It's a boy

So, Nicole and I found out that we're having a boy today!

  

Married in the Eyes of God

Church today was about love, but the first verse that the speaker quoted was the 2nd 1/2 of Genesis 3:6 - "...she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." (NIV) and it caught my attention for an almost unrelated reason. By the way, "she" in this verse is Eve and the "husband" is Adam.  

Recently, because my wife and I were not married by a pastor but an ordinary man who was licensed to perform civil marriages, there is a person who has told us that although they're happy for us, they don't believe that we are married in the eyes of God. My first reaction to such a claim is that it is ridiculous. 

But, what if I'm wrong? What if that person is right and my wife and I aren't "living right" in God's eyes (even though we're trying to save up $10,000 for a real wedding by Sept. 18, 2010)?  

Well, the reason Gen. 3:6 caught my attention on this subject is because Adam was referred to as Eve's husband. That struck me as odd. In society today (and for many many many years) a marriage was performed. It is usually performed by a pastor (historically it is performed by a religious figure of some sort), but there was (as far back as we know) someone who pronounced the two "married". But, here...who was there to marry Adam and Eve? The Bible certainly does not mention anywhere of Adam being pronounced Eve's husband or visa versa. So, I decided to look up the words "marriage", "married", "bride", and "bridegroom" in the Bible and see what I found:

1. Genesis 2:24 - "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and *be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." *"be joined" is literally translated "cling". This verse was listed as the definition of marriage in the concordance of my Bible.
2. Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:6-8 - Jesus quotes Gen. 2:24 when He was asked if divorce was permissible in God's eyes, then continues to say, "what God has joined together, let not man separate."
3. Ephesians 5:31 - Here Paul quotes Gen 2:24 as the definition of marriage while addressing issues of divorce and husbands and wives submitting to each other.

And there were quite a few other verses that came up when searching for "bride", "bridegroom", "marriage", and "married" but none of them had anything to do with the definition of marriage. They were all talking about marriage and sexual immorality, etc. But, not in this context - usually in the context of homosexuality or adultery/fornication.  

But...the lack of any supplementary definitions of marriage besides Gen 2:24 actually answers the question of ceremony or not, or pastor or non-religious figure. My answer is now confirmed that it is NOT necessary to be married by a priest to be married in the eyes of God. Further, it is now my opinion that a ceremony isn't necessary at all, either. There are some who, based on Gen. 2:24 believe that all that is necessary for two people to be married "in God's eyes" is for them to have sexual intercourse and be living together. I don't agree with this either. I believe that where Gen 2:24 says that a man will be joined or cling to his wife, and they will become one flesh it is, of course referring to sex, but I also think it is talking about the life long commitment the two make too each other. Just like today how there are two parts to a legally binding contract:

1. The most obvious part - the written: the wording of the contract, written down on paper, with the signatures of everyone involved, etc.
2. The less obvious part - a meeting of the minds: all parties involved in a contract MUST all have the same intellectual understanding of the contract being signed. If any of it is unclear or one party interprets the contract one way and the other party another way, the contract is not legally binding. Think about it: it can't be.

So a marriage, I believe, has two parts:

1. The physical and/or sexual joining of a man and woman (notice I did not say man and man or woman and woman. According to Gen 2:24, marriage is between a man and woman, and according to Leviticus 20:13 homosexuality is an abomination - but also notice that Jesus, in the New Testament does not condemn the homosexual, but the homosexuality itself...not the person, but the action...very important)
2. The mutual understanding of the two involved in the marriage that they are married and committed to a life-long joining of their lives, making what was separate into one.

Much to my relief, I am able to say with confidence that not only are Nicole and I married by law and emotionally, we are also married in the eyes of God based on His definition of marriage. Not that I had any doubt, to be honest.

How DO We Build a Relationship With God, Anyway?

John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” 

So, I read the study note (because I have always loved this verse in the Bible. It rings in my mind like music in my ears) and the study note says that based on the context of the word “with” in the original language this verse was written in, this verse indicates a “face-to-face relationship”. Meaning the Word was equal to God and personified. 

