Why are we punishing the poor and middle class here?

This article has a good take on the current energy policy of the United States.  Interestingly, the author is a Democrat who is taking the current administration to task for their tightened regulations on deep water drilling.  The rise in energy prices punishes those at the bottom of the economic ladder the hardest, since they have the least amount of flexibility in their budget to deal with sudden spikes in gas prices.

I really don't understand why we are refusing to harvest our own resources and insist on importing oil from countries that do not have our best interest at heart.  I'm sure this will be a presidential campaign issue,

The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

It appears that our headlong rush into "clean energy" without thinking through how the transition will be managed is creating havoc on the electrical grid.  Evidently the wind doesn't blow at a uniform speed and tends to blow more when the demand is lowest.  This phenomenon will create the possibility of higher electricity rates because we will have to use the more expensive natural gas peaking plants to produce electricity since nuclear and coal plants can't be turned on and off easily. So, during a severe recession we decide to launch a strategy that will raise the cost of production and living for air quality benefits we could achieve with nuclear power plants.  Never mind the thousands of birds being shredded, and threatened species being killed.  If ExxonMobil were killing 50 Golden Eagles per year at one of their sites, can you imagine the outcry and the fines that the environmental regulators would hand down?   This is almost Alice in Wonderland-esque at times.

The road to hell sometimes is paved with good intentions.

For all you Trekkies out there

Thanks to the Good Clean Funnies List for this next bit of Blog Fodder.

Things That Never Happened On Star Trek

1. The Enterprise runs into a mysterious energy field of a type it has encountered several times before.

2. The Enterprise visits a remote outpost of scientists, who are all perfectly all right.

3. Some of the crew visit the holodeck, and it works properly.

4. The crew of the Enterprise discover a totally new life-form, which later turns out to be a rather well-known old life form wearing a funny hat.

5. The crew of the Enterprise are struck by a mysterious plague, for which the only cure can be found in the well-stocked Enterprise sick-bay.

6. The Captain has to make a difficult decision about a less advanced people which is made a great deal easier by the Starfleet Prime Directive.

7. The Enterprise successfully ferries an alien VIP from one place to another without serious incident.

8. An enigmatic being composed of pure energy attempts to interface to the Enterprise's computer, only to find out that it has forgotten to bring the right leads.

9. A power surge on the Bridge is rapidly and correctly diagnosed as a faulty capacitor by the highly-trained and competent engineering staff.

10. The Enterprise is captured by a vastly superior alien intelligence which does not put them on trial.

11. The Enterprise is captured by a vastly inferior alien intelligence which they easily pacify by offering it some chocolate.

12. The Enterprise visits an earth-type planet called "Paradise" where everyone is happy all of the time. However, everything is soon revealed to be exactly what it seems.

13. A major Starfleet emergency breaks out near the Enterprise, but fortunately some other ships in the area are able to deal with it to everyone's satisfaction.

14. The Enterprise is involved in a bizarre time-warp experience which is in some way unconnected with the Late 20th Century.

15. Kirk (or Riker) falls in love with a woman on a planet he visits, and isn't tragically separated from her at the nd of the episode.

16. Counselor Troi states something other than the blindingly obvious.

17. The warp engines start going haywire, but seem to sort themselves out after a while without any intervention from boy genius Wesley Crusher.

18. Spock (or Data) is fired from his high-ranking position for not being able to understand the most basic nuances of one in three sentences that anyone says to him.

A great article on Church Fights

Eight years ago Holiness Today ran this article on "No One Wins A Church Fight." The words are maybe more timely now than they were then. Stress - physical, economic, spiritual - seems to bring out the worst in people, and this is a time of national stress. I pray that you will read these words and heed the wisdom in them. It is a terrible witness of the body of Christ when Christians engage in this type of activity. It always gets out because people talk, so don't think it can be contained within the walls of the church building. The author gives some very sound advice on how to avoid the situation.

Nobody Wins a Church Fight

As my wife and I drove away from our church, we promised each other that we would never return. Although both of us were raised in the Church of the Nazarene we concluded that we couldn’t remain where we so strongly disagreed with the pastor. Several other lay families left at the same time. Soon, the pastor left too. The laity who remained behind were left with a small congregation, a large mortgage and the task of convincing another pastor to come be their spiritual leader. My wife and I found another Nazarene church, but after more than 30 years some of the others remain alienated from our denomination.

Unfortunately, this scene is repeated in other Nazarene churches many times every year. When unresolved conflicts exist between the pastor and members of the congregation, the lay members leave the church, the pastor moves or both. Long after the combatants are gone, the scars of battle remain. Many times the innocent bystanders are hurt the most. They are the ones left with the task of helping a wounded church survive. Nobody wins a church fight.

