A Life Well Missed

    Have you ever been to one of those off Broadway theater shows? I’ve heard they can be quite interesting. Often they’re put on by very small theater groups and the play is usually written by somebody in the troop. So you really don’t know what you’re gonna get when you go see one.

     Imagine going to one where you sit down in your seat waiting for the plate to start and as you sit there looking on your phone, the guy comes up on the stage, sweeping the stage with a brown and another guy comes on a stage who looks like he’s the sound guy cause he’s got a headphones sit on and they start talking About their lives. The guy sweeping the broom mentions that his grandfather died a few weeks earlier and his mom isn’t doing too well. They discussed this a great length for several minutes and then they park their ways. Later on a woman comes on the stage talking on her phone. She looks like she may be the director. She’s screaming at somebody for not doing their job. Because it’s on speakerphone, you can kind of hear what the other person is saying and this conversation goes on also for several minutes and ends with her walking off the stage, still angry at the person on the phone Later on somebody in the very back of the theater starts screaming at the person who is selling the tickets and telling them that they already paid for the tickets they shouldn’t have to pay a second time. That conversation goes on for several minutes as well and ends with a woman leaving in a huff. Just when things can’t get any weird or the woman next to you, strikes up a conversation with you and starts talking to you about her mammogram that she had done the day before it goes into a great detail about the experience with you. Several more types of conversations go on like this on stage and in the aisles and after a while the lights come on and they announce that the play is over. You think to yourself “What play? I didn’t see any play!”  but then all the people that had those strange conversations come back up on stage stand in a line and bow. All those different people talking to each other, all those interactions you saw WAS THE PLAY!. Some of it you remember most of you don’t because you’re on your phone and you have lost track of time.  While you were waiting for the play to begin and thought you could kill some time on social media, the play had already begun and you missed it!

     That is what life is like when you’re on your phone. You keep waiting for the play of life to begin and all the distractions that keep popping up all around you that irritate and annoy you are part of the play

     Someone once said that “life is what happens when you’re making other plans” but maybe we should update it to say “Life is what happens when you’re wasting it on social media”

     I hope this illustration helped you see it more clearly 

Gaining and Losing what defines you

  Who are you?  

   That was the title of a famous song by The Who.   It was a great  song by the group and was one of their biggest hits ever.  Those 3 words ask a very big question to all of us, but even more so for men.   We are constantly asking this of ourselves in our search for its answer.   It was asked by Solomon 3000 years ago when he ventured out to find meaning "under the sun".   He tried everything.  He tried "madness and folly" which we could equate today as being "drugs and alcohol".  He then tried "pleasures" which we would refer to as "sexual appetite".   He tried "work" and later "wealth" which we do today as well.

   In all this he found it to be meaningless, purposeless and void.

   In our quest for meaning, we often attach ourselves to our titles we obtain.  Titles can come in two types:

  1) Legal

  2) Functional

   Legal titles are simply ones that are given by a governing agency or institution.  For example, when I graduated from Univ of Illinois, I was given the title of "U of I Graduate".   It doesn't say any more about me except that I attained a level of knowledge acceptable to that institution to give me a diploma.  When I got a job at Data General I had a legal title given me as being an "employee" of Data General which just informed the federal government that they were going to get some tax revenue from them in my name.

   Functional titles, on the other hand, go further than a state of being, but say more about what my responsibilities are and what I provide in that role.  For example, at Data General I was given the title of "Design Engineer 1" which showed how I contributed to the designing of their computers.  I work in R&D and not in accounting or marketing.  

   Men are more likely to tell you of their Functional Titles rather than their Legal Titles because they mean more to them.  Ask any man what they do for work and they will tell you WHO they work for and also WHAT they do for them.   Very rarely will a man simply say "I am an employee at XYZ".  We are 'DO-ers' and not just 'BE-ers'.   It's these functional titles that give us purpose and reason for living.  

   As men move through life we gain more and more of these titles.  We may get married and we are then given the legal title of "spouse" and the functional title of "husband".   There may not look like there is much difference between the two titles and some would say we are splitting hairs here, but we are not.   Spouse is a title on the marriage certificate and other legal forms.  Husband implies their role in the relationship.  In a way it also implies their sexual role with their "wife".   

