Please go to my new blog site. Please update links on your site to include my new blog.

www.homefront.blogspot.com

Folks, my time at WordPress has been wonderful, but with the insanely great and much longed for enhancements over at blogger, I am back to my old blog addrress.

My blog name remains “Fajita’s Blog”

The address is www.homefront.blogspot.com.

For the faithful, this is the address of my original blog born back in Jun of 2004.

Labels, easy links, and tons of other features are now easy with blogger (blogspot). I’m back to the one who got me loving blogging in the first place.

Good-bye WordPress.

Latino baby boom latest twist in the redistribution of New Orleans demography.

Click here to read NY Time article.

If you are mission minded, then do yourself a favor and read this post and then act on it. Below is a brief paragraph or two from my buddy, Mark, over at the Kibo Group.

I’m about to help you out here with an amazing idea for your
Christmas shopping.  You know that nagging problem of what to get for the person who has everything?  Well, this should solve that one.  I bet they don’t have their very own tree in Uganda.   Click on the link below and you can buy one, get a cool Christmas card you can plant (yes, a card you can plant when you are done) and it will grow flowers (no kidding) and you get an ornament that will have a number on it marking the GPS coordinates of your tree in Uganda.  (Better click on the link below if you want it to make sense.) The Kibo Group
is a non-profit that I run along with a friend named Clint Davis.

You can read about Kibo at our website www.kibogroup.org.  We make no money off this, (Kibo has no salaries for stateside employees)…the money goes to plant trees.  Check it out… its a pretty unique gift idea and it really can make the world better.
Merry Christmas!

http://www.kibogroup.org/mvuleproject.html

Trust is quite a powerful relational dynamic. Having it exist mutually between two people is can be magic. When trust combines with a depth of self-disclosure, then there is even more power. Respect grows. In fact, when mutual trust rises, so do many relational quality indicators.

And yet, the stronger trust becomes, the more vulnerable the relationship becomes. How ironic. The trust paradox demands that the relationship become stronger by way of exposing weakness.

Now, don’t get me wrong, vulnerability is not weakness. I define it as the extent to which a person could be hurt by another. It is the extent to which a person reveals his or her softest spots. It is a willingness to be unprotected in the presence of another.

Jesus was no weakling, but he made himself vulnerable to humans. He entered into human life largely unprotected. He trusted humans beyond their capacity to be trusted and such trust might be considered foolish. However, what we find is that trusting people, even in betrayal, was a sign of strength, not wekaness. He paid the price, but overcame the price.

As Jesus entered this world unprotected, Christians who celebrate Christimas might think about Christmas as a willingness of God to enter into humanity largely unprotected. Jesus, knowing that entering into danger unarmed was worth it, Christiasn might take this Christmas story adn do the same.

Erwin McManus has been known to say that when Christians talk about entering into the center of God’s will being the safest place on earth, they are exactly wrong. Entering into the center of God’s will might be the most dangerous place in the world.

In order to be strong, we must become vulnerable.

If you take a gander to te left, you will see a new blog listed under the “Other blogs by fajita” section.

What is new there is a blog I just launched called, “Smart Single Parents.”

I want this blog to serve single parents in much the same way my Smart Stepfamilies Blog serves people in stepfamilies. So, if you are a single parent or you know a single parent who wants a place to go for advice, connection to resources, and conversation, sned them to the Smart Single Parents blog.

There is a church in the midwest falling apart. It is not a church I attend, but I have inside knowledge of it. As I am not part of the church, I may be speaking out of line, but I want to share this situation as an example of something.

Denominational allegiance is no reason for people to gather together and exist as a congregation. It is a very weak association. It is so weak, in fact, that only under the right conditions can it exist and be healthy - and even that is questionable.

When challenges arise, denominational correctness is not going to save a church that is going under. Although it is tempting to believe that our doctrinal agreement is enough to keep us unified, it is not. Doctrinal agreement, or the willing belief in its illusion, cannot withstand the encroachment of being busy, geographic distance, weak leadership,  or attrition.

