Monday, March 30, 2009

Flooding in North Dakota: From the Frontlines

A cousin of mine works at North Dakota State where major flooding has been happening. He sent an email and I thought you would appreciate it.

As many of you may or may not have heard, Fargo, ND is in the midst of record flooding. The last major flood was in 1997 and this one is going to be about 2 ft. higher than that. Many folks have been evacuated and the city is basically shut down so all who are able can help sandbag neighborhoods and existing dikes. All schools and universities have been shut down so the students can help sandbag. It has been amazing to see the community band together to help each other out during this disaster.

. . . my boss here at North Dakota State . . . built a 5 ft. tall sandbag dike around his house but today had to leave by boat because the dike was failing. . . .

As for where I live, we should be high enough but have taken precautions by sandbagging around the house. In the next couple of days, the house will become an island and we will have to wade through knee high water to get in and out of the neighborhood. I have been busy this whole week helping sandbag around my neighborhood and in other various places around Fargo. I have been able to work side by side with the guys that are involved in my Bible study which has been a good bonding experience and a time to share the love of Christ with those around us.

I have been amazed at the power of water and that it won't stop until it gets to where it's going. Which makes me more in awe of the power of Christ to rebuke the wind and the waves by the power of His words. Please pray that Christ name would be lifted up during this flood and that many would come to know the love of God in Christ Jesus.

Psalm 46:1-3, 10-11 1
God is our refuge and strength,
a very present help in trouble.

Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
though its waters roar and foam,
though the mountains tremble at its swelling.

"Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!"
The LORD of hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Looks like...

Last Friday I heard that I look like Jesus 14 times. Monday, 9 times. Tuesday 7 times. If I'm not told that I look like Jesus here are the others popular recent comments.

A Hippie

David Grohl

Dr. Jack Hodgins

I'm sure this is creating a serious identity crisis in my life. Beyond making me narcissistic or paranoid I'm bound to develop a Messianic complex, drive a VW van, think I'm a decent musician, and pursue the stage.

If nothing it gives me some good stories to tell but I think it also reveals a lot about first impressions and preconceived notions. I'll drum that out later...

Right on Target

I have a handful of posts that are short and nothing more than random thoughts. They took me about one minute each to write so here's the first one.

Why is it every time that I go to Target I see attractive girls. I don't understand this but the Target next to us seems to be "the place," for young females to shop in Lombard. Nothing more I want to say but after observing this numerous time I thought I would share it for the benefit of my guy friends (and to compliment those women)

Wednesday, March 25, 2009


Sunday morning my sister and I decided to take her son to the playground at the school behind their apartment—through the woods down a little asphalt path.

There are hills everywhere in the Mississippi valley. We descended through the trees, then ascended the steep hill toward the school. To the left across the parking lot was the playground, but it was fenced in so we had to circumnavigate the school to get there. We turned right.

Out in front of us another, much smaller playground came into view. My nephew was running along the sidewalk. Like planets my sister and I were orbiting the school, but he veered off in a straight line through the grass toward this playground. It had its own field of gravity.

My sister called out to him by name, "We're going this way, to the BIGGER playground."

With kids, you should say everything with exaggerated inflection. Making everything sound more exciting will convince them they want it. Even if they don’t know what you’re saying, the way you say it will communicate the meaning. Earlier, after he had made a mess with the Play Dough (okay, I helped), it was time to put it back. If you say "HURRAY!" loudly and with a sense of joy as you put each thing back in its place, kids are more likely to help clean up. In summary, celebrate everything.

This was how my sister had said it. "There's a BIGGER playground. Don't you want to go to the bigger playground?" (Also, repeat key words.)

To no avail. My nephew saw a slide (6 ft long, yellow), a bridge, and, well, that was all it took. He was climbing the steps by the time we reached the playground. We trailed behind, anxious to return to our mission.

We stood watching him, uninvolved we were. He seemed quite content though, inviting us to "Come inside" and play with him. Finally my sister snagged him, scooped him into her arms, and hauled him back toward the school, toward bigger and better things.

"I feel like there's a spiritual truth in here somewhere," she said with her son on her hip.

"I know," I laughed. "I was thinking the same thing."

As we continued around the building, back on our flight path, that spiritual truth seemed unambiguous to us: We satisfy ourselves with less when God would like to give us more. If only we would keep on course.

