I enjoyed an enriching conversation on Facebook yesterday -- yes, it is possible! -- with two high school classmates that I've not seen in person for nearly 50 years. It began when I 'shared' an article about why Christians voted for Donald Trump. While we differ on some political views, we agreed that the label "Christians" is very broad and that the article failed to recognize that the category includes different races, different socio-economic backgrounds, different creeds and, of course, different political preferences.
The descriptor 'evangelical' has been used this election season and I have bemoaned its use to describe a voting bloc rather than a theological distinctive. We used to say "born again Christian" until that label was robbed of meaning by overuse and misuse. Many evangelical Christians prefer the label "Believer" to convey an adherence to traditional Christian orthodoxy; "Bible-believing Christian" is another. But those labels are primarily for us to communicate with others of our own ilk.
I am a Bible-believing, born again Christian Believer. And I know other Bible-believing, born again Christian Believers who are brothers and sisters in Christ but have different views than I on politics and public policy. Occasionally our discussions will refer to Scripture, but we can still differ on how to apply the words to a specific public policy argument. E.g., there is no debate that caring for the poor among us is a Biblical value -- the Church has demonstrated that through the centuries in countless ways, from orphanages to hospitals to schools to micro-economic development. The quarrel is over what the role of government should be. (II Thessalonians 3:10 is often quoted in this discussion: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”) Even if we agree that government has a role to play, how to shape that public policy will likely bring about further debate based less on Biblical principles than on political perspective.
During the election, I heard "I don't don't know how Christians can vote for Clinton/Trump." When said of Clinton, it usually had to do with her position on abortion or religious freedom. When said of Trump, it usually had to do with his character and behavior which were far from what Christians expect of themselves and others who call themselves Christian.
In the conversation on Facebook yesterday, one of my classmates referred to "the modicum of accommodation required to continue being a public business." This was a reference to bakers who won't bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding or photographers who won't do gay weddings, etc. While I think that the vendetta against the Portland OR bakery was completely overblown (and Oregon voters must have agreed, since the man responsible was the only Democrat not to win his election for State office), I think that the refusal of the bakery was not "the Christian thing" to do. Unless they use litmus tests for every other customer to determine their 'moral fitness' to be married (did they have sex before marriage, are either of them divorced, do they attend the same church and confess Jesus as their Savior, etc.), they did in fact discriminate against the gay customers.
More to the point, though, is that the refusal of service "witnessed to" the wrong thing; it essentially said, "My moral purity requires that I condemn your sin." Even if you believe that the gay lifestyle is sinful, condemnation is not Christ-like. (See John 3:17 and 8:11) How much better would it have been to deliver quality service with a loving spirit and demonstrate that Christians don't hate LGBTQ persons?
To me, 'evangelical' means proclaiming the Gospel in word and deed. And at the heart of the Gospel is Jesus' command to love one another, an instruction that is repeated nineteen times in the New Testament. And it is not just love for other Christians that is commanded. The "Great Commandment" -- which Jesus quoted from Leviticus -- is to "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Luke 10:27)
Folks my age will remember the "Jesus Movement" of the 1960s when we sat around campfires and earnestly sang, "We are one in the Spirit. We are one in the Lord. And we pray that all unity will one day be restored. And they'll know we are Christians by our love -- by our love! Yes, they'll know we are Christians by our love."
The proof of our faith is not our adherence to a creed, but our faithful obedience to Christ's commands. (James 1:27-2:18) I don't think it's too much to ask for us to show love when we have received the love of Christ in abundant measure.
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Words have Power
I observed to my wife this morning that I overlooked an element of the Presidential campaign that I should have included in my 'bill of particulars' in yesterday's blog: the unrelenting use of exaggerated rhetoric.
Donald Trump's favorite word was "disaster" -- everything was "a disaster." Obamacare, Benghazi, Syria, Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation -- disasters all. For anyone who has experienced a real disaster, Trump's overwrought language must have seemed dismissive of their own personal experience of disaster.
Hillary Clinton emphasized "danger" -- it would be "dangerous" to have Trump as President. Is it any wonder, then, that his election has created fear across the country? Apparently, we are all in danger!
I have posted previously about the power of words. I believe that this exaggerated rhetoric is partially to blame for the hysterical reaction by many to the results of the election. But there is another side to be considered.
President Obama was (in my view rightly) criticized for his refusal to label the threat of "radical Islamic terrorism." He believed that to do so would result in heightened distrust of Muslim Americans. I suggest that his failure to do so missed the opportunity to distinguish between the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. who pose no threat and those who have been radicalized. I.e., by refusing to use the label, he kept all Muslims as a monolithic entity opening all to suspicion.
Similarly, when demonstrations in Ferguson MO and Baltimore MD turned violent, the President's tepid response contributed. He failed to recognize that in voicing sympathy for their concerns and lending validity to them, he appeared to justify their anger which eventually turned to destructive behavior. Yes, he condemned the violence. But his words and attitude did not convey the horror felt by the victims of those violent acts.
I was saddened to read of horrible words and actions against Muslims, people of color, and LGBTQ citizens since the election. The actors in these matters seem to have been emboldened in their misoislamism, racism and homomisia (I'll explain my terms later) by Trump's rhetoric during the campaign. While he did not use explicit bias language, the way he spoke about Mexican immigrants and Muslims undoubtedly was heard by those populations as denigrating of an entire class of individuals. Even his "othering" (my word) of groups of people by use of the definite article -- the Muslims, the Hispanics, the evangelicals, the blacks, etc. -- provided linguistic clues that were followed by opponents and supporters alike.
NB -- since words mean things, I avoid using the suffix '-phobia' to describe 'hatred of.' Homophobia literally means "fear of gays"; homomisia means hatred of them. Similarly, Islamophobia means "fear of Muslims." The acts I have been reading about seem motivated more by hatred than fear, so I chose "misoislamism." Following my blog yesterday, I should use "xenomisia" (hatred of the strange or foreign) rather than xenophobia, since I think it is more a matter of despising the unfamiliar than fearing it that is at play.
President-elect Trump should make a strong statement condemning the hateful acts against others undertaken by those who are ostensibly his supporters. He should also apologize for statements made during the campaign that "otherized" (again, my word) entire groups of people. And he should follow his pledge to be President of all people with powerful words that convey intolerance for those who speak and act intolerantly of those unlike themselves. To do so would take a strong step in the direction of unifying the country.
Donald Trump's favorite word was "disaster" -- everything was "a disaster." Obamacare, Benghazi, Syria, Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation -- disasters all. For anyone who has experienced a real disaster, Trump's overwrought language must have seemed dismissive of their own personal experience of disaster.
Hillary Clinton emphasized "danger" -- it would be "dangerous" to have Trump as President. Is it any wonder, then, that his election has created fear across the country? Apparently, we are all in danger!
I have posted previously about the power of words. I believe that this exaggerated rhetoric is partially to blame for the hysterical reaction by many to the results of the election. But there is another side to be considered.
President Obama was (in my view rightly) criticized for his refusal to label the threat of "radical Islamic terrorism." He believed that to do so would result in heightened distrust of Muslim Americans. I suggest that his failure to do so missed the opportunity to distinguish between the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. who pose no threat and those who have been radicalized. I.e., by refusing to use the label, he kept all Muslims as a monolithic entity opening all to suspicion.
Similarly, when demonstrations in Ferguson MO and Baltimore MD turned violent, the President's tepid response contributed. He failed to recognize that in voicing sympathy for their concerns and lending validity to them, he appeared to justify their anger which eventually turned to destructive behavior. Yes, he condemned the violence. But his words and attitude did not convey the horror felt by the victims of those violent acts.
I was saddened to read of horrible words and actions against Muslims, people of color, and LGBTQ citizens since the election. The actors in these matters seem to have been emboldened in their misoislamism, racism and homomisia (I'll explain my terms later) by Trump's rhetoric during the campaign. While he did not use explicit bias language, the way he spoke about Mexican immigrants and Muslims undoubtedly was heard by those populations as denigrating of an entire class of individuals. Even his "othering" (my word) of groups of people by use of the definite article -- the Muslims, the Hispanics, the evangelicals, the blacks, etc. -- provided linguistic clues that were followed by opponents and supporters alike.
NB -- since words mean things, I avoid using the suffix '-phobia' to describe 'hatred of.' Homophobia literally means "fear of gays"; homomisia means hatred of them. Similarly, Islamophobia means "fear of Muslims." The acts I have been reading about seem motivated more by hatred than fear, so I chose "misoislamism." Following my blog yesterday, I should use "xenomisia" (hatred of the strange or foreign) rather than xenophobia, since I think it is more a matter of despising the unfamiliar than fearing it that is at play.
President-elect Trump should make a strong statement condemning the hateful acts against others undertaken by those who are ostensibly his supporters. He should also apologize for statements made during the campaign that "otherized" (again, my word) entire groups of people. And he should follow his pledge to be President of all people with powerful words that convey intolerance for those who speak and act intolerantly of those unlike themselves. To do so would take a strong step in the direction of unifying the country.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
THIS is xenophobia!
