Disorganized Religion

2008-07-04T22:17:00.000-07:00

The Group Mind

How a survival exercise can save today’s church

My friends know I’ve recently been on a training exercise up in Redmond, WA. In Redmond we did several team building exercises. One of which was a survival exercise. Could your team survive a plane crash in the cold terrain of rugged Canada?

You and your teammates survive a plane crash. You salvage 15 items from the plane. You must rate the items in order of importance first individually then as a team. After you complete the exercise, you will compare your ratings against the experts to see if you lived or died.
So we went about quietly rating our items. Then it was time for the team to get together and work out the team ranking.

My team first wanted to try to walk out like many others. But after talking about the risks and challenges involved, we came to a consensus that it was safer to try to make camp and wait it out. In our plane crash scenario it’s important to understand there was no one “in charge” of our band of survivors. Even the captain of the plane was supposedly dead. So the only power that could be exerted initially in the exercise was that of leadership and charisma. So we as a group came to a decision. And no one was around to tell us how to make that decision.

How we came to the decision to stay was interesting in itself. During the initial chaos someone came up with the idea that we should find out if anyone had any survival training. Two people spoke up but only one was heard. The one that wasn’t heard interestingly had the best training and ultimately the best individual score. This is important.

In a fair system you might simply average the scores each item received and go with that. That would give each person equal input into the decision process. Or we could vote on it. And choose as a group to go with the vote. We might find out who the most likely expert is and just agree to go with the experts choices.

So we each argued some more passionately then the others about why our choices were in essences better then everyone else’s choices. In the end we came up with a list that no one was happy with but everyone agreed to follow.

You might find the results interesting. One might have thought the team expert who ended up having the best individual score would have beaten the team score. But he did not. It wasn’t even close. Our unhappy team did survive because we choose to stay verses attempting a walk out. And we did good enough on our ranking.

Lessons learned out of this exercise were in our face. Had we all took the time to really understand who in our group had the expertise we would have fared much better. That is not to say we should have abdicated our decision making to him. Because clearly as a group we were better than he was alone. In addition he should have made himself heard. Only half the blame goes to the group for not listening to him. The other half is his for not stepping up.

The other big lesson was that the group mind is smarter than the average of the component minds. Had we just taken an average, we would have died. And the two people with the previous training, (a previous boy scout and a Norwegian trained soldier) would have been the only two to survive.

So how does this apply to the church? The church in the U.S. is primarily run in an authoritarian style. There is usually someone at the top that is paid to be the expert. And that expert makes the decisions the others generally agree to follow mostly without question. Because if you question you can be thrown out of the church (or otherwise ostracized.)

But in our exercise two points contrast with the U.S. church of today. For one the real expert wasn’t the most charismatic on my team. In today’s churches the “successful” ones are often headed by the charismatic types. There is no way that one man can be the expert in all aspects of church. And secondly even if he is an expert in one thing or another, does that mean that he is more expert then his entire congregation? Probably not.

In fact as the group gets bigger and more minds are available the level of expertise of the group can grow dramatically if it is molded to do so.

The pastor is most often like the most persuasive in our team exercise. People listen to him. For whatever reason, he has the skill of working with people. His job is not to make all the decisions. But to make certain the group mind can work effectively. To make sure the real experts are heard. And to work on connecting people in such a way that the best results and outcomes are achieved as often as possible.

There is an exception to the group mind theory. And that’s when the group is just plain wrong. It’s rare but it does happen. See the Israelites leaving Egypt for several examples. But that’s another blog.

Peace

2008-04-24T20:22:00.000-07:00

I Believe in Tithing!

This originally was a comment to Brant Hansen's blog here. You should read it.

I've been out of the traditional church for about 15 years or so. I have at times thought tithing was a bad thing. It's certainly not supported by the New Testament. And you basically have to extend the Aaronic priesthood and the tribe of Levi into the post Jesus era in some mutated way to justify it.

BUT if you go to a church building you should pay to support the building and those that are doing the teaching. If I were going to college I would be expected to pay tuition. That money would go to pay the professors and the electric bill etc. There's nothing wrong with paying for services rendered.

I still won't be going to a church building anytime soon. I've decided I've had enough education and it's time for me to live in the real world. Perpetual education yields an over educated student and an unproductive citizen.

It's too bad more men don't take responsibility for their family's spiritual education. We'd need a lot less buildings. It would be incredibly more efficient.

Wife is calling me for dinner. I've got to go wash my hands...

2008-03-02T23:09:00.000-08:00

How to make the Gubernator the POTUS

Many wide eyed republicans have often wished to make Arnold Schwarzenegger the President of these United States. Unfortunately Arnie wasn't born in America. As such he is constitutionally disqualified from the office. Here's the text:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

It seems a little strange that we can have a 35 year old we can't have someone who's managed the world’s 8th largest economy in the world. Playing with the 35 year old theme a bit, I wondered how it would sound if the constitution were amended to say you needed to be a US citizen for 35 years instead. Here is what I came up with:

No person except a citizen of the United States for 35 years shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who have not been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

It still means 34 year olds can't be president. But it also opens a window of opportunity for our friend Arnold.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was born in 1947 and became a naturalized citizen in 1983. So let's do the math. 1983+35=2018. He would be eligible to run in the election due to be held November of 2020. He'll miss the 2016 election by a couple of years... So how old would Conan be when he took office in January of 2021? 74. Just two years old than McCain...

Peace

2008-02-09T08:08:00.001-08:00

41 Miles
Find more Bike Rides in West Palm Beach, Florida

2008-02-07T09:08:00.000-08:00

Open Letter to Recruiters

This was originally posted on My Linked in Power Forum. So it's taken somewhat out of context but you'll get the gist.

This is more like an open letter to the recruiting industry. Lately I have noticed that more and more recruiters are asking for more and more from me before they will even show my resume to their client. Here is my answer.

1.) No, I will not rewrite my resume to fit the needs of your client. My resume is something that I have been working on for years and is my marketing piece. I will however take your suggestions on improving my resume. I appreciate your insight and experience but I feel no obligation to put my resume in your format or answer extensive questionnaires for the privilege of being submitted to your client. If that makes me loose an interview here or there I’m OK with that. If you lose a quality candidate are you OK with that?
2.) No, you may not have references before you set up an interview. This is just silly. If I gave out references to everyone that ever asked, my references would stop saying nice things about me because their phone would be ringing off the hook! My references are doing me a favor by taking your call. I would be doing a disservice to them if I asked them to take the number of calls your industry is asking me to ask them to take. I prefer if you make reference checks after the first interview. In my line of work it usually takes several interviews before an offer can be made so you can wait till after the first one. I might be persuaded to let you check my references after you setup the first interview but before it takes place. Under no circumstances will I let you bug my colleagues before you even submit my resume to your client!
3.) No, I will not fill out your application prior to the first interview. This is mostly HR departments or internal that do this and not traditional 3rd party recruiters. I understand that your application is important to you. But you would not believe the hours I have spent filling out applications that go into a black hole. I don’t expect to hear back from you. I don’t expect to be told why I was not considered. I don’t expect any feedback that is at all useful to me.

