Robert Frost was a highly acclaimed poet in his lifetime, drawing upon the inspiration of rural New England for his deep insight into nature and human psychology and relationships. He won four Pulitzer Prizes in his lifetime and was widely quoted even while he was still alive.
One of his most famous poems, which I find inspiring, is The Road Not Taken:
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Arabian Nights
The Book of One Thousand and One Nights has delighted readers for over a millennia. It is a collection of tales from the early days of Islam that is framed in a story about a beautiful girl, Scheherazade, who agrees to marry king Shahryar in order to end his practice of sleeping with a virgin each night and then killing her in the morning so she can’t be unfaithful to him as his wife had been. In order to win the king’s heart and keep him from killing her, Scheherazade tells him these fascinating stories night after night, each one ending with a cliffhanger that can only be resolved the following night, until he agrees not to kill her.
My favorite stories are the Barber’s tales of his six brothers, Aladdin and the magic lamp, Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves and the Seven Voyages of Sinbad the Sailor. These tales are still fascinating even today, not only for children but even for adults. Not only do they entertain but they also are a window into the culture, religion and ethics of early Islam and Arabia.
My favorite stories are the Barber’s tales of his six brothers, Aladdin and the magic lamp, Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves and the Seven Voyages of Sinbad the Sailor. These tales are still fascinating even today, not only for children but even for adults. Not only do they entertain but they also are a window into the culture, religion and ethics of early Islam and Arabia.
Two Noble Kinsmen
William Shakespeare’s romantic tragedy/comedy, The Two Noble Kinsmen, first performed in 1612, was one of his last plays and was based on the Knight’s Tale of Chaucer. The two main protagonists, Palamon and Arcite, are both princes of Thebes, best friends and cousins. When Athens attacks Thebes, both are taken prisoner where they pledge their undying loyalty and affection for each other.
No sooner have they eloquently declared their eternal friendship that Arcite, through the prison window, sees Emilia, a beautiful princess of Athens and falls instantly in love. Upon hearing of her beauty, Palamon looks through the prison bars and falls for her as well. Immediately they begin fighting over her, each declaring the right to marry her. Their friendship turns into bitter rivalry and they both vow to kill the other in order to wed the beautiful princess.
Arcite is released from prison and sent away from Athens. He returns to Athens in disguise and in a contest wins the right to be Emilia’s attendant. Meanwhile, the jailor’s daughter falls in love with Palamon and helps him escape from prison, believing he will surely marry her after her daring rescue. Palamon, however, spurns her love in favor of pursuing Emilia, and she goes mad.
Arcite finds Palamon on the run and helps him remove his chains. He provides Palamon with food and armor and allows him to regain his strength so they can duel to the death to see who has the right to wed Emilia. While they are engaged in battle, the king of Athens stops their fight and commands them to engage in a public contest.
Before the tournament, Arcite prays to the gods that he may win the battle; Palamon prays that he may marry Emilia; Emilia prays that she may be wed to the one who loves her best. Each prayer is granted: Arcite wins the contest, but is then thrown from his horse and dies, leaving Palamon to wed Emilia.
No sooner have they eloquently declared their eternal friendship that Arcite, through the prison window, sees Emilia, a beautiful princess of Athens and falls instantly in love. Upon hearing of her beauty, Palamon looks through the prison bars and falls for her as well. Immediately they begin fighting over her, each declaring the right to marry her. Their friendship turns into bitter rivalry and they both vow to kill the other in order to wed the beautiful princess.
Arcite is released from prison and sent away from Athens. He returns to Athens in disguise and in a contest wins the right to be Emilia’s attendant. Meanwhile, the jailor’s daughter falls in love with Palamon and helps him escape from prison, believing he will surely marry her after her daring rescue. Palamon, however, spurns her love in favor of pursuing Emilia, and she goes mad.
Arcite finds Palamon on the run and helps him remove his chains. He provides Palamon with food and armor and allows him to regain his strength so they can duel to the death to see who has the right to wed Emilia. While they are engaged in battle, the king of Athens stops their fight and commands them to engage in a public contest.
Before the tournament, Arcite prays to the gods that he may win the battle; Palamon prays that he may marry Emilia; Emilia prays that she may be wed to the one who loves her best. Each prayer is granted: Arcite wins the contest, but is then thrown from his horse and dies, leaving Palamon to wed Emilia.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Prayer and World Problems
Be still and know. Civilization is littered with unsolved problems, baffling impasses. The best minds of the world are at the end of their tether. The most knowledgeable observers of our condition are badly frightened. The most relevant contribution that Christians make at these points is the act of prayer -determined, repeated, leisurely meetings with the personal and living God. New life is conceived in these meetings.
Eugene H. Peterson
Eugene H. Peterson
Monday, April 23, 2007
Waco Revisited
Richard J. Mouw reviews Kenneth Newport’s book, The Branch Davidians of Waco: The History and Beliefs of an Apocalyptic Sect, in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 29-31. Newport proves that the Branch Davidians have a highly nuanced and coherent theological system and is composed of intelligent, upper class, and theologically astute people and not just weird, gullible and ignorant people. He traces their beginnings back to the Seventh Day Adventists and the teachings of Ellen White and one of her later interpreters Victor Houteff, who founded a splinter group built around the concept of the “Shepherd’s Rod” that was later simplified to “Davidian” since the role of the Davidic Covenant was central to their theology.
When Houteff died, his wife Florence took over leadership, and she predicted the events of the End Times would begin on or about April 22, 1959. When this prophecy failed, she said it would take place in March, 1962. When this failed, the community in Texas was disbanded. A group remained loyal to Victor Houteff’s teachings, flourished in Riverside, California, and then returned to the abandoned compound outside of Waco, Texas and adopted the name “Branch Davidian” based on a prophecy in Zechariah 6:12.
The Branch Davidians see the Davidic Kingdom as a temporal-physical reality that pointed forward to the future end-time kingdom of Christ, the Son of David. They believe that in the last days God will raise up an anti-type of David who would assume a kingly role. Victor Houteff claimed that role for himself, as did David Koresh.
While the FBI and ATF are responsible for the fire that broke out in the Waco compound, mainly due to their ignorance of Koresh’s beliefs and goals, Koresh and his followers actually expected, and wanted, a conflagration. This desire for a fiery end was a vital part of their eschatology and they saw themselves as acting out the end-time prophecies, such as those in Isaiah 66:15-16, which states, “For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many.”
Newport believes that Koresh and his followers started the fire themselves because they saw it as necessary for the purification of the community. While the evidence goes against this theory, it is evident that the idea of a baptism by fire was seen as essential for the Branch Davidians. The followers were not mindless fanatics, but they were highly educated and deeply committed to their beliefs and were ready and willing to die for their faith.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/15.29.html
When Houteff died, his wife Florence took over leadership, and she predicted the events of the End Times would begin on or about April 22, 1959. When this prophecy failed, she said it would take place in March, 1962. When this failed, the community in Texas was disbanded. A group remained loyal to Victor Houteff’s teachings, flourished in Riverside, California, and then returned to the abandoned compound outside of Waco, Texas and adopted the name “Branch Davidian” based on a prophecy in Zechariah 6:12.
The Branch Davidians see the Davidic Kingdom as a temporal-physical reality that pointed forward to the future end-time kingdom of Christ, the Son of David. They believe that in the last days God will raise up an anti-type of David who would assume a kingly role. Victor Houteff claimed that role for himself, as did David Koresh.
While the FBI and ATF are responsible for the fire that broke out in the Waco compound, mainly due to their ignorance of Koresh’s beliefs and goals, Koresh and his followers actually expected, and wanted, a conflagration. This desire for a fiery end was a vital part of their eschatology and they saw themselves as acting out the end-time prophecies, such as those in Isaiah 66:15-16, which states, “For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many.”
Newport believes that Koresh and his followers started the fire themselves because they saw it as necessary for the purification of the community. While the evidence goes against this theory, it is evident that the idea of a baptism by fire was seen as essential for the Branch Davidians. The followers were not mindless fanatics, but they were highly educated and deeply committed to their beliefs and were ready and willing to die for their faith.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/15.29.html
Attila the Hun
Attila: The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome
John Man has written a thoroughly researched history of Attila the Hun and his times. In his book, in Attila: The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome, he gives the historical background that gave rise to the Huns, and the circumstances that weakened Rome, making them an appealing target for Attila. Man also spends a lot of time explaining the military strategy that made the Huns the most powerful and feared kingdom on the northern frontier of Rome: the ability of the Huns to shoot rapidly and accurately while riding a horse at full gallop.
One of the things I found very interesting was the discussion of a modern day Hungarian who spent several decades learning and perfecting the Huns’ riding and shooting skills. He became so proficient that he is now able to shoot six arrows in twelve seconds while riding at full gallop and not miss a single target. He is able to shoot from any direction, including straight behind.
The Huns, with each mounted soldier able to shoot an arrow every two to three seconds, attacking in large fast moving formations, could launch 15,000 arrows within a very short period of time, making their tactics as devastating as a machine gun.
The other major advantage the Huns had was their powerful bows that could launch arrows faster and farther than any of their enemies. This gave them a huge advantage on the battlefield, enabling them to devastate opponents without suffering many losses. This powerful bow combined with the ability to shoot quickly and accurately from a horse made the Huns a nearly unbeatable army.
Attila was more like a robber baron than a king and he was unable to break out of his limiting environment. Instead of solidifying his empire, he spread himself too thin and reached beyond his grasp, leaving him vulnerable and unable to defend his kingdom from the combined forces of Rome, Constantinople and the unified Barbarian tribes. His desire to sack Rome and fill his treasury with Rome’s wealth failed and he was finally defeated in Gaul.
Attila is known for the terror he unleashed on the tribes on the northern frontier. Even after a millennium and a half, Attila is still known for his brutality and his name is synonymous with terror. However, those living in Hungary, distant heirs of the Huns, who had settled along the Danube, view Attila with pride and admiration. Even today, the name Attila is given to boys born in Hungary, just as in Mongolia boys are still named Genghis. One nation’s brutal savage is another nation’s national hero; it all depends on perspective.
In spite of his exploits, Attila led a very austere life. He lived in simple dwelling and had very few amenities to make life pleasant. He succeeded in uniting the Huns and building a powerful military, but he failed to leave any lasting legacy behind. His attack on Rome may have contributed a small part to its final decline and fall, but he didn’t have any real impact on history, either positively or negatively. He terrorized some nations for a few decades and then he died, leaving nothing of lasting value behind. The only thing that remains today is his reputation of brutality and terror.
John Man has written a thoroughly researched history of Attila the Hun and his times. In his book, in Attila: The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome, he gives the historical background that gave rise to the Huns, and the circumstances that weakened Rome, making them an appealing target for Attila. Man also spends a lot of time explaining the military strategy that made the Huns the most powerful and feared kingdom on the northern frontier of Rome: the ability of the Huns to shoot rapidly and accurately while riding a horse at full gallop.
One of the things I found very interesting was the discussion of a modern day Hungarian who spent several decades learning and perfecting the Huns’ riding and shooting skills. He became so proficient that he is now able to shoot six arrows in twelve seconds while riding at full gallop and not miss a single target. He is able to shoot from any direction, including straight behind.
The Huns, with each mounted soldier able to shoot an arrow every two to three seconds, attacking in large fast moving formations, could launch 15,000 arrows within a very short period of time, making their tactics as devastating as a machine gun.
The other major advantage the Huns had was their powerful bows that could launch arrows faster and farther than any of their enemies. This gave them a huge advantage on the battlefield, enabling them to devastate opponents without suffering many losses. This powerful bow combined with the ability to shoot quickly and accurately from a horse made the Huns a nearly unbeatable army.
Attila was more like a robber baron than a king and he was unable to break out of his limiting environment. Instead of solidifying his empire, he spread himself too thin and reached beyond his grasp, leaving him vulnerable and unable to defend his kingdom from the combined forces of Rome, Constantinople and the unified Barbarian tribes. His desire to sack Rome and fill his treasury with Rome’s wealth failed and he was finally defeated in Gaul.
Attila is known for the terror he unleashed on the tribes on the northern frontier. Even after a millennium and a half, Attila is still known for his brutality and his name is synonymous with terror. However, those living in Hungary, distant heirs of the Huns, who had settled along the Danube, view Attila with pride and admiration. Even today, the name Attila is given to boys born in Hungary, just as in Mongolia boys are still named Genghis. One nation’s brutal savage is another nation’s national hero; it all depends on perspective.
In spite of his exploits, Attila led a very austere life. He lived in simple dwelling and had very few amenities to make life pleasant. He succeeded in uniting the Huns and building a powerful military, but he failed to leave any lasting legacy behind. His attack on Rome may have contributed a small part to its final decline and fall, but he didn’t have any real impact on history, either positively or negatively. He terrorized some nations for a few decades and then he died, leaving nothing of lasting value behind. The only thing that remains today is his reputation of brutality and terror.
Timon of Athens
Shakespeare’s tragedy, Timon of Athens, first performed in 1607, centers around Timon, a wealthy and generous man who loves to give gifts to his friends without expecting anything in return. Timon lavishes so many gifts on all he can that he runs out of money. When the debtors come to collect the money Timon borrowed from them, he realizes the terrible shape he is in. Timon begs all of his friends to loan him money, but not one is moved to help him. Timon is surprised since he sincerely believed that most men were like him and would freely help him as he had helped them. Timon is held prisoner in his own home until he can pay off his debts.
Timon decides to throw one last feast and invites all of his friends and many lords. When he serves the mean he reveals stones and boiling water. Timon is then banished from Athens and lives like a wild beast in the forest. While searching for food he finds a large cache of gold. He buries most of it, keeping some with him. When his friend Alcibiades, a soldier, finds Timon, he relates his anger towards Athens and tells Timon that he plans to invade the city to right all the wrongs done to him and Timon. Timon is moved and gives the gold to Alcibiades. Timon then laments his poor condition and curses all mankind.
