Thoughtful Reality

After a few introductory words, the preacher began his sermon (and I paraphrase slightly):

I’m not here to entertain you.   I’m not here to give you a feel good sermon where I say nice things and we all go home feeling better.   “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.” The time we live in doesn’t allow for this kind fluffy entertainment.  We have serious things to talk about….

The preacher proceeded to give an inspirational sermon on one of the key tenets of his denomination.  But I was stuck at the beginning with a question that wouldn’t go away.

Jesus loves me this I know is fluff?   I remember a story my Dad told me about watching television.   He said that the first time he saw someone killed on television it was as if something died inside of him.     He was, of course, speaking of the loss of innocence as a result of observing violence.       This weekend I felt the same way.  When I hear comments like this, it’s as if some little part of the church dies as well.

The way I see it, Jesus loves me this I know is not some fluffy sentence that we say in order to make us feel better (although I hope it does).    It’s not some entertaining remark to pass the time.    Jesus loves me this I know is not some casual remark with no meaning.     This statement is the core of the Christian message.       Of course, it is not a complete picture and there are details and additions and clarifications that fill this statement with additional maturity and meaning.     But without Jesus loves me, everything else is only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

When we talk about the plan of salvation, the idea that God died so that we could be saved, the message is Jesus loves me, this I know.    When we talk about Justification, the idea that Jesus takes our place — that we are judged on Jesus’ merits instead of our own — we understand that Jesus loves me this I know.      When we talk about the weekly cycle, worship, work, rest and the appropriate times prescribed by God, these only make sense if we know that  Jesus loves me.     When we discuss the idea that the world is not my home, that God himself is coming back to earth to rescue His people, the message resonates with the trumpets of 2 Corinthians, Jesus loves me this I know!   When we read about the resurection — that at the second coming  all who have died in Christ will be raised up in a twinkling of an eye, the message shines through, Jesus loves me this I know!

Every morning when we wake up and thank God being alive,  every day when we ask God to lead in our lives,  every evening when we pray for our families and friends who are sick or going through difficulties, every day of our Christian experience only makes sense if Jesus loves me this I know.

So I am left with only two options:   Either the preacher was sorely mistaken, or I need a new definition for “fluffy entertainment.”     Because if this is how fluffy entertainment is defined then I need more of it in my life.

There is a paragraph appearing here and there on Facebook that goes something like this:

So they just passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he didn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it,signed by a president who smokes and has high cholesterol, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, and better yet it is to be financed by a country that’s broke!? Repost if you agree

And while I’m sure it is just meant to be funny and gather a few laughs from the “believers,” it seems to me that it exemplifies the inaccuracies, and plain out falsehoods that pass as gospel in a soundbite society.     It is sad to me that much of our debate about important issues is reduced to snarky comments which at best oversell reality and at worse distort the picture of what is actually going on.

I believe there are reasonable arguments against the health-care bill (or any other issue for that matter) and these arguments should be presented and discussed.   However, when we reduce things to cheap soundbites, we are 1) inevitably wrong, and 2) miss the opportunity for honest dialogue.   But it is to the first point that I want to address the rest of my post.    I would like to examine the Facebook comment and look into whether or not it gives an accurate representation of what is happening, or if it distorts the truth in order to make it’s point.  Let’s begin, phrase by phrase.

Chairman says he doesn’t understand it.-  I’m assuming this comment is referring to articles like the following:  http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/54930.      The essence of what is being said is that the bill is written in legal language – which is hard to understand.     But this is not unique to the health-care bill.  ANY bill written by congress is written in legal language.   There is a reason for that.   The reason for writing in technical language is, ironically enough, so that the meaning is unambiguous.     So while one might argue that this is a bad thing,  it is not unique to the health-care bill.  It is an artifact of congress.    So if this is true of all bills in congress (you should try reading the patriot act), what is the point in calling it out as a weakness of this particular bill.

Passed by a Congress that exempts themselves from it.- The gist of the argument seems to go like this:

• The bill requires the creation of state exchange plans.
• Congress members are not required to use the exchanges for their health insurance.
• Therefore, it is a double standard.

The problem is that the bill doesn’t require everyone to participate in these exchanges.  They (the exchanges) are meant for people who don’t have employer related coverage.   Congress does.    A rather lengthy, and more complete, explanation of why this statement is false, can be found at: http://mediamatters.org/research/201003250022

So, this statement is demonstrably false.

Signed by a president who smokes and has high cholesterol. This one is a good one.  I’m guessing that the idea behind this is that an unhealthy president has no right to pass a health-care bill.   It makes me wonder what people think health-care is all about – perhaps helping people with health issues.    But regardless, let’s assume that the president should be healthy in order to be worthy of passing a health care bill – or that at least he should practice healthy habits.    How does Obama measure up.

Clearly he smokes, so a check against him.   On the other hand, he is trying to quit.  And from talking to people who have tried, this is not trivial matter.

