Everything I ever needed to know about relating I learned from a puppy....

Yes - watching a puppy.

That may sound silly at first thought but the truth is that there are few things in life that will draw more people in than a puppy.

Puppies have boundless enthusiasm and a spirit of joy like nothing else. One of the greatest attributes of a puppy is their exuberance each time they see you. I can walk out of the room from snuggling and playing with my puppy and walk back into the room 5 minutes later and I am greeted with the same level of exuberance.

If you ever want to feel good about yourself, spend some time with a puppy - they give out genuine love. They have so much enthusiasm that it is infectious. Their entire body wiggles with excitement just because they are happy to see you! What could be better than that?

I also love how quickly puppies (dogs in general) forgive. Even when you have to discipline your puppy, just give it 15 seconds and they will be back on your lap licking away. There is something profound in the way a puppy forgives.

It is nearly impossible to be depressed if you are near a puppy.

Imagine what your life and relationships would be like if you had the disposition of a puppy:
1. Boundless joy
2. Infectious enthusiasm
3. Instant forgiveness
4. Unconditional love
5. Loyal

I think puppies/dogs give us a glimpse into what life can be if we live with enthusiasm, love, and joy. If you need to reorient your life around things that are important, watch a puppy - it may help.

Happy New Year!

My evangelical phase is over...(thankfully)

I'm experiencing a major philosophical shift related to my theology. I have been a part of the evangelical "christian" communitiy for 25 years and I am done. I am officially no longer going to refer to myself as evangelical (I haven't felt comfortable in that group for a while anyway).

The reasons are manifold. For many of my evangelical friends, you wouldn't understand where I am and why so there is no point in trying to convince you. For many of my NON-evangelical friends, I feel as though I owe you an explanation and an apology.

Having been raised Roman Catholic, I not only believed in God, I actually made an effort. I prayed, attended church, and tried to engage. My christianity has shaped both my morality and my world view. I am thankful for the foundational values that were instilled in me as a catholic and for the awareness of the bible message that developed in my days as an evangelical. However, the more I come to understand the bible, the less I think that evangelicalism reflects the truths and values that live in the pages of the text.

I became an evangelical when a very close friend, who's family attended an evangelical church, invited me to attend. It was exciting, fun, and the people seemed to be extremely passionate and serious about God. I am a passionate person - as you can tell. I don't like to do things halfway and nothing about this group of people I was exposed to seemed halfway.

As the years passed, I dove in with both feet. I got rid of my non-christian music, stopped watching non-christian movies, broke up with my non-christian girlfriend, and ordered my life around the rules and regs that were part of evangelical christianity. If there is anything in life I can do well, it is conform. I fit well in structures and I am not a rebel by nature.

I decided to attend a christian bible college and I am thankful that there I met my wife and that the course of my life would be reshaped by a few key people.

My friend Adam Marquez played an instrumental role in my life by encouraging me to actually THINK about what I believe and why I believe it.

It was at bible college that I started to see some of the chinks in the evangelical armor. I was always left more than a little unsatisfied the many times that I could not reconcile the things I was reading in the bible with what I was seeing in practice in the churches I had been a part of.

I realize that NOTHING is perfect. There is no system out there, if humans are a part of it, that are without flaws. I am just not in a place where I want to align myself with the flaws of evagelicalism any longer.

To my friends and family who I sat in judgment over in those very early days, I am sorry. I was zealous. It is not an excuse but I was operating out of sincere desire to know God and to have you know God as well. I realize now that I was following a form of God created in an evagelical image that is no more reflective of what God is like than any other image that man has created of God. Please forgive me.

I am still seeking God - I am still passionate about knowing God and understanding God's purpose in our lives. I am now trying to do that through a personal journey and expression that does not get bogged down in the trappings of all that is evangelical.

Evangelicalism has become so entrenched in dogma that is associated with self over community, politics, personal well being, etc that is has lost sight of the fact that our greatest example was one of ultimate sacrifice. Our example is of one who chose to humble and empty himself.