Now, though, as I sit here writing it, another truth springs on me. In our metaphor, my sister and I had likened ourselves to God, leading the child toward greater blessings—the more abundant life. It was the obvious lesson to both of us.

But what if we learned from the child instead of teaching him? In that light, there was a different lesson: We could be content with less, even if there is more we could strive for.

So which is it? Are we blind to the better blessings God would give? Or is contentment available with lesser things?

Sometimes God is repeating key words and communicating in a clear tone. There’s something BIGGER. Stop living for less. “Why should you die, O people of Israel? I don’t want you to die, says the Sovereign LORD. Turn back and live.”

And sometimes God is saying that we need to stay put and find contentment there. “If we have enough food and clothing, let us be content.”

God refuses to be cornered by one conclusion over the other. He's not predictable like that.

Was my nephew foolish for being happy with less? Or was my nephew showing us what Jesus meant when he said that the Kingdom would be given to such as these: content, present, invested, not wanting? Jesus once told us to become like children.

As we orbited the school, we came to yet a third playground, this one even smaller than the first. Beyond it, obscured by a hill was the sprawling playground we were destined for.

My nephew was already headed for the steps on this new, smaller play set.

“Look!” I said, with excitement in my voice, pointing beyond the hill. “Do you see that playground?”

My nephew looked up. His eyes followed my gaze. He never looked back.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Wrestle with God

Heads up: this is a self-indulgent post about me. I do this normally when mulling over something and wanting to be known.

I'm looking forward to graduation. Seminary has been a place and time of confusion, change, growth, and humility. I have loved it but know it is time to move on. But the "moving on" part is what I am struggling with.

When I think about the coming year I have been hit with a profound sense of loss. I will loose out on those classes, close professor relationships, intentional spiritual formation, and learning with my classmates. any given week when I am not in school (during a break or summer) my life goes on like normal. And I love it.

Rachel told me once that she thinks I'm one of the most balanced people she knows. Now that's probably a little inaccurate but I think it does speak some truth. I love my life and I love the bevy of connections and "things," I do in a given week.

Community dinner, Tuesday night at the pub, soccer games, Friday morning Bible study, church worship practice, small group, church house group, Sunday morning worship, Thursday prayer time. Not to metnion my great classes and place(s) of work.

What I take joy in the most is all of these people that color my life. They are amazing. Better yet, I live in an apartment complex with a bunch of my best friends and family members. I wouldn't trade this for anything, the chance to be surrounded by people I love. Unlike a lot of 20 somethings I'm actually quite content.

Although I'm content I am called elsewhere. My post-graduation plans will probably be delayed longer than originally thought (which is fine, because right now I am in no rush to move). But in my heart I know that I cannot stay here because God has called me somewhere else.

Where is that somewhere? I don't know. I'm still fighting and wrestling. Right now I'm looking east into the city. The scary part about that is two-fold.

First, it means the unknown. I have told God that I'm not going anywhere until he gives me people to go with. But I'm slowly realizing that might look a lot different than picking and choosing my friends to move with me.

Second, relocation means a period of mourning. It's never fun but it happens. If I get up and move towards the city everything changes. All those things I listed above will mostly disappear. The relationships will remain but they will drastically change. The "schedule," does disappear which requires adjustment.

Sure, moving means that I can find a new "church home." But I feel more and more led to help with a church start (missional, incarnational, intentional community, blah blah). Which means this "church home" doesn't exist yet! Further, I'm considering moving to a neighborhood in Chicago where I would be a major minority. In my life community has been the natural result of affinity (young adults, fellow soccer players, white people, seminary students, same church, common economic class, indie music lovers). So I am a bit daunted by finding community in a place where I have lack the quick levels of connection.

Looking over this post I realize it reads like a lament. But it isn't. It's more of a prayer. As P.T. Forsyth writes, "Prayer is wrestling with God." So I'm going to grapple and fight in that holy war. Eventually I'll loose and God's will be done. But I won't know that will if I don't cling to Him with my strength and weakness.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Malachi 3:6-18

“I am the LORD, and I do not change. That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already destroyed. Ever since the days of your ancestors, you have scorned my decrees and failed to obey them. Now return to me, and I will return to you,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.

“But you ask, ‘How can we return when we have never gone away?’