[And here it is…drumroll, please….] The Word is a Person  

So I looked up the cross-referenced verses:

1.       Col. 1:17 – “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”
                 a.       “He” refers to Jesus
                 b.      Note that this is written in the present but refers to the past… He is before all                                  things

2.       1 John 1:1-2 – “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have handled, concerning the Word of life – the life was [here is a sort of definition of what the “Word of life was/is] manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us”

a.       So this is another reference to the Word as a proper noun – as a person

b.      1 John 1:1-4 study note – “…these verses emphasize the personal experience of the apostles with the incarnate Word. – [underlines and emphasis added by me in all cases]

c.       So, a personal experience; the incarnate Word – the Word is a Person and in context here, also refers to Jesus

3.       John 1:14 – “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

a.       In the proper context of the original language, you can replace the word “became” before flesh with the phrase “took on”.

b.      The Person (or Being) of the Word (which, by the way is full of grace and truth) took to Himself physical flesh and became human in appearance – so, His regular/normal/natural appearance, if you will, is not that of a human?

4.       Rev. 19:13 – “He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called ‘The Word of God’. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses.”

a.       [side note: notice how heaven is never a proper noun in the Bible…is heaven really a place?]

b.      He = Jesus = The Word of God = God

c.       And who, but a King or Prince, do armies follow on horse-back as like in this image?

 There were other verses my Bible cross-referenced, but the above were the most pertinent.

So this helps guide me to an answer to a question that has bugged me for a long time: How do we really develop a relationship with God through Jesus? It’s an answer that everyone uses but I’ve never truly understood. But now it makes sense in a deep and meaningful way: You develop a relationship with God through Jesus by spending time with the Word – not the word, but the Word, if that makes sense. And the Word has two parts – the written: the Bible; and the “Spoken”: that which the Holy Spirit reveals to you/your heart in prayer.

 And He was there from before there was nothing – before nothing existed He was there with God and He is God.

  

First time since February

Today, Nicole and I went to church together. It was, I think, the first time I've been to church since going with Nicole to Shoreline (in Monterey, CA). I just realized how similar the name of the church we went to today is to Shorline: Seacoast.

It is an interesting church. You can tell, almost right away that they differentiate themselves from other churches just by going to their website - Seacoast - because instead of calling the churches they have in different cities churches, they call them "campuses". They seem to have a focus on community service - which I like - and overseas missions - which I've always wanted to get into, but could never pull the money together. 

And, even though there were only about 50 to 60 people in the second Sunday morning service (2nd of 2), I would not call this a small church. Because - and this is what made this church the most unique to me - all of the Seacoast campuses seem to be connected under one pastor. Each campus has it's own pastor (Pastor Larry Maio in Columbia) to do some preaching, counseling, praying, administration stuff, etc., but it is the senior pastor, Pastor Greg Surratt located in Mt. Pleasant, SC, who delivers the Sunday message/sermon (whichever you prefer to call it) via video. I am guessing that he is in the church he planted in Mt. Pleasant and we are watching him on a large movie theater sized screen in Columbia. 

I felt that it might seem a little less personal (not being able to interact with the senior pastor if you wanted/needed to), but at the same time, I could feel a larger sense of unity. It might be the begining of one solution to so much separation within the Church in America. There are too many churches and not enough Church going on. But, I am still not 100% sure how I feel about it, but my first impression is that it's a good thing.

So today, Pastor Greg talked about God the "Father". Nicole and I obviously jumped into the middle of a somewhat on-going miniseries in Isaiah. But, the pastor talked about how Isaiah described God as being the "Everlasting Father" (Is. 9:6-7). The message was based on the thought that we view God in His role as Father based on our relationship with and how we view our earthly fathers. He described 4 mostly negative and 1 positive fathering style/category that most fathers fall into and how most people view God and their relationship with and to Him based on which category their father fell under. 

But, I didn't like the wording of the translation used for one of the verses in the sermon - I think it was The Living Bible (TLB) translation of Is. 49:15: 

"Can a mother forget her little child and not have a love for her own son? Yet even if that should be, I will not forget you." (emphasis mine)

But, the New King James Version (NKJV) makes a better contrast, I think:

"Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you." (emphasis mine)

I think the wording/translation of a verse is very important, because even though these two translations seem so close together, they give a slightly different feeling about the power and reality of God's permanence in the lives of His children. The TLB says that a mother may or may not forget her own children but doesn't drive it home as well or make it as poignant as the NKJV when it says that even a mother will surely forget her own children. To us that is an unthinkable thing for a mother to abandon or forsake her children, but the Bible says that mothers will forsake their children, but God will never forsake you. 

