A big Christian hard-core concert was held at Anchor last Sunday night. They usually hold concerts downstairs in our fellowship hall, but this was a Biggy Concert which required the sanctuary. After church, the worship team cleared our equipment off the platform and stuffed it all in a side room, where it remains (there's a wedding tomorrow). We'll go early Sunday morning to set everything back up (drums, drum shield, amps, keyboard, mics, stands, cables....).

I stopped by the church Sunday night for about 45 minutes. Hadn't been to one of the concerts in a while, and wanted to see what was happening. Leadership had been turned over to another person.

There were maybe 300 kids, most wearing black attire. Lots of tattoos, lots of colored hair, but plenty of fairly normal-looking teens and young adults. Cars were jammed everywhere. I walked around the back of the church. Scores of kids were just hanging out, sitting on the grass or leaning against cars. All behaving nicely.

The sanctuary was packed with kids. All of our sanctuary chairs had been stacked along the side. A little moshing was going on. Kids were standing on our nice chairs to get a better look, their shoes no doubt wearing on the cloth.. Loud, loud music with totally unidentifiable lyrics. I think five bands played that night. Booths with merchandise (especially T-shirts) were set up in the back of the sanctuary ("...but you have made my house a den of thieves..."). Two off-duty cops patrolled the grounds, one staying inside, one outside. Neighbors called on-duty cops once, because a band was making too much noise outside in the street, but that had stopped before the officers actually arrived.

These concerts are such an interesting environment, particularly for an old fuddy-duddy like me.

Sanctuary windows have been broken in the past. This time, two windows were broken. A fellow standing on a chair accidentally fell into one window and broke it. Then some other kid, a jerk by all accounts, punched his fist clear through another window--actually, through a double window.

Yeah, this bothers me. But it also bothers me that most churches would never allow concerts like this, merely because of the threat that their pretty-pretty sanctuary might suffer unsightly wear and tear. And because they don't approve of the music style.

I have to keep reminding myself: our building is a tool. It's not a sacred shrine where God lives 24/7 while the rest of us are at work. We can have these wild concerts one night, then set it up for a worshipful service the next Sunday.

But I still wish they wouldn't break windows.

Posted at 08:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Just read a fascinating piece called Elizabeth Edwards and the Mommy Wars, on Time's "Swampland" blog. A woman, writing on a blog, really attacked Elizabeth Edwards for spending her final days on the campaign trail instead of with her kids. I found myself thinking, "Good point, good point."

And then came Elizabeth Edwards' response. Phew! That lady's articulate and thoughtful. Everything I've read about John and Elizabeth Edwards indicates they are really good parents with a good family. Elizabeth's defense of herself gave some great insights into good parenting.

I like that lady.

Posted at 08:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Several elementary schools in Colorado have banished tag from playgrounds. Seems some kids complained that they were chased against their will. Running games are still allowed, but only if students don't chase each other and there is less physical contact.

All I can say is: it's about time!

I still sometimes wake up in a cold sweat after dreaming that classmates are chasing me, culminating in being tapped on the shoulder and told, "You're it!" Is any declaration more horrifying that being told, "You're it!"

I live daily with traumatic memories of playing tag. That, and dodgeball. And I yearn for a world in which today's fragile children are free of being forced to play tag, a world in which they are not subjected to the torments and resulting years of therapy which have characterized my woefully diminished life.

Posted at 02:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I am continually amazed by people's gullibility, as evidenced by the emails that get forwarded to me, as if it's information the "liberal press" doesn't want you to know.

Today, I got one about Ollie North's testimony in the Iran-Contra hearings, in which he talked about Osama bin Laden as a terrorist and the most evil person he knew. I remember watching his testimony. The terrorist was Abu Nidal. Back then, during the years Russia occupied Afghanistan, Osama was our friend. Ollie probably even sent him some Stinger missiles.

The email said that the senator questioning North disagreed with North's solution--that bin Laden should be assassinated. That senator, the email said, was Al Gore. Well, Gore wasn't part of that committee.