What will hold a church together is not doctrinal agreement or doctrinal correntness, but rather it is the mission the church is on. When a church is doing someting that matters to God and people, then it has something of value.

A dead and dying church tends to infect its member with its affliction, not the other way around. Without mission the church dies. Period. It might appear to be living, but it appears to be full of life like a person with an unknown and deadly cancer that lies under the skin. Death is groing and it is only a metter of time before it reveals its devastating presence. 

This post is a call for people of faith to get on mission. Do something. Organize in small clusters around a cause. Meet together to pursue that cause.

African orphans, the environment, healthy living, immigration, homelessness etc. 

Meet together, write blogs, develop action steps for your group, develop action steps for people to join the mission of your group, devote resrources (time, money, voice) to the cause, promote the cause through media.

Invent ways of doing good. This is what Jesus did and he did it with other people. Some of the people he did good with didn’t even understand who he was or why he was doing the good, not at first anyway.

Malcolm Gladwell has a thoughtful piece on racism. It’s worth a read.

My bogger friends, if any of you are in stepfamilies, then take a gander over at my stepfamilies blog. I don’t mention it a whole let here, but I do have this other world in which I write and have guest writers (hint hint, got a story for me?).

Or, if you know anyone who is in a stepfamily and might want to add a blog visit to their stepparenting efforts, send them my way: http://smartstepfamilies.blogspot.com

The first semester of doctoral studies has been harder than I thought it would be. I have fluctuated between “This rocks!” and “How can I get out of here?” Usually there is no more than 24 hours between these emotional extremes. I feel great when I have had a success or believe I know what I am doing. I feel terrible when I am not prepared for a meeting or class.

Behind is a feeling that is quite common in doctoral studies. From what I hear, that feeling never goes away, but I will apparently get better at managing my emotions and my time.

Anyway, today I needed something. I needed a boost - and I got one.

So today, I got a much needed boost from two students who are working on their dissertations. They soothed my struggle with comforting words and 30 minutes of their undivided attention. Can I tell you how much value there is in 30 minutes for a doctoral student? Thanks to you two who gave your time to me.

Teaching could be considered to be the art and science of knowledge and skill transfer. It is really an interesting thing to consider that knowledge or an ability could expand from one person to another. I am of the belief that the relationship between the student and the teacher is the best (or worst) means by which this transfer happens.

 This is not to say a teacher with natural relationship skills can skate by or that a teacher with challenged relational skills can’t teach anyone. No, what i am saying is that the teacher’s teaching strategy is himself or herself. The teacher’s use of self is going to be the most real thing the students ever get.

Sure, technology is important and I believe becoming an essential part of the teaching process, but the reason that there is no replacement for a good teacher is that the internet does not care about students. The internet cannot connect with students on an emotional level. Yes, there are certain emotions various sites or programs that can be run on the internet can touch, but evoking an emotion and connecting emotionally in a relationship are apples and oranges. The internet will not remember that emotion, a good teacher will.

Technology cannot invest in a student. Only teacher’s can do that. Technology is a tool, a relationship is a generative and developing process of social integration that contains the kind of depth that can generate security, confidence, and trust.

One way in which the teacher uses himself or herself best is by de-centering a little from the roel of container fo all knowledge. Yes, the teacher needs to sort of be the expert on the subject, but he or she does not need to be uthoritarian with that status. In fact sheeding the status without shedding the knowledge or skill is critical for good teaching. When the teacher enters the learning process as not only a teacher, but a teacher who still has something to learn, then the student can feel confident that we are doing this thing, this learning thing, together. It resolves some feeligs of knowledge and skill isolation and inferiority.

Granted, some course content lends itself to expert and novice roles, but much or it does not. And even in those cases when it does, the kind of comfort a good teacher can give to a student through connection is crucial.

Teachers who have found their teaching voice know that they can speak it fluently and are eager to develop it in depth and breadth. And when the teacher speaks in his or her own voice, it is more likely that the students will make sense of it. However, when the teacher is trying to speak in someone else’s voice, something is lost in translation.

Any teachers or students out there want to chime in?