Church fights are avoidable. Over the past 30 years, I have been blessed to belong to stable, growing churches. I have attempted to identify what is different about these churches that never have church fights. This list of “do’s and don’ts” is a summary of my observations. Where pastors and laity act this way, there are no church fights.

Build a relationship of trust. When a pastor has a relationship of trust with the members of his or her congregation, small differences tend to be overlooked and the large ones are resolved more easily.

A relationship of trust is built by doing things together. Worshiping together is important, but simply being in public worship services together isn’t sufficient. Time and energy spent in Christian fellowship is essential. Praying and playing together has lasting benefits. Pastors who become personally involved in the lives of the congregation tend to enjoy enough goodwill to be given the benefit of the doubt when conflicts arise.

The same holds true for laity becoming involved in the life of the pastor. I once heard a layman say, “I don’t get close to my pastors because I know they will be moving in a year or two.” That kind of attitude causes the statement to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

1 Peter 1:22 describes the kind of relationship that should exist between a pastor and members of the church, “Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.”

People who truly love one another will have differences of opinion, but the relationship of trust helps them find their way past disagreements.

Seek consensus before making changes. Many church fights arise from changes. The Manual establishes the minimum legal requirements for making decisions in the church, but implementing changes with the support of a simple majority is rarely successful. Those who attempt to implement changes in a church without consensus invite conflict.

Consensus means a) that most people support the proposed change, b) those who don’t support the change feel that their views have been fairly considered and c) all are willing to accept the decision of the majority. Changes implemented when even a small minority are strongly opposed are often the cause of long-lasting conflicts.

Pastors and church leaders who learn to seek input from all of those interested in important decisions find that implementation of the changes is much easier. Churches where decisions are made in a secretive way by a small group of people are ripe for conflict.

Sincerely seek to understand others. There is a natural tendency for one to spend energy trying to convince others to understand his position. Throughout the educational process, students are taught to present ideas effectively; however, few have been trained to listen.

When it comes to avoiding or resolving conflicts, energy spent in understanding the views of others is often more productive than energy spent perfecting one’s own arguments. Churches where people sincerely seek to understand one another rarely have unresolved conflicts.

Take the initiative in resolving differences. In Matthew 5:23, Jesus said to take the initiative in resolving differences. He said, “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”

Some have suggested that being the first one to actively seek resolution of a dispute is a sign of weakness. That idea has caused people to fight for years over issues that could have been easily resolved if either of them had been willing to make the first attempt to be reconciled.

Discuss differences face to face. Matt. 18:15, states, “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you…” Most people completely ignore “just between the two of you.” It is an essential part of the scripture.

In this day of technology, there is often a temptation to call on the telephone, or send an email. Electronic communication is great for transferring information, but is ineffective when dealing with emotions. Being in the physical presence of another person is still the most effective way to communicate when there is conflict. Making the effort to visit with a person face to face demonstrates that you value them as a person and are sincere in wanting to reach agreement with them. There is no better way to resolve a dispute than to look another person in the eyes and say, “I am here because I want to hear what you have to say.”

Don’t involve others in your conflicts. In addition to the suggestion to meet face-to-face, the “just between the two of you.” language of Matthew 18:15 instructs not to involve additional people in your conflicts until you have made a reasonable effort to seek resolution. The wisdom of not involving additional people in disputes is obvious, but the temptation is strong to seek advice, request special prayer, or just share with a friend. Every time one discusses his or her conflict with another person, the conflict is escalated to another level. Each additional person who becomes aware of the conflict makes resolution more difficult.

Don’t spiritualize differences. There is often a temptation to assume that conflicts are due to the other person’s carnality. While a person may sin as a result of conflict, it is also true that saved and sanctified Christians can have emotion-filled differences of opinion. Assigning evil intent to those who have different opinions is inappropriate. Focus on the merits of the arguments and the importance of the relationship, not on the motives of those who differ with you. Only God knows a person’s heart.

Don’t take extreme positions. Because litigation has become so much a part of society, some people tend to take litigation-like extreme positions. In litigation it is typical for the parties to take extreme positions then bargain back and forth to reach a compromise somewhere between the extreme positions.

Because of the insincerity involved, the back and forth bargaining process doesn’t work well in resolving disputes in the church. Even when involved in a conflict, a Christian should express positions in a sincere and an honest way.