   Later, we may be blessed with children and then we are given the legal title of "father" (it's on the birth certificate).  As the child grows we are given (not by anyone else ... but ourselves) the functional title of "parent" which implies nurturing, training, teaching, caring, disciplining and supplying.   I loved that title more than anything else too.  Even a boss of mine told me the reason why I wasn't getting promoted as fast as others was, in his words, "because you put family first and work second".  While that did upset me some, I wasn't going to change that at all.  I changed bosses instead.

    At around 40 or so the whole process begins to unwind itself and the titles you acquired up to that point begin to be erased.  Things you used to do in those roles/titles you no longer do.  When the children reach adulthood and move out on their own, you lose the functional title of parent but retain the legal title of father.   They may still ask for advice, but not from you as a parent but as another trusted adult.   Eventually this too will ebb away over time as their lives become more busy as is so eloquently described in the song "Cats in the Cradle".  

   Finally you reach the +60 age level and you face the final stage where you are forced either by your own lack of ability or your companies increasing demands to put away your coveted functional work titles you have struggled so many years to obtain.   For me, that title was Principal Engineer.  At Intel, I was given the chance to work towards that title, but I valued my title of husband and parent more and so I never really pursued it.  Having left Intel, I was able to obtain that title at different company and I have had that title for almost 2 years now.   Now I have to consider setting it aside along with my general title of "engineer" and replace it with a NEW title of RETIREE. 

   But retiree is not functional title, but a legal title.  It only means I am allowed to start receiving government support in the form of Social Security and Medicare.  It's not something you DO, but something you ARE.   And what is a retiree?  When I hear the word RETIREE, I think of of this large area in the Arizona dessert where all the old airplanes (military and commercial) are left to rot and decay in the sun because its too expensive to dismantle them for parts or scrap.  They were "retired" to the boneyard.  Instead of contributing to our country I must become a leach on society instead.  

   So, "Who are you?" is the question I am left with.

   Sorry I don't have an answer here as I normally do.   I am still processing this and working through it.  If I have any revelations I will update this article  and let you all know

    

   

Making the old NEW again!

    When one looks at the Christian church and its growth over the last 2000 years, nothing really compares to the growth of the church in the 1st century. During this time it went from under a 1000 to almost 100,000.   When discussed as to why this happened, the answer most pastors will give you is “the persecution of the early Christian’s”.  I never truly accepted that answer.  Mainly because people don't generally join movements where people are being killed (especially by crucifixion).  However, persecution did do one thing that helped the church grow.  Persecution forced the church to keep itself hidden and distributed in small home-based churches and not gather in large public settings.  Since most Roman citizens lived in tightly woven apartments rather than in separate homes (only the rich could afford this luxury) these churches were embedded in very dense populated areas.  On top of this, these apartments were not like today's apartments with sound-proof walls and ceilings, but were separated by only a couple layers of brick and mortar .  This meant that what you did in your apartment was well known by those adjacent to you.  If you laughed, they all knew you laughed.  If you snored, they all knew you snored and of course, if you prayed and sang in worship they all knew you prayed and sang in worship.  

    This made the church to be everywhere all at the same time.  There was no way to avoid it.  Its lack of centralization was its strength and not its weakness.  Being distributed allowed more of its members to be involved and play a bigger role in its function.  How better to develop new pastors and missionaries than to raise them up leading small home churches and then sending them out into the larger world.  Timothy was one such home-church-pastor that had grown up under Paul.  It also provided a very close and non-threatening environment for people curious about the faith to find out about it.  There was no large mass group of people to try to fit into.  These were your neighbors, your co-workers, your friends and relatives. 

   But today, our churches are not in our neighborhoods anymore.  They are in large buildings, with large signs letting everyone know who passes by what they are about. You can avoid them as easily as you can find them.  In the last several decades our churches transformed from quaint churches of a few hundred members to becoming "worship centers" that resemble concert arenas that can hold thousands.  This is the direction many churches are going thinking THIS is the church of the future.  The two biggest problems with the mega-church are

1) Lack of deep connection between members (getting lost in the crowd)

2) Lack of ability to correct wayward members because of problem #1

Before we go on discussing #1, I do want to first address problem #2.  This issue is often overlooked (maybe on purpose) by those on the mega-church path.  Correcting wayward members is not just an important activity for the church, it is also MANDATED by Christ himself.  In Matt 18:15-17 Jesus goes into very clear detail as to how he wants the church to handle a follower who holds on to their sins and do not repent.  Jesus does not say it’s "do it if you feel like doing it" issue either.  Jesus gives his disciples a 1,2,3 step approach that expects us to put into action.  Yet this is impossible for large mega churches to do since they lack any intimate connection with their members and many don’t even have actual membership roles.  When churches fail to even attempt to address errant members can you really even call them a CHURCH?   It would be like going into a hospital to talk to a surgeon about needing a procedure done and they said "Oh we don't do surgeries here!"   Can you still call that place a hospital when it doesn’t perform one of the most important services a hospital does?  The same goes for God's church!  You can’t call yourself a church if you can’t (or won’t) follow through on Christs command. 

