Not super pleasant (to put it mildly), but educational . . .

My last two posts (here and here) have obviously generated quite a bit of discussion--more, I think, than any posts on this blog have generated before. I am sure it is all thanks to Ken Ham. I didn't particularly enjoy his post, but I thank him for it, anyway. Thank you, Ken.

A strong reason for thanksgiving: The discussions that have followed have helped me to learn; they have enabled me to say some things I have never said before (see the “other matters that I think need to be addressed," below; I have never expressed what I say in items #1 and #2 of these "other matters"; and I think I have never expressed so clearly what I attempt to say in item #3 [again, within the "other matters" portion, below]).

As I read the comments of various posters on a thread in HomeSchoolReviews.com, I felt led to write and post the following:

I received a Google notification that this conversation was happening. So I came over, read many of the posts, and thought I should probably sign up on HomeSchool Reviews so that I could speak. Especially since it was my post to which Mr. Ham was replying.

A few points of clarification:

* SONLIGHT did not call Ken Ham "Pope Ham." *I*, John Holzmann, called him a pope. I did so in my personal blog (a Google Blogger blog) "John's Corner" (http://johnscorner.blogspot.com).

* If my comments reveal my character (or Sonlight's character, if you are determined to drag Sonlight into the matter, despite the fact that the company had nothing to do with my post), I ask that you

1) please look at my response when I was made aware of my wrong-doing. (I have apologized.)

2) please consider the provocations that elicited my inappropriate response. (Mr. Ham has made false statements about me on numerous occasions dating back to 1999. He has made false statements about Sonlight Curriculum as well.)

3) consider whether you REALLY believe my behavior, per se, is (or was) as heinous as some have made it out to be. Let me reiterate: I BELIEVE I WAS IN THE WRONG. I shouldn't have stooped to name-calling. But if you believe my name-calling is as heinous as some seem to believe it was, I am astonished that the Christian homeschooling community has not risen in indignation over Mr. Ham's name-calling and his sponsorship--in his magazine and on his website--of IDENTICAL language to that which I used. (I could talk about OTHER language. But let us focus solely on the “pope” idea. [NOTE: I was not aware of this until I happened to bump into the article yesterday. But . . . ] For IDENTICAL language used by Answers in Genesis, see the article "Evangelical Popes" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n2/evangelical-popes).)

*********

What I have just written speaks, I believe, to the primary matters that seem to be of concern with respect to my POST.

HOWEVER, there are other matters that I think need to be addressed.

* The matter of "compromise" and "error" and, at least as importantly, the "Gospel" and "authority" questions Mr. Ham raises.

1) I would like to note that I hold Mr. Ham in very high regard for his repeated--CONSISTENT--"banging of the drum" about the fundamental issues related to Gospel and authority that can arise if one attempts to correlate a “straightforward” reading of Genesis 1-3 (as Mr. Ham--and, I'm sure, most readers here--would define “straightforward”) with the views of most modern scientists. As Mr. Ham told me about 14 years ago (I'm not going to quote him, because I'm recalling this from memory, and I don't have a perfect memory; but, he said something like), “You will find that there is no solid foundation with an old-earth view. They don't have a consistent view of the Bible. The Biblical narrative doesn't hang together under an old-earth view.” --Something like that.

I have to say that, in general, I AGREE WITH HIM. What I have found is that most old-earthers take the “scientific” view and kind of wave their hands over the Bible and say, “I don't know how it all goes together, but I believe the Bible and I believe science. And so . . . (I am an old-earther.)”

But I have been uncomfortable with such a position.

THEREFORE,

2) I agree with Mr. Ham that, if someone is going to teach old-earth (creationism or evolutionism or anything else), and they are going to claim to be Bible-believing Christians, then they should deal with the problems. They should address the kinds of things about which Mr. Ham keeps banging the drum. They SHOULDN'T simply “wave their hands.”

As different people in the homeschool community have made clear to me, our view of Genesis 1-11 will affect how we teach history (is there history before 4004 BC . . . or not? Are Adam and Eve to be included in our regular history course . . . or “only” in Bible? . . . If we include them only in a Bible program, aren't we indicating that they aren't part of regular history? Etc.); it will affect how we teach science; it will affect how we teach the Bible itself. . . . --These are not mere “hand-waving” kinds of matters!

HOWEVER,

3) In the same way that (most of us, anyway!) seem to be able to at least let each other pursue our own beliefs and practices without charging each other with “compromise” and “error” and an unwillingness to bow to the authority of Scripture when it comes to matters like women wearing head coverings in church; or when it comes to how we observe (or fail to observe) the Sabbath; or “dresses only”; or baptism; or the end times; so I believe it ought to be here, with respect to our views on how we should interpret Genesis 1-11.

I am NOT suggesting people should not discuss these matters (anymore than I would suggest we ought not to discuss head coverings, Sabbath observances, our manner or dress, baptism, end-times prophecy, or anything else).

What I am attempting to say is that . . .

IN THE SAME MANNER as we are able to discuss these matters without charging one another with compromise and error with respect to our fundamental view of Scripture (i.e., when we disagree with one another, we don't charge those on the opposite side with the obvious sin of calling the authority of Scripture into question!) . . . so, here, with respect to our interpretations of Genesis 1-11.

I believe we should CHALLENGE each other to think through the implications of our views (like the people who pointed out that a person’s view of Genesis 1-11 is going to impact their view of history). We should raise all of the kinds of issues and concerns that Ken Ham consistently raises. ASK people of another opinion how their views square with the idea (say) of death before the fall. ASK how they interpret Romans 5:12ff. DISCUSS how we view these passages and why.

