It's not about you...

The other day, I was driving to work on I-95 during rush hour. There's always traffic through New Haven, where 95, 91, and route 34 all come together. That small stretch along 95 is always backed up, even when it's not rush hour, as people merge and change lanes, and exit. It's the kind of highway design you can tell is really old, as if were designed for an age with fewer cars and lower highway speeds, and the designers could never imagine the kind of traffic we have today. Once you get past this small piece of highway, though, traffic generally moves pretty steadily.

Last Thursday, however, I had just gotten past that spot, and was once again regaining highway speeds, when I noticed a Mercedes coupe in my rear view mirror. The driver was an older man, probably in his sixties or seventies. As he passed me (on the right), I noticed he was wearing what looked to be a rather expensive suit. He had one hand on the steering wheel, while the other cradled his cell phone to his ear. I watched as he zigged and zagged his way between cars, using all three lanes and exit ramps when possible, never once braking nor slowing down. Other cars, however, braked and swerved a bit when he came near.

What a jerk!, I thought to myself. What gives him the right to drive that way? And where is a cop when you need one? No one on the highway honked their horn as he cut people off, made illegal lane changes, and never once signaled. I guess this kind of thing is pretty standard these days, and people have just gotten acclimated to it. As I thought about it, I realized that I do see this sort of thing in one form or another almost every day.

And it's not just on the highway either. People, myself included, regularly find ways to tell the world with their actions, I'm the only one who matters; no one else is as important as me. It's an overconfidence that really is en epidemic. It has been said that pride was the original sin, and that it is the source of all other sins, for before someone chooses to hurt another person or to disobey God, they first must decide that their own needs, wants, desires, and self-interest are the most important things in the world.

Paul wrote from a Roman prison to the Christians at Philippi, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others" (Philippians 2:3-4, TNIV). Paul is reminding these Philippian believers that they should have the same mind as Jesus, who put the interests of others above his own. He is remindin them that, as part of the kingdom of God, their ways should be markedly different from the world's. There should be no rivalry, no selfish ambition. Instead, as a sign to one another, and to the larger community, they should model the ethics of the kingdom. In this way, they would shine "like stars in the sky" (2:15).

And what is the point of all this shining? It's supposed to be contagious; it's supposed to spread like wildfire. Earlier in the letter to the Phillipian churches, Paul told how his attitude in suffering had been such a glowing example to the prison guards that they all now knew about Christ. They had

been impacted and the power of the kingdom was changing a place as miserable as a prison.

The attitude that says, "We're right," and justifies doing anything in the name of that rightness can be seen in something fairly small like rush-hour traffic or in something as large as the Holocaust. Sadly, most Germans were either Lutheran or Roman-Catholic in the days of Hitler. Most of them knew the teachings of Jesus, and they had spent their lives connected to a church community. Still, something gave them the overconfidence to stand by and watch as Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the mentally disabled were exterminated.

Even today in the US, there is a debate going on about whether or not we should torture prisoners suspected of plotting acts of terrorism. Overwhelming, Christians support these "enhanced interrogation techniques," but one wonders if they should be so overconfident - so ready to support something that seems to fly in the face of Jesus' teachings.

Could it really be so simple? Could the thing that brings peace really be found in Paul's summation of kingdom ethics? "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves." Imagine a world where everyone lived by this motto. They say that a marriage can never work properly if it's just a 50/50 deal. It only works if both partners give 100%. They each must consider the needs of the other. But shouldn't this be true in every area of life? I'm certainly not saying that I always treat others well or that I never act seflishly, but I wonder if this simple instruction might do more to change our world than all of the tracts, bumper stickers, sermons, and culture-war debates combined.

For LOST fans...

Been watching some old episodes of LOST lately... I saw this and thought it was kind of clever...

The Story We Find Ourselves In; The Last Word and the Word After That

This post is a bit late; I read the second and third volumes in Brian McLaren's New Kind of Christian Trilogy several weeks ago. The second book, The Story We Find Ourselves In, is really McLaren's first major attempt to offer up an alternative, postmodern, or "new kind" of Christian story. By this, I don't mean that he writes his own Bible or his own gospel, but that he constructs something fresh, rather than merely critiquing that which has come before (as he largely did in the first book of the series).

If one believes that we're standing on the brink of a radical shift in history, and if one believes that Christianity must be translated for a new type of thinker - a new type of person - then, it naturally follows, "What does the story of a new kind of Christian look like?" Once again, through the conversations of fictitious characters, McLaren weaves the tale of redemption from Genesis through Revelation. The stories within the larger story are not labeled as such, and no attempt is made to cover all of biblical history, but the main thrust of redemptive history is there. While some might argue that McLaren is too loose with subjects like creation, Satan, heaven, and hell, it's hard not to admire the way he draws his readers into the story. One gets a sense that being a Christ-follower is an incredibly awesome thing - a challenge, a romance, a dance, and the one thing that could possibly give meaning to the rest of life.

Again, McLaren is gracious, insisting not that the Christian story is better than the others, but rather explaining how the other stories - cultural and religious - are best understood when they are redeemed by, and are seen as part of the larger story of Christ. I love this concept, because I've struggled with the notion of "us vs. them." It seems that McLaren has found the path of inclusive redemption. Jesus is the way, but He's not in the way, as if the gospel were intended to keep people from God.

The Last Word and the Word After That was far more controversial, dealing largely with the reality of hell (or lack thereof). Like many others, McLaren's characters struggle with understanding how a God who offers forgiveness can also send people to eternal damnation and torture. I found this book to be a real challenge, because one leaves the discussion wondering if there's any good and totally satisfying answer to the question of hell. It seems that one must affirm the reality of an eternal place of suffering if one wants to be faithful to the New Testament. However, McLaren gives some good reasons to rethink the nature of hell, and he asks some tough questions about the justice and mercy of God.

