Category: rants

Posted on

Signalling Theory

Thanks to Freakonomics and Planet Money I have become fascinated with signalling theory  recently. Here’s a short definition of signalling theory from wikipedia.

In economics, more precisely in contract theory, signalling (or signaling: see American and British English differences) is the idea that one party (termed the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another party (the principal).

Pretty straight forward. I want to learn more about it.

The discussion that I have listened to concerning signalling theory has come from the two aforementioned podcasts. Those podcasts have focused on the fact that we all signal people about ourselves all the time. Things we wear, things we do, etc., etc. signal other concerning what groups we belong to and what we value. It might be easier to spot certain groups’ signalling, but we all signal. For example, it is pretty easy to spot the signalling of conspicuous consumption. The little alligators on the shirt send out a pretty blatant message. So do the DC’s on sunglasses and other things. It isn’t just self-conscious teens and shallow adults who signal. The rest of us just use different signals. While our symbols might not be as easy to spot they are still there. These symbols shout out something and the person wearing them is choosing to wear them because they believe somehow that those clothes and accessories convey some message concerning who they are or who they want to be perceived as. Or consider one of the examples used by Freakonomics concerning the purchase of Prii (according to Toyota this is the plural of Prius). I assume that many of you would guess that Prii sell better in certain demographics and areas. Freakonomics indicates that you would be correct in your guess. The purchase of a Prius says something about the person, or at least the person hopes that it says something about them. SUVs do the same thing, just the message is often the opposite.

I’m not judging here because the reality is that we all signal. There is a reason that many Christians wear T-shirts with Christian slang and messages on them and it isn’t about sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with those who do not know Christ. Nope it is signalling the group you belong to. A stupid example from my own life comes from a mission program called World Changers that I used to do every Summer when I was a youth minister. The first year I went to a World Changers project I noticed that the vast majority of people who had been to previous World Changers projects used the same type of hammer. It was an Estwing. They are great hammers but seriously very few teens or adults use a hammer often enough in their daily lives to need a serious quality hammer. Nope. The reason people got Estwing was because it was a signal. “I’ve done this before.” “This isn’t my first project.” “I’m not a noob.” It is really amazing how many messages those hammers were sending and yes I do have an Estwing hammer. Why do you ask. 😉

image
I’m signalling “Roll Tide Roll” at the moment.

We all signal. There is a reason that you can often tell what a person’s hobbies are just from their looks. Signalling. There is a reason that you can often tell what a person does for a living just by a quick glance. Signalling. Look at a kid and make a quick guess concerning whether he/she goes to public school, private school, alternative school, or is home schooled. Signalling is alive and well there too. Heck, I know people whose signalling is all about what they don’t use or have. The lack of something can be just as much about signalling. Not having something can also tell others you are a part of the in crowd of a certain group. My personal favorite signalling group is the Apple fanboy pastor group. Don’t worry fanboy pastors we know you are cool and can really relate to us because you have Apple products all around. That too is signalling. It is saying “Hey, I belong to this style of pastor.” Anyhow, I don’t have a problem with most signalling. I am actually signalling right now as I type this post. What I have a problem with is our signalling conflicting and control us.

My problem with signalling arises when people don’t consider what they are actually signalling. Actually to be most accurate my problem is when I don’t consider what i am actually signalling. For example, my relationship with Jesus Christ is the overriding priority of my life. I hope and believe that Jesus changes and affects everything I do. What if my signalling is is sending the opposite message. I remember signing the song “Rescue” at a conference when I was truck by the signals coming from the group signing the song. One lyric of the song states “This world has nothing for me,” a great lyric, but it seemed a little odd when I realized that the guy singing the lyric was playing what I was fairly sure was a $6,000 guitar. I send out signals all the time. Do they match with who I really want to be? With whom I have been called, and I am becoming, by Christ? Or is what I am actually signalling most important to me?

I hope that I am always questioning why I do, use, or wear something and I am considering what it signals. I hope you are doing this too.

SIDE NOTE – I only have a cursory knowledge of signalling theory and I would love to read more. If you know of a good book on the subject please let me know.