Then there was an email saying Mohammed Atta blew up an Israeli bus in the 1980s, was captured by the Israelis, but was released after pressure from the Clinton administration. And he then flew a plane into the Twin Towers. Well, the bomber was another guy with the same name.

Hey, my fellow conservatives: quit making stuff up. If you hate Democrats, that's okay. But at least tell the truth.

Posted at 03:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's nice to hear marital success stories every once in a while.

There's a couple I know, been married about 30 years. Earlier in the marriage people had suspicions that the guy was fooling around (and he probably was), but nothing went public until a fling about ten years ago. Most people thought the wife should have left him; I guess that would be the reaction in most cases. But she didn't. They both got good counseling, and they stayed together.

I remember hearing a seminar speaker say many years ago, "Adultery is grounds for divorce. But it is also grounds for forgiveness." In this case, the wife opted for forgiveness. Some folks are cynical about her motives, since he's a successful guy. But how can you fault her for determining to save a marriage?

Today, by all appearances, they have a good, strong marriage. They both have a great relationship with their daughter, a really fine young woman who is becoming a successful professional. There are plenty of cynics who suspect he'll go AWOL again--and maybe he will. But right now, I look at a marriage that has been restored, and it makes me feel good. It should make all Christians rejoice.

But because it's Bill and Hillary Clinton, we're not allowed to feel good about it, and certainly not commend them. Why is that?

Posted at 09:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I've been trying something new regarding email, and I like it.

I've always kept my email program open, set to automatically check for new email every few minutes. When new emails arrive, I'm alerted by a sound and by a red number appearing on the icon in my Macintosh dock (the number tells me how many unread emails eagerly await my attention). Email is like a phone call, trumping whatever you're doing. If you're deep in prayer but the phone rings, you abruptly leave God without explanation and rush off to answer the phone.

This is bad for creative types, like myself. I read an article which talked about this.

"The problem is that when you go back to what you were doing, you've lost your chain of thought and, of course, you are less productive....People's brains get tired from breaking off from something every few minutes to check emails. The more distracted you are by distractions, including email, then you are going to be more tired and less productive."

I didn't realize how much the constant bombardment of email detracts from my creative efforts, continuously pulling me away, every few minutes, from what I'm doing.

So I've been keeping my email program closed. As the article suggested, I set aside specific times for processing email, or maybe do it when I'm at some kind of natural break (switching from one project to another, returning from lunch, etc.). I launch Apple Mail, process my email, then quit the program and plunge back into my creative work.

What a difference it's made! I've been doing this for a couple weeks now. And let me tell you--it's been a huge benefit to my creativity. Just wish I'd learned this ridiculously simple principle ten years ago.

Posted at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We've had a couple and their baby living with us since last December, helping them out until they can get established on their own--which appears, at this point, still a long way away. Tonight, Allen and I sat out on the porch talking for a couple of hours. I didn't manage to work any great spiritual insights into our conversation, and I feel a silly guilt about that. But I think he appreciated talking.

People at church and work continually warn me about being "enablers." I understand what they're talking about. But at the same time, I've been questioning the whole concept, at least as it applies in this situation. Because I'm not sure how much "enablement" is part of God's vocabulary. God, after all, is the one who said to forgive your brother 70 times 7 times. How much more enabling is that? Shouldn't you give a person a few chances to get it right, and then give up? Why is God so naive?

I've decided that "enabling" is very much an American concept that fits with our values of rugged individualism, self-responsibility, etc. I'm not so sure it fits the spirit of Jesus. Should we kick our guests out, because we're just enabling them (making life easy for them)? Should we declare that not enough progress has been shown in self-responsiblility, accept that we're just throwing pearls before swine, and send them on their way? Is that what Jesus would do?

I don't think so. Stuff like this--the issues I wrestle with, the frustrations that lead to insights into what I perceive as the mind of God--show me that their presence in our home is as much for my benefit as for theirs. God has shown me things about himself and about my own stupid paradigms that would never have come apart from taking in this couple who had no place to go, and showing them love which occasionally borders on "unconditional."

Posted at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday at 4:27, a transformer in back of our building blew. The lights flickered and then settled into a dim state, and some computers (including mine) went off. We had to shut down all of the computers and go home.