What about exercise.?    It turns out Obama exercises a lot.    Look it up.    You might also note that the number one lifestyle risk reduction factor is exercise.  In other words, if you want to improve your health, exercise.       But has it made a difference.   His latest physical exam seems to show that it does:  Resting heart rate of 56, blood pressure of 105/62, and a BMI of 23.7 (for reference a normal weight BMI is 18.5 to 24.9).  According to the CDC, the average adult in the United States has a BMI of 26.6.    So he is pretty healthy there.

What about this cholesterol bit? 209.   According to e-health that is in the borderline high category.  However, the key question is, can he do anything about it by a lifestyle change.      According to e-health again, cholesterol levels can be determined to a certain extent by your genetic makeup.    E-health lists three lifestyle items that influence cholesterol levels:  What you eat, how active you are, and what you weigh.

We have already established that Obama is active and has an appropriate weight.   What about the third item – does he have a healthy diet?  I couldn’t find a lot of information on this.  But this article comparing Obama’s diet to McCain’s seems to indicate that he eats in a healthy manner.

So he smokes and has high cholesterol.   But in comparison with the average American, he is quite healthy.    But then again, why do you have to be healthy to be sponsoring a health-care bill?

With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes. This is clearly true.   On the other hand, it’s also true about the funding that is used for defense, homeland security, social security.  It is all administered by him.      On another note, this is an incomplete statement (like most “soundbites”).   As of today, he has paid all of his taxes.   And he always did pay his taxes.  He just didn’t pay all of them.   He claims it was an error.  Whether you believe him or not, one must admit that making an error on taxes is not exactly hard to do.  Of course, that doesn’t excuse him.    Especially, since he is supposed to be the “money guy”.

On the other hand, this assessment (he should have known better since he is the guy in charge of all the money in the US) may be a simplification.    I often encounter this oversimplification in relation to electrical engineers.   People assume that an electrical engineer should be able to wire their house, fix their tv or make their phone work.   Most of the time, this isn’t true.   The electrical engineer can’t do those things, not because he isn’t an electrical engineer, but because his training is in other items – possibly power engineering.

So this statement is partially true, but the implied message is much stronger than actually warranted by reality.

Financed by a country that’s broke! This one is great! Great in the sense that someone totally missed a key point of the health bill.    But before we go there, let’s ask the question, what does it mean for a country to be broke, or bankrupt?    Laurence Kotlikoff brings an interesting answer to that question — more precisely, Is the United States Bankrupt (written in 2006).   If you don’t want to read the whole article, the author concludes that countries can, and do, go bankrupt, and that the United States is headed that way.    What is even more interesting, however, is the solutions he presents (retail sales tax, personalized Social Security, and wait for it, a globally budgeted universal health-care system).     Obviously, this is a point to be debated.   But one of the key tenets of health-care reform is that it will help reduce the deficit.     So once again, a soundbite misses the point.

So let’s recap, the healthcare bill is written in legal language, which is difficult to understand, just like any other bill.  Congress is Not, in fact, exempt from what it prescribes (they still have to purchase health insurance).  While Obama does smoke and has high cholesterol, he is much healthier than the average American probably as a result of his lifestyle choices which include abundant exercise and a healthy diet.  Geitner did mess up on his taxes, and he possibly should have known better, but this a simplification at best.  And finally, the United States is going bankrupt, but a reasonable argument can be made that the Health-care bill will help alleviate that problem, not make it worse.

Now, I don’t have any delusions of making any grand change in the way we look at things.  But my invitation is to shy away from cheapshots and soundbite arguments.    These are serious issues with lasting consequences.   They deserve a better treatment.  We deserve a better discussion.

Everyone understand that being healthy is important to a happy life.   But how can we be healthy?   Of course, there are lots of things that contribute to good health:  Diet, genetics, lifestyle habits, regular medical checkups, and of course exercise just to name a few.     In fact, there are so many things that contribute to good health that many adopt a ‘why bother, I can’t keep it all straight.’ attitude.  

However, there is one thing that makes more of a difference to a healthy life than anything else – exercise.   Mayo clinic lists 7 benefits of regular physical activity.

However, exercise can be a bit daunting.    A lot of popular exercises require either a team of other people, a gym membership or a lot of different equipment or at minimum a lot of time.

Here is a quick routine that requires very little time (15 minutes), can be done at home, and requires almost no special equipment.  

The routine, published in the latest men’s health consists of 4 exercises repeated one after the other for 15 minutes with a 30 second pause between events.

The 4 exercises to be repeated in sequence are as follows: 

1. Pushups (10 to 20)
2. Lunges (10 to 15)
3. Pull-ups (5 to 10)
4. Plank (30 to 90 seconds)

Repeat until the 15 minutes are up.

So you are now without excuse!