Posted on

America's Worst Charities

please-give-stockphoto

I believe that Pam and I are pretty charitable people. We tithed our income to our local church, support some other ministries, regularly give to Word Vision and Baptist Global Response (World Vision is our personal favorite way to give – I’ve seen their work first hand and I believe in how they do things), and support and regularly give to lots of other people/projects/oragnizations – both short term and long term. That is part of why the truth of this list upsets me. I saw this list of America’s Worst Charities via the Dead Kennedys‘ Facebook page. This list is amazing to me. I can’t believe how much is raised and how little is actually used for the the need the money is supposedly raised for.

Anyhow here’s the list of top ten worst offenders.

Rank Charity name Total raised by solicitors Paid to solicitors % spent on direct cash aid
1 Kids Wish Network $127.8 million $109.8 million 2.5%
2 Cancer Fund of America $98.0 million $80.4 million 0.9%
3 Children’s Wish Foundation International $96.8 million $63.6 million 10.8%
4 American Breast Cancer Foundation $80.8 million $59.8 million 5.3%
5 Firefighters Charitable Foundation $63.8 million $54.7 million 8.4%
6 Breast Cancer Relief Foundation $63.9 million $44.8 million 2.2%
7 International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO $57.2 million $41.4 million 0.5%
8 National Veterans Service Fund $70.2 million $36.9 million 7.8%
9 American Association of State Troopers $45.0 million $36.0 million 8.6%
10 Children’s Cancer Fund of America $37.5 million $29.2 million 5.3%

SIDE NOTE – every now and then people will post or email out the following image concerning charities and their CEO salaries. This list, unlike the list above, is mainly malarkey. You can find the details all over the web but snopes is the easiest source.

EF01317D-99E8-491A-9DD4-A1A17E05DCFA-29906-00001460C3979BBF_zps1912ab05

Posted on

He Doesn't Represent Me

Pat Robertson is a Weenie

 

I feel like I should just keep the above photo on a rotating schedule because Pat Robertson invariably makes a few stupid statements every year. I’m ok with stupid statements, after all I make quite a few of my own, but Robertson speaks dogmatically over a large megaphone on subjects that is just plain wrong on and then people lump me in with him. I am an Evangelical and when other Evangelicals consistently make dumb and much worse UNLOVING statements it stains me too. Robertson’s latest? Basically he blames a wife for her husband’s cheating and puts the burden of maintaining the marriage on her (the offended party). You can see the entire video of Robertson’s <SARCASM>sage advice</SARCASM> here in this Huffington Post article.

Robertson says:

“Recognize also, like it or not, males have a tendency to wander a little bit,” … “What you want to do is make a home so wonderful that he doesn’t want to wander”

What kills me is Robertson misses two great opportunities to deal with real issues. First, The wife asks “How do you let go of the anger? How do you trust again?” In other words, how do you live out Jesus command to forgive? The woman is asking for help following Jesus’s command. What a great thing. This is the cry of someone trying to be a disciple. Trying to follow Jesus even though it is difficult. Instead of helping her Robertson gives her advice that I am pretty sure Jesus never would give her. Robertson’s advice takes the responsibility for the cheating out of the hands of the cheater (the husband) and puts it in the hands of the wounded (the wife). Here’s the second great teaching moment. I believe personal accountability is a part of Jesus’s message. Claiming and repenting of your sin is a part of forgiveness. The husband needs to do this. Yet Robertson basically tells the woman “it’s up to you to make sure you husband doesn’t want to cheat on you.” There’s no personal responsibility for the husband’s sin there. It’s the equivalent of saying “it is someone else’s fault.” Robertson could have tried to help this hurting spouse and in the process also help the one who did the hurting. Instead, Robertson says things that I would bet money Jesus never would have said and in the process besmirches Evangelicalism … again.

I just really wish Robertson would shut up. Yes I know, as Pam and I taught our boys, it isn’t nice to tell somewhat to “shut up” but I really believe Robertson needs to hear forceful words now. So if you are listening Pat, I am pretty sure you are embarassing  Jesus and I know you are making it more difficult for many of us who follow Him and try to love in His name. So please shut up!

Posted on

The Apotheosis of Beth Moore

Many of my “thread” and Wisconsin friends won’t get this post. That’s ok. Just skip it. I love that part in C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” where he says “All sensible people skip freely when they come to a chapter which they find is going to be no use to them.” If this post doesn’t work for you, then skip it.

