Flower Petals for ZuZu

On my last post, I raised the question of whether you would re-live your life if you could. More specifically, if you could wake up tomorrow, and find yourself 7 years old, but knowing all you know now, would you do it?

I'm sure all the reasons that this is so intriguing to me would require a skilled counselor, but this question/daydream has popped up on a regular basis for much of my adult life. Usually, I spend the time thinking about things I would have done or not done, people I would have spent more time with/less time with, etc. But recently, I was pondering a separate issue that, I think, will put the issue to rest for me.

First off, the strongest reason to want to go back: My mom would still be alive today. Probably.

My mom died of ovarian cancer in 1989, at the age of 61. She was way too young and vital and fun to have died otherwise, and has left a mom-shaped hole in my heart that nothing can fill (nor should it - God doesn't make replaceable people). If I woke up, and was 7 again, I would be spending a significant amount of time convincing my parents that I knew what was going to happen ("trust me, a peanut farmer from Georgia will be president in less than 10 years!"), and that they should find a doctor willing to do a full hysterectomy as soon as possible - I'd reimburse them with the money I would get with some well-placed venture capital to some kids in the bay area ("Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, here's my Dad's life savings. Cut us in for 25%"). A hysterectomy at that age would ensure that cancer had not had time to get out of the ovaries, if it was there yet at all. Given the chance, I'll take my mom back. She never got to hold her grandchildren. Never got to tell my wife what a yummy pumpkin pie she makes. Never got to go all those places she and my dad were going to go once he retired. Too many nevers...

And actually, this leads to the other side of the equation. Could I change only the things I wanted to, or would my life careen too far in other directions to end up here? What got me thinking seriously along this thread was the occasion of the birth of my 4th son in January (no girls. game over. 4 for 4 and done). As I looked at him, and then his brothers, I really thought about them - the unique individuals that they are. How did they get here? (Yes, I know how they got here - had it figured out even before the first was born). I mean, they come from the same gene pool, and yet are vastly different. And then, I started really thinking about the astounding odds involved in each of their existences.

For each child, there were - let us say - multiple attempts at conception, but only one that was successful. With each attempt, millions of unique, individual sperm cells were all rushing to find an egg. When an egg was found, only one sperm cell was allowed in to complete the fertilization process, which would ultimately lead to development and birth. So, each of my boys is literally one in a multi-million, and precious beyond measure.

Now, here's where it gets tricky. Let us say that I could successfully negotiate my "life-over" to get me to the point of marriage to my darling wife. What are my chances of getting the same 4 sperm cells to fertilize the same 4 eggs? Beyond impossible. I know that the children of this do-over would be precious, wonderful, special, etc. I would love them fiercely and dearly. But. They wouldn't be my boys that I have now, and remember, part of the deal here is that I know the life I had lived, and was able to alter it so my mom didn't die of ovarian cancer, so I would know of and remember those guys.

Even sitting here and writing those words fills me with an ache in my chest. I could never - will never - turn my back on my precious children, sacrificing them on the altar of selfishness.

On the day that my Lord call me to my true home, my mom will be there, welcoming. She will have been waiting longer than she would have wanted, but after a couple thousand years of holding my hand, she'll get over it (We can talk about the nuts and bolts of Heaven sometime later).

Let me end with a word-picture of our lives: You're driving down a road in the fog, and drive over a wooden bridge. Immediately, the fog lifts, and you stop and look back. The bridge you just drove over is made entirely of toothpicks placed in an interlocking pattern that will collapse if even one is removed. There is only One who is skilled enough to put this bridge together: any attempt to improve upon the design will ultimately result in collapse.

George Bailey never knew how much he would miss ZuZu's flower petals, until they were gone.

Sorry for the lapse in posting

No real good excuses why I haven't been posting.
I thing my last posts threw me - I had a thought that sounded good in my head, but when I wrote it down, it started sounding more and more like I was a knuckle-dragging jerk.

Oh well.

My knuckles don't drag.

I have a post coming up next (too late to write it all now) about the following:
If you could wake up tomorrow, and be 7 years old, with your whole life to re-live, would you do it?
Why or why not?

Any comments would be coveted. I think I know what I would do, but the dilemma is significant. I'll explain next post.

Emperor's Clothes, Pt. 2

I kind of left the previous post without a good or satisfying conclusion. Maybe there isn't one.

I guess the final point or solution is to strive for a re-awakening of the idea of beauty as something transcendant - meaning not just dictated by current whim or fashion. Then, choices for clothing/hair/etc. would be made based on comparisons to the ideal, not the trendy.

