Not only the gospel

I've begun meeting with one of the assistant pastors in our church, a young guy about the age of one of my own children. He has been in charge of youth ministry for a few years.

I looked him up to meet on a regular basis for many reasons. Two of them, however, that strongly motivated me: he thinks, deeply; and when he preaches (at least when I have heard him preach), he preaches from the heart and from true-life experience. He doesn't preach "theory out there"; he preaches about things with which he, himself, has struggled.

I like that in a person. I like reality. Don't ask me for prayer for "things out there"--"My aunt who broke her arm." Ask me for prayer for "things where you are"--"I'm struggling with _____." "I feel like quitting." "I don't know if I can continue with _____." Talk to me about things you're passionate about.

Anyway.

Last week I was talking with Jim (that's the assistant pastor's name) about some of the things I've been writing about here. I asked him if he ever teaches kids about giving.

"Yes."

"What do you teach?"

He summarized.

Two things struck me. The word "I" never appeared . . . and it sounded all theory. Y'know: "God has made us to be stewards. He makes it possible for us to have everything we own."

I told Jim about the two things I've mentioned above about why I've been attracted to him: that I so appreciate how he speaks from the heart, from things he, himself, has struggled with.

"Where's the 'I' in there?" I asked (though, I'm sure, not in those particular words!).

Then it came out: Not that Jim has not struggled and/or lived in the reality of giving (or, as he expressed it concerning the discipline to which he has been called: tithing). Rather, that he had conveyed to me, accurately, what he has taught. He hasn't talked about himself. He hasn't shared his struggles. For whatever reason, he has been uncomfortable talking about what it has been like for him to come to terms with giving. . . .

I suggested he should share, even in this area, from the heart.

I am reminded, here, of something the Apostle Paul wrote that deeply impacted me when I first read it. He wrote it to the Thessalonians. And he wrote in the "royal we" voice:

We loved you so much that we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us. (1 Thessalonians 2:8)

Not only the gospel of God, but our very lives. Because you had become so dear to us.

The Privilege of Giving

I have found the practice of the tithe to be a great freedom. It is, almost, a sacrament: a reminder, through something I do, of a spiritual truth: that I am not dependent on myself to "make ends meet." I must rely on God. ("You may say to yourself, 'My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.' But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today" (Deuteronomy 8:17-18).)

Similarly with the Sabbath rest: it is a kind of sacrament: a reminder, through something I do (or, in that case, perhaps, something I don't do--work on one day out of seven), that it is not through my labors that I can be sure to "have enough"; rather, it is by God's gracious provision that I can provide for my family. --This has been the confession of God's people through the ages (I Samuel 2:7; I Chronicles 29:12; etc.). This is what Jesus taught:

"[W]hy do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well" (Matthew 6:28-34).

Anyway. I originally titled this post as "How Much Should We Give?" . . . But I keep finding myself "sidetracked" a bit here and there. I seem to find I need to give little personal/philosophical background pieces so you understand where I'm coming from.

I began with the idea of talking about how much we should give. But then I got onto the subject I just talked about. And I wound up, just now, realizing I don't even like the phrase, How much should we give? Far more, I just realized, I think I prefer, How much can we give?. . . . Because I think I am actually coming to the latter way of thinking. It really is not about how much I should give. More and more, I am finding myself thinking about how much I can give . . . how much I get to give . . . how much I have the privilege of giving.

How many other people in all the world could give as much as I? Not many! I am privileged to have wealth and to live in a wealthy land. I am privileged to be made aware of needs around the world. How many people in all the world are so privileged?

Not many!

So let me make the most of the privileges God has given me.

Tithing and Sabbath as Freedoms?!?

A few weeks ago I was listening to a marketing seminar presented in 1998. The speaker asked his audience how many of them had studied trigonometry or Latin in high school. Almost everyone raised his or her hand. "Since graduating from high school, how many of you have used that knowledge?" No one raised a hand.

"I find that interesting," he said. "Here our educational system focuses on all kinds of subjects that no one will ever use, but it fails to teach subjects that would come in handy every day. Like: How to communicate effectively with your spouse [the speaker is divorced], or . . . "

Now. I'm not about to go down the other path (a rant) where the man was going. He thinks it’s absolutely stupid that educators teach any subjects besides those that have immediate practical application. . . . I can see that all manner of subjects that have no immediate practical application can be extremely helpful to make one’s mind pliable, flexible, able to think beyond the here-and-now, discover new solutions to problems that no one would think of otherwise.

But I was impressed by the man's comments about subjects not covered in the standard curriculum . . . and the subjects often never discussed by parents with their children.

I mentioned the man’s comments to Sarita. She said: "Let's think about this and offer our customers a list of subjects that might be useful to students that aren't normally covered by regular academic programs and, maybe, the best sources we've found that deal with the subjects. . . ."

We came up with a short list of beginning ideas and shared them with friends. Among the subjects, we included reference to tithing/giving and taking a Sabbath rest, two practices I've followed since reading a short book called The Ten Great Freedoms by Ernst Lange back when I was in high school. (The "Ten Great Freedoms" Lange was referring to were, in fact, the end results of what most of us know as the Ten Commandments. Lange characterized the Sabbath, for instance, as "Vacation" . . . and I jumped on that idea with both feet: "I get 52 days a year of vacation! By order of God!" –Quite the freedom, indeed! . . . It takes faith, but it is quite the freedom.)

I forget: Others don't view things in quite this way. So when they saw our list, those two particular practices--of tithing and Sabbath rest--instead of being exciting or inspirational, seemed, apparently, rather negative. Rather than encouraging us to suggest parents ought evn to discuss such matters with their children, some of the people with whom we shared our list picked those items, in particular, as uncomfortable and potentially offensive:

Is the tithe really something Sonlight wants to promote? . . . [P]ersonally, I think this is more a denominational thing--an Old Testament law that I believe was replaced by grace. . . . Taking a Sabbath rest. Is this Biblical? Didn't Jesus work on the Sabbath and say he had fulfilled the law and the prophets? Another denominational thing. . . . This kind of stuff makes me cringe because it is so personal and there is so much room for abuse and misinterpretation.

I'm not sure where further to go with this particular subject in this post.

It came up because of something I want to write about in a moment.

Personal Legacy: An Issue of Timing

Besides values and vision, there is another area of beliefs or expectations that impact one's legacy planning. It's the issue of

Timing

When should the funds God has entrusted to us be passed along . . . and to whom?

We have been challenged to consider whether we should "dump" large sums of money on agencies now, or whether we should, rather, "trickle" them out a bit at a time: put them in a foundation, for example, and distribute five to eight percent of the principal each year, with the expectation that the principal will grow at a rate faster than the distributions. . . .

In favor of the former idea, Sarita and I look at the following:

• We know certain opportunities are available right now . . .
  
• A well-managed non-profit agency that requests a certain level of funding should be able to direct our funds to those opportunity uses right now.
  
• It is quite possible the opportunities available today will not be available next year or five years from now.
  
• Just because you have money in a bank or investment account today does not mean it will be available tomorrow: look at what happened between 1999 and 2002!
  
• By giving today, we can reduce the size of our estate. Such a move could produce the following (potentially) positive effects:


• It would eliminate some of the estate tax that could be due upon our deaths.
  
• It would reduce the quantity of money that would go--potentially dangerously--to our children and/or grandchildren.

In favor of the latter idea, some of our financial advisors propose the following:

• Non-profit agencies are often hopelessly inefficient and inept and cannot deal effectively with large gifts.
  
• Most agencies would prefer a steady stream of income than a single large gift.
  
• It is almost always better for an agency to have a thousand $100/year donors than to have a single $100,000/year donor. One needs to beware of overwhelming an agency (even as one needs to beware of overwhelming a local church or one's children!) with one's largesse.
  
• A relatively modest sum of money well-invested today--in a form of life insurance, for example, or some other investment vehicle--can pay huge dividends to the designated charity later on.

There are additional considerations one must take into account. Just one example (speaking to some of the legacy planning tools I have seen touted): One doesn't want, necessarily, to create an endowment for an organization: as has been seen so many times in the past, an organization's vision and purpose can drift, so that what you intended by your gift today could become non-operable tomorrow. The organization may stop providing the service for which you endowed it! Thus, for example, if you invest in a life insurance policy or a charitable remainder trust, you may want to leave the final recipient undefined . . . just in case the organization you admire today becomes something different tomorrow (and before you die).

