Gifts I Would Bestow

Which of these gifts would you give your best friend – fame, wealth, or long life? Which would you like most? (Serendipity Bible 10th Anniversary Edition, p. 495).

I suppose that all the gifts mentioned are relative. For example "fame" is to be known and highly regarded. In some measure, however modest, this is something that I would wish for everyone. Likewise "wealth" can mean simply having all of your needs met whether in regards to food, clothing, shelter, or health needs – in short, to basically be free of want so that your attention and energies can turn away from the sheer struggle to survive. And finally "long life" is a wish for longevity and for good health. So in this sense I would wish all these for my best friend.

There are more requirements for happiness. Principally these include security, justice, mercy, a degree of love and intimacy, and friendship itself.

But true happiness also depends upon freedom! There are two chief areas of freedom: 1) freedom to have an inquiring mind. That is, one is free to roam the realm of ideas unshackled by any authority other than by one's best judgment buttressed by facts and endorsed by one's inner light ; 2) freedom from addictions – the major ones traditionally sometimes described as the seven deadly sins (wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony). Thus, true freedom necessitates the freedoms of thought and soul as well as the other items mentioned. All these I would wish for my best friend and for myself as well.

Print Page

Respectability vs. Usefulness

What status symbol are you most tempted to pursue? Why is it appealing? (Serendipity Bible 10th Anniversary Edition, pp. 493-4).

The status symbols I hold dear include:

1. A “respectable” job that telegraphs a measure of achievement—especially one that suggests some level of mental achievement.
2. A “respectable” income level—safely middle class.
3. A “respectable” car—fairly new (not a beat up clunker trailing smoke).
4. A “respectable” measure of educational achievement (somewhat more than “average”).
5. A “respectable” appearance—clean, bathed, presentable clothes, something suggestive of middle class; good dental appearance.
6. A “respectable” level of independence—someone who occasionally can think outside the box and be “respectfully” creative.
7. A “respectable” marriage status for someone my age—married.
8. A “respectable” reputation for being acceptably articulate, level-headed, with broad sympathies—someone with good judgment.
9. A “respectable” level of social skills—can mingle acceptably with diverse groups ultimately derived from a feeling of innate equality with others.
10. A “respectable” winsomeness—not self-righteous, judgmental or having weird religious, political, or social beliefs—religious, but not too religious; interested in politics, but not a fanatic; having confident opinions in many areas, but not to the level of being strident or blatantly opinionated thus being incapable of listening to others.

Since all the above status symbols include “respectability” the obvious question is “Can I be of any use?” Since I am so concerned about what other people think, is there any chance whatever that I can make any significant difference? I suppose I have to narrow the field and ask, “respectable” to whom? Hopefully, extremists, supremacists, hate groups, thugs, snobs, fanatics, racists, the self-righteous, and the rapacious will find me unrespectable and disgustingly unacceptable. Preoccupation over respectability is not necessarily a bad thing so long as one does not fall into the trap of thinking that universal acceptability is desirable or even possible—the harboring of a deep-seated emotional need that one be universally liked and loved. Such a yearning is really what dooms one from achieving usefulness. One has to choose sides favoring the forces of light. As dangerous and filled with peril as moral discernment can be, at some minimal level it is simply necessary.

Print Page

The Lord is With You

If you had absolute assurance that "the Lord was with you," how would your coming week be affected? What fears would dissipate? What new mission would you take on? What old habits would you break? (Serendipity Bible 10th Anniversary Edition, p. 456).

The assurance that "the Lord is with me" would ironically set the fantasies of the flesh free. My first stop might be at my stockbroker. I would be buying fast and loose. Next stop would be to the lotto counter at 7-11. I would buy 20 tickets knowing that one of them would surely win the jackpot. Thus assured that God is with me financially, I would go to a new car dealership and get a sporty convertible. I would stop by my job and turn in my resignation. Using my credit card, I would buy tickets for a fantastic world tour. At this point I may decide to indulge in a new romance with a hot chick. Yes, having "the Lord with me" would be a great thing.

A moment's reflection brings to light an obvious observation: having "the Lord with you" has little or nothing to do with conventional ideas of worldly success. It is worth considering that the person closest to his heavenly Father, namely Jesus, was crucified. Having God with you is most fundamentally the gift of having abiding faith in God and in his principles of love. No matter how discouraging the circumstances, with God abiding with us we have deep assurance that acts based on the principles of love in the long run (if not in the short run) will find acceptance and success in the measurements of God. In this sense, having "the Lord with you" is the gateway to a living faith and resultant acts that are always in the end redemptive.

This can affect us in several ways. Short-term failures become less important than long-term successes. We put our trust in this even if we personally do not live to see the full fulfillment of eternal promises. Thus immediate fears become less powerful than the fears of long-term failure and the failure to find meaning in life through alliance with a living God of love. With this long-term focus our everyday actions are seen in a new light. In a sense, we replace short-term worldly fears of failure with a fear of an ultimate far more important fundamental failure. Such a perspective gives us an abiding new vision of our daily mission in life. Everything is seen in a much broader context. This gives us a deep sense of assurance and steadiness that is simply not possible when our focus is on the minutia of life. Old habits become much less dear to us. Fresh objectives give us freedom to transcend the past. Thus, "knowing that the Lord is with us" decisively expands the depth and breadth of our perception. "Worldly fears" become decisively less operative in our lives. We have confidence in knowing that short-term failures should they occur (and they often do not since principles of love are essentially more realistic) will be eternally redeemed if our actions are in the will of God.