How did we get here? Again, that is a long complex issue...but I am jumping off the train. As the evangelical train chugs full steam ahead, I have a very strong sense that there is a bridge up ahead and it is out....

Guns don't kill people...but people with guns do

When does it make sense to change our minds? That's a tough question to answer. For many of us, our heels are dug in deep.

We love our brands, our ideas, our politics, our religion, our guns. In some cases, we ignore competing evidence to things that challenge our ideology. We dismiss or throw in the red herring to hide the weakness in our position. In some cases, we just refuse to acknowledge the weakness of our position.

Take for instance the topic of gun control. There are reams - and I do mean reams of stats and studies that reinforce the idea that the U.S. has the highest rates of gun-related homicide and violent crime of any country in the world. We also have the least restrictive gun laws.

This issue is at the forefront of people's minds due to the recent tragedy in Newtown, CT. Lest you think I am gun-hating leftist jumping on an opportunity to further my gun-confiscating agenda, you should know that I am a gun owner. I own a Glock 30 .45 caliber handgun similar to the one used in the Newtown shooting. I grew up with a conservative ideology and have always supported the right to own guns - the 2nd Amendment.

I am becoming increasingly conflicted over my own stance on this issue.

I want to lay a couple of ground rules on what I am addressing in this post. I am going to be speaking about U.S. based gun control. I am not here discuss every other arms program. I am not here to talk about U.S. government morality as it relates to all of our other world dealings. I am not suggesting that those are not important issues as well but that is not what is being addressed here.

I am not advocating for guns to be confiscated from law-abiding citizens. If you get uneasy about anything I say, use that as a reference point.

Changes to Policy

The first thing I would do is change the way that we buy handguns and assault rifles. Here is what I recommend:
1. Anyone interested in buying a handgun or assault rifle must fill out an application that has a clear explanation of why they need that weapon. This application will be reviewed by 3 independent reviewers who must approve the application.
2. Mandatory 28 day waiting period.
3. Extensive background check to include: FBI check, cross-referenced state checks, AND psychological/medical background check.
4. Burden will be on the applicant to prove that no member of their household is on psychotropic medications.
5. Two people will have to vouch for you when purchasing a handgun or assault rifle.
6. If approved, only 1 purchase will be allowed every 3 years.
7. If a gun registered to someone is used in a violent crime, that person will be fined a minimum of $5,000 unless they can prove that gun was stolen from a secure location.

High standards.

Next, I would deal with confiscation. Here's how:
1. I would enact a massive effort to collect illegal guns. I would do sweeps of pawn shops, gun shows, any magazines that allow ads for guns for sale, etc.
2. If someone could not provide a proof of purchase of a weapon, that weapon would be subject to potential confiscation. If that created the confiscation of legally acquired weapons, I would allow that owner to "reapply" through the new process to get their gun back.
3. Confiscated guns would be given to the military and either be put into use or melted down for their metal.
4. Any gun crime would result in a minimum of a $25,000 fine in addition to all other penalties.
Look at the results in Australia when they changed their gun laws here.

Let's discuss the 2nd Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Constitutionalist have long debated whether a strict interpretation of the Constitution allows for (1) INDIVIDUAL rights to gun ownership or (2) State's rights - in the form of a militia.

The Supreme Court has upheld in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the amendment does in fact protect the rights of individual gun owners to own weapons for personal defense.

However, the government has also limited amendments where it is in the best interest of "We the people...." For instance, we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. And, one can not speak of explosives in the security line at an airport. Just to name a couple.

But, let's think about the issue of a goverment takeover because I have heard many raise a concern about this. How plausible is it that the U.S. Government would, now or at some point in the future, seek to overthrow it's citizenry?

