No "Post-Truth" on the Bike

This morning I read an editorial in the New York Times decrying the current post-truth political campaign. The writer was asserting that we have entered an era where candidates can simply make statements about other candidates or politicians that may have not connection to truth--without any real consequences. After all, it is the sound bite that makes the evening news or the headline in the newspaper that gets the attention; not the retraction several nights later or buried on page C-24.

One of things that I really like about biking is that it is an All-Truth zone. My heart rate monitor does not have a vested (or any) interest in whether I am happy with it or displeased--it reports the number of beats per minute. Period. The odometer doesn't add a mile here and there so that I will feel better about my workout. It records the distance that the wheel travels. Period. The clock doesn't say, "Let's just call it a full 90 minute workout" when it has only been 73. It tells the time. Period. The gears don't shift themselves because it seems like I might be working too hard. A 52/18 is what it is. Period.

Certainly I could record different numbers for my workouts than the HR monitor, or odometer, or clock actually show, but that would be me, not the devices. The devices tell it like it is. Period.

Sometimes I think that I might be surprised a bit when I see God face to face (understatement?). Sometimes I wonder whether I will mistake God's patience for tolerance, or His mercy for approval. I wonder if God might not be more like my bike devices in that He will, on that day, say "I told you how your life would be assessed, why are you now surprised? I told you what I wanted, did you think I was kidding?"

Yet, to make the message as clear and unmistakable as possible, God didn't just make proclamations and decrees, He came in person. In person. Himself. To make sure we wouldn't miss what He had to say to humanity.

How clearly am I hearing?
-Ken

Caroling? Not so much :-(

This past Sunday night was our 3rd annual Christmas caroling event in our neighborhood. For the past couple of years our small group from church, along with family, have gone out on a Sunday evening to spread Christmas cheer in our neighborhood. The response this year was markedly different--and I am perplexed.

Almost no one would open their door to listen--and in many cases we could see people inside who looked as if they were ignoring that fact that we were at their doorstep singing. We had no intention of imposing on people or interrupting their evening in a distasteful way, but in other years people have generally been happy to see and hear us. (And it wasn't even cold or windy.)

Maybe it was just bad timing. Maybe the Nutcracker jackets and hats (new this year) put people off. Maybe it just wasn't cold and snowy enough to put people in the mood. Or maybe people are feeling different about this Christmas season.

It is easy to see how the message of Christmas resonates in good times--when there is much to celebrate and more margin with which to give gifts and bless others. But does the embracing of Christmas depend on the state of the economy? Does it depend on a stable and hopeful political situation? I have to think not. At least it didn't seem to matter with the first Christmas.

Not only was the engagement (betrothal) period not working out quite like either Joseph or Mary had envisioned, but they probably hadn't budgeted for the trip to Bethlehem. "Doesn't Caesar understand that travel this time of year is expensive? When I am gone from Nazareth I am not working--how am I supposed to pay the taxes AND the travel expenses?"

Taxation in those days was even more oppressive than it sometimes feels today. The political situation was far worse than ours--Israel was occupied territory and was ruled by puppets of Rome. Not exactly rousing good times. And yet ...

Mary could sing, "My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior."
Joseph (the silent one) undoubtedly felt the joy of Mary's relief and the baby's safe arrival.
Shepherds were granted an audience with the King of the Universe.
Kings had to wait in line.
Simeon and Anna saw their hopes fulfilled and could die in peace.
The angels sang, "Peace on earth, goodwill to men."

I get the sense that these participants in the first Christmas were reading from a different script; singing a different song. The Romans were no less oppressive. The taxes no more manageable. But the lens through which they saw the world cast everything around them in a different light.