A Call For The End of Feminism

It’s time. Feminism has had a good run of it and has made its mark on history. Nice work; applause all around. But the time has come when the term has simply run its course. Anymore and it runs the risk overplaying its hand, if it has not done so already. So, this essay is a call for the end of feminism. The rationale for such a call, especially at this time, takes into consideration the historical and contemporary context of feminism and the prospects of the future as context as well.

Feminism was started by women. Although this fact might shock many, the term itself, feminism, indicates a gendered leaning to the thinking associated with the term. Of course there is nothing wrong with a leaning or even a biasT that is not the problem with feminism. The problem is that even though it began by women, about women, and for women, the scope of the movement has transcended itself and is so pervasive beyond gender that the need to hold on to the label seems almost laughable.

Feminism has found such success throughout so many of the sciences and has mainstreamed so well with the philosophical shift from modernism to postmodernism that the name itself betrays the essence of what it is. Feminism is a movement to include more than just men in whatever conversation is going on. That is terrific. Women have been second class forever and need not be anymore. However, in order to keep the term feminism relevant, it requires women to be subservient to men. What I mean by that (as I am ducking and dodging some pretty terrific rhetoric) is that once women have enough power that they no longer are a power minority, then the term feminism is no longer inclusive. To be a power minority and a feminist is fine, but once enough power or most power is assumed, then it is tyrrancical. It is in turn exclusive in out-grouping men. The philosophy and theories might not be exclusive, but the term itself is. It is hopelessly gendered. Gender-bias plus power creates the exact opposite effect that feminism was intended to create in the first place.  

Furthermore, there are many men who would and already do in many ways live by and employ the beliefs espoused by feminism, but would not be caught dead being called a feminist. Why? Maybe it’s homophobia and maybe it’s misogyny, fine, there’s a few men who fall into those categories. But I think most men are more practical than that. They are not women. Period. End of discussion. How can a man be a feminist? The very fact such a question can be asked and would have to take a super long time to answer for the average man means that the term is poorly suited toward inclusion. A movement meant to include people should not have a label that immediately appears to exclude half of the people who exist.

Feminism is a victim of its own success. It makes so much sense and serves more people better than many other philosophies and theories that its limiting name needs an overhaul. I think it deserves its place in history and should always be referred to historically as feminism. But I think that a new name should come in and help to accelerate the advancement of the ideas, values, and principles that already exist under the name feminism. Perhaps one day people will say something like this: “de-centering theory, with its roots in feminism, actively deconstructs centers of power toward the end of a better global good…” or something like that.

OK, I have more to say, but I think that the point is clear. The theories and philosophies are good, but the name is a relic.

What do you think?

The average household in America will spend nearly $800 on Christmas gifts this year. Now, I know that readers of my blog are not influenced by the rampant consumerism the rest of America and much of the industrialized world is, but I do know that you will buy or make presents for the people you love.

At the same time, there are millions of people who would love to have a goat for Christmas because they need the milk. Christmas means nothing to millions of people in terms of gifts because poverty is so pervasive. So, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE make the effort to use some of your $800 Christmas allotment toward the end of helping people who have nothing.

Here are some great Christmas gift ideas for various price ranges:

For $14 you could buy a wheel chair.

For $32 you could buy educational support for one child.

For $75 you could buy a goat.

And for you super thrifty shoppers who like to get real bang for the buck, there is this:

For $25 you can get $300 worth of necessities for a child.

If you got a lot of extra cash, click here for donkey, here for pig, or here for oxen and plow.

AND, if you are a MONEY IS NO OBJECT kind of person, buy a school or health clinic.

Click here to read the BBC article.

I think we all know Thanksgiving to be an American holiday. It is also perhaps one of our purist holidays as well. Although it serves as the launching pad for the consumer-obsessed Christmas holiday, Thanksgiving itself is not overly commercial.

But is it religious in nature? Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick’s Day, and even Valentine’s Day have their origins in Christianity. Chanukah and Ramadan are religious as well. Kwanzaa is not itself born of a certain religion, however, faith is one of its main principles. One would argue if there is no faith there is no Kwanzaa.