The office normally closes at 4:30. Three stinkin' minutes! What's the point of that? Why couldn't the transformer have blown at, say, 11:00 in the morning? Was God playing a cruel joke on his faithful servants here in the United Brethren Headquarters Building?

Posted at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We were in Borders Bookstore, and I heard a lady asking a clerk about "that woman author who writes mysteries that all start with a letter." She wanted to get some books from that series for somebody she knew.

Well, I'm an authority on all things related to detective novels, and here was a chance to flaunt my knowledge.

I walked over and casually said, "The author is Sara Paretsky." I then spelled out "Paretsky." She thanked me, and I walked away, a good deed done. The customer and the clerk were now on the right path.

About ten minutes later, it hit me: it's Sue Grafton. Sara Paretsky writes the V. I. Warshawski novels. Sue Grafton does the "alphabet" books starring the intrepid Kinsey Millhone.

I wanted to slink away in humiliation. The clerk had probably found the right author and told the customer, "That guy doesn't know what he's talking about."

I am not, after all, infallible.

Posted at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's been raining like crazy all day, something we've needed.

Amidst the downpour, I've not used my windshield wipers. It's an experiment. I'd heard about this product called Rain-X: rub it onto your windshield, and rain will bead up and go away. We've not had enough rain this summer for me to really try it out, until today.

It's pretty amazing. The water just beads up on the windshield and goes...somewhere, I don't know where.

This doesn't mean I'll stop using windshield wipers. It's just an interesting addition to my wonderful Dodge Dakota SLT.

[This has been a paid advertisement of Rain-X...NOT.]

Posted at 05:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

L-r: Terry Leatherman, Tim Bauman, me, and Joe Leatherman on drums.

The movie was "E.T." I think I've only seen it once--either in a theater, or when it came out on VHS. It was fun watching it again.

Posted at 09:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

During the 12 years I edited a denominational magazine, I usually attended the annual Evangelical Press Association convention, an organization representing several hundred Christian publications. Each day featured various workshops, which were often led by persons from the Big Important Publications. We're talking Moody Magazine, the various Christianity Today magazines, Decision, and the larger denominational magazines (The Banner, the Church Herald, Vital Christianity). These were multi-staff publications, and the workshop leaders could talk about relating to the graphics department, the marketing department, the editorial staff, etc.

Meanwhile, there were a heck of a lot of us one-person-shows editing small organizational, missionary, or denominational publications. I had a part-time secretary, but beyond that, I did everything. I wrote lots of stories, I edited all stories, I proofread copy before sending it for typesetting (pre-computer days), I spent numerous hours hunched over a light-table laying out the magazine, I proofread the thing again, and I interacted with the printer. I devised whatever marketing materials we used. I designed the covers and all interior artwork. I could learn from the Moody editor, but my situation bore little resemblance.

So one year I offered, and was invited, to lead a seminar for editors like me--guys and gals who did the whole shebang. I knew there were a bunch of us, toiling in anonymity and eating by ourselves at the convention. I forget my creative title and description, but it must have worked, because the room was packed. A few of them (myself included) had been wooed by prestigious publications, but had decided God wanted them to remain--contentedly--where they were.

I talked about issues common to us Do-It-Alls. For instance: most of us editors became editors because we were pretty good wordsmiths, yet we also had to do graphics work, something for which bigger magazines have specialists. How do we compensate when we can't delegate our weaknesses? I had probably ten such issues unique to one-person situations, and I used them as fodder for discussion.

Since my seminar style is always interactive, a lot of great ideas flew back and forth. Editors shared their limitations--time, skills, budget, staff--and ways they worked around those limitations to still produce a quality product. Nobody from a Big Important Publication attended my wee little workshop because, of course, they had nothing to learn from a comparative underachiever like me. But I discovered a whole bunch of my peers who were in the same boat I rowed year after year, and many of our needs weren't being addressed by the highly-skilled folks at Christianity Today.