If the President were to give a unilateral order to the military to subdue the citizens of the U.S. (it would have to be unilateral because he would never get the support of the house or senate - OR the military), but let's say hypothetically that that order was issued. Would the military be likely to obey or disobey that order? Think before you answer. What soldier in America is going to start marching into towns like Flint, Michigan or Boise, Idaho and subdue the citizenry?

I not only think this is implausable but I am convinced that it will never happen. Part of the beauty of our Republic, is that our founding fathers set up a system that makes it very difficult for any one person to impose their will on the people. For our government to turn on us, it would require the cooperation and support of the President, the Congress, the state goverments, the military, the state National Guards, etc. Not likely.

Newtown, CT  and Knee-jerk reactions

Some folks get uneasy when we talk about things like gun control after events like Newtown. I understand that. But, the fact is that people are far more open to change in times like this than they would ever be otherwise. I did not expect to be blogging this week about gun control. In fact, I posted a pro-gun ownership photo on my facebook page just last week (that my Canadian brother in law challenged).

If Adam Lanza's mother was subject to my process above, would she have had 6 guns in the house? Many people say that a person like Adam Lanza would have found a way to get guns. That is speculation. I think it is just as likely that he may have just hung himself - none of us knows for sure.

I realize that it is a simplification to suggest that poor gun control is the only contributing factor in cases like this. I know there are many other factors and moving parts. There is a serious problem in this country with mental illness and how we deal with that issue as well. In this blog though, I am focused on the gun control piece and I want us to look at gun control from a bigger picture perspective.

Over the next several weeks, you will see the typical rhetoric from both sides...guns don't kill people and guns are terrible. You will see pundits write articles trying to assert that violent crime happens in other places too or that crime in the wild wild west days was much worse.

Whether or not those positions are valid is not of interest to me. What I am forced to do in this time and place is to make a judgment about what I believe and how I am going to act on that belief? What if anything will I submit as my response to this crisis? That is what I have tried to lay out here. Is it perfect? No. Is it even adequate? I am not sure. Will it prevent one single violent gun crime? I have no idea. But, I refuse to do nothing so I submit these ideas to you as a possible solution to some of the challenges related to gun crime.

Here are some stats:

Handguns killed 10,728 people in the U.S, last year. Let's compare that to 48 people in Japan, 8 people in Great Britain, 34 in Switzerland, 52 in Canada, 58 in Israel, 21 in Sweden and 42 in West Germany.

Read those numbers again.

We have the most permissive gun laws in the world and we have the highest rate of gun related homicides in the world.

So, my mind is changing.

How about yours?

Ideological Incongruencies

What happens when a spiritual mandate slams head on with a cultural or political ideology?

I think some people of faith are at an impasse. In America, faith-based voters have typically aligned with political conservatism. Political conservatism has, among its many values, an opposition to what some call the "entitlement" state. This is a group of perceived leeches who suck the resources from those that "have" and "do" from those that "have not" and "won't do." While there is much debate on this issue and conflicting perspectives on who makes up those camps, there is undoubtably a poor segment of our culture that, without help, will not eat.

People who align with conservative ideology have a visceral reaction to the idea of someone who is otherwise able-bodied sponging off those who are both willing and able. I don't want to make assumptions about what anyone thinks but I can tell you that I used to think that the vast majority of people who received entitlements fell into the "lazy and unwilling" category. (Here is good article on the topic: http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-ways-most-americans-are-blind-how-their-country-stacked-wealthy) This mindset started changing for me around 1998 (those of you who know me know why).

It was around 1998 that I began to get involved with poor people domestically and internationally. Lines that were thick black and white lines started to turn shades of grey. I met many poor people for the first time in my life. I began interacting with people about whom I had made many assumptions and it started to reshape my world view - but that is another blog.

For those of you who embrace a Judeo-Christian ethos, I would propose that we have identified truth in the wrong metanarrative. While I understand the feeling of "injustice" that seems to rise up in those of us who are shaped by a conservative world view, I would suggest that people like Jesus, Mother Theresa, Oskar Schindler, and countless other unnamed people of faith truly understood the concept of living, even sacrificially, for those who are less fortunate.