Non religiouis holidays like Independence Day, Memorial Day, and Veteran’s Day clearly have their roots in American nationalism, patriotism, and so forth. We could throw Labor Day in ther as well. MLK Day is unique in that it is a civil rights holidays, but the very figure of the holiday was a pastor. So, MLK Day is and is not religious.

But what about Thanksgiving? We know it is American, but is it religious?

Jeff Arnett studies what is called emerging adulthood, the age group from 18-25 who are mostly single and getting educated in college. Arnett’s study on emerging adult and religious beliefs is interesting, but not exactly shocking.

In short, emerging adults are not likely to swallow whole their parent’s religion. Furthermore, their is a sort of religious integration (syncretism) going on with this crew. They might be Christian, but that doesn’t keep some of them from believing in reincarnation and other eastern religious beliefs. They are not likely to have a strong or any allegiance worth noting to denominations and institutions (Mormons are going to be an exception here).

Interestingly enough, though, even though their religious practice on a corporate level is low, they do maintain that they are in some ways connected and still religious. So, they have not lost their religion so much as they have set it aside, perhaps in order to accomplish some other tasks - graduating from college and getting married.

Arnett’s study shows a big difference between married and non-married emerging adults. When the tasks of college graduation and marriage (having kids might be thrown in there) are accomplished, then religion seems to reappear from the back burner. However, it’s not the old time religion they are returning to, but rather a more losely affiliated and individualized religion. In fact, their personal religious faith and their corporate religious participation may be very different and at the same time pose no sense of dissonance. In a sense, they are a congregation of one.

Let this inform ministers and parents alike. There are powerful factors acting on the religious faith of adolescents who are moving into adulthood - and it’s not necesssarily that they are going to Hell in a handbasket. They are accomplishing some tasks required by our society. At the same time, the coherence of their faith is strained in many regards.

It could be that these emerigng churches who seem to do well with ambiguity and exploration might be a good home for these emerging adults. Comments?

The Republicans got a beating a couple weeks ago. The Democrats took over congress. Americans voted against Bush, I think that it is clear. As happy as Democrats are with the election results, they are in real trouble now.

Why? Well, I think they had more power when they had no power. Huh? The only energy they have is “not Bush.” That can get you an election, but only one. When they had no power, they could gripe relentlessly about it and no one cares if they don’t get anything done because they have no power.

Well, now that they have power they had better produce something. Thing is, it is no real accomplishment to prove that you are not Bush. If Dems are a one trick pony and that trick is the not Bush trick, they are going to have a real hard 2 years as a pointless majority.

I hope the Democrats come up with something so attractive that the people who voted for them will be glad they did. They have already gotten all of the “not Bush” mileage they can get. From this point out, they need to have some actual ideas. What they risk is generalized voter discontent. If the voters see notihng from dems, they won’t stick with them.

The temptation for dems is going to be to go back to what dems have done in the past. Voters didn’t for for what Democrats have done in the past, they voted for “not Bush.” The dems must be innovative, creative, and intriguing. If they are not, if they are viewed as the old democrats, they will lose big in 2008 because Bush is gone no matter what. They’ve 2 years to work wonders. If they haven’t fixed anything in 2 years, they’re done. 2 years is no a long time to fix anything.

Well, that is probably all I am going to say about politics for the next two years.

The transition to doctoral studies has been more challenging than I first believed it would be. As of yet, I do not believe that real me has been allowed to come out. What I mean by that is that I have been surviving and scoping the territory.

It takes a lot of energy to make a transition. It takes a lot more energy to make a transition with a family with young children. There are housing issues, schooling issues, the making of new friends, finding a decent grocery store, auto mechanic, and where is the free wi-fi (Panera and Breuggers)? So, with these and a million other changes, survival is the name of the game.

Secondly, I have to be comfortable with my surroundings in order for the very best of me to emerge. This has always been the case. The faster I can “own” my area the faster the very best of me will be allowed to walk that turf. If I cannot get my grip, then I function, but do not take the kind of necessary risks that are needed. I go into safe mode. Safe mode never works. Why? It’s not genuine or authentic. It gets me by, but over the long haul, it’s no good. It’s not creative, innovative, or intuitive.