I believe we do the body of Christ damage when, rather than behaving in this way, we take the far more offensive road and call anyone who disagrees with us “compromisers” or “snakes in the grass.” This shuts off communication. It divides the church. It precludes useful discussion and the opportunity to learn. (Participants on neither side of a “conversation” in which we are being told we are either imbeciles (or such terms; I am thinking of less pretty comments probably more likely to come from the mouth of an old-earther, though I have heard young-earthers use similar verbiage with respect to those with whom they disagree!), or a “conversation” in which we are being told we are “compromisers” (etc.): Participants in those kinds of “conversations” don't usually wind up actually conversing! And we don't benefit one another.)

I want us to provide room for one another to hear each other out, to be challenged, and to grow in the grace and knowledge and wisdom and powerful work of Christ in the world.

Let us, as the founders of the United States once said, “hang together” . . . that we might not “hang separately.”

Blessings!

John Holzmann

A very different perspective on various subjects . . .

Very rarely are we permitted to listen to alternative perspectives on matters of deep importance. I was reminded of that again last night when I received an email from John Tate, campaign manager for Ron Paul:

90 seconds.

That's how much of the first hour of tonight's GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds.

The remaining 3,510 seconds were spent with the other major candidates:

** Declaring their desire to start wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Syria;

** Rehashing their support for torture;

** Agreeing that President Obama has the right to unilaterally assassinate an American citizen without a court conviction;

** Explaining their plans to continue nation-building, policing, and occupying countries across the globe.

It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election. The one dissenter to a decade of unchecked war. The one candidate who stands for true defense and actual constitutional government.

Ron Paul was silenced, in perhaps the most important debate of the cycle.

You have to ask yourself why.

I think I know the answer. Both parties have perpetuated the foreign policy that is bankrupting our nation and tearing apart the world.

Both parties have started wars without proper congressional authorization.

Both parties have fabricated reasons for war.

Both parties’ outrageous spending has taken us to the brink of disaster.

And if the other candidates on the stage tonight are to be believed, then there is only one candidate who would break the globalists’ stranglehold over our foreign policy, our Treasury, and the lives of our family, friends, and neighbors in the armed forces.

Ron Paul could change history. He could save our great nation from its own devastating policies of the past 10 years.

If his voice could be heard.

The media has once again BLACKED OUT Ron Paul.

But I am reminded, too, of an article I read this past summer about The Filter Bubble or "invisible sieve" that may be, sadly, slowly wrapping itself around even those of us who want to hear "the other side" and understand why people think differently than we do. As Facebook, Google, and other internet search engines and information servers come to "understand" our own predilections, they begin feeding us an ever-more-specialized subset of all the material potentially available in the world. And thus, as Eli Pariser, author of The Filter Bubble, says, they begin "indoctrinating us with our own ideas," or "autopropagandizing."

I hope not. As one commentator replied to the article I just referenced,

People already [tend to] read the newspaper that reflects their biases; TV news - especially in the USA - is entertainment almost entirely devoid of content and highly country-centric. People socialize with others who resemble them. This has been true for over a century. But . . . I can, by selecting my search terms, browse for nearly everything I want. Even if I am a life-long pacifist, typing "Hitler" into the browser search bar will return information about his life and his impact on the world. Even if I am a middle-aged white male from Arkansas, typing "Moroccan lesbian" will return something outside my normal realm of experience. And - in a more factual example - I can subscribe to the online version of Al Jazeeera, browse Le Monde (if I'm willing to pay; if not I can always find excerpts and summaries) and cast a glance at... gasp... The Economist. So basically the concern about living in a bubble seems to me to be utterly fantastical. Bubble people will always live in their bubbles.

May the rest of us continue stolidly to seek to build bridges!

. . . And now, having said all that, I thought I would call your attention to a guy who obviously thinks very differently . . . and is willing to argue his points. He goes by the name Kaz and you can find him on his website called But Now You Know.

For example, Cash for Clunkers Causes Pollution and Poverty. Of course, the post is more than two years old. Kaz wrote what he did as the program was going into effect. But it is helpful to learn from history. Our government did authorize the program. And Kaz' analysis still makes sense. Some of the faults Kaz noted:

• Cash for Clunkers Pollutes
  

  This is because the older a car, the worse its gas mileage. Not only in general, but also because cars tend to perform worse as they age.
  
  Cash for Clunkers only rewards people for buying new cars, not for simply buying any car that got better gas mileage, regardless of its age. And it destroys the cars traded in, regardless of their own gas mileage.
  
  This means that only more-prosperous people, who can afford new cars, are able to use the C4C program. They are, therefore, often trading in relatively nice, fuel-efficient cars. Often, they are even buying cars only a couple of miles per gallon more efficient.
  
  Meanwhile, what about the people with older cars, which are much less fuel efficient?
  
  Simple: They are having the nicer, more efficient used cars they WOULD have bought destroyed. Leaving them in a pollutive car longer than if the C4C never happened in the first place.

  Kaz says more on the subject, but this gives the gist.
   
• . . . and Causes Poverty
  

  As the best-off consumers buy better things, items out of favor — whether used or just old models — become less expensive, allowing poorer people to buy progressively better stuff for the same prices.
  
  In the case of cash for clunkers, the Obama administration broke this:
  

  • Nice used cars will now be in shorter supply, which will raise the relative prices of the remaining nice used cars.
     
  • This will make it harder for poorer people to afford to upgrade.
     
  • This will trickle all the way down to the very poorest, who will soon find that their ability to buy some minimal car AT ALL, is affected.
     
  • That can mean the difference between getting to a job, and getting out of poverty, or being trapped indefinitely.

  So aside from the many other unintended consequences of this program, and there are many, the program has actually set the scene for poor people to have an even harder time affording cars, a vital tool for earning more money.