Folks it’s all about return on investment. My time is valuable to me. I know that my time is not nearly as valuable to anyone else as it is to me. But I am responsible to managing my time. No one else is. If you can get less qualified or more desperate candidates to jump through all your hoops more power to you. But I get the sense every time I speak with one of these people that they think they are doing me a favor. I got that sense from some of the responses to my last post too.

Yes you are getting paid by your client to fill a position with an adequate candidate. I understand you don’t work for me. And it’s not your job to get me a job. Frankly no recruiter has ever gotten me a job. I got me every job I’ve ever had. Sometimes recruiters were used as an advertising and screening mechanism by the employer along the way. But the recruiter did not impress the employer in the interview process. I did.

I get the feeling that more and more 6 figure candidates will revolt as time goes on. This will make good old fashion networking more and more important.

-John

You can read this and other controversial minutia on my blog at http://www.disorganizedreligion.us

2008-02-06T13:46:00.001-08:00

35 Miles and counting
Find more Bike Rides in West Palm Beach, Florida

2008-02-05T01:11:00.000-08:00

Who McCain Should Choose as his Running Mate

This is a quickie analysis of some of the obvious A list people McCain could choose as his running mate and who would be the best among them.

First let’s take Lieberman. Joe Lieberman ran with Al Gore against Bush and lost. He is a long time "friend" and fellow Senator with McCain who has been courted by Republicans for some time. He uses this against his Democrat brothers to get his way since the Democrat majority in the senate is so slim. McCain might need something to make a historic Hillary/Obama ticket to excite America to vote for him. Adding a Democrat to the Republican ticket might just be what the electorate ordered. Americans generally hate the partisanship of politics and this would be a clear signal that McCain was about something different. It could however backfire on him. He is already on this ice with conservatives. Selecting Lieberman as a running mate just might be the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak. If conservatives stay home because they are pissed off, Hillary wins. It may be that McCain doesn't need so much jazz to stop a Hillary/Obama ticket. There may be enough people voting against them (as opposed to voting for someone else) that McCain just needs to play it straight to win. In the end Lieberman is just too risky to be selected.

Huckabee may be a likely choice. He has some baggage (pastor in chief image) that has kept him from doing better in the primaries thus far. He may also be even more liberal than McCain. But McCain may have to choose him if Romney does well enough on Super Tuesday. Adding Huckabee's delegates and strong showing in the southern states maybe the deal with the devil McCain needs to make in order to own the ticket. You can bet Huckabee isn't joining a Romney ticket for sure. No Baptist pastor is going to give a Mormon his blessing to run for president. That may be enough to force Huckabee to endorse McCain just so he decides McCain wins instead of Romney. Depending on how hardball Huckabee plays he could just say if I'm not the VP I won't endorse anyone and you can fight for my delegates. If that happens you might see Mitt Romney win because of McCain's disfavor amongst the Republican elite. Super Tuesday will tell.

That leaves choosing Mitt Romney. If McCain wins decisively on Tuesday, or if he can broker a deal that doesn't include the VP seat with Huckabee, Mitt might be the perfect (hair) candidate to fit the bill. Let's face it. America (USA) is not a Christian country anymore. A Mormon VP is just not that big a deal. Heck Huckabee get's challenged on religion more than special underwear Romney. By selecting Mitt, McCain might unruffle some of the conservative feathers that are out there. The two together would have a strong Republican mandate by consolidating the two strongest vote getters in the primaries. McCain would still do well against Hillary and I think Mitt would trounce Obama in a debate. The two of them would show strong on national security and the economy. What's not to like? Mitt said he wouldn't do it but he would if McCain asks.

I know there are others out there. But when you select a VP, he has to be ready to be president. Who else is ready? You don't want a child as your VP nominee. They are going to have that on the Democrat side with Obama. One of the keys to winning this election is to show experience on your side. I guess you could take a hard look at Newt Gingrich. He's been prancing around the press for the past few years. He's a true Reganite. Maybe maybe. Who knows...?

2008-02-05T00:41:00.000-08:00

I Gave Money to Mitt Romney. I Gave Money to Huckabee. But I Voted for McCain.

From the beginning, my concern has primarily been to get a Republican elected. Any republican is better than any Democrat. My key issue is that of social abortion. I think using abortions as a means of birth control is just plain evil. Democrats have a litmus test when selecting or approving judges. That is will they support Roe v Wade or not. Since life is not defined in the constitution and judges have invented a "right" of privacy many judges have taken to legislating from the bench. A democrat is going to appoint judges that do just that. At least with a Republican you have a chance at getting a judge that will judge and not legislate. The point being that whoever can beat Hillary (or perhaps Obama) is my candidate.

At first I thought McCain was unelectable. He doesn't have the party elite supporting him and the guy always looked like an angy white man. Have you ever seen someone so white? He frankly scared me. But the guy learned to smile. And in no small part to that smile he started racking up the delegates.

Up to Florida it was clear it was either going to be Mitt Romney or McCain as nominee. If the economy was the most important thing to you, you choose Mitt. For everything else most people choose McCain. I've been listening to the other pundits about McCain's supposed anti-conservative record. I find it somewhat lacking to be true. The guy has a perfect record voting for life. Most of the time he votes to cut taxes. And he fights to cut government spending. The two things he supposedly is bad on is immigration and campaign finance reform.

McCain Feingold has loop holes. That's bad. So what? I mean what other bill got passed that even attempted campaign finance reform? The American people hate the fact that special interests have so much power in the country. Some argue if the government would just get out of our personal lives (shrink government) that money would automatically have less of an impact. But the argument is circular because you can't get government out of our lives until you limit the effect that money has on how law makers choose to expand or contract the size of government.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/John_McCain_Immigration.htm
Regarding immigration, it's a complicated and emotional issue. I may not agree on every aspect of his immigration policy but we have do have several things in common. 1.) Stop or at least severely slow the number of illegals coming into America. 2.) We won't be able to find and deport all the illegals so we need a practical plan that get's them paying taxes instead of getting a free ride on our entitlements. 3.) This country has had waves of immigration throughout its history. (INHO It's a little disingenuous to be so protectionist now.) 4.) McCain voted Yes to making English the official language, voted yes on building the border fence.
Q: Will you pledge to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty?
A: Yes, of course, and we never proposed amnesty. But then you've still got two other aspects of this issue that have to be resolved as well. We need to sit down as Americans and recognize these are God's children as well. And they need some protection under the law; they need some of our love and compassion. I want to assure you that I'll enforce the borders first. We'll solve this immigration problem.
Immigration is a hard problem. He sounds like a guy that is really trying to solve it while at the same time being a compassionate Christian. What's so bad about that?
To wrap it up, McCain has the best shot at stopping a Democrat in November. He has proven he can work across the line with Democrats and even attract some of them to his side (i.e. Lieberman.) He has a strong showing among independents. He'll either appoint pro-life judges or constructionists. Romney will have a much harder time beating Hillary. Huckabee just doesn't have a shot at winning the nomination. (not this year anyway...)