The best of me takes risks, fails forward, creates, and is pretty darn funny. The best of me is not all too concerned about impressing anyone because that will happen or it won’t. The self-protective me is in many ways the opposite of my true me.

So, I hereby declare that it is time for me to be unleashed upon my new environment. I have been here long enough and I need to give this place a taste of who I really am.

Now, if I can just find a way to bust out of this cocoon.

When religious people are so cock sure their religion makes them immune from, well, just about anything, they set themselves up for personal disappointment and public disgrace. Furthermore, they set up a situation of spiritual perfectionism whereby dishonesty becomes a necessary ingredient in order to perpetuate the notion of spiritual immunity. When a kind of spiritual immunity is communicated or asserted, then the discrediting that goes on when someone screws up (Haggard) is huge. When religion is oversold, it is always bad - eventually.

As a Christian, I really need to watch out for this. Why? The history of my religion has some dark spots. I have some dark spots. For all of the good Christianity has done over the years, the advancements in literacy, education, health - there is no need to to oversell. In fact, there is no need to sell anything. Just be.

Many Christian groups progamatize and institutionalize certain promises into consumables toward the end of immunity against depression, poverty, stress, weight loss, discontent, immunity to sin, thisthatandtheotherthing. Yes, healthy religious and spiritual life can bring a lot of good things, but are these things what Christianity is all about?

What about self-transcedance? What about self-confrontation? What about sacrifice? What about the discipline of finding the pathways of joy through giving oneself away? What about humility?

Religion is not about immnuity. It is not about being the strongest. It is not about being the best. It is not about market share and beating out the other religions.

My father was known to say, “You couldn’t find you butt with both hands.” It was his description of someone (me) who was having a hard time figuring out what was going on in his context.

I am in doctoral studies - first semester. The speed of education at the doctoral level is lightning. I feel like I have been playing catch up for 2.5 months. At the same time, I love it.

I read a blog of a colleague of mine which mentioned that a PhD is a steward of his or her discipline. It gave me a thoughtful pause. There is a sense of responsibility in stewardship that goes beyond mere survival. In a sense, my field is counting on me to do well. Why? Because the field, even if in a small sense, is in my hands.  

Now, to you. What are you a steward of? What is counting on you to do well? Job? Family? Church? Clients?

Thinking about being a steward of something other than possessions and money is wonderful way to conceptualize responsibility. It requires effort, humility, and innovation. I can’t afford not to find my butt with both hands.

NCFR is the National Council on Family Relations. I am a member. Here is what I am learning at the national conference in Minnesapolis:

1. Some research has shown that group treatment for teens with anti-social behavior is not only not effective, but is detrimental. Family therapy, however, had shown to be effective.

2. The long term effects of some individual treatments are not effective (some harmful) while family treatments are effective.

3. Spiritual development of children and teens is now being seriously investigated. Click here.

4. There are lots of professors and students with deeply held religious views who work at and attend state universities.

5. Organized religion is to spiritual development what public education is to cognitive development. Follow me here. Even if a child did not go to school, that child would develop in the cognitive realm. There would be intelligence and it would develop, but not within an organized educational context. Similarly, with or without organized religion, a child and a person would develop spiritually. The organized structure gives stucture for the expression of faith.

It appears that the intersection of spiritual development and organized religion can either nurture healthy spiritual development or it can damage, inhibit, or distort healthy spiritual development.

I voted today. I was number 87 in my precint. I have a little red sticker on the sweatshirt I am wearing that say “I voted.”

I get excited every election year, especially larger elections. On election days, it makes me want to run for office and win. The actual job of a politician sounds lousy, but winning an election would be fun.

I voted. Whata statement. I was not coerced. I was not tricked (that I know of). I was allowed to vote freely and in privacy. My vote matters and therefore I matter. Not that I gain some kind of existential relevance from voting - I do not rely on it for my life to have meaning. On the other hand, the fact that my counrty, state, county, and city vlaue me I get to vote. I matter as much as anyone esle.