“Should people cheat God? Yet you have cheated me!

“But you ask, ‘What do you mean? When did we ever cheat you?’

“You have cheated me of the tithes and offerings due to me. You are under a curse, for your whole nation has been cheating me. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so there will be enough food in my Temple. If you do,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies, “I will open the windows of heaven for you. I will pour out a blessing so great you won’t have enough room to take it in! Try it! Put me to the test! Your crops will be abundant, for I will guard them from insects and disease.* Your grapes will not fall from the vine before they are ripe,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies. “Then all nations will call you blessed, for your land will be such a delight,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.

“You have said terrible things about me,” says the LORD.

“But you say, ‘What do you mean? What have we said against you?’

“You have said, ‘What’s the use of serving God? What have we gained by obeying his commands or by trying to show the LORD of Heaven’s Armies that we are sorry for our sins? From now on we will call the arrogant blessed. For those who do evil get rich, and those who dare God to punish them suffer no harm.’”

Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and always thought about the honor of his name.

“They will be my people,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies. “On the day when I act in judgment, they will be my own special treasure. I will spare them as a father spares an obedient child. Then you will again see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.”

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

10% of Karl Barth

A friend told me how amazing Word 2007's AutoSummarize feature is. I decided to try it out. I used my long post on Barth. I know some people don't have the patience long blog posts, so here's a merciful summary at 10% the original length. I didn't make any corrections to the summary. Word did pretty well.

My colleague responded this way, “Barth [pronounced “Bart” without the -th] was a liberal theologian who couldn’t explain man’s capacity for evil in two world wars.” Barth’s major purpose is to help us learn about and learn from 19th-century theology’s interaction with contemporary worldviews. He believes 19th-century theology was intent on being relevant to contemporary philosophy. Theology got caught in 19th-century philosophy’s whirlwind of change. Upon a secular foundation, theology attempted to build a sacred house. Barth is not endorsing a particular worldview though. Rather, he’s saying that all worldviews obscure Christian theology.

Nineteenth-century evangelical theology assumed that this was so” (23). When Barth gave this lecture in 1957, he said theology was still paying for its errors from the 19th century. Barth grasped this. “What if by talking about Christianity as a religion these theologians had already ceased to speak of Christianity…? In doing so, it is no longer Christian faith.

Barth was pointing us not to another man-made worldview. For me at least, 19th-century theology no longer held any future” (14).

Thursday, March 12, 2009

It's all a lie....I eat an apple a day and look what happened

I hate getting sick. After 5 sluggish days of fighting through work and school I got K.O. last night. This morning it felt like I gargled a cup full of pebbles. So I had to call in sick ("Hi it's Mike, can you get a sub for the sub?)

So I decided to venture to the Walgreens Take Care Clinic. I have insurance but it is that kind of insurance that only covers you in the event you get thrown into a trash compactor or an airplane engine falls on you.

The Clinic wasn't bad but I paid $60 to find out what I knew already; I'm sick. The doc showed me some drugs in the Walgreens that were locked behind a glass door, so I suppose I feel like I was a priveleged consumer. She reasoned that I could be good to go tomorrow but ony time would tell. I did find out that my blood pressure is 120ish/70ish (is that good?). My heart rate is 60 (the doctor seemed surprised, so I figure that's good).

The plus side of all this is that I'm getting time to work on my final papers for next week. The negative side is that I can't do jack. It's no secret that I like to be busy and make my life so. So I find humility in illness. But there is also a period of solitude as my future continues to take shape.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Stem Cells - You've got options

With stem cell research back in the news, I'm reposting this, which I posted elsewhere a few years back. Please forgive the tone. Back then, no one read my blog. I know, things haven't changed that much...


Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York, anonymously donated $100 Million to Johns Hopkins University, according to an insider speaking on the condition of anonymity. (Anonymity must be the in thing right now, except that no one abides by it. So who spilled the beans? Apparently there's no reason we shouldn't know.)

Part of his donation is going to fund stem cell research, a controversial medical field that many Republicans are against. The Democrats are standardly liberal and progressive, so they'll run with anything mostly. But it does divide the Republicans. Senator Bill Frist has dissented from the President on this policy. President Bush has limited embryonic stem cell research to some 70 or so current lines. (I don't know what that means really.)