  Now I would like to address the issue of problem #1 above.

  Mega-churches try to deal with the intimacy issue by creating small "|life groups" which allows members to meet in small home environments.   These life-groups are highly promoted by the church but are not a requirement of being a member.  It's hard to tell exactly what percentage of mega-church members actually join these life-groups. But even so, is this really what Christ had in mind for his church?  Is the church just a music concert with a biblical message?  I don't think so.

   Is there another way?  A way that brings the church closer to what Christ had in mind and gives members a true spiritual connection with others?  A way that can help wayward members seek a desire for change and repentance.  

   I think there is!  What if the Life-Group WAS the church and not just an appendage that is optional.  Where offerings that are gathered go more to mission than to mortgages.  Where members truly feel heard and cared for.  Where worship is more than just watching a concert being put on.  Where ACTUAL prayers for people's needs are addressed and lifted up to God rather than someone reading off a list of first-names only and then saying "God take care of these people!"  Where fellowship isn't just grabbing a donut and coffee and then running out the door. Where members take care of the church activities rather than an ever growing large paid staff 

    Here is how I see it working

   On Wednesday night, the home-church leaders meet with the pastor at their main office (which could be just a small store front in a strip-mall) to hear his sermon and record it.  They would be able to ask questions about the sermon and even cultivate a bible-study discussion from it as well.  The pastor can also supply recorded music, contemporary music for those who want modern music and hymns for thos desire a more traditional style.  If there is communion that Sunday, the pastor can bless the sacrament and distribute what is needed to the home-chuch leaders to give out at their worship

   Then from Thursday to the following Tuesday each home-church would meet at a time that works best for their group.  They could conduct the service as they so choose as well, but would be required to have certain parts such as 

•    The Invocation
•    The Creed
•    The Lord's Prayer
•    The Sermon
•    "Prayers" 
•    The Benediction

All other parts would be left up to them.  If they want to sing, they can or if they just want to listen that can do that as well. Everyone is allowed to worship in a way that makes them happiest.

The home-church will also save countless money with removing the need for organs, hymnals, praise-bands, and expensive lighting and sound amplification systems.  

Q: How would you integrate new members? 

First, the pastor can still conduct a small church gathering at the church office building on Sunday morning where new prospects can come to check it out.  The church could also employ the use of AI in helping them find which home-church a new member prospect would best fit in.  With a simple, non-intrusive, survey we can find a list of "best-fit" churches within driving range for them to "try out".  At some point they would declare which home-church they want to join so they can be kept in the fold and not slip out the back door (a problem which many mega-churches suffer from).

Q: How would offerings be collected?

While cash would not be used, offerings could be collected via on-line internet services like VENMO, ZELLE or others.  Many churches are already using these modern approaches to gathering offerings already.   The church can supply back to its members a full disclosure of where their money is being used as well.  

Q: What about big services like Christmas or Easter?

The church could rent out space for 3-4 services per year that would allow the entire church to attend in person.  Leaders could spend time preparing for these services and also involving the members themselves.  This would be the most efficient use of offerings as these places would not require sizeable mortgages and maintenance.  These large group gatherings are needed to help members see how much God is really at work in their community.   

Q:  What if some home-churches are maxed out?

As groups grow, members would be asked to step up into leadership roles and split their home-churches so as to allow room for new members to join.  (Just as Peter selected 7 men to help with the Greek speaking widows).  It gives more members the opportunity to grow their leadership skills and also give others a chance to share their homes in God's kingdom.  Too often in today's church it is difficult to get people to become leaders because the step they are being asked to take seems bigger than they feel they are capable to handling.  The home-church doesn't get more intimate/safe for incubating new future leaders and even pastors. 

Q: What about Sunday School?  