--A lot to think about, there. Then there was this about global warming (or cooling): There is most certainly a pattern to climate change . . . but it’s not what you may think: Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009. And that led me to his notice about Our Fifth Year of Global Cooling: Coldest Since 1996. (What!?! --I hadn't heard about that.) Sadly, that post is almost two years old, now. So I looked to see if he had updated it since. It appears not. I found his post from 2009: 4th Year of Global Cooling, NOAA Says. Good data. Well worthy of your perusal. But I wondered if the trend has continued. And he has said nothing on the subject. However, I did find this article: October 2011 NOAA Data: U.S. Temperature Cooling Trend of 15 Years Continues, -3.7 Degrees. Yipes! As the author notes,

The per century cooling trend of this [15-year --JAH] period, a minus 3.7°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010. For the 10-year period ending October 2011 (November 1, 2001 thru October, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 10.6°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.

But as Kaz notes,

Because their budgets depend on scaring people with the global warming myth, various government organizations and bureaucrats have desperately been spinning this cooling trend, even as they avoid directly mentioning it. Around 2006, there started a growing trend to refer to it as “climate change”, not global WARMING, because they wanted to re-brand it before the cooling became well-known. Now, as the global cooling trend has continued for five years, you can actually find global warming profiteers saying as crazily anti-scientific things as “global warming will probably take a break for a while”, as if it were a tired old man, not a weather phenomenon.

He continues with a discussion of what he calls The Climate Bogeyman.

Now we’re all familiar with witch-hunt logic: We throw the unpopular woman in the lake:

• If she drowns, she was innocent.
   
• If she floats and survives, she’s a witch and we burn her at the stake.

This kind of evil trick has been used by people seeking power through fear, for as long as recorded history. It is one thing that Principles of Justice, and the Scientific Method, are supposed to counteract. Sadly, this appears to be the same logic that the global warming profiteers use. If the weather is warm, it’s proof of global warming, if it’s cold, it’s proof the weather has been disrupted by global warming. The scientific method does not stop them, even though they are “climate scientists”, because they do not use it. They have long-ago abandoned the rules of hard science.

And then, finally,

[O]verall, global cooling is worse for humanity and civilization than global warming. Whether by coincidence or not, many failures of civilizations and economies have appeared to hinge around sudden cooling periods. There is no corresponding evidence of warming bringing down societies. Regardless of what the actual temperature trend is, if anything, or what actually is causing it, the motivation of people who report every year the global temperature rises, but are silent every year it falls, seems worse than suspect. These people are no more to be trusted than a tobacco scientist, and for the same reason.

Walking on the thoughtful side

An acquaintance of mine, Robin Phillips, has written a more than intriguing article about a phenomenon that seems to be circling the globe: the so-called "Slutwalk."

The first Slutwalk, Phillips says, was held in Toronto on April 3 of this year.

The event began as a protest against comments made by Police constable, Michael Sanguinetti, back in January this year when he addressed a group of students at the Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. He said, “You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here. I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.”

Oh, boy! Time for protest!

[F]eminists throughout the world have expressed concern that his comments were symptomatic of the pervasive assumption that men are not responsible for crimes of sexual violence against women. The organizers of Slutwalk have argued that sexual exploitation is never ok even when women dress immodestly.

Phillips notes that of course the victimizer or exploiter is responsible for his own actions.

PC Sanguinetti never suggested that the men who commit sexual crimes are not responsible for their actions. Nor has anyone claimed that when a man commits acts of violence against a woman that he is not responsible as long as the woman in question was dressed like a slut.

--Sorry, Phillips, I can "buy" your first comment about Sanguinetti; I am not at all convinced you are correct about the second point. Indeed, though (happily!) I have never been present for a rape case, from what I have read and heard, I understand the "she was asking for it by her dress" argument has often been used by defendants and defendants' counsel in such cases. It is my understanding that this type of "defense" is losing its appeal and so may be dying. But I am quite sure you are wrong about the idea that no one has "claimed that when a man commits acts of violence against a woman that he is not responsible as long as the woman in question was dressed like a slut."

Still. I found Phillips' next point rather thought-provoking, at least, and, possibly, bracing.

In any other area of criminal justice, it is generally accepted that people can do things to try to avoid being victimized. To say that shop keepers should lock their doors at night to decrease the chances of theft is not degrading to shop keepers, nor does it absolve burglars from responsibility. Or again, to say that it is sometimes prudent for those organizing youth events to insist that participants have a background check is not to degrade children nor does it absolve paedophiles from responsibility. In the same way, to say that women can decrease the chances of being victimized by dressing appropriately is neither to degrade women nor to absolve rapists from guilt.

Phillips goes on from there to discuss issues related to s*xual objectification on the one hand and the freedom to "celebrate" one's s*xuality on the other. And the more than intriguing, but, rather, disturbing thought--a thought that I'm not sure he develops adequately nor, therefore, completely believably--that the behavior of Slutwalk participants ("[In] the Toronto and Boston events, . . . scores of women dressed in bikinis, miniskirts and other minimalist outfits (some [went] completely topless)") presupposes a "narrative about the body" very much in line with "that which animates Muslim women who wear burqas."

Sadly, Phillips makes a number of typographical errors and mixes up his words here and there, thus obscuring his intended meaning. That may have something to do with why I found his proposed correlation between nakedness and burqas less than compelling.

Still, he raises several points worthy not only of thought, but of potential action. (Parents: Should you be talking with your children about these things? Young adults, do your own attitudes and/or behaviors need to change?)

Concerning parading down the street naked or nearly so, Phillips writes,

[A] woman’s sexual identity is negated by the attempt to disconnect how she appears from who . . . she is. . . . To pretend that walking down the street in hardly any clothes does not give off a message about sexual availability, is to functionally deny the fact that our bodies are sexually charged. It is to take something – namely, uncovered flesh – which is actually latent with erotic suggestion [-] and treat it instead as something merely common, without the respect and honor due to it. This implicitly denies a woman’s inherent sexuality. . . .