I realize I am on incredibly shaky ground here, and have probably alienated what few readers I have, but I just wanted to explore this idea, throw it out, and see if anything comes back, good or bad.

What say you? Do I have a point, or am I just a jerk who doesn't understand?

The Emperor's Clothes

This is probably going to be the most inflamitory post I will ever make.

Ready?

I want to talk about women's fashion.
My point is this: as a college professor, I see lots of young women wearing clothes/hair/etc. reflecting current average-young-person fashion, and for the most part, it's awful. By awful, I mean that it makes the person look terrible. The current awful look is low-cut jeans with short t-shirt. Why is this awful? Because, for a high percentage of women, this means that we all get to look at their stomach and upper hips hanging over their pants - not unlike your average plumber.

Why do they do this? Why wear clothes that intentionally accentuate an unattractive aspect of their bodies?

Because the pretty girls wear it.

We live in a world that intellectually denies trancendent beauty, while we all inherently respond to it. Fashion designers are infected by the same nihilism as the rest of society, and don't actively pursue "beauty", instead opting for "new" and "different". So, instead of stepping back and realizing their work is ugly or unflattering, they go on strving after more new and different and "cutting edge".

How can they get away with this? They put thier stuff on models. Pretty girls.

If someone is inherently pretty/lovely/beautiful/attractive, they will look good in just about anything. It doesn't matter if the clothes/hair/makeup is itself unattractive, because the beauty of the person will shine through, and impart that beauty to the clothes/hair/makeup. Thus, the top few percent of "elite beauties" can get away with wearing anything, and making anything look attractive to the rest of us.

That leaves the majority of young women faced with "fashionableness" meaning wearing something that looks terrible on them.

I grieve for young women these days. What a terrible dilemma to be in.

First Things

I start a new semester today. I have a ridiculously cushy work schedule - more on that for a different post on work ethics.

The question that I consider now is this: what's my first priority as a professor?

My natural response is "don't mess up so badly that no one takes your classes ever again!" (I have issues with insecurity, fear of failure, desprerately wanting to be liked, etc). I have to fight against these tendencies if I have any hope of doing more than cashing a check and doing my time here.

I've found that the thing that transforms my teaching from a performance of my own making to something more, deeper, is to change my motive. My ongoing prayer for the duration of the semester is that - first and foremost - I would be a pleasing fragrance for Christ to my students. They'll get the nuts and bolts just fine, and learn the craft. What they need above and beyond that, however, is a glimpse of a way to live other than the nihilism of the secular campus.

May my life reflect the healer of my soul, and allow hope and love to shine a bit.

Update: I just need to say that I looked back at this post, and thought I sounded awfully good! In reality, I fall way short all the time, and mess up more times than I would care to say.

Sin is like smog

I live in the LA area, so I know all about smog. I was born and raised here, so I remember when the air quality was actually worse than it is now (thank you, emission standards!). But still, we do have some pretty smoggy times down here.

A few years back, I was in a bible study, and we were talking about sin, and the insidious nature of it, and how it can ensnare us so easily, without our truly realizing what is happening. Over the course of the conversation, I came up with an analogy that is straight from the LA basin.

We have local mountains here that rise very high very quickly, so you can go from tanning at the beach to skiing down the slopes in one day and still have time for a movie and dinner back home. This also means that you can see the "lowlands" clearly on your descent from the mountains. On most days - especially if you are heading down in the afternoon - you see a striking scene: where you are, there is a clear blue sky, and visibility for miles and miles. Where you're heading, there is a solid light-brown sea of smog. You can't see the lowlands through all the smog. It looks like fog, or cloud cover when you are flying, but it is really, truly, smog in the LA basin.

Yuk.

Your first thought is always the same: no way am I going down there! I will die a horrible, choking death is seconds. But, you head down anyways, because that's where you live.

Now, here's the other striking thing: you never hit the smog.

You get home, and things seem just like you left them. You are breathing just like you did yesterday, and the day before.

So what happened to the smog? It's still there, it's just that the descent into it was so gradual, that you didn't even realize when it happened. Your body adjusted, your eyes adjusted, and all seemed normal.

This is what sin is like. Very seldom do we jump from the clear air of purity into a thick, globular morass of sin. Usually, we subtly, slowly ease into it without truly realizing what we are doing. The air seems fine down here, thank you. Sin, what sin? Leave me alone.