Essentially you don’t need it anymore.  Sunday School didn’t come in to fashion until the 1950s.  The home -church environment provides a great place for children to be raised up in the nurture of the Lord.  In some cases they could even assist in the service itself (beyond just lighting candles).  Children would not only see their parents worshiping for also growing in their faith and becoming leaders. To me this is much better than sending them out of the worship room for juice , donuts and cartoon videos.  

Q: What if someone is sick or gone on vacation and can't lead?

Every home-church will have designated alternates in their group for such cases and phone apps like "WhatsApp" can be used to communicate changes to the groups as well.

Q: Are there any drawbacks to the Home-Church method?

The only drawback will be for pastors who are used to seeing throngs of worshippers physically in front of them hanging on their every word and telling them at the end of the service what a great job they did. Pastors will need to schedule home-church visits to meet and greet the members.  While this may take more time on his part, he will be enriched was well, as he will have a greater opportunity to meet more of his members (especially those who may be too shy to talk to him at a large church thinking he is too busy for them).  He can do this in a couple of ways as well.  He could choose to come and do the sermon in person for them and answer questions as they arise.   Another possibility is he comes into their group after the service is over to simply fellowship with them.

This type of church 

• Ensures offerings are used to expand the church rather than expanding banks and lending institutions
• Grows new leaders in the church in small group outlets.
• Home-groups are not a "optional" entity in the church... but BECOME the Church.
• People will be MORE engaged in the Church and cared for
• New members will be instantly connected with others and feel seen!
• Peoples needs will be personally addressed in prayers without fear of violating a “HIPPA” law. 
• Children will be raised in an environment where they don't see faith as just something you do in a large building on Sunday but in a home with other believers.  

Christians are the WORST!

      I think we have all at one time or another in our conversations with non-believers have come across a person asserting that they know of some people that are better than most Christians. Often the person makes this statement in an effort to end a discussion on the Christian faith rather than deepen it.  Its assertion is that you can be a good person without being a Christian and those professing to be in the faith fail to live it. In the past I would either have tried to argue that the people they know who are Christians that they are comparing to are not maybe a good representation of all of Christianity.

     But now I would take a different approach to the issue. I would probably say to that person

“You know? You’re probably right, because God doesn't call the righteous who think they don't need him but instead calls the sinners who want to change"

     When Jesus was having dinner with tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners he was confronted by the Pharisees.  Jesus said to them 

“It is not healthy that need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance “

      Take note here that Jesus doesn’t diminish the sins of the people that he’s dealing with. He doesn’t try to tell the Pharisees that "Their sins are no worse than your sins!" or “These people are really good people if you just get to know them”.  He also does not minimize their sins by saying "These people have no choice! They are just trying to survive!". No! Instead, he refers to them as sick people who need a doctor and Jesus is their doctor. 

     The "tax collectors and sinners" that Jesus is with know they’re sick and know their need of a doctor.  There is no hiding their sin anymore.  The Pharisees are sick too, but they have masked their sin with the opioid of self-righteousness which dulled their need for God's forgiveness.  A doctor can’t do anything for you if you won’t tell them what’s wrong with you. If you go to the doctor and he asked how you are doing, and you say “GREAT! I have never felt better!” then there’s really nothing the doctor can do for you. It’s only when we are honest with the doctor and tell them about the pain that we’re in that they can then apply medicine and bring healing to that part of our body.

      Today people use other opioids to convince themselves they don't need what Christ is offering them. These include drugs, alcohol, work, meditation, lies, sex, wokeness, wealth and even good deeds. Jesus, the doctor, waits patiently for them to admit their problem and say, “Lord have mercy on me a sinner !“ 

   But what do you say when the person points to how these Christians don't live up to their faith?  The answer is that we are never going to become perfect and our repentance is a lifelong action.  Members of Alcoholics Anonymous never say they are rid of their addiction but admit to each other in their meetings that they will always be an alcoholic.  Like them each week we announce to each other we are addicted to sin and are in need of God's forgiveness. We are never going to be freed of that addiction to sin this side of heaven.  Even the Apostle Paul writes in Romans about his own constant struggle with sin.

"For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing... What a wretched man I am!  Who will rescue me from this body of death?  Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ!"

     Reading this you would think Paul was a horrible person.  Paul acknowledges he struggles with sin every day.  Paul doesn't trust in his own righteousness but in the righteousness given to him by Jesus.  We must also follow Paul's example and confess to those around us that we are sinners too in need of forgiveness.