I recently read the Old Testament of the Bible. Throughout much of the Old Testament, the concepts of caring for the poor and justice are major themes - much more major than some of the hot buttom social issues that people of faith seem to fixate on today.

So, where does that leave us?

I believe that it leaves people of faith with a clear mandate. Our responsibility to those who are poor and marginalized is to be their hope, their source, their protection, and their voice. Whether it is a poor african american mom in the inner city of the U.S. who is trapped in a welfare system that makes dependence easier than independence, whether it is a young girl forced into sexual slavery in southeast Asia, whether it is a migrant worker who came to America in the hope of providing for their family and is being forced to live in squaller and work for next to nothing, we are their hope. We are their advocates.

There is a concept in the Old Testament - it is the concept of Jubilee. In this concept, if anyone fell on hard times and they were forced to become enslaved, at the 7th year they were free with ALL debt forgiven and their property and possessions were restored. Additionally, God set up a way for those who were poor to have food and other resources at their disposal.

No doubt we have come a long way from the way that the hebrew culture lived but the idea of how we care for the poor and those subject to injustice is a major theme for the families of Judeo-Christian faith. The problem is that it is now an affront to our political/cultural ideal of me, mine, individualism, personal space, personal property, my rights, my dream, etc.

I have said before that I believe the true measure of the character of a nation is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable in its midst. We are a country that is slowy losing it's soul as we reach for the brass ring. I hope we will consider the good fortune of our circumstances and take seriously the mandate that "he who give to the poor lends to the Lord."

Happy Thanksgiving

Your world view is not truth

We all have a problem. It's our point of view. There is nothing inherently wrong with each of us having opinions - especially when those opinions are well thought out and researched. The problem is that it is nearly impossible for us to be objective and look beyond our prejudices and biases and truly change what we have always assumed to be true. Let's explore that.

In America, we are in a season when this is at the forefront of our collective consciousness...election season.

As an independent, I often feel that I am able to step back from the rhetoric of both sides and take an "objective" look-see at things being said and done (make no mistake, I understand that I fall into the same trappings as anyone else). But in a two-sided system, when you are on neither side, it is just easier to be objective. I see pundits and ideologues making salacious claims and hurling hateful accusations and wonder why they hold so strongly their world view that they are comfortable doing it at the expense of others and in an intentionally hurtful way (again, I have done this myself, so, I am looking in the mirror while writing).

I want us to consider our world view. I want us to dig beyond the surface of what we believe and make some concessions. I would like for us to acknowledge the inherent value of someone else's perspective. This is not something that will be easy for many of us. Because we feel, in some cases, to acknowledge the value of someone else's perspective devalues or invalidates ours.

It may be helpful for you to reflect on why you believe the way you do about things like politics, religion, race, money, nationality, education, gender equality. How do your views on these issues differ from your upbringing? How much imprinting was part of the process of you believing what you believe and how much came from a deep contemplation of the topic or study or life experience?

I am not here to say that just because you inherited a belief system from your family that it is necessarily wrong - but who are any of us to say that because we inherited a belief system from our family it is necessarily correct? What makes your world view more or less true than those who have had a different life experience and drawn different conclusions?

Many of us are not in the habit of questioning our own beliefs. We accept what we have always accepted with some minor adjustments for life experience.

I tend to have a greater appreciation for someone who is living a life or a belief system that is divergent from their upbringing or world view because I understand how difficult it is for us to leave the safe haven of what we have been taught to be true. It takes courage and intelligence.

As a white male who grew up in an upper middle class politically conservative Christian home, my world view was shaped for me in ways that caused me to trust the "system." The status quo has been good to me and my kind. I did not grow up with an inherent distrust of the police, the government, authority, etc. In my lifetime, I have not been denied access to anything I had the resources to afford. I have had a life of choices - and except for my mistakes - most of those choices were good options.