Don’t confuse positions with principles. Many people think they have “principles” while others have “positions.” Positions are subject to change, principles shouldn’t be. One should constantly reexamine his or her positions and change them when there is fresh insight. Compromising one’s position is often wise and appropriate. Those who compromise their principles have no integrity, but those who consider their positions to be beyond compromise are destined to live with conflict all of their lives.

Don’t flee. Several years ago, the Commission on the Call of the Pastor, took a survey of Nazarene pastors. A majority of pastors who answered the survey admitted that they had left at least one pastorate to avoid a conflict.

Fleeing puts distance between the combatants, but it does not resolve the conflict. One who flees without making a sincere attempt to apply the conflict resolution principles described in Matt. 15 leaves a trap of unresolved issues to faced by those who follow. Some Nazarene churches change pastors every year or two over the same unresolved issues. Some laymen move from church to church creating conflicts everywhere they go. When people flee, a church fight may be postponed, but it is rarely permanently avoided.

Churches that have a history of stability and growth are not the ones where people never have differences of opinion. Every church has conflicts. The stable, growing congregations are the ones where the pastor and laity have worked together to prevent their difference from becoming church fights. When conflicts in a church rise to the level of a church fight, no one wins.

Author – J. David McClung, attorney and chairman of Triton Marine Construction Corp., Gig Harbor, WA.

This is why I want the Lions to go 0-16

This article summarizes much of the frustration that I have felt with the Lions during my lifetime. I'm 41 years old and they have won 1 playoff game since I have been on the planet. During that time, Mr. Ford has been either 1) grossly incompetent and unable to find competent front office personnel and coaches; 2) unlucky; or 3) indifferent to the plight of the fans and unconcerned about winning, just making money.

I do feel bad for the players on the Lions. It's not their fault that Mr. Ford gave Matt Millen a 5 year extension at $5 million/year when it was apparent that he didn't know how to run a team and the fans were marching in the streets calling for Millen's dismissal. The Lions just don't have talent, and Mr. Ford just doesn't seem to care. Before last week's drubbing at the hands of the Saints, he announced that he is bringing his current management team back next year. Obviously he is pleased with their performance, so much that he isn't willing to interview anyone who might be considered a "genius" or even above average.

So, I'm going to follow the lead of my younger daughter and become a Dolphins fan. She switched because she cannot handle the losing and she likes Jake Long and Chad Henne, who were drafted by the Dolphins.

At least I can leave with a clear conscience and say that I have never given the Lions any of my money. The games I have attended were as guests of suite holders, and I didn't pay for anything, including parking.

Adios Mr. Ford. You have made it clear that you are indifferent to the fans, and either don't care about building a winner or don't know how. Either way, I'm taking the energy I have as a fan and giving it to a team that actually tries to win. Not one that is the plaything of a rich kid who wasn't allowed to play in the family game of auto manufacturing.

I'm embarrassed that it has taken me this long to get to this point. Maybe I'm just a slow learner. But, at least I learn.

Back to the Stone Age

It seems that no matter what we do energy-wise, we are doomed. Let's just face it. We need to go back to a pre-industrial revolution lifestyle so that no one can damage the planet or be damaged by any of the modern technology that we are so dependent on.

To wit, I've listed some of the problems with the current and future sources of energy that are being bantered about.

Wind turbines chop up birds and cause medical problems. So much for the "clean, renewable" source of energy. Not to mention that they are unattractive.

Ethanol raises food prices and is inefficient. There goes the Iowa farmer subsidy program. Thank goodness the presidential candidates won't be back there handing out our money for a fuel that is less efficient than gasoline. And I don't see large amounts of acreage dedicated to switchgrass.

Drilling for oil on our coasts would be a catastrophe. So much so that Nancy Pelosi won't even allow the House of Representatives to vote on the issue. Just discussing it would cause harm.

Nuclear Power is fraught with peril. Didn't we all see The China Syndrome? And what to do with the waste since Harry Reid won't allow the Yucca Mountain containment facility to be built.

Hydroelectric power destroys fish habitat. Salmon can't migrate past those massive dams.

Coal causes global warming. And we know Al Gore and his private jet are running around showing his movie and Nobel prize to remind us of that.

Solar power technology is not there yet. Presumably because Big Oil has the secret formula locked away with the 100 mpg carburetor somewhere in their vault.

My advice to you all is to go buy some land and livestock, and begin reading the Little House on the Prairie books for advice on how to live. If the politicians get their way, we will all need to step into our "Way Back Machine" and dramatically reduce our energy usage. Learn to cook over a wood fire and use all-natural materials. The 21st century is calling.

Come Lord Jesus, Come.