As Alcibiades and his army approach Athens, the elders beg Timon to dissuade Alcibiades. Timon refuses and the elders return to find Athens under siege. They reason with Alcibiades that the city should not be destroyed since it was only a few evil men who mistreated him and Timon. Alcibiades agrees to save Athens if the elders turn over the wrongdoers. The elders comply and as Alcibiades punishes them, word comes that Timon has hanged himself. Alcibiades laments his death and delivers a moving eulogy. He discovers that many in the city truly honored Timon, revealing that his generosity genuinely affected the whole city.
Like many people, Timon thinks that he can buy friendship. But when money is used to buy friends, often unsavory kind of people are the ones who are attracted to the generous person. When times are good, “friends” abound, but when fortune takes a bad turn, these “friends” are nowhere to be found. However, true generosity will always touch the hearts of the sincere, often in unknown ways.
Timon was just as self-centered as some of the unworthy characters who leeched off him since he loved the flattery and status that his generosity created. It took a serious setback to get his attention and deepen his character and teach him wisdom. Unfortunately, he let his bitterness destroy his heart and ultimately his life. Because he refused to let go of his bitterness he didn’t get to see the positive impact he had had on many citizens of Athens.
Timon decides to throw one last feast and invites all of his friends and many lords. When he serves the mean he reveals stones and boiling water. Timon is then banished from Athens and lives like a wild beast in the forest. While searching for food he finds a large cache of gold. He buries most of it, keeping some with him. When his friend Alcibiades, a soldier, finds Timon, he relates his anger towards Athens and tells Timon that he plans to invade the city to right all the wrongs done to him and Timon. Timon is moved and gives the gold to Alcibiades. Timon then laments his poor condition and curses all mankind.
As Alcibiades and his army approach Athens, the elders beg Timon to dissuade Alcibiades. Timon refuses and the elders return to find Athens under siege. They reason with Alcibiades that the city should not be destroyed since it was only a few evil men who mistreated him and Timon. Alcibiades agrees to save Athens if the elders turn over the wrongdoers. The elders comply and as Alcibiades punishes them, word comes that Timon has hanged himself. Alcibiades laments his death and delivers a moving eulogy. He discovers that many in the city truly honored Timon, revealing that his generosity genuinely affected the whole city.
Like many people, Timon thinks that he can buy friendship. But when money is used to buy friends, often unsavory kind of people are the ones who are attracted to the generous person. When times are good, “friends” abound, but when fortune takes a bad turn, these “friends” are nowhere to be found. However, true generosity will always touch the hearts of the sincere, often in unknown ways.
Timon was just as self-centered as some of the unworthy characters who leeched off him since he loved the flattery and status that his generosity created. It took a serious setback to get his attention and deepen his character and teach him wisdom. Unfortunately, he let his bitterness destroy his heart and ultimately his life. Because he refused to let go of his bitterness he didn’t get to see the positive impact he had had on many citizens of Athens.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Alexander the Great
Agnes Savill’s book, Alexander the Great and His Times, is well researched and written. I appreciated her balanced portrayal of Alexander. Some authors portray him as a saint who did nothing wrong while many others see him as a power-hungry, pleasure seeking homosexual.
This is especially true of Oliver Stone’s recent movie, Alexander the Great. I was very disappointed by his portrayal of Alexander and Hephaistion as homosexual lovers, whereas in real life they were close friends and confidants. Alexander had high moral standards and he required upright conduct of all of his generals. While Alexander did throw lavish parties for his troops, it was always after a hard battle in order to help them recover from all of the hardship and suffering they had gone through. Alexander himself seldom allowed himself to become intoxicated, knowing full well the dangers of letting his guard down.
I was impressed with Alexander mainly because of his selflessness in his ambition. While he wanted to conquer the world, his motivation was not for personal glory but for the benefit of all mankind. Alexander kept very little from the spoils of war for himself, choosing to live an austere lifestyle. However, he was lavish in his gifts, giving his generals and troops far more than he kept for himself, so that all of his generals were wealthier than he was. His sole obsession was to unite the world, bring prosperity and peace to every corner. Unfortunately, his generals did not fully buy into his dream and nearly destroyed all that he had labored for after his death.
One of the reasons many see Alexander as a megalomaniac was his insistence in being addressed as a god by the Persians and his generals when Persians were present. His reason for this was sound; the Persians expected their ruler to be a god and so to not demand such treatment would have undermined his authority among the Persians. However, when the Persians were not present, Alexander allowed his generals to address him as an equal, not requiring them to bow and address him as a god. In fact, Alexander often joked with his generals about the silliness of being addressed as a god. Alexander, then, was not a megalomaniac but a shrewd politician.
Another thing that angered his generals was that Alexander recruited Persians into his army, so that at times Persians and Greeks fought side by side. He also gave some Persians authority over Greeks, making his generals furious. This indicates that Alexander’s dream of the unity of all mankind was not fully accepted by his generals. They saw themselves as superior to the Persians, especially since the numerically superior Persian army was devastated by Alexander’s professional Greek army. Allowing Persians into the army was a shrewd political move towards the Persians, winning their loyalty, while it was not implemented shrewdly enough to appease his Greek generals.
Alexander won the loyalty and love off most every nation he conquered, usually by allowing the defeated ruler to maintain his position after Alexander left. As each newly conquered land experienced Alexander’s clemency and generosity they fell in love with him. When they experience the prosperity and freedom that Alexander brought, they remained loyal to him. Again, the love and adoration of these conquered peoples began to chafe at the generals, fearing that Alexander’s love was being drawn away from them.
The racism and selfish ambition of his generals made it difficult for them to fully understand and embrace Alexander’s vision for the world. As a result, as the army got bogged down in India, the generals refused to go any further. Furious, Alexander sent them all home, threatening to go on with his Persians. An angry revolt erupted which Alexander was forced to quash with brutality. In great mourning they army returned to Babylon through the desert.
Alexander’s death has been a point of controversy as well. Some, including Oliver Stone in his movie, portray Alexander’s death as the result of his drunken orgies and sexual deviance. However, the truth is that he died from a disease, most likely malaria or other diseased caused by bacteria in the water. The saddest part of his life is that he didn’t make arrangements for what would happen after his death. His failure to designate a successor resulted in his empire being torn apart by civil war and revolt. It is a shame that all of his hard work nearly went to waste because of his lack of foresight.
Alexander has impacted the world in several major ways, so that even the world today. First, he united the world and paved the way for equality, freedom and justice for all men. This vision was adopted by Rome and still drives us today. Second, he united the world under one language and culture, making trade, travel and cultural exchange possible across many boundaries. Third, he paved the way for Christianity by providing a common language and culture into which a worldwide religious movement could take root and flourish. Even after Rome took over the empire, Greek was still the common language throughout the whole world. This enabled the early Christians to spread the Gospel to the whole known world quickly. While the Romans provided universal peace and high quality roads, it was Alexander who paved the way intellectually by uniting the world culturally and linguistically.
This is especially true of Oliver Stone’s recent movie, Alexander the Great. I was very disappointed by his portrayal of Alexander and Hephaistion as homosexual lovers, whereas in real life they were close friends and confidants. Alexander had high moral standards and he required upright conduct of all of his generals. While Alexander did throw lavish parties for his troops, it was always after a hard battle in order to help them recover from all of the hardship and suffering they had gone through. Alexander himself seldom allowed himself to become intoxicated, knowing full well the dangers of letting his guard down.
I was impressed with Alexander mainly because of his selflessness in his ambition. While he wanted to conquer the world, his motivation was not for personal glory but for the benefit of all mankind. Alexander kept very little from the spoils of war for himself, choosing to live an austere lifestyle. However, he was lavish in his gifts, giving his generals and troops far more than he kept for himself, so that all of his generals were wealthier than he was. His sole obsession was to unite the world, bring prosperity and peace to every corner. Unfortunately, his generals did not fully buy into his dream and nearly destroyed all that he had labored for after his death.
One of the reasons many see Alexander as a megalomaniac was his insistence in being addressed as a god by the Persians and his generals when Persians were present. His reason for this was sound; the Persians expected their ruler to be a god and so to not demand such treatment would have undermined his authority among the Persians. However, when the Persians were not present, Alexander allowed his generals to address him as an equal, not requiring them to bow and address him as a god. In fact, Alexander often joked with his generals about the silliness of being addressed as a god. Alexander, then, was not a megalomaniac but a shrewd politician.
Another thing that angered his generals was that Alexander recruited Persians into his army, so that at times Persians and Greeks fought side by side. He also gave some Persians authority over Greeks, making his generals furious. This indicates that Alexander’s dream of the unity of all mankind was not fully accepted by his generals. They saw themselves as superior to the Persians, especially since the numerically superior Persian army was devastated by Alexander’s professional Greek army. Allowing Persians into the army was a shrewd political move towards the Persians, winning their loyalty, while it was not implemented shrewdly enough to appease his Greek generals.
Alexander won the loyalty and love off most every nation he conquered, usually by allowing the defeated ruler to maintain his position after Alexander left. As each newly conquered land experienced Alexander’s clemency and generosity they fell in love with him. When they experience the prosperity and freedom that Alexander brought, they remained loyal to him. Again, the love and adoration of these conquered peoples began to chafe at the generals, fearing that Alexander’s love was being drawn away from them.
The racism and selfish ambition of his generals made it difficult for them to fully understand and embrace Alexander’s vision for the world. As a result, as the army got bogged down in India, the generals refused to go any further. Furious, Alexander sent them all home, threatening to go on with his Persians. An angry revolt erupted which Alexander was forced to quash with brutality. In great mourning they army returned to Babylon through the desert.
Alexander’s death has been a point of controversy as well. Some, including Oliver Stone in his movie, portray Alexander’s death as the result of his drunken orgies and sexual deviance. However, the truth is that he died from a disease, most likely malaria or other diseased caused by bacteria in the water. The saddest part of his life is that he didn’t make arrangements for what would happen after his death. His failure to designate a successor resulted in his empire being torn apart by civil war and revolt. It is a shame that all of his hard work nearly went to waste because of his lack of foresight.
Alexander has impacted the world in several major ways, so that even the world today. First, he united the world and paved the way for equality, freedom and justice for all men. This vision was adopted by Rome and still drives us today. Second, he united the world under one language and culture, making trade, travel and cultural exchange possible across many boundaries. Third, he paved the way for Christianity by providing a common language and culture into which a worldwide religious movement could take root and flourish. Even after Rome took over the empire, Greek was still the common language throughout the whole world. This enabled the early Christians to spread the Gospel to the whole known world quickly. While the Romans provided universal peace and high quality roads, it was Alexander who paved the way intellectually by uniting the world culturally and linguistically.
I Like Jesus but not the Church
Dan Kimball in an article, “I Like Jesus… Not the Church”, published in Outreach, March/April, 2007 and posted on Christianity Today’s website, looks at six misconceptions non-Christians have about the church and Christianity today. Most unbelievers, he says, are very open to discussing Jesus, his life and his teachings, but are very turned off by Christians and the church.
The six main objections are:
1) The Church is an organized religion with a political agenda.
2) The Church is judgmental and negative.
3) The Church is dominated by males and oppresses females.
4) The Church is homophobic.
5) The Church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong.
6) The Church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally.
He tackles three of these perceptions and gives some advice as to how we as Christians can help overcome these misperceptions:
First, we need to communicate how and why our church is organized the way it is, explaining clearly the biblical principles underlying the structure. We must assess the titles we give our staff and determine whether those titles are communicating accurately what we want. We must also be aware of our biases and not confuse them with Jesus’ teaching. Care must also be taken to listen to the younger generation and give credence to their viewpoints and opinions, getting them involved in important decisions and ministries.
Second, we must be careful that we don’t communicate a judgmental attitude while talking about sin. People are open to hearing Jesus’ views, even on sin, but it must be communicated in a nonjudgmental way. We should also spend more time talking about what we stand for and less about what we are against. We must also evaluate whether we are truly concerned about the things Jesus was concerned about, such as social injustice, the poor, the sick and the needy. We need to get out of our Christian bubbles and interact with those outside the church.
Finally, we need to realize that we live in a post-Christian, pluralistic society in which all world religions are present. We need to have a basic understanding of these world faiths and be able to interact with members of these faiths intelligently. We must also be able to explain clearly and calmly why Jesus is the only way and be able to answer their objections gracefully and intelligently.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/outreach/articles/ilikejesus.html
The six main objections are:
1) The Church is an organized religion with a political agenda.
2) The Church is judgmental and negative.
3) The Church is dominated by males and oppresses females.
4) The Church is homophobic.
5) The Church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong.
6) The Church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally.
He tackles three of these perceptions and gives some advice as to how we as Christians can help overcome these misperceptions:
First, we need to communicate how and why our church is organized the way it is, explaining clearly the biblical principles underlying the structure. We must assess the titles we give our staff and determine whether those titles are communicating accurately what we want. We must also be aware of our biases and not confuse them with Jesus’ teaching. Care must also be taken to listen to the younger generation and give credence to their viewpoints and opinions, getting them involved in important decisions and ministries.
Second, we must be careful that we don’t communicate a judgmental attitude while talking about sin. People are open to hearing Jesus’ views, even on sin, but it must be communicated in a nonjudgmental way. We should also spend more time talking about what we stand for and less about what we are against. We must also evaluate whether we are truly concerned about the things Jesus was concerned about, such as social injustice, the poor, the sick and the needy. We need to get out of our Christian bubbles and interact with those outside the church.
Finally, we need to realize that we live in a post-Christian, pluralistic society in which all world religions are present. We need to have a basic understanding of these world faiths and be able to interact with members of these faiths intelligently. We must also be able to explain clearly and calmly why Jesus is the only way and be able to answer their objections gracefully and intelligently.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/outreach/articles/ilikejesus.html
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Poet
Michael Connelly’s crime novel, The Poet, falls short of his other works that I have read. The characters are not as fully developed, the plot is thin and there is not as much detail or insight into police investigation. I felt I didn’t profit as much from this story as I did from Dark Echo, which gave extensive detail on police detective work or from A Darkness More Than Night, where Connelly gave detailed descriptions of psychological profiling.
