Connecting God's dots can give you crazy pictures

Today has been a little discouraging. In the grand scheme of things, I have nothing to complain about. But right now I'm frustrated because I got two papers back and got a little roughed up on both of them. And the experience has me thinking about how we as people -- and as Christians -- interpret the things that happen in our lives.

Take my two bum papers, for example. Are they a sign? If so, what do they signal? Is God telling me to buckle down and do a better job next time? Or is he telling me to quit school because it's not His will for my life? Those are two very different possibilities that use the same evidence.  But I know people who base major decisions on the events in their lives because they connect the dots and think they see God will.

place place a in for everything its everything

As people, we are born with a strong desire to make sense the world around us. We seek to arrange everything we encounter inside a framework that organizes them, gives them context, and assigns them meaning. That's why you puzzled over the bold line of words above this paragraph for a few minutes before moving on. Your instincts told you that those words were there for a reason, that they somehow related to each other and that together they expressed meaning. In other words, you assumed there was...

A place for everything and everything in its place.

That's ok. It's totally natural.

As Christians, we have an extra layer we like to apply to help assign meaning to the events, sights, sounds, and people in our lives -- God. We believe that God is in control and he is organizing the scattered bits of our experience into a coherent sequence for a directed purpose. God, we think, is sovereign and he is scripting history -- including our history -- into a meaningful story.

Even if we can't comprehend it now, God is placing everything in its place. Normal people don't buy that, but we believe it. And we should, because that's how the Bible presents it.

Our faith is the problem

But in this regard, our faith can be a problem for us as believers. We so much want to assign meaning to what is happing in the world right now, that we jump the gun. We try to tell ourselves and others what God is up to in a specific situation, even though we don't always know for sure. In fact, a lot of times we get it wrong. Like Pat Robertson claiming the earthquake in Haiti is God's judgment for their sins. He's wanting to make sense of the situation, so gives it a meaning based on what he thinks God is up to.

Robertson is an extreme example, I admit. But, all of us Christians do the same thing - interpreting life in a way that fits our ideas about God and about how we want the story He's writing to turn out. I do it. We believe in God's sovereignty so strongly that we jump to conclusions too quickly.

This quote from N.T Wright sums it up:

One of the key words [in interpreting history] is Paul's little word perhaps, which he uses in Philemon...'Perhaps this is why Onesimus was parted from me for a while, so that you could have him back not just as a slave but as a brother' (Philemon 15). When Christians try to read off what God is doing even in their own situations, such claims always have to carry the word perhaps about with them as a mark of humility and of the necessary reticence of faith. That doesn't mean that such claims can't be made, but that they need to be made with a "perhaps' which is always inviting God to come in and say, 'Well, actually, no" (Christianity Today, April, 2001 p. 47).

So, I'm not going to make any bold claims or drastic conclusions because I got two bad grades in a row. Perhaps God is telling me to quit school, grab a camera and move to Africa. But I'm going to have to see a lot more of my story play out before I connect the dots that way.

And I guess the lesson is, be careful when you think God's telling you something based on a few circumstances. You and God might wind up having very different ideas about the meaning. It's best to let him put everything in its place...in His own time.

Posted via email from wild pansophia

Snow: The Vocal Edition

A while back, I posted a little musical mix called, "Snow."

Well, here's a little update on that. It's the vocal edition, complete with lyrics. Here it goes: click here to listen....
Snow in the City  

Tea with Hezbollah: I review Ted Dekker for crosswalk.com

Ted Dekker is known for his fiction. But this time, he writes about his own personal experiences interviewing influential Islamic leaders in the Middle East.
What Dekker asks these "enemies" of America may surprise you.

Is this a book for you? Read my review at crosswalk.com.

McReps & McDems Alike Should Cry at Bayh's Goodbye

Cooler heads in Congress head for the exits.

Wow, the current administration and Congress are even too liberal for members of their own party.

Sen. Evan Bayh, a 12 year veteran and moderate Democrat, says he won't run for reelection because Congress "is not operating as it should" and he's tired of the "strident partisanship," CNN reports. Good news for all the Republican fans, right?

Wrong.

I think Bayh and his fellow long-term members on both sides of the aisle see the handwriting on the wall. America's going to be very hard on incumbents this election cycle, Reps and Dems alike. Bayh doesn't want to be the guy who loses his seat to the other team.