This was in my local paper

I just love the editorial cartoon, especially since we recently studied Revelation in our adult small group. The article is a good read from the outgoing Prime Minister of Italy.

One quote stood out to me from the piece:

People can no longer be allowed to starve to death in Africa simply because there are some people in the US or inside the European Union who consider that the votes of farmers or landowners are worth more than the survival of millions of men and women. It is true that today's policies were decided at a time when we thought we were living in an energy-poor and food-rich world. But that is no longer the case today.

I heard on the radio news that the U.S. has diverted 1/3 of its corn crop to ethanol production, while people starve around the world and food prices rise. Now that the Iowa caucuses are over, can we please stop pandering to the farm lobby and create an energy policy that makes sense and does not cause people to starve to death?

Am I just dense?

Or is there something here that escapes me? You know my issues with the incoherent energy policy in these United States. So I wrote my congressman, who happens to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Here is his response to my concerns dated April 28, 2008:

Dear Mr. Richardson:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding drilling off the shore of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.

We can all agree that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; however, I do not think that new drilling off our coasts is the best solution. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have worked for a balanced energy policy, which takes care of our needs as a nation while conserving one of our natural resources. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is the committee through which much of our environmental legislation must go, and as Chairman of that Committee I must often make decisions regarding the environment. To this end, during the 110^th Congress I intend to look into investing in clean and renewable energy.

You may be pleased to know that during the 109^th Congress, the House took a number of actions meant to financially encourage the development and usage of alternative energy. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress mandated that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol would have to be incorporated as a gasoline additive by 2012. Ethanol, a much cleaner alternative to gasoline, would significantly decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Hybrid cars also are being promoted to consumers via tax credits. Up to $3200 is available in tax credits for a new owner of a hybrid. Congress already offers many other smaller tax credits to conscientious consumers. This type of encouragement on the homeowner level provides motivation for manufacturers to continue to invent and produce more energy efficient models of appliances.

Though these incentives are a good start in promoting continued exploration of alternative energy practices, they are not the finish line. Energy efficiency is a worthy aim and one that our government's policies and practices should seek to encourage, but not at the cost of our environment. You may rest assured that that I will keep your views in mind should legislation regarding alternative energy come before me for consideration.

Again, thank you for being in touch. For news on current federal legislative issues, please visit my website at www.house.gov/dingell; you can also sign up there to receive my e-newsletter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me again if I may be of assistance with this or any other matter of concern.

With every good wish,

Sincerely yours,

John D. Dingell Member of Congress

So, if I understand what Rep. Dingell is saying, he is advocating diverting our food supply to fuel to protect the environment. Never mind the starvation and gross immorality of that action, the environment is more important than the people who live in it.

That is eye-opening to say the least.

The Morality of Ethanol

I hate to say "I told you so" but I will say it. Actually, I take a little satisfaction in saying that. It seems that I was prescient in my thoughts on this. Global food prices are rising, and we still continue to divert food to energy production while ignoring the oil reserves in our own country.

In the meantime, food prices are rising and putting more pressure on the poor, who are struggling to feed their families. This is just plain wrong, at so many levels. Yet no one in Washington seems to listen or care.

I just have a nagging sense that we are being sold out. This is completely irrational at a policy level, yet it continues.

Write your member of Congress

You can go here to email your member of Congress if you want. I sent a note to member-for-life John Dingell, who chairs the Energy and Commerce committee in the House. I don't expect much, but it is about all I can do at the moment.

$4 gasoline?

Read this article and scratch your head. I've touched on this before, but we have oil reserves we are not allowed to tap because of Congressional mandates. If that oil were brought online, we would not be funding dictators of regimes that support terrorism. Nor would we be converting our food to fuel. But this is what the Congress wants.

Now we learn that our leading source of oil, Canada, may not be able to ship the oil from its tar sands to the U.S. because they do not meet the criteria of "renewable energy." It seems as if we are rushing pell-mell to cripple our own economy.

Something weird is afoot here. In the words of Deep Throat, I think we need to "follow the money." In the meantime, the price of gas continues to climb as demand drops. That is not how free markets work.

Adjusting to reality

This article in Leadership Journal really struck me, partly because it goes against the grain of the past 30 years of Protestant Christianity. It is about a new pastor at a church that aspired to be a mega-church and never made it there. They built the building, but for reasons you can read in the article, it didn't happen.

So the new pastor comes in and decides that they can still be very effective, just not as a megachurch. The process of change is wrenching, but it can lead to great kingdom growth as the congregation reaches out to the lost and hurting world around us.