In the end, the path of the slut is less sexy than the modest alternatives. Those things which ought to be signifiers of sexuality, and therefore kept private, have been emptied of their meaning, having been turned into something tame, trivialized and humdrum. “Profane” best describes the resulting situation, given that the term originally meant “to treat as common.”

Thus, the Slutwalks are . . . encouraging the repression of female sexual identity in a way not dissimilar to the burqa. Both are attempting to say – albeit in opposite ways – that the body can be de-sexualized. Here again, Suzanne Moore’s article in the Guardian defending the Slutwalks is very instructive, since she testified to the process she went through as a slut of self-consciously denying the sexualized association of skimpy clothing.

Clothes are a vocabulary, and one that we hammered the meaning out of. We took the signs of “sex” and tore them up. …. sluttiness is always in the eye of the beholder.

There's more. Lots more.

Let me "merely" comment on that last quote by Suzanne Moore. If clothing is a vocabulary, then how can sluttiness be "always in the eye of the beholder"? The purpose of vocabulary is to convey meaning. And, yes, the "beholder" must interpret the meaning. But the communicator, clearly, intends to convey meaning as well.

Actually, let me pass on one more thought. Since we're on the subject.

I encourage you to consider what Phillips notes about the "normal" dress of prostitutes throughout the ages and why they dress that way:

A prostitute will dress skimpily in order purposely to incite men to sex, recognizing the connection between clothes and sexual availability. The whole point of the recent walks, however, is that a woman can dress like a slut without it having anything to do with sex, and without it signalling her sexual availability. While the prostitute dresses revealingly because she recognizes that she is an inherently sexual being whose body is charged with erotic suggestion, the participants of Slutwalk have embraced a narrative which denies that the revealed body is necessarily charged with erotic suggestion. In so doing, these walks are negating the very sexuality they claim to be celebrating.

Does old-earth/old-universe creationism=Liberalism? Atheism?

Last night, I followed a few links . . . and links from links . . . from Tim Martin's paper, Homeschooling, the Genesis Debate, and Hypocrisy, and comments about the paper.

Tim, for example, included a link to a brief quotation from a sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon preached on June 17, 1855--four years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species saw the light of day. The title of Spurgeon's sermon: The Power of the Holy Ghost.

Tim preceded the quote from Spurgeon with this comment:

[O]rganizations like the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International, [promote the concept] that any belief in an old earth or universe is compromise with Bible-denying liberals and unbelieving atheistic Darwinists. For devoted young-earth advocates the situation is as simple as this: believe our interpretation of Genesis creation and Noah's flood, or side with the liberals and godless scientists. . . .

[But] the next time you witness this tactic, perhaps you can ask a very simple question. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a liberal evolutionist? Here is what he taught in one of his sermons:

. . . In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.

I found it so hard to believe that Spurgeon would say such a thing (after all, I, myself, have been listening quite carefully to the declarations of the young-earth creationists, and they really do make the kinds of claims Tim ascribes to them: that anyone who disagrees with their perspective has been, at minimum, influenced by godless liberals (if not having become one outright))--that I decided I had to look up Spurgeon's original for myself. (You can find it at www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0030.htm.)

What I found there astonished me even further, because it went beyond that which Tim quoted.

Truly.

It sounds as if Spurgeon himself was preaching a view of providential creation very similar to what I have been hearing and writing about, here, that I have now heard from the Haarsmas, Glover, and, now, Miller and friends.

Immediately preceding the passage that Tim quotes, I found this:

[T]he Spirit has manifested the omnipotence of his power in creation works; for though not very frequently in Scripture, yet sometimes creation is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father and the Son.

The creation of the heavens above us, is said to be the work of God's Spirit. This you will see at once by referring to the sacred Scriptures, Job 26, 13th verse, "By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent." All the stars of heaven are said to have been placed aloft by the Spirit, and one particular constellation called the "crooked serpent," is specially pointed out as his handiwork.

He looseth the bands of Orion; he bindeth the sweet influences of the Pleiades, and binds Arcturus with his suns.

He made all those stars that shine in heaven. The heavens were garnished by his hands, and he formed the crooked serpent by his might.

So, also, in those continued acts of creation which are still performed in the world; as the bringing forth of man and animals, their birth and generation. These are ascribed also to the Holy Ghost.

If you look at the 104th Psalm, at the 29th verse you will read, "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth." So that the creation of every man is the work of the Spirit; and the creation of all life, and all flesh-existence in this world, is as much to be ascribed to the power of the Spirit, as the first garnishing of the heavens, or the fashioning of the crooked serpent.

--I quote this latter passage because it seems to indicate that Spurgeon himself would have found little difficulty with the idea that God may have used "natural processes"--what I referred to, yesterday, as "proximate causes" (possibly, "even," "evolution"!)--to bring about His creation.

But back to the links I found from Tim's article.

"Virgil" commented:

When the folks at FreeRepublic.com are disagreeing with Ken Ham, you know that he has gotten out of control and he is in fact falling out of favor with his followers. He has played the "heresy" card one time too many if you ask me. . . .

--And he provided a link to an article on FreeRepublic.com, posted just yesterday, but referencing something Mr. Ham wrote some ten years ago: The god of an old earth: Does the Bible teach that disease, bloodshed, violence and pain have always been 'part of life'?

Writes the Free Republic author:

By declaring “the god of an old earth cannot be the God of the Bible” and “the god of an old earth destroys the Gospel,” he is accusing old-earth creationists of heresy.