Some people deal with the apparent disconnect between God's promises and their experiences by projecting the promises into the future. "At least heaven will be different." And while I certainly believe that will be the case, I don't think that is the answer--it wasn't for Mary and Joseph and the Shepherds and the Kings and Angels. In Christlike, Bill Hull writes "the gospel of the kingdom not only promises life after earth, it also believes in life before death." Life before death--believing that "peace on earth and goodwill to men" is not just a hope for some different future. Believing that TODAY is the day that God has made for redemption and rejoicing. Believing that the baby Jesus; the God-Man; my Savior and Redeemer; our Rock, our Fortress, and our Strong Deliverer makes a real difference in the essence of TODAY, not just the quality of tomorrow.

Today, I will determine that MY soul will magnify the Lord. Because He has come and I worship and adore Him. Join with me?

Pressing On,
-Ken

Birth of Jesus and Blah, Blah, Blah

The other day I was talking with one of our local business owners and we we discussing our plans for the upcoming Christmas holiday. In the conversation he mentioned that his family no longer exchanges gifts (since they are all adults--is that supposed to matter?), but that they get together to "celebrate the birth of Jesus and blah, blah, blah." He was not giving voice to his inner Scrooge, or dismissive of Christmas, or negative toward Jesus, instead I got the sense that the blah, blah, blah was just that every year is pretty much like the one before.

Is there a materialistic crassness about the holiday being defined more by the deals on Black Friday than by the birth of the Christ? Certainly. But the tension with the commercialism of Christmas is not new. Perhaps a more potent danger that threatens to gut Christmas of its meaning is the perceived blah, blah, blah of Christmas.

Maybe it is that the story is so familiar. Most of us have heard the story since childhood (and we often hear it in Linus' Charlie Brown Christmas voice) and the story hasn't changed over the decades. Same story. Same characters. Same angels. Same Mary. Same Joseph. Same Wise Men. Same shepherds. Same baby Jesus in the manger. Same "Peace on Earth and Goodwill to Men."

What if?

What if this were a Christmas season when we each took time to reflect on what if? What if Mary had not believed Gabriel's message or had been unwilling to bear Jesus? What if Joseph has disregarded his angelic visit and had divorced Mary--as he had every right to do under the law at that time. What if Herod's efforts to execute the baby had been successful? What if God the Father had rethought the plan of sending the Son as the redeemer of the world? What if there had been no Christmas? What difference does Christmas make?

I am not necessarily suggesting that we engage in a "It's a Wonderful Life" review of how the world would be different without us. (We generally already spend way too much time thinking about our place in the world--or maybe that is just me.) Instead, I am going to take some time to reflect on how my world might be different had there not been Christmas. How would my world and life be different if God had remained distant and left me to my own devices? What would be different if I had no hope of present or future redemption? What if the only source of life direction was what I could figure out for myself? What if my only power for living was what I could muster within myself?

I am not seeking to simply look at how bleak life might be without Christ and Christmas, but instead to hopefully arrive at a new appreciation for the familiar Christmas event; Christmas story; and Christmas person. Here's to avoiding the blah, blah, blah.

Pressing On,
-Ken

Two-part Training

The winter months in Minnesota are not necessarily the best for outdoor cycling. But that doesn't mean that I will stop training and just sit on the couch until spring. I have my bike set up in a trainer in the basement and for the next several months any scenery will be in my imagination. I was reading an article about off season training the other day and it spoke of two ways in which the body works for cycling efficiency--the delivery of oxygen (via blood) to the muscles and the muscles ability to use the oxygen that gets delivered. One is a matter of blood volume and the other a matter of muscle efficiency. Not surprisingly, the same type of exercise will not increase both factors. But both factors will be crucial to increasing my cycling success next summer.

I need to increase the volume of blood that my heart can send to my muscles AND I need to increase the efficiency with which my muscles can process the blood that they receive. Apparently the volume-increasing effects of exercise cut off at about 60-65% of maximum heart rate. So riding any harder than that will not have a positive impact on increasing my heart's ability to deliver more blood to my muscles. What that means is that the best way to build heart capacity will be lots of miles at a relatively slow pace. Increasing the oxygen utilization by the muscles involves riding at a faster pace and heart rate so that they are trained to function more efficiently.

