Judging

We humans are really, really quick to judge - a rush to judgment. Why? Because it neatly places the issue in its proper place. If it's a person then it tells us how we are to  respond to that person. As a creation we are most adept at putting people and things into boxes and then neatly stacking them to pull out when needed or wanted. No complications this way. But it is also limiting and it never allows for a second consideration.

Scripture (Matthew 7:1-2) admonishes us not to judge, especially since by the 'measure' we judge we will be judge. That pronouncement is like a cold splash of water in the face. But... does this stop us? Of course not! We have to have some way to assess and then categorize in order to appropriately respond. Right?

I suspect that there might be an outside chance that the above analysis would work... IF people responded in the way we expect them to. This doesn't always happen which makes our initial analysis somewhat irrelevant. Have you ever played out a scenario in your head about how the other person will respond and then what you will say and then what they will say/do, etc. Most of the time the only relationship to our scenario is our own opening comment.

Certainly we all need 'benchmarks' of our understanding of the issue/person but when it comes to people, we have to always realize that people grow and change and make mistakes and act rationally and say things they regret, and, and... just like you do. Judging handcuffs you as much as the other person.

There is a slight caveat on not judging. Remember Paul admonishing the Corinthians (5:9) for not confronting a brother who was sinning? In this passage he tells us that we have to 'judge' in order to bring a brother back. This is totally different from what I've been saying. This passage has to do with immorality that is existing.

Remember... judging is not necessarily judgmental. Judging is our way of coping and can be changed. Being judgmental is always  negative and inhibits you as much as the other person.

Grief

"... the path of grief could not be scripted and was one taken alone, even if one grieved with family." That's a quote from a book by Jacqueline Winspear and probably is one of the best descriptions of the the emotion of grief I've ever read.

Grief is really all pervasive. It is physically felt as well as emotionally. It seeps in with a coldness that is hard to describe but very familiar when experienced. Grief can control what we do and what we say and above all, it makes us so very weary.Grief paralyzes and confuses - it is all encompassing. Grief saps the strength and perhaps that's the greatest damage it does to us. There's no such thing as a 'little grief'.

Grief blinds us and binds us requiring that we fight through in order to see. However, we can overcome grief - if we want to. There would be those who would say that of course they want to it's just that they can't. Not true. We can... if we stop focusing on ourselves and our own pain. We humans do enjoy being the center of attention and reaping the concern of others. Harsh. Yes... but true. When you focus on your own pain and loss you lose perspective.

For just a moment consider the grief the Father felt at the crucifixion. If we feel grief so intensely can you even begin to imagine how God felt when He had to turn His back on His only Son? And if you can get your head around that then think for just a moment that all that was done for you (and me)! The point is that both the Father and the Son went outside of themselves and their feelings to act for your benefit.

Grief can incapacitate us or it can energize us - it depends on our focus.

The Best of Intentions

What a devastating phrase. I had a friend who use to enjoy quoting, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Unfortunately that's all too accurate. These words are often used to cover an unthinking act. We use it to justify what we've done, or not done. It's really an excuse, a throw away phrase. What actually is 'the best of intentions'? But the larger question is: what is the basis of our 'claim' that whatever we did or did not do was the 'best of intentions'?

Actually I think the phrase points out people's strong need to defend themselves. It's almost as if a defense (typically for the indefensible?) is the first thing we think of. Even before we analyze what's happening we are ready with our excuse. Obviously we want to be seen in the 'best possible light' but the fact often is that since we are very fallible we need to discover a way of strengthening our position. Not particularly logical.

It would be far easier and less strain if we simply acknowledged that we didn't choose the 'best', apologize, and then move on. An apology is not weakness - it really is a statement that we regret that the 'best' didn't occur and acknowledge any action on our part that contributed to the best not occurring. What's wrong with that?!

If we are quick to accept credit for things that go well, that are the best of intentions then we should be able to accept the blame when they don't. Attempting to cover it up/over never works and we inevitably are found out so why not admit the error without the attempted face saving of ' what I meant...'?

Belong... ing

I believe we are all looking to belong... somewhere. We are on a search for a home, a place of refuge. But also a place to grow. Simply... we are looking for a place that we belong. And a place that's safe. It seems that some people have no problem finding their 'place'. You can watch them being free in their belonging place. Others seem to search throughout their lives to discover their place, their foundation and sometimes not find it.

What are the attributes of one's place? I've already indicated two of them - safety and growth. One's place has to have an aspect of peace, of rest from life. Not a place to hide but a place to gather strength to return. Another component is significant others populating one's place. Not necessarily like minded, in fact there needs to be people with differing views but the quality displayed is respect - you are respected for what you believe and you respect their thinking. Agreeing does not necessarily need to exist.