-Peace

2008-02-05T00:39:00.000-08:00

My 4 Year Old Understands Compassion

Some of you know my wife has seizures. She has them about once a month. She has the kind where you fall down and convulse and stuff. She is usually back to normal the next day. It can be very stress full on us as a family. Our daughter is 4 now. She knows that mommy has seizures. It's amazing how calm she is. We send her away of course when it starts happening. I check on her frequently the hour after an "event." My wife has told me twice now how gentle our daughter is after my wife has a seizure. I was just surprised that at 4 she could be so compassionate.

2008-01-26T18:58:00.003-08:00

My First Flast
Find more Bike Rides in West Palm Beach, Florida

2008-01-26T18:58:00.001-08:00

My First Flast
Find more Bike Rides in West Palm Beach, Florida

2008-01-21T11:52:00.000-08:00

Health Care is the new Entitlement

How we should do it

Like it or not Health Care is the new entitlement like education. It’s probably a good thing that everyone get’s health care in the US at least for Citizens and legal aliens. But before we create this new entitlement, I hope we learn from the current problems in the education system which is badly broken. Vouchers are needed so that consumers can choose the health care plan that makes sense for them. In addition to vouchers we should be able to pay additional money out of pocket to purchase better health care if we want to. We cannot in the process create another “teacher union” that runs health care. That union is what is killing our public education system in the first place. We also should not penalize the wealthy like we do in the case of private schools. Vouchers are for everyone. If the wealthy want more and better they should pay for it but they should pay the difference not the whole thing.

The other thing we need to do is fully fund nursing educational programs. If anyone in this country makes less than a nurse we should help that person become a nurse if they can’t afford to do it on their own. Flooding the market with nurses will drive cost down, increase specialization (improving care), and increase the number of doctors in the long run because there is an educational path from nurse to MD (LPN, RN, Nurse Practitioner, MD.) BTW I would rather be seen by a nurse prac then an MD any day of the week.

The first things Vouchers should pay for are those things that have proven economic impact. I.e. vaccinations reduce disease and are cheaper then treating the disease therefore we should encourage vaccination by paying for it nationally. Over time we can add other services as they make economic sense to do so. Yes this is cold hearted but there are too many things that we legitimately need to spend money on at the national level to pay for them all. So we need to think with our brains and not with our hearts. We need to spend money where we will get a return on our investment.

2008-01-19T19:03:00.001-08:00

441 Round Trip
Find more Bike Rides in West Palm Beach, Florida

2008-01-12T11:09:00.001-08:00

26Miles
Find more Bike Rides in West Palm Beach, Florida

2008-01-04T00:14:00.000-08:00

I WAS WRONG

Huckabee takes Iowa

In my article “Why Christians should vote for a Mormon” I made a mistake. Yes I was wrong. How you say? Well Huck-a-who? Mike Huckabee, winner of the Republican Iowa caucus didn’t even rate an honorable mention. I blabbered on about the other Republican candidates and their chances at beating Hillary Clinton in the national election. (Hillary came in third in Iowa. So much for her inevitability.) I suggested that really only Giuliani and Mitt Romney had a chance. My premise was and still stands that I would rather have a real Mormon than a fake Christian. To my credit I said the jury was still out on Thompson. Now the jury is basically in and he doesn’t want it bad enough. I figure my career as a political blabber mouth is still secure considering O’Reilly got it wrong too.

Now much to my surprise and delight, we have the slim hope of asking which would we rather have a real Mormon, a fake Christian… (queue drum roll) or a real Christian? At least on the front cover, Mike Huckabee seems to be the real thing. Yes the rest of the world will laugh at us for electing a red neck cowboy whose name has something to do with foliage but wait they do that anyway.

The truth is he really only has one shot and that is to win New Hampshire. It would be like hitting a hole in one twice in one day. With only 5 days left and a completely different base (NH lacks the strong evangelical presence that Iowa has) it will be an uphill battle and a long shot with veritable giants to beat. Perhaps it’s even a fools bet. I wonder if anyone bet on Daniel vs. Goliath.

So if you have any interest at all in who becomes our next president (or perhaps VP) may I please ask you to check out Huckabee’s website? I donated a little money to the chap. I know he’ll need it if he’s gonna have a shot in NH in 5 days. Though he didn’t need it in Iowa.

-John

“Outspent 15 to 1 voters prove they cannot be bought.” www.mikehuckaabee.com

2007-11-10T19:11:00.000-08:00

My Own Take on Ethos

I was inspired by my buddy Mike’s posts on Ethos at Bish Blog. Mike and I are a part of the same faith community. But when you read my take on Ethos then read Mike’s, you’ll see we are looking at the same coin. He sees heads and I see tails.

In my mind Ethos is to be cultivated as well as experienced. Case in point: When immigrants of my grandparent’s generation came to this country they came to become Americans. They believed in the American dream that if you work hard and smart, are honest, and a little bit lucky, one can provide a nice life for yourself and your family. They came, they learned the language, and they adopted large parts of the culture. At the same time they didn’t completely abandon their own culture. Thank God too. Where would we be without Italian restaurants and Chinese food? What they didn’t do is come here to impose their culture on the rest of America.

Ethos is a funny thing. It is literally the sum of the cultural parts as expressed in a particular community. As different people come and go the Ethos literally changes with each addition and each subtraction. But is there a part of the Ethos that is not negotiable? Another way to look at it is what makes this faith community (or church family) different form every other one. Is there something here in the culture of this faith community that makes some people want to stay and adopt it while others don’t want to adopt it and leave?

I submit to you that there are parts of the culture that if removed simply wouldn’t be the same culture. It’s those parts that we agree on that are the glue. I think they need to be explored, discussed, presented to people investigating us and taught to each other and our children.

So what's the glue?

First I would say we are all Christians in the traditional sense of the word. There are many different denominational backgrounds and beliefs represented. But we would all agree on the basic tenants of the faith like Jesus’ divinity, sacrifice on the cross to pay for the sins of us all etcetera.

