The Story of Charles and Andy Stanley (Re-posted)

I enjoyed this article. It referenced one of my favorite books, "Tale of Three Kings" by Gene Edwards.

The Story of Charles and Andy Stanley

What do you think?

chris

My final reflection on the election (Hooray!)

*Yesterday’s post cost me some cyber-friends, but I am not deterred from spewing my self-absorbed drivel throughout the interweb! (I still like the people who cyber-shunned me.)

My final reflection on the election (Hooray!)

Being FOR something or someone

is more powerful

than being AGAINST something or someone.

When it came right down to it…a majority of the voters were for President Obama. Despite all the numbers you could throw out there and the implications of those numbers (for example: higher taxes for 2012 at a rate of $1300-$6000 per household), people were for him. Conversely, voters were not for Romney.  He was a candidate by default, (much like McGovern who I supported or Dukakis, or Dole, or Kerry, or McCain.) In that situation you are doomed to failure.

When Jimmy Carter (who I supported although I couldn’t vote because I was 17) ran in 1980, people were fed-up with the Iranian situation (GO SEE ARGO.) But there was a candidate who showed actual leadership like we hadn’t seen since Kennedy. That was Ronald Reagan.  People were for him. When GHW Bush ran in 88, people were still really for Reagan, but in 1992 people figured out they really weren’t for Bush. They got behind the media darling, Bill Clinton.

I was never really for Romney, the man. He has been kind of a blank to me.  This idea of voting against a candidate or issue by voting for another candidate just doesn’t have legs with the masses.  It may have a local or regional affect, but spread to 100,000,000 voters, it doesn’t hold up.

People couldn’t be against Claire McCaskill by being for Todd Akin.

People couldn’t be against President Obama by being for Mitt Romney.

Hopefully they’ll be someone to be for in both parties in 4 years.

chris

My Personal Report: REMEMBER, THIS BLOG IS MY SELFISH-SELF ABSORBED-SELF-EXPRESSION OUTLET!

By the numbers:

As of today:

• 54 days until January 1^st, 2013 (the beginning of my 50^th year)
• 181 days until my 50^th Birthday
• 12 pounds I’ve lost since January 1 (boo)
• 0, number of physicals I’ve had
• 17,891 views of 500to50

My body (however) is pressing the issue of going to the Dr. because my left leg and hip are in such agony I am having a difficult time with my mobility.  I went to the Chiropractor multiple times a week from November of last year through May of this year without the lasting relief I was hoping for.

Dang,

The Single-Issue Voter: Abortion

500to50 is BACK!

Forgive me father, it has been 32 days since my last confession…or blog entry.

Election day!

I’m glad this part of the process is over. However, I have a feeling by the end of the night we will not have a clear winner (it is noon as I type this on my lunch-hour.)

Many of my friends are single-issue voters, that is, there is one position or issue that trumps all other issues or qualifications of a candidate that will cause them to either vote, or not-vote for a candidate. As a matter of fact, the candidate is irrelevant, only the issue.

Here are (in my circle of friends) the top two single-issue deal breakers being punted around on Facebook statuses:

1.)    Abortion

2.)    Same-Sex Marriage

Today I’m going to write about Abortion. Tomorrow I’ll write about Same-Sex Marriage.

Abortion (under the auspices of “Reproductive Rights”) has been the single-issue decider since Roe-V-Wade.  All a candidate has to do is state they are either “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice” and instantly a group is lined-up behind them and another group is lined-up against them.  I would hazard to say that many in both groups never even check on the rest of the candidates’ positions on anything else. “Why,” you ask? There is no reason to check any other position. The matter has been settled on the single-issue.

The “Pro-Choice” issue has bled into other issues as well, such as the requirements of health insurances, government agencies, even private hospitals and healthcare providers to provide contraceptives and abortions, often free of charge because it has been framed as a “right” by the proponents.

Sooooo…..Now not only does a candidate have to espouse a women’s right to choose an abortion (through all nine months of pregnancy and beyond), they have to also work towards free contraceptives and abortion services at every hospital, even faith-based or catholic hospitals to be “Pro Choice.”

It also strongly affects the “Pro-Life” voter as well and can cause some awkward moral predicaments.

Case in point: Todd Akin

Mr. Akins has made a series of telling statements about rape and women in general that wave some really-big red flags that he (at best) is highly insensitive to women and violence against women or (at worst) is an old-school chauvinist.

Yet he is staunchly “Pro-Life.”  He is more “Pro-Life” than most “Pro-Lifers.” That fact alone will force the single-issue voter to affirm and support him, and conversely, oppose the much maligned; Claire McCaskill.  It is a pickle.

It also strongly and awkwardly affects the “Pro-Choice” voter.

Everyone on the planet is against babies having the base of their skulls pried-open (without anesthetic) and their brains sucked out through a small tube until they are dead.  Everyone in the entire world is against that, yet, to be truly and fully “Pro-Choice” you must support abortion through nine months of pregnancy including “partial-birth” abortion.  The “Pro-Choice” voter must support those who support that act, including our current president.

So, what am I saying?  Our choice is between a man who believes some rape victims just “got what they deserved” and a woman who wants babies’ brains sucked out? …I am kind of saying that, yes.

I am like everyone else in the world…I don’t want either of those things or either of those people, yet I don’t have another practical choice. Sure, I could pick the libertarian candidate, write someone in, or abstain, but what would that do?

It is this kind of dilemma that causes my heart to cry, “Lord! Come quickly!”

Chris

(and “no” I’m not telling you if I voted for Todd Akin or Claire McCaskill)

I Don't Like Debates

146

I am not a fan of debates.  And I distrust all politicians. Therefore I get super frustrated on nights like last night.  I don’t believe anyone is going to be completely truthful, that they will spin any factoid in their favor, and will disparage their opponent at every turn with regard to the truth.