A while back Pam wrote on one of her blogs a post titled “Breaking Up with Beth Moore” concerning her thoughts and feelings about Beth Moore studies since we have moved up to Wisconsin. I think Pam is a great writer, and therefore I believe you should go over to her blog and read the post for yourself. I will, however, briefly summarize what Pam said. So here goes:

Pam used to be a huge Beth Moore fan and she learned a great deal from Beth Moore’s writing and conferences. Since moving up to Wisconsin Pam has been seeing Beth Moore studies through Northern/Midwestern eyes and she doesn’t believe what she has seen has translated very well to our ministry context. So she decided to stop using and taking part in Beth Moore studies.

Pam didn’t say anything terrible about the Beth (for the rest of the post I am simply going to refer to Beth Moore as “the Beth” because her fascination with her own hair reminds me of Donald Trump and his hair). She just said that she doesn’t connect with the Beth anymore, and she doesn’t feel like the Beth translates as well outside of the South. When she wrote it I thought it was a very good post, but I didn’t really think that it would garner very many non-friend comments.

I was wrong about the non-friend comments. It is the most read post on her blog by far.

There are 16 comments on the post thus far and I believe there are two more comments waiting Pam’s moderation. The surprising thing is the number of them that jump all over Pam. Her apparent sin? Seems to be that she dared to say she didn’t connect with the Beth’s teaching style anymore. One of the commenters said Pam should look for sin in her life. I guess the commenter believes that hidden sin is the only thing that would lead someone to question the Beth’s effectiveness. I have to say here that I got a little snarky with this commenter, but I figure it is a spouse’s duty and privilege to jump to the other’s defense. Another commenter said being funny while discussing someone else’s ministry is unscriptural based on Psalm 19:14. I found this post confusing because the scripture talks about our words being pleasing to God not about not saying anything against someone else’s teaching stlye. I think God very well might find such humor pleasing. My personal favorite is the commenter whose post hasn’t been approved yet. It is a grandmother who is worried that her grandchildren might find Pam’s post – apparently she doesn’t know what the real dangers on the internet are for her grandchildren.

The Apotheosis (deification) of George Washington – I think President Washington was a great man but deification? Something is wrong with that.

My big problem with these comments is what I believe they come out of. I think they represent the almost deification of Christian leaders by some of those who idolize these leaders. I think the church cultural often celebritize some Christian leaders to the point that some begin to think that the leader’s holiness is such that they shouldn’t be questioned, that the celebrity is somehow more holy and closer to God than others. When did it become an affront to God to question the effectiveness of the Beth or any of the other Christian celebrity speakers? I don’t think it is.

I think we need to ask what our goal is when we do ministry. Is our goal for more people to know Jesus Christ? If so we’ll use whatever approach works best for the people who we are around. If our goal is for more people to discover the joys of Beth Moore studies, then we really need to make sure that no one criticizes the Beth.

I’ll be honest here. I have never connected with the way the Beth speaks, and I have never understood the rabidness of her groupies. Back when Pam did Beth Moore studies I used to jokingly say it was a cult because it all seemed focused on the Beth’s personality. I’m sure she is a wonderful godly person but I just don’t get it and I definitely don’t connect with God through the Beth’s sermons and such. She seems gimmicky to me and, worse still, I find the whole gimmick irritating. Like nails on a chalkboard.

Still do you know what I would do if people in Tapestry really connected with the Beth? I would have the church doing more Beth Moore studies than you can possibly imagine. Why? Because the goal is to connect people with Christ. I don’t care how I get them to do the connecting. For example, the weekly small group that I am a part of was reading Mark Buchanan’s book “Things Unseen,” a book that I love. After a couple of weeks everybody but me said it simply wasn’t working for them. I, however, love the book and really love the way Buchanan explains things. So what did we do? We ditched “Things Unseen” without a second’s hesitation and went with Deitrich Bonhoeffer’s “The Cost of Discipleship.” Why? Because the the only thing that matters is the group connecting with God not which author helps the group to do the connecting. The Beth is a tool and nothing more. The only thing that matters about a tool is that it gets the job done. If it doesn’t get the job done then you throw it off to the side, and maybe even laugh about thinking it would work in the first place.

That’s why it surprises me when people respond like one commenter did on Pam’s post. This commenter said that Pam was pushing the commenter’s mother-in-law further away from God. Why? Well because the commenter’s mother-in-law read Pam’s post and decided not to go to a Beth Moore bible study with her. If this was a math problem it would be:

“Not going to a Beth Moore study = falling away from God.”