I've been thinking about this article as I watch the circus in our state capitol. In many ways, Michigan is like this church. It isn't what it once was, nor what it dreamed it would be. So where do you go from here? I offer some suggestions from the article that are applicable to many churches, the state of Michigan, and individuals who are dealing with the disappointment of a life that didn't turn out the way they had hoped.

1. To be honest about our current condition. This can be hard for a church with such a storied past.

People kept asking: Why have our long-term members left? When are things going to get back to the way they were? What's wrong with us? (Translation: Why have all of these people and businesses left?)

Such questions can squelch even the most sincere brainstorming sessions. The hard truth we've tried to communicate through all of this is that the glory days of the past are exactly that—past glory days. We're not to try to return to them. Garnett will never again be the church it once was. We have to do the difficult thing of letting go of our former glory in order to allow God to do a new thing in us.

2. To relinquish our rights as members to a church building that we are no longer able to pay for by ourselves. The Garnett Church of Christ building is becoming the Garnett Event Center.

Already, several other churches are using our facilities on Saturday night and Sunday afternoon: a Messianic Jewish community, a charismatic Hispanic church, a rock church called Rolling Stone, and a new church plant.

Throughout the week, a number of other events, some church-related and others not, are held at our building. Not only is the rental income from these events helping to pay the bills, but it's also giving us a hospitable presence in our neighborhood. (Translation: No longer will we have a dominant position with a dominant industry fueling our state coffers. We will have to go out and compete for each and every business that we hope to lure here.)

But not without some difficulty. Everyone, myself and all ministry staff included, must reserve any classroom or meeting space equally with those in the community who are using or renting space.

The way we're trying to see it: this building no longer belongs to us. It belongs to our community. This isn't easy to explain to a charter member who's been helping to pay off the building for 20 years!

We've started a bi-lingual preschool that has grown to 50 students, half Anglo and half Hispanic. We've projected beyond our ability to speak Spanish, putting "Bienvenito" (Welcome) on the front doors and asking Spanish speakers to help us translate for different events.

We made it our goal to pray for every family that comes into our weekly food subsidy ministry and to invite them to serve with us.

3. To recognize that the most life-giving activities of our church aren't necessarily going to happen in our facility. Church leaders in event-driven and personality-centered churches tend to gauge success by headcount, the number of people who show up. This is what leaders talked about, and subsequently members tended to judge success by how pews and collection baskets were filled.

With Michael Frost (author of Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture) and Alan Hirsch (The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church), we have been forced to ask new questions: What if events of church, personalities of church, and Sunday assembly went away? What would be our view of the Christian life? What would we do as Christians, and who would we be?

We're working with the local fire department to arrange Spanish classes for them so they can better serve and communicate on daily calls. We're partnering with Habitat for Humanity and our city to build and renovate houses and help people to get back on their feet again.

We are learning to see our community, and individuals, not as needing handouts but as valued people who can together with us serve our Lord and our community. (Translation: Not everyone is going to move all of their operations here. We may have to settle for a tech center and the manufacturing will be done in a lower-cost environment.)

4. To learn to be missionaries in our own culture. Across the street from us, Fire Station 27 is the busiest station in the city. Fire Chief Michael Baker said, "This is a big church and the neighborhood is waiting … waiting to see what you are going to do for this community."

This comment has been forcing us outward, while we are at the same time redesigning our space for community groups to enter. Church Shepherd Robert Garland replied to Chief Baker that "we want to be a better neighbor to you and this community." (Translation: Treat the people we have more hospitably instead of crying about what we used to have or didn't get. Don't stomp on the businesses that are here as we chase our next "fix" of a large employer that is using us as a negotiating ploy.)

And really, that's the first step to becoming missionaries: getting to know our neighbors' needs.

Todd Hunter of Alpha-USA articulates well what we want to do: "I want to help people become the cooperative friends of Jesus, seeking to live lives of constant creative goodness through the power of the Holy Spirit for the sake of the world."

That's what we're determined to do: equip our congregation to be Christ to neighbors, co-workers, and family members, rather than trying to coax people into signing up for every church program possible and burning families out with church involvement.

We've had to ruthlessly ask of each ministry venture, "Is this an energy drain? An event without purpose? A building-centered program that determines success by how many populate this building?"

Anything aside from a Christ-centered approach is out in favor of teaching one another how to be incarnational presence of Christ, in practical ways in our jobs, neighborhoods, PTAs, and sports teams.

I know it isn't all directly applicable, but it does ring true for our elected officials, and many pastors and leaders of churches that are not where they dreamed they would be.