But even that point seems to indicate in favor of gifting today rather than "storing funds up"--in a foundation or in a life insurance policy, charitable remainder trust, or other vehicle--for distribution over time and/or in the future.

I want one . . .

I don't normally think about cars. They've never been a passion of mine. Four and a half years ago, as we were approaching our 25th wedding anniversary, Sarita told me she wanted to get me "the car of [my] dreams."

"But I don't dream about cars."

"So I want to get you the car you would dream about if you dreamed of them."

"I like my Toyota Corolla."

"I want to get you something else."

After looking: "Okay. A Toyota Avalon."

"No. I want to get you something better."

"But I don't want to spend the money."

"Tough."

We settled on an "outlandish" Infiniti I35 that cost us about two or three times what a nice Corolla would have cost.

But it is comfortable! And I expect to continue driving it for at least five more years. ("Waste not, want not.")

*****

Anyway.

I don't know how I bumped into the Tesla Roadster, but, Wow! That's a cool car! Electric. 0-60 in about 4 seconds. About 250 miles on a single charging. And look at those lines! A-ooh-gah!

Making tough decisions

I'm inspired by the content of my last post, combined with some of the content of Ron Blue's Splitting Heirs.

Blue says we need to "love [our] children equally and, as such, treat them uniquely."

Now, that's tough! (Tougher for some than for others.)

I was talking with my dad a week or so ago and he said he found the idea of even attempting to differentiate among his six children overwhelming. I mean, he knows we are different. He knows I have absolutely no need for any portion of his estate, whereas others of my five brothers and sisters are not so well off. He knows that some of us are quite capable of taking care of ourselves, whereas others . . . aren't.

But trying to figure these things out--or even talking about them with his children--seems "just" too difficult.

Blue offers a scenario. I'm not going to get the details all right. But the general picture is what matters:

Suppose you have three children, Blue suggests.

• The oldest, a daughter, is married, professes faith in Christ, lives in the "right" neighborhood, goes to the "right" church, wears--and makes sure her husband and children all wear--the "right" clothes. She and her husband are members of all the "right" clubs and organizations. . . .
• Number two, a son, is married and has children. Their family, members of a "faith" mission in which financial support is spotty, bumps along just above the poverty line. But they are joyful in their service in the inner city. . . .
• Number three child is also a son. At this time, he shows no inclination to serve Jesus. In fact, he's been to prison on a drugs charge. He has had several unbelievable business opportunities which, somehow, in every case, he has squandered. At this point in his life, he spends most of his time watching TV and playing video games. . . .

Question: Are you going to treat them all the same in your will? You know: being fair and all. . . .

Blue suggests--and I absolutely agree: no, you ought not to treat them all the equally! Love them all equally? Yes. Treat them all equally? No way!

But this is hard work.

I have determined that, God helping me, I will do that hard work in behalf of my children.

Well. And then there is this matter of a living will.

Our attorney, knowing of our Christian commitment, urged Sarita and me to sign some kind of--I'm not sure if it was a DNR/Do Not Resuscitate order, but--some kind of Living Will document that provided for less strenuous efforts than might otherwise be made. "After all," he said, "you know where you are going, and it is a Better Place."

I believe that. I don't believe This World is All There Is. So I have no strong motivation for clinging to this life beyond reason. Yet there is a purpose to life! There is a reason to keep living. At least, to some degree.

My brother, Pete, who was dead and yet is now alive: Pete says that, while he was dead, he [I'm not sure if he has said he met Jesus; but . . . ] . . . he saw that he has a strong hope for a much better/more beautiful "tomorrow"--after death. Yet he is glad he is alive. And I am glad he is alive. He has a reason for living on this earth today. He has things to do, promises to keep.

So how shall I write my living will?

I have some tough decisions ahead of me!

DNR (Do Not Resuscitate)

Our dad forwarded to all six of his children the following "Living Will." He said that, while he recognized its intended humorous side, he is considering taking to his attorney "and perhaps similarly changing my instructions":

MAXINE'S LIVING WILL

I, MAXINE, being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of pinhead politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it, nor lawyers/doctors interested in simply running up the bills.

If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to ask for at least one of the following:

Glass of wine
chocolate
Margarita
Cold Beer
Chicken fried
steak
creamy gravy
Mexican food
French fries
Pizza
ice cream
Sex

It should be presumed that I won't ever get better.

When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my appointed person and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day.

My next younger brother, who, about 10 years ago, was struck by a car and declared dead on the scene, but later revived, wrote the following:

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 5:39 AM
To: Dad, Holzmann-sibs
Subject: Re: DNR's (was: Maxine's New Living Will)

Actually this has a serious element, Dad.

We recently discovered, to our horror, that many MANY doctors have taken a very different view of "DNR" (Do Not Resuscitate) orders than we ever imagined.

What we always thought (and a very common perspective among friends):

* If you want reasonable steps to be taken in case of
    serious illness...

* But don't want "them" keeping your body going forever
    if something really bad happens...

* Then that's when you want a "DNR" order.

Today's reality:

* If a doctor has a "DNR" order on file for a patient...

* And the patient is very ill...

* Then many many doctors *explicitly* will say "don't
    treat that patient -- they want to die anyway"...

* Or, they may use "slow code" treatment, hospital-speak
    for acting slowly and deceptively in a way known to lead
    to death. [Case study: injecting life-sustaining meds
    into the mattress instead of the patient!]

* AND because the "DNR" order is legally binding and
    is in the hands of the doctor, loved ones who want to
    insist on proper care for the patient will have a REAL
    fight on their hands, to get the DNR order rescinded!

That's right: instead of

    "don't RESUSCITATE if they're gonna be a vegetable"

it's now

    "don't TREAT because they want to die anyway"

and

    "don't TREAT because they won't have a 'happy' life anyway."

(They're just "helping you along" a bit... with your "desired" lack of treatment you will soon succumb, and then not be resuscitated, and then be blissfully moving on and no longer taking up space on the planet... YECCCH!!!)

Literally, the professional argument is now over "quality of life" and "probability of recovery"... and many doctors simply decide that since the statistics say you will not enjoy life, your DNR says you prefer to die. This is vanishingly close to eugenics.

In light of this:

1) We're finding several (good!) facilities that explicitly say
    "if you come here for treatment, we will ignore any DNR
    order. After all, you are here to be treated, not to die."

2) We have torn up our DNR orders and instead have created proper
    (current) Medical Power Of Attorney documents.

3) Bottom line: ensure you have a loved one who understands,
    who will fight for your life as needed, and who will make the
    tough decisions... NOT a doctor you don't know!

Blessings,

Pete

PS: You might find these resources illuminating:

http://www.bcodp.org.uk/library/genetics/12dnr.pdf
[Case studies with disabled children (!)]

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/news/review/archives/medrev_v5n2_0002.html
['Slow code' deceptive non-treatment of patients, and serious discussion of why it happens]

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8390.html
[The AMA outlines a reasonable negotiation process, based on NOT having a DNR order]

http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/geriatrics_eol.html
[Overview of some topics. One that concerns me: there's a software package called "APACHE" that is increasingly used to make decisions on treat-or-not. Will we soon be told "sorry, the software says Pete won't make it, so we won't be taking him to the hospital"?!!]

As a one-in-a-million case of "non-CPR spontaneous recovery", this topic carries some import for me personally. ;)

Building a medical clinic from scratch

When we got to the Wycliffe meeting, someone handed us a binder that, among other things, included a list of our fellow attendees. I read through the list, saw the names of no one I knew, but saw one last name that caused me to wonder: "Are these people relatives of someone I know?"

The man's name was Adrian Visbeen. I knew a Visbeen once. His name was Al--Al Visbeen. Back in New Jersey.

A couple of days later, I was in a meeting and realized Adrian Visbeen was sitting next to me.

"Hi," I said. "By any chance, do you have relatives in New Jersey?"

"Yes."

"Do you know a guy named Al Visbeen?"

"Yes. . . . He's my brother!"

Al Visbeen, I knew, was a successful building contractor. Very successful. Turns out, Adrian and Al had been partners. They have now both retired. But Adrian pulled out of the business first--16 years ago, about the time when Sarita and I left New Jersey and would have last seen Al.

"I was 52 when I told Al I wanted to retire in two years so my wife and I could do mission work," Adrian told me. "I wanted to sell my half of the business and move on.

"Al was incredulous: 'You're going to give up the company car and all the benefits?!?'"

