Originally posted at Stories of LINC North Texas:
God is good at reminding us that He is higher than we are. He repeatedly tells us throughout Scripture that He is not like us - from saying that He looks at the heart (1 Sam 16), to saying that He is outside of time (2 Pet 3), to simply saying that His ways are not our ways (Is 55). There is a way that seems right to men....but God's ways lead to good things. I get the "privilege" of writing a blog post the week before the election, and I think there's something relevant in it for us. We've been discussing the issue as a staff. What do we, as Christians, have to do about the political process?
In case you've missed it, there's a lot of fear and consternation about the election. Each side feels like disaster is imminent if the other candidate wins, and both sides are sick of the caustic bickering and fighting. Jesus, in the Gospels, has a great reminder to us about the government. Don't go looking for it, however - He made a strong statement by not talking about it. As much as his disciples and his detractors prodded Him, he would only say, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Of course Jesus was concerned about earthly governments, He just tried to encourage His disciples not to be. His Kingdom had nothing to do with it. His thoughts are not our thoughts.
Today, we see the Kingdom of God flourishing in places where the government is most hostile to it. The stories of the church flourishing under persecution are everywhere, including throughout history. We needn't fear that the government will crush the Church - the Bible says that all authority is established by God (Rom 13)! Both parties seem to want the government to do the Church's job - either by establishing morality or by caring for the oppressed and marginalized - but we as a Church can step up and reclaim our identity and role in society. This should all give us some peace and comfort, that no matter what happens our citizenship is in Heaven and Jesus is still on the throne. His ways are higher than our ways!
So what should we do? The law tells us, as a charitable organization, that we can advocate for various issues but we cannot endorse a candidate. I think that this is actually a helpful line for Christians. We can, and in fact we must, stand up for what the Bible says about various issues. The Bible commands care for the poor. Since both parties believe that they are caring for the poor, it's up to you to decide which one will be more successful. It's only by adopting this sort of posture that we can live up to our calling of being "salt and light" in the world (Matt 5), rather than antagonists. Go vote and be the Church! Just remember, His thoughts are not our thoughts!
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
What Must We Do For Victory?
First posted on Stories of LINC North Texas:
Victory requires 4 things, according to Gideon in Judges chapter 7: good works, proclamation, God's power, and our action. Charles Spurgeon shares a great devotional from this passage of Scripture that details Gideon's victory over the Midianites. Gideon had his small band of 300 men approach the innumerably large foreign army with unusual weapons: trumpets and torches in clay jars. All at once, they broke the clay jars and exposed the torches, blew the trumpets, and then shouted "A sword for the Lord, and for Gideon!" With that, the Midianite army fled in terror.
Victory requires 4 things, according to Gideon in Judges chapter 7: good works, proclamation, God's power, and our action. Charles Spurgeon shares a great devotional from this passage of Scripture that details Gideon's victory over the Midianites. Gideon had his small band of 300 men approach the innumerably large foreign army with unusual weapons: trumpets and torches in clay jars. All at once, they broke the clay jars and exposed the torches, blew the trumpets, and then shouted "A sword for the Lord, and for Gideon!" With that, the Midianite army fled in terror.
These simultaneous actions bring victory for us today. Matthew 5:16 teaches that we should let our light, as in our good works, shine before men. Just as Gideon's army blew their trumpets, we should loudly proclaim the truth of the Gospel. Finally, we should declare our reliance upon the Lord and the power that we have to act.
We cannot separate the light and the trumpets. Many people, citing St. Francis' (alleged) saying to "preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary use words," rely upon their lives to testify to God. The truth is that Francis never said this, nor did he live it - he was an itinerant preacher. There is no doubt that too many Christians talk the talk but don't walk the walk. They give Christianity a bad name by their hypocrisy. A whole lot of us, myself often included, are guilty of that. However, far too many Christians walk the walk but don't talk the talk. They seclude Christianity into a corner and don't spread the Gospel. A whole lot of us, myself often included, are also guilty of that. We cannot separate living a life that testifies from sharing the Gospel verbally.