Juxtapose that to someone who grows up in poverty in America. That person may be "taught" to distrust the system. They are made to believe that things don't work in their favor and that they don't have the same choices or options. For them, they have to work around, or work harder, or accept their lot in life. One could easily become embittered because they are taught to be so.

I would contend that our world view is as much a part of us as our race. For me to say to some of you to stop being liberal, or stop being conservative, or stop being Christian, or stop seeing things the way you do...would be akin to me saying stop being white or black or Asian.

There are exceptions to any situation and just as you may be able to point to a person here or there that was raised in poverty and was able to claw their way out. We can also point to individuals who were afforded better choices but made poor choices and ultimately sabotaged themselves.

Most of what we believe, is the result of what we are taught. It is not because you have a direct line to some secret vein of truth and you and your kind were just lucky enough to happen upon it.

For me, change began to occur through life experience. I traveled and saw and met the poor - extremely poor people. I have held infants dying of AIDS and I have held the hand of a prostitute who was tricked into sex slavery at 13. I had my preconceived ideas of why someone was poor and how or why they chose to stay that way. My beliefs were challenged and I believe I am better for it.

The point behind this is that we all have value. Every world view offers perspective. Every world view has legitimacy and we can all grow and expand our knowledge as we open our minds and hearts to understand those around us.

Are you willing to ask yourself the deeper questions about why you believe what you believe and how those beliefs affect the way you interact with the world around you?

I think you should.

I used to be a republican...

I once was a Republican. I was raised in a conservative family and graduated from a very politcally conservative college. I spent my days driving around listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Many of us are born into a world view and we maintain that world view for our entire lives. Often we are not challenged in our world view because we typically surround ourselves with those who agree with our beliefs. This can make life comfortable but it doesn't always lend itself to philosophical growth or the expansion of our world view. Some of you will read that last statement and say, "my world view is correct...it does not need to change or grow but it needs to be understood by more people so that they can be "right" like me."

The first major challenge to my world view occured when I attended a missions conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada and I heard Tony Campolo speak. Tony is a Baptist Minister and a Sociology professor who is an excellent speaker. He is brilliant and funny. After hearing him speak, I felt compelled to start volunteering at the Union Gospel Mission, an organization that works with recovering addicts in Winnipeg. I volunteered and started going there weekly. Shortly after that, we moved back to New Orleans and I begin connecting with the Gospel Mission there as well. Through direct experience, my world view was changing. I did not realize it at the time but it was happening. Black and white issues were morphing into grey. I began to meet and interact with people who were poor - very poor. People who had grown up with a very different world view than me. People who saw a world of very different opportunities and possibilities.

Then, I went to Honduras after Hurricane Mitch on a medical relief team. I saw poverty like I had never seen before. After all I had seen, I was starting to feel my thinking change.

I had a moment of reckoning one Christmas. We went with a small group to the Central City area of New Orleans and we gave Christmas gifts to poor families. I distinctly remember Rush's words in my head that week as he was talking about "entitlements" and how destructive it was to give to the poor and that we need to cut back on certain programs and force people to go out and work. There I was, sitting in a small apartment with a poor mom and her 4 kids...no father...no clear pathway out of their povery. She grabbed my hand and said, "without this, my kids would have no Christmas, God bless you."

At that moment, I began asking myself some tough questions. What would happen if we took this families "entitlements" away? Who would step up and help this family in the short term and make sure the kids were fed?

One of the things we take for granted when we are not poor is that we have choices. We have options. We have access to transportation and resources and connections. Most poor people don't have choices in the same way that we do.

So, as we sip our lattes saying, why don't they just get a real job? There is a real mom out there who is facing the choice between a minimum wage job (or two or three) and providing child care for her children or government assistance - which may be more money. This is a "choice" none of us would want to make.