But Adrian and his wife were determined. Before they had gotten married--he had only discovered this a short time before he made his announcement to Al-- . . . Before they had gotten married, Adrian's wife had thought she was going to be a missionary. "I was sure I was supposed to be a missionary," she said.

But then she got married and forgot the whole idea. Until their kids had graduated and left the house.

"Now what am I going to do? Sit around?"

So she and Adrian decided that they would make themselves available for wherever God led them. They would use their skills to help advance His Kingdom.

And so, at 54, about 16 years ago, Adrian sold his half of Visbeen Construction to his brother and launched off into a new field of service--with Wycliffe Associates, YWAM (Youth With a Mission), and several other agencies. Adrian gave me a letter he had written earlier this year that showed where all they have served: 56 different projects in almost as many different places . . . around the world.

But there is one story of one project I would like to share with you here. It's the story from which I titled this post:

Building a medical clinic from scratch

Adrian and his wife were asked to build a medical clinic on one of the islands in Lake Victoria (Africa).

Not sure why, but for some reason, they brought a wheel for a wheelbarrow, but, apparently, not much else.

When they got to the island, they asked if there was any concrete available.

"'Concrete'?" --No one knew what it was.

"Where can I get some sand?" Adrian asked.

No one had any sand on the island. There was no sand.

"How about cement?"

No one had any cement.

Someone did own a sailboat, however.

So Adrian, said, they sent the sailboat out one day to pick up bags of cement from a town on the shore of the lake. Out and back to pick up the cement: one day.

The next day, they sent the sailboat in another direction to pick up sand from a beach. They tied up the boat and filled it with sand--one shovelful at a time.

Out and back for sand: another day.

Then they mixed the sand, cement and water--local men did it with their bare feet. ("Their skin was tough, like leather!" Adrian said. --I expect so. Indeed, I hope so. Because concrete is quite caustic.)

So they poured the slab on which the clinic was to be built.

Now for bricks.

No one had any bricks.

"Okay," said Adrian. "Let's make them!"

So they smashed a termite mound, ground the clay, mixed it with water, poured it into a six-inch tall brick mold, mashed the clay so it was exactly the height of the mold, then turned the raw brick out onto a black plastic sheet where it would bake in the sun for three days. . . .

Talk about building from scratch!

Oh. The wheelbarrow wheel.

No one owned a wheelbarrow. So they made one.

"We dug a pit, rolled a log over the top, had one guy stand down in the pit and another on top, and then they sawed the log in half. . . ."

I just realized I never got a clear idea of how the wheelbarrow finally worked, but, somehow, the sawed log became the structural basis for the wheelbarrow, and the wheel . . . --Well, the wheel became the wheel for the wheelbarrow! (Of course!)

******

Why all this labor to build a building whose structural components were like nothing the local population had ever seen? (Isn't that called inappropriate technology--in contrast to (what development agencies normally refer to as) appropriate technology: i.e., technology that is readily supported by the local culture and economy?)

The reason for using this--what seems to be--"outlandish" structural technology: it is durable and it is clean. This clinic should remain useful for decades. The more "traditional" structures last only years. . . .

Purpose in life

Something struck me at the Wycliffe Associates meeting. Before I get to the specific item, let me talk demographics. Because what I want to mention is surprising as a result of the demographics.

In the room of about 150 people, Sarita and I weren't quite the youngest. Quite. We had to hunt around a bit. Ignoring the Wycliffe Associates staff, there were a few younger people. Maybe five. (???) One woman was significantly younger than anyone else; it appeared she was there as the guest of her mother. I think she said she was 23. The few others who were younger than us appeared to be in their 40s. Then there was us, in our low 50s. And then everyone else. There were a smattering of people in their mid- to upper-50s and low-60s (maybe 10 or 20 (???)), and then the majority: upper 60s, 70s, 80s . . . and even one man who celebrated his birthday while we were there: 96!

The Mission India supporters we met the weekend before were, on average, significantly younger. It was a similar-sized group, but there were easily 10 younger women [mostly] and men in their 30s and 40s, then, I'd guess, another 30 or 40 of us in our 50s--just at the "empty nester" point in our lives--and the majority in their 60s and 70s. I know there were a few who were older than that. But--appearances only--I'd say the average age of the people who were present at Mission India's meeting was a good 10 years lower than the average age of those at Wycliffe Associates.

But it wasn't the age-range alone that hit me. It was the people's countenances. Especially the faces of the people at the Wycliffe Associates' meeting. They glowed. They beamed. These were (are, I'm sure!) happy people.

And I had no trouble figuring out why!

They were purposeful. Most of them--I'm sure it was a majority; maybe only a bit over 50%, but it was definitely over half of them-- . . . Most of them had been somewhere and done something in the last couple of years as members of Wycliffe Associates. They had built some buildings, taught some children, helped in the mailroom somewhere, offered assistance where it was necessary in order to aid in the bigger task of translating the Bible for the 380 million-some people around the world who do not have a shred of Scripture in their own language, and the much larger number (approximately a billion) who don't have a complete New Testament.

So they were purposeful. They were outward looking. They had more for which to live than meeting their own needs--or desires--and filling their own bellies.

And that outward look, that purposefulness, that reason for living gave a real, noticeable spring in their steps and joy in their faces.

Unmistakable. And what a pleasure to be around!

Wasting one's life . . .

When Sarita and I were at the Wycliffe Associates' President's Summit meeting last weekend, Bruce Smith, president of Wycliffe Associates, told of meeting with a Wycliffe translator whose book our company carries.

It was a strange and pleasant experience to hear of this "old friend" whom we have never met.

But then we were saddened to hear Bruce's report. I will not pretend to quote Bruce exactly. I will only report what I remember Bruce saying.

[Translator] and I walked to his house, the house that he built with his own hands. It looks like a Robinson Crusoe dwelling. As darkness fell, we sat on the porch and talked.

[Translator] and [his wife] have been working on the translation of the [language group] New Testament for 34 years. They are supposed to celebrate its publication this coming January. We sat and talked into the night. Somewhere around 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, [Translator] asked me, with real anguish in his voice: "Bruce, have I wasted my life?!?"

I don't know what, specifically, spurred [Translator] to think that thought or feel that desperation. I get the sense it was a momentary, fleeting impression, not a heavy, on-going meditation on [Translator]'s part. (I know, sometimes, my mind will find itself in the blind alley of an emotional rat's maze. No real reason for it to be there; it just is.)

Yet in the context of what Bruce was saying, I got the impression some of the anguish, some of the question came about because [Translator] and his wife (who was not present for this particular conversation) have been working pretty much alone--apart from (m)any others of their own cultural group--for so many years; and the sense, I'm sure, that few people (if any) "back home" appreciate at all what they are doing, what they have been going through, the sacrifices they have made; and--considering the comment about their house--the thought that, maybe, "Should we have 'made it' in this world?"

Bruce didn't say anything about any of these topics directly. He only mentioned what I have conveyed here in the "quoted" text. It is I who have attempted to psychologize the feeling.

This question brings tears to my eyes even as I write it. . . . Sometimes we think people like [Translator] are such spiritual giants. Nothing should hurt or discourage them. . . . And why now? His task is done, really, isn't it?

But then the questions come, and the wonderment: "Have I wasted my life?"

Is there someone you know who is struggling on the backside of nowhere, trying to do an "impossible"--yet highly valuable--task, who is foregoing most of the creature comforts of this world, who has been laboring "forever" without respite? Think he or she may be becoming weary in well-doing?

Perhaps you should be praying . . . and offering support?

Legacy or Estate Planning?

Henry Doorn, executive director of the Barnabas Foundation spoke at the Mission India conference. He noted (something I discovered, later, he must have gotten from Ron Blue), that there are only three places your money can go when you die: to your heirs (family, friends), to charity, or to the government. He didn't quite put it this way, but my mind put his follow-through question together with the lead-in to Evangelism Explosion's standard opening question ("If you were to die tonight, do you know for sure that you would go to heaven?") and I heard him say, "If you were to die tonight, do you know where your money would go?"

And my answer: a shocked, "No! I don't!" --Even though Sarita and I have very carefully prepared final documents.

The problem: We know we have done everything possible, via estate planning, to minimize taxes and maximize transfer to our heirs, our children. But we have done nothing to ensure anything goes to any of the charities we care about.

And the reason for this, as I realized when I spoke with Mr. Doorn later that day and as I read Blue's book, we (Sarita and I) have been dealing with estate planning professionals and not, as Blue refers to them, "wealth transfer" professionals, or, as others refer to them, "legacy planners."