But what you aren't being told is this: there are 5 types of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are the most famous and controversial because they destroy life in the process of research. Second, are fetal stem cells, taken from aborted children's eventual genitalia, also requiring death. Both of these are controversial for ethical reasons; many believe that it is wrong to destroy babies and potential lives while others simply argue that it opens the door to decisions that will be unethical down the road. But there are 3 types of stem cells that are perfectly acceptable for either objector. Adult stem cells have been isolated from bone marrow, brains, breasts, lungs, teeth, and other parts, posing no threat to any life. Umbilical cord stems cells and placenta stem cells are also available for research, and these are thrown out after birth but could be used for advancing stem cell research.

Now the one advantage embryonic stem cells have over others is their potential to become any type of stem cell, like seeds you could plant and grow any type of tree. However, these stem cells have failed to turn potential into product, into any medically beneficial results. They are supported based on potential not actual results. (This article never states embryonic stem cells have anything more than a potential, but criticizes marrow stem cells, which have, for not being able to differentiate. He says that embyonic stem cells "do" differentiate, but it's more accurate to say they "do in the process of forming a baby, but we haven't made them do that effectively yet." A perfect example of bias reporting by limiting the information.)

On the other hand, adult stem cell research has already produced results leading to cures for previously incurable diseases. Plus, they can be taken from the individual needing the medical help, and using theirs means it's an identical DNA match. Adult stem cells are no more difficult to harvest and require less sacrifice and indeed more choice for the person choosing to supply them. And we're all about choosing our own destiny right?

Why don't they tell us this? I have no idea. The ideological connections between embryonic stem cell research and abortion could be made. Using medically-driven arguments to justify aborting babies becomes a noble cause in the minds of some. But there really isn't much logical justification for it when adult stem cells are producing the results that embryos are only promising.

And, just like ensuring Michael Bloomberg's anonymity, that's a promise we can't trust.

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Heavy Hitters: Karl Barth on the Christian Faith and Contemporary Worldviews

Karl Barth may be a name you’ve heard in the past, but my guess is you know very little about him. I think I can sum up in about 3 sentences what I know. The first thing I figured out about him was that he was “neo-Orthodox.” I didn’t really know what that meant so I asked a really smart colleague of mine, “I get the sense” I said, “that conservatives think Barth’s to liberal, but liberals think he’s too conservative, so where do he fall?” My colleague responded this way, “Barth [pronounced “Bart” without the -th] was a liberal theologian who couldn’t explain man’s capacity for evil in two world wars.” This was an immensely helpful answer to me.* Liberal theologians generally affirm the innate goodness of men, denying original sin. Barth couldn’t rationally uphold this position from the things he witnessed. The third thing I learned was what the book in my hands tells me: He’s “generally regarded as the greatest Protestant thinker of modern times.”

These limited references to Barth interested me in his thought. I read part of his Evangelical Theology, but none of it made much sense. I listened to a lecture on his view of the Ten Commandments and had trouble articulating even his metaphors. Fortunately I recently picked up a shorter (96 pgs) book of three lectures called The Humanity of God that I’d bought at a local used book fair. I found it much more digestible.

Of the 3 lectures in the book, I most appreciated, “Evangelical Theology in the 19th Century”—though all three are worthwhile. In it Barth reviews just what the title indicates, but he goes beyond a review to help us learn from it and to point us toward worthwhile pursuits. Thus, here I’d like to highlight some of his points and comment on them.

Barth’s major purpose is to help us learn about and learn from 19th-century theology’s interaction with contemporary worldviews. He believes 19th-century theology was intent on being relevant to contemporary philosophy. It wanted to hang out with the cool crowd. But these intentions displaced theology’s primary tasks. Barth writes, “openness to the world meant that through the open windows and doors came so much stimulation for thought and discussion that there was hardly time or love or zeal left for the task to be accomplished within the house itself” (19). Theology got caught in 19th-century philosophy’s whirlwind of change. So much so that theology failed to maintain its heading and instead discoursed into other worthwhile but peripheral concerns.

Why? Barth believes part of the reason was that “Nineteenth-century theology ascribed normative character to the ideas of its environment” (19). In other words, theologians became convinced that it had to live by the rules that modern philosophy had constructed. Yet, as Barth will point out, these very rules undermined theology’s work, values, and worldview.