Gee whiz, this was an ugly election season. I even stayed up until the results were announced so I could be sure it was finally over (not wanting a repeat of 2000). Now we can all take a deep breath and return to our normal lives, right?
Not so fast. Hillary supporters are demonstrating in the streets, tweeting vile comments and posting articles hysterically predicting doom for the country and claiming that every female in the USA must fear for her safety.
From what I read, Facebook has been burning with inflammatory comments. (I have seen a few that were extreme, but none so bad that I felt I needed to "unfriend" the writer.) I have read opinion columns by syndicated columnists and by Hollywood celebrities that paint a dystopian picture that is completely at odds with the daily lives of most Americans. They read as if laws were repealed, convicts released, and open season was declared on sex crimes and crimes of violence on Wednesday morning November 10th.
Much more measured were columns in the New Republic by David Dayen and The Guardian by Thomas Frank. There was acknowledgement that liberal elites and the media (redundant, I know) completely misunderstand the fervor that underlay the Trump campaign.
When Trump had the temerity to discredit the Gold Star parents and speak about banning Muslims from immigrating to the U.S., the word "xenophobia" gained currency -- and rightly so. Far too many Americans are fearful of Muslims because of radical Islamic terrorism. Far too few Americans encounter Muslims on a regular basis. Those who work with, attend school with, live next door to Muslim Americans tend to recognize them as people not unlike themselves.
Diversity has been a value pursued in academia and in many businesses for this very reason. Associating with people unlike ourselves -- racially, culturally, religiously and otherwise -- enriches everyone.
I am grateful to have learned this lesson first hand. I attended elementary school with African-American kids. My high school had a high percentage of Jewish students, as well as African-Americans. (Apart from one family of migrant farm workers who settled permanently, I had no such exposure to Hispanics, though.) As a college student and young adult, I encountered other people who were different than I.
As a result, I am accustomed to engaging in polite, respectful dialogue to explain my position on an issue and listen to the positions of others. I have even, until the last Presidential cycle, enjoyed spirited discussion of political differences. It has been different this time, for the following reasons.
1. The candidates -- and their supporters -- made it personal. Both Clinton and Trump attacked their opponent's morality, honesty, competence, trustworthiness, etc. Is it any wonder, then, that the post-election dialogue continues that pattern by attacking the person who voted for ______ as stupid, blind, deluded, or even un-Christian?
2. The news media, in pursuit of ratings, circulation or clicks, latch onto the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of the campaign and give exposure to even the most lurid 'news items.' So supporters of one candidate have explosive accusations to lob at the opposition, and will continue those attacks even when the initial item has been refuted or explained.
3. Social media has depreciated the value of truth and civility. Twitter and Facebook have provided a means for the most outrageous "information" to get wide exposure. For example, there was a piece circulating that quoted Tim Kaine as proposing to ban the Catholic Church from the U.S. It was written as satire, but because it began with a legitimate quote, it appeared genuine. It was shared by two of my Facebook friends, not realizing that it was bogus.
4. Most importantly, though, I think is the xenophobia that exists in the news media and other parts of the opinion-shaping, policy-making elite. Fox News' Tucker Carlson pointed out that none of the Washington DC/New York City news media have a clue what motivates the voters in Oshkosh or Terre Haute. (They may not even know they are real places with real voters!) And it is my assessment that this cultural ignorance leads to a fear of those citizens. Racial hatred against Hispanics, not economic self-interest, must motivate someone who worries about the impact of illegal immigration because his job has been lost or wages lowered. The NRA member who keeps guns for hunting or for self-defense cannot be appalled by Sandy Hook or Charleston shootings. If you support the police when Black Lives Matter foments violence, you must be a racist. If you believe in traditional marriage, you hate gays. Apparently, these liberal elites do not believe it is possible to hold views that differ from their own and still love and accept blacks, Hispanics, LGBT+ people, Muslims, etc.
Xenophobia -- fear of the stranger. Yes, there are white working-class voters who never encounter people of color, of other nationalities or languages, or LGBT+ folk on a regular basis; but with immigration, migration, and transience that number is much lower than the coastal elites imagine it to be. I suggest that the attitudes of the average church-going Midwesterner are far more tolerant than those of the average Ivy League professor or NYT/WashPo reporter. That has to be the case if the latter are fearful of riots and violence ensuing from the mere fact of Trump's winning the election. (Oh, wait. Riots and violence have ensued -- just not by the white working-class.)
THIS is the real xenophobia: the irrational fear by coastal elites of those strange Midwesterners who attend church, own guns, oppose abortion, value traditional marriage, attend High School football and NASCAR, and who want a Supreme Court that will protect First Amendment religious liberty as assiduously as First Amendment freedom of expression.
Not so fast. Hillary supporters are demonstrating in the streets, tweeting vile comments and posting articles hysterically predicting doom for the country and claiming that every female in the USA must fear for her safety.
From what I read, Facebook has been burning with inflammatory comments. (I have seen a few that were extreme, but none so bad that I felt I needed to "unfriend" the writer.) I have read opinion columns by syndicated columnists and by Hollywood celebrities that paint a dystopian picture that is completely at odds with the daily lives of most Americans. They read as if laws were repealed, convicts released, and open season was declared on sex crimes and crimes of violence on Wednesday morning November 10th.
Much more measured were columns in the New Republic by David Dayen and The Guardian by Thomas Frank. There was acknowledgement that liberal elites and the media (redundant, I know) completely misunderstand the fervor that underlay the Trump campaign.
When Trump had the temerity to discredit the Gold Star parents and speak about banning Muslims from immigrating to the U.S., the word "xenophobia" gained currency -- and rightly so. Far too many Americans are fearful of Muslims because of radical Islamic terrorism. Far too few Americans encounter Muslims on a regular basis. Those who work with, attend school with, live next door to Muslim Americans tend to recognize them as people not unlike themselves.
Diversity has been a value pursued in academia and in many businesses for this very reason. Associating with people unlike ourselves -- racially, culturally, religiously and otherwise -- enriches everyone.
I am grateful to have learned this lesson first hand. I attended elementary school with African-American kids. My high school had a high percentage of Jewish students, as well as African-Americans. (Apart from one family of migrant farm workers who settled permanently, I had no such exposure to Hispanics, though.) As a college student and young adult, I encountered other people who were different than I.
As a result, I am accustomed to engaging in polite, respectful dialogue to explain my position on an issue and listen to the positions of others. I have even, until the last Presidential cycle, enjoyed spirited discussion of political differences. It has been different this time, for the following reasons.
1. The candidates -- and their supporters -- made it personal. Both Clinton and Trump attacked their opponent's morality, honesty, competence, trustworthiness, etc. Is it any wonder, then, that the post-election dialogue continues that pattern by attacking the person who voted for ______ as stupid, blind, deluded, or even un-Christian?
2. The news media, in pursuit of ratings, circulation or clicks, latch onto the most controversial and inflammatory aspects of the campaign and give exposure to even the most lurid 'news items.' So supporters of one candidate have explosive accusations to lob at the opposition, and will continue those attacks even when the initial item has been refuted or explained.
3. Social media has depreciated the value of truth and civility. Twitter and Facebook have provided a means for the most outrageous "information" to get wide exposure. For example, there was a piece circulating that quoted Tim Kaine as proposing to ban the Catholic Church from the U.S. It was written as satire, but because it began with a legitimate quote, it appeared genuine. It was shared by two of my Facebook friends, not realizing that it was bogus.
4. Most importantly, though, I think is the xenophobia that exists in the news media and other parts of the opinion-shaping, policy-making elite. Fox News' Tucker Carlson pointed out that none of the Washington DC/New York City news media have a clue what motivates the voters in Oshkosh or Terre Haute. (They may not even know they are real places with real voters!) And it is my assessment that this cultural ignorance leads to a fear of those citizens. Racial hatred against Hispanics, not economic self-interest, must motivate someone who worries about the impact of illegal immigration because his job has been lost or wages lowered. The NRA member who keeps guns for hunting or for self-defense cannot be appalled by Sandy Hook or Charleston shootings. If you support the police when Black Lives Matter foments violence, you must be a racist. If you believe in traditional marriage, you hate gays. Apparently, these liberal elites do not believe it is possible to hold views that differ from their own and still love and accept blacks, Hispanics, LGBT+ people, Muslims, etc.
Xenophobia -- fear of the stranger. Yes, there are white working-class voters who never encounter people of color, of other nationalities or languages, or LGBT+ folk on a regular basis; but with immigration, migration, and transience that number is much lower than the coastal elites imagine it to be. I suggest that the attitudes of the average church-going Midwesterner are far more tolerant than those of the average Ivy League professor or NYT/WashPo reporter. That has to be the case if the latter are fearful of riots and violence ensuing from the mere fact of Trump's winning the election. (Oh, wait. Riots and violence have ensued -- just not by the white working-class.)
THIS is the real xenophobia: the irrational fear by coastal elites of those strange Midwesterners who attend church, own guns, oppose abortion, value traditional marriage, attend High School football and NASCAR, and who want a Supreme Court that will protect First Amendment religious liberty as assiduously as First Amendment freedom of expression.