This could be said about many churches and faith communities. But when Tara and I walk into a new home church we can usually tell within five minutes if they are kindred spirits or if they are just traditional church that hasn’t grown enough to meet in a building so they use a home instead. We like to visit other home churches to encourage them since when we started out 8 years ago we felt so alone. Similarly when someone visits our faith community they should be able to tell within a few minutes that something’s different here. It’s those differences that I think set us apart and join us together.

Answers to “Who’s your pastor?” and “How do you handle money?” tell Tara and I nearly everything we need to know to understand if they share the core components of our ethos or not.

If you were to ask ten different people in our church family who is the pastor you would get ten different answers. And none of them would be easy. No one would say seriously that it was pastor so and so. You might get answers like we all pastor each other. Or there is no specific person that is the pastor. Or different people have the gift of pasturing.

The next question is about money. To be frank, to prove tithing is legitimate from the new testament you have to do some serious biblical acrobatics. There’s more flips and twists in that argument than on an Olympic gym floor. So if we get an answer like “We teach that one should not rob God of his tithe which is 10% of gross income.” I know I’m just not in the right place. In our community we don’t teach or practice tithing to the community. Some in the group may tithe to other nonprofit organizations like Compassion international. But that is up to the individual family. I personally believe God wants 100% not a measly 10. But that’s another blog.

I should say something about transition here. Often times we hear an answer we like to one question but not both. Or we’ve seen where the answers they give show we are on the same page but their actions tell a different story. In those cases we say they are in transition. Most of us came out of a traditional 501c3 church where there is a board of directors, and executive director (the pastor) perhaps a staff (the clergy) and everyone else (laity.) When someone feels that there is something wrong with this sometimes they leave and do something new. Sometimes they work their way towards what many people know as a home church. During the time when they are unlearning everything they were taught and relearning what is true according to the Bible, we call this time transition. This process takes time, often several years. During which what people believe and how they practice that belief goes through many changes. But that’s another blog.

A related element of our Ethos is the willingness to unlearn, relearn and challenge long held beliefs. When Tara and I first left our AG church we spent the next 6 years just trying to figure out what the Bible actually said instead of what people told us it said. Believe it or not it doesn’t take a degree in theology to understand its core messages and meanings. Yes there is value to an education. Don’t get me wrong. But in an effort to differentiate themselves and justify their occupations too many theologians have complicated the good news beyond repair. Some over complicate the simple. There are lots of reasons this is the natural tendency but that’s another blog.

Finally the priest hood of the believer is held to be true and practiced. Most churches will say they believe in the priesthood of the believer but when it comes to praying for people, teaching, preaching, etc. it’s usually up to paid clergy to do that work. Everyone else is relegated to child care and parking ministry. In my own experience I made it all the way up to head usher. I was shooting for senior head usher but didn’t make it before I left. In the group I worship with now, everyone is encouraged to use their gifts no matter who they are or what their education. All that is needed is maturity, gifting, opportunity, and God’s timing all within the context of respect for the boundaries of the nuclear family. Maturity is the state of knowing what to do or say, gifting is the God given power to do or say it, opportunity is having the chance to do it, and finally God’s timing is that internal sense that God wants it done or said now or later. The context of nuclear family means if a man is going to room to privately pray for another man’s wife, he had better ask the man’s permission first and all the other situations like that where God has put man to protect his wife and parents to protect their children.

Peace,
-John

2007-11-10T10:47:00.000-08:00

Dallas Willard once asked

This is another letter to our home church community. We have the situation right now that we've grown in numbers to about 50 people. We can't really house more people since we meet in a home on Sunday. So several of us are asking ourselves and eachother what do we do next. I know there is atleast one person that is thinking about leaving the core group and startng another one with one or more families. I don't personally think that's the best idea for that family or the group at large but I don't know anything better either. I do think that as we mature God will reveal his plan to us.

If you are interested in more information about how we do church, drop me a line. john@historicfuture.com.
Royal Palm Beach, FL 33411

Dear Church Family,

When I think about our community I am awestruck (like that other definition of fear of God.) I am excited for the future, thrill with the present and happy about our past. A question rolling around in many of our heads these days is what we do if 4 more families join us. I believe that as our maturity as individual believers and as a community increases, God’s choice for handling numeric growth will become self evident. Growth in maturity allows for successful growth in numbers (sometimes.)

"When do you suppose was the last time any group of believers or church of any kind or level had a meeting of its officials in which the topic for discussion and action was how they were going to teach their people actually to do the specific things Jesus said?" Dallas Willard

Yep I ripped this right off of Bish Blog.

The question is a bit skewed since in our community the “officials” and “their people” are the same all brothers and sisters in Christ. But it is a good question to ask ourselves. How do we teach ourselves to actually do what Jesus told us to do and what he modeled? In so doing, we answer both the questions about numeric and spiritual growth.

Peace,

-John

2007-11-06T20:12:00.000-08:00

Whose Church Do You Go To?

This is a letter I recently wrote to our home church. We use yahoo groups to communicate with each other. I got it into my head to start proactively teaching things about how a home church should in my mind operate. We do operate this way. But there are many new people that understand it with there brains but don’t yet feel it with their hearts and the don’t act like it’s true. And there are many people who have been around for a while that need to be reminded lest they fall into old habits.

If you are interested in how our home church works beyond this article feel free to drop me a line john@historicfuture.com

Dear Chuch Family,

Have you ever been asked who the pastor of your church is? What they are really asking isn’t “who takes responsibility to disciple you and make sure you grow spiritually?” Instead what they are really asking is “who is the person that is the figurehead visibly in charge person?” If someone asked you who is the leader or in leadership at our gathering who’s picture immediately comes to mind? I know intellectually we know and believe no one person is in charge. In fact we strive to give God His proper place as in charge through the Holy Spirit. But I bet if we took a survey and asked the question of everyone in the group whose picture immediately comes to mind when asked the question who’s in charge on Sunday someone other than Jesus would come to mind. Several people are easy to identify with leadership for various reasons. Mike Bourque because it’s at his house that we worship, Mike Bishop because whatischurch.com has been the catalyst for so many of us gathering together or perhaps Brant because he invited so many people. A picture of a person other than Jesus is perfectly normal because that is how we are trained to think.

Let’s look at scripture.

1 Samuel 8
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” 6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.
Emphasis added

We can see how Israel like us wanted a King like all the nations. That’s what they saw all around them. And the natural tendency is for us to follow the crowd. But in the end it’s clear that doing so was a rejection of God. (Saul by the way wasn’t all that great a King.)

So how do we actually”give God His proper place as in charge through the Holy Spirit? “ This goes back to the picture in our heads of who we think is in charge or the more deceptive version of the question who is in leadership (which is the same question in sheep’s clothing.) The fact that someone other than Jesus is the person’s picture that we see is proof positive of what our unconscious believes about the situation. That unconscious belief directly impacts how we act. Why for example don’t we think about ourselves in that light? If God is in charge by way of the Holy Spirit in us is not the Holy Spirit in each of us? Then aren’t each of us “in charge” as much as the next?