Valuing is a corollary quality. Your place has to give you a sense that you are valued just as you are by others. However it is also important that you value others as well and they sense this too. You need to feel that you can make 'mistakes' and not be damned for your choice. You need to feel that when you make the wrong choice/assumption that you can redeem it.

So what is required? A refuge, safety, a place to grow, peace, strengthening, others, respect, valuing, mistakes tolerated.... and these are only the obvious points. Each person has their own list that defines their place. Does all this sound like a utopia? Perhaps. But just maybe, it's what one can develop in the place we currently live in. These qualities/attributes are available in some measure where we are right now. 

We all need to feel we belong somewhere. Maybe what we need to do is to make where we are our belonging place. The interesting aspect is that no one has to tell you when you've found your belonging place - you know. It just feels right. 

Lie

What causes us to lie? It's not a question of whether or not one lies, unfortunately we all do. But why? When we do lie we are typically on tenterhooks until the truth comes out - and it seems to always come out at the worst possible moment. Most of the time we end up getting caught in the lie which only makes the situation worse - AND we all know this. So why do we lie?

Self preservation is often given as the reason for lying, and there are a number of 'reasons' we list under this heading - but since we always seem to get caught, that argument really doesn't work. It seems doomed from the start, yet we do tend to continue to use this as an explanation. I have heard some people say that they didn't want the other person to be hurt. That has got to be the weakest and least acceptable reason. What we really are saying is that 'we' didn't want to have problems and a lie seemed to be the easiest way out.

Is lying a responsibility thing? A "What! Me do that - never!" The problem is that if it is a responsibility thing (something we said we would do or wouldn't do and we did the opposite) then the quickest way out is to admit our error.  A "sorry" really does cover a multitude of sins, especially when accompanied with a heartfelt, "I'll never do (not do) it again."

Lying causes pain to those we lied to and to ourselves - waiting to be caught and then the aftermath of being caught. There really doesn't seem to be any rational reason to lie. For the life of me, I can't explain it. An 'everyone does it' doesn't make it right or proper and it definitely doesn't work. It is a puzzlement that reasonable and intelligent people would do this.... but we do. The only weapon against this, in my opinion, is diligence. We must be diligently on guard to keep ourselves from lying.
Is it possible?????

Want

"The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want...." is the beginning of the 23rd Psalm. I think nearly everyone is familiar with this Psalm. Often it is recited at a funeral as a testimony of confidence, of faith. This is also echoed in Ephesians (1:3) which attest to Paul's statement that we have been blessed with 'every' spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ. If we have every then we don't want. 

The 23rd Psalm starts with a statement of relationship: The Lord is my Shepherd. Obviously this means that you have a relationship with the Lord and it is based in the reality that He is your shepherd. One of the definitions of shepherd is a leader - the shepherd does the leading. We humans sometimes have difficulties with being led and it isn't necessarily based in a lack of trust of the one leading, it's just that we like to do our leading.

The shepherd doing the leading is not forcing you to follow but if/when you don't then the relationship is, at least temporarily, changed. Severed? Two cannot lead simultaneously unless they be agreed and if agreed then there is only need for one leader. And it follows that the one with the greater understanding and knowledge should assume that leadership. Believing is a statement of your willingness to follow the Shepherd.

Believing that you will not want is a bold statement of trust. It is a confident trust that doesn't need to boast and is peacefully confident in God. Trust is a critical consideration and is typically reinforced through experience. If you've never trusted the Lord in/for something then you have no strong foundation for trust. But to believe that you will never want for anything again is also illogical if you apply it to the natural world. Spiritually defined, you will never want. Carnally.... totally different.

Challenge

Quite honestly, I'm a sucker for a challenge. Not the life threatening type, the personal ability type. My piano teacher always used it each year prior to the piano contest as a motivator. It worked. A challenge is a motivator for me. However, that's not true for everyone. Some people walk away, for whatever reason, from a challenge. Other people react in other ways - you?

Remember that I'm defining challenge as the not life threatening type - that's simple foolhardiness. The kind of challenge I'm talking about is the motivating type. One of the definitions that Webster uses to describe challenge is: anything that calls for special effort. To me that means that it is something you can accomplish but it is also something that requires something 'extra' from you to get to the goal.

Challenge also speaks to your own personal values. You obviously aren't going to engage in a challenge for the sake of the challenge... at least most people won't. But a challenge to your values requires an assessment by you regarding the value, minimally - is it? And then, is it worth your effort. Those questions will define your values.