In the end, I'm not sure that any of the options offered by McLaren really do the trick (at least not for me), but I definitely think followers of Christ need to be thoughtful and gracious with this issue. McLaren leaves his own specific conclusion a mystery, and among other thoughtful Christians, there is a good measure of disagreement as well. John Stott became an annihilationist (meaning that he believes that hell is only temporary) after reasoning that a good and perfectly holy God couldn't coexist with eternal evil; it must be destroyed. Others have argued that hell is eternal, but that it's a special place, where God (who normally exists everywhere) is absent. That's what makes it hell; there's nothing good in it. In contrast to that, Jonathan Edwards believed that hell was not the absence of God, but instead a place where sinners were constantly in His presence - the unfiltered and horrible wrath of their Creator. And, of course, there's lots of room for second-chance theologies and universalism in the spectrum also. The enormity and the vast number of opinions on the subject merit giving the subject of hell some thoughtful reflection, even if the end result of our thinking is just a better understanding of those with whom we do not agree.

Trip to D.C.: Day Three (A Day Late)

Yesterday, the last day of my trip, was pretty uneventful. Thankfully, I was able to finish up all the work I needed to do at our client's office. I've gone on trips like this before, and have had to run around like a mad man the last couple of hours, photocopying and compiling everything so that I could finish the audit back at the office. That's stressful, so it was nice to actually be done on time.

My trip home had me flying from D.C. down to Charlotte to catch a connecting flight back to White Plains, NY. It's been long enough that I think, had I had a few hours to kill, it would have been nice to visit some sites and some friends in Charlotte. I only had 45 minutes, though. Just enough time to use the bathroom, walk to the other side of the airport terminal (Why is it that connecting flights are never ever close by?), talk to Melinda, and update my Facebook status before my flight boarded.

While I was waiting to board, an announcer came on the P.A. system and asked if anyone would be willing to spend the night in Charlotte and fly out the next morning. The airline had apparently oversold the flight. Then a thought occurred to me: What gives the airline the right to break their contract with a customer? I mean, if a person doesn't show up for their flight, the airline will still charge them for their seat, so how come the airline can oversell flights? Didn't the purchase of a ticket guarantee a seat on the plane? I realize airlines need to make money, and that the tactic of overbooking planes is an attempt to ensure that each plane will fly full, but does that make it right?

The airline actually needed three people to give up their seats for this flight. They offered a free round-trip ticket to anywhere in the U.S., a free night's stay in a local hotel, and free dinner and breakfast. So, if they do this whenever there aren't enough seats, does the practice of overbooking flights really make the airline the maximum amount of money? Then, if you realize that flights get more and more expensive the less time there is between the date you book a trip and your travel date, it's no wonder that some flights are half-empty. So, I'm skeptical that airlines are really being wise with their policies. I think a lot more people would be willing to take a spur-of-the-moment trip if they weren't gouged on the prices, thus reducing the need to overbook flights.

But all of that is commentary on the practicality of the way our nation's airlines do business. What I really wonder is this: When did we decide that corporations should have more rights, flexibility, and freedom that actual people? Airlines are just one example, but I'm sure you can think of a million more. There are health insurance companies making medical decisions instead of doctors; late fees and penalties used by banks and credit card companies that can be called nothing other than extreme usury - a practice that every major society in history has deemed unethical; there's one set of car prices dealers use, and one for us regular folks... and the list could go on and on. With all this talk about socialism and the government controlling too much of our lives, I wonder if we ever stop to think that what we have now is, in many ways, corporate socialism - a society where the rights of corporations exceed and come at the expense of the rights of actual citizens. Just look at the bailout spree we're currently undertaking. We're afraid to let corporations fall, but individuals need to fend for themselves. That just seems kind of backwards to me.

Trip to D.C.: Day Two

Day two has been really uneventful. Basically, it consisted of a Holiday Inn Express breakfast, nine hours of work, driving around D.C. getting lost, and watching last night's 24 on my laptop (which was actually pretty good, though I've been disappointed this season). The "driving around D.C." part of my day was an attempt to find Ebenezer's, a coffee house run by National Community Church. After driving around for an hour, I finally found it, but by then I was starving, tired, and no longer in the mood for coffee, so I just headed back to my hotel room. Pathetic, I know.

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to going home tomorrow. Mostly, I miss Melinda.

Trip to D.C.: Day One

I have to be in Washington, D.C. for three days this week on business, so I thought I would use this blog to post updates. Normally, my routine is just that - a routine - so this trip is a change of pace. I find it fun to travel, but also exhausting... and not nearly as good as it could be, since I'm sans Melinda.

When I got checked into my hotel room, I headed back toward the city and spent a bit of time walking around the National Mall. The weather forecast calls for rain the next two days, so I figured I might as well see what I could see, even though it was nighttime and a bit drizzly. In the Lincoln Memorial, I read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. Quite a statement, I must say.

While I was reading the speech, a woman - probably in her late twenties - came up to me and asked, "What is this thing?" I told her it was Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, written during the Civil War. "There was a war going on?" She asked. I pointed to the last section, where it reads:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

"Isn't that amazing?" I asked. "Even at the height of the civil war, Lincoln was already expressing grace and kindness to people who would count themselves his enemies." I love that Lincoln made no distinction between the widows and orphans of the North and those of the South. All are to be cared for. The woman who had approached me said, "Shoot. That's crazy... That speech is like only ten minutes long," and walked away. I'm not sure she got it.

Lincoln rocks.