For the churches, fix your eyes on Christ and his dreams and plans, not yours. Remember the conversation between Peter and Jesus in John 21:

The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."

Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

If you are Peter, the prospect of crucifixion is not something that he relished. Jesus was making the point that it isn't about him, or Peter, but about God, who sent Jesus and called Peter. We would do well to heed that advice. I know I would.

Finding Grace in the small things

I come to you today from the Millenium Laundry, where I am babysitting the washers. We had quite a storm yesterday, and are without power. The plan was to do laundry on Saturday, and DTE Energy says we may be without power until Sunday or Monday. So.... Deb and the girls are running errands while I watch the washers. We are very fortunate. There are a number of large trees and branches down throughout town, and several of them landed on homes, porches and fences. All we have is no power and some water in the basement, for which we are grateful.

This has been an interesting experience for the neighborhood though. During the story yesterday, one neighbor and I were dragging construction barrels down to cover a downed phone line. A cable company truck ripped through, snagged the wire and ripped it off the pole, rendering the barrels unnecessary.

My next door neighbor offered to let us hook our extension cords to his generator which keeps our refrigerator and freezer running. And we took the food from another neighbor's freezer and put it in our deep freeze.

The east side of the street had their power back at 3 am. Our power may not be restored for days, which is odd. But we are grateful that we are fine. And we love seeing the hand of God in the way our neighborhood interacts in a time of adversity.

Another way to save the planet

Stop buying bottled water. Follow the advice of New York's mayor and drink tap water, which is just as safe and much less expensive. If you pay $1 per 1/2 liter of water (which is less than most convenience stores and vending machines), you are paying north of $7.50 per gallon of bottled water. You are also using up a great deal of energy in the bottling, transportation and disposal of the containers when you are finished with them. If you paid $7.50 for gas, I can only imagine the screams of protest about 'Big Oil." But I hear very little about "Big Water" from my conspiracy-theorist friends.

Buy a Brita pitcher and keep it in the fridge. You won't taste difference, you will save some cash, and you will be doing a little bit to help out planet Earth.

Just some friendly advice.

Al Gore and I agree on something

Mark this day on your calendar. Al Gore and I agree that the media is banal and focuses on trivial things. That is where our agreement ends. One of the trivial and banal things, IMHO, is Al Gore and his relentless shilling for his books and movie/slide show. The guy who tells us global warming will kill us all is jetting around in private jets and has a house that consumes an enormous amount of energy. All the while he wants us to change the way we live. How much pollution does a Gulsfstream IV put out as it zooms through the atmosphere?

Hypocrisy should be covered, but it is only covered on one side of the political and religious aisle.

Thanks for reaching out to me Al. I appreciate the love.

The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions

The Law of Unintended Consequences has not been repealed. In our zeal, post-Katrina to find alternative sources of energy for our cars, we, as a government, are rushing pell-mell into ethanol production. Never mind that ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline and costs a fortune in agricultural inputs, it is the wave of the future. Enter market economics. As the cover of World Magazine shows, not everyone is happy with our national goal of giant corn distilleries. It seems that our push for ethanol is driving up the price of corn, in some cases, doubling it. And the poor folks who have it as a staple of their diet are suffering.

Never mind that there is ample oil off the coast of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico and California, not to mention the ANWR debacle. U.S. companies are not allowed to drill for oil in these zones, but Cuba is. Cuba, with the help of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, is planning to drill for oil within sight of Florida. So much for the environmentalists cause there.

This reminds me of a 235 year-old letter written by John Wesley "To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post'" in 1772. The text is below, courtesy of the Wesley Center for Applied Theology at Northwest Nazarene University. It seems that not much has changed since then. We take food crops and use them for other purposes and disadvantage those who are most vulnerable. Read John Wesley's letter below

To the Editor of 'Lloyd's Evening Post' [25]]

DOVER, December 9, 1772.

SIR,--Many excellent things have been lately published concerning the present scarcity of provisions. And many causes have been assigned for it; but is not something wanting in most of those publications? One writer assigns one cause, another one or two more, and strongly insists upon them. But who has assigned all the causes that manifestly concur to produce this melancholy effect? at the same time pointing out how each particular cause affects the price of each particular sort of provision?

I would willingly offer to candid and benevolent men a few hints on this important subject, proposing a few questions, and adding to each what seems to be the plain and direct answer.