Obviously the important consideration is how you view challenges. Is it a threat? Threats can be motivators but they can also be a negative. Threats typically have a large emotional component to them. Emotions can be helpful simply because they give you a great deal of information about the depth of your feelings toward the value. However, there's also a down side in that they can blind us from seeing clearly.

Avoiding challenges is never healthy (my definition) because it blinds us to seeing and it doesn't allow us to face the truth of what we say is our value. Challenges are healthy as long as we don't fight the person that has challenged us and focus on the value to determine its relevance for us.

Coincidence? Plan?

How do you view life? A series of coincidences or an ever evolving plan? Actually yes, your attitude and belief on this either/or choice makes all the difference.

A serendipitous coincidence, though seemingly fulfilling all the definition 'requirement', rarely happens. Life, to me, is far more than just a series of coincidences that got me to the place I currently am. I suspect I'm a bit like the Gibbs character on NCIS - I don't believe in coincidences. Part of the reason for that is that I don't believe that life is an accident.

As much as I really enjoy what appears to be a coincidence, I don't think life is as random as that. Events and my choices have far more to do with where I am than happenstance. If I consider how I got to where I am, the apparent randomness diminishes as I begin to discern a plan. And that's OK. I don't have a problem with accepting the ramifications and responsibilities from my choices and actions.... at least I hope I don't.

Soooo, if I (and you?) don't believe in coincidences then I am left with life being a plan. Yes? Whose plan? Ah Ha! That, to misquote Shakespeare, is the rub and makes all the difference. Yet it is one I choose. I also believe it is an ever evolving plan based on the decisions I make as long as you define decision with action.

A 'plan' defined means that you have an evolution based on your actions - the Frost poem that talks about a road diverging in a forest. A 'plan' defined means that there is meaning and purpose in/to your life. Psalm 139:16 and Ephesians dispel and randomness to our existence. We are His workmanship and are wondrously and fearfully made.

Each step you take, every decision you make further defines your evolving plan. But you are not merely a 'coincidence'.

Many windows

Recently I was asked by a young man aged 4 1/2 (the 1/2 is very important at that age) why I didn't go to his church.... or at least he didn't see me there. This young man enjoys his children's church and Sunday school and 'Kids Count' club. His question was not said accusatory, he was genuinely curious.

Quite honestly, I gave what I consider to be a non-answer because I really didn't want to get into the 'theology' of my reasons. He nodded in that way children do when they really don't believe what you just said and went off to do whatever it was he was wanting to do. His question, however, stayed with me since it's one I've thought about often.

Why so many denominations? Obviously these are man made, not God made and, I suspect, God tolerated. So often Christian 'wars' were fought over interpretation of scripture and those that believed one way gathered together and those that believed another view did the same - but too often these different approaches became the basis for what I call a religious racism. In the 21st Century most of these groups have gained some form of social acceptance but there still are those groups on the fringe.

So why do we place such a value on what man has determined, admittedly primarily through study (often of a writer with a similar persuasion), rather than on the simple truth of what the scripture says? We are told in scripture that we see through a glass darkly so why is our vision so much clearer than the next person's? Shouldn't we, rather, discuss together our different approaches and as steel sharpens steel, see if together we come closer to the meaning?

One of the biggest obstacles is our personalizing our discussion. And, I don't see how to avoid that. With a subject as important as this one, why would we proclaim a position we don't believe? Obviously we need to make certain our window is clean and we see as clearly as we can. We also need to be open to looking through the other person's window.

Do the best you can do....

When I was growing up I was always encouraged to 'do the best I could do' in whatever activity I was engaged in. (I doubt that any parent would encourage their child to be mediocre or do only enough to get by or to do as badly as possible.) As a result, I think that I felt that I could do anything I really wanted to do. I also think that I was never raised to play it safe - discovery/adventure/experimenting was encouraged. At least that's what I remember.

Since I was encouraged to experiment, to discover I learned that I really wasn't superior in all things. Actually that's not a bad learning for a child. My only admonishment was to do the best I could. As long as I could say that I tried then I could enjoy the things I was really good at, as well as the things I really wasn't good at... and everything on that continuum. If I did the best that I could then I could discover those areas I was better at but not discouraged from involving myself in the things I wasn't as good at.

I think the key consideration was to enjoy whatever I was doing. The reason for this was that you tend to be more open and aware of the lessons the activity had to offer when you have a positive attitude. At least for me, my learning style is such that the subtleties of the lessons learned are retained far better when I am enjoying the process than when I am stressed.