I find that kind of logic kind of scary. In fact, I find it pretty close to idolatrous. That thinking makes the tool (i.e. the Beth) far too important. It is apotheosizing the Beth. That’s not cool and something I am sure the Beth doesn’t want her groupies to do, because we were created to worship only one God and He will have “no other gods before Him.” Exodus 20:3.

Now don’t apotheosis anyone.

Posted on

Can Versus Will

blogimage_rollthedice

I loved studying statistics during my undergraduate degree. Actually to be truthful I hated statistics after the first test of my second semester of statistics but that changed back to love again after I figured out what I wasn’t understanding. I learned a great deal from the general and business statistic classes that I took as a student at the University of South Alabama (yeah the initials of the school I attended are U.S.A.) that I still use today. Even as a pastor there is a great deal that I learn in those classes that I regularly use. One such lesson was the difference between possibility/chance and probability. Let me talk about example right now.

Every now and then I hear the following statement …

You can be a Christian without regularly being a part of a church.

You can add other statements such as “You can be a Christian without caring for the weak,” “reading your bible,”  “praying, ” “forgiving those who hurt you,” etc., etc. The problem I have with the above statements is that they mistake “can” (possibility) with “will” (probability). Such statements use a theoretical possibility to dismiss the personal probability and  faith always has a  personal element to it. Can you be a Christian, someone who professes Jesus as their Lord and is trying to follow Him as their Lord (Romans 10:9),  without regularly being a part of a church? Sure, though I think you would have a hard time figuring out how to live out the instruction in Hebrews to not giving up gathering together. The question shouldn’t be “can” you be a Christian without regularly being a part of a church but “will” you? Again my definition of being a Christian isn’t someone who just thinks Jesus existed and the bible is a good (but often unread) book. Nope my understanding of being a Christian comes from Jesus calling His disciples to come follow Him. So the question shouldn’t be “can you,” a theoretical discussion that doesn’t affect your live, but “will you,” a practical discussion of what is most likely based on your actions.

Since I believe faith experiences shouldn’t be separated from what we understand from our normal life experiences I will give you two life examples of the can versus will fallacy. I take great pride in my marriage and family. I work hard at being a loving husband and a good dad. Can I be a good husband/dad with out intentionally working on being one? Yep sure can. I theoretically could have a great relationship with Pam and the boys without ever spending much time with them. Yet the practical truth is that while I can have successful family relationships without effort the probability of it happening that way isn’t very great. If I don’t spend regular large amounts of time with Pam and the boys I probably won’t have good relationships with them. It doesn’t matter that it can happen. What matters is will it happen.

Another example comes from running. Can I run and finish a marathon without training for it? Again, yep sure can. The reality, however, is that without large amounts of time training for a marathon I probably won’t ever start to run one let alone finish it.

As I have been saying, possibility and probability are two different things. This is true is so much of life and faith. Can you do something or not do something and effectively follow Christ? The answer is usually yes that is a possibility. That doesn’t mean it is probable though. I am much more concerned with probability than I am possibility. I want to do the things that most help to follow Christ. I hope you do too.

Posted on

Sentimentality vs. Faith

I hate Precious Moments figurines. I know hate is a strong word but I really mean it. I hate them. I say this even though Pam and I had a Precious Moments figurine as the topper on our wedding cake. At that time I didn’t know I hated them. I do now and like I said I hate them. I hate them even though I love Carthage, Missouri, the that is the the home of Precious Moments. Carthage is great. Precious Moments not so much. Like I said I hate them.

Why?

Well because they reek of sentimentality. Those dopey, large eyed figurines try to pull on your sentimental hearts strings and make you say “AWWWWWE” but there is no true sense of awe in them. It is just sentimentalism. In my opinion rampant sentimentality is one of the biggest adversaries of true faith. Sentimentality expresses strong feelings without the cost that should be associated with those feelings. To quote Oscar Wilde (a person who is usually quite fun to quote):

A sentimentalist is one who desires to have the luxury of an emotion without paying for it.

Sentimentality as faith is focused on strong feelings without any sacrifice. It is basically worthless.

As a pastor I run into many people using the faith that shapes my and so many others’ lives for simple emotional fixes that make them feel good about themselves but do nothing else. Following Christ is a relationship that calls us to action not a set of emotional elements that give a person nothing more than warm fuzzies. Sentimentality takes the profound and covers it in a fog to reduce it to manageable and non-threatening levels.