What does “in charge” mean in the context of home church? I like to use the term church family. I think it better represents what we do. I submit that “in charge” means something very different than the hierarchical concept of chain of command that we are used to. Church family life leadership is flattened. The parents are God. Each person is individually a child of God. With the wives being subject to their husband (no pun intended) and the children subject to their parents. The remaining differentiators are maturity, gifting, opportunity, and God’s timing. Maturity is the state of knowing what to do or say, gifting is the God given power to do or say it, opportunity is having the chance to do it, and finally God’s timing is that internal sense that God wants it done or said now or later.

In charge loses its meaning in this context. “No one is in charge” or “Jesus is in charge” is a very real state of being when anyone who has the maturity, gift, opportunity, and God’s timing to do something within the proper context of the few layers of hierarchy that God has put in place like the family structure is able to do it. Here is an example. Last week a woman wanted me and others to pray for her. I was told by my wife to meet her and the woman in the back room. Out of respect I went to the woman’s husband and told him about it then we went and prayed. Did I have the maturity to pray? Opportunity? Gifting? Was it God’s timing for us to pray for her? Did I respect the limited hierarchy of nuclear family that God put in place for our benefit? Now was I in charge of that prayer? Up to the last question most of us would have answered yes. But clearly the only thing I was in charge of was obeying God.

What about you?

Peace, Love, Patience,

-John

2007-10-07T11:38:00.001-07:00

The Critical Flaw in the Constitution

I am taking aim at the forfathers here. To most the constitution is second only to the Bible in it's perfection. To say there is anything wrong with the constitution is an American herisy. But here it is. The constitution is broke. How you say? It has to do with the freedom of religion clause. In actuallity it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Start with the premis that morality is defined by religion. You get the inseprability of morality from religion. Thus any imposition of morality is an imposition on religion. Furthermore relazation in morality is completely acceptable because one cannot impose morality because it is an imposition or establishment (preferential treatment of one religion over another is establishment) of a religion.

Looking at the earliest laws and on through the ages one can clearly see law is an attempt to codify morality. Since morality is the output of a religious system, morality is a by product of a religious code either implicit or explicit. Therefore it is impossible to make any law that doesn't violate the first amendment. That is given the premise.

Here's the thing. In the American mind, religion and morality are the same thing. We don't like to admit that. Especially the far left doesn't like to admit it openly. But they have a religion too. It's called secular humanism. And they are trying to force their religious freedoms on the rest of us. Those religious freedoms include abortion, Gay marriage, legalized pot, etc. Basically the rule of thumb of secular humanism is if it feels good do it so long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone else. For example, one should be allowed to have a Gay marriage because it's nobody else's business. In fact marriage is an inherently religious act. So to prohibit the free exercise thereof is to violate the constitution. One could litterally apply this same argument to ANYTHING. And they are. They haven't come out and said that it's there right because of their religion for a number of reasons. (But that's another blog.)

Peace,

-John

2007-10-07T10:55:00.000-07:00

Why Christians Should Vote for a Mormon

So here's the deal. Would you rather a real Mormon or a fake Christian in office protecting our religious freedoms? We understand we don't really choose who takes office. People other than us setup a few people for us to choose from. And very early on there is usually a front runner, a few close behind that have a chance to contend for the nomination. Then there are the issue candidates. These are the guys (ladies) that have an issue they want to get out so they run for president. They have no real hope of winning but perhaps they can get their issue some attention. There are also the few that are really running for Vice President or running for president in the next election (think Regan before he won the nomination.)

So the reality your only choice is the front runner or one of the potential upset candidates. You could vote for one of the issue candidates or the VP hopefuls but that will mean someone other than you will choose the presidential nominee. This is cool if you just don't care who get's it. If you do care you have to choose from basically the top 3. In this election cycle it's Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. There is still a wild card in Thompson. He may replace McCain shortly. Time will tell.

There is still time to get behind Thompson if he's your man. But I want to talk about the top 3 for now. Let's just face it. McCain is simply not electable. His problem is more of presentation then content. Think JFK for the opposite. McCain comes across angry. He doesn't come across as fatherly (Regan) or jovial (Clinton, Mr.) America simply doesn't want an angry man with his finger on the button. (Ya know the flashing red one that says wipe Iran off the map with one missile button...) It's difficult to trust an angry man. If it wasn't for his electability in the general election, I would get behind him. His service in Vietnam makes just about all the other candidates look like pansies in comparison. He is a man's man. But 50% of the voters out there aren't men. And given the likely hood of the republican nominee will face Hillary Clinton, I wouldn't want to alienate 50% of the votes and encourage them to run to the first woman who actually has a shot at becoming president.

So that leaves Giuliani and Romney. Giuliani is a professing Christian. Romney is not. Does anyone believe that Giuliani’s religion is anything more than politically expedient? It's certainly not the type of Christianity we saw in "I an alcoholic but Jesus saved me" G.W. Bush.

Romney on the hand, his religion is a negative when it comes to his political career. Every election he's ever run in he's had to answer the same questions. Is being a Mormon going to overrule his judgment as Governor, president, etc? Being a Mormon is a detractor because real Christians believe that Mormons are in a cult and basically going to hell. There are individual exceptions. The whole populating planets and special underwear thing is kind of creepy. Compare him on this issue to say Obama who was raised Muslim! Obviously being a Muslim candidate for anything in this country is a non starter. So voila! I'm not Muslim anymore and I can run for office. Romney didn't do that even though it might have been politically expedient for him to do so.

So there you have it. You and I as Christians get to choose from a luke warm Christian, Giuliani or a real Mormon, Romney. Which one is more likely to embrace family values at the presidential level? If it's expedient to do so, I would imagine Giuliani to be the kind of guy to trade morality for something else that he finds more important at the time. Romney on the other hand I could see losing a reelection bid because the political establishment wanted him to do something that was contrary to his religion. Take for example the slide the party has taken towards pro choice. Who do you think is a better candidate to protect the life of an unborn baby?

Mormonism like is typically very strong in the family values area. Yes they have the creepy polygamy thing. But that's not Mitt's type of Mormonism any way. The brand of wishy washy religion that Giuliani displays seems like it would mutate and change to get whatever he really wanted. And God only knows that that is.

That is why I think a Christian should vote for a Mormon.

Peace.