I think of this in relation to pastors and the broader church world. Tens of thousands of ministers serve small churches, and serve alone. Maybe a secretary or part-time youth guy, but basically alone. To improve as ministers, what is available to them? Well, they can read books by megachurch pastors, and they can attend conferences put on by megachurches. And I wonder: how well do these resources really, really, address their unique situations? (Not being a pastor, I don't really know.) I know that the Big Guys stress that they are imparting principles that can work in any size of church, and don't require the large staff and resources available to them. But...okay...whatever.

Is there, anywhere, a solo pastor who people look at and say, "That guy's a success. He should write a book or lead a seminar."

Or consider: is it okay, in today's American church culture, to aspire to be a great solo pastor? Is it okay to not yearn to lead a Whole Hog church?

It seems that we corporate-minded 21st Century Americans are not allowed to pin "Successful Pastor" badges onto solo ministers. If you're in a multi-staff situation, then you have something to share in a seminar or book. If you're not in a multi-staff situation, then you need to attend the other guy's seminar or read his book. And obviously, the megachurch guy has zilch to learn from you, little peon.

I know that it was helpful for me to gather with a bunch of solo editors to talk about our contexts and to share ideas. How well this truly relates to pastors...I don't know. I'm just wondering.

Posted at 12:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Pam made her famous carrot cake for the church potluck on Sunday. Actually, her famous carrot cake is three layers. She made a three-layer cake, but kept one at home for me to eat, and only took a double-layer cake to church. I appreciated that.

Joanna Herrick cut the cake. She's around 80 years old, maybe more, with more energy--and certainly more enthusiam for life in general--than I have. Joanna gave me one of her observations from a lifetime in the church.

"Multiple layer cakes always go faster than single-layer cakes," she told me. "That's what I've noticed over the years with cakes I've brought. Whenever I bring a multiple-layer cake, there's less left over."

There you go: an observation you won't find in any church growth books.

Posted at 09:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Pam and I saw "The Bourne Ultimatum" on Saturday. It was quite a thrill ride, like the first two movies. Only the first movie made any pretense about being based on the book by the same name. "The Bourne Identity" blew me away when I read it--my first Ludlum book. "Supremacy" and "Ultimatum" were good, too, but have no relation to the movies. But no problem--I loved the movies. It's like getting six plots for the price of three titles (or maybe five-and-a-half plots).

In lots of American-made thrillers, the "villain" is the CIA or some other secret government entity trying to hoodwink the American people or do nasty things in the name of patriotism. That's the general idea, anyway. Such was the case with "Ultimatum." And I got to thinking about how this must play overseas. Foreigners continually see American movies in which we depict our own government as secretive and insidious. Have foreigners come to believe that this must be reality? Well, it seems that they DO believe this, whether or not Hollywood is to blame.

We saw previews for "Rendition," a movie (with Meryl Streep as a villainous spy honcho!) based on our government's practice of sending people to other countries (Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia) to be tortured, if we think they have some information that might be useful to us. They don't have to be actual terrorists, which was the threshhold before Bush took office--just people who we THINK know something that might help us catch actual bad guys. It's a shameful, disgusting practice which has resulted in people dying under torture and innocent people being whisked away. And I'm continually amazed that so many Americans (always Republicans! usually FoxNews fans!) defend the practice. There's no way in the world Jesus would defend it. But what does He know? Jesus is so naive.

Anyway, that's a movie I'm going to see, too. And people around the world will see it. At this point, it's probably just more of the same--evil American secret agency doing things which aren't supposed to be reached by sunlight.

Posted at 08:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Although I'm a big Starbucks fan and stop there most mornings, I don't buy into the whole coffee officionado experience. Specifically, I don't use coffeetalk in regard to drink sizes. I refuse to say, "I'll have a vente decaf." Tall, vente, grande--what's with that? Can anyone really keep them straight?

So I use AmericanTalk: small, medium, and large. It doesn't seem to unduly confuse the baristas (er...clerks). When I say, "I'll have a medium decaf," their minds are nimble enough that they can automatically translate it mentally and subsequently hit the appropriate button on the cash register.

If English is to be our official language, we need to resist attempts to replace our common usage with strange foreign terms. This, I believe, is important enough to be inserted into the Republican Party Platform.

Posted at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)