That being said…

I enjoyed a part of the debate last night and have pulled part of the transcript:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think — let's talk about taxes because I think it's instructive. Now, four years ago when I stood on this stage I said that I would cut taxes for middle-class families. And that's exactly what I did. We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600. And the reason is because I believe we do best when the middle class is doing well.

And by giving them those tax cuts, they had a little more money in their pocket and so maybe they can buy a new car. They are certainly in a better position to weather the extraordinary recession that we went through. They can buy a computer for their kid who's going off to college, which means they're spending more money, businesses have more customers, businesses make more profits and then hire more workers.

Now, Governor Romney's proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he's been asked a — over a hundred times how you would close those deductions and loopholes and he hasn't been able to identify them.

But I'm going to make an important point here, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: All right.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper income individuals can — are currently taking advantage of — if you take those all away — you don't come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending. And that's why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney's pledge of not reducing the deficit — or — or — or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families.

The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more. Now, that's not my analysis; that's the analysis of economists who have looked at this. And — and that kind of top — top-down economics, where folks at the top are doing well so the average person making 3 million bucks is getting a $250,000 tax break while middle- class families are burdened further, that's not what I believe is a recipe for economic growth.

MR. LEHRER: All right. What is the difference?

MR. ROMNEY: Well —

MR. LEHRER: Let's just stay on taxes for —

MR. ROMNEY: But I — but I — right, right.

MR. LEHRER: OK. Yeah, just — let's just stay on taxes for a moment.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. Well, but — but —

MR. LEHRER: What is the difference?

MR. ROMNEY: — virtually every — virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate.

MR. LEHRER: All right, go —

MR. ROMNEY: So — so if — if the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds 5 trillion (dollars) if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I — I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it's a popular things to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. Look, I got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it — (scattered laughter) — but that — that is not the case, all right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

And number three, I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you're going to raise taxes by 3(,000 dollars) to $4,000 on — on middle-income families. There are all these studies out there.

But let's get to the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring down the rates down, at the same time lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth so we keep getting the revenue we need.

And you think, well, then why lower the rates? And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. Fifty-four percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people.

For me, this is about jobs

I kind of understood that. And I hope it’s the truth (you never can tell) and I like his analogy about his boys.

chris

The IFI Chronicles: National Public Radio

147

IFI got a lot of National and even International attention.  Prison Fellowship decided that when groups made requests to tour an IFI program, they decided to send them to IFI-IOWA.  Even National Public Radio decided to do a story about IFI.

A reporter and an audio technician showed up at the Newton Prison.  Sam Dye, Rod Brouwer (Aftercare Manager) a couple of inmates, and I walked around the prison with our two celebrities.

We showed Reporter-Gal and Sound-Guy the gym and health services.  We showed them the library and education.  We walked on the east side of the yard and showed them the Units A-D.  They looked at the weight yard and pickle ball and hairy-tattooed dudes in blue walking the track.  Then we headed to Unit E and Building M.

Reporter-Gal (who was doing the story) was very, very interested in questions concerning the TVs.  It was one of the first things she asked all of the inmates she encountered:

• DO YOU HAVE A TV?
• DO YOU MISS TV?
• HOW MUCH TV CAN YOU WATCH?
• IS THERE A TV IN YOUR ROOM?
• DOES YOUR ROOM MATE HAVE A TV?
• IS THERE A TV ON THE UNIT?
• IF YOU WERE ON THE TITANIC AND IT WAS SINKING AND YOU HAD A PUPPY IN ONE ARM AND A TV IN THE OTHER, WHICH ONE WOULD YOU SAVE AND WHICH ONE WOULD YOU SEND TO A FRIGID WATERY GRAVE?

During these kinds of visits I adopted a “speak when spoken to” attitude. The less I said the better.  So as we were shepherding around Reporter-Gal and Sound-Guy I had said nothing.  Finally Reporter-Gal and I had this interaction:

REPORTER-GAL: Well? How about you? Do you have a TV?

           

ME: Yes. Yes I do. (I couldn’t tell a lie.)

           

REPORTER-GAL: Ahhhhhhhhhhh….

           

SOUND-GUY: Leans in with microphone…

           

REPORTER-GAL: Do you watch it much?

           

ME: Not really.

           

SOUND-GUY: Leans in even closer with microphone…

           

ME: I really don’t have time to watch much TV.

           

REPORTER-GAL: Hmmmmmm…..

SAM DYE  to REPORTER-GAL: You realize he (me) is an IFI employee and not an inmate? Right?

REPORTER-GAL: Looks disappointed…

SOUND-GUY: Shuts of recording devise…

I did not make it on the NPR report.

chris

Looking for a Church

148

Once in Newton, we struggled to connect with a local Church.  We attended the local “Alliance” Church for the first couple of years.  The boys attended AWANAS each Wednesday, but Amy and I struggled to connect with the Church itself.  We met one couple who we remain friends with, but generally we were just too “Charismatic.”

We drove to the Vineyard Church in Des Moines for about a year.  We liked the “Vineyard way” and would have liked to be a part of a Vineyard Church in Newton, but in the end, it was too much to think about being part of a Church plant and be a part of IFI.

We had a “home-church” experience in our house for a year.  A few other families joined us Sunday evenings for prayer. It was fun and in some senses, rich, but again, it didn’t last.

Finally we attended the local Assembly of God Church.  We loved the Pastor and the Youth Group.  We also became close with the Wilson family and, of course, Meagan, Rana and Luke.  It became a home for us for a couple of years before our move to Kansas City.

I'm Spiritual. Not Religious. (a reposting)

Re-posted from CNN. That's right, CNN.

My Take On, "I'm Spiritual Not Religious" is a Cop Out