Friday, October 7, 2016
Knowing your headquarters from your hindquarters
My son is a military chaplain, currently stationed in Okinawa. In this week's newsletter, he shared the following message with his readers. While intended for a military readership, I think it has general appeal and share it herewith.
In addition to His warning that the blind leading the blind is disastrous, Jesus gives another admonition, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?” Stop there and again we get the wrong impression -- that we should be worried only about ourselves. But Jesus then says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.” Jesus doesn’t mean to disregard our brother’s speck simply because of our plank. We have to remove our obstacles to truth, our own selfishness, pride, and self-serving choices, and be willing to become more like Jesus, our teacher. When we are more comfortable around the Truth, then we will be able to see how best to help our brethren following behind us. But how do we know?
Jesus gives us a hint as to how to tell what’s true, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." As obvious as distinguishing the headquarters from the hindquarters, you can’t get apples from a pine tree. Men and women are different. Right and wrong are the same for everyone, everywhere, at all times. We do not show love for each other by pretending otherwise. When we are not certain what kind of fruit a tree (or act, or person) will bear, we can reserve judgment and seek the guidance we need to remove the plank from our vision. But most times the fruit is obvious, and we need to have the courage to defend the fences our forefathers erected for our protection out of wisdom and love for us, lest we put our headquarters where our hindquarters should be.
During the American Civil War, General John Pope—whose army in the west had seen more
success than its eastern counterpart—was transferred by President Lincoln to command of the
Army of the Potomac. Shortly after taking command he gave a rather impassioned speech to his
troops extolling his successes, and in the process highlighting their failures. To illustrate that he
planned for the Army to be always on the move he stated that his headquarters would be in the
saddle. His men would later quip that their commander had “his headquarters where his
hindquarters should be.” To not know one’s headquarters from his hindquarters has remained, in
various forms, an expression describing a man or a woman confused about something that should be obvious to him; after all it’s obvious to us. Or is it?
We modern people have done such a terrific job of busting up stereotypes and taboos, of breaking rules and eliminating boundaries, and blurring distinctions, that we have become confused about the kinds of things that were once obvious and incontrovertible. Even what it means to be a man or a woman has become a source of confusion —gender confusion. G.K. Chesterton warned in his 1929 book The Thing not to tear down a fence or a gate we think is useless. “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” Stereotypes, taboos, rules, boundaries, and distinctions are fences that have been erected over generations of hard-earned experience, and many are right to be torn down. However, many more are best left standing where they are, and a thoughtless, impulsive, self-serving society has failed to make the measured judgement required and simply tears down whatever stands in the way of its desires.
Often judgement is cast aside because of Jesus’ own words, "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned.” We hear these words and believe ourselves commanded to reserve judgment and refrain from characterizing things as right or wrong. We demur behind a wall of relativism saying, “I can’t tell you what’s right for you.” And if we were to read no further into the Gospel of Luke, maybe this would be the correct conclusion. But Jesus didn’t stop there, He went on to say, “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher.” All of us need to be taught by someone who knows, and those who know—who have learned before we have—have paved roads of knowledge for us, with road signs to direct us, and gates and fences to protect us. We disregard or destroy them at our own peril.
We modern people have done such a terrific job of busting up stereotypes and taboos, of breaking rules and eliminating boundaries, and blurring distinctions, that we have become confused about the kinds of things that were once obvious and incontrovertible. Even what it means to be a man or a woman has become a source of confusion —gender confusion. G.K. Chesterton warned in his 1929 book The Thing not to tear down a fence or a gate we think is useless. “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” Stereotypes, taboos, rules, boundaries, and distinctions are fences that have been erected over generations of hard-earned experience, and many are right to be torn down. However, many more are best left standing where they are, and a thoughtless, impulsive, self-serving society has failed to make the measured judgement required and simply tears down whatever stands in the way of its desires.
Often judgement is cast aside because of Jesus’ own words, "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned.” We hear these words and believe ourselves commanded to reserve judgment and refrain from characterizing things as right or wrong. We demur behind a wall of relativism saying, “I can’t tell you what’s right for you.” And if we were to read no further into the Gospel of Luke, maybe this would be the correct conclusion. But Jesus didn’t stop there, He went on to say, “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher.” All of us need to be taught by someone who knows, and those who know—who have learned before we have—have paved roads of knowledge for us, with road signs to direct us, and gates and fences to protect us. We disregard or destroy them at our own peril.
In addition to His warning that the blind leading the blind is disastrous, Jesus gives another admonition, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye?” Stop there and again we get the wrong impression -- that we should be worried only about ourselves. But Jesus then says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye.” Jesus doesn’t mean to disregard our brother’s speck simply because of our plank. We have to remove our obstacles to truth, our own selfishness, pride, and self-serving choices, and be willing to become more like Jesus, our teacher. When we are more comfortable around the Truth, then we will be able to see how best to help our brethren following behind us. But how do we know?
Jesus gives us a hint as to how to tell what’s true, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." As obvious as distinguishing the headquarters from the hindquarters, you can’t get apples from a pine tree. Men and women are different. Right and wrong are the same for everyone, everywhere, at all times. We do not show love for each other by pretending otherwise. When we are not certain what kind of fruit a tree (or act, or person) will bear, we can reserve judgment and seek the guidance we need to remove the plank from our vision. But most times the fruit is obvious, and we need to have the courage to defend the fences our forefathers erected for our protection out of wisdom and love for us, lest we put our headquarters where our hindquarters should be.
Monday, October 3, 2016
Deep and Wide
It's not exactly a theophany, but God spoke to me this morning in an unusual way. I was reading my morning devotions -- as usual -- using the books and web sites I visit each day. But my first web site grabbed me in an unusual way.
My initial reaction was negative: "Oh, no. I can't get away from politics, even during my devotions." That was because the writer began with the Affordable Care Act and a paper she had read.
"Oh, great!" I said to myself. This devotional reading is based on an academic paper, not on the Scriptures.
But habits being what they are (and being compelled to finish any reading I begin because of my OCD), I read the entire piece. And God spoke to me, humbling me as He said, "I can use any means to speak, but you've got to be open to listening." Maybe I was more sensitive to this message today because in my Corps Officer's sermon yesterday, she said "In order to hear God, you've got to be open to listen to whatever He says and however he says it."
If you've read this far, you may be wondering what He said to me. Here's the gist, based on the Great Commandment and the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10: Christians are accountable not just to God and to the Christian community, but to the broader community as well. The writer asks this question: "How can we focus our faith on being more accountable in doing the work of this world? I think the readings today point out that in seeking to be accountable to the Gospel, we need to keep focused on the truths revealed through Jesus Christ. That means being accountable to our neighbors. Accountability means demonstrating love in seeking truth and equity." (Barbara Dilly, Creighton U Daily Reflections)
Here I was engaged in a pietistic discipline of daily Scripture and devotional reading with prayers, and I'm being challenged that my holiness cannot go deeper unless it spreads wider.
My last post was about how to be a Christian voter in the current climate of acrimonious political interaction. Dilly spoke to that in this way: "Defining a shared set of values and a coherent vision for the future is very difficult. One thing does seem to be certain, and that is the vision must include the value of accountability to society for every American."
Part of my frustration in this political climate is the sense of powerlessness to influence the culture more broadly. I have seen many posts on Facebook that promise (as I have done) to pray for our country; it sometimes seems as if that is all Christians can do. But I was challenged by my devotions again this morning to do all that I can to emphasize Kingdom values in my daily interactions with my neighbors and to do all that I can to help our country's leaders arrive at a coherent vision that is rooted in God's Word.
Thank you, Lord, for speaking to me again today.
My initial reaction was negative: "Oh, no. I can't get away from politics, even during my devotions." That was because the writer began with the Affordable Care Act and a paper she had read.
"Oh, great!" I said to myself. This devotional reading is based on an academic paper, not on the Scriptures.
But habits being what they are (and being compelled to finish any reading I begin because of my OCD), I read the entire piece. And God spoke to me, humbling me as He said, "I can use any means to speak, but you've got to be open to listening." Maybe I was more sensitive to this message today because in my Corps Officer's sermon yesterday, she said "In order to hear God, you've got to be open to listen to whatever He says and however he says it."
If you've read this far, you may be wondering what He said to me. Here's the gist, based on the Great Commandment and the Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10: Christians are accountable not just to God and to the Christian community, but to the broader community as well. The writer asks this question: "How can we focus our faith on being more accountable in doing the work of this world? I think the readings today point out that in seeking to be accountable to the Gospel, we need to keep focused on the truths revealed through Jesus Christ. That means being accountable to our neighbors. Accountability means demonstrating love in seeking truth and equity." (Barbara Dilly, Creighton U Daily Reflections)
Here I was engaged in a pietistic discipline of daily Scripture and devotional reading with prayers, and I'm being challenged that my holiness cannot go deeper unless it spreads wider.