   So, the next time someone says to you, "I know some people who are better than most Christians!", don't be angry at them.  Instead, agree with them and say, "I agree! Christians are the worst, but God loves us anyway and forgives us!"

We are NOT the same

   Imagine for a minute there two neighbors who live across the street from one another that do not get along.  They often yell at each other from across the street.  The man on the right side of the street has a Doberman Pincher who is kept indoors and is well trained to only attack if someone comes into their house who is unwanted.   The man on the left side of the street has a Pit-Bull that is left to wander the streets and is never chained.  The dog is a nuisance and has attacked children and other dogs in the neighborhood.  People complain about his dog, but the man tells them if they just stay away from him they will be fine.  Not only does he excuse the dog's behavior by saying, "Well dogs will be dogs!", he rewards the dog when he bites and scares people walking by with little treats.  

    Then one day, the two men are arguing and yelling at each other from their yards.  Suddenly the pit-bull runs across the street and kills the neighbor on the right side of the street.   The man tells the police that the dog did it on its own accord and he gave it no order to kill him, He then excuses the dog by saying to the police, "He's a dog and doesn't know any better.  He perceived the neighbor to be a potential threat to him because he was yelling at me!". 

    Would you accept the man's argument to the police that he had nothing to do with the attack as valid?   Would you say the man is not responsible for what the dog did?   Would you accept his argument that the dog was justified in his actions because of who he is and what the neighbor was doing?

   I think your answer to three questions would be a resounding NO!

    Recently, Hillary Clinton said of the killing of Charlie Kirk, "Both sides need to tap down their dangerous rhetoric".  This is not a new argument at all.  On Fox News. "The Five", Jessica Tarlov often uses the "Both Sides" argument as a way to deflect from what the left is doing in increasing amounts lately.  The "Both Sides" argument is beginning to fall on deaf ears now as we have clearly seen (like in the story of the dog owners)  "Both Sides" are NOT equal.  

   In 2014, when Michael Brown was shot by a police officer when he tried to wrestle the police officers' gun away from him the city of Ferguson saw the left riot, loot and destroy property for 2 weeks.  In 2020, when Jacob Blake (who was charged with rape) violated his court-order to stay more than 500 ft from his girlfriend when he came into her apartment the police were called and he failed to listen to their commands and resisted arrest.  He was shot (and lived) by a police officer as he was reaching under his seat to retrieve a knife.  The left rioted, looted and destroyed large areas of Kenosha Wisconsin for several days (and several people died).  When a drug dealer named George Floyd died while he was apprehended by police Minneapolis experienced several days of rioting, looting and destruction (including burning down a police district building) all at the hands of those on the left.

   When Donald Trump was shot at by a would-be assassin at a Trump rally in Butler PA, no one rioted, no one looted, no one burned buildings down.  Instead, the right had prayer vigils for Trump and those also wounded and killed at the rally.

   When Charlie Kirk was shot and killed by an assassin at a university in Utah, the right did not riot, or loot or burn the college down.  Instead, the right prayed for Charlies family and the Turning Point USA organization. 

   As you can see, while both sides may say heated rhetoric, how each side conducts themselves in response to what they perceive as "injustice" or alleged "hate" is very very different.

   For over a decade now, we have seen time and time again the left unwilling to control those on their side that are violent and destructive.  We have seen the left:

• Lower and even remove bail requirements, so criminals are free to re-offend over and over again without penalty, 
• Reduce crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and raise the dollar amount of items stolen to larger and larger amounts so they don't see any jail time.   
• Demonize and degrade law enforcement to make it harder for them to apprehend criminals. 
• Say to its citizens that the rioting and looting is "justified" and to allow them to "get it out of their system".  
• Honor criminals with statues, plaques and T-shirts.  

    Like the pit-bull owner, they will claim no direct connection to these crimes.  No email or Social Media post will be found telling these groups to do the things they do.   The left will even claim that many of these groups like ANTIFA are not even really groups at all and are organic in nature.  In other cases, they will try to site that the person(s) involved were not "registered democrats" and therefore have no connection to them (even though all their online posts indicate they are very closely aligned with their ideology. 

   Unlike the left, the right believes in the rule of law, believes in protecting life and property, believes in settling political matters at the ballot box and foremost mostly believes in God and his judgement of us and we should forgive one another. We make no excuses for people on our side that cause violence and make efforts to correct them.

WE ARE NOT THE SAME AND THE "BOTH SIDES" ARGUMENT IS WORTHLESS