I have modified Blue's summary of the differences as found on page 38 in his book:

Wealth Transfer or Legacy Planning

. . . Focuses, as a goal, upon transfer of ownership.

. . . Considers, as first priority, the impact of wealth transfer on recipients.

. . . Expects implementation--i.e., the transfer of wealth--to begin now.

. . . Involves family input first and professional advice later. [Note: As I am learning, there are professionals who can help us work through the process of acquiring family input; but their role is to help us acquire family input--perhaps along with some education about the breadth of options we might want to consider; but it is not, at that point, to advise us about which options are "better" or "worse." . . . Only after receiving the family input will such a professional, then, seek to advise us about the pros and cons of the different options.]

. . . Makes decisions based on considerations of Godly stewardship.

. . . Seeks to bring honor to God.

Estate Planning, on the other hand,

. . . Focuses on retaining control of assets as long as possible--possibly, even, beyond the grave.

. . . Considers, as first priority, the impact of wealth transfer on the donor and the estate.

. . . Expects implementation--i.e., the transfer of wealth--to begin at death.

. . . Involves professional advice first and family input later. ("Here's what the attorney suggests; what do you think?")

. . . Makes decisions based on tax implications.

. . . Seeks to bring honor to . . . (God? or the donor?).

*****

I look at these two lists and I want to move toward Legacy Planning. I'm bummed we had never heard of the concept when we first went to our estate planning attorney.

Personal Legacy: Vision and Values

What values and experiences inform our giving decisions?

1. We believe we are called, first, to advance God's Kingdom and Glory among the nations of the world. (Matthew 6:33)
2. It is our understanding that there exist Unreached Peoples—peoples or "ethnic" groups among which there is no indigenous community of believing Christians with adequate numbers and resources to evangelize the group.
3. It is our understanding that approximately 40% of the world's population lives within such groups.
4. It is our understanding that an estimated 96% to 97% of all Christian charitable contributions in the United States are directed toward ministries within the United States and only 3% to 4% is left for the rest of the world; 99% of all "missionaries" work among "Reached" peoples; barely 1% of all "missionaries" are assigned to work among Unreached Peoples. . . ) . . .
5. Our understanding of these realities leads us to seek to invest in the under-funded, least-reached portion of the world.
6. For whatever reason--though we expect it is probably due to our involvement in education--we are highly oriented toward ministries that have to do with literacy, literature, and reading.
7. We believe we ought to focus our giving, rather than scatter it broadly. At this point, therefore, we have determined to focus on just a few ministries that focus specifically on the five largest blocs of Unreached Peoples--the Tribals, Hindus, Unreached Chinese, Muslims and Buddhists (THUMB as an acronym).
8. As former staff members of the U.S. Center for World Mission and now as businesspeople, we recognize that there are many unromantic, unemotionally-compelling, yet absolutely necessary "back-office," logistical and infrastructural tasks that need to be fulfilled if the more exciting front-lines tasks are to be completed successfully. We are willing to support these "back-lines" efforts.
9. We are not inclined to support efforts to build "mission station" kinds of facilities: school buildings, hospitals, houses and church buildings.
10. We are, similarly, not inclined to support "relief and development" efforts that leave recipients in dependent conditions.
11. Emergency disaster relief: all right--if combined with spiritual ministry.
12. Literacy and numeracy education that leaves the recipient better able to care for him or herself: great.
13. Microloan types of financial assistance where a person is able to attain independence: wonderful. However,
14. We always want to be doing the things that are underfunded and less likely to be supported by others. Therefore, right now, while "the world" is enchanted with the microloan strategy for development, we are disinclined to participate . . . simply because "everyone else" is doing it and we think we ought to do what is more obscure.

Vision for a Personal Legacy: Introduction

What I want to write here actually comes as a result of discussions with Sarita that have followed our Mission India meeting, reading Alan Gotthardt's The Eternity Portfolio, Ron Blue's Splitting Heirs: Giving Your Money and Things to Your children Without Ruining Their Lives, talking with our CPA and estate planning attorney, our primary investment advisor, and a "Legacy Planner."

In our business, we have written Values, Vision, Mission, Goal, Strategy and Tactic statements. But in our personal lives, we have never done such a thing. So what are our values, vision, mission, etc., when it comes to what God has placed in our hands? We finally began talking about it last night.

—Details to follow . . .

Prohibited, Permitted--Two historical Christian approaches to limits

I'm a member of a discussion group and someone in that group noted, offhand, that "the majority of Christians [fall] into two camps: those who believe that 'whatever is not expressly prohibited, is permitted' (Luther) and those who believe that 'whatever is not expressly permitted, is prohibited' (Zwingli)."

I had never heard anyone express such a view before, but it seems to "explain" a whole lot that has puzzled me.

No one, as I grew up, ever discussed the two possibilities. My sense, however: I was raised with a more "Lutheran" view, a view paralleled, it seems, in my mind, by Jesus' comment to his disciples: "whoever is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40) or "whoever is not against you is for you" (Luke 9:50).

But when I got to seminary--and after, as I dealt with more "Reformed" Christians (Calvinists . . . or Zwinglians)--I bumped into the latter view, a view paralleled, it seems, in my mind, by Jesus' comment to his disciples: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23).

I'm not prepared, here, to go in-depth into the issues, but you can see some of these differences at work in such matters as the "regulatory principle" in worship and--which most of us who have not been raised in such circles see as a different issue--holiday observances.

You can find some of the most outspoken presentations on this matter of the regulatory principle at the Still Water Revival Books website and, most particularly (among many), at their "Against Pagan and Roman Catholic Holy Days (Holidays) Like Christmas and Easter" page. Quite shocking.

A sample of the kind of material you will find there: the following summary of Christmass Condemned by Christ, a sermon by Greg Price:

Price shows how the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ condemns all man-invented holy days. Scripture and history are brought to bear most specifically on the celebration of Christ-mass, demonstrating why it is a sin to celebrate this day. It is also noted that Scripture never commands the celebration of this day and that there is no evidence that Christ and the Apostles ever celebrated this day--in fact, this syncretism of paganism and "Babylonian" Christianity was not first celebrated until 354 A.D. (when December 25 was chosen, in accord with the Pagan feast of Saturnalia, as the day of "celebration").

Price also clearly shows that to call yourself Reformed while you hold on to this Roman Catholic/Pagan monument of idolatry makes for a serious contradiction in your testimony--as the best Reformed churches have always disciplined those (in accord with Scriptural teaching) who broke the second and fourth commandments by keeping antichristian festival days like Christ-mass, Easter, etc.

Citations from Luther, Calvin and the company of Geneva Pastors, the Church of Scotland's First Book of Discipline, the 1620 Dutch Synod, the Civil Government of Holland (1625), the British Colonies in the U.S. and the Westminster Assembly all speak with one voice against this Romish corruption. Common objections against the classic Reformed position are also answered.

"Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen" (Jer. 10:2).

For more information see Christmas: A Biblical Critique by Kevin Reed.

I'm afraid I'm out of time to comment further at this point. I hope to return to this subject shortly.

Illiteracy = Slavery

Sarita and I spent last weekend at a conference for supporters of Mission India. It was a highly informative, disturbing, and encouraging meeting all rolled into one. Let me summarize the "encouraging" part. I want to focus primarily upon the "disturbing" material--primarily because I believe it speaks to a few things that, I think, should be key to most of us as homeschoolers.

The encouraging information: Indians--Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and animist--are responding to the gospel of Jesus Christ in unprecedented numbers partially because they see it as good news.

What most disturbed me: some of the key items we learned about the condition of so much of India's population.

One key statistic: sixty percent of the population as a whole--and, depending on the area, 80 to 90 to, even, 95 percent of the female population--is illiterate. One of Mission India's key ministries has to do with literacy and basic training in health and finance (numeracy and recognizing the respective values of different coins). These matters are so basic to my own education, and what I understand most Westerners are taught, that I never thought through the implications of not learning such things.

While explaining how important literacy is, Mission India's vice president read a portion from Frederick Douglass' autobiography. I want to quote that same section, here, for you because I believe you, since you teach your children might find it "interesting" in the same way I did.

The Value of Literacy

In case you don't know, Frederick Douglass was an American black slave, born in the early 1800s. He was "probably between seven and eight years old" when he was transferred from one master to another.

"Very soon after I went to live with Mr. and Mrs. Auld," he says, "she very kindly commenced to teach me the A, B, C. After I had learned this, she assisted me in learning to spell words of three or four letters.