Jack McEvoy is a newspaper reporter whose twin brother, a policeman, commits suicide while investigating a high profile case. Jack doesn’t believe it was suicide and begins digging deeper, finding six other policemen who had committed suicide under similar circumstances. One important link is that all seven had left behind suicide notes that were quotes from Edgar Allan Poe.
Jack gets involved in the investigation and works along side the FBI. There are enough plot twists to keep the story interesting, and Connelly does a good job of hiding the identity of the real perpetrator to the very end.
Jack McEvoy is a newspaper reporter whose twin brother, a policeman, commits suicide while investigating a high profile case. Jack doesn’t believe it was suicide and begins digging deeper, finding six other policemen who had committed suicide under similar circumstances. One important link is that all seven had left behind suicide notes that were quotes from Edgar Allan Poe.
Jack gets involved in the investigation and works along side the FBI. There are enough plot twists to keep the story interesting, and Connelly does a good job of hiding the identity of the real perpetrator to the very end.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Simply Christian
In an attempt to communicate the truth of Christianity to those outside the church, two recent books have been published which try to explain the Christian faith understandably and persuasively to skeptics and unbelievers. The Language of God: A Scientist Examines the Evidence for Belief, by Francis Collins and Simply Christian, by N. T. Wright. Two articles in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 26-28 “Not Too Simply Christian,” by Catherine Crouch, and “Against Tapioca Pudding,” by Ric Machuga, review these two books from different perspectives. If you have doubts about Christianity, or if you want a serious explanation of Christianity that makes sense to a scientist or an educated non-Christian, then you should check out these two books.
“The Language of God is an excellent resource for someone like my friend, who finds religious faith attractive but is concerned that it may not be intellectually defensible. Collins' writing displays the meticulous patience with which a scientist examines evidence, and is persuasive without being belligerent or defensive. For someone seeking reassurance that religion has not been disproved by science, this book will be welcome.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/10.26.html
“The Language of God is an excellent resource for someone like my friend, who finds religious faith attractive but is concerned that it may not be intellectually defensible. Collins' writing displays the meticulous patience with which a scientist examines evidence, and is persuasive without being belligerent or defensive. For someone seeking reassurance that religion has not been disproved by science, this book will be welcome.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/10.26.html
Monday, April 16, 2007
The One Minute Manager Meets the Monkey
In The One Minute Manager Meets the Monkey, Ken Blanchard teams up with William Oncken, one of the leading time management experts, to help managers learn to delegate properly. Oncken’s unique concept of the monkey makes understanding delegation humorous and clear. A monkey is any task or decision that must be made. The person who has the monkey on his back is the one responsible for taking the next step in solving the problem. The key is to put the monkeys on the backs of the appropriate subordinates and not allowing subordinates to put monkeys on your back.
Don’t take responsibility for other people’s work. When you do, not only do you end up with too much work, but you also demotivate your subordinates by taking away their role in the work. There are two negative ways to respond to someone with a problem: First, be a persecutor and attack the person with the problem for having the problem. Second, be a rescuer and solve the problem for the other person. Both have disastrous consequences. When you rescue someone you are actually implying that he is not smart enough, creative enough, able to solve his own problem, so you end up disempowering him and diminishing his ability to perform.
When someone is learning, you need to spend a lot of time with him. But once he has learned his job, you need to give him room to operate. However, you must communicate clearly why you are spending a lot of time with him or why you are leaving him alone, so there will be no misunderstanding.
Give people the freedom to make mistakes. The problem is not making mistakes but not learning from your mistakes.
“Trying is just a noisy way of not doing anything.”
It is not your commitment that makes things happen but your action on your commitment carried out consistently over time that will make things happen. Stop looking for a magic formula or system; work the one that you already have and it will work for you.
Don’t take responsibility for other people’s work. When you do, not only do you end up with too much work, but you also demotivate your subordinates by taking away their role in the work. There are two negative ways to respond to someone with a problem: First, be a persecutor and attack the person with the problem for having the problem. Second, be a rescuer and solve the problem for the other person. Both have disastrous consequences. When you rescue someone you are actually implying that he is not smart enough, creative enough, able to solve his own problem, so you end up disempowering him and diminishing his ability to perform.
When someone is learning, you need to spend a lot of time with him. But once he has learned his job, you need to give him room to operate. However, you must communicate clearly why you are spending a lot of time with him or why you are leaving him alone, so there will be no misunderstanding.
Give people the freedom to make mistakes. The problem is not making mistakes but not learning from your mistakes.
“Trying is just a noisy way of not doing anything.”
It is not your commitment that makes things happen but your action on your commitment carried out consistently over time that will make things happen. Stop looking for a magic formula or system; work the one that you already have and it will work for you.
Putting the One Minute Manager to Work
In Putting the One Minute Manager to Work, Ken Blanchard teams up with Robert Lorber, a productivity expert, to give some simple, yet powerful, principles to apply the three steps in The One Minute Manager.
The ABCs of Management:
Activator: a manager is a person who activates behavior in others. (One Minute Goals are an activator.)
Behavior: the behavior or performance the manager elicits from the workers.
Consequence: what the manager does after the behavior or performance.
The ACHIEVE Model:
Ability: does the person have the skills and abilities required to do what you are asking him to do? If not, you must train them before you give them goals.
Clarity: make sure expectations are clear and know exactly what is expected of them.
Help: am I giving the support, training and resources they need to do an excellent job?
Incentive: what’s in it for the person to reach the goal and perform at the required standard?
Environment: am I providing the environment they need to perform at peak levels?
Validity: do you know why you are asking them to do what you are asking them to do?
Evaluation: do they know how they are going to be evaluated?
These are things you must do ahead of time for your team to be successful.
Activators account for 15% of behavior while 85% is the result of follow up. Therefore, focus on the consequences of behavior by spending most of your time giving One Minute Praises and Reprimands
In order to improve performance you must pay the PRICE:
Pinpoint: what are the areas that need to be improved?
Record: you must be able to measure what you want to improve.
Involve: bring everyone connected with the process together to work on setting goals, establishing a monitoring system, defining strategies for coaching, training and resources, and agreeing on standards for evaluation and clarify the incentives that will motivate them to improve performance.
Coach: observe performance and manage the consequences.
Evaluate: summarize what has gone on through the whole process.
The problem is not that systems don’t work but that people don’t work the system. People fail to honor their commitments so the system isn’t given a chance to work. You need to be committed to your commitment. The biggest problem is that people try instead of doing. “Trying is just a noisy of way of doing nothing. “ Don’t keep running around looking for the next fad; follow up on the one you have.
The ABCs of Management:
Activator: a manager is a person who activates behavior in others. (One Minute Goals are an activator.)
Behavior: the behavior or performance the manager elicits from the workers.
Consequence: what the manager does after the behavior or performance.
The ACHIEVE Model:
Ability: does the person have the skills and abilities required to do what you are asking him to do? If not, you must train them before you give them goals.
Clarity: make sure expectations are clear and know exactly what is expected of them.
Help: am I giving the support, training and resources they need to do an excellent job?
Incentive: what’s in it for the person to reach the goal and perform at the required standard?
Environment: am I providing the environment they need to perform at peak levels?
Validity: do you know why you are asking them to do what you are asking them to do?
Evaluation: do they know how they are going to be evaluated?
These are things you must do ahead of time for your team to be successful.
Activators account for 15% of behavior while 85% is the result of follow up. Therefore, focus on the consequences of behavior by spending most of your time giving One Minute Praises and Reprimands
In order to improve performance you must pay the PRICE:
Pinpoint: what are the areas that need to be improved?
Record: you must be able to measure what you want to improve.
Involve: bring everyone connected with the process together to work on setting goals, establishing a monitoring system, defining strategies for coaching, training and resources, and agreeing on standards for evaluation and clarify the incentives that will motivate them to improve performance.
Coach: observe performance and manage the consequences.
Evaluate: summarize what has gone on through the whole process.
The problem is not that systems don’t work but that people don’t work the system. People fail to honor their commitments so the system isn’t given a chance to work. You need to be committed to your commitment. The biggest problem is that people try instead of doing. “Trying is just a noisy of way of doing nothing. “ Don’t keep running around looking for the next fad; follow up on the one you have.
One Minute Manager
In The One Minute Manager, Ken Blanchard and Spencer Johnson have written a simple, easy to understand and implement, management book that has influenced American management techniques for over two decades. They have three simple steps to becoming an effective manager: One Minute Goal Setting, One Minute Praises, and One Minute Reprimands.
One Minute Goal Setting: Make sure that both the manager and the employee know exactly what is expected and both agree on how it will be measured.
One Minute Praises: Catch someone doing something right. One minute praises need to be: immediate, specific, emotions need to be shared from the heart, and then an encouragement to keep on doing the desired behavior.
There are two different kind of strokes: strokes for being and strokes for doing. While we need to give both, we generally give more strokes for being. However, it is much more effective to give strokes for specific behaviors.
Winners are people who can come right in and do a job well without any training or supervision. They are effective, but they are rare and they are very expensive. In order to be an effective manager, you must learn how to take undeveloped people and turn them into winners. Everyone has the potential to become a winner, but many winners are disguised as losers. To be effective, you must be able to spot, recruit, train and equip potential winners.
When people are learning, you must constantly reinforce positive behavior and bring them slowly towards the goal. In the beginning you will have to praise half successes and partial victories until the learner is able to grasp complex processes. Never reprimand a learner because you will cause him to freeze and inhibit his ability to learn. Limit negative feedback and utilize a lot of positive feedback.
When learner s are reprimanded there are three common responses: First, they will try to avoid the punisher. Second, they might do nothing because they think that no matter what they do they will get hit. Third, they spend their time plotting to get even with the one who is attacking them.
Four steps to effective training: First, tell them exactly what they need to do. Second, show them how to do it. Third, delegate parts of the project to them. Fourth, observe them doing it and give positive feedback. Catch them doing something right and give them one minute praises.
If a learner doesn’t even get close to getting anything even approximately right, you do not praise them or reprimand them. In stead, you need to go back to step one and tell them as clearly as possible, and then show them, delegate and watch them again.
One Minute Reprimands: Responding effectively when someone knowingly does something wrong. One minute reprimands need to be: immediate, specific, emotions need to be shared from the heart, and then an encouragement to go back to performing the desired behavior. Reprimands must be done immediately; don’t store up mistakes and throw them all at the person at a later date because that will never accomplish anything positive. Never reprimand a learner but only someone who already knows how to do what he is supposed to do. You must be specific and focus on the behavior and not the person. You must also share your feelings without attacking the other person. Then tell him that he is better than that and can do much better.
While these principles are common sense, they are not common practice. Even though they are simple to understand they are not always easy to implement. Clearly articulating expectations at the beginning so that both sides know exactly what is expected will alleviate many of the common problems faced by managers and employees. I also think the idea of “catching someone doing something right” is powerful, yet I find it difficult to apply consistently. I find that when I am not clear about what I expect from the other person, or have failed to communicate it clearly, it is easy to fall into the negative trap of catching others doing things wrong.
I also was challenged to never reprimand a learner. It is difficult to remain positive when someone isn’t learning fast enough or is having difficulty learning a concept or skill. This book reminded me to be much more patient and intentional when dealing with learners. I also realized that learners need a lot more attention and support than I have usually given.
I highly recommend this book to everyone, even if they are not a manager. These principles work in family relationships as well as friendships and other non-business settings.
One Minute Goal Setting: Make sure that both the manager and the employee know exactly what is expected and both agree on how it will be measured.
One Minute Praises: Catch someone doing something right. One minute praises need to be: immediate, specific, emotions need to be shared from the heart, and then an encouragement to keep on doing the desired behavior.
There are two different kind of strokes: strokes for being and strokes for doing. While we need to give both, we generally give more strokes for being. However, it is much more effective to give strokes for specific behaviors.
Winners are people who can come right in and do a job well without any training or supervision. They are effective, but they are rare and they are very expensive. In order to be an effective manager, you must learn how to take undeveloped people and turn them into winners. Everyone has the potential to become a winner, but many winners are disguised as losers. To be effective, you must be able to spot, recruit, train and equip potential winners.
When people are learning, you must constantly reinforce positive behavior and bring them slowly towards the goal. In the beginning you will have to praise half successes and partial victories until the learner is able to grasp complex processes. Never reprimand a learner because you will cause him to freeze and inhibit his ability to learn. Limit negative feedback and utilize a lot of positive feedback.
When learner s are reprimanded there are three common responses: First, they will try to avoid the punisher. Second, they might do nothing because they think that no matter what they do they will get hit. Third, they spend their time plotting to get even with the one who is attacking them.
Four steps to effective training: First, tell them exactly what they need to do. Second, show them how to do it. Third, delegate parts of the project to them. Fourth, observe them doing it and give positive feedback. Catch them doing something right and give them one minute praises.
If a learner doesn’t even get close to getting anything even approximately right, you do not praise them or reprimand them. In stead, you need to go back to step one and tell them as clearly as possible, and then show them, delegate and watch them again.
One Minute Reprimands: Responding effectively when someone knowingly does something wrong. One minute reprimands need to be: immediate, specific, emotions need to be shared from the heart, and then an encouragement to go back to performing the desired behavior. Reprimands must be done immediately; don’t store up mistakes and throw them all at the person at a later date because that will never accomplish anything positive. Never reprimand a learner but only someone who already knows how to do what he is supposed to do. You must be specific and focus on the behavior and not the person. You must also share your feelings without attacking the other person. Then tell him that he is better than that and can do much better.