2007-10-07T10:42:00.000-07:00

A Leaf Blowing in the Wind

I started praying again. I know it sounds strange for a Christian to say I started praying agian. But there it is. My prayer life back slid. Cest La Vie. Anyway the way I like to pray is to have a prayer list with a bunch of names on it. I started with my chruch family. In my church family there is a massive number of kids. I mean lots. It's like 3 kids to every 2 adults. I suppose that's normal. But I only have one between my wife and I. So anyway I'm praying for all these kids. And I'm thinking I don't know what it looks like for a kid to grow up into a health, God fearing, God loving adult with no issues. I'm looking around our group and the only adults I can find that doesn't have issues, I don't know very well. So I'm asking God to show me what that looks like.

He also gave me this word picture. It's politicaly incorrect so just deal with it.

A woman without a man is a leaf blowing in the wind. A man without a woman is a tree without leaves.

This of course isn't a word picture for single Christians that are single by God's design.

Peace.

2007-02-15T12:45:00.000-08:00

Best Superbowl commercial ever.

2007-01-11T23:00:00.000-08:00

Latte Debt Sharing

One of my friends in my church family shared an idea recently about giving up buying stuff for Lent. You can read about that here. It came as confirmation to an idea God had been running through my head during Christmas about helping each other get out of debt. The Latte in the title is a nod to the author of the automatic millionaire . In the book he popularized the idea of not buying your gourmet coffee every morning and using hat money about 5 bucks a day to invest in your future. Since a savings account will get 3% on a good day and debt is usually in the 12-24% range I figure paying down your debt is generally a better investment then the stock market.

It's about giving to each other.

The general concept of Latte Debt Sharing is one person is chosen to have one particular debt paid off. The rest of the group and that person pay their latte factor toward paying off the debt. When the debt is paid off, the person who got their debt paid, pays their original payment plus their Latte factor into the next person’s debt. They are morally but not legally obligated to continue paying their original payment into the next person’s debt at least until they have returned what they have been given. They pay it forward.

The goal is to release people from the bondage of debt; not to enslave them to a new debt. That is why the requirement of the original person to pay the next person’s debt is a moral obligation and not a legal obligation. We don’t want to trade one form of slavery for another. But we do want people to be honest with the heart of serving the group.

To be frank, the idea has ample room for people to abuse the system. It is up to each individual to police themselves with one minor exception that we’ll talk about Latter. If people come to this thinking they are going to cash in, the group will quickly disintegrate anyway.

There are numerous conditions and criteria that I will begin to address here, starting with debt selection. But this is not a legal contract. It is a general understanding that can be customized for the unique circumstances of each group.

Debt Selection:

A debt is a single legal obligation that one person or family has in the group. For example: a car payment would be one debt. A first and second mortgage would be considered two debts. First the founding members of the group agree to debt sharing. At the organizational meeting, the rules are explained, spelled out and agreed to.

The next job of the founders is to select the debt that will be paid off first. Each founder (or founding family) brings with them a statement that represents their single smallest debt. I recommend that credit cards and gambling loans be excluded. Credit cards when used for personal purchases often represent a failure to plan for emergencies or a lack of discipline.

It is worth saying here that this is not a program to help people who are near bankruptcy. It is not a benevolence fund. This is to help generally healthy (financially) people get out of the bondage of debt. People who can’t afford to pay their bills are beyond the scope of this idea and should not be allowed to participate. For that reason the debt must also be current. The bill should not say past due on it for example.

No debt should represent something that the group morally objects to like a gambling debt or a tab at the local pub. Business debts should also be excluded because those debts are entered into for the purpose of making money and are really beyond the scope of this idea.

For the rare occasion that someone wishes to participate who is debt free, special circumstance should prevail. I would suggest that a financial goal should be established by that person such as establish X dollars for a college fund, down payment on a house or retirement. Then that person would define what amount they will pay into that on a monthly basis. (The monthly payment becomes important Latter.) Then submit that to the group as their debt when the time comes.

At the founders meeting where the first debt is chosen the group finds out who has the debt (or financial goal) that represents the smallest amount. The smallest amount is chosen for several reasons. The first is risk. A smaller debt is less risky to start off with. If things go badly walking away is much easier to do. It should be stated that no one is under any legal obligation to continue for any length of time. So just because person A starts paying on person B’s debt, person A is under no obligation to continue.

Another reason it is best to start with the smallest single debt is it will get paid off the fastest. This allows the next person to receive the benefit of the debt sharing sooner. This is just more fair to everyone involved. Paying of a debt of any debt is a big event and should be celebrated by the members. The celebration is the reward. The celebration will positively reinforce the group effort. Every month people will look forward to the meetings.

Some might argue the debt with the highest interest rate should be paid first. In my experience humans are very emotional creatures. Our emotions demand positive reinforcement early and often. Starting with the smallest debt may not be the best move from a strictly interest rate perspective. It is the best move from the perspective of having a strong program that the members are excited about doing.

Every founding member or founding family is eligible for the first round of debt selection with the exception of the organizer. The organizer is exempt from the first round to preclude any appearance of self interest.

So that is the first debt selection. The smallest single debt that is morally agreeable from anyone in the group with the exception of the organizer. I’ll deal with future debt selections Latter on.

What is your Latte Factor

Before the organizational meeting, each person or family should determine what they are willing to contribute to someone else’s debt. This number should be something that can fit in the monthly budget and represents extra money. If there is not extra money then the person should not participate. This amount is called the Latte Factor.

Each person’s Latte factor is private and there is no need to discuss it with each other. It is expected that it may vary from month to month. But under normal circumstances as people get better at handling their finances this number should increase. If someone loses a job or some other event takes place that causes them to have a smaller Latte Factor no one will really know because it is held private.

How the Bill get’s paid.

When a debt is selected, the bill or statement of the debt is passed around for everyone to view. Everyone should take note of the normal monthly payment that is to be made on the bill. That payment is still the obligation of the debtor. The debtor is also obligated to pay over that amount according to what they would have paid if it was someone else’s debt that would have been chosen, the Latte Factor.

Each person records the account number and payment address of debt and makes a payment right away. The preference is that payments would be written out and mailed the same night. So bring your checkbook, an envelope (your own to keep things anonymous and private) and a stamp.

The following month, the debtor who’s debt is being paid by the group brings a statement to the group for review. Either they or someone who isn’t afraid of public speaking goes over the statement with the group. The statement should show the debtor’s payment including their Latte Factor and one payment for every other member of the group. This should be a time of celebration. If everyone played fair, you will have made a significant dent in this debt for the cost of a cup of coffee!

So what happens if not everyone pays or if a check bounces? Well this is the big risk isn’t it? If it is the debtor who hasn’t paid, then his or her debt becomes ineligible for the next month. If the bill can be brought current then everything can go back to normal. If in two months the debt is not brought current, a new debt should be chosen. Obviously this can be very embarrassing. So each person should carefully consider if they are financially able to participate in the program before starting. Like I stated earlier this is not a benevolence fund.