Only when we are lifted back up into the pure air through repentance and forgiveness are we able to look down at where we were living, and see the "smog" of sin.

What are we to do? Repent early, repent often. Forgiveness is always waiting for you. You won't know how much you needed it until after the fact when you look back down.

The yoke's on me

Bad puns R us!

Anyway, back to the topic of Christianity being an easy yoke, a light burden.

What does Jesus mean? Elsewhere, He talks of persecutions, suffering. If we look at His own path, the suffering was immense. So, it can't mean the physical events of this life - bad things do happen to good people. In fact, they have to - otherwise, following Jesus would deteriorate into a kind of "get out of jail free" faith. Believe so life will be easy and pain-free! God wouldn't have our hearts, just be our contingency plan.

Then what was the burden? The yoke?

The religion of the Pharisees.

I put it this way, because I don't want to confuse what the Pharisees were doing with the Jewish faith. It was like a thick coating of man-made junk put over the top of Judiasm. Law upon law, rule upon rule, burden upon burden, yoke upon yoke. A life dominated by the dictates of those who made it their profession to follow those dictates, while the average working person had no hope of being able to devote the time and energy needed to "measure up".

Jesus hated this.

It's clear to me by His statements to and about the Pharisees. I won't repeat them here, but He called them "sons of iniquity" for starters.

Then what was Jesus' yoke? His burden?

"I love you. Come to me. Rest. You are forgiven."

So, my former student, who walked away from the Christian faith because it was too hard, walked away from what? It certainly wasn't the words of Jesus.

We, the Christian community, have become the Pharisees, with our official and unofficial lists of what a "good Christian" should be (don't drink, don't smoke, don't watch The Simpsons, whatever...). You could probably write out a list of "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" from your own experience. Some biblically defensible, but really, bottom line, a thick coating of man-made junk laid over the top of "I love you. Come to me. Rest. You are forgiven."

God was courageous enough to give us the freedom to walk away, or walk to Him. Why do we insist upon junking this up?

Is there more to the Christian life that this? Certainly. But let us let that be the work of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures upon each of our hearts.

We would each be a bit messier on the outside, but probably a lot cleaner on the inside.

An easy yoke? A light burden?

More on this later, but I wanted to start my mind spinning on this one.

Jesus said that "My yoke is easy, My burden is light" (paraphrase, close enough for late posting).
Living within the Christian community, all too often, this phrase seems a million miles away from what we are asked - by others - to do. I had a former student talk to me once about the fact that they were walking away from the Christian faith. When I asked why, the answer was not what I expected. I was ready for a debate on the validity of the claims of Christianity, and instead, I was told that life was just easier not being a Christian. Relying on oneself made them happier.

How do you argue against this?

It's not a matter of propositional truths - it's a matter of personal experience. Someone in my students' life made the yoke hard, and the burden heavy.

Shame on them. Shame on us.

Can the Christian faith be an easy yoke, a light burden?

More later. Comments more than welcome.

Howling at the wind

I know, I know, mixing metaphors. But it fits the point I want to make.

Is anybody reading this? By this, I mean this site, not just this post.
I've only told a few friends (very few) about this, so it's really up to random chance if anybody will read what I've written.

Now then, two questions arise from this: Is it worth it to write to (potentially) nobody? Is it random chance that would lead someone here?

The second question first. Answer: I don't truly know, but I think not. Being an orthodox (not Orthodox) Christian, I believe that God is in control. Of everything. Always. Yes, that raises a TON of issues regarding Tsunamis and parking tickets, but ultimately, it provides a solid foundation for secure reasoning. If one thing is random, then anything could be random, then nothing is secure - including God's love - which means that a lifetime of dedication/work/devotion could be vaporized by randomness. "Sorry! You were supposed to make it to Heaven, but oops! Tough luck old chap." There is offered to us security and certitude. There is an ultimate order and sense to things, even if we don't see it on this side of life.

So, to anyone reading this: Welcome, you were expected. I wrote this just for you. I hope it helps.

I guess that answers the first question also.

What can I say to you?

For anyone who scrolls down past this post, you'll see that there has been a looooong gap between this post and the last. My struggle seems to be this: what do I have to say? Amplified: what do I have to say that would be worth someone else's time?

Of course, life is busy. I was down for 3 weeks(!) with the flu - no kidding, just ask my wife - and then, just last week, our 4th child was born.