Disagreements in the body of Christ are inevitable. And history has shown debate in the church can be edifying and unifying when it is conducted properly. This requires focusing on the things that unite us and avoid passing judgment on nonessential matters (Romans 14:1). But, that is not the spirit of Ham’s paper. By claiming old-earth creationism violates orthodox Christian teachings, he seeks to denigrate and marginalize it. That only serves to divide faithful Christians and prevent them from having fellowship together.

Ouch! --Kind of what I was referring to last night when I referenced Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50 (where Jesus says, "he who is not against us is for us") v. Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 (where Jesus says, "He who is not with Me is against Me"). While not denying the latter in any way, I noted that "my predilection is to seek, hope, and believe the best, and to pursue the former [a general sense of cooperation], rather than the latter [a general sense of opposition]."

What disturbs me most grievously in the ongoing creation/evolution wars is this: that most partisans seem to enjoy exactly what my friend Tracy warns against in her article on the finest practices Christians should adopt when they engage in sacred-cow tipping. Sadly, too many of us take joy in tipping others' cows. We don't put pillows down for other people's cows. We don't give them time and space to realize that their cows are down. [Please read her entire (short) article to place these comments in context!]

I hope my ongoing discussion of these issues, here, will not cause my young-earth brothers and sisters to feel that I am abandoning them or taking pleasure in attempting to tip their cows! That is not my intention at all.

Rather, I am attempting simply to share what is going through my mind pretty much as it is going through my mind . . . and hoping you'll accompany me on my journey . . . provide warnings and counter-balancing perspectives, if and as you see the need, and, perhaps, point out additional vistas that I might otherwise miss.

*****
A postscript: I wrote to Tim, before I did my own search for Spurgeon's sermon, and commented, "He really said that in 1855--four years before Darwin's book came out?!?"

Tim replied: "The Spurgeon quote shocked me, too. A reader sent it in a few weeks ago. I thought it was funny because of the date. And, you probably haven't noticed, but AiG is releasing a 'modernized' version of Spurgeon's material. Jeff [Vaughn, Tim's co-author for Beyond Creation Science] investigated and found that they omitted that sermon!" Edited to Add, on 2/22/09 at 7:20 AM: I have now followed the link Jeff provided in his comment (Comment #2, below). At this moment, there is no evidence that AiG has omitted anything. If they are going to omit something, that should become obvious beginning on Thursday of this coming week--on February 26th--since that is the day on which, it appears, their Charles Spurgeon--Reloaded program should come to the particular sermon under question: Spurgeon's Sermon #30, The Power of the Holy Ghost.

If the charge is true, I go back to my original post that kind of sparked this entire discussion: Are you being treated like a child? Who controls what you get to hear? --Are we entering a new era of "Christian soviet thought-control" . . . in which one side attempts to control the debate by censoring what the majority of people can hear from those they view as opponents?

An era passing: I shed some tears this morning . . .

I get on the Sonlighters Club forums only very occasionally anymore. ("Back in the day" I used to spend hours there every day.)

This morning I went to one of my favorite Sonlighters Club forums (Lifelong Learners) and read the "farewell address" of one of the Sonlight moderators, one of the forums' very early participants, a woman whose services I urged Sonlight to acquire as a moderator specifically because I had seen how thoughtful and well-spoken she was.

Tracy has served as a moderator so long, I don't even recall when she began her duties. Probably about eight years ago, I would guess.

Well . . . her time of service seems to have come to an end as of this last weekend. And I happened to stumble upon her summary, goodbye post as a moderator.

I thought her insights were well worth repeating here. Through her moderating work, she helped to establish as practice (not always followed, but ever-more-intentionally pursued) what I expressed as a principle of communication I seek to follow in my own life and attempted to integrate into the Sonlight Curriculum. Specifically: "Seek first to understand, and then to be understood."

Sadly, I'm afraid, for too many of us--especially in the Christian community--the emphasis is entirely the other way 'round. (Indeed, I'm afraid, too often the matter of understanding is neglected completely in our headlong rush to make sure we "preach the 'Good News'"!)

Anyway. The following is an excerpt from Tracy's "Farewell Address" that made me cry:

On this, my last day as a Sonlight moderator, I’d just like to say, “Thank-you!” to each and every last one of you that has ever posted on the Sonlight forums, to those of you who lurked, to those of you I’ve spoken to on the phone, and with whom I have had email conversations. You’ve changed me in deep and lasting ways, and I am grateful to you.

You’ve made me lose sleep, miss meals, say bad words, and yes . . . scream in frustration. You’ve also inspired me, challenged me, taught me, shaped me, pushed me, stretched me, encouraged me, prayed for me, and been my friends . . . even when you didn’t know it was me that you were encouraging. Thank you for good times and bad.

I’ve had to learn to articulate just what it is that tends to make communication spiral out of control. Even though on good days, many of you have inspired me by your ability to look past your differences and reach out in genuine acts of loving charity toward someone with whom you completely disagree. I’ve had to learn to pinpoint, define, and express what pushes people to lash out. And in the end, you’ve changed me. Perhaps, not so much my opinions with regard to politics and religion and parenting and Harry Potter, and breast-feeding (or not), but in my ability to look for and express common ground where it can be found and to have a real affection for those with whom I disagree on substantive issues . . . like eggplant. To that end, you’ve helped me be a better co-worker and parent. To learn to articulate a principle is to become a better teacher of it both to oneself and to others.

I like to think I am a better person today, than when I started this job. You’ve challenged me and stretched me.