I got the same message from Stuart Briscoe ("Devotions for Men") on Thursday. He was commenting on the Levitical command to leave part of the harvest for gleaning by the poor and said, "you see, there is a very definite link between being holy
and picking grapes. There
is also a link between holiness and opening doors for old people, picking up
beer cans left in the countryside, caring for AIDS patients, reviewing the way
you pay your employees, treating a baggage handler with courtesy, and showing
respect to a waiter. In some ways
holiness is not easy. But in our culture
so many people behave so badly that it is not very difficult to stand out, to be
separate, to be holy – simply by treating people properly!”
My last post was about how to be a Christian voter in the current climate of acrimonious political interaction. Dilly spoke to that in this way: "Defining a shared set of values and a coherent vision for the future is very difficult. One thing does seem to be certain, and that is the vision must include the value of accountability to society for every American."
Part of my frustration in this political climate is the sense of powerlessness to influence the culture more broadly. I have seen many posts on Facebook that promise (as I have done) to pray for our country; it sometimes seems as if that is all Christians can do. But I was challenged by my devotions again this morning to do all that I can to emphasize Kingdom values in my daily interactions with my neighbors and to do all that I can to help our country's leaders arrive at a coherent vision that is rooted in God's Word.
Thank you, Lord, for speaking to me again today.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
How to be a Christian voter
Let me confess right at the outset that I do not purport to know how to be a Christian voter. That is, I do not have simple answers to how my faith informs my vote for specific candidates. Christian leaders are not always helpful. I am a brother in Christ to Rev. Franklin Graham and align with him theologically. But when he uses the label 'chocolate' to refer demeaningly to our President, I take offense and fear that he is damaging the cause of Christ.
On the other side of the political spectrum, I am impressed with the clarity of "Sojourners" ministry and align with the heart of Rev. Jim Wallis. But I fear that evangelism has been replaced by social action and political advocacy.
I watched the Presidential debate Monday night. Other than a brief discussion of tax policy that cited dueling economists, there was virtually no serious discussion of public policy. And even the tax dialogue quickly degenerated into ad hominem attacks. A Facebook friend commented on the debate's missing policy points, "I'm old enough to recall a time when the views of candidates on selected issues would be published side by side in newspapers for everyone to read, think about, and compare. Unfortunately, we voters don't have the advantage of very much of that kind of unbiased, simple, direct, uncluttered information in this supposed Information Age."
I have always voted on the basis of the candidate's public policy stances. I voted for Jimmy Carter, not because he was a born-again Christian but because Gerald Ford seemed to lack knowledge of foreign affairs. I have no-one to vote for this year; my vote will be a "least among evils" vote. Part of the reason is that none of the candidates (not even Gary Johnson) have given me articulate policy positions that merit my support.
Notice, too, that we have not heard -- nor will we -- any discussion of abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, bathroom privacy, etc. Strangely enough, I think that's a good thing with the way the discussion of issues such as racial conflict has played out. The dialogue has not been elevated, it has sunk to lows I could not have anticipated in Presidential politics. How does a Christian speak into this situation?
Positions taken by evangelical Christians in political forums are often labeled as bigoted or uninformed. It is also possible that attempting to influence the society through partisan politics has backfired. That is, "evangelicals" are merely a voting bloc that Donald Trump courts and Hillary Clinton labels 'deplorable.' I want the word to mean "one who loves." ... one who loves God ... one who loves his neighbor ... one who loves and serves the unlovely ... not "one who votes for Republicans." We should be salt and light in the world, not sandpaper.
In our zeal, we sometimes work against our own interest, rather like evangelical pastors in my first appointment who organized demonstrations against the downtown theater that was showing pornography. They did not succeed in closing down the theater. But they did succeed in calling attention to its existence and increasing their box office receipts.
I commented on the Facebook post as follows: "Perhaps among the lessons learned from this debacle is that Christians should not expect government to do what only the Gospel can do. Moral issues have been absent from the discussion, so we no longer expect our leaders to use the levers of power to accomplish behavior change. It may be a fruitful time for the Gospel -- or it may move the Church to irrelevancy as it has in most of Europe. I'm praying for revival."
Like I said, I don't know how to be a Christian voter in 2016.
On the other side of the political spectrum, I am impressed with the clarity of "Sojourners" ministry and align with the heart of Rev. Jim Wallis. But I fear that evangelism has been replaced by social action and political advocacy.
I watched the Presidential debate Monday night. Other than a brief discussion of tax policy that cited dueling economists, there was virtually no serious discussion of public policy. And even the tax dialogue quickly degenerated into ad hominem attacks. A Facebook friend commented on the debate's missing policy points, "I'm old enough to recall a time when the views of candidates on selected issues would be published side by side in newspapers for everyone to read, think about, and compare. Unfortunately, we voters don't have the advantage of very much of that kind of unbiased, simple, direct, uncluttered information in this supposed Information Age."
I have always voted on the basis of the candidate's public policy stances. I voted for Jimmy Carter, not because he was a born-again Christian but because Gerald Ford seemed to lack knowledge of foreign affairs. I have no-one to vote for this year; my vote will be a "least among evils" vote. Part of the reason is that none of the candidates (not even Gary Johnson) have given me articulate policy positions that merit my support.
Notice, too, that we have not heard -- nor will we -- any discussion of abortion, gay marriage, religious freedom, bathroom privacy, etc. Strangely enough, I think that's a good thing with the way the discussion of issues such as racial conflict has played out. The dialogue has not been elevated, it has sunk to lows I could not have anticipated in Presidential politics. How does a Christian speak into this situation?
Positions taken by evangelical Christians in political forums are often labeled as bigoted or uninformed. It is also possible that attempting to influence the society through partisan politics has backfired. That is, "evangelicals" are merely a voting bloc that Donald Trump courts and Hillary Clinton labels 'deplorable.' I want the word to mean "one who loves." ... one who loves God ... one who loves his neighbor ... one who loves and serves the unlovely ... not "one who votes for Republicans." We should be salt and light in the world, not sandpaper.
In our zeal, we sometimes work against our own interest, rather like evangelical pastors in my first appointment who organized demonstrations against the downtown theater that was showing pornography. They did not succeed in closing down the theater. But they did succeed in calling attention to its existence and increasing their box office receipts.
I commented on the Facebook post as follows: "Perhaps among the lessons learned from this debacle is that Christians should not expect government to do what only the Gospel can do. Moral issues have been absent from the discussion, so we no longer expect our leaders to use the levers of power to accomplish behavior change. It may be a fruitful time for the Gospel -- or it may move the Church to irrelevancy as it has in most of Europe. I'm praying for revival."
Like I said, I don't know how to be a Christian voter in 2016.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Jesus weeps
I wonder if Jesus looks at Charlotte NC and other US cities as He did Jerusalem when He said, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ... how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate." (Matthew 23:37-38)
In the quarter century since Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles policemen, we are still asking his plaintive question, "Can we all get along?" It is deplorable -- yes, I used that word deliberately -- that we are once again facing off with one another over the subject of race.
I am tired of the political posturing and readiness to lay blame. I know it is a highly charged presidential campaign and every event is viewed through the lens of its political impact. But with news media giving air time to every point of view, no matter the credibility of the speaker, it seems that we are being driven to take sides. One is either a supporter of Black Lives Matter or of the police.
Balderdash! Although I acknowledge that BLM is prone to excess and confrontation, we should not be deafened to the legitimate fears and concerns of African-Americans because we find their most vocal movements objectionable. Similarly, recognizing the immense dangers faced by police officers should not blind us to the reality that snap judgments made in stressful situations are heavily influenced by a variety of factors, including perceptions based on prejudice and experience. (No, I do not mean 'racism.')
In the current climate, the same statistics are used by opposing sides of the argument to prove that a) black men are killed by police disproportionately to their percentage of the population or b) black men are killed proportionately to the rate at which they commit violent crime. Both a) and b) are factually true. So what? How can we find a point of agreement that leads us to healing and solution rather than further divide?
As a follower of Jesus, how should I respond? I would love to hear from the clergy in Charlotte NC who have been on the front lines to intercede between the police and irate protesters. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)
Jesus' crucifixion was pursued by the political leaders of His day; the Sanhedrin's political power was threatened by Jesus' popularity. I am fearful that the racial conflict we are seeing, embedded in a nasty political climate, will result in people of faith finding themselves on opposite sides rather than joining hands in a community of healing.
For most of my adult life, I have worked and lived in places that were predominantly white. When I have been in more racially diverse environments, I have been enriched by reminders of lessons learned as a child when the neighborhood I lived in changed from all white to all black, except for the Hostetlers and the Levinsons ... of lessons learned riding a bus to school with kids just like me except for the color of their skin ... of lessons learned riding through neighborhoods ravaged by riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on my way to college classes. But in the final analysis, those are lessons learned cerebrally rather than viscerally.
I have never been stopped for 'driving while black.' I have never had a white woman clutch her purse in fear as I walked by. I have never been assumed to be a gang member or a drug user simply because of the clothes I wear. [My children would howl in laughter at the thought. I probably embarrass them by dressing to the other extreme.] These are lessons learned viscerally by countless African-American males.
Is there a point to my meandering musing? I guess it would be to wonder if God is calling me to some specific action to "put my money where my faith is." I want to part of the answer, not part of the problem, but I don't know how.