Please don’t get me wrong. The true God does bring comfort to us when we are afflicted, that is a very true thing. Comfort isn’t sentimentality. Sentimentality just does a good job of pretending to be comfort. I have seen Jesus bring comfort into situations were none seemed possible. Yet this comfort was never some misty emotional feel good moment with no real meaning. Instead in such situations His comfort was amazing and challenging. It caused me, and others, to think “if He can bring comfort into this situation then why do I ever hesitate to follow Him, no matter the circumstances?” You see the old saying is true. Christ comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. Sentimentality really does neither. It just pretends to bring comfort.

So what sparked this rant?

Well I have recently developed a habit of taking some of my favorite quotes and combining them with various images to produce cover photos for my Facebook profile. Yesterday I made the following cover photo.

 

I love Jürgen Moltmann, so many of his works including this book “Theology of Hope,” and the above quote. While editing the image and text I thought to myself that this quote could be viewed either as a call to arms to join God in the daily battle of overcoming evil that He brought about by the victory of the resurrection or it could be reduced to a warm, fuzzy, sentimental cliché that would go well on a poster of a kitten looking at spilled, wasted milk. The true God weeping with us is a dangerous thing that changes the world, our lives, and lives of those in our community. The God Who weeps with us will laugh because He has and will completely overcome evil. This God’s weeping pushes those who follow Him to fight against the evil they see. The sentimental statement, on the other hand, uses emotional warmth to lull people into inaction.

Sentimentality disguises itself as faith but it is far, FAR from it. I hate it.

Posted on

Stupid Saturn

oil-filter-cover

Just finished changing the oil in the Saturn that my mom and dad gave to the boys and it only cost me $2 more to change the oil myself than it would have if I had taken it to an oil change business. Yeah.

This is no something that would usually happen to me. I’ve been changing the oil in most of my cars since I was 16. I say most because I have NEVER changed the oil in the minivan. Everything in the minivan’s engine compartment is too tight so I usually pay some company to change the oil in it. I guess that spoiled me because I have been taking the Saturn to the same place for its oil changes. Unfortunately that oil change place just went out of business and therefore I thought I would change the oil in the Saturn.

Turns out the Saturn has a cartridge filter rather than the canister filter that ever other car I have ever owned has had. I’ve never changed a canister filter before. This means that after I finally found the stupid thing I still didn’t know that it is important to use a socket rather than a wrench to unscrew the filter cap (pictured above). So I used a wrench and cracked the cap. Cha ching. $10. Then I needed to buy the correct size socket. Cha ching again. $6. So instead of the $16 I thought it would cost me to change the oil, it cost $32.

Stupid Saturn.

Actually I should probably blame myself. If I hadn’t just assumed that I knew what I was doing because I had changed the oil in many other cars before this one then it wouldn’t have happened. If I had stopped and read how to do this before I started instead of just assuming I knew exactly what to do then I would have changed the oil for only $22 ($16 for oil and filter plus $6 for the socket). I should probably remember this for other things in life. Of course, it is just so much easier for me to blame the folks that designed the Saturn.

Stupid Saturn.

Posted on

is your dna in it?

photo used by permission of the weding couple (the schoberts) and photographers (the oberstadhs)

i just finished listening to an npr “talk of the nation” episode called “a guide to an insanity-free, practical wedding” and it was pretty good. i don’t do a ton of weddings but i do officiate a fair number. over twenty years of ministry i guess i have officiated 20-30ish. this is enough ceremonies for me to have seen quite a few wedding ceremonies of varying complexity and cost.  i am pleased to say that i am proud to have been involved in all the weddings that i have officiated. i do however believe that much of what is encouraged in many wedding ceremonies goes against creating healthy marriages. here are some of the wedding myths that i believe actually work against successful marriages:

  • it’s the best day of your life – when our boys were young i used to teach them to shout at the t.v. when they saw a commercial that was a blatant lie (which is the majority). they would shout as loud as they could “that’s a lie.” this myth is something that i would hope my boys would shout at. if your wedding day is the best day of your life then you probably have a terrible marriage. our wedding day was a wonderful day of celebration but it isn’t the best day of my life nor do i believe it is pam’s best day. the commitments we made to each other on that day SET UP the best days of our lives.
  • you’ll only do this once so you should spare no expense – i hear this as an excuse to over spend on a wedding ceremony. i have news for you, if you over spend on a wedding ceremony and more importantly what is good for you to spend then you probably won’t just do this once. supposedly the average cost of a wedding in the u.s. of a. is $26, 542. lavishly spending to start a marriage can’t help strengthen a marriage when arguments concerning money are a leading reason for divorce. why start off a marriage with money issues?
  • 3 months salary on an engagement ring – really? come on folks. this is absurd!