Now if then number of payments does not match the number of participates and the short is not the debtor, then an effort should be made to determine if someone was Latte or if they were not able to make the extra payment. If they were Latte it’s not big deal. They’re payment and next month’s payment will show up on the next statement. If they were unable to make a payment, then they need to reconsider if they are financially able to participate in the program. A payment can be as low as a dollar. So someone who can’t make a payment should withdraw and seek financial counseling.

Over time it will become a habit. We all bring our checkbooks and an envelope to the meeting because it’s the debt sharing meeting. It can be a time of celebration every time as people see real change in their debt and long term financial well being. Even if it’s not your debt being paid you can be happy that your brother/sister is better off because of the contribution that each member made.

The Next Debt

When a debt is paid off, you really need to celebrate. Not anything too expensive. Perhaps someone in the group buys a cake that says debt free on it or something. It needs to be just a little something to remind everyone of were we are all headed.

Part of the celebration is choosing the next debt. The organizer is now eligible to participate. However the member whose debt was just paid is in eligible this round. In fairness if you just got one debt paid, it’s time to let someone else have a shot. The same criteria are used as before, the smallest morally acceptable debt.

The process of payment continues with one exception. The member whose debt was retired is now morally obligated to pay not only their Latte Factor into the next member’s debt but also their original payment. You can see how this could snowball into some very large numbers.

For example, let’s say the original debt is $1,000, the original payment is $3.20 per month, there are 5 members total and the average Latte Factor is $13 per month. So the debtor is required to pay the $33.20 they would normally pay plus the $13 Latte Factor, that’s $46.20 from the debtor. The other four members will also pay their Latte Factor of $13 on average. That’s 4X$13=$52 from the other 4 members and $46.20 from the debtor for a total of $98.20. Assuming 12% interest the debt would be paid in 11 months.

The same debt would have taken 3 years if the debtor only made the required payment.

Note every member’s Latte Factor will be different. And since the program is about giving more than it is about getting, we shouldn’t put too much emphasis on who is giving how much. If there is too big a difference say one person is able to give $1000 and everyone else is around $10, the big spender should probably tone it down a bit for the health of the program.

So how long should the member whose debt was paid continue to make the larger payment into the next person’s debt? Ultimately this is up to each individual member. I like to say the member is morally obligated to continue paying as much money as they have received from the group. But this is a program about giving. The member whose debt was paid in reality has a new Latte Factor that is much larger than it was before. So they may wish to continue to give above and beyond what they have received. Eventually if everyone stays with the program long enough it will come back to them.

One final note about new members: A successful program will surely attract interest from outsiders. But to prevent abuse it’s recommended that a new member be ineligible to have a debt paid until they have participated through one full cycle start to finish of paying off someone else’s debt first. This means if they join ½ way through one member’s debt, they will not be eligible in the next debt selection.

May God Bless your finances.

-John

2006-12-05T06:33:00.000-08:00

Who’s in Charge of this Church Anyway?

One leadership evolutionary path of the home church

Home churches are a different kind of animal in the way they make decisions. From the outside they often appear to look like chickens with their heads cut off. We appear to run around with no direction sometimes. From the inside something very different is at work.

Christ is the head of the church.

The Bible is clear about leadership in the Church. Children are subject to their parents. Wives are subject to their husbands in partnership. And CHRIST is the head of the Church. This we understand intellectually but in practice it is a journey toward realization.

Most of us have grown up in a traditional top down leadership structure in our churches. In addition almost every leadership structure we have ever encountered has been the same. There has always been a boss or a pastor or coach or parent that has told us what to do. Even if we were the boss or pastor we still participated in this leadership structure as the person in charge.

Believe it or not Church and God are no different. There is still someone “in charge.” It just not who we think it is. Jesus is in charge by way of the Holy Spirit. Christ is the head of the church. So where does that leave the rest of us?

Recently we have made a practice of calling our “church” our “church family.” “Home church” is simply a misnomer that is useful for explaining what we do, to our institutionalized brothers and sisters. Church family is a more accurate way of describing who we are and how we behave. In this family, there is a father figure, God and a mother figure, the Holy Spirit. Jesus is whom they have left in charge. I know doctrinally God is one. But you recognize that our one God chooses to interact with us in different ways. I am trying to capture the flavor of that here. In any case the point is we are all brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Is one brother the lord over another? Can I command my younger siblings to obey me just because I am older? I cannot do that in the World how much less should I do that in Church? Does the hand tell the leg what to do? The head, Jesus Christ, tells the rest of the body what to do by way of the nervous system, the Holy Spirit.

Even all this we know in our heads. But it has not always reached our heart. And beyond that putting these ideas into action is against everything we have ever been taught or experienced.

What I’ve seen in the past is we go through a transition period. Usually a home Church is started by a charismatic person with some training in the church. They may feel something is wrong in the current situation or perhaps they just feel God’s calling to do something different. That person is usually “in charge.” He makes most of the decisions and feels personally responsible for the success or failure of every meeting.

As trust grows, some of the decisions are allowed to be made by some of the other members of the group. The person in charge delegates that authority to a few of the people he or she trusts for whatever reason. This is still a top down authority structure that begins to look like brothers and sisters acting as peers if you are in the “in” crowd.

Later on when the initial leadership team begins to become more comfortable with themselves and God’s leading, at least intellectually everyone is brought into that group of leadership. At first is looks like the leaders are weighing the input of the other people in the group. But after awhile the “leaders” begin to simply allow others to make decisions about various aspects of what’s going on.

This is when a significant change in group dynamics can occur. Prior to the leaders giving away control the group belonged to the leader or leaders. They owned it, will it, had the right and power to kill it. I remember in one church plant Tara and I were involved in, the couple who were the charismatic couple that got things started, decided to leave. We had already been working through the leadership issues for quit a while. But they still thought when they left the group would just shut down. They brought a scrap book for everyone to sign and it was very emotional for them. They were very surprised to learn that we kept on going after they left. That group didn’t last forever. But it closed for different reasons then someone in leadership leaving.

When the leaders give up ownership of the group, the followers can take up ownership. Two things I have observed during this paradigm shift of behavior and thinking. First followers begin to be self directed (or perhaps Christ directed.) And the group takes on a significantly new flavor. Individual creativity is allowed to flourish. The other thing is the leader types take a break. A needed and well deserved break I might add. Since the groups survival no longer depends on them to make things happen and they are not in charge for the most part, they tend to relax. This a wonderful benefit by the way for the would be pastor and his family. They are now allowed to be human, to have faults and to receive care from the other members without shattering their superhero image.

At this point some people may begin to exert their new found freedom in exercising their faith in the group. But both the leaders and the followers will naturally fall into old patterns of command and control and being commanded and controlled. Perhaps command and control is a bit to strong but we have all seen situations where those words fit the bill.