But, this sermon didn't tell me something about my dad that I didn't already know - my dad, of the given categories, definitely falls into the 1 positive one. But the sermon did 2 other things:

1. Reminded me that even though I've put God on the back burner, He hasn't put me on the back burner or forgotten about me, and
2. God spoke to me through this sermon about parenting. I was thinking about my dad, and writing a note on the "sermon notes" page they put in the little church flyer thing that my dad has been a good dad. But, the word that actually came to mind was "Steward". My dad has been a good steward. Being a parent (as Nicole and I are about to be learning first-hand) is - besides the notion of having your own kids - to be a steward of His kids. Children truely are a blessing, and in reality they are just on loan. One day they are going to go home, and in what condition has mostly to do with how we, as parents, steward what God has blessed us with. It is our responsability, and our honor to be good stewards of that which God has trusted us with. 

How Much Did Mary Know?

I heard a song on the radio this morning on my way to work that asked the question: “Mary did you know…?” Did she know that Jesus would walk on water, make the blind see, or do any of the other miracles that He did? And the end of the song asked if Mary knew that the baby she would deliver would soon deliver her [from sin and death]. This isn’t the first time I had heard this song, it was just the first time the song made me ask myself, “What did Mary know about Jesus before He was born?” 

So, here is a list of what the Bible says Mary and Joseph were told about Jesus…here is what they did know for sure:

1.            Mathew 1:20-23
   

a.       Joseph knew that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and that He “will save His people from their sins.” – So, Joseph knew He would be the Savior

b.      Joseph was told Jesus’ birth was to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 of a virgin giving birth and calling Him “God is with us” or “Immanuel”

1.          Luke 1:28-38
   

a.       Mary was told she would give birth to a Son (with a capitol “S” in my Bible – NKJV), and what to name Him: Jesus (v.31)

b.      She was told He would be “great”, and that He’d be called the “Son of God”. (v. 32)

c.       She was told that Jesus would inherit David’s throne and His rule would last forever – So, Mary knew He was to be King (v. 32-33)

d.      She was told that it was God who did this with/to/through her (v. 35)

e.      Mary knew that Jesus was/is the “Holy One” and “Son of God” (v. 35)

So it is apparent that Mary and Joseph knew that Jesus was God’s Son and not theirs, and that He was to save “His people” from sin, and that He was to be King. But, it is not apparent that they knew how He would save His people from sin, or of the miracles He would perform.

  

 

Why don't we see more of this?

I got the following from a website my mom sent me: The Web Urbanist

"Finally, some sinks that aim to prove that electronic technology has a place next to running water. The dazzling and ambitious Brandt Aion is a garden that washes your dishes. Open it up and use the cooking and draining surfaces, and when you are ready, shut it down and an automatic dish washing cycle will start (digitally indicated on the front of the unit), using vegetable soap that is created by the plants in the lid. Meanwhile, those same plants help scrub the air in your kitchen. Truly ahead of its time."

image via: Antoine LeBrun)

The Globetrotter

"Can you imagine driving a ultra-lightweight, solar-powered plastic car? If designer Harsha Ravi has his way, the lean, green Globetrotter car will be the future of transportation. Winning him the coveted Young Designer of the Year Award, Ravi’s car design for 2017 is independent of fossil fuels, packed with eco-friendly technologies, and cuts back the weight and bulk of today’s gas guzzlers. His design employs a carbon-neutral, bioplastic body that is 12% petroleum-based and 88% corn-based, which cuts manufacturing energy by 30%. And there’s more: a zinc-air fuel cell, a nano-paper battery, airless tires, nanopaints to absorb solar energy while parked to charge its batteries, and woven seat material. The Globetrotter is, indeed, the ultimate “tread lightly” automobile for the environment-savvy consumer." - Inhabit.com

Find more at the weburbanist

  

Charleston

Send your own ElfYourself eCards

Grrr...

I am going to apologize ahead of time. I'm frustrated...well, angry, to be honest. Let me tell you why.

My wife and I got married 11 months ago. In that 11 months, she spent all of January in Egypt, and between April and now, she has been in Mississippi, and I've been...in Texas and Georgia.

So, the Air Force has this policy - at least on paper, they have this policy - of being the best military branch for keeping families together, especially families with both of the people in the military (it's called "mil to mil"). It's this wonderful concept called "Joint Spouse". What Joint Spouse means is that if there is a mil to mil marriage the Air Force will do everything in it's power to keep the two married people stationed together. There's even paperwork we fill out to let the Air Force know that it is our preference to be stationed together no matter what.

So, the flip side of this, and the caveat is that the "needs of the Air Force" always come first. Meaning, if the two people in the marriage have different jobs within the Air Force (or even if they have the same job) but there isn't a spot for both of them to be together at an Air Force base, then they won't be stationed together. Meaning, they like to tell us that they will try to put us together, but they don't really have to if they don't want to.