there are a ton more lies i could talk about but instead i really want to focus on your dna being in the ceremony. i think things and events that are important to us should have part of us in them. they should reflect who we are and should have our finger prints all over them.

the most beautiful weddings i have been to or been a part of have often been the least expensive ones. the weddings were so amazing because the couple’s, and their families’, fingerprints were all over it both literally and figuratively. the wedding reflected who they were and such reflection is very costly though money is rarely a part of such cost. the thought, labor, and time are the cost. these ceremonies involved great creativity and amazing effort both from the couples and from their families. the time and effort made the wedding ceremony something that they did together, which is a wonderful way to start a marriage. in my opinion money often serves as a pale substitute for such creativity and effort. when that happens it is usually someone else’s dna that is to be found in the ceremony.

i think my favorite part of the podcast i mentioned above is when the guest tells people that they should spend the majority of their budget on parts of the wedding that reflect them rather than just spreading it around. she tells the story of a couple who spent all their budget money on a swing band. they saved money on everything else, pot lucking the meal, etc., etc.,  so that they could splurge on the music and dance the night away. i think it is a great idea. know who you are and put the focus there. maybe you love photography so you put the money on the images, or you love people eating together and so you focus the budget there, or you focus on any number of other things that reflect who you are. it is smart to direct your resources. once again this helps to make sure the couple’s fingerprints are present.

well planned ceremonies that reflect a couple’s nature are a beautiful thing to witness. the creativity and effort of such weddings are a thing of beauty.

SSIDE NOTE – thanks to the schoberts and the oberstadts for the use of the above photo.

Posted on

if this happened to noah i’d …

noah plays 9th grade basketball on his school’s A team. i saw this video of one high school, primarily one player’s, fouls that probably should have been called flagrant. actually in my opinion two of the fouls should have resulted in the teen and his coach receiving a warning that if another foul like them happened the player would be ejected and the 5th foul shown probably should have resulted in an immediate ejection (though obviously if it was the kid’s only foul it would be much harder to do that).

as a father i’m i’m not entirely sure how i would have responded? taken noah out of the game? told noah to accidentally get this guy in a spot that would keep him out of the game? i’m not proud of the thought. i’m just not sure how i would respond.

i do know that i would be going ballistic on the refs for not taking care of business and the opposing coach for either teaching or allowing this behavior.

Posted on

dennis rodman

here’s a ht to pete wilson for discussing the above video of dennis rodman’s hall of fame acceptance speech. pete wrote a wonderful post on his blog encouraging us all to not quickly judge people and instead remember that most people are broken individuals.

the part of rodman’s speech that floored me was the one regret rodman mentioned having. personally i can think of quite a few things that i would probably regret if i were in his shoes. here are a few examples:

  • the episodes of domestic violence with his wives
  • kicking eugene amos in the groin during a game against the minnesota timberwolves
  • a few of his hairstyles
  • etc., etc.

but the one regret that rodman mentioned in the speech was:

i have one regret; i wish i was a better father.

why would this be the one regret he mentions?

rodman says it is because he never really had a father in his life. since his father had let him down he wished that he would have given his kids a better situation. unfortunately, those who don’t have fathers in their lives often end up not being involved in their own kids’ lives. it is a vicious cycle. this is such a big issue for rodman that he uses the majority of his speech talking about a few of the men that actually tried to be father-figures to him. i think my favorite part of his speech is when he describes phil jackson telling him that if he wants to be a chicago bull the rodman needs to go into the kitchen and apologize to scotty pippen. father-figures encourage people to do the hard things.

my question, and the reason for this post, is i wonder how we can (i.e. CHRISTians and especially the threads of tapestry) be fathers to the fatherless in such a manner that they will be better fathers to their children? after all, psalm 68:5 says that our GOD is:

a father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is GOD in HIS holy dwelling.

therefore when we act as father-figures we are following in the nature of our LORD.

thoughts?