Did I always do the best I could? Of course not.... but more often than not. If I didn't I really didn't know if the activity was one I could self-improve on. The ones that I did try to do the best were the ones that mirrored the values my family held....such as education. I really did enjoy school and was rewarded by excelling. But even in those areas I wasn't a standout in, I still enjoyed the experience. Learning, for me, was a way of life not just a passing interest.

I would encourage everyone to really do the best you can do. I'd also encourage you to encourage others. In both situations you'll never wonder if you could have done better (more).

The Good Life

Are you living the good life? Remember, the definition of 'good life' is individually defined. While there may be similarities among people's definitions, it's what you believe that's important. So I ask you again... according to your definition - are you living the good life? If not, what's missing? What is needed for your life to be defined as 'good'. Probably the most important question is: have you defined the good life for yourself? Would you recognize it if you attained it?

You also need to know what would increase your current state to 'good' - are they tangible things such as money, new car, etc. or the intrinsic quality things such as a good reputation, a loving family relationship, a job that gives you creative possibilities. Unfortunately it seems that most of us focus on the tangible to give definition and meaning to the good life and, if not ignore, then downplay the importance of the intrinsic.

The next question you need to answer is - what will you do in order to attain the good life? Are you willing to sacrifice - and what are you willing to sacrifice? Is your definition worth the time and energy and price? Because there is a price you will have to pay to attain your 'goal' and one you  pay if you don't.

With all those questions, .... does the definition need refining? Or maybe it's your behavior that needs changing? There are some people who are on their way to attaining their definition so theirs is a 'keeping on keeping on'. However, where are you on your quest? The good life is a motivator as long as it doesn't become a consumer of who you are. The good life is a goal worth pursuing as long as it isn't a behavior that overwhelms you and everyone around you.

The Good Life. Simple. Complex. But it has to be yours and not someone else's dream.

Sojourner

sojourn: to live somewhere temporarily, a brief stay, visit. That's what we humans are... sojourners. We are here for a brief stay before moving on to our permanent home. If you consider earth as your permanent home you'll be in for a considerable shock. There is one of two places we will end up because we are made of spirit which goes on living forever.

If you are able to accept this definition and condition then I have a serious question for you... what are you doing with the time you are living on earth? There's a great gospel song that says, 'if I can help somebody as I pass this way then my living has not been in vain.' I like that. That speaks to our task on earth - to help not hinder others. It gives us a daily focus to be aware of those around us that can use a helping hand.

Whenever I think of sojourners I see in my mind's eye a person with a knapsack on his back (or backpack) walking along. The person may or may not be with others but there a sense of peace that exudes from him/her. He isn't owned by possessions and probably has only the necessities of life in his pack, but he has all he needs. Yes, romantic and that lifestyle may not be that way but that mindset is incredibly freeing.

I've always believed that it's quite alright to have possessions as long as they don't have me. If I can appreciate and use the possession then excellent, but if I can't live without it then there's a problem. It's far too easy to rely on the possession to 'take care' of those things we want. 'Want' is the operative word. When a want becomes a 'need' then we are moving into the realm of being possessed by our possessions. When we see that we are sojourners and things are merely there to assist us, then we can move in freedom.

Long distance relationship....

Have you ever been successful with long distance relationships? I know that the ones I have been involved with start out with great intentions of keeping in touch. And still, with all the methods available today for instant communication (IM, facebook, emails, tweets, texts, etc.), most LD relationships end up becoming sporadic at best until they peter out into nothing. I've lost track of a number of rather special people because of this.

What's missing in these relationships is the intimacy, the immediacy - the face to face. There are two contradicting saying related to this - one says that absence makes the heart grow fonder and the other declares that familiarity brings contempt. I'm inclined to believe that absence doesn't enhance relationships. Too much happens in our lives that it's impossible to share it all and yet the 'all' comprises who we are becoming.

I would argue that the above also relates to our relationship with the Lord. He's not interested in a long-distance relationship. Once you have accepted Him as Lord, He wants to be intimately involved. How often do you invite the Lord into your day-to-day? He's not going to encroach, He always waits to be invited. Trouble is... we often don't think in this way. Perhaps it's not 'holy' enough or maybe we're shy when we are near Him or maybe we're just unthinking. Whatever the reason - we need to be more aware.

In the first place, why would you want a LD relationship with the Lord? That's equivalent to being invited to a grand feast and only having the soup course. Makes no sense. With all that the Lord brings with Himself for you why limit what He will do in your life? But to make an impact, He has to be invited to participate.

