First, the funny ones:

I find this particularly amusing as I’ve attended “church with cookies” since I was about 14 (with a 4-year exception while going to college; I still went to church, they just didn’t offer cookies). One of my favorite things about The Experience is that there’s a meal after each service; it makes it a lot easier to get to know people better, since that seems to happen naturally over food. But it’s not the whole point!

This one has an angel on one sleeve and a devil on the other. The concept makes me smile because in our culture that’s almost universally recognized (though more likely from cartoons than anything else!). I’d probably get the cookie one first, because though this one could land me in a conversation about influences, etc., more likely it would just get smiles. I could get this for my friend, Cindy, though; she claims I’m her conscience.

And the more serious one:

Humans fail, though. Interesting point, and one of the better-designed shirts I found (the downside of “crowdsourcing”: the crowd often has appalling taste… in my hardly-ever-humble opinion).

If I win one of the gift certificates, you may see me sporting one or more of these in the future.

There’s something that Brian, our pastor, says about the word “believe” and the way we use it now versus the way Bible writers used it. I’m going from memory here, but the idea is that when we say we believe something, we mean it kind of as an acceptance of a fact; after thoughtful consideration (in some cases!) we decide we agree with a premise.

In contrast, in Bible times, the connotation was a little bit different. To believe something was more of an action, or an understanding from which action couldn’t be separated. You couldn’t “believe” something without being physically changed. Really, this perspective makes a whole lot more sense. If you don’t live differently as a result of a belief, then it’s questionable whether you really believe it. Brian’s standard example here is fire: if you believe that the building you are in is on fire, you’re going to do something (whether it’s escaping, or helping others, or whatever). You’re not going to just sit there “believing.”

This brings up a lot of my questionable “beliefs,” particularly the things I say I believe in my head but my heart isn’t convinced. In the ancient context, there’s no way those could be considered beliefs; I think a more appropriate word would be “doubts” (and that’s really pretty depressing).

One of the most concerning things I “believe” but don’t act on is the Bible’s clear indication of what will happen in eternity. I “agree with the premise” of heaven and hell, but I’m doing next to nothing to encourage people in the right direction.

I guess the big question is, “If I really believed that there is someone actively trying to lull people into an eternity devoid of all joy, happiness, comfort, and meaning, wouldn’t I try to prevent that?” Because if I had someone right in front of me who was suffering from some physical trauma that I could help with, I would, no question. Or if I could prevent someone from being injured in the first place by quick action, I’d do that, too. So why do I take the much more serious, much more important threat so much more lightly?

I’ve read that somewhere around 27,000 children die every day, mostly from preventable causes. If I really believed that their (and their parents’ and neighbors’ and friends’) eternal fate was hanging in the balance, wouldn’t I do something to give them a better chance to experience God in this life? If I believed Jesus’ exhortation to care for the orphans and the widows, how is that I could sit here in my nice American house and ponder the meaning of words?

So by now it’s clear that I don’t believe in as many things as I’d like to think I do. The question I really need an answer to is, “How do I ‘keep the vision of eternity continually in [my] mind and the value of it in [my] heart’?” How do I believe?

On a larger scale, it’s a bit more complex. The book mentions guilt, resentment and anger, fear, materialism, and the need for approval as things that drive many people. I don’t really do guilt or resentment and anger much, and fear comes in only when I’ve over-committed myself.

Materialism? That one gives me pause. On the one hand, I’m definitely devoting most of my time right now to making money, but I don’t feel like it’s the promised “stuff” that’s driving me. What I really want out of it is freedom to spend my time however I want, and as far as I can tell, you either have to have good savings or good passive income to do that. Yes, I do want that touring bike, but that’s so I can spend my time touring rather than working (though maybe I should satisfy myself with my road bike to be able to afford the time off…). I don’t feel like I’m looking for “money as security,” just “money as time freedom.”

Approval strikes a chord, though. I really hate saying no to people I can actually help, particularly in my work. I want people to like me, to think I’m cool or helpful or kind. This is probably a major factor in my tendency to over-schedule, which of course results in providing worse service and then feeling pressure to work too much to keep people happy. Arg.

All of this stuff about “drivers” comes back to the idea of purpose being in control. “Knowing your purpose simplifies your life. It defines what you do and what you don’t do,” says the author. Well, I can see how that’s true, but I come back to my ever-present tension between inspirational ideas and the pragmatic reality of my day-to-day work decisions. If I understand what God has in mind for me, how do I decide which clients to take? Which projects to work on today and which ones to schedule out a bit? Or maybe I should be doing something entirely different with my skills and interests? It just all seems so theoretical.

And here’s a quote that’s almost painful to my dabbling, flitting self:

If you want your life to have impact, focus it! Stop dabbling. Stop trying to do it all. Do less. Prune away even good activities and do only that which matters most.