I shall continue to pray for those acting redemptively in Charlotte. I shall continue to pray for healing for our nation and for this Presidential election to have positive results for our nation. And I shall look for ways to speak and act as Christ would have me do.
In the quarter century since Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles policemen, we are still asking his plaintive question, "Can we all get along?" It is deplorable -- yes, I used that word deliberately -- that we are once again facing off with one another over the subject of race.
I am tired of the political posturing and readiness to lay blame. I know it is a highly charged presidential campaign and every event is viewed through the lens of its political impact. But with news media giving air time to every point of view, no matter the credibility of the speaker, it seems that we are being driven to take sides. One is either a supporter of Black Lives Matter or of the police.
Balderdash! Although I acknowledge that BLM is prone to excess and confrontation, we should not be deafened to the legitimate fears and concerns of African-Americans because we find their most vocal movements objectionable. Similarly, recognizing the immense dangers faced by police officers should not blind us to the reality that snap judgments made in stressful situations are heavily influenced by a variety of factors, including perceptions based on prejudice and experience. (No, I do not mean 'racism.')
In the current climate, the same statistics are used by opposing sides of the argument to prove that a) black men are killed by police disproportionately to their percentage of the population or b) black men are killed proportionately to the rate at which they commit violent crime. Both a) and b) are factually true. So what? How can we find a point of agreement that leads us to healing and solution rather than further divide?
As a follower of Jesus, how should I respond? I would love to hear from the clergy in Charlotte NC who have been on the front lines to intercede between the police and irate protesters. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Matthew 5:9)
Jesus' crucifixion was pursued by the political leaders of His day; the Sanhedrin's political power was threatened by Jesus' popularity. I am fearful that the racial conflict we are seeing, embedded in a nasty political climate, will result in people of faith finding themselves on opposite sides rather than joining hands in a community of healing.
For most of my adult life, I have worked and lived in places that were predominantly white. When I have been in more racially diverse environments, I have been enriched by reminders of lessons learned as a child when the neighborhood I lived in changed from all white to all black, except for the Hostetlers and the Levinsons ... of lessons learned riding a bus to school with kids just like me except for the color of their skin ... of lessons learned riding through neighborhoods ravaged by riots after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. on my way to college classes. But in the final analysis, those are lessons learned cerebrally rather than viscerally.
I have never been stopped for 'driving while black.' I have never had a white woman clutch her purse in fear as I walked by. I have never been assumed to be a gang member or a drug user simply because of the clothes I wear. [My children would howl in laughter at the thought. I probably embarrass them by dressing to the other extreme.] These are lessons learned viscerally by countless African-American males.
Is there a point to my meandering musing? I guess it would be to wonder if God is calling me to some specific action to "put my money where my faith is." I want to part of the answer, not part of the problem, but I don't know how.
I shall continue to pray for those acting redemptively in Charlotte. I shall continue to pray for healing for our nation and for this Presidential election to have positive results for our nation. And I shall look for ways to speak and act as Christ would have me do.
Friday, September 16, 2016
I have
tried not to sour my temperament by participating in the vitriol that has
infected this year’s campaign for President.
What happened to the civility and mutual respect that once characterized
public discourse? For crying out loud,
the University of Chicago made news by simply announcing that ‘trigger
warnings’ and ‘safe spaces’ should be unnecessary on a college campus that
celebrates the free exchange of ideas.
This position was newsworthy because it has become commonplace to
attribute hurtful motivation (and actual emotional harm) to the articulation of
ideas with which one disagrees. College
campuses have published lists of words, phrases, and questions that are now
considered “microaggressions.”
In his
1984 book The Naked Public Square, Richard Neuhaus bemoaned the
disappearance of religious conversation from public discourse due to a
one-sided application of the First Amendment.
We are seeing an extension of that trend into other arenas of thought as
a humanist orthodoxy dominates academia, journalism and government. If your religion teaches that abortion is
wrong, then your religion has to become enlightened. If your understanding of economics suggests
that more people will be harmed than helped by, for example, raising the
minimum wage, then you must have a loathing in your heart for low skill
workers. If you believe that immigration
laws should be enforced and applied fairly and evenly, you lay yourself open to
accusations of bigotry.
I
mourned the death of journalism several years ago. I no longer expect straight news reporting
from any news source. Among the signs of
journalism’s demise was the corrupting of the language by using adjectives and
adverbs – or value-laden nouns and verbs -- to “color” the story. One sees this in the coverage of political
rallies; a reporter is not content to simply report what the candidate says,
but feels obliged to report tone and body language. Such observations are highly subjective and
tilt the coverage toward the perception of the reporter. Was he/she intense? … passionate? … angry? …
persuasive? Pick your choice depending
on what you think of the candidate.
Secretary
Clinton opened a can of worms when she used the label ‘deplorable’ to describe
half of Donald Trump’s supporters. It is
one thing to say, “I deplore racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and
Islamophobia.” But to call millions of
Americans ‘deplorable’ on the basis of a personal judgment that they hold such
views is quite another thing.
Dana
Milbank of the Washington Post wrote a column titled “Yes, half of Trump
supporters are racist” in response to criticism of Secretary Clinton. I read it
with great interest. He cited research
into racial attitudes in making his case.
But in my view, he missed two key points: first, the research would point to
approximately one-third of Clinton supporters being racially prejudiced;
second, the leap to the word ‘racist’ is not supported by the facts cited.
Milbank
concluded his column as follows: “Trump, on stage, rejected any notion of racism,
saying people who want secure borders ‘are not racists,’ people who warn of ‘radical
Islamic terrorism are not Islamophobes’ and people who support police ‘are not
prejudiced.’ But moments later, he repeated the campaign slogan he borrowed
from an anti-Semitic organization that opposed involvement in World War II. ‘America
First – remember that,’ he said. “America First.’”
So Milbank would have us believe that a form of
patriotism that puts America First is rooted in anti-Semitism and therefore its
use is a prima facie rationale for labeling its user a racist. That is absurd.
Will this campaign cause me to mourn the death
of the English language to carry meaning apart from the filters of the sender
and the receiver? I have long ago
consoled myself with the realization that the suffix ‘-phobia’ is now used to
connote ‘hatred of’ rather than ‘fear of.’
If we can now label someone or some group as racist, sexist, homophobic,
etc. based upon a public policy position, then the public square is not only
naked, it is nihilistic.
One passing thought in conclusion: I have observed that those who tend to use
the word ‘xenophobic’ are themselves heavily xenophobic. The word is used by most speakers to mean
exclusively “fear of people from other countries.” But the word itself means “fear of that which
is foreign or strange.” The attitudes of
those who use the word seem to include fear of those whose faith guides their
daily lives, who do not live on either coast, who enjoy hunting and fishing,
who drive pickup trucks, listen to country music, and love NASCAR. These are the kinds of people who are “other”
to many in academia, media and government.
Words
mean things. At least, they used to.
Monday, July 4, 2016
Living in Oregon
We enjoyed two-and-a-half years stationed in Portland OR. We loved the unique culture and the quirky way of life. "Keep Portland Weird" was a proudly trumpeted motto. When I saw this piece, I had to acknowledge its truth.
I have highlighted the ones that struck closest to home for me.
THIS IS WHAT JEFF FOXWORTHY HAS TO SAY ABOUT ‘LIVING IN OREGON’…
- If someone in a Home Depot store offers you assistance and they don’t work there, you live in Oregon.
- If you’ve worn shorts, sandals and a parka at the same time, you live in Oregon.
- If you’ve had a lengthy telephone conversation with someone who dialed the wrong number, you live in Oregon.
- If you measure distance in hours, you live in Oregon.
- If you know several people who have hit a deer more than once, you live in Oregon.
- If you have switched from ‘heat’ to ‘A/C’ and back again in the same day, you live in Oregon.
- If you install security lights on your house and garage but leave both doors unlocked, you live in Oregon.
- If you can drive 75 mph through 2 feet of snow during a raging blizzard without flinching, you live in Central, Southern or Eastern Oregon.
- If you design your kid’s Halloween costume to fit over a 2 layers of clothes or under a raincoat, you live in Oregon.
- If driving is better in the winter because the potholes are filled with snow and ice, you live in Oregon.
- If you know all 4 seasons: almost winter, winter, still winter, and road construction, you live in Oregon.
- If you feel guilty throwing aluminum cans or paper in the trash, you live in Oregon.
- If you know more than 10 ways to order coffee, you live in Oregon.
- If you know more people who own boats than air conditioners, you live in Oregon.
- If you stand on a deserted corner in the rain waiting for the “Walk” signal, you live in Oregon.
- If you consider that if it has no snow or has not recently erupted, it is not a real mountain, you live in Oregon.
- If you can taste the difference between Starbucks, Seattle’s Best, and Dutch Bros, you live in Oregon.
- If you know the difference between Chinook, Coho and Sockeye salmon, you live in Oregon.
- If you know how to pronounce Sequim, Puyallup, Clatskanie, Issaquah, Oregon, Umpqua, Yakima and Willamette, you live in Oregon.
- If you consider swimming an indoor sport, you live in Oregon.
