The Tale of the Well Meaning Chefs

There once was a team of 100 chefs working at the only housing in a town called Acirema. One day, 60% of the Acireman chefs decided that they should "compel" residents to eat THEIR food as a condition of their residency. As they tried to convince the remaining 40% of the merits of this new plan, the 40% had some concerns. "What if they want other options for food?", said one. "Do we have a right to force people to eat food they don't want to eat?", asked another.

In the past, Acireman residents would shop for ingredients they wanted, cook as desired, and even opt to go without a meal (should one choose to be so foolish). It was soon discovered that this new meal plan would be much more expensive for the Aciremans. Even worse, the meals would contain ingredients that made those eating it, and others in the complex, sick. "This plan is flawed, and will cause more harm than good!", said the 40%. The 60% countered, "Remember, we are trained chefs! We know what's best for these residents to eat". "But we haven't even had time to see what's actually in the meals you plan to prepare and force people to eat!", declared the 40%. "Once you eat it, you'll know what's in it", said the 60%'s head chef. The mayor of Acirema, seeking to minimize any opposition, promised "If you like the meals you have, you can keep them. Period."

Even the resident of Acirema had disagreements and were split 60/40 over this new meal program. "All these people aren't currently eating well prepared food. We've got to do SOMETHING!", the 60% insisted. "But shouldn't they be able to choose what they want to eat, or if to eat at all? Who are chefs to tell teachers, plumbers, electricians, secretaries, store clerks, etc., that they MUST eat what the chefs prepare, and eat it entirely simply because they are residents?", pleaded the 40%.

The plan was begun, without change, by the chefs from the 60%. As the days wore on, Aciremans from BOTH the 40% and 60% began to experience some serious side effects from the meals they were forced to ingest. Abdominal pain, blotchy skin, loss of vision, and well as tummy troubles (too terrible to describe here). Some hoped that the Mayor's promise of keeping their existing meals would prevent their getting sick from the Acireman Chefs' special food. But, the farmers who supplied residents with groceries for those meals were prevented by the chefs from supplying the Aciremans any longer. The land went into a long time of bland food and flatulence.

The moral of this sad tale is: There are very few times anyone, even well meaning chefs, should shove things down someone's throat; especially with something as personal and important as food.

Following vs. "Believing" Jesus (Audio Sermon)

Michelle and I after running our 5k

^{Audio of what I shared at Glendora Alliance Church on 12/9/2012. Be forewarned... I was highly caffeinated.}
 

 Key scripture: Matthew 16:24-27. 
"Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ²⁵ For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ²⁶ For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? ²⁷ For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done."
 

Oh, Christmas... er, Holiday Tree

Christmas tree lighting at Victoria Gardens

The Christmas we know and love
The Christmas lights are all hung, the radio stations have switched to perpetual Christmas music, and Starbucks has begun serving their coffee in those red Christmas cups; guaranteed to warm your heart, long after the coffee has gone cold. There is no doubt that Christmas is a powerful cultural phenomenon in the US, with people spending insane amounts of money (estimated $584 billion in 2010) and time devoted to this tradition. What also awakens is the annual culture war between "Serious Christians" and those "Godless Multinational Corporations, bent on taking Christ out of Christmas!". This tug-of-war comes up every year, and only seems to intensify.

Some examples of this cultural vs. "Christian" wrestling match that seem to pop up each year are these:

• Stores avoiding calling their sales "Christmas" sales, instead opting for "Holiday" or "Winter" sales, or just "sales".
• Cashiers being warned to not wish customers "Merry Christmas", but rather, "Happy Holidays".
• Statehouses and companies renaming Christmas trees: "Holiday tree", or removing the trees altogether

The Reaction:
Christmas lovers (over) react and boycott stores, buy and wear buttons that say "It's OK to say Merry Christmas", and agonize over how they will buy that "special someone" a Kindle now that they've boycotted Amazon.com. This battle has made it so that saying "Merry Christmas" is almost as telling as saying "I eat at Chick-fil-A". It is easy for Christians to feel as though we are being marginalized for believing that Christmas is about something more than Black Friday sales (which celebrates beating out our fellow man for discounted "stuff") and consuming copious amounts of eggnog. The truth is that Christmas is about more than this historically recent gift-buying madness. 

Perspective
The miracle of Jesus' birth was an amazing culmination of centuries of prophecy, where God showed up as He said He would. It shows a God who is interested in proving His faithfulness and glory, and demonstrating his miraculous and wondrous nature. Jesus shows up on the scene and begins his 3 year earthly ministry around age 30. He performs many miracles that demonstrate His being God incarnate. Let's take a step back for a moment and forget about the tradition that has sprung up around Jesus' birth in what we today call "Christmas" (Jesus' actual birth month - ???, Holiday - 300 A.D., Christmas trees - 1500 A.D., Santa Claus - 1850 A.D.). Let's imagine it another way.

What if Jesus observed all the depravity around Him, and decided he wouldn't lay down His life for us. Taking a long, hard look at a people who by nature turn away and reject God, realizing we aren't worth the effort, and leaving the scene. What good is "Christmas" to us now? With this perspective, how is Christmas (Jesus' birth) any more significant than any of the other pre-resurrection miracles performed? I would argue that without Easter (Jesus' rising from the dead after taking our sin upon Himself to gain our freedom from it), Christmas is irrelevant to man. Without Easter, Jesus' birth is simply one of many miracles that show a God of power and glory, who rightfully left us to our own devices. It is EASTER that is actually significant for the Christian! EASTER that has brought us life! EASTER that demonstrated not only God's holiness, but also His faithfulness and compassion!