Voting is what makes a democracy better than other forms of government. Perfect? Ha! Nope. Just better.  

Vote. Go out there and vote.

I realize that I approach a topic that is white hot in religious and political circles. It’s election day for pete’s sake and here I am picking a hot topic. But I need some help. You see, I don’t know if I have gotten smarter or dumber on the topic of homosexuality. I am going to ask a bunch of questions and bring out some hypotheticals based on the Ted Haggard scandal. I apologize ahead of time for offending anyone (everyone) with my questions. Some will wonder why I don’t have this figured out in  one way (you’re a Christian aren’t you?) while others will wonder why I don’t have this figured out in another way (you’re a family scientist, aren’t you?) Well, I am both and I am also willing to take the positon of not knowing. I know what the Bible says and I know what some of the scientific literature says. Feel free to air your comments to this post.

It used to be so clear and easy. There was straight and there was gay. They were opposites and that was it. One was right (straight) and one was wrong (gay). Gay people, as was my understanding, sought out intentionally to rebel against God and used homosexuality as their means by which to do it. Certainly there are many ways to rebel against God, but if someone used homosexuality as their means to show God their contempt, then that person had chosen the worst of all blasphemies. I really used to believe that once upon a time. And sadly, the fact that I do not hold that view now places me out of favor with some. That’s OK, I still love you.

The black and white, either/or thinking no longer works for me, nor does the strict moralizing and labeling. I cannot know a person’s motives. Good grief, half the time I don’t even have a clear grasp of my own motives. So, the days of demonizing gays are over, and have been for a while.

But that doesn’t really solve anything for me either. If only sexuality were not so confusing. I guess Ted Haggard is still on my mind. Whether the prominent, anti-homosexual pastor of a megachurch had gay sex or not is not the point. I think we can say with some certainty that he had some attraction to the idea of gay sex, and it is the attraction that I am getting at.

For the sake of argument, let’s say Ted Haggard did not have gay sex, but had a hidden attraction for it. It turned him on, but he never acted on it. Does that make him gay? He claims he’s not gay. I guess you could believe him on the one hand, but on the other hand, he really can’t afford to be gay. There is too much to lose.

So, does same sex attraction make someone gay?

Let’s do another hypothetical. Let’s say that Ted Haggard’s accuser is correct and they had a three year sexual relatinoship. Is Haggard gay? Is he bisexual? Again, he claims he is not gay, and I am sure he would deny being bisexual as well.  

So, maybe same sex attraction does not make one gay, but acting on it does? My hunch is that Haggard would say that it does not, but would say it on Biblical grounds more than experienctial grounds.

A step further. Perhaps one has to make a claim for a gay identity to be gay.

And that leads to another question: Can someone be a somewhat gay? There is some research to suggest a spectrum of sexuality that makes room for there to be some homosexuality in a heterosexual and vice versa.

And then there is the notion that someone can change their orientation. That’s a tough one to swallow when I consider myself changing orientations. It’s just not going to happen. And yet, there are literally thousands who claim that they have changed from gay to straight (I have also heard stories of someone straight changing to gay, but usually those are stories more so about someone who claims that they were always gay) Were they really gay in the first place? They had same sex attraction and were having gay sex, but were they really gay?

Is sexual orientation (attraction) exclusively biological? Is it partially biological? Is it strictly a nurtured and socialized thing? Cripes! Pigeon hole sexuality in any direction and you get yourself into trouble.

I very much welcome your wisdom, thoughts, and comments. All I ask is that you be respectful. You are a guest on my blog much like you would be a guest in my home. Comment here like you would comment in my home.

Click here to see the Ted Haggard apology to his church.

Here is a poem I wrote. I do not remember when I wrote it. Good poetry needs no explanation, so here is my explanation. When I emerge from the grip of my own foolishness and find the refreshing liberation of the cleansing of forgiveness and the healing of reconciliation, the process is sometimes difficult, but the end result is beautiful.

