pastor anyone who needs leading, regardless of age, demographic, gender, etc., then you're ready.  Pastoring/eldering is very important, but left in general terms for a reason.  I just don't see biblical evidence for pastors/elders being occupational specialists, at least to the level that has become normative in the American church.

The church's office staff would equivalent to the middle management.  They carry out the will of the CEO and the upper management.  These are usually hard-working people who, in McChurches, have to put up with the consumers (congregants) and the pastoral staff.  Honestly, I feel for them, especially in having to deal with the egos of McChurch pastors.

Then we have the congregants.  I have also been here.  The consumer.  The church-goer who is searching not for what God would have them do in ministry to their community, through this particular church body, but rather someone who is looking for how and what the church serve them.  Does this church have the ministry programs that will keep my family and I comfortable, meeting all our desires?  If the church doesn't have everything they want, the consumer goes to another church looking for the service they want.  Since when was this a description of the church in the Bible?  If I'm not mistaken, we are to go to church to be a part of a community of believers that are actively ministering to the spiritually lost community they reside and work in.  One man described the church as a hospital, where broken, hurting people are welcome to be healed, loved and trained to care for, love and train other broken and hurting people.  There is some very real truth to that.  The blood of the martyrs was not spilled so we could attend a church that gives our children a disney-land-esque entertainment level, acts as a boys and girl's club for our youth, and placates the adults with marshmellow-fluffy, pseudo spiritual, chicken soup for the adult church-goer teaching that makes everyone have warm fuzzies and walk away always feeling good about who they are and how they're doing.  We should be challenged, prodded and  equipped by the teaching.  Our youth should be likewise challenged and taught the principles and ways of our Lord.  This can be done well... I've seen it!  Our children should be taught about a God who loves them more than they can imagine (enough to sacrifice his only son) and has gift for and expectations of them, even as children.  We are not consumers of the Church!  We are the Bride of Christ, the Army of God and we have work to do!  

One very practical problem I see in the mega-church is how the sheer size of the congregation severely limits the intimacy of the community.  When my wife and I attended a mega-church, we immediately involved ourself with a small group through that church.  I guarantee you that small group is what kept us at that church far longer than if we hadn't been joined that small band of friends.  Those friends really became tour church, in practicality, for us.  But, when we would attend the weekend services (and we had at least four choices of times and locations) we rarely saw anyone we knew.  We tried to get to know more people by integrating ourselves in some of the ministry opportunities the church offered.  But after each ministry event was over, we never saw any of those people again.  What a lonely church.  That's exactly what we were; lonely.  We wanted a church family.  But how can you get to know the family when it's a mass of people four thousand strong and you hardly ever see the few people you have become close with?  I have to believe that this issue is consistent with most, if not every, mega-church.  But, I also believe that this issue can be accounted for and effectively dealt with by extreme intentionality in meeting the relational needs of the body.  Yes, this is a simplistic answer, but it's a foundation that can and should be built on.

I know that as soon as I publish this post, I will think of other issues, perspectives and thoughts I want to relay to you.  But, I think I've conveyed the general gist.  So,  what's the point of this rant.  To make you think.  I know there are those who will read this who will not agree with me.  There are those who will be very defensive.  That's fine.  I would be defensive of my church too.  But, that doesn't mean the criticism is wrong.  This is healthy criticism because I want us, as the Church of Jesus Christ to be what the Father created the Church to be.  I don't have all the answers, but if we are all willing to critically look at what we're doing and what our church is doing and how it's being led, in the reflection of scripture, I guarantee the church will be exponentially more effective in loving, serving and saving the lost.  I love the Church and look forward to a lifetime of being used by the Father to continually learn and utilize what He wants the Church to do to make the largest impact on the world as possible.  I look forward to your thoughts.

First Blog...

It's 4:00 am and I've been sick and not sleeping.  I think I'll begin my blogging tomorrow...