We must also recognize the balance between the work of the Lord and the work of us humans. It is far too easy to declare our reliance upon the Lord, and then promptly sit down to do absolutely nothing. Furthermore, it is far too tempting to work hard and leave no room for faith. Just the same as we can't separate words and actions, we can't separate reliance upon the Lord from hard work and action. Undoubtedly, the battle belongs to the Lord. After all, we are talking about 300 men against an enormous army. Yet, Gideon did nonetheless lead them into battle. Without trusting God, we are running the risk of disaster. Without acting ourselves, we are running the risk of watching God move on to another servant more willing to do His work.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Economic Growth
I'm no economist - there's no doubt about that. I haven't made it my life's work to study market systems and how to spur growth. But from my layman's position, I've got a few observations to make.
First, I've observed that the American economy at present is doing pretty well, relative to most of the world. My viewpoint is probably skewed by the fact that I do intend to make it my life's work to walk with the poor, the disenfranchised, and the marginalized. It's probably skewed by the fact that I have walked alongside people from urban slums in a small handful of Latin American countries and Kenya. But things seem pretty alright to me, all-in-all.
Second, we do not seem to be in the worst recession of America's history, as I've heard some commentators say. I wasn't alive then, but I'm pretty sure the Great Depression of the 1930s was worse.
Third, this does not seem to be the worst economic recovery from a recession ever, as I've also heard some commentators say. Once again, I'm pretty sure the fact that it took a decade plus a major war to recover from the Great Depression is a sign that we are doing better than that. The numbers seem to indicate a pretty decent, steady recovery to me.
Fourth, I'm not entirely convinced that this recovery is all that bad at all. One of the first things I remember learning in Economics class was that the economy tends to move in cycles over bubbles and busts. One of the reasons things never stabilize is that government action has enormous inherent delays in it - when some decision gets made, it takes a very long time for results to actually come back. Therefore, it's common for the government to initiate a growth-spurring action during a downturn that actually takes effect once the economy is already revving up again, inciting further acceleration. Booms are always followed by busts. Many people seem to be looking for a massive pendulum swing to prosperity again, and I'm not convinced that either the process of getting there or the outcome of that is a good thing. I believe the process of getting there may cause another recession later, and I further believe that unrivaled and unchecked wealth is a dangerous thing. This goes back to my first observation.
Finally, I'm not buying the arguments about economic policy. Again, I'm no expert, but the Reaganomics of tax cuts to the wealthy and the businesses seem to me to have 2 effects: one, they do spur economic growth, and two, they do increase general inequality. Many people say they don't work, and I disagree with that, but I don't see how you can say that they don't cause the wealthy to become fabulously wealthier while the poor and middle class only see marginal gains.
Anyway, just general things that I wanted to say. Feel free to disagree with me, like I said - I'm no expert. These are just things that I have tended to observe as general trends.
First, I've observed that the American economy at present is doing pretty well, relative to most of the world. My viewpoint is probably skewed by the fact that I do intend to make it my life's work to walk with the poor, the disenfranchised, and the marginalized. It's probably skewed by the fact that I have walked alongside people from urban slums in a small handful of Latin American countries and Kenya. But things seem pretty alright to me, all-in-all.
Second, we do not seem to be in the worst recession of America's history, as I've heard some commentators say. I wasn't alive then, but I'm pretty sure the Great Depression of the 1930s was worse.
Third, this does not seem to be the worst economic recovery from a recession ever, as I've also heard some commentators say. Once again, I'm pretty sure the fact that it took a decade plus a major war to recover from the Great Depression is a sign that we are doing better than that. The numbers seem to indicate a pretty decent, steady recovery to me.
Fourth, I'm not entirely convinced that this recovery is all that bad at all. One of the first things I remember learning in Economics class was that the economy tends to move in cycles over bubbles and busts. One of the reasons things never stabilize is that government action has enormous inherent delays in it - when some decision gets made, it takes a very long time for results to actually come back. Therefore, it's common for the government to initiate a growth-spurring action during a downturn that actually takes effect once the economy is already revving up again, inciting further acceleration. Booms are always followed by busts. Many people seem to be looking for a massive pendulum swing to prosperity again, and I'm not convinced that either the process of getting there or the outcome of that is a good thing. I believe the process of getting there may cause another recession later, and I further believe that unrivaled and unchecked wealth is a dangerous thing. This goes back to my first observation.