I. 1. I ask first, Why are thousands of people starving, perishing for want, in every part of England? The fact I know: I have seen it with my eyes in every corner of the land. I have known those who could only afford to eat a little coarse food every other day. I have known one picking up stinking sprats from a dunghill and carrying them home for herself and her children. I have known another gathering the bones which the dogs had left in the streets and making broth of them to prolong a wretched life. Such is the case at this day of multitudes of people in a land flowing, as it were, with milk and honey, abounding with all the necessaries, the conveniences, the superfluities of life!

Now, why is this? Why have all these nothing to eat? Because they have nothing to do. They have no meat because they have no work.

2. But why have they no work? Why are so many thousand people in London, in Bristol, in Norwich, in every county from one end of England to the other, utterly destitute of employment?

Because the persons who used to employ them cannot afford to do it any longer. Many who employed fifty men now scarce employ ten. Those who employed twenty now employ one or none at all. They cannot, as they have no vent for their goods, food now bearing so high a price that the generality of people are hardly able to buy anything else.

3. But to descend from generals to particulars. Why is breadcorn so dear? Because such immense quantities of it are continually consumed by distilling. Indeed, an eminent distiller near London hearing this, warmly replied, Nay, my partner and I generally distil but a thousand quarters of corn a week.' Perhaps so. Suppose five-and-twenty distillers in and near the town consume each only the same quantity. Here are five-and-twenty thousand quarters a week --that is, above twelve hundred and fifty thousand quarters a year--consumed in and about London! Add the distillers throughout England, and have we not reason to believe that half of the wheat produced in the kingdom is every year consumed, not by so harmless a way as throwing it into the sea, but by converting it into deadly poison--poison that naturally destroys, not only the strength and life, but also the morals of our countrymen!

Well, but this brings in a large revenue to the King.' Is this an equivalent for the lives of his subjects? Would His Majesty sell an hundred thousand of his subjects yearly to Algiers for four hundred thousand pounds? Surely no. Will he, then, sell them for that sum to be butchered by their own countrymen? But otherwise the swine for the Navy cannot be fed.' Not unless they are fed with human flesh? not unless they are fatted with human blood? O tell it not in Constantinople that the English raise the royal revenue by selling the blood and flesh of their countrymen!

4. But why are oats so dear? Because there are four times the horses kept (to speak within compass), for coaches and chaises in particular, than were some years ago. Unless, therefore, four times the oats grew now as grew then, they cannot be at the same price. If only twice as much is produced (which perhaps is near the truth), the price will naturally be double to what it was.

As the dearness of grain of one kind will naturally raise the price of another, so whatever causes the dearness of wheat and oats must raise the price of barley too. To account, therefore, for the dearness of this we need only remember what has been observed above, although some particular causes may concur in producing the same effect.

5. Why are beef and mutton so dear? Because most of the considerable farmers, particularly in the northern counties, who used to breed large numbers of sheep or horned cattle, and frequently both, no longer trouble themselves with either sheep or cows or oxen, as they can turn their land to far better account by breeding horses alone. Such is the demand, not only for coach- and chaise-horses, which are bought and destroyed in incredible numbers; but much more for bred horses, which are yearly exported by hundreds, yea thousands, to France.

6. But why are pork, poultry, and eggs so dear? Because of the monopolizing of farms, as mischievous a monopoly as was ever yet introduced into these kingdoms. The land which was formerly divided among ten or twenty little farmers and enabled them comfortably to provide for their families is now generally engrossed by one great farmer. One man farms an estate of a thousand a year, which formerly maintained ten or twenty. Every one of these little farmers kept a few swine, with some quantity of poultry; and, having little money, was glad to send his bacon, or pork, or fowls and eggs, to market continually. Hence the markets were plentifully served, and plenty created cheapness; but at present the great, the gentlemen farmers, are above attending to these little things. They breed no poultry or swine unless for their own use; consequently they send none to market. Hence it is not strange if two or three of these living near a market town occasion such a scarcity of these things by preventing the former supply that the price of them will be double or treble to what it was before. Hence (to instance in a small article) in the same town, where within my memory eggs were sold eight or ten a penny, they are now sold six or eight a groat.

Another cause why beef, mutton, pork, and all kinds of victuals are so dear is luxury. What can stand against this?

Will it not waste and destroy all that nature and art can produce? If a person of quality will boil down three dozen of neat's tongues to make two or three quarts of soup (and so proportionately in other things), what wonder if provisions fail? Only look into the kitchens of the great, the nobility, and gentry, almost without exception (considering withal that the toe of the peasant treads upon the heel of the courtier), and when you have observed the amazing waste which is made there, you will no longer wonder at the scarcity, and consequently dearness, of the things which they use so much art to destroy.