On the bad days, I’ve had to sit down and define just what made a post charitable or uncharitable completely independent of whether or not I agreed with the opinion expressed therein. That was hard and it taught me a lot. Many, many of you have taught me through your fine examples how to have a controversial opinion and express it with charity. If I have ever managed to express in words, how to communicate charitably; then, it is because I have seen so many fine examples of how to do it during my time as a Sonlight moderator. Through that exercise, I’ve learned to be more charitable in the way I express myself (I hope) in all aspects of my life and shockingly (to me) in many ways, I am more charitable than when I started work as a moderator and not just in the ways I express myself. By that I mean, I don’t just say things charitably but I AM more charitable. I am grateful to you all beyond words for that gift to me. . . .

From the bottom of my heart that you’ve all had a hand in enlarging . . . Thank you.

Cell phone only?

Sarita fell in love with the iPhone--or is it the Blackberry?--a few months ago.

First, our son-in-law used some of the Christmas cash bonus he received from his employer last year to buy an iPhone.

Shortly afterward, we found ourselves down at the local Apple store admiring the iPhone's capabilities.

"But the price!"

And I use my cell phone more than Sarita does. I think I turn it on, on average, maybe twice a month. And make an average of fewer than five minutes' worth of phone calls in those brief periods of having the phone on.

I think Sarita may average a cell phone call twice a year.

But we own our phones. And they cost us "only" $17.95 a month each. For 150 minutes.

If only we used them!

And here the iPhone would cost us only $80 apiece.

But they are so cool!

. . . And then Sarita was at a board meeting. A question came up. Two minutes later, one of the men on the board who had his Blackberry along, came up with the answer by using the web browser built in.

"Wow! How handy!"

And it's probably $10 a month less expensive than the iPhone.

Not quite as cool, but. . . . You'd have the web at your fingertips almost 24/7.

Of course, web browsing on a Blackberry is nowhere near as convenient or graphically pleasing as it is on an iPhone, but . . .

"What if we went totally to cell phone? Save the money on a land line and switch 100% to cell?"

The economics begin to make a little more sense. . . .

********

So this morning I came across an article that brought me back down to earth a bit. The author has been engaged in some of the same debates with respect to her telephone use. And in conclusion she notes she would have to pay a major fee to get out of her current contract with her current cell phone company in order to switch to iPhone. "What annoys me more, though," she continues, "are the people I do business with who are already cell only."

I try to talk with them and oftentimes the connection is bad, it cuts out, or gets dropped. That is no way to run a business ongoing. For a quick chat on the run maybe, but for extended dealings? Not to mention when I visit my parents I don’t even get cell reception in their house. Many other houses and locations are like that. How convenient is that? I couldn’t imagine the conversations at home with my Mom if I was suddenly cutting in and out or dropping her. She’d go nuts.

Business and personal life is all about relationships. How can you build them successfully with unreliable or intermittent communication tools? Again, great for quick check-ins but extended calls can be hit or miss.

Perhaps we’ll continue to see a trend for mobile only. I totally get the desire to save money on monthly expenses. For me, though, I see the best course of action to be a hybrid solution. Reduce my cell phone plan to the bare minimum I need for typical usage and keep the landline. One becomes a business expense and one does not. It might not be the cheapest solution, but at least it gives me options.

I wonder where Sarita will come down.

I have to admit: the iPhone really is cool. And it may have saved Jonelle's life last week. (It certainly made it easier for us to get her quickly to the medical care she needed. --Jonelle's husband, Dave, looked up the hospital's telephone number online as we were on the way to the hospital . . . then called for help. [Though I just realized, there is always the 411 "Information" number. --But who pays for information that you can get for free online? . . . Oh! Everyone who buys an iPhone also pays for web access, don't they? . . . But that's a sunk cost, isn't it? . . . ])

Hmmmm.

The wheels keep turning. And the lust grows.

Context is everything . . .

I posted the following message on the Sonlighters Club Forums:

This video disturbs me . . .

---

As someone who is charitably minded, I'm concerned that this video contributes to an almost insurmountable cultural cynicism. And . . . I wonder why people like Geldof and Bono (I don't recognize the others) would agree to participate in such a program? Doesn't it basically say that everything they are involved with (or have been involved with) is (or was) a sham?

Can anyone help me acquire a counter-balanced perspective?

How can truly godly charities fight (what I see as) this cultural drift to total cynicism? . . . I'm astonished and appalled at the comments of viewers. "Ha ha ha"?!?

Wilberforce had to fight the pro-slavery forces who suggested his pleas in behalf of the slaves were (to use modern verbiage) the result of mindless, bleeding-heart liberalism. . . . How do we reply in today's climate?

Concerning the video: it is a bit lengthy, by video standards. The first two minutes (exactly) set the stage . . . then watch out!

[FWIW: We watch no TV at our home. So let me apologize up front if my lack of standard viewership is contributing to a "poor" response.]

Thanks for your input.

Before you read on, I encourage you to watch the video. (And if you have young children around, be aware that when Geldof makes his appearance, he lets an f-bomb fly.)

Once you watch it, feel free to return.

Or not. You may keep reading. But please understand that there are contextual "spoilers" in what follows.

You want to watch through my eyes as they were . . . or through slightly adjusted spectacles?

******

An Aussie wrote the first helpful reply:

I believe this was shown on a comic relief show, which is an annual comedy show with all the proceeds going to help african charities. I don't think it says everything they are involved with is a sham, they are just pointing out that it seems to be the 'hip' thing for celebrities to be doing right now.

Whoa! That helped! Indeed, I could see the humor.

But my lack of familiarity with the participants beyond Geldof and Bono also hurt.

Another community member added:

It's a satire on celebrities who do a lot of visible charity work for the wrong reasons--publicity to plug a product or to burnish a public image.

Ricky Gervais and the tall guy in glasses, Stephen Merchant, are famous comedians and were in character.