While these principles are common sense, they are not common practice. Even though they are simple to understand they are not always easy to implement. Clearly articulating expectations at the beginning so that both sides know exactly what is expected will alleviate many of the common problems faced by managers and employees. I also think the idea of “catching someone doing something right” is powerful, yet I find it difficult to apply consistently. I find that when I am not clear about what I expect from the other person, or have failed to communicate it clearly, it is easy to fall into the negative trap of catching others doing things wrong.
I also was challenged to never reprimand a learner. It is difficult to remain positive when someone isn’t learning fast enough or is having difficulty learning a concept or skill. This book reminded me to be much more patient and intentional when dealing with learners. I also realized that learners need a lot more attention and support than I have usually given.
I highly recommend this book to everyone, even if they are not a manager. These principles work in family relationships as well as friendships and other non-business settings.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
United with God
God’s life and our lives are bound together, as a vine with branches as a body with members. So corporate are we that no one can give a cup of cold water to the least person in the world without giving it to [God]!
Rufus M. Jones
Rufus M. Jones
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
7. Eliminate Your Tolerations
7. Eliminate Your Tolerations
Tolerations are the small things that distract you from what is really important and drain your energy.
Tolerations are the seemingly inconsequential things that you are putting up with that are draining your energy. They may seem small at first, but as they accumulate and grow they drag you down, destroy your effectiveness, rob you of joy, and hinder you from achieving your prime objective.
Identifying your tolerations gives you the ability to apply the right lever to rid you of those things that are draining your energy. Removing, and maintaining the removal, of your tolerations is a life-long habit you must commit to. Don’t focus on what it will cost you to get rid of your tolerations in the short run, instead, look at what it will cost you in the long run if you don’t get rid of them.
Sometimes the toleration seems insurmountable. Often we feel we don’t deserve to get rid of them. Write down all the tolerations you are putting up with. Set aside time to deal with these tolerations. Set up a system that enables you do consistently eliminate them. It is better to deal with tolerations when they first come up instead of letting them grow and become overwhelming. You must remember that you always have a choice in dealing with tolerations. Complex tolerations need to be broken down into smaller parts that can be dealt with easily and effectively. Plan ahead and save money to deal with tolerations instead of waiting for them to come so they have to be dealt with as emergencies.
To deal with tolerations, ask: What has kept you from taking care of this? What steps do you need to take to remove the obstacle? How much does it really bother me? What kind of professional do I need to take care of this problem? By what date does this have to be done?
If you don’t have money, ask: Who do I know who has the expertise to handle this problem? Can I barter or trade services with this person? Make a list of your tolerations, put a price tag on each one, and then ask friends and relatives to give you what you need to end the tolerations instead of gifts. Begin a tolerations fund to slowly build up money to deal with them.
Tolerations are a part of life, they build up over time, and must be dealt with on a consistent basis. Dealing with tolerations releases energy so that you can achieve your life objective.
For helpful tools visit: leverageyourbest.com
Tolerations are the small things that distract you from what is really important and drain your energy.
Tolerations are the seemingly inconsequential things that you are putting up with that are draining your energy. They may seem small at first, but as they accumulate and grow they drag you down, destroy your effectiveness, rob you of joy, and hinder you from achieving your prime objective.
Identifying your tolerations gives you the ability to apply the right lever to rid you of those things that are draining your energy. Removing, and maintaining the removal, of your tolerations is a life-long habit you must commit to. Don’t focus on what it will cost you to get rid of your tolerations in the short run, instead, look at what it will cost you in the long run if you don’t get rid of them.
Sometimes the toleration seems insurmountable. Often we feel we don’t deserve to get rid of them. Write down all the tolerations you are putting up with. Set aside time to deal with these tolerations. Set up a system that enables you do consistently eliminate them. It is better to deal with tolerations when they first come up instead of letting them grow and become overwhelming. You must remember that you always have a choice in dealing with tolerations. Complex tolerations need to be broken down into smaller parts that can be dealt with easily and effectively. Plan ahead and save money to deal with tolerations instead of waiting for them to come so they have to be dealt with as emergencies.
To deal with tolerations, ask: What has kept you from taking care of this? What steps do you need to take to remove the obstacle? How much does it really bother me? What kind of professional do I need to take care of this problem? By what date does this have to be done?
If you don’t have money, ask: Who do I know who has the expertise to handle this problem? Can I barter or trade services with this person? Make a list of your tolerations, put a price tag on each one, and then ask friends and relatives to give you what you need to end the tolerations instead of gifts. Begin a tolerations fund to slowly build up money to deal with them.
Tolerations are a part of life, they build up over time, and must be dealt with on a consistent basis. Dealing with tolerations releases energy so that you can achieve your life objective.
For helpful tools visit: leverageyourbest.com
6. Draw and Defend Your Boundaries
6. Draw and Defend Your Boundaries
Boundaries are the invisible barriers that protect the integrity and rights of the individual. Boundaries are what you allow people to be around you and do to you. We need to clarify, articulate and defend our boundaries in ways that are positive and constructive.
A boundary is what we allow others to do to us or around us. Boundaries, like needs, are often unspoken because we are embarrassed to let other know that we have them, and once you articulate your boundaries you must defend them.
We must understand, articulate and enforce our boundaries because breeches of your boundaries drain you of energy and cause stress. Draw your boundaries gently but firmly. When a boundary is crossed, gently but firmly and work out a solution to end the behavior that is violating your standards.
See yourself as 100 percent responsible for how people treat you, how they act around you, and what they expect from you, otherwise you will act like a victim. Ask yourself, “What am I doing to enable people to treat me this way?” When you unexpectedly blow up at someone, it shows that you have not clearly articulated and enforced your boundaries, making you just as responsible for the violation as the other person.
Learn to say, “No” because when you over promise and renege it drains you of energy. Determine what needs are driving you to over commit, such as a need to achieve, a need to be accepted, a need to be viewed in a certain way, so that you can meet these needs in a more constructive and healthy way. In the short term it might seem easier to let people get away with violating your boundaries, but in the long run it has enormous psychological and physical costs.
Evaluate all of your significant relationships by asking these three questions: 1. How can I significantly improve this relationship? 2. Is this relationship fine just the way it is? and 3. Is this a relationship I need to end or significantly limit?
If there are relationships that are negative that you cannot break off, then you need to clearly set it up so you can see it as a choice, otherwise resentment will build up, destroying the relationship, and you, in the long run. Resentment destroys everything in its path; respect, resentment and trust, as well as joy, passion and pleasure.
It is difficult to set boundaries for several reasons: First, boundaries change as we and our circumstances change. We change slowly over time but we also go through dramatic, sudden changes. Second, we are afraid of what people will think. Failing to set boundaries because of fear will always hurt you in the end. Third, we lack the vocabulary to express boundaries effectively. Calmly state your personal preferences, as if it were a simple fact, without implying anything about the other person. Couch it in a request, or as a question in a very neutral tone, and not as a law. Fourth, we are afraid that we will have to fight to protect the boundary. Because this takes concerted effort, we often just give in instead.
If someone consistently violates your boundaries you need to decide whether you want to end the relationship, limit it, or just put up with the behavior. Some times you must be very blunt and break off the relationship.
If you are being dominated by a bully, there are four courses of action you can take: Submit, Submerge, Engage in Open Conflict, or Sabotage. The rules of battle: First, choose your battles wisely and choose them seldom. Second, take notes and document everything. Third, get professional help and don’t talk to those who can’t help you. Fourth, have an exit strategy in place before you have to use it. If the bully is not a priority in your life, the best course of action is to avoid him.
Boundaries are the invisible barriers that protect the integrity and rights of the individual. Boundaries are what you allow people to be around you and do to you. We need to clarify, articulate and defend our boundaries in ways that are positive and constructive.
A boundary is what we allow others to do to us or around us. Boundaries, like needs, are often unspoken because we are embarrassed to let other know that we have them, and once you articulate your boundaries you must defend them.
We must understand, articulate and enforce our boundaries because breeches of your boundaries drain you of energy and cause stress. Draw your boundaries gently but firmly. When a boundary is crossed, gently but firmly and work out a solution to end the behavior that is violating your standards.
See yourself as 100 percent responsible for how people treat you, how they act around you, and what they expect from you, otherwise you will act like a victim. Ask yourself, “What am I doing to enable people to treat me this way?” When you unexpectedly blow up at someone, it shows that you have not clearly articulated and enforced your boundaries, making you just as responsible for the violation as the other person.
Learn to say, “No” because when you over promise and renege it drains you of energy. Determine what needs are driving you to over commit, such as a need to achieve, a need to be accepted, a need to be viewed in a certain way, so that you can meet these needs in a more constructive and healthy way. In the short term it might seem easier to let people get away with violating your boundaries, but in the long run it has enormous psychological and physical costs.
Evaluate all of your significant relationships by asking these three questions: 1. How can I significantly improve this relationship? 2. Is this relationship fine just the way it is? and 3. Is this a relationship I need to end or significantly limit?
If there are relationships that are negative that you cannot break off, then you need to clearly set it up so you can see it as a choice, otherwise resentment will build up, destroying the relationship, and you, in the long run. Resentment destroys everything in its path; respect, resentment and trust, as well as joy, passion and pleasure.
It is difficult to set boundaries for several reasons: First, boundaries change as we and our circumstances change. We change slowly over time but we also go through dramatic, sudden changes. Second, we are afraid of what people will think. Failing to set boundaries because of fear will always hurt you in the end. Third, we lack the vocabulary to express boundaries effectively. Calmly state your personal preferences, as if it were a simple fact, without implying anything about the other person. Couch it in a request, or as a question in a very neutral tone, and not as a law. Fourth, we are afraid that we will have to fight to protect the boundary. Because this takes concerted effort, we often just give in instead.
If someone consistently violates your boundaries you need to decide whether you want to end the relationship, limit it, or just put up with the behavior. Some times you must be very blunt and break off the relationship.
If you are being dominated by a bully, there are four courses of action you can take: Submit, Submerge, Engage in Open Conflict, or Sabotage. The rules of battle: First, choose your battles wisely and choose them seldom. Second, take notes and document everything. Third, get professional help and don’t talk to those who can’t help you. Fourth, have an exit strategy in place before you have to use it. If the bully is not a priority in your life, the best course of action is to avoid him.
5. Name and Claim Your Standards
5. Name and Claim Your Standards
We all have an inner code of conduct that regulates how we act and interact with other people. If you are over the age of 30, your code is most likely outdated and needs to be rewritten.
Standards are the behaviors and practices you hold yourself to. They determine what you demand of yourself in any given situation. Some standards we choose, while others are laid on us by others or society; it is these that bog us down, drain us of energy, and cause us to judge others, ruining our relationships.
The first step is to identify your standards and determine what they are based on. Evaluate whether your standards are too high or too low. Determine which standards you need to change.
Set yourself up to win, not to lose. Always set standards that you can actually keep.
Our standards also govern the judgments we pass on others. We make a mistake when we assume that all people are like us, or should be like us, and are faulty when they’re not. Most relational problems are the result of clashes over valuables and standards. Determine what is different about the other person, how that bothers you, and how that makes them stronger or better than me as well as weaker or worse than me. What value does this person bring that I don’t, can’t or won’t? What advantage do I gain by discounting them?
Keep your standards for yourself but not to yourself; you need to communicate your standards to others without forcing your standards upon them.
We all have an inner code of conduct that regulates how we act and interact with other people. If you are over the age of 30, your code is most likely outdated and needs to be rewritten.
Standards are the behaviors and practices you hold yourself to. They determine what you demand of yourself in any given situation. Some standards we choose, while others are laid on us by others or society; it is these that bog us down, drain us of energy, and cause us to judge others, ruining our relationships.
The first step is to identify your standards and determine what they are based on. Evaluate whether your standards are too high or too low. Determine which standards you need to change.
Set yourself up to win, not to lose. Always set standards that you can actually keep.
Our standards also govern the judgments we pass on others. We make a mistake when we assume that all people are like us, or should be like us, and are faulty when they’re not. Most relational problems are the result of clashes over valuables and standards. Determine what is different about the other person, how that bothers you, and how that makes them stronger or better than me as well as weaker or worse than me. What value does this person bring that I don’t, can’t or won’t? What advantage do I gain by discounting them?
Keep your standards for yourself but not to yourself; you need to communicate your standards to others without forcing your standards upon them.
4. Cherish and Protect Your Valuables
4. Cherish and Protect Your Valuables
What is most important to you, what is most valuable to you, no matter what anyone else thinks?
You can live without what is precious to you but it is never fun. The more you design your life to enjoy as many valuables as possible, the more energy you will have. A valuable is what matters most to you, not what someone else says should matter to you.
There are daily living valuables and destination valuables. Our daily valuables tell us what we, and others, should and should not do on a daily basis. When we have a conflict in our valuables it is usually because we have confused daily living valuables with destination valuables. We need to align our daily living valuables so that they help us achieve our destination valuables.
When you recognize and celebrate your valuables, you will feel like your life is under control and moving in the right direction. When you do this, your life will make more sense and will be able to act with clarity, courage and passion.
What is most important to you, what is most valuable to you, no matter what anyone else thinks?
You can live without what is precious to you but it is never fun. The more you design your life to enjoy as many valuables as possible, the more energy you will have. A valuable is what matters most to you, not what someone else says should matter to you.
There are daily living valuables and destination valuables. Our daily valuables tell us what we, and others, should and should not do on a daily basis. When we have a conflict in our valuables it is usually because we have confused daily living valuables with destination valuables. We need to align our daily living valuables so that they help us achieve our destination valuables.
When you recognize and celebrate your valuables, you will feel like your life is under control and moving in the right direction. When you do this, your life will make more sense and will be able to act with clarity, courage and passion.
3. Get Your Needs Met
3. Get Your Needs Met
You need to know what your needs are before you can get them met.