But, it is actually in the Air Force's best interests to put a married couple together, because then there is this thing that the Air Force is required to pay us - it's called Family Separation Pay (FSP). FSP isn't a whole lot - like $200-$250 or so but you realize when you're in the military that if it were but $0.01, the military would do everything they can to not pay you. But, I am sure you can imagine that $250 is a big chunk of change to be paying to the hundreds, or thousands of separated couples in the military (mind you, the military is required to pay FSP to every married couple even if one of the couple is a civilian). So, you can imagine that stationing mil to mil couples together is in their best interest.

So, Nicole and I have been recieving FSP since May of this year. And, common sense would say that the purpose of FSP is to cover the increased living/communications expenses involved in not being stationed together - higher phone bills, help you save up for plane tickets if need be, etc. So, just to make sure, when I arrived on station to my current duty station, I asked my finance department just to make sure that Nicole and I would continue to recieve FSP. Well, I was told that unless we are physically stationed together at the same base then we qualify for FSP and that cannot be considered a joint spouse assignment. 

Well, Nicole just recieved her orders to Shaw AFB, SC, which is about 2 hours away from where I work. In order for her and me to live together and be able to afford it, we had to find an apartment as close to the middle of each of our duty stations as possible. So, we live an hour and fifteen minutes away from my work and fourty-five minutes away from hers. We are not stationed together at the same place, but her orders say that this is a joint spouse assignment. How rediculous is that!

What do the people who are in charge of our orders and finance do all day? If I decided to rant about how finance has screwed up my and most of my peers' finance, that would take another 2 blog entries, so I won't, but these people are NOT on the ball. They mess things up that should never have been touched, and now...now they are going to try and tell us that we aren't entitled separation pay? How do they justify that? 

I can hear them say, "Well, it's considered a joint spouse assignment because you are stationed within 2 hours of each other."

So, are you gonna try and tell me that because we are within two hours of each other, we don't have increased expenses so that we can live together? I still have to fill up my gas tank every other day...not every week, not every other week, but every other day. Before gas prices started to drop that equated to about $1,200/mo in gas. And right now it equates to about $500/mo. Not to mention the increased frequency of oil changes and vehicle maintinance. Not only the financial aspect, but how about time lost? That is about 3 hours that I spend just driving every work day. 

I am starting to try and get into the habit of annotating my schedule on Micorsoft Outlook Calendar, and I was looking at one 24 hour period (from midnight to midnight) on a day that I work, and here it is broken down into how many hours I do what:

• Work: 9 hours
  
• Driving home: 1 hour 15 min
• Sleep: 8 hours
• Getting up, feeding the fish, eating breakfast, making myself lunch and dinner for work, check email, bills, etc., get dressed and ready for work: 1 hour 30 min
• Drive to work: 1 hour 15 min
• Work: 3 hours

So, if we add this all up, it means I have 1.5 hours of free time every day (and this schedule doesn't necessarily take into account if I have to do PT or have any extra duties at work). And they are going to try to tell me that we don't deserve FSP? What that says to me is that because we are within two hours of each other, our expenses shouldn't increase. We should be able to live as comfortably as a married couple who live and work in the same place as each other.

I imagine the conversations that I'll never have with the finance people about things like this. But, this is on top of a financial problem that the finance department compounds. When I got here, they stopped giving me money for buying food that every military member is entitled (it's called BAS - Basic Allowance for Sustinance). And now, they aren't giving me the sign on bonus I was promised as an incentive to join the military to begin with. 

Basically the message they are sending to me is, "We don't care about the sacrifices you make to make sure our men and women on the ground are safe." Or, "We don't respect

 you." You see, to me it is a matter of respect and principle. Out of respect for my country, the military (my employer), and myself, I show up to work every day on time. I have also, out of respect for my contract with the military, followed through with all of the requirements set before me, as outlined in my military contract, in order to recieve my sign-on bonus. So, why don't they have enough respect for me to pay me on time? I have been qualified to recieve my bonus since August 11, 2008 when I graduated my technical training. It is now November 21, 2008 and they have still not paid me. And now, they are trying to disqualify my wife and I from FSP. 

