* Ground Rules

Let's get the prelimaries out of the way: 1.) These blog posts are for christians. No offense to those who aren't; it's just the content matter is regarding primarily christians. Some posts are more general, though. 2.) These topics are rated "M" for Mature. No curses, but these subjects are adult in nature and content. I don't mean in a "sex" or "violence" way. Rather, I mean "Intellectually". No need for a degree from Harvard, but if you are genius level I welcome your feedback. I've been called smart, and so I do tend to value intelligent conversation. 3.) I will probably offend some. Others may disagree. And that's fine. As Pastor Dillamon says often, "Tolerance used to mean being with others who disagree, now it's come to mean moral ambiguity". Frankly if my relationship with my friends is such that we have to agree on everything, that's not saying much about the relationships. 4.) On that note, please feel free to respond. Again, I welcome feedback. 5.) Lastly, there will be nothing here about work. My job is my job, and it pays the bills. If you are looking for another "anonymous" blogger who works at Microsoft or Google, that ain't me. Besides - I like my job;) So... Let's Begin! Click on any of the posts at the top right of the screen (under Blog Archive) to see what I'm spouting off on....

* A Question for my Catholic Friends

I'm not a Catholic, but I know a few. Some are good friends of mine. So I have a question: Why are priests still required to be celibate? I'd like to hear this from the Catholic perspective. Not the fact that they still are, but can you adequately explain why this is still necessary. Of course, I know that even among Catholics, this is a source of discussion, but I've yet to hear an adequate reason FOR it.

* Practical Evangelism

We know about the importance of evangelism. Yet we seem to constantly stumble on how to do it??? Here's an idea: friendship! In other words, develop friendships with non christians. Not for the purpose of "converting" either - rather, to let God work through your relationships with them. Pastor Dillamon says it often takes 100 hours of direct ministry and 7-8 people in a person's life before they have enough information to make a decision. So don't expect to "convert" all by yourself, either. It could be something as simple as going to happy hour with your coworkers. Or inviting your next door neighbor over for lunch. And then listening to them, getting to know them, and - here's the key - keeping your mouth SHUT. Start small. But start with the people already within your circle. If there are no people in your circle, do something about it! Get to know some non christians, naturally. Ministry wise, there are ministries like the International Ministry if you want a starting point. Or there are interests and pursuits one can always try. Think of where Jesus went; then think about where his disciples went. Apply that to our time and culture. Yes, this may involve stepping out of your comfort zone, but is that a bad thing?

* Democrats win Congress - now what???

Well, well well. The Democrats, fresh off the heels of the election, have taken over both the House and the Senate. Now what? Well, what I want to see is simple: Since this election was clearly about Bush and the War, what is the plan to get out? I was very wary of the 2004 election for this very reason. Like most folks, I never agreed with the war in Iraq. Even though I do believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, the end result didn't seem to be a good one. Fact is, it's *worse*! Anyway, John Kerry's whole platform in 2004 centered around the fact that he opposed the war. No duh. But he never provided much of an exit plan. Considering he was a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, a war hero and patriot who was passionate about veterans of that war the fact he didn't state a plan concerned me. That tells me either he didn't know what to do, or his solution was an even more prolonged campaign. Again, given that his military past I doubted the former. Now the democrats have a similar challange. Can they avoid Kerry's mistakes? As an aside, the election tells me more than just what the country thought about Bush. It told me that we as a nation are more divided than ever, that we are being pushed by more and more polarizing figures. To me that's the greater concern....

* A final thought on Rick Santorum

Before the last election, I was shown an article by two people regarding Rick Santorum

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html?inline=nyt-per

Since there were two different folks that pointed this out, I felt like this was reason to blog....

The article had a good point, and I agreed with it - until the last paragraph. In essence the author contradicted himself or herself. "....The bottom line is this: If serious antipoverty work is going to be done,it's going to emerge from a coalition of liberals and religiousconservatives. " The problem is, as the author states, Santorum is such a divisive figure, it's close to impossible for him to build a coalition. It's not just the fact that his rhetoric puts off people; it's that other politicians don't want to be seen associated with him. Witness poor Melissa Hart, for whom her competitor has linked her with not only Bush but Santorum as well - I've never heard a negative ad link a president AND a senator. And good lord - it worked! Was his rhetoric really necessary? I mean I have a tough time as it is defending my faith to my family - Santorum just makes it harder. He is one of the few people who's polarization is so harsh, his message gets lost in the delivery. Even the author agrees that Santorum's rhetoric is over the top.

Even worse, I've heard him talk about non-"hot button" issues. You can tell Santorum is very intelligent. So when he spouts off emotionally, he either doesn't think first or chooses not to. And he does it consistently.

Another issue was the fact that Santorum is relatively anti-social among his peers. This also doesn't help matters. If you look at what is in the job description among senators, it includes relationships with peers. No one is saying you have to be best buds but if you can't be somewhat social.... In summary - Santorum did this to himself. Some level of people person skills is a necessity in this job. Look, I have no illusions about being in politics - I certainly couldn't be a senator either. But I didn't run for the position. Santorum did.