The blond guy, Jaimie Oliver, is a famous television chef, so it was funny to see him eating onion rings and McNuggets. I looked this up, but he has tried to teach children to eat better and had a show where they made school lunches. This is probably what he meant by the "fat chav" line and why it was so funny to see him eating bad food.

Bono and Bob Geldof were taking very broad pokes at their public images of humanitarians.

Ah-ha! CONTEXT is everything! Because with that CONTEXT in mind, suddenly, the sketch really does become humorous! . . . Talk about how someone's words (or, in this case, actions) can be made to say something they didn't intend at all . . . "simply" by having them taken out of context!

In this case, by taking the sketch out of context, I thought it said exactly opposite what the speakers (or, in this case, the participants) really meant . . . !!

Whew! Mind-blowing!

******

And while we're on the subject: It strikes me how a brand or brand image--and, in this case, a person's character--can be so important. Jaimie Oliver, a TV chef concerned about proper nutrition, eating onion rings and Chicken McNuggets. . . .

Fierce Conversations V--Group Conversations

Continuing summary/analysis of Susan Scott's Fierce Conversations.

pp. 129-164: Fierce Group Conversations

pp. 129-130: A form for helping people pre-think through issues.

The Issue (Be concise. In one or two sentences, get to the heart of the problem. Is it a concern, challenge, opportunity, or recurring problem that is becoming more troublesome?):

It is Significant Because (What is at stake? How does this affect dollars, income, people, products, services, customers, family, timing, the future, or other relevant factors? What is the future impact if the issue is not resolved?):

My Ideal Outcome (What specific results do I want?):

Relevant Background Information (Bullets: How, when, why, and where did the issue start? Who are the key players? Which forces are at work? What is the issue's current status?):

What I Have Done so Far (What I have done; the options I am considering):

The Help I Want (Specifically. For example: alternative solutions, confidence regarding the right decisions identification of consequences, where to find more information, critique of the current plan, etc.):

pp. 133-134: Group Process

1. Ensure group members have the written summary of the problem (above).
   
   
2. Permit lots of time for clarifying questions. --Make sure you're not getting sidetracked in discussions of potential solutions at this point! Only seek clarification!
   
   
3. When fully clarified, then permit and encourage discussion of potential solutions. --Make sure everyone participates. If someone has not spoken, ask: "Mary, what's your take on this?"
   
   
4. Wrap up with one-sentence summary recommendations from each group member. The person who presented the issue may not respond, only listen.
   
   
5. Ask the member who raised the issue: "What did you hear?"
   
   
6. Ask the member who raised the issue: "What actions are you committed to take and when will you take them?" (Legitimate answers may include, "I need time to digest these ideas. I will let you know what action I'll take by next Monday."
   
   
7. Follow up. Make sure the person who raised the issue tell the team what s/he has done, the results, and his or her intended next steps.

HINT: Consider taping the issue session.

p. 119: About passing responsibility and authority to others or, as Scott describes it, "a marvelously useful method of delegation and professional development" . . .

Fierce Conversations III--Confrontation

Continuing summary/analysis of Susan Scott's Fierce Conversations.

pp. 147-153: Confrontations

According to Scott, fierce confrontational conversations come in three parts:

1. Opening Statement,
   
2. Interaction,
   
3. Resolution.

The key, it seems to me, is

1. The Opening Statement.

Scott urges the following structure and plan for creating one's opening statement. The opening statement should take no more than 60 seconds.

1. Name the issue. Name the behavior that is causing the problem and the area the behavior is impacting. If you have multiple issues, take the time to define the core, the theme, the commonality of all or most of the issues. "Name the central issue [or] the conversation will lack essential focus and you'll both end up lost and frustrated."
   
   
2. Select a specific example that illustrates the behavior or situation you want to change. Remember, the entire opening statement should take no more than 60 seconds, so the example must be succinct. No long stories.
   
   
3. Describe your emotions about this issue. Potential emotions might include anger, concern, worry, sadness, fear, frustration. "Describe whatever emotion is true for you. . . . For example, . . . "I'm deeply concerned and I am fearful of the possible consequences." --"Telling someone what emotion his or her behavior evokes in you is intimate and disarming. You are letting the person know that you are affected, that you are vulnerable."
   
   
4. Clarify what is at stake, why this is important--for the individual you are confronting, for yourself, others, the team, the organization, the family, the relationship. . . . "Use the words at stake: 'This is what is at stake.'"
   
   
5. Identify your contribution to the problem--"How I have behaved in ways guaranteed to produce or influence the very results with which I am unhappy." --Examples: "I have contributed to this problem by not reviewing your priorities and due dates with you. I will correct that." "I've contributed to this problem by not letting you know months ago how upset I was. Instead, I withdrew, and consequently, our relationship deteriorated even further. For that, I am sorry."
   
   
6. Restate the issue and indicate your wish to resolve it. HINT: "Use the word resolve; it shows that there is no firing squad waiting outside the door. This is not a termination or an ending." Example: "This is what I want to resolve with you, Jackie, the effect your leadership style is having on the team."
   
   
7. Invite your partner to respond. In essence: "I have just told you what concerns me, the issues as I see them. I have told you I am hoping for resolution. Now I want to understand what is happening from your perspective. Please talk to me about what's going on. . . ."

Assumptions related to and implications of the above opening statement (p. 154): "Nobody owns the entire truth about [the topic], including me. I would like for the two of us to interrogate reality, side by side, as if we are walking down some stairs, one at a time. If it gets scary, we can sit down on a step until we're ready to continue. Imagine that we both have flashlights to illuminate the issue. Both of us might see something new. Both of us may gain perspective. . . . We may both learn something."

pp. 142-144: Some good hints concerning confrontational conversations

• Avoid "So, how's it going?" "Openings like this are disrespectful and dishonest." Plus, it is unprofitable. "Most people determine to bluff their way through a veiled confrontation for as long as possible. . . . Don't provide the opportunity. If what you really want to say is 'Your job is on the line,' then say that. Clearly, cleanly, and calmly."
  