I agree. In theory. But that just makes me want to wrap my arms around my knees and start rocking and humming.

Actually, most of the time I’m delighted to be alive right now, because I’m so excited about all the amazing things that the Internet is facilitating. I’ve been on the web since its early days of public availability, and it’s sort of a backdrop for a lot of my life. I love that. And now that I think about that, it seems highly likely that God had my current career in mind for me; is it possible that in another time I would have found fulfilling work that has nothing to do with a non-existent or evolved-beyond Internet? I’m sure that it is, but the fact is that God put me right here, in middle class America at the turn of the millennium for specific reasons, so maybe my line of work is inherently more meaningful than I give it credit for.

Of course, the flip side of that premise is a little harder to face: that God specifically chose some people to live in miserable places, like drought-plagued areas of Africa. Though come to think of it, those areas wouldn’t be nearly so miserable if humans would reject selfishness. I read recently that there’s a very large underground lake in the Darfur region of Sudan, where there have been such brutal actions taken, essentially over resources. There’s a tremendous resource right under them in this drought-prone region, but they’ve been too busy terrorizing their neighbors to develop it. (And that’s not to say that we in the first world nations have done nearly enough, either; it’s just an example of how human selfishness keeps people impoverished and exploited.)

I was reading an article in Good last night that talked about Buckminster Fuller’s vision for humanity:

He believed we could use human ingenuity and existing resources to solve global problems, as long as we committed “egocide.” “Selfishness”, he declared, “is unnecessary and … unrationalizable. … War is obsolete.”

Fuller was one of the first thinkers to publicly identify the global crisis of unbalanced resources that remains today. He set out to put that imbalance right by inventing models for efficiency based on nature. His motto was: “Do more with less.” He firmly believed that technological advances, if applied correctly, could allocate and manage the world’s resources in such a way that every member of the human race could live the luxurious life of a billionaire. “Technologically,” Fuller wrote in 1981, “we now have four billion billionaires onboard Spaceship Earth who are entirely unaware of their good fortune.”

I think that’s absolutely true, except that we haven’t grasped that selfishness is unnecessary and unrationalizable. We rationalize it every day. But if God has given us everything we need to live without fear (of scarcity and violence), then I guess the blame for miserable lives lays squarely with us, doesn’t it?

I have a hard time with this somehow. It seems like purpose and my personal goals should be the same. Well, I guess they can be, but only if you go from purpose to goals, instead of from goals to purpose. One of the other major points is that, not having created ourselves, we can’t claim to determine our own purpose (the analogy given is an invention trying to decide what it was invented for). So to try to determine our purpose based on our preferences is backwards. I guess that makes sense.

So what does that mean for today? How am I supposed to go to work now and live like I believe it? The easy answer is to “make my goals God’s goals” but how do I do that? Today I have three client projects that need my time. I have several internal projects that also require my time. What does God want me to do differently? Does living for God’s purpose mean just doing work for charities and churches? Another pat answer that comes to mind is something along the lines of “do the work you have to do with integrity and as if for God.” I think that’s biblical but it seems so trite…

I have a few random things that I get excited about, things that make everyone else think I’m crazy. One of these things is the concept of communes. I don’t mean communes in the hippy-dippy sense. More the idea of making good use of financial and talent/interest resources, and recapturing some of the joys of community that have sort of disappeared along with small, tight-woven groups.

This commune idea has been on my mind for several years, but lately there have been other things that have penetrated my consciousness. One is the way that Christians are perceived in the secular world. (I know, you’re thinking that my commune obsession isn’t likely to help that! But give me a chance to explain…)

At church last week, Brian played a video where a guy stopped random people on the street and played a little word association with them. “What do you think of when I say ‘Christian’?” and “What comes to mind when I say ‘Jesus’?” were two of the main ones. The answers were sadly predictable: “weird,” “judgmental,” and even “bad.”

This reaction from the secular world tells me a lot of things. One, Christians are really doing a lousy job of communicating the Gospel. I have this fantasy of people responding with “weird, but the nicest people I’ve ever met”. Which is my second point: it seems obvious that either the respondents don’t know any Christians, or the Christians they know aren’t really following Christ. Yes, that sounds a little harsh and judgmental, but it’s not really a judgment because it’s self-evident. If we were truly following Christ, the responses would be different.

I’ve also been reading lots of books that point out that most Christians don’t have non-believing friends. This is partly because it’s easier to be with “people like me,” partly because many just don’t encounter a lot of non-believers in daily life, and partly because of the “Christian ghetto” that everyone’s always talking about.

So what do all these things have to do with each other? Well, I was standing in the shower, and it hit me (isn’t the shower the location of all eureka moments?): what if we had a commune of sorts that solved some of the perception and relationship problems at the same time? A structure that actually makes it more likely that Christians would hang out with secular folks (rather than becoming even more of a Christian ghetto, as the commune idea might imply to some)?