I am now the father of 4 boys (ages 7, 4.5, 2.75 and .1). Wow. This is an immeasurable blessing, and a hassle greater than I have ever known. Holding a child in your arms who adores you is achingly wonderful. Cleaning vomit from the van is also aching, just not wonderful. We try so hard to raise these children up in the way they should go: to love God, to serve Him, to be sharp of mind, strong of body. But then, when you just want to make it to 7:45 bedtime, an hour or so of Boomerang (TV channel that shows The Flintstones, Tom & Jerry, Looney Tunes, etc) is seductively easy, and wins more times than I care to think about.

And maybe that's the point of my ambivalence: I find myself mostly a disappointment to myself. I am a selfish, self-absorbed, lazy, constantly-sinning man who has staked my life and eternity upon serving Christ. I have no special wisdom that I know of. My deep insights tend to look pretty shallow when re-examined in the light of day. I'm not a doer.

If there is any wisdom in this post, it would be this: How does the Enemy keep me ineffective? Inactivity.

I read, I think, I watch, but I don't do much. Definitely not as much as I would want.

Why?

Fear. Mostly fear of failure in all it's myriad manifestations.

And maybe that's what I can offer you: transparent reflections on the life of a wholly inadequate disciple. I have entrusted my eternity to Jesus, and my service to Him is pockmarked at best. I am a lamb, but I am defiant. Most importantly, I am forgiven and redeemed in the midst of my failures: falling on my knees again and again.

Let me show you my stumbles, and through this, remind us all that no stumble cannot be followed by getting up.

What will you take a bullet for?

I was recently at a men's retreat for my church, and one of the speakers was a man named Dan Allender. Excellent input. I continue to ponder his words (3 weeks later), which, to me, is the ultimate test of the impact of any message.

One of the things that stuck, and is getting pondered, was the title question for this entry: what will you take a bullet for?

Further amplification would be to ask yourself what stance/position/value/thing are you willing to uphold to the point of death? Sadly, for many, I fear the answer is "nothing". I think this comes from an absence of introspection, and an abundance of distraction. I would encourage us all to ponder this question, and get to the core of who we are.

How would I answer?
My first, reflex response was: my family - wife and three (soon to be four) kids.
Next came "oops! What about my Christian faith?" How easily we take what we view as secure for granted.

Sidenote: I am a fan of a Canadian singer, Steve Bell. Kind of Dan Fogelberg-meets-Bruce Cockburn music. Very good, thoughtful music. On his website, in the "Conversation" section, mention was made of his criticism of the war in Iraq. I was a bit dismayed, but not surprised - a Canadian artist slamming the U.S.? Shocking! So many view the U.S. through socio-economic glasses (Brittney, WalMart, etc.), and miss the true core of who we are, and why we do what we do. We are a Judeo-Christian Democracy. Study those words, and it will explain America's core.

But it got me thinking more about the "bullet" question: is the war on terror a "bullet" issue? Yes.
Why? Firstly, it touched upon the first two of my responses above, but it also goes to who we are as Americans. Read the Gettysburg Address, maybe for the first time. It is still true about us. We are reluctant warriors (Yes, we really are reluctant. We ultimately want to be left alone to make money and buy things, and let you do the same), but we are unrelenting when provoked. We will stop you from trying to harm us, or die trying.

We are William Wallace. We are James T. Kirk. We are Patrick Henry. We are Ward Cleaver.
Lest you laugh at the last entry, think a minute: who doubts that Ward Cleaver wouldn't have protected his family and country to the point of death?

In closing, I thought it good to go ahead and post the text of the Gettysburg Adress. Read it. It may explain alot.

The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

John Kerry is George Foreman!

It's struck me that John Kerry could very well be compared to George Foreman. Not George Foreman, the loveable purveyor of Lean, Mean Grilling Machines, but George Forman, stunned victim of a master strategist, Mohammed Ali.

If you havent seen "When We Were Kings", go rent it or buy it at Amazon. GREAT movie! It's a documentary on the fight between Ali and Foreman where Ali shocked the world by beating the superior physical specimen of Foreman. A facinating story with, I think, pertinent application for the current presidential race.

As I write this, the Kerry campaign is in meltdown mode. No bounce from the Dem convention. The Swiftboat Vets shredding the ability to rely on Vietnam as the foundation for credibility. Finally, a Republican convention pitch-perfect that seems to be giving W a double-digit lead. What happened? Kerry was ahead! W is an idiot empty-suit Hitler wanna-be who doesn't deserve to shine Kerry's medals!