Where does the Church come into this discussion? Much of the evangelical Church identifies as republican. Their world view is shaped by guys like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. (I am not suggesting that the democrat point of view is any better. I do not identify with either party.)

I believe, without going into too much detail here, that there is a biblical precedent of caring for the poor. If you read this and disagree with me, contact me directly and I will share some specifics that shape that perspective.

At some point, societally, we abdecated that responsibility to the goverment - I believe to the detriment of the Church, government and the poor. If the Church was in the business of caring for the poor exclusively, I believe it could restore dignity, accountability, and productivity to the poor. Not to mention the financial benefit to the government. I whole-heartedly believe that God's plan was the Church - not the goverment.

We could spend several days discussing how that would look so I won't try to explain my theories or plan here.

Finally, I have serious concern about the perception of the Church in the world today. If you go back and read the Book, I think would could probably agree that Jesus was very popular with the following people: "sinners", prostitutes, extortioners, outcasts, misfits, etc. How do you think today's evangelical Church ranks among those groups?

Jesus was quite UNPOPULAR with Pharisees, Sadducees, and religious leaders.

Somehow we seemed to have flipped the script.

Jesus is not a fan of bad behavior. He is not a fan of destructive behavior. But, Jesus is a lover of people and it is His love that will draw someone in.

Somehow the Church has gotten into the business of being the morality police for those who do not attend the Church. Whether we are trying to tell the poor how to live or trying to tell the gay community what they should or should not do. It is just wrong and it seems clear to me that most of the evangelical Church today does not resemble Jesus.

We are quick to judge those outside of the Church. We are slow to give. We have a theology that is all about bettering our own lives sometimes at the expense of others. We have a theology that does not respect the earth, we have a theology that does not respect anyone who disagrees with us, we have a theology that would allow for the poor to become poorer because we are too busy to be interested.

As I am always quick to point out, these are generalizations. There are exceptions to this and I am as guilty of doing all of these things as anyone.

Some of you may read this and be offended. I get that. My hope is that you will not read this and feel the need to defend yourself or justify why you believe the way you believe. I hope that you will read it and own the portions that are true and look for ways to try to understand things differently.

The world needs you. The world needs you engaged in the cause of the poor, the widow, and the orphan. Afterall, James 1:27 tell us that that is what TRUE religion is.

It is time for us to start putting our money where our mouth is and to start looking more like Jesus and less like a group of modern-day pharisees.

Peace,
Vince

Helping your organization thrive...

As someone who has worked in both the for-profit and non-profit sector, I understand that many organizations need help in the areas of advocacy, social media management, program sustainability, and fund raising.

I have been feeling for some time that I needed to create an organization that acts as a support structure for existing non-profits for each of these areas.

My goal will be to draw on my 20 years of experience to provide support and guidance to organizations in these key areas.

At this point, I intend to do this as a free act of service for these organizations asking only for my expenses to be covered.

I will be available to consult, speak, and fund raise to help your organization grow.

My personal passion is rescue work in the trafficking arena but I have experience globally in orphan care and other social justice issues.

If you have need for help in any of these areas, please contact me through this blog or via e-mail at vinceg3@yahoo.com.

Peace,
Vince

That's not communicating...

This is not my typical blog post but something that has been on my mind for a while.

I find it interesting when I hear people (particularly older people but not always) wax poetic about how kids now don't know how to communicate or relate in the real world. They look at texting, and Facebook, twitter, and other forms of social media with disdain and feel that the nature and quality of communication and relationships has taken a precipitous downward shift.

My thought is that, perhaps, it is them that does not understand the "language" of modern communication and relationship.

Some contend that we need to have "real" relationships not virtual ones. We need to speak real words not texted abbreviations that are bastardized versions of our languages.

While it goes without saying that some relationships need to be in person and some face to face communication is irreplaceable, we need to consider the value of technology in the evolution of communication and relationships.

For the very few challenges created by technology, the advantages that come from a small planet with more communication platforms is immeasurable.