Just at this point of my progress, Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read. To use his own words, further, he said, "If you give a n*gger an inch, he will take an ell. A n*gger should know nothing but to obey his master--to do as he is told to do. Learning would 'spoil' the best n*gger in the world.

"Now," said he, "if you teach that n*gger (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy."

These words . . . [were] a new and special revelation [to me], explaining dark and mysterious things, with which my youthful understanding had struggled, but struggled in vain. I now understood what had been to me a most perplexing difficulty--to wit, the white man's power to enslave the black man. It was a grand achievement, and I prized it highly.

From that moment, I understood the pathway from slavery to freedom.

--From Chapter VI of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

The vice president of Mission India noted that illiteracy--the kind of profound illiteracy that is so common in India--is, indeed, a means of enslavement for those who suffer under it. Thus, he noted, the Dalits--or "untouchables"--though legally entitled to education, rarely receive it. The Dalit parents, illiterate themselves, are unable to protect themselves from repressive and unjust business agreements. They thus find themselves, often, in such heavy debt that they and their children are forced to work from early morning till late at night just to purchase enough in order to keep body and soul together.

Unable to read, women are unable to use public transportation in order to leave their immediate communities. And, being unable to leave one's community means one cannot seek better employment, health care, shopping opportunities: all manner of things that we take for granted.

We heard of a Dalit woman whose 6-year-old daughter was kidnapped. At the time, she did not know the girl had been stolen. All she knew was that the girl had disappeared.

She went to the police for aid. They shooed her away. (After all, she was a Dalit--no better than a water ox.) The woman went to her literacy teacher who then brought the woman back to the police and demanded appropriate governmental services (i.e., that the police would listen to the woman's pleas and seek for her missing daughter). Having the requisite education in order to know her legal rights, the literacy teacher was able to acquire for the woman what the woman was unable to acquire for herself at that time. . . .

******

Over and over, we heard these kinds of stories. The story of Asha, a woman who confessed, only weeks after having come to know about Jesus and to believe that His life, death and resurrection offered her truly good news: “I did not know I was a human being!”

“What?!? How can you not know you are a human being?”

“I had always been treated as no better than an ox. I thought I was just an animal--just a different kind of animal, an animal in the shape of a human. But then I heard that Jesus died for me. And I am a daughter of the King of the Universe. . . .”

This is revolutionary news and, frankly, I, John Holzmann, have not known it. (Sometimes, it seems, one needs to “see” reality through other people’s eyes in order, truly, to understand it.)

Asha went and told her family and friends about her revolutionary discovery. In three months, she led 13 people to faith in Jesus. . . .

******

As I was preparing this post, I had to find the quotation I shared with you above from Frederick Douglass. That led me to read some portions of the text nearby. And the nearby sections of Douglass’ book reminded me strongly of what our speakers from Mission India had to say about so many women’s experiences in India--whether Hindu or Muslim, high- or low- or out-caste.

Douglass described, late in Chapter V of his book, what he experienced when he first met the Auld family:

Mr. and Mrs. Auld were both at home, and met me at the door with their little son Thomas. . . . And here I saw what I had never seen before; it was a white face beaming with the most kindly emotions; it was the face of my new mistress, Sophia Auld. I wish I could describe the rapture that flashed through my soul as I beheld it. It was a new and strange sight to me, brightening up my pathway with the light of happiness. . . .

Douglass continues the story in the first paragraph of Chapter VI:

My new mistress proved to be all she appeared when I first met her at the door,--a woman of the kindest heart and finest feelings. She had never had a slave under her control previously to myself, and prior to her marriage she had been dependent upon her own industry for a living. She was by trade a weaver; and by constant application to her business, she had been in a good degree preserved from the blighting and dehumanizing effects of slavery.

I was utterly astonished at her goodness. I scarcely knew how to behave towards her. She was entirely unlike any other white woman I had ever seen. I could not approach her as I was accustomed to approach other white ladies. My early instruction was all out of place. The crouching servility, usually so acceptable a quality in a slave, did not answer when manifested toward her. Her favor was not gained by it; she seemed to be disturbed by it. She did not deem it impudent or unmannerly for a slave to look her in the face.! The meanest slave was put fully at ease in her presence, and none left without feeling better for having seen her. Her face was made of heavenly smiles, and her voice of tranquil music.

In Douglass’ case, sadly, this attitude on the part of his mistress was to shift dramatically once her husband reprimanded her. You will want to read his book to “hear” the full story.

What I want you to “hear” is how Douglass describes the state of the slave. It is the exact same attitudes he said he had learned to show his masters that outcastes/Dalits/untouchables are taught to show toward everyone around them: crouching servility, inability to look someone in the face. But it is the message of Jesus Christ, the message that they are fully human and, in fact, truly touchable (because the Christians will actually touch them!) that revolutionizes their lives. . . .

******

The people at Mission India told us about the things they are teaching in their literacy classes. Besides the message of the good news of Jesus Christ--the message that Asha received with such great joy--they teach people: “Don't go into debt. Instead, save!”

This, too, is a revolutionary message. Instead of families, parents and children together, finding themselves forced to work long hours, day and night in order to meet their debt obligations, the parents are able to send their children to school. And they willingly send their children to school. The parents and the children, both, gain new hope for the future.

I thought: what a truly revolutionary message these Christian literacy teachers carry, what truly revolutionary behavior they are engaged in . . . and, for those of us who are teaching our children: what a truly revolutionary cause to which, I pray, we are calling them.

Caste and Reincarnation

We were told that, according to The Barna Group, 26% of Americans believe in reincarnation. The speaker who mentioned this statistic asked--much the way St. Paul suggested in Galatians 5:12 concerning the "circumcision party": "I wonder why they don't 'go all the way' and adopt the entire Hindu worldview?"

He explained why. It's because the Hindu worldview is so totally hopeless.

I had never understood why reincarnation could be viewed as hopeless, nor why Christians suggest that the Hindu caste system and the doctrine of reincarnation, together, are so antithetical and/or antagonistic to what Westerners call "human rights." Our speaker explained that, as well.

In the Hindu worldview, one is born into one's caste as a reward or punishment for one's immediately preceding life. Perhaps one was an animal in a former life; maybe one was a Brahmin. Whatever one was, one's caste today is a direct result--a "reward," if you will--for how one fulfilled one's "calling" or "caste" or "position" in one's former life.

Therefore--and this was what I had never understood before--if you are an outcaste/Dalit/untouchable today, then you need to live that life to the "fullest," suffer your pains and sufferings as a "good" outcaste/Dalit/untouchable: in order to pay the "price" for your failures in your previous life, whatever those failures may have been. . . .

And if you are, say, a Brahmin, you would actually be doing the outcaste/Dalit/untouchable a disservice if you were to attempt to relieve him or her of his or her sufferings. If s/he is unable to undergo the full cup of suffering, how will s/he be able come back at a higher station next time 'round? One's suffering cannot--they must not--be relieved within a lifetime. Only at death, and with rebirth/reincarnation in a new life, can one hope to enjoy any relief . . . and only if one has "earned" such relief through perfect suffering in the present life. Ouch!

******

I do not have a fancy ending to what I have written. I thought I should share a bit of what I'm learning right now. This weekend--in fact, beginning tonight--Sarita and I are attending another conference; this one for supporters of Wycliffe Associates. I wonder what we will learn there?

Muslims for Isa?

Last year, in mid-September, I attended a conference on "Churchless Christianity." And there were several people present who described what it was like to live in a Muslim country and talk with Muslims about faith in Christ.

They described how their behavior changed over time as they had the privilege of being present when a Muslim would occasionally declare his faith in Jesus or Isa as he is known in many Muslim countries.

One man said that, at first, when a Muslim said he wanted to follow Isa, he (the speaker) responded with great joy and invited this new Muslim-background believer/follower to come to church. [Note: in order to reduce confusion, I will now refer to Muslim-background believers in/followers of Isa as MBBs--short for Muslim-background believers. And for the sake of full disclosure, I should also note that the speakers seemed, universally, to believe that the correct Muslim term for Jesus is Isa . . . just as the "correct" Jewish term for Jesus is Yeshua or Yehoshua. I should also note, as I have since discovered, many Christians who work with Muslims say that Isa is wholly inappropriate. On this last point, see the Discussion of the use of the name 'Isa' for Jesus. . . . But let us return to our discussion.]

As the number of MBBs increased, these Western Christians eventually became aware of some fascinating and disturbing questions.