Hmmmm.

This is where I go back to Foreman. Ali was a brilliant strategist, Foreman knew he would win. Fatal mistake.

The first thing Ali did was size-up his opponent. He knew George Foreman. Knew his strengths, weaknesses, and how he, Ali, compared. Second, he endeared himself to the people of Zaire, while Foreman seemingly hit all the wrong notes at the wrong time. Result: Ali had the crowd on his side. Finally, Ali developed a strategy to beat Foreman. Not a strategy to win a fight, but to beat Foreman. Foreman went out to pummel his opponent, just like Ali knew he would.

Bottom line: Rope-a-dope. Go watch the movie.

How does this relate to Bush and Kerry?
Bush is striking me as a master strategist, and Kerry is looking like someone who has no idea how to compete with someone who won't play by the rules you want them to.

Tactical advantage. Keep your opponent off-balance. Patience, Grasshopper, patience.

Bush has not personally responded to the wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth criticisms of Moore/Move-on/etc. He crafted a convention that communicated quiet, strong, determined triumphalism. We are left with the impression of someone who is doing the right thing and will continue to do so reguardless of the difficulties. VERY American. We like that.

Kerry howls at every barb, much less punch. Takes everything personally, and constantly criticizes. Bottom line: whiney bad-mouther. VERY elitist. We don't like that.

What is the president doing? Very carefully, determinedly, surgically squirting gasonline on Kerry's hot head, knowing combustion is coming any minute.

The moment when this all came into focus for me may seem trivial, but I think it sums things up perfectly.
It was the pre-acceptance speech film. Specifically, the last sequence in Yankee stadium. The culmination of this whole image-piece to introduce President Bush is what? Throwing out the first pitch at a game. How is this gasonline on the hothead? Let's compare: right before the Democratic convention, John Kerry goes and throws out the first pitch at a Sox game. Bad move. First, this close to an election, the crowd is polarized. Boos will be heard (and reported, thanks to the blogosphere). Second, Kerry throws like a wus. EVERYONE in the stadium knows it. EVERYONE who sees the clip knows it. Kerry should have known it and figured out something else to do for a photo-op. Third, he stands IN FRONT of the mound (wus), and, inevitably, he bounces the pitch to the plate (double-wus). Thus, a try for some good PR ends up with Kerry being laughed at (the head is heating up...). So, what does W do? Takes a moment at the convention (one of the most watched moments, I might add) to remind everyone that he can go out to Yankee stadium, right after 9-11, with body-armor on, take the mound (even emphasizes this point), and throw a strike to the catcher. Take that, ketchup boy!

That whoosh you heard was the sound of combustion.

George Bush is a poker player, and a good one. Poker is all about strategy. Use the cards you got, whatever they are, to beat your opponent, whatever they got. Also, it doesn't matter who wins the early hands, only who walks away with the winnings at the end of the night.

Be looking for the Kerry Lean, Mean Searing Machine coming to an infomercial near you.

Why "Defiant Lamb"?

It's the title of a song by an artist of immense talent, and whom God has decided to keep under the radar for most people.

His name is Bob Bennett, and you should check out his website: http://www.bob-bennett.com
You can even download a free song of his! Well worth the visit.

What is a defiant lamb? Buy Bob's most recent CD, and find out for yourself! I guess I would describe it as our state as fallen humans desperately in need of a shepherd, and foolishly demanding our own way. Life would be so much simpler if we just lived in obedience to the Shepherd. Simpler. Not easier. Just simpler.

As far as my description of the site goes, I should probably clarify what I mean by looking for the fingerprint of God in our lives.

I believe this world functions on two levels: the natural and supernatural. The natural is the stuff right in front of our eyes: what we see, hear, touch, etc. All very explainable, mostly understandable. The supernatural is the stuff behind the scenes: a myriad of activity we only get glimpses of sometimes in mostly oblique ways. I believe God is active and interested on an intimate level with our lives, and leaves bits and pieces of evidence of His supernatural workings within the natural world. Very rarely is this spectacular (I have had two instances of what I would call spectacular interventions of God in my life, and both could still be explained away if you wanted to). Mostly, it is revealed upon reflection.

Still, it's wonderful stuff that I will take joy in the opportunity to relate as it seems appropriate.

For now, this is enough.

Welcome to my blog!

I have finally jumped into the blogging world. Yes, I'm up too late. No, I don't have much to say yet. More to come later...maybe even an explanation of the name of this thing!

Until then...