Practically speaking, things like Facebook allow people, like myself, to stay connected to friends and family from my home town over 2000 miles away. With traditional methods of communication, I would not be able to connect with friends and family as quickly and easily (or so inexpensively).

I work in areas of sex trafficking prevention and I am able to connect and network with people from all over the world in real time. I am able to share stories and create awareness. I am able to build relationships - real relationships. Different but real.

In a recent personal crisis I went through, it was relationships with people that I had online, that were able to sustain me in the beginning.

People who support various causes or suffer from illnesses are able to find others that share their passion or their problems.

Think of what technology like Skype has done to revolutionize communication for military families.

For you to look at young people, who have texting as a resource for communication and judge that "they don't know how to communicate in the real world," is a judgment best not passed. They could just as easily contend that you don't know how to communicate and relate in today's world.

New communication methods are neither good nor bad. There can be good communication via text and bad communication via text just like some more traditional or conventional methods of communication.

Throughout time things change, cultures change and evolve. Technology allows for things not even imagined in other times. We need to embrace the good in the technology and understand how things like social media can create opportunities for communications, education, and awareness that would not have been possible before.

It is possible through Facebook for my daughter to maintain a friendship with someone from North Carolina that she no longer has physical access to. A relationship that in times past would likely have faded away.

Because of technology, it is possible for children in remote areas to connect with people. Because of facebook and social media platforms provided by technology, potential for learning, communication, and relationships in today's world are unprecedented.

It may not look like the way you did it. But, it is truly amazing and we should embrace it as such.

There are inherent dangers with access - but that is our chance to engage deeper in our new world. To become a part. To communicate. To relate.

Next time you hear someone rant in judgement over a young person who is texting, or relating to people on social media, patiently remind them of the advantages of such platforms that help to make the world a much better place.

Missions needs to change...

I had the chance to listen to two aspiring missionaries last weekend. I love their heart and their passion but their choice scares me.

I know I am in the minority in evangelical circles (happily a growing minority) that really struggles with the concept of Western missionaries going to other countries to "spread the gospel."

I have had the good fortune of visiting many countries in the world. In my last job, I traveled throughout Africa, India, Russia, Haiti, Guatemala, etc. While I was doing this work, I read the book When Helping Hurts. The book has become a guidebook for me in my thoughts and philosophy about overseas missions.

Before I jump too deeply into my thoughts, I want to say that I do think that there are some situations that would merit Westerners going overseas. I'm not sure I could outline what I believe those situations are but I think it is important to leave the door open for any possibility.

All too often, we enter missions settings with a flawed mindset. We go prepared to give. Give our "brand" of faith, our mindset, our lifestyle, our values. I would contend for a situation in which we go to understand. What is the culture I am entering? How do they approach things like work, family, faith, etc?

If I go with an intent to understand, I am more able to learn how my faith or philosophy may be relevant to them. As a person of faith, my mission is not to make people more like me - it is to make people more like Him. Unfortunately, all too often, we have created God in our image and we end up exporting Western Christian philosophy and dogma as opposed to true Christianity.

I'll give you a quick story to try to illustrate the concept. I met with a prominent Chicago-based attorney who had worked for two years to pull together a project for a soy bean farm in Western Uganda. This project would provide sustainable jobs, income, and a "better" future for the people in the community.

My first question to him was, "What type of community buy-in do you have?" He had NONE. I asked who would run the farm. He assumed someone in the community would step up. I asked who would work at the farm. He assumed people in the community would. Afterall, he said, if you are 16 and unemployed in this community you need to have opportunities and money. I asked what someone in that community would do with money. He looked at me with a blank stare.

If you are a subsistance farmer, meeting all of your needs and you have the freedom and ability to do whatever you want and still meet your needs, why would you want a job? He had never considered that concept. He assumed that the concept of "opportunity' for a rural African would be the same as that for an American. Hmmm.