I would argue that this relationship is an either/or. Either He's invited and participates or He isn't. I don't believe that you can pick and choose - be involved with my health but don't touch my money. An LD relationship, spasmodic at best, is not the most advantageous for us especially since the Lord wants to be involved. In every instance it will be the person agreeing to what the Lord proposes - He will never force you to choose.

Proof!!!

I've finally come to the obvious realization that I can't prove to you that there is a God, that Jesus is the only way to the Father and adoption into the family of God. Granted that there are a number of 'proofs' that I can provide but ultimately.... this is a decision that each person has to make. You decide to believe or you decide not to. You either accept the proof that's provided or you decide that it isn't sufficient for you, you deny it.

It's not that I don't have a responsibility - I do. I have a responsibility to you, I have a responsibility to my Lord, and I have a responsibility to myself. My primary responsibility is to be a witness. I can introduce others to the Lord that has touched my life. I can share how He's impacted my life, what He's done for me. I can seed, water, harvest but it still is dependent on the other person. It's the Holy Spirit that draws people to the Lord but again it's the free choice, the decision by each person to accept or reject the Lord. It is an either/or.

I can point out that in all of the 'religions' available for man to choose from that Christianity is the only one that has a Savior who chose to die for mankind, to be the ultimate sacrifice and then to rise from the dead for our victory over death and lives today. But this is a decision of faith.

There's the argument that everyone goes to heaven, that a loving God would never consign people to hell (presupposing they even admit hell exists). But that makes no sense. Why would you want to spend time in a place with someone (God, Jesus) you have never accepted, you don't believe in? Heaven is the destination for those who believe. Could I be wrong? Possibly, but nothing in scripture sustains the argument that everyone goes to heaven.

Proof can be summed up in Paul's declaration in Romans (1:16): "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes..." Only you can believe for yourself and no one can 'make' you believe. It is a free choice. But if you don't.... what proof do you need, that will lead you to truth?

Unique

You do realize that you are special, unique? Yes, you are like others but still there's that spark that sets you apart - sets all of us apart from each other. You never were created to be exactly like the next person. Look at families. Each person in a family, though part of the family, is different. Two children in the same family will experience things differently. This is not by chance - this is by design! It's because we were created uniquely.

So why would you expect to be led in the exact same way as your brothers and sisters in Christ? And don't compare - you should never compare how the Lord leads you by how He leads someone else. Your gifts were given you to benefit all just like your brother/sister in the Lord has their own gifting. The 'sameness' is the purpose for the gifting - for the benefit of all.

Yes, we are all part of the family of God but don't forget 1 Corinthians 12 (12-27). We need to appreciate our uniqueness and the other person's uniqueness and not try to be exactly the same, nor covet someone else's gifting. Verses 4, 18, and 27 need to be ingrained in our thinking. Paul teaches us that if we were all the same then where would the body be? "Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually."

I know I can get into trouble here because it is so easy to misunderstand. We all carry some significant sameness: we all believe in Jesus. But how we got to that point varies, is unique to the person. We all have the same responsibility to witness to others about Jesus. But while the object is the same, the methodology varies with the person.

Perhaps ultimately it can be said that we are all the same...uniquely. God doesn't want to do away with your uniqueness, He wants it celebrated. But this begins with you - you must be able to celebrate your uniqueness as you celebrate your membership.

Popular!

Let's face it - we all want to be popular. We all want to be liked. And we link liked with popular. But... what's our price for this? And yes, there is a cost. It's been said that everyone has a price but what are we willing to pay in order to be popular? And why is being popular so important?

I suspect popularity is equated with being valued by others. And if we're popular then we're valued.... by definition. However, the reality is that valuing has to begin with yourself - are you popular with you? Do you value you? If you start with some standard of valuing, do you apply the same standard to yourself. One thing is very clear... if you don't value yourself then you won't value another's valuing of you.

Valuing is incredibly subjective and personalized. How you are treated is part of the equation of how you determine 'value' and what you value, and by extension - popularity. The society you are in also determines value. Remember that what one society values may not be what another one does. If you move from one group to another, you have a learning curve. Who determines what is valued typically defines the leadership.

What qualities, behaviors are present in people who are popular compared with those who aren't? Remembering what one group values, such as intelligence, may not be what a different group, such as a 'party' oriented group, values.

There's a corollary to this as well... how do you value other? Are you aware of the unpopular types? How does their lack of popularity affect them, their behavior - do you even know? Most important - how do you treat them?

Popularity may exact a high price in order to maintain itself. It may take courage to 'listen to a different drummer' and forgo popularity for being who you are. Then again you may find a group who also values what you do. Never compromise your values for the fleeting .... popularity.