* Fixing the education system

How bad is it for kids today? Seems like all we hear about is how the American Education System is failing. Theoretically a program like No Child Left Behind is supposed to solve this, right? First, let's define "failure". American students consistently test among the worse among their peers in the world. Other countries (China, Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan, etc.) are consistetly among the best. People tend to blame urban schools. More on that later. Well, can we be the best? Why not? Instead of "band-aid" solutions such as No Child Left Behind, we should aim to be the best in the world. Why can't we? Give our students every chance to succeed. And show them why, not rule by fear. So we start with a mission statement: American students will be the best in the world. Period. Tell our kids that they can do it. That's what Asian kids are taught - I certainly was! Now, let's look at some of these countries. Why do their students do so well? Is it racial? Cultural? Fact is, in many asian schools, there is school 12 months out of the year. In many cases, you are in school 6 days a week. Specialization (schools for science, arts, humanities, etc.) start in high school. In addition, my Indian and Pakistani friends tell me in their country they start school at 3. You don't have to be a math major to figure this out: you can't compete when your kids are only in school for 9 months vs 12. And starting at 3 as opposed to 5 already gives children a head start. Summer school shouldn't be punishment or remedial. Instead it should be mandatory. And if done right, fun. Another by product of this is that teachers will be working more. So should they get paid more? Of course! Our economic system is such that talent goes where the money is. And that should also help to draw a better pool of teachers. From a business persective if we invest in our future, we should make sure that talent is nurtured properly. Many of these teachers have masters degrees - they should start at higher salaries for this, as opposed to being asked to waive that to start at the same level as those with bachelor degrees only. Culturally education is placed highly in asian societies. Certainly schools can't replace family reinforcement. But I am proposing very fixable solutions - if we are serious about making changes. Instead of threatening them, let's challenge our kids, and give them the tools they need to succeed. Thoughts?

* Politics

First off, where do I stand? I am a registered Libertarian. Why, you ask? Simple. We as a nation supposedly embrace diversity. All are welcome, right? Well as we have an increase in the number of racial, ethnic, social, and economic groups and categories that are populating our country, the idea that one system - be it taxes, welfare, education, whatever - can adequately satisfy the needs of many simply makes less and less sense. It's just not logically working. Take welfare. What was the purpose of it? What is the purpose now? Does it really fulfull the original mission? How is it there are so many loopholes for it? Or taxes. How is it that the rich 1% seem to get richer? Those living at the poverty line or below it - what and how are our taxes helping them? Welfare? So my opinion is that the system not only needs to be fixed, but it needs to be thrown out altogether. One exeption is education - I'll rant on that later. But if you look at the definition of being libertarian, this fits my profile. Frankly neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to fulfill this mission, and are failing pretty spectacularly. Again, by following the logic of "one system, all peoples" doesn't make sense in a diverse society.

* Do Young Adult Ministries Work?

First off, this is NOT meant to be aimed at a specific ministry at "church X". Moreover this is what I've seen after seeing several ministries, across several churches. Have you ever heard the following: "This ministry was created b/c there was a need for it" "It's designed for the age group of X to Y" (usually twenties and possibly early thirties) "It's not a singles group" Okay maybe the last one was more tongue in cheek:). But still, do these groups fill the need stated above? If so, then why do so many of us seem embittered by them? Why do so many of us "hop" from group to group, trying to find "the right fit"? Why is it so many of us seem to not find meaningful relationships or feel like we've fallen "between the cracks?" Are we just being "selfish" in getting our needs? Many of us dive into these groups, perhaps even serve in leadership if possible. Yet it seems like after about 6 months or so we get burned out. Let's be clear. SOMETHING does need to be done. But what? First, let's look at the whole "age" issue. Studies show that most people don't really know what they want to do or who they are as an adult until the age of 25. College ministries (which in many ways overlap young adult ministries) is fine until 21 or 22. So we can see that there is some sort of need in the Church in general for these groups. So how to bridge the gap? In the working world, most of us who wind up working in a job that's "long term" start off with a mentor type relationship. Usually a manager or a team lead. Of course, a good question is where do these leaders emerge? Some level of "minister" level teaching can also be a need. And that is something that I obviously have no problems with. But the question is, how long is this needed? A year? Two? Shouldn't High School and College ministers/pastors already have equipped us with this? So how about a model where leaders disciple and TEACH others to be leaders? After a few years or even months, those who "graduate" then become the next generation of leaders and/or disciplers? Use small groups as a foundation, and then meet say once a month as a large group. Better yet, these new leaders can also serve in OTHER ministries, thus becoming the next leaders of the church! The disciplers can (with help) determine which ministries can best be equipped for these leaders - so instead of ministries asking every sunday for "volunteers" who are best band-aids, we have leaders who can offer a more long term solution (let alone help to fulfull their passions and desires?) . In essense, this new Young Adult ministry is a "feeder" system, developing new leaders. The ministry is also much more integrated with the churches, as opposed to being mini-churches themselves. And one other thing - once these leaders are developed, they should no longer go to the group. After all, how many 20 somethings go to a high school ministry to be ministered to? Not to say that 25 should be the hard cutoff, but something approaching a 2 to 4 year limit from when you start is a definite model. I've seen age ranges of over 10 years (such as 18-30). That's a little ridiculous. Anyone over that limit can be a leader/mentor I have much more to say on this subject, but for now let's use this as a start off point. Comments?