He had spent two years creating a elaborate plan for a soy bean farm and failed to consider whether or not it was something the community would even embrace. As the book When Helping Hurts suggests, there are millions of dollars of US funded farm equipment rusting away in Africa because no one bothered to consult the locals on whether or not they even wanted it.

Bring this concept full circle to the missionary experience, in most cases it is virtually impossible to take an outsider and have them truly understand the nuances of a culture that affect how they think, act, and believe. Not to mention the economic costs associated with supporting westerners in non-western cultures.

Despite our best notions, most mission efforts fail. Only 24% of missionarys "survive" the mission field. Most come back with destroyed relationships with God and family. In fact, the vast majority of Western support that is sent overseas does more long term harm than good. It creates a dependency culture and rather than creating sustainability it destroys it (unpopular for me to say - I know - but no less true).

A better plan would be to empower locals to reach each other. Perhaps Westerners could be part of a process of helping locals to educate their communities. But, that isn't as exciting as sending someone overseas...it's less romantic.

I am sure some of you reading this are shaking your head in disagreement - and that's ok. I encourage you to pick up When Helping Hurts - written by individuals with over 35 years of field missions experience and start looking at the reality. All that being said, if you "feel called" I would not tell you NOT to follow that calling. But, my hope is that you make sure you are clear on what you are being calling to do.

My hope is that the future of missions will be one that values outcome more than experience and that considers a broad range of what the long term implications will be of sending Westerners overseas. Either way, we are called to "go ye" we just need to figure out where and how.

Peace

Tim Tebow

I can't believe I am actually going to blog on Tim Tebow but because sports is one of my bigger interests it has been on my mind lately.

OPENING DISCLAIMER: I like Tim Tebow as a person. If you read anything below that seems to discredit that, please refer back to this disclaimer.

I respect any passionate person who seems to live a life consistent with their ideals - unlike many people - I even respect people with whom I disagree provided they are consistent.

One of the biggest problems I have with the hype surrounding Tim, is that I believe it has the opposite effect that many evangelicals hope. Rather than strengthening the evangelical perception, I believe it only serves to discredit and undermine evangelicals further. Why? Keep reading...

No one questions Tim's intangible qualities of leadership. In that arena, he is an unparalleled all-star. For me, those are the qualities we should be highlighting. Unfortunately, over the past several weeks, evangelicals have ascribed a "miracle-like" status to Tim's come-from-behind victories. Those of you who know football, understand that in most cases those victories would have been more appropriately attributed to either the Denver Broncos defense, their kicker, or blatant mistakes made by opponents.

After suffering three consecutive losses, it is becoming more and more clear that perhaps Jesus is not a Denver Broncos fan - who knew? The Saturday Night Live skit did a better job of pointing out the lunacy of that concept than anything the church was willing to stand up and do. Now, all of the evangelicals who felt that God was doing "football miracles" through Tim Tebow are forced to scratch their heads, change the subject, or deny Tim.

Ultimately, this is not only unfair to Tim, but it points to something flawed in how we believe. While many American evangelicals are touting "miraculous" comebacks as the work of God, the real world is out there facing real tragedies, painful realities, poverty, etc. It is no wonder the evangelical church has lost its voice in the public forum. We've become a caricature of the life Jesus intended us to lead when he left the keys with us.

Instead of pointing to Tim and saying, what a great young man with great leadership qualities and a strong authentic faith, we turned him into a miracle worker - which he never was - and now every loss becomes another embarrassment. How could anyone live up to what has been placed on him?

If you are one of those people who pointed to Tim, you should keep pointing. Not because of a scoreboard, but because of his life off of the football field. If you are one of those people who never got it, don't worry about it. If you are one of those people who thought that the hoopla from the evangelicals was ridiculous, I agree with you.

I would ask that you cut the evangelicals a little slack though - because in reality - all anyone really wants is a hero and in many ways I do think Tim Tebow fits that bill.

Peace