- If you know that Boring is a city and not just a feeling, you live in Oregon.
- If you can tell the difference between Japanese, Chinese and Thai food, you live in Oregon.
- If you never go camping without waterproof matches and a poncho, you live in Oregon.
- If you have actually used your mountain bike on a mountain, you live in Oregon.
- If you think people who use umbrellas are either wimps or tourists, you live in Oregon.
- If you buy new sunglasses every year, because you cannot find the old ones after such a long time, you live in Oregon.
- If you actually understand these jokes and forward them to all your OREGON friends, you live or have lived in Oregon.
General Knowledge
Over this Independence Day weekend, there have been several news stories about the sad state of knowledge that exists among college students today of our American history. There have recently been other stories about removing classical literature from English courses, etc. It seems as if our self-taught great-grandparents had a broader and deeper knowledge base than many of today's college students.
Imagine, if you will, an examination such as the following as a "capstone" test to evaluate the breadth and depth of knowledge. (I admit, it's overdrawn; but it's still fun to consider.)
COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION
Read each question carefully. Answer all questions. Time limit: 6 hours.
Begin immediately.
History: Describe the history of the Papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America and Africa. Be brief, concise and specific.
Chemistry: Reproduce from memory the entire periodic table with all known values of physical constants to the limits of their uncertainties. For each element, discover enough new properties to correspond to each Greek and Arabic letter not in current use as symbols for physical constants. Use your data to formulate a new theory of science.
Medicine: You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until you work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.
Public Speaking: 2500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.
Biology: Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English Parliamentary System. Prove your thesis.
Music: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.
Psychology: Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisis, Rameses II, Gregory of Nicaea, and Hammurabi. Support your evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.
Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.
Engineering: The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In 10 minutes, a hungry bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel necessary. Be prepared to justify your decision.
Economics: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: Cubism, the Donatist Controversy and the Wave Theory of Light. Outline a method for preventing these effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.
Political Science: There is a red telephone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at length on its socio-political effects if any.
Epistemology: Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your stand.
Physics: Explain the nature of matter. Include in your answer an evaluation of the impact of the development of mathematics on science.
Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought. Estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.
Ecology: From readily available starting materials (i.e., "I think, therefore I am," and hydrogen), devise a total synthesis of the planet Earth down to the most subtle chemical detail. Discuss barriers that you would encounter in carrying out this synthesis and how you would overcome these barriers.
Cosmology: Define the universe. Give three examples.
General Knowledge: Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.
Extra Credit: Find the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything.
Source: Chemteam Final Exam
Imagine, if you will, an examination such as the following as a "capstone" test to evaluate the breadth and depth of knowledge. (I admit, it's overdrawn; but it's still fun to consider.)
COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION
Read each question carefully. Answer all questions. Time limit: 6 hours.
Begin immediately.
History: Describe the history of the Papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America and Africa. Be brief, concise and specific.
Chemistry: Reproduce from memory the entire periodic table with all known values of physical constants to the limits of their uncertainties. For each element, discover enough new properties to correspond to each Greek and Arabic letter not in current use as symbols for physical constants. Use your data to formulate a new theory of science.
Medicine: You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until you work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.
Public Speaking: 2500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.
Biology: Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English Parliamentary System. Prove your thesis.
Music: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.
Psychology: Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisis, Rameses II, Gregory of Nicaea, and Hammurabi. Support your evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.
Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.
Engineering: The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In 10 minutes, a hungry bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel necessary. Be prepared to justify your decision.
Economics: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: Cubism, the Donatist Controversy and the Wave Theory of Light. Outline a method for preventing these effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.
Political Science: There is a red telephone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at length on its socio-political effects if any.
Epistemology: Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your stand.
Physics: Explain the nature of matter. Include in your answer an evaluation of the impact of the development of mathematics on science.
Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought. Estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.
Ecology: From readily available starting materials (i.e., "I think, therefore I am," and hydrogen), devise a total synthesis of the planet Earth down to the most subtle chemical detail. Discuss barriers that you would encounter in carrying out this synthesis and how you would overcome these barriers.
Cosmology: Define the universe. Give three examples.
General Knowledge: Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.
Extra Credit: Find the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything.
Source: Chemteam Final Exam
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Sermon Quotes
Received from my brother Larry in 2002:
Subject: Sermon fodder
A young minister sitting down to dinner was about to say Grace when he opened the casserole dish that his thrifty bride had prepared from all of the refrigerator leftovers. "I don't know," he said dubiously, "but it seems to me that I've blessed all this stuff before."
"As God said in the Bible, and I think rightly…" – Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
"I want to die before my wife. The reason is: If it is true that when you die, your soul goes up to judgment, I don't want my wife up there ahead of me to tell them things." -- Bill Cosby [this quote obviously has an ironic sub-text in light of what we have learned since 2002]
The Sunday School teacher was carefully explaining the story of Elijah the prophet and the false prophets of Baal. She explained how Elijah built the altar, put wood upon it, cut the steer in pieces and laid it upon the altar. And then Elijah commanded the people of God to fill four barrels of water and pour it over the altar. He had them do this four times. "Now," said the teach, "can anyone in the class tell me why the Lord would have Elijah pour water over the steer on the altar?" A little girl in the back of the room started waving her hand, "I know, I know," she said. "To make the gravy!"
Subject: Sermon fodder
A young minister sitting down to dinner was about to say Grace when he opened the casserole dish that his thrifty bride had prepared from all of the refrigerator leftovers. "I don't know," he said dubiously, "but it seems to me that I've blessed all this stuff before."
"As God said in the Bible, and I think rightly…" – Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
"I want to die before my wife. The reason is: If it is true that when you die, your soul goes up to judgment, I don't want my wife up there ahead of me to tell them things." -- Bill Cosby [this quote obviously has an ironic sub-text in light of what we have learned since 2002]
The Sunday School teacher was carefully explaining the story of Elijah the prophet and the false prophets of Baal. She explained how Elijah built the altar, put wood upon it, cut the steer in pieces and laid it upon the altar. And then Elijah commanded the people of God to fill four barrels of water and pour it over the altar. He had them do this four times. "Now," said the teach, "can anyone in the class tell me why the Lord would have Elijah pour water over the steer on the altar?" A little girl in the back of the room started waving her hand, "I know, I know," she said. "To make the gravy!"
How a third-grader explains God
My son Philip sent this to me in 2002. I found it (revised a wee bit) on the Fruitland Baptist Church web site.
{Accredited to an 8-year-old named Danny
Dutton, of Chula Vista, CA-a third grade
homework assignment.}
“One of God’s main jobs is making people. He makes them to replace the ones that die, so there will be enough people to take care of things on earth. He doesn’t make grownups, just babies. I think because they are smaller and easier to make. That way he doesn’t have to take up his valuable time teaching them to talk and walk. He can just leave that to mothers and fathers.
“God’s second most important job is listening to prayers. An awful lot of this goes on, since some people, like preachers and things, pray at times besides bedtime. God doesn’t have time to listen to the radio or TV because of this. God sees everything and hears everything and is everywhere which keeps Him pretty busy. So you shouldn't go wasting His time by going over your Mom and Dad's head asking for something they said you shouldn't have.
"Atheists are people who don't believe in God. I don't think there are any in Chula Vista. At least there aren't any who come to our church.
“Jesus is God’s Son. He used to do all the hard work, like walking on water and performing miracles and
“One of God’s main jobs is making people. He makes them to replace the ones that die, so there will be enough people to take care of things on earth. He doesn’t make grownups, just babies. I think because they are smaller and easier to make. That way he doesn’t have to take up his valuable time teaching them to talk and walk. He can just leave that to mothers and fathers.
“God’s second most important job is listening to prayers. An awful lot of this goes on, since some people, like preachers and things, pray at times besides bedtime. God doesn’t have time to listen to the radio or TV because of this. God sees everything and hears everything and is everywhere which keeps Him pretty busy. So you shouldn't go wasting His time by going over your Mom and Dad's head asking for something they said you shouldn't have.
"Atheists are people who don't believe in God. I don't think there are any in Chula Vista. At least there aren't any who come to our church.
“Jesus is God’s Son. He used to do all the hard work, like walking on water and performing miracles and
people finally got tired of Him preaching
to them and they crucified Him. But He was
good and kind, like His Father, and He told
His Father that they didn't know what they
were doing to forgive them and God said 'O.K.' His dad (God) appreciated
everything that He had done and all His
hard work on earth so He told Him He
didn’t have to go out on the road
anymore. He could stay in heaven. So
He did. And now He helps His dad out
by listening to prayers and seeing things
which are important for God to take care
of and which ones He can take care of
Himself without having to bother God.
Like a secretary, only more important. You can pray any time you want and they are sure to help you because they got it worked out so one of them is on duty all the time.
“You should always go to church on Sunday because it makes God happy, and if there’s anybody you want to make happy, it’s God! Don’t skip church to do something you think will be more fun like going to the beach. This is wrong. And besides the sun doesn’t come out at the beach until noon anyway.
“You should always go to church on Sunday because it makes God happy, and if there’s anybody you want to make happy, it’s God! Don’t skip church to do something you think will be more fun like going to the beach. This is wrong. And besides the sun doesn’t come out at the beach until noon anyway.