The real loser? The American people. Centrist members in both parties have been the quiet workhorses of government for years with their ability to see issues from other points of view and strike deals that suit everyone and not just advance their party's agenda. Now their number is shrinking as the cooler heads in Congress head for the exits.

The increasing polarizing of American politics into only two opposing viewpoints is exceptionally dangerous. Each party will simply resort to exponentially extreme behavior in order to make it clear to voters that, "Hey, at least we're not those other guys." More posturing, less real action by both parties results.

We have decades of disinterested, uninformed voters to thank for giving Reps and Dems the need to caricature themselves and make the choice easy for people who'd rather not have to think too hard. Gone are the days when someone is elected for their personal skills and viewpoints, and not for their party label. 

Now, America votes for their preferred party like they cheer for their favorite sports team or choose their favorite fast food chain. Sure, with McDems and McReps you always know what you're going to get, but what you get won't be very good for you. 

Its easier that way, because all that takes is being able to read the letters "D" and "R" at the ballot box. Soon, we won't even need names on ballots. We'll simply put pictures of elephants and donkeys on the screen and select our government like we order our value meals.

"Thank you for voting, America. Would you like fries with that?"

   

What snow in the city sounds like to me

So, when I have a snow day crazy things can happen. Garageband things. Looking out at all those fluffy flakes floating down inspired me to pull out the keyboard Sarah gave me for Christmas and scratch out a few notes...

For all of us watching snow flutter past our porch lights tonight, here's what snow sounds like in the city...

The Future of Reading: How magazines can be better than ever

Apple's iPad has been unveiled, and it's potential as a web browser and electronic book reader has people like Josh Quitter thinking about the future of reading in an outstanding, forward-thinking piece focused on how the Internet could impact traditional print magazines.

Personally, I love magazines. I think they have the best chance of any current print format to survive the switch to digital because mags already integrate multiple media.

The visual component is an integral part of the experience. If properly harnessed, the multi-media capacity of the web allows for a richer reader experience than print alone. With the web, features like supporting video, interview audio, and flash animated maps and charts can be used along with the typical photos and graphics.

To survive, magazine outfits need to take three steps:

1. Offer full digital versions for much lower subscription costs than on newsstands.

2. Use the money they save from print production to flood the virtual pages with interactive multi-media content. Maps to click, drag, and scale. Photo slideshows. Audio and video from the interviews. Interactive charts. Links for further reading from past issues.

3. Boost interactivity by providing comment and response mechanisms for digital edition consumers. Schedule chats with the author. Allow a reader to annotate a portion of the article, make comments and publish them to the page. Other viewers could opt to see these annotations - like a collaborative pdf document.

Perhaps the changing tastes of readers is a by-product of a more formally educated population than we had 30 years ago. In college, you can't get by with writing a paper and citing only one source. In college, you learn that most people's writing is influenced by their personal views and not fully objective. As you are exposed to a variety of ideas, you find that often every perspective on a topic has some foundation in fact and can contribute to the discussion.

Perhaps that's why the next generation of readers wants conversation as much as they want information. They want their news and information from multiple sources and from a variety of perspectives. They don't merely want to be told, they want to be shown.

This is a lesson that every traditional medium can learn from as we transition to an increasingly digital age.

  

A book about a book about me?

If I were to write a book someday -- I mean a work of fiction -- I know what I would write. It would be a book about me writing a book about me.

A first person account of me constructing a third person account about myself for national consumption.

The me I would write about writing about wouldn't be a Me that friends would recognize. Neither "Me" (the one writing and the one writing about the process of writing) would be me exactly. They would be the Me's I would be if I let me be myself without being concerned with convention or with being comprehended.

Me (both of them) would be the character I wish I could be or that I'm relieved I'm not -- depending on my mood.

The first person third person autobiography would most likely poke fun at how most people construct what they think is reality based on their desire to be accepted by others based on their perception of what other accept.

And it would be a chance for me (this Me) to write like I think and not translate my thoughts into conventionally composed, single themed streams so others can follow. I could write in rivers, not streams.

"The Convention" would be a good title. That's where Me would get inspired to leave and write about himself. He would write a journal about writing a book about himself while dabbling in writing the book. The journal would be first person and the book would be third person.

And that's how I would write about me writing about Me.