* What clothes should MBBs wear to church? The Christians who have traditionally lived alongside these MBBs are of a different racial and cultural background. And for various reasons, these Christians wear clothing of a decidedly different character than that which the Muslims wear--Western style shirts that you tuck into your pants, rather than more flowing robe-style coverings, for example.

Now, if a new believer in and follower of Jesus is going to walk into church, he's going to cause a stir simply by being there. So wouldn't it be wise for him to blend in as much as possible by engaging in certain practices that may put the Christians at ease a bit? For example, how about if he adopts a manner of dress familiar to the Christians? . . .

But—the Western Christians eventually began to ask themselves—if the new believer adopts that kind of clothing, what does his behavior "say" to his family, friends and neighbors--all the members of his own ethnic group? Doesn't it say he has "crossed over"; he is no longer one of "us"; he is one of "them"; a traitor? And over what? Over Jesus/Isa? . . . Or over clothes?

Then other issues slowly came to our speaker's attention.

* What word to use for "God." Muslims everywhere speak of the one true God as "Allah" (from the equivalent to the Hebrew word El or Elohim used in the Old Testament). But the Arabic translation of the Bible in this particular country used the word for God used by the Christian ethnic group of that nation. . . .

* For Muslims, the mosque is the community center--if you don't show up, you've removed yourself from the community.

* For Christians, marriages and burials are the personal responsibilities of the families involved; for Muslims, these "rites of passage," as it were, are facilitated by the local Muslim community.

* Muslims' weekly Sabbath is on Friday. But Christians worship on Sunday.

* Muslims take off their shoes or sandals before entering the mosque; Christians don't take off their shoes or sandals before entering a church building. . . .

* Muslims engage in ablutions before entering the mosque; Christians don't engage in any such ceremonies before entering the church building.

* Muslims, as a sign of reverence and respect, will not place the Q'uran on the floor; Christians, however, place the Bible on the floor!

* Muslims don't eat pork; Christians do.

* Devout Muslims pray 5 times a day—even in public; Christians . . . what do they do? Do they pray? (Not in the obvious/recognizable manner that Muslims do!) . . .

* Muslims celebrate Ramadan; Christians commonly celebrate Easter and Christmas. . . .

And then the real kicker:

* In order for a Muslim man to become married--at least in this particular culture--he must recite the Creed ("There is no god but Allah and Muhammed is His prophet."), at least that once, at his wedding. Can a MBB recite the creed? If not, how can he marry within his culture and people?

So the question became: Can a person remain a Muslim and follow Jesus/Isa? Or must he abandon his culture and his people in order to become a follower of Jesus/Isa?

*****

I'd like to note some things that various speakers at the conference brought to our attention.

1) The difference between "identity" and "practice."

As an evangelical Protestant, "group" identity has always been way less important to me than—I don't want to say "religious" practice, but how about . . . —diligent devotion, observance, obedience.

I have always looked with amazement at—first, those in my "Christian" sphere who declared themselves Catholic or Protestant or whatever, but they never attended church, they swore, they lied, they cheated. . . . –There was no apparent devotion to any higher principles than . . . I have no idea what. They wore a "name," but there seemed to be no real "life" to it.

And then I looked at my Jewish relatives (of whom I have a bunch). And I realized that they, too, wore the name "Jewish," but they never went to synagogue; they didn't believe in God. . . .

But/and I became aware of Jews for Jesus. –Whoa! My atheistic/agnostic Jewish relatives were infuriated by the idea! Why???? Why would that infuriate them since religous issues seemed so unimportant to them???

When I was young, at least, I knew that (even) a (nominal) Catholic could not marry (even) a (nominal) Protestant. –Neither you nor your intended might actually care a whole lot about the religious practices or beliefs that your (nominal) titles suggested, but, WOW! You'd better not dare cross that line!

For people who held such attitudes, it seemed, "You're born a Catholic (Christian, Jew, whatever)." But according to my upbringing, you became one. Becoming a Christian required a specific commitment, a transformation of heart and mind. . . .

And what I've just remarked upon speaks to the difference between "identity" and "practice."

The person who is born Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever has a Jewish, Christian, Muslim or whatever identity. But s/he may not practice the religion.

If you wouldn't marry outside your sociological/"faith" community, then you have a "high identity" with that community. But you may still not practice the nominal religion of that community.

Others may practice the religion, but may not identify as strongly as members of the sociological/"faith" community.

And, of course, there are all sorts of other combinations in between.

So suppose you've been "born" a Muslim; you’ve got a high "identity"; but you've never really "practiced" . . . or if you've practiced, you've not been devout. . . . Can you remain Muslim (in that sense of the term) but follow Jesus/Isa?

Suppose you were "born" a Jew; you've got a high "identity" but you've never "practiced" . . . of if you've practiced (you actually went as far as to be bat or bar mitzvah'd)--can you remain a Jew (in that sense of the term) but follow Jesus/Yehoshuah?

. . . Same questions down the line . . . and then back up again.

What happened in the early church?

What does 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 have to teach us? "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

What about 1 Corinthians 7:17-24? "Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you-although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to."

Several of the speakers at the convention I attended said they eventually concluded that, not only should they become like their Muslim neighbors sociologically (in the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9, "so as to win" them; but they needed to encourage MBBs to maintain their Muslim identity--i.e., they had to remain like their neighbors--so that they could remain "insiders" and "win" some as well.

"Jesus lived in a law-based society very similar to Islam," said one of the speakers. "He used much that was in his society. He changed some of it. And he threw some of it away."

The question we (devout Christians) face is how much of Islamic society can God use? How much does He need to change? How much (or, perhaps I should use the opposite term—how little!) does He need to throw away?

******

I want to deal with that last question/observation I made above . . . about the recitation of the Creed.

At least one of the speakers at the conference noted that he utilized the Qur'an as a stepping stone to Christ. After all, the Qur'an places Jesus/Isa in a very high position. He is a prophet. He is the anointed one ("al-Masiah"—Messiah). He was without sin, born of a virgin, the "word of God" (Q 4:171) and also a "word from God" (Q 3:55). He was an apostle, powerful, a miracle-worker. . . .

We could go on.

Oh, yes! The Qur'an also fails to teach much of what we believe from the Bible—for example, that Jesus died for our sins and was raised to life once more. Moreover, I am given to understand, it positively does teach some other things with which we, who call ourselves Christians, absolutely disagree.

However—and this is a major observation: these Western Christians have used the Qur'an to show many Muslims that they need to consider Jesus/Isa in a very different light than what they have been brought up to believe (whether their beliefs came from the Qur'an or not). These Christians say they have used the Qur'an to help lead Muslims to the Jesus/Isa as Lord . . .

Now, wait a minute! Galatians 3:24 says, concerning the Old Testament (KJV): "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." Is it possible that the Qur'an could be, for Muslims, what the Old Testament has been for many Jews and non-Jews who have come to Christ?

And . . . wait another minute! To whom are the words of the Qur'an attributed? To the prophet Muhammed. What are these Western Christians saying the Qur'an has done for many Muslims? They say the Qur'an has led Muslims to the Lord . . .

If the Qur'an itself can be a schoolmaster to bring Muslims to Jesus, and if the prophet Muhammed caused it to be written . . . cannot a Muslim-background believer say, in full honesty, with glory to God: "There is no god but Allah [God; the one god—Allah/El/Elohim] and Muhammed is His prophet"?

A very strange and terrifying concept. But . . .

(????!!!)

How does the leaven of the gospel work its way through the dough? How does the Kingdom of God grow?

I am unwilling to stick my neck out and suggest that these Christian speakers have it all right. But it sure seems to me that they may be pursuing more truth than I would at first be inclined to grant them.

It is certainly something worth thinking and praying about, it seems to me!

Getting Your Eyes Checked, Part II

If you missed my "Getting Your Eyes Checked" article, I urge you to read it.

One of my readers, Kim Ray, wrote:

I suppose it is not uncommon for children to have their first eye exams in kindergarten or first grade, but knowing what I know now, I would tend to this much earlier even if there were no apparent problems. . . .

What's interesting is that our daughter was an early reader and never showed any of the typical signs of vision problems: crossing eye, unwillingness to read, headaches, etc.

[The problem was], the part of her brain receiving the blurry images from her 'bad' eye had given up trying to make sense of things and was allowing the other eye, and its corresponding vision center in the brain, to do all the work. [Getting corrective] glasses, therefore, wasn't enough. Her brain needed to learn to recognize the now corrected images feeding in from the bad eye.