Here’s what I’m thinking: an apartment building owned by a local church, in the general vicinity of the church. The intention would be to have about half to two-thirds of the apartments occupied by people involved in the church. The other half to one-third would be intentionally filled with secular people in the church’s target market (in my church, this is families; in other churches, this could be young singles, professionals, whatever).

Social and “felt need” interactions would be intentional and central to the success of this plan. For instance, with our target, this would mean things like child care, homework help, dinner get-togethers, and anything that would help a young family make connections and get a little less stressed. For this to work, it is essential that the church people step up and lead community interactions.

In my ideal world, this would accomplish a few things:

1. It would foster meaningful relationships between Christians and non-believers. Not “we’re here to convert you” relationships, but true friendships. This is essential if we’re ever going to overcome the stereotypes about Christians (and get down to doing the work Jesus told us to do, already!).
2. It would give us the opportunity to show God’s love to people in a way that matters. It’s good to tell people that Jesus loves them, but how about showing them through service that meets actual needs?
3. It would help us grow as Christians. This would happen both through fellowship with other church folks, and especially through actually following the Great Commission.
4. It would be fun and fulfilling! I think most people long for real community, and some of us find it in the Church, but still feel lonely most of the time.
5. It makes financial sense. We could pool our resources (both financial and in terms of talent and interests) to create a community that is more than the sum of its parts. For instance, maybe someone gets free rent in exchange for childcare or meal prep for the community, while others pay rent that benefits the community.

Is this the end-all, be-all solution? Of course not! There would be plenty of problems to solve (how do you get church people on board for such a big commitment? what happens if there’s tension in the church—or the apartment? how do you attract your target audience without making them feel like pawns?). But I think as an idea, it has a lot of potential.

I have no idea if this is something that anyone’s doing already, or if any church would get behind it, but it’s on my mind, something I’m passionate about, and I believe that it’s God that’s keeping it in my mind and heart. I’m not sure what He wants me to do with this idea (our church doesn’t have the resources at this point to make this happen); maybe I’m just suppose to throw it out there. Any thoughts? (Do you all think I’m nuts now?)

Cool things to note about the “Nothing But Nets” campaign: it’s the work of “the United Nations Foundation, in partnership with Sports Illustrated, the NBA, and the People of the United Methodist Church.” I love the diversity of participation in this. It also worth noting that 100% of donations go directly to the nets, since the U.N. Foundation was specifically set up to cover admin costs, without dipping into donations.

So, c’mon, go spend your $10 on a net already.

The premise of the book is that sometimes evangelism is not about having a polished testimony, or knowing all the texts meant to convert people, but rather, it’s just the willingness to notice another person and reach out to him.

This concept certainly isn’t a new one, but I like its presentation in this book. The author illustrates this idea clearly through a bunch of personal stories. He also tackles the deeper question of “why isn’t this our first instinct, anyway?”

One of the questions at the end of chapter one tackles this a bit. It is actually a set of true-or-false statements:

• I believe that every person I know would be better off living God’s way.
• I live my life in such a way that others around me know I believe this.
• I want to become more of a walk-across-the-room man or woman who jumps all over evangelistic opportunities God lays in my path.
• I’m willing to let go of other passions so that God’s people can take top priority.

I don’t know about you, but for me, some of those questions are hard-hitting. For the record, my answers:

How do you answer these questions?

I have picked up a lot of interesting things from the book, though, and it’s changing the way I look at the world around me. The book’s “big idea” for Christians is this:

I am deeply loved, completely forgiven, fully pleasing, totally accepted by God, and complete in Christ.

I always have a hard time internalizing things like this, but I have seen glimpses of these truths, and it’s amazing.

I’m also struck by how many people believe the lie (my self-worth = my performance + other’s opinions). I guess I shouldn’t be, since I believe it a lot of the time, but I was hit by it again this morning while reading people’s answers to a prompt in one of my dieting groups. The prompt was “I am proud of myself today because…” and almost every response was totally performance-driven. Either they were happy because of something they did, or unhappy because they didn’t do something. None of the answers were “be” or “are” answers; they were all “do”.

On a different but related note, I really like this quote from Karen Hancock’s blog:

Great messages lately in Bible class, particularly the one about how “God is able to make all grace ABOUND to you, that ALWAYS having ALL sufficiency in EVERYTHING you may have an ABUNDANCE for EVERY good deed.” ~ 2 Co 9:8

Just a reminder that I have everything I need — the talent, the wit, the time, the energy — to complete this task in accordance with His will. I am keeping myself focused on that, and not the scary speculations that want to raise their very ugly heads from time to time.