7. But why is land so dear? Because on all these accounts gentlemen cannot live as they have been accustomed to do, without increasing their income, which most of them cannot do but by raising their rents. The farmer, paying an higher rent for his land, must have an higher price for the produce of it. This again tends to raise the price of land. And so the wheel goes round.

8. But why is it that not only provisions and land but well-nigh everything else is so dear? Because of the enormous taxes which are laid on almost everything that can be named. Not only abundant taxes are raised from earth and fire and water, but in England the ingenious statesmen have found a way to tax the very light! Only one element remains, and surely some man of honour will ere long contrive to tax this also. For how long shall the saucy air blow in the face of a gentleman, nay a lord, without paying for it?

9. But why are the taxes so high? Because of the national debt. They must be while this continues. I have heard that the national expense in the time of peace was sixty years ago three millions a year. Now the bare interest of the public debt amounts to above four millions. To raise which, with the other expenses of government, those taxes are absolutely necessary.

II. Here is the evil. But where is the remedy? Perhaps it exceeds all the wisdom of man to tell. But it may not be amiss to offer a few hints even on this delicate subject.

1. What remedy is there for this sore evil? Many thousand poor people are starving. Find them work, and you will find them meat. They will then earn and eat their own bread.

2. But how shall their masters give them work without ruining themselves? Procure vent for it, and it will not hurt their masters to give them as much work as they can do; and this will be done by sinking the price of provisions, for then people will have money to buy other things too.

3. But how can the price of wheat be reduced? By prohibiting for ever that bane of health, that destroyer of strength, of life, and of virtue, distilling. Perhaps this alone will answer the whole design. If anything more be needful, may not all starch be made of rice, and the importation of this as well as of wheat be encouraged?

4. How can the price of oats be reduced? By reducing the number of horses. And may not this be effectually done (1) by laying a tax of ten pounds on every horse exported to France, (2) by laying an additional tax on gentlemen's carriages. Not so much for every wheel (barefaced, shameless partiality!), but ten pounds yearly for every horse. And these two taxes alone would nearly supply as much as is now given for leave to poison His Majesty's liege subjects.

5. How can the price of beef and mutton be reduced? By increasing the breed of sheep and horned cattle. And this would be increased sevenfold if the price of horses was reduced, which it surely would be half in half by the method above mentioned.

6. How can the price of pork and poultry be reduced? First, by letting no farms of above an hundred pounds a year. Secondly, by repressing luxury, either by example, by laws, or both.

7. How may the price of land be reduced? By all the methods above named, all which tend to lessen the expense of housekeeping; but especially the last, restraining luxury, which is the grand source of poverty.

8. How may the taxes be reduced? By discharging half the national debt, and so saving at least two millions a year.

How this can be done the wisdom of the great council of the land can best determine.--I am, sir,

Your humble servant.

Diversity

This morning I was listening to Glenn Beck talk about Martin Luther King day and diversity. He raised an interesting point that I believe directly applies to the church regarding diversity.

Glenn's comment was that we spend so much time on what makes us diverse that we are beginning to neglect that which unifies us. That is true in the church and society.

How many of us have proof texts to advocate for the reasons why "our way" is the "true way" of doing whatever it is we are discussing. Whether it is theology, worship style or whatever it is that makes up the 30,000+ denominations in Christianity, we spend an awful lot of time and energy focusing on our differences.

Naive Dreamer moment coming.

What if we took that same time and energy and devoted it to that which unifies us? What if we looked for points of common intersection and chose to work on those? What if we stopped bad-mouthing those not like us and congratulated them for being in the faith?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the church Jesus was looking to establish was more like what I have suggested than what we have today. I may be wrong, and feel free to correct me, but that is my hunch.

Stuffing the Dog

What a mental image that is. Not that we are thinking of it in light of the previous posts about our dog's health issues. Rather, it is about our tendency to hang onto that which has passed. Instead of burying the dead, we tend to try to hang on to it, like Frank in the Hotel New Hampshire. He stuffed the family dog in an attack position as a Christmas gift. The law of unintended consequences causes a grandparent to open a closet, the stuffed canine to fall, and the grandparent to die of a heart attack. Lesson here - bury the dead or bad things happen.

Check out this article on this subject. Too often in the church we hang on to programs and services that have had their day and need to be buried. I'm not going to go into the holy wars over service types and times. But numbers and interest do not lie. If the people have walked away, bury it, hold a service and move on. Put your energy among the living and energetic. Jesus didn't spend his time converting Pharisees and Saducees. He went where there was potential and interest. He didn't go to the field of dry bones, he went to the living. And we should do no less.