  
• Avoid the "Oreo cookie"--compliment, bad news, compliment. "The popularity of the Oreo cookie approach causes many people to break out in a sweat anytime they are paid a compliment, since it often signals an imminent kick in the backside. . . .
  
  "People deserve better than this. . . . People deserve to know exactly what is required of them, how and on what criteria they will be judged (including attitude), and how they are doing."
  
  
• Avoid too many pillows ("softening the message"). "Replace pillows with clear requests. . . . While we often tell ourselves we are softening the message so as not to hurt someone else's feelings, we are really trying to protect ourselves. . . . One of the rules of fierce conversations is that you must go first. When? When you're tired of limping and decide to remove the stone from your shoe."

2. Interaction.

Scott summarizes this in one point: Inquire into your partner's views.

Some key sub-points:

• If your partner says something with which you violently disagree, resist the temptation to build a stronger case. Simply listen so that your own learning may be provoked.
  
  
• Ask questions.
  
  
• Dig for full understanding.
  
  
• Don't be satisfied with what's on the surface.
  
  
• Summarize: "May I tell you what I'm hearing? I want to make sure I've understood you."

3. Resolution.

This portion of the conversation involves summarizing and committing to a course of action: "What have we learned? Where are we now? Has anything been left unsaid that needs saying? What is needed for resolution? How can we move forward from here, given our new understanding?" And then, "Make an agreement and determine how you will hold each other responsible for keeping it."

On pp. 140-142, Scott describes a terrible situation that required a fierce conversation along the lines of what I've just summarized. Pp. 158-162 summarize the conversation as it occurred. Very enlightening. Well worth the price of the book!

Our connected world . . .

One of my brothers warned me a year or two ago about how quickly news--or, should I say, word--travels in today's world. Things one would never imagine entering the ear of another are suddenly being heard.

He suggested that it is this interconnectedness, this communication, that is fueling many of the conflicts and problems in today's world. Some leader of a Western nation says something that, if heard on the street corner in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, would offend the Muslims there.

Well: those words are being heard in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. As well as Tehran, Iran; Kabul, Afghanistan; and Nablus, West Bank (Israel/Palestinian Territories). . . .

[I just realized that no matter how I write even a place name, I can easily offend someone!]

And so, this morning, I woke up to discover that I had, myself, caused offense.

Someone ("Anonymous") wrote in response to my "A letter to my family: About living strategically . . .":

I read your comments after seeing the M/Y Golden Rule.

While I agree with much of what you said and admire your desire to teach a perspective on the world that is not taught either often enough or effectively enough, I do have one observation.

I am the owner of the Golden Rule. You chose to make assumptions about both the boat and its owners without bothering to know the facts ---- and you were wrong.

You were wrong about where the name came from (it was the true Golden Rule). You were wrong about how the boat is used, how often or its purpose. You were wrong about the owners and what type of people we are. Nonetheless, in the absence of any real information you felt ok to judge harshly and then use that erroneous set of assumptions to make your point --- at our expense.

What happened to "Judge not and ye shall not be judged"?

Your approach in this instance is inconsistent with the tone of your writings as I'm sure that you did not follow the Golden Rule when you made your assumptions about the boat and its owners.

Besides sitting here in embarrassment, recognizing that I am, indeed, "the man" who is guilty as charged and needs to be made right with those I have wronged; and besides recognizing--and wanting to acknowledge--the gracious spirit in which my accuser has spoken; I "merely" wanted to note how truly astonishing is the connectedness of our modern world.

Who would have thought that a comment I wrote on a relatively backwater blog in late November 2006 would be seen and commented on only four weeks later by a person such as Philip Morgaman (assuming the commentator is, indeed, the owner of the boat, and the boat is owned by Mr. Morgaman)?

Talents #2

Reference, once more, Buckingham & Clifton's Now, Discover Your Strengths.

Some of my natural propensities or "talents":

• Ask questions! Lots of questions.
• I'm curious about everything.
• I love to "tell the story" . . . or, I should say, "retell" the story. Once I have discovered something, I like--I really enjoy--telling others.
• I don't create stories. But I enjoy telling them. Real stories, that is. I'm not at all good at fiction.
• I love to edit. It's fun. I feel like I'm playing the sleuth: "How can I make this communicate more effectively?"
• I love communication. I love engaging in it. I love thinking about it, theorizing about it, working on it.
• I love (future post!) Fierce Conversations. (Reference to a book by Susan Scott and, far more, for my purposes, to a concept.) So I'll engage in such conversations. Naturally. I will either start them, whenever possible, or I will gravitate toward them when I hear one occurring.
• I want the truth. I hate pussy-footing around tough subjects. Let's just "wade right in" and "mix it up" intellectually. (I detest physical combat. I am talking about a form of intellectual battle.) Speak the truth. Live the truth. Tell me what you really think, because you may be sure I will tell you what I think. . . . Hopefully "seasoned with grace," as it were (Colossians 4:6). But I'd rather get the truth and apologize later for having hurt someone's feelings than, out of concern for feelings, never get the truth! Yes,
• I'll "step in it," "put my foot in my mouth," say something less than perfectly gracious, etc. and then later apologize . . . just to get the conversation moving. It's the communication that counts. Not being considered "a nice guy."
  • I want to be a nice guy, too. But conversation first. Let's talk. Apologies, groveling, forgiveness, "please forgive me," etc. can come later. Avoid the costs associated with apologies and groveling, etc., and the conversations likely will never come. . . .

More later.