Finally, I'm not buying the arguments about economic policy. Again, I'm no expert, but the Reaganomics of tax cuts to the wealthy and the businesses seem to me to have 2 effects: one, they do spur economic growth, and two, they do increase general inequality. Many people say they don't work, and I disagree with that, but I don't see how you can say that they don't cause the wealthy to become fabulously wealthier while the poor and middle class only see marginal gains.
Anyway, just general things that I wanted to say. Feel free to disagree with me, like I said - I'm no expert. These are just things that I have tended to observe as general trends.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
I Will Support the Winner of a Democratic Election
Enough is enough. The political fighting has gone too far already. I'm all for a two-party system, or maybe even a three-party system, and political campaigns make sense to me - they seem too long and way too expensive (thanks Dickie-V), but the general concept is important. I don't mind things getting a little personal....you are running for public office, and who you are determines how you lead. But ceaseless arguing that begins to border on hatred is not only painful to watch and listen to, it is absolutely destructive for our country.
Abraham Lincoln was wise to quote the Bible when he said that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Commonly, we just say "United we stand, divided we fall." It appears that we have reached the point where our nation is paralyzed by political division. I know each side doesn't agree with each other...nothing new there. I don't make a secret of my political views. But it looks like we are on track to have the least productive Congress in history, and that's sad. When good decisions and ideas are opposed simply because the source is someone from the other side, it's over. When dialogue doesn't even happen on important issues, it's over. Our country cannot stand.
Therefore, I'm pledging from this point forward that I will support the winner of a democratic election. Of course I will still vote for the candidate whose views I agree with the most, and I will really be disappointed if that candidate loses, but at the end of the day I will support our elected leaders. Not only does the Bible command it - it just makes sense. They are our leaders, and they represent us, no matter how miserable or ignorant they seem sometimes. Without constructive dialogue, we're sunk. It's time to learn how to support someone with whom we disagree.
Abraham Lincoln was wise to quote the Bible when he said that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Commonly, we just say "United we stand, divided we fall." It appears that we have reached the point where our nation is paralyzed by political division. I know each side doesn't agree with each other...nothing new there. I don't make a secret of my political views. But it looks like we are on track to have the least productive Congress in history, and that's sad. When good decisions and ideas are opposed simply because the source is someone from the other side, it's over. When dialogue doesn't even happen on important issues, it's over. Our country cannot stand.
Therefore, I'm pledging from this point forward that I will support the winner of a democratic election. Of course I will still vote for the candidate whose views I agree with the most, and I will really be disappointed if that candidate loses, but at the end of the day I will support our elected leaders. Not only does the Bible command it - it just makes sense. They are our leaders, and they represent us, no matter how miserable or ignorant they seem sometimes. Without constructive dialogue, we're sunk. It's time to learn how to support someone with whom we disagree.
Monday, August 27, 2012
How Do You Measure A Life Change?
Originally posted at Stories of LINC North Texas
One of the foremost challenges facing many nonprofits is the challenge of reporting success. Is the program working? Is it accomplishing its goal? Is it worth investing in? LINC North Texas believes that our programs are worth investing in, because we believe that they change lives. But don't take our word for it. Really! You should be able to see concrete proof that they change lives. Grant-making foundations have been leading the way in pushing charities to scientifically prove their results. They are famous for saying, "Measure your outcomes, not your outputs." Here at LINC NT, we take that seriously, and we are launching a major campaign to do just that.