Reborn

Oh the shivering detox;

The return of health;

Poisons scorch the earth in defeat;

Kicking and screaming, talons leaving blood trails.

Longing for gentler days, connected days,

Not so distant, so far removed,

Not so toxic, so unclean, so infected,

How long until Pure?

Layer after layer, scraped like sludge, 

Deeper, deeper, will it ever end?

How far until my own skin?

Do I still have a soul?

Love-hate with evil

Is far too much love

And far too much hate

Loving good is all that is necessary

Exorcising takes my breath away,

That poison breath that suffocates;

Replace it with clean air,

So clean it hurts.

Unwilling to indulge in all that is good;

Slime monster on white, crisp, cotton,

Slipping into the scrub

A cleansing so violent, but temporary.

Broken, small, off balance, but free;

Sparkling and crying, like a newborn,

New to this bright place;

No return, only forward, only clean.

One of Satan’s best and most powerful tools that wears against good people is blame. Satan himself (itself or whatever) assigns blame, but what is even more devious is that he entices people to blame each other or blame themselves. Then he doesn’t even have to take do it himself.

Why blame is bad. Blame is bad because there is no good end to it. The only thing it does is give this sense (false as it may be) that the person blamed can be treated badly with full justifucation for the bad treatment. Blame, in a sense, gives the nonblamed (or less blamed) a right to abuse the blamed (or more blamed). Therefore, since blame offers up an apparently good reason to abuse someone, people are challenged not to take up the opportunity to heap some abuse, whether it be to the other person who is blamed, or even to himself or herself if they are the blamed.

Taking responsibility is different than receiving blame. There is no punitive side to taking responsibility and also not the perceived need to punish the person taking responsibility. There is no hostility with responsibility, but with blame there is this inherent sense of hostility. Blame seeks to make things “fair” without virtue of an agreed upon measure of fair and without virtue of any sense of compassion or generosity. Blame seeks to get to fair by unfair means - an intrinsic hypocrisy and logical fallacy. Taking responsibility is merely doing the tasks that make the needed difference.

The hope (false hope that it is) of blame is justice. Blame never, “NEVER” I SAY, produces justice. It only perpetuates injustice in another direction. Doing the tasks that make the needed difference is what moves toward justice.

Responsibility actually does what blame hopes, but fails, to do.

Buy my book. It’s called Homefront and it is a collection of articles I wrote for the Jonesboro Sun. It costs $12.50 (shipping included).

I will split profits with World Vision.

It’s a bathroom book, stocking stuffer, Christams gift, paperweight, and much, much more.

Send a check to 2753 Sunset Lane Burnsville, MN 55337 and you will receive as many copies as you pay for. Buy 5 or more and pay only $10.00 each.  

As my 59 year old mother was helping my 80 year old grandmother into the mini-van, my 80 year old grandamother says, “Geez, I can do that; you’re treating me like I’m 90.” 

“Grey’s Anatomy, gosh, it’s just like my life.”

St. Paul, Minnesota.

If you think you can just drive around the neighborhood like those guys on that one commerical and get free wi-fi, well, you probably can. But you probably can’t do it leagally.

Click here to learn more.

Click here to see a white boy youth minister cover Sir Mixalot.

“Me so holy.” What gives?

I have been involved in conversations wherein people tried to assign postmodern philosophy to people. For example, I have heard people say that someone who doesn’t understand movie Napolean Dynomite is not postmodern. In other conversations I have heard people talk about postmodernity like it is a genetic trait.

So, are people postmodern? If they are, do they know it? Are they trying to be that way? I don’t, maybe they know it, maybe they are trying to be postmodern. Maybe not.

It’s not that I am doubting that there is a postmodern philosophy that is pervasive in American society, because I think that it is. However, I think that it is more pervasive on the macrolevel than on the personal level.

Let’s see if I can make any sense of this. All postmodernity needs in order to proliferate is increasing diversity, even if the people comprising the diversity are themselves not very diverse or even open to new ideas. How’s this?