Assumptions 

• God exists
• The Bible provides reasonable examples of how God interacts with humans

The Question

From time to time an e-mail will arrive in my inbox with the tag-line at the bottom: “God does not call the equipped. He equips the called.”    The idea seems to be that a person’s natural or acquired talents are of no consequence to God’s calling of a person for a certain mission.   The question I have when I read this tag line is where is the evidence?  Is it true?

It turns out, there are a number of stories to support this claim.   Let me share a few of them.

1. The 12 disciples.   The argument goes that if Jesus had selected disciples by their worldly talents, the only one to make the cut would have been Judas.
2. Moses.   A man who was not able to put a few words together is called to not only lead millions of people out of captivity but keep them together as a God-worshiping nation as they traversed some of the most inhospitable areas in the explored-world.
3. King David.  The boy who was too young and inexperienced to be conscripted into the Israeli army becomes the hero in one of the greatest  underdog stories ever told, is anointed as the most important king in Jewish and Christian history, and becomes the ancestor (both symbolic and literal) to the Son of David, who would save the world.

And so, the preacher concludes his sermon, it doesn’t matter what talents you have.  It doesn’t matter what kind of education you have.  It doesn’t matter what you are good at.    God will give you the skills to do his work.

But then there is Jason (not his real name).   He wants to be a singer and lead people to God through music.    He prays about this daily, and believes that God has called him to this mission.    Unfortunately, Jason is a mediocre, at best, musician.   Tuning on long notes is optional.  Rhythm and timing are imprecise.   He does not quite qualify as a prison singer (always behind a few bars and never in the right key), but no crowd (outside of his family and friends) will ever go see him.

And what about Joni (you guessed it, a pseudonym)?   She wants to be a preacher.    She has trouble putting together coherent paragraph, never mind a cohesive sermon.    She is not good with people and she is part of a denomination which, to put it mildly, does not follow equal opportunity guidelines in their selection of ministers.

Both Joni and Jason believe (or at least believed at some point) they have been called to a specific ministry.    Neither is working in the field of their calling.   Both are employed in fields that would not be considered by anyone to be related to the areas in which they believed they were called.

What happened?  

Finally, there is Paul from the New Testament.   He is educated.  He is smart.   He is a brilliant theologian.  He is a compelling leader who knows how to inspire people and get things done — all of these things before he becomes a Christian.    He had all of the things required to become the great church leader and theologian–who influenced the great majority of Christian thought– before he received God’s calling.

The question that we must consider when thinking of Jason, Joni and Paul is how do their stories match up with the statement  “God does not call the equipped. He equips the called?”    The conclusion I have reached is that they don’t.

There are, however, at least a couple of alternate explanations that would explain these discrepancies:

1. If you don’t, eventually, get the talents you need (i.e. you aren’t equipped), you were never called.    There is but one argument that can be made against this possibility.   It is a tautology – circular in its reasoning.  It’s what I like to call a “by definition” argument.   These aren’t very helpful because they don’t really explain anything and they can be built around almost any conclusion.   For example, I might contend that people with whom I disagree are always wrong.     If suddenly I found someone  who showed by other evidence that she was right and at the same time disagreed with me, I could, a) agree that my view of the world was wrong, or b) I could simply, which is what the if-you-aren’t-equipped-you-aren’t-called argument seeks to do, point them to be statement which says that since they disagree with me, they must be wrong and all the evidence they have presented must be invalid.
2. God doesn’t always equip people for their calling concurrently with that calling.    In other words, some people are prepared ahead  of schedule of the purpose of God.      This assertion answers the question about Paul but does not explain Jason or Joni.     So while it is entirely possible that it is true, it does not provide enough support for the question of whether or not “God does not call the equipped. He equips the called.”   

Considering all of this, a more reasonable explanation might be that this is not an accurate depiction of how God works.    While I don’t deny that God has given people talents they did not have in order to accomplish his purpose, I would argue that this is the extraordinary case.  This is the exception, not the rule.    

I find that much more often, God calls people to tasks for which they are very well suited.     Jeremy, the very successful pastor, who has always loved being with people and has a flare for business and selling things and ideas to people (the perfect skill-set for a pastor).   David, the missionary who loves to travel and has a natural flair for languages.      

Even in the examples shown above (David, Moses, the 12 disciples) one might argue that they already had some of the skills required to do the job God called them to do.   David himself argues that he has gained the skills to kill the giant by shepherding sheep.   And while Moses may not have been able to speak, he was trained in the most powerful court in the world of the time.     And finally, the disciples….   Actually, it is not clear what skills they had ahead of time.

So what can we conclude?   We conclude that our saying needs some modification.     God does call those who are equipped.    And this is not the exception.   Most of the time God uses people who already have the talents, the skills, the experience to do the work.      But not all of the time.   There are exceptions.

God does not always call the equipped.  Sometimes, He retrofits.