The most popular measure of a program's success, whether it's at a nonprofit or a church, is attendance. That's an output. For example, last year we served 1246 students and many of their parents through our Student Advancement & Leadership Initiative. That's great, but at the end of the day, does it matter? They could have all slept through class, or gone home and immediately forgotten everything. One of LINC NT's outcomes for SALI is for students to learn essential character and leadership skills that will enable them to succeed in school and beyond. Measuring attendance doesn't indicate success. To do that, we have to find out whether these students are better people after SALI than they were before. That is a much more challenging task, but the journey is rewarding. Not only are we able to show our significance to foundations and people like you, but we are able to find out for ourselves what improvements we need to make.
A recent survey of 702 students shows the impact of SALI is significant. After SALI, 294 students said they resolved a conflict with what they learned. More than fifty percent of students said they argue less with their parents due to learned conflict resolution skills. In addition, 83% of students said they would take some form of action when witnessing a student being bullied. This fall, we are taking it to the next level. With a precise system of pre- and post-tests over two-year segments of SALI, and with the help of two awesome volunteers (Michael, who helps design surveys; and Sara, who is a data mining expert), we intend to show scientifically that SALI is achieving its outcomes. We look forward to reporting that success here!
At the end of the day, I believe that this shift from measuring outputs to outcomes is a valuable change beyond LINC NT. Are there places in our everyday lives where we need to change the scorecard? Many people today report being busier and busier each year, but at the same time we tend to feel drained, unfulfilled, and unimportant. At the end of the day, do we measure a successful day by how hard we worked, or how well we achieved our goals? What if our goals went beyond working hard to things like making a positive impact on people around us, and to things like glorifying God in every aspect of our day? How could our lives be more fulfilling by changing the scorecard every day?
Saturday, August 18, 2012
is not, has not been, and should not be
I feel a bit obliged to make a comment on the subject of America as a Christian nation. Somewhere between the usual July 4th church madness and the upcoming election, the subject has been on my mind for a while. It's not uncommon for people to claim that America is a Christian nation, or at least that it should be. It's also not uncommon for people to claim that America was founded on Christian values. I believe that both of these statements are dangerous and don't entirely align with the truth.
I get a bit uncomfortable when people start talking about America as a "Christian nation" because it sounds an awful lot like when somebody talks about Saudi Arabia as an "Islamic nation." I realize that few people are actually arguing that Christianity should be the national religion of the US, but I'm not sure that I see the line. I'm not sure that having a national religion is a good idea, ever, anywhere. Those uncomfortable with my comparison might say that Christianity is more tolerant or peace-loving than Islam, but I'm not sure that's true either (considering history). Instead, I would say that perhaps every religion becomes less tolerant when it becomes nationalized.
To avoid that issue, many people just say that America was founded on Christian values. Again, I'm not sure that this aligns with the truth. There are definite questions about the faith of the founding fathers - were they really the conservative Christians that we sometimes make them out to be? Of course we all know about how Jefferson cut and pasted to create his own version of the Bible, but I'm curious about the rest. I know that there are many questions about Washington's faith. And anyone who says the actions of the explorers, colonists, and so forth were widely guided by Christian values needs a refresher on actual history, not just storybook history.
As for the church's point of view, I'm further unconvinced that anything is gained by the idea of a Christian nation or a nation founded on highly Christian values. I believe that history teaches us that Christianity is a religion of the margins. When it comes to the center, especially as a nationalized religion, it seems to lose its efficacy and perhaps even its grasp on truth. I also remember how Jesus had to chastise his disciples for wanting to set up a kingdom here on earth, because his Kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom is already here in part, but not in full.
That's why, in my view, America is not, has not been, and should not be a Christian nation. Sorry if that offends anyone.
I get a bit uncomfortable when people start talking about America as a "Christian nation" because it sounds an awful lot like when somebody talks about Saudi Arabia as an "Islamic nation." I realize that few people are actually arguing that Christianity should be the national religion of the US, but I'm not sure that I see the line. I'm not sure that having a national religion is a good idea, ever, anywhere. Those uncomfortable with my comparison might say that Christianity is more tolerant or peace-loving than Islam, but I'm not sure that's true either (considering history). Instead, I would say that perhaps every religion becomes less tolerant when it becomes nationalized.