All this to say: Enjoy your Christmas lights; Enjoy decorating your Christmas tree; Enjoy your red Starbucks cups. Just don't give undue significance to a holiday or tradition that displaces the actual significance of who Jesus is and what He has done on our behalf through His death on the cross and resurrection. Merry Christmas!

What are you wearing?

 

Sharing at Glendora Alliance Church on 12/11/2011. I hope it blesses you and points you to the truth.

A penny for your thoughts...

First off, I cannot believe it's been nearly five months since I last posted. In that time, life has turned into a whirlwind. I've got really intensive coursework, a growing daughter, a burgeoning business, a lovely wife, family, ministry, etc. Somewhere in there (usually at the expense of a commitment), I find time to "check out" and get some needed R&R. This past week was an example of that.

My awesome father-in-law, Jeff, was in town for a week. We were like a two person tornado, visiting our destruction on every area of the house and yard. Thankfully, all of our efforts were devoted to fixing up areas of my house for how Michelle and I want it for the long-haul. Our yard got the most attention, with having around 15,000lbs of fill dirt and gravel delivered. We also spent time getting the remaining raised-bed gardens filled and ready for action (with its very own gravel path!).



A visual example of my life for the past couple months.





All this being said, I'm finding that I have ideas at the most inopportune times, and given all the chaos, I don't share those thoughts on this blog. I'm planning on getting a decent audio recorder I can carry around with me. I used to use the recorder on my Blackberry, but the memory became corrupt and can be trusted about as much as Arnold alone with a housekeeper. Be on the lookout for more writing; even this short rehash has been a lot of fun. Catch you on the flippity-flip!

Unfair "Slave" Wages ... really?!?

I recently posted a point on facebook that got pretty widespread criticism...that not having a minimum wage does not equal "slavery" or slave wages. The main thrust of my point was that because both parties are willing participants in the transaction, even when someone accepts work for $2/hr, this is does not constitute "slavery". There is no doubt that employers would like to pay less and employees would like to earn more, but neither unlimited want can be fulfilled. The main cry I heard was of "unfairness" and employers being "uncaring" for offering less than premium pay, especially for those "unskilled" jobs that often only earn minimum wage.

I ran across this take on employee "exploitation" and felt it clearly summarized my point and gave good basis for the concept of win-win transactions (where both parties freely transact because of perceived benefit in the transaction).

"The essence of exchange is the transfer of title. Here's the essence of what happens when I buy a gallon of milk from my grocer. I tell him that I hold title to these three dollars and he holds title to the gallon of milk. Then, I offer: If you transfer your title to that gallon of milk, I will transfer title to these three dollars. Whenever there's voluntary exchange, the only clear conclusion that a third party can make is that both parties, in their opinion, perceived themselves as better off as a result of the exchange; otherwise, they wouldn't have exchanged. I was free to keep my three dollars, and the grocer was free to keep his milk. If you think it's obvious that both parties benefit from voluntary exchange, then how come we hear pronouncements about worker exploitation? Say you offer me a wage of $2 an hour. I'm free to either accept or reject your offer. So what can be concluded if I'm seen working for you at $2 an hour? One clear conclusion is that I must have seen myself as being better off taking your offer than my next best alternative. All other alternatives were less valuable, or else why would I have accepted the $2 offer? How appropriate is it to say that you're exploiting me when you've given me my best offer? Rather than using the term exploitation, you might say you wish I had more desirable alternatives. While people might characterize $2 an hour as exploitation, they wouldn't say the same about $50 an hour. Therefore, for the most part, when people use the term exploitation in reference to voluntary exchange, they simply disagree with the price. If we equate price disagreement with exploitation, then exploitation is everywhere. For example, I not only disagree with my salary, I also disagree with the prices of Gulfstream private jets. By no means do I suggest that you purge your vocabulary of the term exploitation. It's an emotionally valuable term to use to trick others, but in the process of tricking others, one need not trick himself. I'm reminded of charges of exploitation Mrs. Williams used to make early on in our 44-year marriage. She'd charge, "Walter, you're using me!" I'd respond by saying, "Honey, sure, I'm using you. If I had no use for you, I wouldn't have married you in the first place." How many of us would marry a person for whom we had no use? As a matter of fact, the problem of the lonely hearts among us is that they can't find someone to use them."- Dr. Walter E. Williams

Kick it into gear...

This is going to be an interesting season of prioritizing my life. I'm going to get to choose whether or not watching 3 episodes of "Lie to Me" on a given night would be better spent doing ANYTHING else. I get the feeling that my time is like a bank account, where a certain amount is withdrawn at the end of the day. It's my job to decide how I "spend" that time. If it was actual money, I would be tempted to squander it on nonsense; but would that satisfy past the 2nd or 3rd day? I imagine I would look to invest it in something that provides a return; something that will actually make a difference in my life and in the lives of others. How does my time differ from that? At the end of the week, I want to feel that the time deducted, regardless of how I spent it, was spent well. Part of that process is going to include blogging here more often. I find that spending time fleshing out ideas helps me to process them as well. Next update to hopefully include some steps in the right direction.