A personal need is something you must have in order to achieve and maintain an optimal state. Having needs can make us feel vulnerable, causing us to deny that we have them to others and to ourselves. We all have needs and it is much more effective if we clearly understand what those needs are and find positive ways to get them met. Needs can be met consciously or unconsciously, productively or unproductively, but they will get met. The question is not whether your needs will be met, but whether they will be met in a constructive, positive way that you choose or in a destructive, negative way that hurts you and those around you. The question is not, do I get my needs met, but how do I get my needs met.
It is essential to build your relationship network so that your needs can be met properly in order for you to achieve your prime objective. You need to give yourself permission to get your needs met. You need to find ways to get your needs met that will not alienate other people or diminish your influence. When your needs are not met, you are drained of energy, dissatisfied, and filled with stress, making it much more difficult to achieve your prime objective.
Learning to get your needs met takes practice, trial and error, so you must be persistent. Other people see your needs even when you try to hide them, so why bother hiding them? We often place self-imposed obstacles in the way of getting our needs met. These obstacles are caused by the way we see ourselves, the way we want others to see us, and how we think other people see us.
Ask: What is the cost of not having my needs met? How much can you accomplish by yourself? Will you really be able to achieve your prime objective without help from others? Are you willing to let pride keep you from getting what you need to achieve your life mission? Do others rely upon you to have their needs met? If so, will you be able to meet their needs if your needs are not met? What is it costing me to maintain my self-created image of self-sufficiency?
If you have the ability to handle a lot of stress, this strength can become a weakness if it keeps you from asking for help until it is too late. The more we get our needs met, the less “needy” we become. When we deny our needs, we become more “needy” and it quickly becomes apparent to everyone else. Anything worth doing is worth getting help with.
A five step process for getting your needs met:
Step One: Identify and articulate specific personal needs. Think of a time when you weren’t yourself or at your best and you will have a pretty good indication of what your needs are. Ask yourself what need was not getting met that caused the breakdown. Step Two: Give yourself permission. Not giving yourself permission to have needs met will hurt you more in the long run. Step Three: Identify the people in your life who can help you. Step Four: Set a goal that will get your need met and choose a strategy to move towards it. Step Five: Anticipate what could go wrong.
Needs stay the same but circumstances change. Consider events in light of your needs, and set up strategies to have your needs met before a crisis occurs. Getting your needs met is an on-going cyclical process that needs to be made a life-long habit.
You need to know what your needs are before you can get them met.
A personal need is something you must have in order to achieve and maintain an optimal state. Having needs can make us feel vulnerable, causing us to deny that we have them to others and to ourselves. We all have needs and it is much more effective if we clearly understand what those needs are and find positive ways to get them met. Needs can be met consciously or unconsciously, productively or unproductively, but they will get met. The question is not whether your needs will be met, but whether they will be met in a constructive, positive way that you choose or in a destructive, negative way that hurts you and those around you. The question is not, do I get my needs met, but how do I get my needs met.
It is essential to build your relationship network so that your needs can be met properly in order for you to achieve your prime objective. You need to give yourself permission to get your needs met. You need to find ways to get your needs met that will not alienate other people or diminish your influence. When your needs are not met, you are drained of energy, dissatisfied, and filled with stress, making it much more difficult to achieve your prime objective.
Learning to get your needs met takes practice, trial and error, so you must be persistent. Other people see your needs even when you try to hide them, so why bother hiding them? We often place self-imposed obstacles in the way of getting our needs met. These obstacles are caused by the way we see ourselves, the way we want others to see us, and how we think other people see us.
Ask: What is the cost of not having my needs met? How much can you accomplish by yourself? Will you really be able to achieve your prime objective without help from others? Are you willing to let pride keep you from getting what you need to achieve your life mission? Do others rely upon you to have their needs met? If so, will you be able to meet their needs if your needs are not met? What is it costing me to maintain my self-created image of self-sufficiency?
If you have the ability to handle a lot of stress, this strength can become a weakness if it keeps you from asking for help until it is too late. The more we get our needs met, the less “needy” we become. When we deny our needs, we become more “needy” and it quickly becomes apparent to everyone else. Anything worth doing is worth getting help with.
A five step process for getting your needs met:
Step One: Identify and articulate specific personal needs. Think of a time when you weren’t yourself or at your best and you will have a pretty good indication of what your needs are. Ask yourself what need was not getting met that caused the breakdown. Step Two: Give yourself permission. Not giving yourself permission to have needs met will hurt you more in the long run. Step Three: Identify the people in your life who can help you. Step Four: Set a goal that will get your need met and choose a strategy to move towards it. Step Five: Anticipate what could go wrong.
Needs stay the same but circumstances change. Consider events in light of your needs, and set up strategies to have your needs met before a crisis occurs. Getting your needs met is an on-going cyclical process that needs to be made a life-long habit.
2. Manage Your Gifts
2. Manage Your Gifts
You need to know what your gifts are so you can contribute to the world.
You need to manage your gifts effectively if you are to accomplish your prime objective. You also need to be aware of how your gifts affect others. You must consider the cost of not using your gifts and failing to meet your prime objective.
Olympic coaches focus on what is best in an athlete and minimize his weaknesses. Leveraging what is already working is much more effective than trying to make yourself into something that you’re not. Improving what you are good at is a better use of time and energy than trying to improve what you are not good at. Realize that every gift has a downside as well as an upside, and learning to manage both will help you become more than you already are. Some gifts have enormous downsides and if you are not aware of them, you will create a lot of problems. The most effective managers know how to maximize the strengths of his team members while finding creative ways to work around their weaknesses.
People don’t manage their gifts effectively because of three things: First, they think that if something comes easily it can’t be that valuable. Just because something comes naturally and easily to you doesn’t mean it isn’t special and valuable. Second, they feel it is inappropriate to draw attention to themselves and their abilities. Most of us have been raised to undervalue our gifts. Some people see their gift as a curse and try to deny it or leave it unused. You need to learn how to respect your gifts while still remaining humble and thankful. Third, they see their gifts as provoking envy in other people.
Take time to write down your gifts and analyze the assets and liabilities attached to those gifts. Here are some tips to help you manage and leverage your gifts: First, you can have more than one gift, and there really isn’t any limit to the number of gifts you can have. Second, you need to take responsibility for your gifts and the impact they have on others. Third, just because we can do something well, doesn’t mean we should do it.
You need to know what your gifts are so you can contribute to the world.
You need to manage your gifts effectively if you are to accomplish your prime objective. You also need to be aware of how your gifts affect others. You must consider the cost of not using your gifts and failing to meet your prime objective.
Olympic coaches focus on what is best in an athlete and minimize his weaknesses. Leveraging what is already working is much more effective than trying to make yourself into something that you’re not. Improving what you are good at is a better use of time and energy than trying to improve what you are not good at. Realize that every gift has a downside as well as an upside, and learning to manage both will help you become more than you already are. Some gifts have enormous downsides and if you are not aware of them, you will create a lot of problems. The most effective managers know how to maximize the strengths of his team members while finding creative ways to work around their weaknesses.
People don’t manage their gifts effectively because of three things: First, they think that if something comes easily it can’t be that valuable. Just because something comes naturally and easily to you doesn’t mean it isn’t special and valuable. Second, they feel it is inappropriate to draw attention to themselves and their abilities. Most of us have been raised to undervalue our gifts. Some people see their gift as a curse and try to deny it or leave it unused. You need to learn how to respect your gifts while still remaining humble and thankful. Third, they see their gifts as provoking envy in other people.
Take time to write down your gifts and analyze the assets and liabilities attached to those gifts. Here are some tips to help you manage and leverage your gifts: First, you can have more than one gift, and there really isn’t any limit to the number of gifts you can have. Second, you need to take responsibility for your gifts and the impact they have on others. Third, just because we can do something well, doesn’t mean we should do it.
1. Master Your Universe
1. Master Your Universe
Where are you right now? Is this the best place for you? Your universe is your context and you choose that context.
How do you see yourself? What do you like about yourself? What don’t you like? Who are you from the inside out? Your opinion of yourself is a crucial and must reflect both reality and your inventiveness.
Two brothers grew up in an abusive home. One became an ax murderer and the other became a Nobel Prize Laureate. When asked why they turned out the way they did, both replied identically, “Given my abusive childhood, how could I have become anything else?” It isn’t only what happens to you that matters, but how you perceive what happens to you is more important. Just because something doesn’t feel good to you doesn’t mean it is not good for you.
The number one condition for success in life is the ability to create and leverage successful relationships.
Three perspectives to help you clearly understand where you are right now: 1. How do you see yourself? 2. How do others see you? 3. How would you like to be seen? These three questions lead to the strategy question, “So what do I do now?”
We need to be aware of the web relationships around us, the agendas, needs, and motives of those around us, in order to respond properly. Instead of suppressing the frustrations caused by relationship, leading to an inevitable blowup or poor decision, you must learn to constantly deal with your relationships.
First, assess your environment. Step back and take a broader look at the whole picture. Break down your environment into its specific aspects and then deal with each part in turn. Identify the players and how each person can help you or hinder you. You can’t carry out your Prime Objective plan all by yourself; without the help of others you will fail.
To build and maintain a rock-solid network you must: 1. Identify what’s in it for the other person and what he has to lose. 2. Recognize the beliefs, thinking style and personality of the other person. 3. Genuinely care for the other person and show it. People will not help you unless they can see what’s in it for them. Get clear and specific what is clear to the other person. Help the other person without expecting to receive anything in return. Discover other people’s prime objective, needs, and their secret vanity.
Help other people manage the change you are creating. Beware of people who demand that you stay the same in order to keep the relationship. Just because something is self-evident to you, it isn’t obvious to other people, so explain everything to other people. Discover how they learn and make decisions so you can help them adjust to the change.
Show regard; get interested in people for their own sake. The more you are interested in other people without trying to get something in return, the more they will be interested in helping you. Be genuinely curious about other people; learn something new every time you meet them. Listen more than you talk. If you try to exert authority without having significant buy-in, you will be resisted.
Understand how all the people in your personal network can help you achieve your Prime Objective.
Where are you right now? Is this the best place for you? Your universe is your context and you choose that context.
How do you see yourself? What do you like about yourself? What don’t you like? Who are you from the inside out? Your opinion of yourself is a crucial and must reflect both reality and your inventiveness.
Two brothers grew up in an abusive home. One became an ax murderer and the other became a Nobel Prize Laureate. When asked why they turned out the way they did, both replied identically, “Given my abusive childhood, how could I have become anything else?” It isn’t only what happens to you that matters, but how you perceive what happens to you is more important. Just because something doesn’t feel good to you doesn’t mean it is not good for you.
The number one condition for success in life is the ability to create and leverage successful relationships.
Three perspectives to help you clearly understand where you are right now: 1. How do you see yourself? 2. How do others see you? 3. How would you like to be seen? These three questions lead to the strategy question, “So what do I do now?”
We need to be aware of the web relationships around us, the agendas, needs, and motives of those around us, in order to respond properly. Instead of suppressing the frustrations caused by relationship, leading to an inevitable blowup or poor decision, you must learn to constantly deal with your relationships.
First, assess your environment. Step back and take a broader look at the whole picture. Break down your environment into its specific aspects and then deal with each part in turn. Identify the players and how each person can help you or hinder you. You can’t carry out your Prime Objective plan all by yourself; without the help of others you will fail.
To build and maintain a rock-solid network you must: 1. Identify what’s in it for the other person and what he has to lose. 2. Recognize the beliefs, thinking style and personality of the other person. 3. Genuinely care for the other person and show it. People will not help you unless they can see what’s in it for them. Get clear and specific what is clear to the other person. Help the other person without expecting to receive anything in return. Discover other people’s prime objective, needs, and their secret vanity.
Help other people manage the change you are creating. Beware of people who demand that you stay the same in order to keep the relationship. Just because something is self-evident to you, it isn’t obvious to other people, so explain everything to other people. Discover how they learn and make decisions so you can help them adjust to the change.
Show regard; get interested in people for their own sake. The more you are interested in other people without trying to get something in return, the more they will be interested in helping you. Be genuinely curious about other people; learn something new every time you meet them. Listen more than you talk. If you try to exert authority without having significant buy-in, you will be resisted.
Understand how all the people in your personal network can help you achieve your Prime Objective.
Leverage Your Best; Ditch the Rest
Leverage Your Best; Ditch the Rest
Scott Blanchard and Madeleine Homan
The first step to change is to accept yourself as you and don’t judge yourself for how you got there. One of the paradoxes of change is that the more you pressure someone to change, the less likely they are to change and the less you pressure them to change, the more likely they are to change. You must accept the circumstances that you are in and not complain about them before you can move forward.
In order to get from point A to point B, you must first know exactly where you are, point A, and have a very clear idea of where you want to go, point B. Only when you have done this are you able to work out a strategy to get you there.
The key question to ask to find your life ambition: What do you yearn for that has continually eluded you? Imagine that you have what you yearn for; now what? What does it bring you that you did not have before? Now imagine that this is now yours. Now that you have it, what does it bring you? What does it look like, how does it feel, do you see yourself differently, do others see you differently, how does it affect your day-to-day living, What do you now have that you didn’t have before? As a result of this change, what is now true? Keep going through this exercise until you find what you ultimately want, not just an ends to another means.
Make sure that you really want what you are striving for. Don’t just climb the ladder; make sure it is leaning against the right wall.
What you want to create in life is your Prime Objective.
Ask these questions to help you clarify your Prime Objective:
What are you good at that doesn’t even seem like work to you?
What is crucial to your well-being?
Does the thing you are good at have any commercial value and are you using that leverage?
Are you willing to go out on a limb to market what you are good at?
What do you want people to say about you at your memorial service?
What are you willing to risk or give up entirely in order to achieve your prime objective?
If you could achieve your prime objective right now, what would it look and feel like?
Now, put your Prime Objective into writing.
In order to make a plan to achieve your Prime Objective, ask:
How would you have to set up your life to achieve your prime objective?
What must you accomplish to achieve your prime objective?
What milestones must you pass along the way?