Well, imagine people grouping together in like kinds of groups. Whites with whites, gays with gays, and farmers with farmers. Now, imagine that there are lots of these groups and the number of these different kinds of groups increases. Imagine that these groups often don’t agree with each other or often mingle with each other, but at the same time refuse to be violent toward each other. The number of different groups increases that there is no majority group or group powerful enough to always gets its way through policy, economic, factors etc.

Power decentralizes and then localizes; morality does the same. Truth becomes local as well. People in the groups realize that there are diverse views out there, but also realize they are limited in their ability to pursuade people that their group is better than other groups, and eventually give up trying so hard to pursuade, however, at the same time they do not hold their belief any less.

No one in any of these groups is”postmodern” in that they believe in postmodern philosophy. They all think that they are right in the most modern sense. And yet, the society they live in is trending postmodern.

Comments?

Many European countries have declined in birth rates such that they cannot replace their current populations. The United States has declined as well. The difference is that so many people want to immigrate to the United States that population decline will only be a problem if the U.S. closes its borders to immigration.

The U.S. won’t do it. Even with all the talk of building walls and controlling illegal immigration, America is still considered the Promised Land for  millions of hopeful people living in different countries. Furthermore, America is adding jobs and needs to have people to fill those jobs.

Some people think that this immigration threatens American culture. Truth is, massive immigration is a uniquely American reality. France, for example, seems to take great pride in being French, but the racial riots in France would indicate that there might be someting negative about the French wanting to be so very French.

Preserving American culture is not a racial thing, but rather a diversity thing. We’re in wave II of massive immigration, only this time around it’s not as much European immigration as it is Hispanic (whatever that term means) immigration. It would be unamerican to suddenly accept only European immigration and not Central and South American immigration.

While many European countries want to preserve homogenous national identities, American preserves its diverse and heterogenous identity by not being exclusive. The United States must be flexible and inclusive in order to continue its phenominal economic expansion. America must continue to welcome people of the world and find ways to give these immigrants access to the great American experiment.

America must be willing to continue to rethink itself with every next immigrant. Yes, these immigrants need to conform in many ways to American culture, but what might not be so obvious is that it is to America’s benefit to conform in some ways to the culture of the immigrants we welcome here.

We must never forget that America is an experiment. Its history is immigration. Its present is immigration. If its future does not contain immigration, then that point will mark the beginning of the decline and fall of the American culture.

Comments?

The fatal flaw of Western Christianity is that it is too easily enticed into using virtue as a tool by which to produce something else. Health and wealth theology is firmly rooted in using virtue, spiritual disciplines, and even goodness as a means by which to gain something else. It is consumerism run amuck.

And it is easy to pluck out the obvious examples of this and feel good about how we do virtue, but the sad fact remains that few of us Americans is any good at being satisfied with virtue and the end. And here is the irony, it’s not that we can’t settle for only virtue, no; rather it is that we are not desirous enough to achieve satisfaction through it. We desire so little that we will settle for any little thing that will tantalize and tittilate.

Furthermore, we construct such elaborate means to achieve such little ends. We are so numb to the fact that we are looking so hard for so little that we will use virtue to accomplish that end. The cart is pushing the horse.

There is a certain economy of spirituality that takes into account certain inputs and outputs. Inputs being prayer, spiritual disciplines, and fruits of the spirit with the outputs being paid mortgage, healing, or things more trivial. Thing is, that is not the way it was meant to work. Virtue is an end to itself, a good end, the prized end.

When are we ever going to get it straight in the wya we really live our lives? Is a very difficult time or situation that never ends, but produces patience or wisdom not and blessing? Comfort is no great prize. Wealth isn’t either. Virtue, however, is a great prize.

The more that is attained the more that is desired and the more that is desired the deeper a person goes into the goodness of God. That end results in a spreading of blessing from the virtuous person the the people surrounding him or her, no matter their level of virtue. There is a certain generosity of the virtuous person that does not view the world as a pool of scarce resources that must be won or lost, but rahter views the world as a deep spring fed pool that never runs out from which to draw and share.

Thus ends my philosophizing.   

Go to Faith 2.0 and learn about how you can access this great resource for you, ytour family or even your church.