Cold Proof

I think that the Christians are picking up a new behavior; they are frequently offering proof of the Christian status. This behavior seems to be as much of a self-comforting behavior as an act to convince others they are Christian. These behaviors seem to stem from the consistent push for every Christian to have a salvation story. As this need for proof grows it's finding its way into several other behaviors and areas of life.

 

·                    Last Easter I wrote about "Ashes in the Office," saying that many people attend Ash Wednesday service as actors to to convince their co-workers they are Christian.  At that time I'd said getting marked with the ashes was a way to convince others you were a Christian. As I look did some more thinking I began to see that this behavior was a self-comforting behavior acting as assurance of salvation. There was an underlying thought pattern which said, "If I get marked with ashes on my forehead I am saved and others will think I am saved."  These actors extend this behavior to frequent fasting, or by having Christian books on their desks so others think they are Christian.

·                    A second pattern I've touched on before is service. Many people over serve in the church so others will think they are saved. Every church has these people, they join every committee and ministry they can as an attempt to workout their own salvation in their own hearts and in the eyes of others. They are often trying to convince other Christians and themselves of their piety and spiritual maturity, which

·                    I've also touched on a third group a few times, these are the abstainers. They abstain from all sorts of actions; drinking, PG13 and R rated movies, working on the Sabbath, playing video games and other behaviors.  They often highlight the abstinence in an attempt to convince others that true Christians don't participate in such activities and as such they are spiritually mature. This group is attached to the actors, those who do certain activities (Ash Wednesday service, Church every week, lead and attend multiple Bible Studies) and push them because it's what true Christians do.

·                    A fourth group that I've seen growing lately is the cold warriors. They spiritualizeevery bad occurrence as an attack from the devil as proof they are being spiritual effective. While this does legitimately happen, it's being used more liberally and widely.   I overheard a lady in the book store a few weeks ago exclaim to a friend, "I've had a runny nose since yesterday, surely the devil is attacking me." I don't know the lady but the implication was that the cold was sent by the devil to reduce her spiritual efficiency.  It may have been true but I've heard the same thing for a few years from people who weren't doing anything the devil needed to put an end to. This excuse is used to show others that the speaker's level of piety and spiritual strength are so great that they are being attacked by the devil. (I don't mean to attack the legitimacy of this, the devil does work this way but this reasoning is being used as piece of showmanship.)

 

Whether it's to bolster the impression of piety among others or just to prove ones salvation Christians are forming and using new mechanisms of assurance and pious bragging. While each of the reasons has some measure of truth, there are actives that true Christians shouldn't do, taken to their extreme and used in the wrong manner these activities are turned into a righteousness race. Instead of working salvation and sanctification out with God the Christians are spending their time competing with each other to prove themselves holy. 

How to vote...

I enjoy politics, probably to much; I enjoy the debates, between candidates and around the water cooler. I enjoy watching politicians speak and present information; they are usually good speakers to pick up a few techniques from. I'm not enjoying the latest race for the presidential primary. Over my short voting life I've come to realize that people don't vote based on principles as much as they vote on persona. This is how George W. Bush was elected, he was the common guy who we wouldn't mind having a beer with, he certainly wasn't a polished and perfected Kennedy like politician. In this coming election we have a common folk candidate, Fred Thompson, and we have the highly polished candidates, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, between the two positions we have Barack Obama. Giuliani and McCain are trying hard to be the polished friend but are falling short at both ends. Like all Americans I don't agree with any candidate 100% or even 75% I'm probably down about 60% for my most agreeable candidate. I find the persona of the a few candidates drawing me in but I'm just not sure how good of a president that would make them.

 

That being said I'm not sure I like any of the potential presidential nominees but I don't plan on voting on who I like or who I agree with. There are a few candidates on both sides of the isle who I won't vote for other than that I'm still up for grabs. Since I don't know who to vote for I'm going to use a voting strategy I haven't decided on one but I'm tossing a few ideas around in my mind.