We might have gained several years of improvement in her perception of the corrected images she now sees through her glasses had we discovered her problem earlier. . . .

Vision involves far more than the mechanics of focus, as we found out!

With my experience; with Kim's story; with the stories from all the others who have written to me in the past couple of weeks: I can't stress heavily enough how important I believe a full behavioral or developmental eye exam is . . . and sooner rather than later.

Brief summary of what I have discovered: there's more to a good eye exam than static tests of each eye, individually. About 20% of the U.S. population suffers from significant problems in binocular (two-eye) convergence: we can't get our eyes to work well together. . . And I and my two sons all suffer from these kinds of difficulties. A regular exam shows the optometrist how to correct our vision so each eye sees 20-20; but we still have problems because the two eyes don't cooperate well together.

I appreciated hearing all my correspondents' stories, because they confirmed what my doctor had been telling me--and what I've been reading on the internet.

Part of the reason I asked for the stories is because I wanted to be sure I was sharing good information. At this point, I feel I can speak with a high degree of confidence that what I tell you is accurate.

ADD/ADHD . . . or Eye Difficulties?
Disobedience and Rebelliousness . . . or Eye Difficulties?
Carelessness and Sloth . . . or Eye Difficulties?

I'd like you to consider the following

"Symptom Checklist" of potential eye problems . . . that your regular optometrist may be overlooking

You may have gone to your optometrist several times over, each time convinced that there must be some issue with your or your child's eyes, but each time he or she has assured you: "No. Your [or, your child's] eyes are perfectly fine!"

. . . But they may not be fine. Not if you or your son or daughter is experiencing the following symptoms:

1. Temporary effects on eyesight
* Blurred distance vision (chalkboard or across room) especially after doing desk work or using computer
* Occasional blurring of near vision
* Occasional double vision at distance OR near
* Print or words sometimes appear to float OR move on the page

2. Discomfort associated with reading, desk work or using computer
* Headaches
* Eye rubbing
* Eye fatigue or "strain"
* General, overall fatigue
* Eyes Red, Watery OR Burning

3. Adaptations and postural adjustments during desk or computer work
* Moves head OR uses finger to keep place while reading
* Gets too close to paper during reading or writing
* Tilts OR turns head during reading or writing
* Excessively "wiggly" during reading or desk work
* Covers or closes one eye OR lays head on arm while reading or writing (thus occluding one eye so it cannot see the paper).

4. Has little interest in or enjoyment of reading
* Short attention span for reading
* Dislikes or avoids reading
* Fatigue or sleepiness with reading

5. Difficulty with reading comprehension
* Sub-vocalizes while reading or writing
* Reading comprehension reduces as reading continues
* Slow reader OR takes too long to complete homework

6. Makes "careless" errors when reading or writing OR appears clumsy
* Skips small words when reading OR miscalls similar words
* Difficulty working with columns of numbers OR staying on lines when writing
* Loses place easily OR skips or re-reads lines
* Makes errors or excessively slow when copying
* Spills things at table OR bumps or trips over things
* Letter or number transpositions or reversals
* Poor handwriting
* Appears clumsy or careless
* Difficulty hitting or catching a ball

Please. Let me note. These symptoms may seem weird, but if they come from the eyes, you will be extremely happy to find the source of the problem and to get it taken care of.

Along those lines, let me relate the story that Sandie Herr, a homeschooling mom of eight children (age 26 to 5-years-old) told me.

She said their oldest son "was in a private Christian school for kindergarten and first grade. By the end of 1st grade he was a year and three months behind in reading but a year ahead in math. He was young for the grade but big for his age and emotionally mature, so holding him back wasn't a good solution. We had him tested and his IQ was fairly high. We decided to school him and his older sister for a year at home."

After a year, I knew there was something not right for my son but I didn't know what. We took him to an educational psychologist for testing. Besides some learning difficulties and short term memory issues he also noted a red flag on his eye test--a 3-D type of test. He sent us to a developmental optometrist.

We had a 1 1/2 hour testing session and a two-hour conference on what was wrong with my son's eyes developmentally (20-20 vision) including:

* shutting the vision off from one eye completely,
* failing to be able to track from the end of one line to the start of the other (he either reread the same line, went back a line, or skipped a line),
* seeing double, and
* having his eyes hit at two different spots when shifting from close work to, say, a blackboard, and then having his brain work to bring the images together.

He was working so hard with his eyes that his brain couldn't concentrate on what he was reading. I would ask him questions on what he had just read aloud to me and he couldn't answer me.

He went for eye vision training for once a week for two years to retrain his eyes. He also wore glasses to help aid his focusing during most of that time but not since. It was the best thing we did for him. . .

Having this great experience you would think that we would be extra aware of this type of problem with our other children. Unfortunately, we weren't and our third child a daughter struggled thru her years of schooling with great difficulty. She was such a great athlete and gifted artistically but also had some learning difficulties that we thought schoolwork would just be harder for her. She didn't test well (a red flag we now know) although orally she excelled.

We had a reading specialist help her in high school as she struggled to handle the harder reading workload which helped somewhat. She also struggled with constant headaches in high school and college and had difficulty concentrating on reading for more than five minutes at a time without her eyes unfocusing or looking else where.

When our seventh child, our third and final daughter, started school, things did not go well from the start. It was obvious she too had some learning difficulties although she was a bright child (she had memorized more than two dozen books word perfect so that you thought she was reading them before she was two). We struggled through kindergarten, first grade, and partly through second before I "gave-up" and cried out for help. I just didn't know what was wrong but we were both often in tears over her schoolwork and frustrated.

My search dead-ended several times before I took advantage of a free testing evaluation by Success Labs, a tutorial service in our area. I thought I would at least get some information to be able to know where to look for help. It turned out to be a huge blessing. They, too, saw a red flag on an eye test and recommended the same developmental eye doctor's office my son had used fifteen years ago located several towns away. At the conference after her testing session much of what we talked about also rang some bells for our older daughter, now 20. We had her tested, too. Both of them are now in eye vision training once a week and we are seeing improvement although it is still in the early stages.

This is what I have discovered and seen demonstrated many times over in the past month.

How is a "developmental" (or "behavioral" or "neuro") optometric exam different from a standard exam?

According to Dr. Linda Azwell, a developmental optometric physician in Orlando, Florida,

Both exams will look at the health of the eye and the possible need to have corrective lenses. But a Developmental Eye Exam will also assess how the eyes are working together as a team at distance and especially at near since this can be a source of problems for approximately 20% of the population. The Developmental Exam will measure:

* The ability of the eyes, separately and together, to change their focus rapidly and smoothly
* The amount of flexibility the eyes have to make "turn in" or "turn out" adjustments at distance and at near so the eyes are pointed at what the person actually wants to look at
* Can the eyes actually stay comfortably where the person wants to look at distance and at near without sliding in and out of alignment?
* Does the person have adequate depth perception and ability to see binocularly?
* Can the person follow something smoothly with their eyes or are tiny correctional movements always needed?
* The ability of the eyes to smoothly and accurately move from one point to another:
1) at distance,
2) at near, and
3) from near to distance and back again
* Do they have good orientation, coordination and laterality?

When I first began my visual therapy, three weeks ago, I could not make my eyes converge on a point closer than about a foot away from my face. Now, through therapy, I am becoming relatively adept at such convergence, though one of my eyes continues to "blank out" on a rather frequent and disconcerting basis.

Better than 20-20 . . . but at what cost?

As I have now brought our sons in to see Dr. Manniko, we have discovered several interesting things. For example, one of our sons, Justin, had been measured by our regular optometrist as having 20-12 eyesight--"better than normal." . . . But he has complained for years of suffering headaches. He has always thought it was his eyes. We have brought him to the optometrist, and the optometrist has said he couldn't imagine how. . . .

Dr. Manniko ran him through the same set of tests that a regular optometrist does, then did something I've never seen before: he reset the phoropter (the machine eye doctors set in front of you and flip lenses around and say, "Is this better, or is this?") . . . --He reset the phoropter to some strange setting, asked Justin if he could read the top line of the chart (which Justin, at that point, could not), and then said, "Great! . . . I want you to sit there and relax and wait until you can see something. Then tell me what you see."

It took about three minutes and Justin suddenly called out, "Hey! I can read the first line! It's '____' (whatever it was)."

"That's great!" Manniko replied. "When you can see more, tell me."

A few minutes later, Justin could read the next line.

After about 10 minutes, Justin was able to read four of the six lines on the chart.

What had happened?