You need to be disciplined enough to follow your plan but flexible enough to adjust to the realities that come your way. A good plan has a purposeful end and clear, specific and definable actions to take. Thinking and intending will never get you there; only action will achieve your prime objective, and action produces more action. The best way to learn is to take action and reflect upon the results in order to take better action. You will either receive positive information, keep on doing what you are doing, or negative information, make adjustments or stop.
Use backward planning: set a date for your goal and then define the last action you would have to take in achieving that goal. Then define the action just before the last and so on, until you come to the present and define the first action you must take.
For helpful tools visit: leverageyourbest.com
The following seven posts are the Seven Leverage Points:
Scott Blanchard and Madeleine Homan
The first step to change is to accept yourself as you and don’t judge yourself for how you got there. One of the paradoxes of change is that the more you pressure someone to change, the less likely they are to change and the less you pressure them to change, the more likely they are to change. You must accept the circumstances that you are in and not complain about them before you can move forward.
In order to get from point A to point B, you must first know exactly where you are, point A, and have a very clear idea of where you want to go, point B. Only when you have done this are you able to work out a strategy to get you there.
The key question to ask to find your life ambition: What do you yearn for that has continually eluded you? Imagine that you have what you yearn for; now what? What does it bring you that you did not have before? Now imagine that this is now yours. Now that you have it, what does it bring you? What does it look like, how does it feel, do you see yourself differently, do others see you differently, how does it affect your day-to-day living, What do you now have that you didn’t have before? As a result of this change, what is now true? Keep going through this exercise until you find what you ultimately want, not just an ends to another means.
Make sure that you really want what you are striving for. Don’t just climb the ladder; make sure it is leaning against the right wall.
What you want to create in life is your Prime Objective.
Ask these questions to help you clarify your Prime Objective:
What are you good at that doesn’t even seem like work to you?
What is crucial to your well-being?
Does the thing you are good at have any commercial value and are you using that leverage?
Are you willing to go out on a limb to market what you are good at?
What do you want people to say about you at your memorial service?
What are you willing to risk or give up entirely in order to achieve your prime objective?
If you could achieve your prime objective right now, what would it look and feel like?
Now, put your Prime Objective into writing.
In order to make a plan to achieve your Prime Objective, ask:
How would you have to set up your life to achieve your prime objective?
What must you accomplish to achieve your prime objective?
What milestones must you pass along the way?
You need to be disciplined enough to follow your plan but flexible enough to adjust to the realities that come your way. A good plan has a purposeful end and clear, specific and definable actions to take. Thinking and intending will never get you there; only action will achieve your prime objective, and action produces more action. The best way to learn is to take action and reflect upon the results in order to take better action. You will either receive positive information, keep on doing what you are doing, or negative information, make adjustments or stop.
Use backward planning: set a date for your goal and then define the last action you would have to take in achieving that goal. Then define the action just before the last and so on, until you come to the present and define the first action you must take.
For helpful tools visit: leverageyourbest.com
The following seven posts are the Seven Leverage Points:
State of Fear
Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, tackles “politicized science” in his 2004 novel, State of Fear. While I thought the novel was chunky, filled with unpolished dialog, and hindered by hard to believe plot twists, I had to admire Crichton for taking on such a politically charged issue as global warming.
The basic premise of the book is that certain environmentalist groups are plotting to force action to be taken to stop global warming by launching a series of ecological catastrophes that validate their claims that global warming is an imminent threat to life on earth. Explosives are laid in Antarctica to break off a large chunk of ice, thunderstorms in Arizona are fueled by electrostatic generators to create a monster storm, and undersea explosives to create a tsunami that would swamp the western coast of the United States, all in conjunction with a global warming seminar.
Crichton is even-handed in his treatment of the subject of global warming, giving all sides adequate exposure. His main theme is that certain ecological groups have created a “State of Fear” by twisting data and manipulating computer simulations. He calls for a clear-minded approach that takes into account all the data as well as the consequences of intended actions. Check out his conclusions at: http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/.
The appendix and author’s conclusion are some of the most helpful parts of the book. Crichton shows how little we really know about climate change and managing the environment. He gives some very powerful incidents where regulations were implemented that had disastrous ecological and economic results. Many of the proposed “solutions” are worse than the problem they claim to cure while others are so costly and provide minimal help, that the costs far exceed any useful benefit.
I found the author’s conclusion extremely helpful and valuable in sorting out the issues in global warming:
1. We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history to its present state, how to preserve and protect it.
2. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing and human activity is the probable cause.
3. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850 as we emerged from a 400-year cold spell known as “the little ice age.”
4. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomena.
5. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
6. Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows.
7. Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models I think it is reasonable to require the models to predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years, and twenty would be better.
8. There are many reason to shift away from fossil fuels and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fear-mongers. As far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transportation in the early twentieth century.
9. I find most environmental principles, such as “sustainable development” or the “precautionary principle,” have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West, and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the third world. They are a nice way of saying, “We got ours but we don’t want you to get yours because you’ll cause too much pollution.”
10. I believe people are well intentioned but I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.
11. We haven’t the foggiest notion of how to preserve what we term “wilderness” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conduction such research in a systematic way. I, therefore, hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmentalist groups as much as developers and strip miners; there is no difference in outcomes to greed and incompetence.
12. We need a new environmental movement with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and fewer lawyers.
13. We cannot hope to manage a complex system, such as the environment, through litigation.
14. We desperately need a non-partisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct scientific research that may have policy implications. Scientists are only too aware of who they are working for; as a result environmental organizational studies are every bit as biased and suspect as industry sponsored studies. Government studies are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. I am certain there is too much certainty in the world
15. I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those spent in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied that they will be preserved in sufficient quantities or with sufficient skill. I conclude the exploiters of the environment include: environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records.
16. Everybody has an agenda, except me.
The basic premise of the book is that certain environmentalist groups are plotting to force action to be taken to stop global warming by launching a series of ecological catastrophes that validate their claims that global warming is an imminent threat to life on earth. Explosives are laid in Antarctica to break off a large chunk of ice, thunderstorms in Arizona are fueled by electrostatic generators to create a monster storm, and undersea explosives to create a tsunami that would swamp the western coast of the United States, all in conjunction with a global warming seminar.
Crichton is even-handed in his treatment of the subject of global warming, giving all sides adequate exposure. His main theme is that certain ecological groups have created a “State of Fear” by twisting data and manipulating computer simulations. He calls for a clear-minded approach that takes into account all the data as well as the consequences of intended actions. Check out his conclusions at: http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/.
The appendix and author’s conclusion are some of the most helpful parts of the book. Crichton shows how little we really know about climate change and managing the environment. He gives some very powerful incidents where regulations were implemented that had disastrous ecological and economic results. Many of the proposed “solutions” are worse than the problem they claim to cure while others are so costly and provide minimal help, that the costs far exceed any useful benefit.
I found the author’s conclusion extremely helpful and valuable in sorting out the issues in global warming:
1. We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history to its present state, how to preserve and protect it.
2. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing and human activity is the probable cause.
3. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850 as we emerged from a 400-year cold spell known as “the little ice age.”
4. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomena.
5. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
6. Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows.
7. Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models I think it is reasonable to require the models to predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years, and twenty would be better.
8. There are many reason to shift away from fossil fuels and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fear-mongers. As far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transportation in the early twentieth century.
9. I find most environmental principles, such as “sustainable development” or the “precautionary principle,” have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West, and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the third world. They are a nice way of saying, “We got ours but we don’t want you to get yours because you’ll cause too much pollution.”
10. I believe people are well intentioned but I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.
11. We haven’t the foggiest notion of how to preserve what we term “wilderness” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conduction such research in a systematic way. I, therefore, hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmentalist groups as much as developers and strip miners; there is no difference in outcomes to greed and incompetence.
12. We need a new environmental movement with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and fewer lawyers.
13. We cannot hope to manage a complex system, such as the environment, through litigation.
14. We desperately need a non-partisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct scientific research that may have policy implications. Scientists are only too aware of who they are working for; as a result environmental organizational studies are every bit as biased and suspect as industry sponsored studies. Government studies are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. I am certain there is too much certainty in the world
15. I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those spent in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied that they will be preserved in sufficient quantities or with sufficient skill. I conclude the exploiters of the environment include: environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records.
16. Everybody has an agenda, except me.
Passage to India
E.M. Forster’s novel, A Passage to India, made into a movie in 1984, tells the story of two women visiting India and the cultural tensions they experience. The movie follows the book closely and does an excellent job of portraying the ethos and the essence of the novel.
The main tension in the story is the clash of the British imperialistic culture and the Indian culture. While most British looked down on the Indians, most Indians despised the British while feigning to be obsequious. Mrs. Moore, the mother of the British magistrate of Chandrapore, and Adela Quested, his fiancée, are enchanted by India and become upset at how the rest of the British treat the Indians. The only other Briton who treats the Indians fairly is Mr. Fielding, a professor at the University. The three become friends of an Indian doctor, a Muslim named Dr. Aziz.
Dr. Aziz meets Mrs. Moore by accident in a Mosque at night and the two become friends, both being deeply impressed by the other. Mrs. Moore introduces Adela to Dr. Aziz and she makes a cultural blunder, accepting an invitation to his home, so Dr. Aziz comes up with an alternative, a picnic at the Marabar Caves. The date is set and provisions are made by Dr. Aziz with the help of his friends.
When the train leaves for the caves, Mr. Fielding is late and misses the train, leaving Dr. Aziz alone with Mrs. Moore and Adela. At the caves, Mrs. Moore becomes claustrophobic and leaves Dr. Aziz alone with Adela. Adela, confused about her relationship with her fiancé commits another cultural blunder by talking about love and marriage with Dr. Aziz. Dr. Aziz becomes uncomfortable and takes a short break away from Adela, who ventures into a cave alone. After becoming uncomfortable, Adela runs down the hill, scraping herself badly and gets a ride back to Chadrapore from the governor’s wife. Everyone back in Chandrapore concludes that Adela has been raped by Dr. Aziz, who is arrested on his return.
Tensions between the British and the Indians escalates during the trial and a riot threatens to break out. Finally, Adela confesses that she was not raped by Dr. Aziz. Dr. Aziz is set free and Adela is shunned by the British. Mrs. Moore had already departed and died on the ship taking her back to England, so Adela is all alone. Fielding helps Adela, alienating him from Dr. Aziz.
Fielding returns to England and writes many letters to Dr. Aziz, none of which he reads. When Fielding returns to India to find Dr. Aziz, he brings his new wife, the daughter of Mrs. Moore. Dr. Aziz is ashamed because he assumed Fielding had married his enemy Adela. The two embrace and the friendship is restored.
Racism is ugly because it dehumanizes the other person. Those who chose to treat all men equally are often ostracized and marginalized. Treating all men with love and justice requires that we see all men as equal and treat them as valuable human beings. While being submerged in a foreign culture it is difficult to completely shed one’s prejudices and just as difficult to be fully accepted by those of the other culture. Racism is usually a two way street and it takes courageous individuals on both sides to break down the walls and stereotypes. Care must be taken not to jump to conclusions about others who are different than you, especially when some injustice, or perceived injustice, has taken place. Patience and careful analysis must prevail over emotions and snap judgments.
This story also illustrates how jumping to conclusions can also destroy relationships and diminish one’s life. It is always better to confront people and find out exactly what their motives were instead of assuming you know, or projecting your own motives on the other person. Much heartache could be avoided if we simply gave the other person the benefit of the doubt and assumed the best, imputing the highest motives for their actions.
The main tension in the story is the clash of the British imperialistic culture and the Indian culture. While most British looked down on the Indians, most Indians despised the British while feigning to be obsequious. Mrs. Moore, the mother of the British magistrate of Chandrapore, and Adela Quested, his fiancée, are enchanted by India and become upset at how the rest of the British treat the Indians. The only other Briton who treats the Indians fairly is Mr. Fielding, a professor at the University. The three become friends of an Indian doctor, a Muslim named Dr. Aziz.
Dr. Aziz meets Mrs. Moore by accident in a Mosque at night and the two become friends, both being deeply impressed by the other. Mrs. Moore introduces Adela to Dr. Aziz and she makes a cultural blunder, accepting an invitation to his home, so Dr. Aziz comes up with an alternative, a picnic at the Marabar Caves. The date is set and provisions are made by Dr. Aziz with the help of his friends.
When the train leaves for the caves, Mr. Fielding is late and misses the train, leaving Dr. Aziz alone with Mrs. Moore and Adela. At the caves, Mrs. Moore becomes claustrophobic and leaves Dr. Aziz alone with Adela. Adela, confused about her relationship with her fiancé commits another cultural blunder by talking about love and marriage with Dr. Aziz. Dr. Aziz becomes uncomfortable and takes a short break away from Adela, who ventures into a cave alone. After becoming uncomfortable, Adela runs down the hill, scraping herself badly and gets a ride back to Chadrapore from the governor’s wife. Everyone back in Chandrapore concludes that Adela has been raped by Dr. Aziz, who is arrested on his return.
Tensions between the British and the Indians escalates during the trial and a riot threatens to break out. Finally, Adela confesses that she was not raped by Dr. Aziz. Dr. Aziz is set free and Adela is shunned by the British. Mrs. Moore had already departed and died on the ship taking her back to England, so Adela is all alone. Fielding helps Adela, alienating him from Dr. Aziz.
Fielding returns to England and writes many letters to Dr. Aziz, none of which he reads. When Fielding returns to India to find Dr. Aziz, he brings his new wife, the daughter of Mrs. Moore. Dr. Aziz is ashamed because he assumed Fielding had married his enemy Adela. The two embrace and the friendship is restored.
Racism is ugly because it dehumanizes the other person. Those who chose to treat all men equally are often ostracized and marginalized. Treating all men with love and justice requires that we see all men as equal and treat them as valuable human beings. While being submerged in a foreign culture it is difficult to completely shed one’s prejudices and just as difficult to be fully accepted by those of the other culture. Racism is usually a two way street and it takes courageous individuals on both sides to break down the walls and stereotypes. Care must be taken not to jump to conclusions about others who are different than you, especially when some injustice, or perceived injustice, has taken place. Patience and careful analysis must prevail over emotions and snap judgments.