“If you don’t believe in God,
besides being an atheist, you will be very
lonely, because your parents can’t go
everywhere with you, like to camp, but
God can. It is good to know He’s around
you when you’re scared, in the dark or
when you can’t swim and you get thrown
into real deep water by big kids.
“But.. . . you shouldn’t just always think of what God can do for you. I figure God put me here and He can take me back anytime He pleases.
“And . . . that’s why I believe in God.”
“But.. . . you shouldn’t just always think of what God can do for you. I figure God put me here and He can take me back anytime He pleases.
“And . . . that’s why I believe in God.”
If Paul Had PowerPoint
I have heard Gordon MacDonald several times. He is a powerful communicator and is exceptionally facile with technology. So if he has these thoughts, I am encouraged when my own forays into conference/retreat presentations create uncomfortable moments. This was published in Leadership Journal in 2003
If Paul Had PowerPoint
Without Windows NT, is it a wonder the gospel ever escaped Jerusalem?
October 8, 2003
When my imagination gets out of control, I think about what it must have been like in the days when the Apostles (Peter and Paul, for example) were preaching. Sometimes, I wonder if they would have had patience with our ways in today's world. For example, a considerable amount of my time is spent speaking at pastors conferences and other similar events. I feel complimented when I am asked to participate. I have never quite gotten over the notion that people are willing to invite me to their church or their conference and give me a chance to open my heart. Accepting the invitation is relatively easy. It's what often comes afterwards that gets complicated. That's where I get to thinking about Peter and Paul. Imagine letters going out to them that sound like this:
To: Peter, c/o Jerusalemchurch.org
We are looking forward to your preaching in the Temple square on Pentecost day 9 months from tomorrow. Since we are about to send out our first wave of publicity, we would like to ask your assistance. We need a topic and a brief outline (100 words or less) of your remarks. Three months from now, we will ask you to submit your Scripture references and any quotes, plus a complete outline so that our graphics department can provide a handout for the several thousand we anticipate attending. Additionally, we will need you to sign the enclosed tape/video release form that will give our production department the right to sell "product" during the conference. If you have any books you'd like to recommend, we will be happy to order these and sell them in our bookstore.
We are looking forward to your preaching in the Temple square on Pentecost day 9 months from tomorrow. Since we are about to send out our first wave of publicity, we would like to ask your assistance. We need a topic and a brief outline (100 words or less) of your remarks. Three months from now, we will ask you to submit your Scripture references and any quotes, plus a complete outline so that our graphics department can provide a handout for the several thousand we anticipate attending. Additionally, we will need you to sign the enclosed tape/video release form that will give our production department the right to sell "product" during the conference. If you have any books you'd like to recommend, we will be happy to order these and sell them in our bookstore.
To: Paul, c/o Antiochchurch.org
The Mars Hill Society has been sponsoring guest lectures for many years, and we are looking forward to your participation next year. We will be sending a contract for your signature. Please return with your Social Security number. In preparation for that time, we would appreciate a biographical kit that includes information about your life and work. Three 5x7 press photos, one in color if possible, would also be appreciated. Please include your academic credentials and titles of anything you have written.
The Mars Hill Society has been sponsoring guest lectures for many years, and we are looking forward to your participation next year. We will be sending a contract for your signature. Please return with your Social Security number. In preparation for that time, we would appreciate a biographical kit that includes information about your life and work. Three 5x7 press photos, one in color if possible, would also be appreciated. Please include your academic credentials and titles of anything you have written.
Our A/V people will want to know if you prefer a lapel or hand-held mike. Do you have any personal needs for water or food? Your hotel accommodations will be underwritten for the night before and after the speech. You will be given a per diem reimbursement for all meals on the day of the speech. Phone calls, in-room movies, and any other items will be at your own expense. Could you please send us your required fee for appearing?
Then the day comes:
Peter (his first words at Pentecost): "Hello, hello…am I on? Am I on? Testing, check, check, check…"
Peter (his first words at Pentecost): "Hello, hello…am I on? Am I on? Testing, check, check, check…"
Paul (his first words at Mars Hill): "I'm thrilled to be here today so that—You can't hear in the back row? HOW'S THIS? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? I was going use PowerPoint in this presentation, but the computer…"
(With apologies to all of those who invite me to speak and whose job it is to send me e-mails not dissimilar to these. I was just having fun.)
Moses, God and Computers
My wife, who is more tech savvy than I, got a call from a friend the other day to help solve a problem with email. It put me in mind of this imaginary conversation between God and Moses. It's been around since 2002, when my Aunt Dolly sent it to me. It can currently be found at eBaum's World
"Excuse me, Lord."
"Is that you again, Moses?"
"I am afraid it is, Lord."
"What is it this time, Moses; more computer problems?"
"How did you guess?"
"I do not have to guess, Moses. Remember?"
"Oh, yes; I forgot."
"Tell me what you want, Moses."
"But you already know; remember?"
"Moses!"
"Sorry, Lord."
"Well, go ahead, Moses; say it."
"Well, I have a question, Lord. You know those 'ten things' you sent me?"
"You mean the Ten Commandments, Moses?"
" Yes. I was wondering if they were important."
"What do you mean 'important,' Moses? Of course, they are important. Otherwise, I would not have sent them to you."
"Well sorry, Lord, but I lost them. I could say the dog ate them; but, of course, you would see right through that."
"What do you mean 'you lost them'? Are you trying to tell me you did
not save them, Moses?"
"No, Lord; I forgot."
"You should always save, Moses."
"Yes, I know. You told me that before. I was going to, but I forgot. I did send them to some people before I lost them though."
"And did you hear back from any of those people?"
"You already know I did. What about the one guy who said he never uses 'shalt not'? Is it all right if he changes the words a little bit?"
"Yes, Moses, as long as he does not change the meaning."
"And what about the guy who thought your stance was a little harsh, and recommended calling them the 'Ten Suggestions' or letting people pick one or two to try for a while?"
"Moses, I will pretend I did not hear that."
"I think that means 'no'. Well, what about the guy who said I was scamming him?"
"I think the term is 'spamming,' Moses."
"Oh, yes. I emailed him back and told him I don't even eat that stuff, and I have no idea how you can send it to someone through a computer."
"And what did he say?"
"You know what he said. He used Your name in vain. You don't think he might have sent me one of those er plagues, and that's the reason I lost those "ten things", do you?"
"They are called 'viruses,' Moses."
"Whatever! This computer stuff is just too much for me. Can we just go back to those stone tablets? It was hard on my back taking them out and reading them each day, but at least I never lost them."
"We will do it the new way, Moses."
"I was afraid you would say that, Lord."
"Moses, what did I tell you to do if you messed up?"
"You told me to hold up this rat and stretch it out toward the computer."
"It's a mouse, Moses. Mouse! Mouse! And did you do that?"
"No, I decided to call technical support first. After all, who knows more about this stuff than you, and I really like your hours. By the way, Lord, did Noah have two of these mice on the ark?"
"No, Moses."
"One other thing. Why did you not name them 'frogs' instead of 'mice', because did you not tell me the thing they sit on is a pad?"
"I did not name them, Moses. Man did, and you can call yours a frog if you want to."
"Oh, that explains it. Kind of like Adam, huh, Lord? I bet some woman told him to call it a mouse. After all, was it not a woman who named one of the computers Apple?"
"Say good night, Moses."
"Wait a minute, Lord. I am stretching out the mouse, and it seems to be working. Yes, a couple of the 'ten things' have come back."
"Which ones are they, Moses?"
"Let me see. 'Thou shalt not steal from any grave an image' and 'Thou shalt not uncover thy neighbor's wife.'"
"Turn the computer off, Moses. I'm sending you another set of stone tablets."
"Excuse me, Lord."
"Is that you again, Moses?"
"I am afraid it is, Lord."
"What is it this time, Moses; more computer problems?"
"How did you guess?"
"I do not have to guess, Moses. Remember?"
"Oh, yes; I forgot."
"Tell me what you want, Moses."
"But you already know; remember?"
"Moses!"
"Sorry, Lord."
"Well, go ahead, Moses; say it."
"Well, I have a question, Lord. You know those 'ten things' you sent me?"
"You mean the Ten Commandments, Moses?"
" Yes. I was wondering if they were important."
"What do you mean 'important,' Moses? Of course, they are important. Otherwise, I would not have sent them to you."
"Well sorry, Lord, but I lost them. I could say the dog ate them; but, of course, you would see right through that."
"What do you mean 'you lost them'? Are you trying to tell me you did
not save them, Moses?"
"No, Lord; I forgot."
"You should always save, Moses."
"Yes, I know. You told me that before. I was going to, but I forgot. I did send them to some people before I lost them though."
"And did you hear back from any of those people?"
"You already know I did. What about the one guy who said he never uses 'shalt not'? Is it all right if he changes the words a little bit?"
"Yes, Moses, as long as he does not change the meaning."
"And what about the guy who thought your stance was a little harsh, and recommended calling them the 'Ten Suggestions' or letting people pick one or two to try for a while?"