Dr. Manniko said that, normally, our eyes are at rest when we are looking at a distance. It takes quite a bit of muscle power to force ourselves to look up close. Justin was, indeed, able to see well, but at the cost of tremendous exertion: "It's like a car that can't go faster than 60 mph even when floored and running downhill. Justin's eyes are that car, and they're trying always to run at 55 mph. A car that can't go faster than 60 mph will achieve the speed, but at tremendous cost--especially if you're always trying to run it at its top capability. Justin's headaches are the result of the constant strain."

Sure enough, with glasses (which he "doesn't need"), his headaches have disappeared.

*******

I'd like to tell a couple more stories, and then I need to quit.

Prismatic Lenses

Dr. Manniko prescribed some prismatic lenses for me. My regular optometrist had said he could make such a prescription, but he warned me that they would be like heroin: totally addictive and, long term, destructive of my eyesight: "You'll become dependent on the lenses to do what your eyes are supposed to do for you."

I asked Dr. Manniko about that. (And I asked a few opticians about the matter as well.)

Manniko said, "He is absolutely right. Your eyes will become weaker. Just as your feet are weaker because you wear shoes. But just as shoes (and your computer and your calculator and so much other technology) are adaptive technology, so are the prismatic lenses: they help you do what you could not do without them. You could not easily walk outside in your bare feet when it is freezing cold and snowy. You could not easily walk on burning hot tarmac in the summer. Shoes help you do those things. The right shoes can help you run faster than you would if you didn't own them. . . . In the same way, prismatic lenses for your condition, John, will help your eyes enable you to do what you want and need them to do."

Long-term, of course, both Manniko and I expect me to do away with the prisms by having me strengthen my eyes through the therapy I'm engaged in.

Fun and Games

The therapy I'm undergoing is rather odd.

There are a few pieces that seem relatively easy to understand. Separate from Dr. Manniko, I purchased an eyesight kit that includes a "Fusion String" that is about six feet long and has a red bead attached every six inches down its length (with about 6" free on each end). You're supposed to attach the string on one end to a wall (I've attached it to a door knob) and then hold the other up to the end of your nose. You're then supposed to sight down the string, focusing on each bead in succession. "If you're nearsighted, start with the closest bead and work outward. If you're farsighted, start with the farthest bead and work up toward you."

I have found this Fusion String to be most enlightening. If your eyes are working as they should, you should actually see "two" strings running down to the point where you are focused; they should fuse at that spot, and then continue, crisscrossed, beyond the focus point. I.e., they should form a giant "X" if you're looking at a bead somewhere in the middle, and a "V" (or upside-down "V") if you're looking at either end.

If you see only one string, then one of your eyes is blanking out. If you see a "Y"-like figure--where one of the legs of the "X" is broken off, that means something else. I have found that I often see a "Y."

But the majority of my therapy is nothing like this at all. Mostly, I play games--games like throwing a ball against a bounce-back net; shooting baskets at mini indoor basketball hoops; walking on a balance beam; playing catch with a partner while the two of us are standing on the balance beam; and so forth. I play these games while wearing heavily prismed glasses.

These glasses range from 3 to 12 diopters of prismatic shift. And the prisms can be rotated. So we start playing these games with the prisms "up"--at the 12 o'clock position. Then shift the prisms "right" (3 o'clock). Then "down" (6). Then "left" (9). Then "out" (left at 9, right at 3). Then "in" (left at 3, right at 9). . . . And for me, since I have an alignment problem where my eyes not only don't converge properly left-to-right (the most common type of difficulty), but also up-and-down, I am supposed to do these things also with the prisms set one down, one up and vice-versa.

Talk about making you feel dizzy! . . . But I am finding that my eyes converge more readily already, and I'm not even a third of the way through my scheduled therapy.

I asked Dr. Manniko about his regimen. He said that the prismatic glasses "merely" speed up the whole process. But the games themselves are really the "secret." He said that far too many kids lack the kind of practice they really ought to have in focusing near-far and far-near in rapid succession.

"Think of it," he said. "To begin with, a child should learn to catch a slow-moving balloon. Eventually, s/he should graduate to a slow, soft ball. And only after plenty of that kind of experience should s/he ever face the kind of situation that a lot of boys face when they are 8 or 9 years old where they are set 90 feet from the pitchers mound and then have a hard ball thrown at them at 40-, 50-, or 60-miles per hour!"

Too many kids today, he said, do little more than stare at computer and video screens. And their eyes don't get the wide range of practice they need to perform optimally. . . .

*******

Conclusion

In sum, if you or one of your loved ones is experiencing any of the issues I listed at the beginning of today's article--or even if not--I urge you to find a "Developmental" or "Behavioral" (or possibly a "Neuro") optometrist and have that person's vision checked out. At least once. If there are no problems, stick with your regular optometrist. But at least once, see how your and your children's eyes work together.

You can find a doctor locally by going to www.covd.org/membersearch.asp ["developmental" optometry] or www.healthy.net/oep/OEPSearch.htm ["behavioral" optometry]. "Neuro-Optometrists" are pretty similar to developmental and behavioral optometrists, though they specialize in "rehabilitation for acquired brain injury." A Neuro-Optometrist has a good web page that highlights some of the kinds of issues they deal with. (See http://www.agape1.com/neurolog.htm.) To find a neuro-optometric doctor or therapist, go to http://www.nora.cc/locater/index.html.

One last item (mentioned by several people): "Some docs recommend surgery right off the bat. Other treatments are often as good and less invasive."

Getting Your Eyes Checked

In the last month, I’ve had two appointments with a specialized "developmental optometrist.” The optometrist pointed out something I have never realized before: static eye exams may ignore some really debilitating eye problems. If your son or daughter is having difficulty with reading, it may not be a problem associated with his or her ability to see clearly (the kinds of measurements that show up on standard phoropter tests (the phoropter is the machine eye doctors set in front of you and flip lenses around and say, "Is this better, or is this?")). It may have everything to do with eye coordination and eye-brain connections--what we may call "perceptual ability."

Let me tell you my story and then I'd like to hear yours.

*****

For years I've known "something" is "wrong" with my eyes. I could never define exactly what bothered (or bothers) me. However, I knew, from my internal sense about these things, that I read very slowly. Not as slowly as some. But I have always sensed I read way more slowly than I'd prefer. And no matter what techniques I try to use to raise my speed, my comprehension always tends to fall rapidly. I *have* to read slowly or I can't understand what I'm reading.

Something else that "SHOULD" have been a clue, but I never paid attention to: for years I've known that I can't read for more than 15 or 20 minutes at a time before I want to fall asleep. I don't mean merely feeling tired. I mean, reading just about literally "knocks me out." I'd fall asleep in mid-sentence when reading to our kids "way back when"--when we used to read together as a family.

When I went to see the developmental optometrist, we talked for a while about the kinds of symptoms I was experiencing. He asked about headaches when I read, about seeing double, about symptoms typical of dyslexia, ADD, ADHD, and other such behavioral and/or perceptual issues.

I could not say anything about these other areas. All I knew is the two symptoms I mentioned above.

After giving me a standard eye exam, he hooked me up to a VisaGraph, which tracked my eye movements as I read . . . each eye INDIVIDUALLY. The VisaGraph tests--we did two of them--were most enlightening.

Here's what they told us: my left eye fixated (stopped to focus on a portion of text) more times than my right eye fixated.

And I went back to re-read something I’d already read (called a reversion) more times with my left eye than my right.

Eyes Not Tracking Correctly

You may wonder: "How could your LEFT eye fixate more times than the right? And how could the left eye revert more times than the right?"

Well, in a graphical printout of my eye movements, the left eye always moved where it needed to go in order to see whatever it was I needed to see. Every now and then, however, my right eye would simply "go blind." It would quit "looking" . . . or seeing. The graph of the left would show distinct and measured movements; the right eye would simply stop moving, or move far less than the left eye. . . .

Rather eerie to see!

But the upshot of all of this: my eyes, though functioning okay ON THEIR OWN or when asked to look at a static object, do not work well TOGETHER.

******

I want to tell "the rest of the story," but I'm under some tremendous time pressure. I would also like to hear some "war stories" from my readers so, together, we may be able to give better recommendations and "advice" to others whose children may be struggling--or who may find that they themselves may be struggling with their eyes.

So: Have you become aware of these kinds of visual difficulties that show up in "real-life" situations but that your regular optometrist seems to miss? What have you done about it? What have you found? What "solutions" have you discovered?