How would the AF feel if I just said, "Hey, you know what? It's not in my best interests to show up for work today. My wife needs my help with some things around the house. I'll be there tomorrow," and then just not show up tomorrow, and not even let them know I wasn't coming in. A) They'd be pissed I called in for no "good" reason to begin with, and B) If I didn't show up the second day with no phone call at all, I would be listed as Absent Without Leave (AWOL) and I might even be arrested for it, or demoted, put on extra duty, and maybe even forced to live in the barracks on post away from my family. Needless to say, there would be repurcussions. But, who holds the Air Force accountable for doing the exact same thing to us?

They told me that I would have my bonus within sixty days of arrival on station, and that my wife and I would recieve FSP even after we move in together because we are stationed separately. But, did I recieve my bonus on the sixty day mark? No. Did I receive a phone call telling me that I wouldn't have my bonus or why? No.

So, I called them on day sixty-two or so, and they said that they made note on my account that I haven't received it (mind you, other people who arrived on station weeks after me already received their's) and that I would have it fifteen days later. Well, I can count to fifteen. I may not be a genius, but I can count to fifteen, and was that money in my account? No. When I called them back, and asked them about it, what was their response? "Oh it just hasn't been approved yet" Well, no duh. I can see that. It isn't in my account and therefore must not have been approved yet. I got no further explanation, no estimate of when it would be done, only the assurance of the person I was talking to that she emailed the people who are supposed to approve these things.

These people are retards. And I mean that in the most litteral way - slow. I am so sick and tired of dealing with this kind of laziness, selfishness, and all-around stupidity. I mean, how am I supposed to have pride in my work, and "workplace spirit" if you will, if my workplace and employer has no respect for me or the circumstances that I'm in as a result of my employment for them. How am I expected to continue to fulfill my end of the contract if they won't fulfill their end? 

Okay...I'm done...I want so bad to say F the Air Force (meaning "Forget the AF," of course). But, what kind of integrity would that show? How would that make me the "bigger person" in this situation? It wouldn't. But, sometimes being the bigger person doesn't get you the results you want. But, integrity is integrity. We have integrity, not because the other guy has integrity, but because it's right. So, what is the right way to handle this? Well...the right thing to do is to keep showing up for work, keep doing the best job I can, and keep calling those sons of behauches until they put the money in my account they owe me, and get our paycheck information correct.

If you look at the AF Core values above: Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in all we do - I have no doubt that I believe in and live the core values of the AF more than the AF does. These people are hypocrites. Whatever...I'm done venting for this moment. But, I will never be done with believing that people ought to be treated with mutual respect by their employers, and by each other. 

Grrr...

Photographia

          More to come later...

New Surroundings

So, I moved into my and Nicole's new apartment a little over 2 weeks ago - 18 days to be exact-ish - but up to now, I have been too busy with my working/driving/sleeping/eating schedule to see what Columbia might have to offer. I was on googlemaps one night at work, and I saw that some members had uploaded pictures of Columbia, and lo and behold there were some tall buildings. Now, I'm not talking the Chrysler building or anything, but...it actually had a skyline.

So, last night, I was trying to keep myself awake to help me get used to my new work schedule (working nights, now) and I decided after a brief interlude at Walmart (yeah...they officially took out the hyphen in their name? What is that all about...new times new image, I guess) that I would go ahead and drive to downtown Columbia. I realized how good of an idea this was pretty much right away - no traffic. So, as I am last-minute deciding to make a right hand turn down a street that looks interesting from the far left lane, I'm not making anyone angry (namely the police). But, for real...it was actually a pretty cool experience. I definitely wish that A) Nicole was there and B) I had brought my camera, because some of those buildings lit up like they were were really cool to take in. There was one building that was pretty big. It reminded me of the style of architecture of the White House, but it was just all concrete and not white, and it was elevated pretty high (maybe like the Lincoln Memorial?). It was surrounded by manicured park-like walkways and statues. Being someone who hasn't spent a lot of time in big cities, it was a really cool building to see.

Oh, and one of my favorite things about old, historical cities are the churches. There were definitely 2 or 3 really cool churches - small, but big personality in their design with tall spires, and pointy roofs, etc. Usually I associate this kind of architecture with old catholic churches, but most of these were Lutheran.

Anyway, I was happy to note that there was going to be a Festival of the Trees here in a week or two, and the Nutcracker ballet is going to be in town, and there is a nice-looking (from the outside) art museum, a zoo, a really cool library (though, I'm not sure if it's a public library or not), and some really amazing homes.