Print Page

An Open Letter to a Friend Regarding Poverty

Friend, I would like to respond regarding the view that the war on poverty is an inappropriate activity for the federal government. It seems to me that anything worthwhile in life comes with both positives and negatives. Certainly, “the welfare state” is one of them. I am thankful for the nonprofits and charities that bless our country with generous assistance to the needy. I am thankful almost as much for the spirit of generosity and what that implies as for the assistance itself. But like the welfare state, overwhelming reliance on charities to provide assistance for the needy also comes with some minuses.

It seems to me the primary negative encountered with reliance on the welfare state is not so much the fact the needy must meet eligibility requirements and thus attain entitlement, but the selfish attitude of entitlement that sometimes results. (And I should add that neither do I find attractive the attitude of entitlement sometimes displayed by the privileged.) On the other hand, when relying on private charities, the lack of entitlement to funding for those living on a subsistence level can create great uncertainty, anxiety, and privation.

The war on poverty did not begin in a vacuum. It developed because the needs of the impoverished were not being met. Since it was in the vital national interest to assist those in poverty, the federal government stepped in to fill unmet needs. There is much precedence for government action of this type.

The state regularly and traditionally becomes involved when vital needs are otherwise not being met. For example, consider the need for education and the establishment of public schools. Certainly one could argue that public education is inappropriate state action; there should only be private schools. Those children who could not afford private school could be sponsored through scholarships from private non-profits, charities, and the generosity of friends. While theoretically this makes sense, it seems likely that reliable funding of scholarships could not be counted upon for everyone. Security is another vital state interest. Theoretically the police power of the state could be funded entirely by voluntary contributions. But this is never done for obvious practical reasons.

While the well-healed are adept at advocacy, the poor usually are not. It is remarkable that the war on poverty legislation was ever passed in the first place, and it may well be reversed in time. What is undeniable is the existence of children in poverty living under conditions of great uncertainty and instability. Given millenniums we probably all can foresee the effective end of poverty; but the question always remains—what to do today?

Print Page

Dying Well

As part of the Christian's witness, the Puritans stressed the importance of “dying well.” How can you get ready to “die well”? (Serendipity Bible 10^th Anniversary Edition, p. 448).

For Christians the prime example of someone who died well was Jesus himself. Despite his painful crucifixion, he died well in large part because he lived a sinless life. He consistently worship and served his heavenly Father. There was no occasion when he did not follow the will of the Father nor fail to apply the principles of love. Throughout his life (and even in death) in spiritual fact and behavior he loved God and his neighbor. He died well.

When we reach sexual maturity there is a tendency to view all love as sexually driven. A moment's reflection shows this is a totally inadequate view of love. First, there is the obvious fact that young children (whether born to us or not) need our love. Then, there is the consideration that we need to show love in friendships. Upon dad's pastorate reassignment and our imminent move from a community, the congregation would gather on the grounds and sing the following words: "Blessed be the tie that binds our hearts in Christian love, the fellowship of kindred minds is like to that above." Many found it hard to sing this song without tears. This love, which is palpable, has nothing to do with sexual relations. Such non-sexual love is also an under-appreciated necessity for building a solid relationship between husband and wife.

So dying well includes the concept of living a life filled with love. The only insurmountable tragedy occurs when death arrives without this conceptual realization or in cases where the realization occurs only after it is too late for the dying person to act lovingly in significant ways.

In conclusion we can see that dying well does not require having lived a perfect life—else none could die well. It is highly admirable when during a lifetime one has substantially followed their conscience and the leadings of the Spirit—when there were few occasions when complacency or expediency trumped higher interests. But near perfection is not essential for dying well. John Newton penned “Amazing Grace” following his participation in the slave trade. Overcoming moral blindness, his perception and actions were decisively changed. Dying well is usually the result of living well—at least in significance if not in years.

Print Page

The Simple Decency of Direct Appeal

Who is your “Abigail”--one who has kept you from sin by appealing to your conscience? Do you seek this ministry from fellow believers? How so? How often? (Serendipity Bible 10^th Anniversary Edition, p.442).

We all sense a great divide, a huge gap between direct appeals to conscience and manipulative ones. Manipulative ones seek to put us on a guilt trip. Manipulation in this sense is clearly illustrated when a child pouts to get his way. The parent, sensing the child's intent, has little patience with such behavior and the result is often the exact opposite from what the child intended. Sometimes in attempting to get a rise out of my wife, I will say, “Sure dear, go to your women's group, I don't mind staying here all by myself until dark.” This is clearly a form of adult pouting—a bald-faced attempt to induce guilt through manipulation and indirection.

The preferable course is direct and not indirect appeals to conscience. In this case I would say to my wife, “Please don't leave me this afternoon, I want your company.” While not explicitly using the word “conscience,” this is nevertheless a clean, direct appeal without devious use of manipulation. She may go anyway, but without the uneasy feeling that I was seeking to play games with her emotions and intentionally using her to get my way though application of guilt trips.

While indirect, exploitive appeals to conscience are heard too often; direct appeals are surely heard too little. Direct appeals actually signal respect and bring dignity to the decision process: "Before taking this action, please examine your conscience."  Ask yourself, “When is the last time I've heard a direct, explicit, and forthright appeal to conscience?” My guess is—maybe forever.

Print Page

Planting a Seed of Promise

If you were “dedicated” early on, how has that affected your life? (Serendipity Bible 10^th Anniversary Edition, p.405).


From Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

...It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. (Source)

After the Civil War many years passed before a new birth of freedom came for the emancipated slaves. It is clear that the living simply were not “highly resolved” in the only way that really mattered—through dedication to prolonged action. This is a lesson for any dedication service—if the attendees do not dedicate themselves to steady and long-lived resolve, then the focus will be on past efforts and not future ones. Perhaps Lincoln suspected delay arising in part from the grueling exertions and fatigue of war, so crafted a timeless speech designed for eventual germination in future generations.

Print Page