"Moses, I will pretend I did not hear that."
"I think that means 'no'. Well, what about the guy who said I was scamming him?"
"I think the term is 'spamming,' Moses."
"Oh, yes. I emailed him back and told him I don't even eat that stuff, and I have no idea how you can send it to someone through a computer."
"And what did he say?"
"You know what he said. He used Your name in vain. You don't think he might have sent me one of those er plagues, and that's the reason I lost those "ten things", do you?"
"They are called 'viruses,' Moses."
"Whatever! This computer stuff is just too much for me. Can we just go back to those stone tablets? It was hard on my back taking them out and reading them each day, but at least I never lost them."
"We will do it the new way, Moses."
"I was afraid you would say that, Lord."
"Moses, what did I tell you to do if you messed up?"
"You told me to hold up this rat and stretch it out toward the computer."
"It's a mouse, Moses. Mouse! Mouse! And did you do that?"
"No, I decided to call technical support first. After all, who knows more about this stuff than you, and I really like your hours. By the way, Lord, did Noah have two of these mice on the ark?"
"No, Moses."
"One other thing. Why did you not name them 'frogs' instead of 'mice', because did you not tell me the thing they sit on is a pad?"
"I did not name them, Moses. Man did, and you can call yours a frog if you want to."
"Oh, that explains it. Kind of like Adam, huh, Lord? I bet some woman told him to call it a mouse. After all, was it not a woman who named one of the computers Apple?"
"Say good night, Moses."
"Wait a minute, Lord. I am stretching out the mouse, and it seems to be working. Yes, a couple of the 'ten things' have come back."
"Which ones are they, Moses?"
"Let me see. 'Thou shalt not steal from any grave an image' and 'Thou shalt not uncover thy neighbor's wife.'"
"Turn the computer off, Moses. I'm sending you another set of stone tablets."
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Is Someone at work out to get you?
Originally sent to me in 1998 under the title The Top Ten Signs Someone at Work is Out to Get You (with a copyright credit to Chris White and Ziff Davis, Inc.), I found the list on-line as Top 16 Signs Someone at Work is Out to Get You. (Three of the entries were too offensive for me to include, so I acted like the Justice Department and redacted them.)
16. The Human Resources rep keeps advising you to apply for extra dismemberment insurance.
15. The guy from shipping says they have to store some toxic waste in your office for "just a couple days." Your company, however, makes doilies.
14. Someone's been signing you up for the office blood drive. Daily.
13. Everyone else gets e-mail. You get "note-wrapped-around-a-brick-speeding-at-your-head-mail."
12. [redacted]
11. New job position posted: "Vice-President of My Butt" Only applicant: You
10. Co-workers point and whisper that you're the one who ate the "Bagel O' Death."
9. Somebody went to the trouble of making a little Hitler mustache and swastika armband for your Dilbert doll.
8. You're honored to be in the "South Park" skit at the office party, but why does everyone insist you play "Kenny"?
7. [redacted]
6. The pushy new Pastry Cart man looks an awful lot like that Kevorkian guy.
5. Your position's symbol on the organizational chart now shows up as a hanging stick figure.
4. During your diversity training, someone announces on the intercom that "the cleaners are here with your Grand Wizard outfit."
3. Your name is spelled out in urinal cakes in the men's room trough.
2. Oh, come on -- it's not like your new Windows 98 operating system just keeps crashing by itself!
1. [redacted]
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Metaphors'R'Us
Everyday conversation is often laced with expressions that are metaphorical in nature. Sometimes we are aware of the origin of the expression, but often we are not.
Here is "an old attempt at humor of mine" from Jim Hepburn, 18 years older now, of course.
RE: Report on Nautical Terms
I have attempted to continue my research into the above subject. To this end, I strove to interview a fellow employee (who shall remain unnamed). Unfortunately, he had returned from "lunch" three sheets to the wind and summarily keeled over.
Having realized that I had missed the boat with this interview, I decided to try a different tack. I placed a notice on the bulletin board asking for responses. I was surprised shortly after by a visitor to my office. He was obviously under the weather, his zipper was at half mast, and I'm not sure he had both oars in the water if you catch my drift.
As you can imagine, this episode had knocked the wind out of my sails. I was now totally dead in the water – in the doldrums, so to speak. Maybe I had gone overboard in my search? In desperation, I used self-hypnosis, projecting myself mentally into being the skipper of a sailing vessel.
Bingo! This change of course was just what the doctor order (how about medical terms)? I now feel this research project to be on an even keel – no more need to batten down the hatches. I am sure I will encounter only smooth sailing and that the report will be shipshape in no time at all. At last my ship has come in.
Jim Hepburn
Here is "an old attempt at humor of mine" from Jim Hepburn, 18 years older now, of course.
RE: Report on Nautical Terms
I have attempted to continue my research into the above subject. To this end, I strove to interview a fellow employee (who shall remain unnamed). Unfortunately, he had returned from "lunch" three sheets to the wind and summarily keeled over.
Having realized that I had missed the boat with this interview, I decided to try a different tack. I placed a notice on the bulletin board asking for responses. I was surprised shortly after by a visitor to my office. He was obviously under the weather, his zipper was at half mast, and I'm not sure he had both oars in the water if you catch my drift.
As you can imagine, this episode had knocked the wind out of my sails. I was now totally dead in the water – in the doldrums, so to speak. Maybe I had gone overboard in my search? In desperation, I used self-hypnosis, projecting myself mentally into being the skipper of a sailing vessel.
Bingo! This change of course was just what the doctor order (how about medical terms)? I now feel this research project to be on an even keel – no more need to batten down the hatches. I am sure I will encounter only smooth sailing and that the report will be shipshape in no time at all. At last my ship has come in.
Jim Hepburn
Monday, June 20, 2016
Preparing your resume
It has been nearly a half century since we sent our Preliminary Application for Officership. So considering "normal" employment after more than four decades of Salvation Army officership raises the question of preparing a resume.
There's lots of help offered on the internet. There are also some examples of mistakes to avoid. Here are some real-life examples of mistakes made on resumes (by the way, I can add from recent experience with this blog that spell check and auto-correct are not always an antidote to these kinds of mistakes):
"My intensity and focus are at inordinately high levels, and my ability to complete projects on time is unspeakable."
"Education: Curses in liberal arts, curses in computer science, curses in accounting."
"Instrumental in ruining entire operation for a Midwest chain store."
"Personal: Married, 1992 Chevrolet."
"I have an excellent track record, although I am not a horse."
"I am a rabid typist."
"Created a new market for pigs by processing, advertising and selling a gourmet pig mail order service on the side."
"Exposure to German for two years, but many words are not appropriate for business."
"Proven ability to track down and correct erors."
"Personal interests: Donating blood. 15 gallons so far."
"I have become completely paranoid, trusting completely nothing and absolutely no one."
"References: None, I've left a path of destruction behind me."
"Strengths: Ability to meet deadlines while maintaining composer."
"Don't take the comments of my former employer too seriously, they were unappreciative beggars and slave drivers."
"My goal is to be a meteorologist. But since I possess no training in meteroology, I suppose I should try stock brokerage."
"I procrastinate--especially when the task is unpleasant."
"I am loyal to my employer at all costs. Please feel free to resond to my resume on my office voicemanil."
"Qualifications: No education or experience."
"Disposed of $2.5 billion in assets."
"Accomplishments: Oversight of entire department."
"Extensive background in accounting. I can also stand on my head!"
Cover letter: "Thank you for your consideration. Hope to hear from you shorty!"
There's lots of help offered on the internet. There are also some examples of mistakes to avoid. Here are some real-life examples of mistakes made on resumes (by the way, I can add from recent experience with this blog that spell check and auto-correct are not always an antidote to these kinds of mistakes):
"My intensity and focus are at inordinately high levels, and my ability to complete projects on time is unspeakable."
"Education: Curses in liberal arts, curses in computer science, curses in accounting."
"Instrumental in ruining entire operation for a Midwest chain store."
"Personal: Married, 1992 Chevrolet."
"I have an excellent track record, although I am not a horse."
"I am a rabid typist."
"Created a new market for pigs by processing, advertising and selling a gourmet pig mail order service on the side."
"Exposure to German for two years, but many words are not appropriate for business."
"Proven ability to track down and correct erors."
"Personal interests: Donating blood. 15 gallons so far."
"I have become completely paranoid, trusting completely nothing and absolutely no one."
"References: None, I've left a path of destruction behind me."
"Strengths: Ability to meet deadlines while maintaining composer."
"Don't take the comments of my former employer too seriously, they were unappreciative beggars and slave drivers."
"My goal is to be a meteorologist. But since I possess no training in meteroology, I suppose I should try stock brokerage."
"I procrastinate--especially when the task is unpleasant."
"I am loyal to my employer at all costs. Please feel free to resond to my resume on my office voicemanil."
"Qualifications: No education or experience."
"Disposed of $2.5 billion in assets."
"Accomplishments: Oversight of entire department."
"Extensive background in accounting. I can also stand on my head!"
Cover letter: "Thank you for your consideration. Hope to hear from you shorty!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)