This story also illustrates how jumping to conclusions can also destroy relationships and diminish one’s life. It is always better to confront people and find out exactly what their motives were instead of assuming you know, or projecting your own motives on the other person. Much heartache could be avoided if we simply gave the other person the benefit of the doubt and assumed the best, imputing the highest motives for their actions.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Great Expectations
The 1998 movie rendition of Great Expectations, starring Ethan Hawke, Robert De Niro, and Gwyneth Paltrow, succeeds in setting Charles Dickens’ classic novel in modern times, portraying the power of love, acceptance and forgiveness.
The story traces the life of Finn Bell, who falls in love with a rich girl, Estella, and spends his life trying to win her love. His love for Estella inspires him to begin drawing and painting. When Estella walks out of his life without even saying goodbye, Finn puts the pencils and paints away and buries his dreams of becoming an artist, and of marrying Estella.
The movie, and the novel, begins with Finn stumbling upon an escaped convict, Arthur Lustig, whom he supplies with food and bolt cutters to cut his shackles, and then helps him escape from the police. Lustig is later captured and that is the last Finn hears about him.
Finn lives with his sister, Maggie, and her husband, Uncle Joe. Maggie walks out on Joe and Finn, and Joe raises Finn as his own son. While on an errand to the dilapidated mansion of Ms. Nora Dinsmoor, Finn sees Estella for the first time and becomes enchanted with her. When Ms. Dinsmoor invites Finn back, he soon discovers that she is an eccentric lady who hates men. As she continues to invite Finn back to be around Estella, it becomes obvious that her hatred for men, caused by her fiancé not showing up for the wedding, is what is driving her to seek revenge on Finn by causing him to fall in love with a girl he will never be able to possess. Even though she clearly warns Finn of her intentions, he blindly falls in love with Estella, only to have his heart broken.
After giving up painting for nearly ten years, a lawyer approaches Finn with an opportunity to have a private show in New York. He takes the offer and begins to paint. While in New York he meets Estella and begins to pursue her again. She poses for him and his inspiration returns. Finn tries to break up her upcoming wedding but to no avail. As he goes to her home to plead with her he discovers that she is not home but her aunt, Ms. Dinsmoor is there waiting for him. She taunts him and reveals that she was merely using Finn to make Estella’s fiancé jealous so he would finally commit and get married. She laughs at Finn for his naivety, and rejoices in the success of her plot to break Finn’s heart. When Finn breaks down, she becomes remorseful and asks Finn for Forgiveness, which he refuses to do.
As he returns home, Finn helps an old man escape from some mobsters who are trying to kill him. In his apartment the old man reveals himself as the escaped convict, Arthur Lustig. Finn helps him to elude the mobsters but Lustig is finally stabbed on the subway. Just before he dies, he tells Finn that he was the one who sponsored his art show and bought all of his paintings because he wanted to repay Finn for his kindness.
Finn later returns to visit his uncle Joe and learns that Ms. Dinsmoor has died and that her mansion will be leveled. He goes to visit it for one last time and runs into Estella, who is now divorced, and her daughter. Estella apologizes for all the pain she has caused him, and Finn reaffirms his love for her.
In classic Dickens style, pain, misfortune, and abuse are overcome with love, forgiveness and kindness. When we are mistreated we can respond as Ms. Dinsmoor did, seeking revenge and dying lonely and bitter, or we can respond as Finn did, forgiving and loving even the one who has broken your heart. We should also be aware that even our smallest kindnesses can have far-reaching consequences. Forgiveness, love and kindness are always the right and best choices, even when it is towards those who have hurt us or don’t deserve it.
The story traces the life of Finn Bell, who falls in love with a rich girl, Estella, and spends his life trying to win her love. His love for Estella inspires him to begin drawing and painting. When Estella walks out of his life without even saying goodbye, Finn puts the pencils and paints away and buries his dreams of becoming an artist, and of marrying Estella.
The movie, and the novel, begins with Finn stumbling upon an escaped convict, Arthur Lustig, whom he supplies with food and bolt cutters to cut his shackles, and then helps him escape from the police. Lustig is later captured and that is the last Finn hears about him.
Finn lives with his sister, Maggie, and her husband, Uncle Joe. Maggie walks out on Joe and Finn, and Joe raises Finn as his own son. While on an errand to the dilapidated mansion of Ms. Nora Dinsmoor, Finn sees Estella for the first time and becomes enchanted with her. When Ms. Dinsmoor invites Finn back, he soon discovers that she is an eccentric lady who hates men. As she continues to invite Finn back to be around Estella, it becomes obvious that her hatred for men, caused by her fiancé not showing up for the wedding, is what is driving her to seek revenge on Finn by causing him to fall in love with a girl he will never be able to possess. Even though she clearly warns Finn of her intentions, he blindly falls in love with Estella, only to have his heart broken.
After giving up painting for nearly ten years, a lawyer approaches Finn with an opportunity to have a private show in New York. He takes the offer and begins to paint. While in New York he meets Estella and begins to pursue her again. She poses for him and his inspiration returns. Finn tries to break up her upcoming wedding but to no avail. As he goes to her home to plead with her he discovers that she is not home but her aunt, Ms. Dinsmoor is there waiting for him. She taunts him and reveals that she was merely using Finn to make Estella’s fiancé jealous so he would finally commit and get married. She laughs at Finn for his naivety, and rejoices in the success of her plot to break Finn’s heart. When Finn breaks down, she becomes remorseful and asks Finn for Forgiveness, which he refuses to do.
As he returns home, Finn helps an old man escape from some mobsters who are trying to kill him. In his apartment the old man reveals himself as the escaped convict, Arthur Lustig. Finn helps him to elude the mobsters but Lustig is finally stabbed on the subway. Just before he dies, he tells Finn that he was the one who sponsored his art show and bought all of his paintings because he wanted to repay Finn for his kindness.
Finn later returns to visit his uncle Joe and learns that Ms. Dinsmoor has died and that her mansion will be leveled. He goes to visit it for one last time and runs into Estella, who is now divorced, and her daughter. Estella apologizes for all the pain she has caused him, and Finn reaffirms his love for her.
In classic Dickens style, pain, misfortune, and abuse are overcome with love, forgiveness and kindness. When we are mistreated we can respond as Ms. Dinsmoor did, seeking revenge and dying lonely and bitter, or we can respond as Finn did, forgiving and loving even the one who has broken your heart. We should also be aware that even our smallest kindnesses can have far-reaching consequences. Forgiveness, love and kindness are always the right and best choices, even when it is towards those who have hurt us or don’t deserve it.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Confrontation
"If confrontation is to be an expression of patient action, it must be humble...When confrontation is tainted by desire for attention, need for revenge, or greed for power, it can easily become self-serving and cease to be compassionate."
Donald P. McNeill
Donald P. McNeill
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Babel
The movie Babel, starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, is an intriguing story about a married couple, Richard and Susan, who are struggling to be reconciled after the Richard abandoned the family and has now returned. In order to encourage his wife’s forgiveness, Richard takes Susan on a vacation of North Africa so they can spend a lot of time together and talk through the issues.
The movie artfully weaves three other stories together to illustrate how one event is caused by another, working together to bring about the final result. First there are the two Moroccan brothers, both in their early teens, who are shepherds taking care of their father’s flock in the hills. Their father buys a rifle for them to kill the jackals before they eat all the sheep. In a bizarre twist, the younger brother, trying to outdo his older brother, ends up shooting Susan, who is riding in a tourist bus passing past the brothers’ village. The boys hide the rifle and run back home, while Richard frantically tries to find a doctor who can save Susan’s life. As the police investigate the incident, the trail leads back to the father. As they flee the police, the older brother is shot to death by the police before the younger brother surrenders and confesses.
Then there is the story of a Mexican nanny taking care of two children, a boy and a girl. Half way through the movie you begin to realize that these are Richard and Susan’s children. The nanny, desiring to go to her son’s wedding but unable to leave since Richard and Susan haven’t returned on time, takes the children to Mexico along with her nephew who drives them there.
The final story is of a deaf Japanese girl who is desperate for love after losing her mother by suicide. Feeling alienated from her father, she seeks the attention of any male she thinks she can seduce. In another bizarre twist, she seduces a young police detective who has come to ask her father a few questions. When she realizes that the police are interested in her father’s missing rifle, she tries to protect him by fabricating a story about her mother’s suicide, saying she jumped from the balcony. Later on we realize that the rifle was given to a Moroccan hunting guide by her father as a thank you present. It was this rifle that was sold the brothers’ father and which nearly killed Susan. The Japanese girl’s father tells the police detective that his wife didn’t jump from the balcony but blew her head off with a gun. It was the girl who was the first to find her mother dead. While the father emphatically claims it was suicide, we are left wondering why he gave the rifle away. Was he overcome with grief and wanted to get rid of the weapon that his wife used to commit suicide, or was he trying to get rid of the evidence that might implicate him in the murder of his wife. In either case, the giving of the rifle to the Moroccan guide was the event that eventually led up to the shooting of Susan.
The movie also shows how the shooting of Susan ultimately causes the deportation of the Mexican nanny. Since Richard and Susan couldn’t come back on time, she took it upon herself to take the children to Mexico for the wedding. On returning to the United States, the border guards realized something wasn’t right, and a chase ensues as the nephew tries to elude the border patrol. Finally, they are found and the nanny is deported for illegally taking the children into Mexico without written authorization from the parents.
This movie artfully shows how one action can affect the lives of many other people. A suicide/murder leads to a gun being illegally purchased. That leads to an accidental shooting which results in the police killing a young boy fleeing from authorities. The shooting leads to the husband and wife being unable to return home on time, leading to the nanny taking the children illegally into Mexico, ultimately ending in her deportation.
Every decision we make affects not only ourselves but others around us, and may cause a chain of events that touches the lives of people we will never meet. The law of unintended consequences is real and must be taken into account when we make decisions. While we can’t know what result our actions may have, we can be sure that when we make wrong choices we will end up hurting someone. There are no victimless crimes and when we choose to do what is wrong or foolish, we will eventually have to answer for the pain and suffering it caused others.
In the end, the whole sequence of events resulted in the reconciliation of Richard and Susan. This reminds us that God works all things together for the good. Even negative circumstances can work good in our lives. So, even though we can’t choose the consequences of our choices, God can still override our ignorance, foolishness, and sinfulness for his glory. The key is to seek forgiveness and reconciliation.
One caveat needs to be made: this move has some explicit sexuality and portrays some negative behavior, so it isn’t for everyone.
The movie artfully weaves three other stories together to illustrate how one event is caused by another, working together to bring about the final result. First there are the two Moroccan brothers, both in their early teens, who are shepherds taking care of their father’s flock in the hills. Their father buys a rifle for them to kill the jackals before they eat all the sheep. In a bizarre twist, the younger brother, trying to outdo his older brother, ends up shooting Susan, who is riding in a tourist bus passing past the brothers’ village. The boys hide the rifle and run back home, while Richard frantically tries to find a doctor who can save Susan’s life. As the police investigate the incident, the trail leads back to the father. As they flee the police, the older brother is shot to death by the police before the younger brother surrenders and confesses.
Then there is the story of a Mexican nanny taking care of two children, a boy and a girl. Half way through the movie you begin to realize that these are Richard and Susan’s children. The nanny, desiring to go to her son’s wedding but unable to leave since Richard and Susan haven’t returned on time, takes the children to Mexico along with her nephew who drives them there.
The final story is of a deaf Japanese girl who is desperate for love after losing her mother by suicide. Feeling alienated from her father, she seeks the attention of any male she thinks she can seduce. In another bizarre twist, she seduces a young police detective who has come to ask her father a few questions. When she realizes that the police are interested in her father’s missing rifle, she tries to protect him by fabricating a story about her mother’s suicide, saying she jumped from the balcony. Later on we realize that the rifle was given to a Moroccan hunting guide by her father as a thank you present. It was this rifle that was sold the brothers’ father and which nearly killed Susan. The Japanese girl’s father tells the police detective that his wife didn’t jump from the balcony but blew her head off with a gun. It was the girl who was the first to find her mother dead. While the father emphatically claims it was suicide, we are left wondering why he gave the rifle away. Was he overcome with grief and wanted to get rid of the weapon that his wife used to commit suicide, or was he trying to get rid of the evidence that might implicate him in the murder of his wife. In either case, the giving of the rifle to the Moroccan guide was the event that eventually led up to the shooting of Susan.
The movie also shows how the shooting of Susan ultimately causes the deportation of the Mexican nanny. Since Richard and Susan couldn’t come back on time, she took it upon herself to take the children to Mexico for the wedding. On returning to the United States, the border guards realized something wasn’t right, and a chase ensues as the nephew tries to elude the border patrol. Finally, they are found and the nanny is deported for illegally taking the children into Mexico without written authorization from the parents.
This movie artfully shows how one action can affect the lives of many other people. A suicide/murder leads to a gun being illegally purchased. That leads to an accidental shooting which results in the police killing a young boy fleeing from authorities. The shooting leads to the husband and wife being unable to return home on time, leading to the nanny taking the children illegally into Mexico, ultimately ending in her deportation.
Every decision we make affects not only ourselves but others around us, and may cause a chain of events that touches the lives of people we will never meet. The law of unintended consequences is real and must be taken into account when we make decisions. While we can’t know what result our actions may have, we can be sure that when we make wrong choices we will end up hurting someone. There are no victimless crimes and when we choose to do what is wrong or foolish, we will eventually have to answer for the pain and suffering it caused others.
In the end, the whole sequence of events resulted in the reconciliation of Richard and Susan. This reminds us that God works all things together for the good. Even negative circumstances can work good in our lives. So, even though we can’t choose the consequences of our choices, God can still override our ignorance, foolishness, and sinfulness for his glory. The key is to seek forgiveness and reconciliation.