 

I may ask people which candidate would be best for me in their view. I wouldn't ask who they like or who is best for them; I want to know who would have the best chance of improving my life and they should know. I would ask the pastors at church, my parents, a few co-workers, my financial advisor, a few strangers (just for fun), my doctor and some other people. I would tally up their opinions then vote for the candidate with the highest number of recommendations, this way I'm voting for the candidate that is best for me in multiple fields I don't understand.

 

I may trust the local paper. The paper always endorses and candidate I could just vote for that candidate. Although, I don't like the local newspaper so I'm not sure I'd want to vote with them, I could vote against them though.

 

I may vote for experience. I'll vote for whichever candidate has the most years logged of elected public service; Barack Obama has been in office for 11+ years, Hillary has been in elected office for 7+ years (she was first lady for 8 years), Fred Thompson was in office for 8 years, Rudy Giuliani served 8 years, McCain has been in office for 25+ years, John Edwards has 6 years under his belt.  Since I'm not sure experience has worked for us in the past I may just vote for John Edwards but if it has clearly McCain will win my vote.

 

I may vote for the clear looser so when he or she is a bad president I can say "I didn't vote for him (or her)" and blame the problems on the other voters.  

 

I may come up with something arbitrary.   When comparison data is available the taller candidate wins 26 out of 46 times and the shorter 18 out of 46 (twice the candidates were the same height) I could go with the taller candidate. I could pick by the closest to the average height of Americans. I could also choose based on age. I could choose based on favorite color; it's always seemed to work well enough for by NCAA Final Four Brackets.  Maybe I could pick a word and count how many times the candidate uses it in a debate and choose the candidate with the higher usage. I could vote based on whose birthday is closer to the election day.

 

I may vote for the democratic nominee since they haven't controlled the presidency for 8 years. That way we'll get a different balance to things for a while. It seems fair and smart to keep the country in a straight line by tending right one term then left the next. It works in sailing so why not try it in politics?

 

I may Google the candidates and vote for who has the most hits. Right now it looks like I'd vote for Fred Thompson who has 9,830,000 results. I wouldn't be voting for John McCain who only has 2,150,000 results.

 

I may role a dice and vote for a random candidate. Most candidates are over inflating their abilities, achievements and goals so if I vote for someone I like I'm picking fairly blindly. Rolling a dice gives me just as good a chance of picking a good president as if I voted on their talking points.

 

I may not vote. As a symbolic gesture protesting the lack of good candidates and voter voice. I bet my symbolic protest would get lost in the sea of apathetic non voters so I better vote.

 

 

Do you have a better way to vote?

Dear Indiana Wesleyan University,

Dear Indiana Wesleyan University,

I wanted to write and thank you for the education you provided me. I may make fun of you behind your back and I may criticizes you but when it comes down to it you did a lot for me. You were expensive and took up a great deal of time but the costs were worth it.

You prepared me to interact with a good range of people. You provided me with the science background to grasp a conversation with the engineers at work. You provided me with a little math so I can understand my financial adviser and the accountants at work. I can even work with and understand common statistics. You forced me to read more books than I wanted to, when I read the Garden of Forking Paths, the Death of Ivan Ilyich and The Guest I swore I would never need or want to cite them and that no one else had read them, I was wrong. When I sat through endless lectures over sociology and read case studies it didn't affect my life at the time, I often made fun of what I was being taught; I wish I had payed more attention.  When you assigned me lengthy research papers or a short time to read a long book I saw this as busy work but the skills I was being taught are invaluable to my professional career.

I may not have formally used my degree but I have formally used the knowledge and skills that you taught me. You helped me learn to speak publicly and present clear information both written and orally. You gave me the skills to work as a team member and leader in any environment and job. I sometimes feel you prepared me better than most of my friends are prepared.  You have given me the tools to work with the world now it's up to me to change it.

 

Thanks again,

 

-Kurt