The last phase I’ve seen is where the leaders systematically remove themselves from leadership. At the same time the encourage others to step up to the plate. I remember a conversation I had with my wife where she was “unhappy” with the way things were going in our home church years ago. We spoke about it and I encouraged her to be responsible for making the change that she wanted. Another time a woman in the church was unhappy with our lack of worship. There were no guitar players in our group of musically challenged. If she wanted something different it was up to her to make it happen. Not that she can’t ask for help or bring it before the group. Only that it was her responsibility to be in charge with whatever God was leading her in.

The last phase I’ve seen is when the leadership deliberately remove themselves from the lime light. They ask question like “what do you think?” or “what does the Bible say about that?” It becomes a situation where not only control is given up but the torch is actively passed to everyone else. Actively being the operative word. They repeat over and over again that it’s up to everyone to make the group work. And they mean it.

Anyway that’s what I’ve seen. But who knows maybe the pendulum will swing the other way in a few years and I’ll be a senior head pastor of some religious country club that charges an extraordinary but sliding scale of dues. Probably not.

Peace,

-JH

2006-11-18T23:39:00.000-08:00

Abstinence is not Biblical; That’s Why Abstinence Doesn’t Work.

Overview: It’s not Biblical. It denies our humanity. It’s unrealistic. What’s a Christian to do?

The Details:

Pedro a friend of mine I call Peter (don’t ask why. I think it’s because I’m white.) said I should write a book today. I told him to just collect the things I send him and publish them together for me. I don’t think either is going to happen. So this is what we were talking about when he said I should write.

I’m a dad now. Even when I wasn’t a dad I wanted to be a dad. And before I wanted to be a dad I was a kid that needed a dad. You know what I mean? OK so the theme of this diatribe is marriage. You got that from what I just said right? Well hold on for a second and I’ll bring it full circle.

Premise. Christian children are taught not to have sex and not to get married until they are in there 30’s. They are failing at both. I think about this subject a lot because I’m a dad now. And even though my daughter is only three, I am praying for her husband now. That’s what he whole dad thing was about. Sorry if you think it’s poor style. It’s my blog. So deal.

The logical conclusion of my daughter leaving my house (with her law or medical degree) is to get married and have babies of her own. Isn’t that what is reasonable expected from our daughters? I mean she can also become president of the United States, Hillary made that possible. But she had better make me some grandkids too. That’s what women do. The sooner we stop denying our humanity out of sense of duty to women’s lib the better.

The problem is as a Christian culture we aren’t teaching our children how to be married. For the most part we are teaching them to be single. The argument is that they need to be good singles before they can be good partners. It isn’t even Biblical and it doesn’t work.

God made Eve not because Adam was an established single with a good career. God made Adam because he was not a complete person. He was incomplete. Was he fundamentally flawed? Flawed isn’t the right word because God made him this way deliberately and God doesn’t make flaws. He has plans. Those plans included the father of our race to be missing something. That missing something was Eve.

This sounds a lot like I am espousing codependence. If that’s God’s plan that I be codependent with my wife I guess I can live with that. Our rugged individualism and independence and self everything is quit simply counter to what God teaches.

Another example is Mary the mother of Jesus. It is widely believed that she was married to Joseph when she was 13. The mother of God was a teenager! Now I do not want my daughter getting married that young for a number of reasons. But I do hope that she get’s married in her early years of college.

The problem with the general Christian culture on this topic is we are setting our children up for failure. First we tell them they should be good individuals before they can make a good partner which is wrong. So we tell them and try to teach them to be good singles which they can’t really be because it is against God’s design! God didn’t plan on man leaving his parents and living the single life while he got his act together. God’s plan is for a man and a woman to leave their respective parents and cleave to each other as husband and wife not boyfriend and girlfriend.

We aren’t designed for the most part to be single. The Apostle Paul may be an exception as well as Jesus himself. But most other Biblical figures were married. When we tell our children they should be successful as a single person first we are requiring them to have the spiritual gift of celibacy that God may not have chosen to give them. If God did not give them the gift of celibacy it is inappropriate and in humane for us to require them to have it!

That is not to say that 18 year olds everywhere should have sex indiscriminately. God requires us to remain virgins until we are married thus he gives us the gifts required to do so. The lie and falsity is when we teach our children to remain virgin until their 30’s when it is then appropriate for them to get married.

So God’s plan is for young men and women to marry and not stay single. We set our children up for failure by telling them to follow the World’s plan that is to stay single for as long as you can then get married when you absolutely have to. Because we as a Christian culture have adopted the World’s plan for relationships we never teach our children explicitly how to be married! We are so busy teaching them to be single (the World’s plan) we never teach them to be married (God’s plan.) Because we never teach them to be married and we do teach them to be single when they do get married they react like single would react when some of their freedoms are taken away. They don’t see marriage as a liberating institution. They see it as a necessary evil. It’s what they are supposed to do if she get’s pregnant. It’s what they have to do to be right before God. Aka I can’t sleep with her forever and pretend I’m a Christian without marrying her.

Abstinence doesn’t work because it’s missing marriage training. A boy who is taught abstinence from 13-15 is basically being taught that he has to wait for sex until he is double his current age. To start off with that’s basically unrealistic. You might get some delayed sexual activity but at some point God’s design is going to take over. There is almost no organized instruction for marriage at that age. You normally don’t get any marriage training until you hit the college and career age or your premarital counseling you rush through so your local pastor will marry you. So look at the position it put the teenage boy into. The world is telling him to have sex at every turn. Church is telling him not to but not providing any hope for when he will be able to. His hormones are raging because God made him that way. And there seems to be no release except for elicit sex, masturbation and pornography. No wonder he’s typically all screwed up in the head!

Instead, why don’t we teach them to be men of God saving themselves for the special moment that God has ordained for him and her to become one flesh, one person where singleness dies and oneness begins? Then show him how to become the type of man you and I would want our daughters marrying. Raise them up in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. Don’t bother raising them in any particular way and they will go which ever way the wind happens to be blowing that day.

Here’s my short list for my daughter’s future husband:
1.) Unwavering commitment to the God of the Bible
2.) An absolute belief in the sanctity and permanence of marriage
3.) A demonstratable commitment to self improvement as a father and husband
4.) Aggressively perusing a career that will be able to support a family financially

By the way I don’t believe our liberal anti Christian public school system is capable of teaching abstinence or marriage effectively. It must start in the home which is God’s first manifestation of church.

My call to Christian parents is this. Read the scripture and discover for yourself what God’s plan is for your children. Determine if God is saying they should be taught singlehood or if they should be taught about the oneness in marriage. And execute God’s plan instead of the World’s. And do it quickly before it’s too late.

Peace

-JH