Instead, Barth believes that theology would do well to stay focused, maintaining its own—if parallel—course, abiding by its own rules, content with its own direction, and less concerned with being relevant to the surrounding culture. In that way, it might be better suited to benefit its surroundings, indeed even prove more relevant. “…the most honest commerce with the world might best be assured when the theologians, unheeding the favors or disfavors of this world, confronted it with the results of theological research carried out for its own sake. It did not enter their minds that respectable dogmatics could be good apologetics.” (20). Indeed, self-centered theology would not only be more relevant but also be better suited to explain itself, to make its defense, to present its view. “Man in the 19th century might have taken the theologians more seriously if they themselves had not taken him so seriously” (20). Theology was like an insecure man, intent on winning the affection and respect of his peers.**

To its own detriment, theology became consumed with explaining itself, defending itself, and presenting its view within the framework of the 19th-century worldview. Upon a secular foundation, theology attempted to build a sacred house. It was using metric measurements to describe a building based on English units. “…openness to the world led necessarily to the specific assumption that theology could defend its own cause only within the framework of a total view of man, the universe, and God which could commend universal recognition….[and] speak from within one of the current philosophies and world views” (20).

More than that, Barth seems to be saying, theologians were trying to validate their English-measured building by using philosophy’s metric standards. In fact, they were so concerned with making the conversion from English to metric that they were no longer working on the house itself. “They set out to prove the possibility of faith in its relatedness to, and its conditioning by, the world views which were normative for their contemporaries and even for themselves.” (21) But how effective can this relating be? “Was it possible to win the ‘gentiles’ for the Christian cause by first accepting the ‘gentile’ point of view. . . ?” (23)

According to Barth’s review of the 19th century, metric standards grew outdated by their own users. It was replaced by a new system of measurement. This left behind the theologians who had concerned themselves with a clear conversion. They became irrelevant—the very thing they were trying to prevent by translating their theology into contemporary philosophical language. “The world views changed in the course of the century; but there were always theologians who went along, more or less convinced, if not enthusiastic, and who started the theological task afresh within the new framework” (21).

This was, in my mind, the most interesting point Barth made. All of his points about 19th-century theology seem true for us looking back on 20th-century theology (perhaps more so in the church than in academic theology though; I don’t know enough to say). But his words, just quoted, could be applied quite easily to our present shift from modernism to postmodernism. Many are attempting to uphold modernism only because they’ve worked so hard at translating their theology for that worldview. To give up modernism as lost is to start over with this translation. However, as Barth points out, others will start the theological task afresh, and with enthusiasm. Barth is not endorsing a particular worldview though. Rather, he’s saying that all worldviews obscure Christian theology.

Those who are pushing forward to bring theology to postmodernism are not crucifying the faith but seeking to recontextualize it, retranslate it.*** If this is true, modern theologians should not be demonizing postmodern ones but instead empowering them to rebuild, encouraging them even.

Still, some persist in defending, not the Christian faith, but the modern worldview that Christian faith has been adapted to so well. Yet, “Is there any proof that acceptance of a particular world view will make Christianity generally accessible or even possible? . . . . Nineteenth-century evangelical theology assumed that this was so” (23). If we do the same, we are doomed to repeat the history of the liberal theologians of the 19th century. Indeed, if we believe that translating the Christian faith, finally, into postmodern terms will be sufficient, we are doomed as well. Those who are on the cutting edge today in translating the Christian faith may tomorrow be holding us back from moving beyond postmodernism.

When Barth gave this lecture in 1957, he said theology was still paying for its errors from the 19th century. One hundred years of momentum is hard to shake. “Theology is still being penalized for accepting the Renaissance discovery that man was the measure of all things, including Christian things. On this ground the testimony of Christian faith, however honest, and however richly endowed with Biblical and Reformation recollections, could only exist like a fish out of water” (26). The Christian faith cannot breathe the air of modernity forever precisely because modernity is man-made. The Christian faith is not built for man-made systems, and it will always be a foreign agent within them.

Man-made systems must be transformed by God’s words to us, not the other way around. Barth grasped this. “What if by talking about Christianity as a religion these theologians had already ceased to speak of Christianity…? What if the only relevant way of speaking of Christianity was from within?” (30-31) No, indeed, Christianity is always a fish out of water. We must instead take the fish and find the water instead of trying to give the fish lungs to breathe. In doing so, it is no longer a fish. In doing so, it is no longer Christian faith.