Both types of exercise are needed in order to increase both overall fitness and specific cycling-related efficiency. Yesterday I was also struck that this multiple approach training may be useful in other parts of life as well.

One of the most useful books I have read on the topic of personal holiness is Jerry Bridges', The Pursuit of Holiness. The first time I read Pursuit I remember being struck by the notion of my personal responsibility for making choices that lead to holiness and right living. The is one prong of training that is useful, but like cycling, another prong would be even better. This week I have been reading John Ortberg's, The Me I Want to Be. One statement that leapt off of the page was this, "Anytime I sin, I must remove any thought of the presence of God from my conscious awareness."

For some time my approach to dealing with temptation has been to try harder to do right, or to remind myself of Scripture that may apply to the situation, or to reflect on the downstream consequences of yielding to temptation. While those may have been more or less successful tools, the past day or so I have been asking, in the face of temptation, "Am I willing to knowingly deny the presence of God with me at this moment?"

The result has been surprising. Why would I ever want to deny the presence of God with me? What value could there be to not recalling that God is with me at all times? Not as a cosmic traffic cop or an accuser just waiting for me to choose wrongly, but as a loving Creator and Savior who, as part of His grand universal intention, has my eternal best interests in His mind.

I will be curious to see if the novelty of this approach wears off and diminishes its usefulness. But for now, it is good to have another tool in the pursuit-of-holiness toolbox. Perhaps it can enhance my life proficiency in the same way that I anticipate that building a winter training plan around both increasing blood volume delivery and increasing oxygen use efficiency will increase my cycling proficiency.

Pressing On,
-Ken

What I Recall Is Not Much Like What I See

Last week I had the occasion to ride my old mountain bike around town for a while. It didn't feel anything like I had remembered. The gearing is substantially different from my current road bike, the saddle hits me differently, and the shifters function in now unfamiliar ways. Riding the mountain bike brought back some distant memories of when I rode that bike all the time, but the old and new bikes bear relatively little functional resemblance to one another.

Listening to the radio and reading about our current political culture gives me a similar feeling. What happened to the America that I used to know? As I listen, read, and observe, it appears that our current political and social climate seems only vaguely familiar. When did we become a country of entitlement? Where hard work is punished and degraded and where people expect to receive something of value for no other reason than the fact that someone else has more? When did we become a country that would even take notice of protesters who are calling for punitive taxation of those who have accumulated wealth because, in the protesters' views, the wealthy don't need what they have? We have always been a country that valued philanthropy, but "forced philanthropy" is nothing less than stealing.

Have the protesters considered the rational and logical extension of their calls for taxation reform? For those who are students, would they favor the school administrators taking a portion of their 3.8 GPA and redistributing those grade points to someone with a 2.7--just because a 3.8 is higher? In 2002, it was reported that 3 billion people on this planet live on less than $2.00 per day. Would the protesters be OK with most of their "wealth" being taken from them and sent to those 3 billion people? Would the protesters be happy with opening their homes to the homeless in their cities--under government compulsion--just because some people have no place to call home, or have sufficient, but smaller homes?

It is easy to gain support for the notion of "taxing the rich" because "the rich" are always someone else. The rich or the elites or the _________ (fill in your favorite target) are always someone distant and different. They are never our friends, or our family members, or ourselves. But have the current "Occupy" protesters considered that to someone else, they are the rich or the elite or some other target?

Instead of the current political and social focus on taking from those who have in order to redistribute to those who do not have, why not look at creating opportunities for those who do not have to improve their lot in life? Rather than the focus on taking from others, why not focus on improving ourselves? Taking someone else's wealth is not a long term solution to anyone's poverty (or the fact that someone else may have more than me).

Don't get me wrong, I am all for compassion and generosity. I believe that these are virtues that support our American social compact. But forced compassion and generosity are neither compassionate nor generous.

Pressing on,
-Ken

P.S. As always, my views expressed in this blog are just that--my views. They do not necessarily represent the views of my firm, my clients, my friends, my church, or my family.