One caveat needs to be made: this move has some explicit sexuality and portrays some negative behavior, so it isn’t for everyone.
Flags of Our Fathers
While I liked the premise of the movie Flags of Our Fathers, I thought it was a little convoluted, taking away from the overall impact of the movie. The movie focuses mainly on John Bradley, a Navy medic and two of his comrades, Marines Rene Gagnon and Ira Hayes, three of the six men in the famous photograph of the lifting of the flag on Iwo Jima. The movie focuses on how the U.S. Government used these men to sell war bonds to fund the war effort, despite the facts that the photo was of the second flag going up and one of the original flag-raisers wasn’t mentioned.
Several themes predominate in the movie, one being that heroes are made by those at home and not by those on the battlefield. The men on the battlefield are too conscious of their own shortcomings and lack of courage, and many felt that they were just doing what anyone else would have done in their place. Most “heroes” feel awkward at being singled out and labeled for special treatment. The movie shows how the image of the heroes was created by the press and the government and then manipulated and used for the war effort. While the movie tended to be cynical and judgmental, it also tried to show how such hero worship is essential in times of war.
Flags of Our Fathers also demonstrates how powerful the media is in shaping our perceptions of war. One photograph changed the mood of the nation and rallied support for the war. In a similar way, though with an opposite effect, one picture of a South Vietnamese officer shooting a prisoner in the head turned American sentiment against the war in Vietnam. Recently, the photos from Abu Ghraib prison turned American sentiment sour on the war in Iraq. In addition, the constant reporting of suicide bombings in Iraq has caused the approval rating for the war in Iraq to plummet. What is happening in the media today is very similar to what happened 35 years ago. Even though we were winning the war in Vietnam, public perception was radically shaped by the media and political leadership, causing many to see the war as hopeless and meaningless. This is happening today as well, as the media and certain political leaders are turning victory into defeat.
Much of what is said in the media is either misleading or incomplete. Americans live on sound bites, making a coherent explanation and understanding of a complex military operation impossible. We don’t have the patience to dig in and find out what is really going on, so we just blindly believe what the news media and politicians tell us. Much of the rhetoric being thrown around today is pathetic and ultimately harmful to the United States. Wars today are lost, not because our military is weak, but because our media and political leaders are morally weak and misguided.
I am not writing this to defend the war in Iraq but merely to point out that the current mood and public discourse is clouded and misguided. My challenge is not to support the war or call for withdrawal but to stop listening only to the media and allowing your perceptions to be shaped by the news and political sound bites.
Several themes predominate in the movie, one being that heroes are made by those at home and not by those on the battlefield. The men on the battlefield are too conscious of their own shortcomings and lack of courage, and many felt that they were just doing what anyone else would have done in their place. Most “heroes” feel awkward at being singled out and labeled for special treatment. The movie shows how the image of the heroes was created by the press and the government and then manipulated and used for the war effort. While the movie tended to be cynical and judgmental, it also tried to show how such hero worship is essential in times of war.
Flags of Our Fathers also demonstrates how powerful the media is in shaping our perceptions of war. One photograph changed the mood of the nation and rallied support for the war. In a similar way, though with an opposite effect, one picture of a South Vietnamese officer shooting a prisoner in the head turned American sentiment against the war in Vietnam. Recently, the photos from Abu Ghraib prison turned American sentiment sour on the war in Iraq. In addition, the constant reporting of suicide bombings in Iraq has caused the approval rating for the war in Iraq to plummet. What is happening in the media today is very similar to what happened 35 years ago. Even though we were winning the war in Vietnam, public perception was radically shaped by the media and political leadership, causing many to see the war as hopeless and meaningless. This is happening today as well, as the media and certain political leaders are turning victory into defeat.
Much of what is said in the media is either misleading or incomplete. Americans live on sound bites, making a coherent explanation and understanding of a complex military operation impossible. We don’t have the patience to dig in and find out what is really going on, so we just blindly believe what the news media and politicians tell us. Much of the rhetoric being thrown around today is pathetic and ultimately harmful to the United States. Wars today are lost, not because our military is weak, but because our media and political leaders are morally weak and misguided.
I am not writing this to defend the war in Iraq but merely to point out that the current mood and public discourse is clouded and misguided. My challenge is not to support the war or call for withdrawal but to stop listening only to the media and allowing your perceptions to be shaped by the news and political sound bites.
Who Gets to Define America?
Rev. Dr. Soong-Chan Rah, Milton B. Engebretson Assistant Professor of Church Growth and Evangelism at North Park Theological Seminary, succinctly outlines the demographic changes taking place in America and the church in America in his article, “Who Gets to Define America?” By 2050 whites will not be a majority in the United States, and even before that, whites will not be the majority in the church. No ethnic group will have a majority, making the cultural mix of America a major political and religious issue. White churches are declining while ethnic churches are growing. White churches are losing their fervor while ethnic churches tend to be energetic and filled with spiritual vitality. Immigrants also tend to be more conservative morally and socially, bringing a renewed ethic to the nation.
Dr. Rah’s article should challenge us to rethink how we are doing church in America. Multi-ethnic ministry should be seriously considered and established churches should find ways to help ethnic churches grow and thrive. The future of the American church depends on it.
You can read the article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/04/soong-chan-rah-who-gets-to-define.html
Dr. Rah’s article should challenge us to rethink how we are doing church in America. Multi-ethnic ministry should be seriously considered and established churches should find ways to help ethnic churches grow and thrive. The future of the American church depends on it.
You can read the article at: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/04/soong-chan-rah-who-gets-to-define.html
Monday, April 2, 2007
The Dawkins Confusion
Richard Dawkins is one of America’s leading Atheists who has written many popular works against Theism. Alvin Plantinga reviews Dawkins’ latest book, The God Delusion, in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 21-24.
Plantinga, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame does an excellent job showing how Dawkins makes some very weak, misleading and very unsound arguments in his attempt to show that the idea of God is absurd. Plantinga’s own words say it best:
“Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying.”
Dawkins claims that the existence of God is “monumentally improbable,” by which he means that the more complex a creature is, the less probable its existence; and since God is infinitely complex, it is infinitely improbable that he exists. Plantinga points out that God is not necessarily complex, and since He is immaterial, the argument for complexity doesn’t fit. God is a necessary being upon whom all other beings depend on for their existence.
Plantinga goes on to examine the evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe. If the force of gravity were slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants, and if it were weaker all stars would be red dwarfs; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. If the weak and strong nuclear forces were either stronger or weaker, intelligent life would be impossible. The existence of life also depends on the expansion/compression ratio of the expanding universe, so that if the universe were expanding any faster it would be too cold, and if it were expanding any slower, it would be too hot and collapse back in on itself; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. Stephen Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse.
Dawkins tries to evade this evidence by suggesting that there are an infinite number of universes, with different combinations of distribution of values over the physical constants. First, there is no evidence for this, and second, very few would have viable combinations that would allow intelligent life to exist. His argument also doesn’t answer the question of why this particular universe in which we live is extremely fined tuned.
Dawkins tries to avoid the conclusions drawn from the argument from design by saying, “But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself… . To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.” Thus he tries to reassert his original argument from complexity for the improbability of God.
However, if we were to land on an alien planet and discover sophisticated machines, we would instantly proclaim that some intelligent alien beings created those machines. If someone in the group argued that we hadn’t explained anything at all since any intelligent life that designed those machines must be at least as complex as they are, we would send him back to earth on the first available flight to enroll in Philosophy 101. Such an argument is meaningless and misses the point entirely. So, too, does Dawkins’ argument, which is sophomoric at best.
Theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity but only organized complexity in general, to explain one specific manifestation of it (the universe). Even Dawkins’ arguments do not give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity. Explanations must come to an end somewhere on any view. Dawkins has merely tried to give a technical covering to the age old question, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” Such a question confuses categories since God is an eternal, self-existent, non-contingent, uncreated being.
Dawkins also fails to carry his arguments to their ultimate logical conclusion. If man is the product of unguided random evolution, then his brain is the product of the same process. Therefore, man can not be certain that his brain is functioning properly and that he is able to perceive reality accurately or reason about it accurately. Naturalism, then, is self-defeating since it is based on unreliable cognitive processes.
“he real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.”
Plantinga concludes:
“The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion." The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.”
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
Richard Dawkins is one of America’s leading Atheists who has written many popular works against Theism. Alvin Plantinga reviews Dawkins’ latest book, The God Delusion, in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 21-24.
Plantinga, a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame does an excellent job showing how Dawkins makes some very weak, misleading and very unsound arguments in his attempt to show that the idea of God is absurd. Plantinga’s own words say it best:
“Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying.”
Dawkins claims that the existence of God is “monumentally improbable,” by which he means that the more complex a creature is, the less probable its existence; and since God is infinitely complex, it is infinitely improbable that he exists. Plantinga points out that God is not necessarily complex, and since He is immaterial, the argument for complexity doesn’t fit. God is a necessary being upon whom all other beings depend on for their existence.
Plantinga goes on to examine the evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe. If the force of gravity were slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants, and if it were weaker all stars would be red dwarfs; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. If the weak and strong nuclear forces were either stronger or weaker, intelligent life would be impossible. The existence of life also depends on the expansion/compression ratio of the expanding universe, so that if the universe were expanding any faster it would be too cold, and if it were expanding any slower, it would be too hot and collapse back in on itself; in either case, intelligent life would be impossible. Stephen Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse.
Dawkins tries to evade this evidence by suggesting that there are an infinite number of universes, with different combinations of distribution of values over the physical constants. First, there is no evidence for this, and second, very few would have viable combinations that would allow intelligent life to exist. His argument also doesn’t answer the question of why this particular universe in which we live is extremely fined tuned.
Dawkins tries to avoid the conclusions drawn from the argument from design by saying, “But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself… . To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.” Thus he tries to reassert his original argument from complexity for the improbability of God.
However, if we were to land on an alien planet and discover sophisticated machines, we would instantly proclaim that some intelligent alien beings created those machines. If someone in the group argued that we hadn’t explained anything at all since any intelligent life that designed those machines must be at least as complex as they are, we would send him back to earth on the first available flight to enroll in Philosophy 101. Such an argument is meaningless and misses the point entirely. So, too, does Dawkins’ argument, which is sophomoric at best.
Theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity but only organized complexity in general, to explain one specific manifestation of it (the universe). Even Dawkins’ arguments do not give an ultimate explanation for organized complexity. Explanations must come to an end somewhere on any view. Dawkins has merely tried to give a technical covering to the age old question, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” Such a question confuses categories since God is an eternal, self-existent, non-contingent, uncreated being.
Dawkins also fails to carry his arguments to their ultimate logical conclusion. If man is the product of unguided random evolution, then his brain is the product of the same process. Therefore, man can not be certain that his brain is functioning properly and that he is able to perceive reality accurately or reason about it accurately. Naturalism, then, is self-defeating since it is based on unreliable cognitive processes.
“he real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.”
Plantinga concludes:
“The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion." The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.”
You can read the article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
C. S. Lewis Correspondence
If you like C. S. Lewis, then you might be interested in Michael Ward's review of The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis in “They Didn’t Have Email,” Books & Culture, March/April, 2007, page 25.
America gets an F in Religion
Every once in a while a secular magazine publishes an article about religion that is worth reading. This week’s U.S. News & World Report, April 9, 2007, page 28 has an interview with Stephen Prothero entitled, “In America, an F in Religion.” Prothero, head of the department of religion at Boston University, laments that while America is the most religious country in the world, it has the lowest religious literacy. Even though 9 out of 10 believe in God, or some divine being, and two thirds believe the Bible is a source of answers for every day life, only half can name even one of the four Gospels and only 10% of teenagers can name the five major world religions.
America used to be the most religiously literate country in the world, with churches, schools, homes, Sunday schools, colleges, and Bible and tract societies all educating the public about Christianity and religion. The change started in the 19th century when religious groups couldn’t agree about which version of the Bible to use in public education.
The second major reason is the decline in Biblical education within American churches. When Evangelicals began to dominate America’s religious scene in the 19th century, they focused on experience at the expense of learning and reason. Before the rise of Evangelicalism, sermons focused on Biblical narratives and doctrine, while after sermons tended to focus on personal piety and religious self-help topics. By focusing on experience and emotion Evangelicalism was the major force in the decline of biblical knowledge and religious education. Text book companies try to stay away from controversial topics in order to sell their books in as many school districts as possible. So, while we tend to blame the atheists and secularists for the decline in religious literacy, the main culprit is the church.
Prothero feels that the Bible and world religions should be taught in the public schools in order to educate the public about religion. Because religious issues are at the core of many of the issues we face in our world today, we can’t afford to be ignorant about religion. I think Prothero is right on target.
You can read this article at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070401/9qa.htm
America used to be the most religiously literate country in the world, with churches, schools, homes, Sunday schools, colleges, and Bible and tract societies all educating the public about Christianity and religion. The change started in the 19th century when religious groups couldn’t agree about which version of the Bible to use in public education.
The second major reason is the decline in Biblical education within American churches. When Evangelicals began to dominate America’s religious scene in the 19th century, they focused on experience at the expense of learning and reason. Before the rise of Evangelicalism, sermons focused on Biblical narratives and doctrine, while after sermons tended to focus on personal piety and religious self-help topics. By focusing on experience and emotion Evangelicalism was the major force in the decline of biblical knowledge and religious education. Text book companies try to stay away from controversial topics in order to sell their books in as many school districts as possible. So, while we tend to blame the atheists and secularists for the decline in religious literacy, the main culprit is the church.
Prothero feels that the Bible and world religions should be taught in the public schools in order to educate the public about religion. Because religious issues are at the core of many of the issues we face in our world today, we can’t afford to be ignorant about religion. I think Prothero is right on target.
You can read this article at: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070401/9qa.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)