Even if we believe we’ve found some universal truth relevant to the Christian faith, “Even granted the existence of man’s religious disposition, can the Christian faith be called one of its expressions, in other words a ‘religion’?” (23) To call Christianity a “religion” is to attribute to Christianity a meaning that is not valid, it is to taken our concept of “religion” and attach its meaning to Christianity. But Christianity cannot stand on the legs of “religion.” “Religion” cannot support it. Christianity cannot be measure by religion’s yardstick. Barth was pointing us not to another man-made worldview. He was pointing out that no man-made worldview would suffice. Instead we must go back repeatedly, stubbornly, redundantly, desperately to our Bibles and be shaped again by God’s molds and be fitted by his measurements.

* My colleague’s insight drew my attention to two of Barth’s own passages that confirmed this analysis. Barth spoke personally, saying, “…he who in 1933 may still have been spellbound by the theology of the 19th century was hopelessly condemned, save for a special intervention of grace, to bet on the wrong horse in regard to national socialism and during the clash between the Confessing Church and the German Christians who supported the new regime (Kirchenkampf). I mentioned these developments only as symptoms [of theology’s infatuation with contemporary thought]” (28).

“One day in August 1914 stands out in my personal memory as a black day. Ninety-three German intellectuals impressed public opinion by their proclamation in support of the way policy of Wilhelm II and his counselors. Among these intellectuals I discovered to my horror almost all my theological teachers whom I had greatly venerated. I suddenly realized that I could not any longer follow either their ethics and dogmatics or their understanding of the Bible and of history. For me at least, 19th-century theology no longer held any future” (14).

His analysis was indeed quite essential in helping me to grasp the crux of Barth’s theology because it pointed me to the source for it.

** We have a hard time imagining that being apart from our surroundings could indeed better prepare us to relate to our culture. Yet those who change culture are not those who are most like it.

*** It reminds me of Barth’s metaphor of the
aufhebung nature: continuity through discontinuity. That is, theology dies in modernism—discontinuing there—only to continue anew in postmodernism.

Monday, March 02, 2009

Come Together

I guess what I like about my Dad's e-mail is it sounds like the "older" generation has NOT (typo before) forgotten us.

I remember a conversation with my buddy John about 2 years ago. He said that our generation is really a bunch of orphans. So many have been abandoned by not only parents but by our elders. Think about the number of broken families and the way our culture has stratified us by age. Nursing homes, workplaces, schools, neighborhoods, are sectioned by age. Now even Facebook! I often hear students at the public schools groan because their parents have entered the Facebook world and now they want to be their friends! (Imagine that, your parent wants to be your friend on Facebook....derrr!) Worse, in the church we have discipleship (Sunday School) and alternative services that cater to specific age groups.

In the course of the past years some of the most valuable relationships in my life have been across generational divides. I actually seek and search for these relationships because the elder men and women have wisdom beyond my years. The guys I play soccer with on Thursday nights, my professors, the mentors at my church, my parents, my grandparents, all people who are so vital in forming me into Christ's church.

With my Dad's e-mail in mind it's refreshing to hear that we aren't just seeking an impossible possibility. I think there are steps to be made by both generations, it's just sad when we can't give up our tradition or humbly accept or limitations to enter the same space. Of all places, the church should be the place where the diversity in the body crosses generations.

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Generational Divide

This topic has been close to my heart during the past three years. Ironically my Dad sent me the following e-mail prompting this post.

hi Mike,

As you know, I'm not a blogger...but if you happen to be looking for an idea to run with, here's one. Recently I read an article that younger people under the age of 30 are creating new internet community connections because the fastest growing demographic on Facebook is the over 40 crowd. We have invaded your world. What is it that causes to insist on building these artificial walls? What is that refuses to believe that we can really connect across the generations? Is it fear, misunderstanding, stereotyping or a combination of several factors? And why is it that the church seems to tragically follow the culture instead of leading the culture in this vein? As I used to say, "just wondering......"

Steal it.....borrow it...use it...abuse it...or just forget it.

Love ya,

Daddio, a member of the over 40 crow d.