I can't really describe too well how it felt - the weather was in the upper 30's or lower 40's, an ever so slight breeze, and the smell of winter - a crispness in the air. It just felt almost complete. The gaping hole of incompleteness was Nicole's absence. I know taht if she had been there, we would have stopped into the little IHOP situated on Assembly Street and gotten ourselves some hot apple cider, and then we would've been off, taking all kinds of long-exposure shots of the city at night, it's buildings, construction cranes, and oh! the cemetary - small, but historic...a really cool thing (the cemetary reminded me of the cemetary in Boston that's right downtown for all to walk by). She and I would have been out for at least 2 or 3 hours walking up and down streets, taking pictures of each other in and around the better-lit areas, and exploring.

I can't wait to go pick her up next week. She passed her final test. Actually, she and her lab partners did so well the day before the final test that she and her classmates didn't even have to take the final test. Their teacher just passed them because he could see without that test that they're ready. It's exciting...and I am waiting in anticipation to go get her and bring her home.

Compassion

"My eyes fail with tears, my heart is troubled; my bile is poured out on the ground because of the destruction of the daughter of my people, because the children and the infants faint in the streets of the city." Lamentations 2:11

Jeremiah, the author of Lamentations, had been sent by God to speak to the Lord's people. God used Jeremiah to forewarn them of their captivity and temporary destruction. But, instead of saying, "I told you so," Jeremiah is crying for his people.

"Arise, cry out in the night, at the begining of the watches; pour out your heart like water before the face of the Lord. Lift your hands toward Him for the life of your young children, who faint from hunger at the head of every street." Lamentations 2:19

Jeremiah was broken-hearted and he pitited the people. But, he didn't lose sight of God. He maintained his cause and his message from God. He was begging his people, if for no other reason, for the sake of the little children to return to the Lord. The illustration of the people coming before the Lord and pouring out their hearts like water reminds me of one of those church services where a number of people are kneeling before the alter with their faces on the tear-stained floor. Some of the people are crying out for deliverance from whatever - themselves, some situation or circumstance - and some people are crying out because they just simply love God and trust Him.


Every person on the planet is a leader and a follower - both simultaniously. These verses in Jeremiah give a glimpse into the heart of a good leader. A good leader has compassion for those he is leading. Jeremiah was sent to give a hard message, and he gave it. He understood the purpose and the power of the message he was sent to give, but he hurt for his people to give that message. He saw the children starving in the streets...he saw the old ladies, or the young ladies in rags and poor. He saw the men without jobs. He saw the plight of his people and he cried.

What a lot of us do in the throws of compassion is tend to just try and comfort those we hurt for. We want to just hug them, shake their hand, or give them something to eat and tell them everything will be okay. But, that's not true, necessarily. A cup of soup, or a warm embrace, although might cause some of the pain to ebb for the moment, isn't the solution for the long term problem. It fills the belly for a moment, but fails to fill the soul.

But, you know...we can't fix people that don't want to be fixed. The begining of the solution to a problem is to lead people to a place where they want to fix themselves. Once they are at that point, they are leadable, teachable. And maybe we bring people to that place of wanting to change by showing them that compassion and grace. By making the attempt to fulfill their basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, healthy human interaction...love.

I started writing this block a long time ago (a year, maybe?) and since then, actually in just the past few nights, I've realized that for some people, all they have is hope. They have lost all of their material belongings and any ounce of pride or self-esteem along with it, and the only thing that keeps them going was the hope that someone planted in their soul by smiling at them, laughing or crying with them, or feeding them.

It takes courage to do what Jeremiah did. It hurts to see the people you love and care about hurt. It hurts to see those people make bad decisions because of the consequences they are bound to face. And sometimes it really isn't their fault, but some series of unfortunate events. But, as a people, who are we? What are we here for if not to lift our fellow man up? Why did we strive so hard to make America what it is? Sure there were a lot of political reasons, etc, but there was an idea, and a dream that we could live in a better place. Who are we? Why are we breathing day in and day out? Just to take up space? I feel like most of my life, that's all I've ever done, is just take up space. We can do better than that. And maybe...maybe it starts with compassion. And compassion starts with understanding. Understanding starts at humility. Let's be the people we were created to be. No one expects perfection - surely not God. But, God does want to at least see the attempt. I think He said in Proverbs, "I desire obedience more than sacrifice."

Obedience is not all about do's and don't's...it's about love. Compassion. Humanitarianism to put a secular word to it. Be the person God created you to be...be the seed of hope for someone. Laugh with someone who needs to smile, cry with someone who is in pain, encourage someone who needs a gentle push in the right direction.