To avoid that issue, many people just say that America was founded on Christian values. Again, I'm not sure that this aligns with the truth. There are definite questions about the faith of the founding fathers - were they really the conservative Christians that we sometimes make them out to be? Of course we all know about how Jefferson cut and pasted to create his own version of the Bible, but I'm curious about the rest. I know that there are many questions about Washington's faith. And anyone who says the actions of the explorers, colonists, and so forth were widely guided by Christian values needs a refresher on actual history, not just storybook history.
As for the church's point of view, I'm further unconvinced that anything is gained by the idea of a Christian nation or a nation founded on highly Christian values. I believe that history teaches us that Christianity is a religion of the margins. When it comes to the center, especially as a nationalized religion, it seems to lose its efficacy and perhaps even its grasp on truth. I also remember how Jesus had to chastise his disciples for wanting to set up a kingdom here on earth, because his Kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom is already here in part, but not in full.
That's why, in my view, America is not, has not been, and should not be a Christian nation. Sorry if that offends anyone.
Monday, June 25, 2012
How Big is the Mission Field?
Originally posted at "Stories of LINC North Texas"
In the church we talk a lot about reaching the city and transforming the community. But just how large is that mission field, and can we really reach it with our traditional methods? There's about 120,000 people here in Carrollton, where our offices are. Add in Farmers Branch, and there are more than 53,000 households in the school district. Through SALI, we are able to reach about 900 of them. And we thought that we had an enormous impact on the community!
A quick check of the statistics shows that the average Christian church has184 members (although half of all churches have 75 members or less). The largest LCMS church has around 2500 in attendance every Sunday. At this rate, it would take 652 average American Christian churches to record every person in Carrollton alone as a member. It would take 48 of the largest LCMS church in America. Fellowship Church in Grapevine is listed as the third-largest church by attendance in the entire USA, and they have approximately 24,000 attendees every Sunday. That means it would take 5 Fellowships in Carrollton alone to reach the entire city!
Based on these numbers, is it even possible to reach the entire city with our current strategies? After seeing these numbers, it's no surprise that you never find a traffic jam on a Sunday morning! Most churches seek to grow through addition of new members, but these numbers are depressing....a church would have to grow extremely large just to meet a significant number of people in a single small city. Jesus transformed the entire world, but he didn't seem interested in addition. In fact, he focused on just twelve men, growing extra-close to just 3 of them. He believed in the strategy of multiplication.
It's said that Billy Graham, were he to be holding his crusades daily today, would not even be able to keep up with the global rate of population growth. We need to embrace a strategy of multiplication if we want to have any hope of transforming our communities, cities, and the world!
In the church we talk a lot about reaching the city and transforming the community. But just how large is that mission field, and can we really reach it with our traditional methods? There's about 120,000 people here in Carrollton, where our offices are. Add in Farmers Branch, and there are more than 53,000 households in the school district. Through SALI, we are able to reach about 900 of them. And we thought that we had an enormous impact on the community!
A quick check of the statistics shows that the average Christian church has184 members (although half of all churches have 75 members or less). The largest LCMS church has around 2500 in attendance every Sunday. At this rate, it would take 652 average American Christian churches to record every person in Carrollton alone as a member. It would take 48 of the largest LCMS church in America. Fellowship Church in Grapevine is listed as the third-largest church by attendance in the entire USA, and they have approximately 24,000 attendees every Sunday. That means it would take 5 Fellowships in Carrollton alone to reach the entire city!
Based on these numbers, is it even possible to reach the entire city with our current strategies? After seeing these numbers, it's no surprise that you never find a traffic jam on a Sunday morning! Most churches seek to grow through addition of new members, but these numbers are depressing....a church would have to grow extremely large just to meet a significant number of people in a single small city. Jesus transformed the entire world, but he didn't seem interested in addition. In fact, he focused on just twelve men, growing extra-close to just 3 of them. He believed in the strategy of multiplication.
It's said that Billy Graham, were he to be holding his crusades daily today, would not even be able to keep up with the global rate of population growth. We need to embrace a strategy of multiplication if we want to have any hope of transforming our communities, cities, and the world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)