Tag: civility

What is the Flag?

· Leave a comment ·

DSC_0155To protest or not protest? An idol or not an idol? It seems the flag of our country is a debated item these days. The freedom of speech means we can protest. That phrase is often repeated. As is the often repeated statements of lament on issues of oppression. What then is the flag? I’ve debated this question in my mind for quite some time as a person who is frustrated with the situation in our country. The conclusion I’ve come to is the flag is us, you and me.

Oppressor or freedom fighter?
Those protesting the flag point to the oppression that has and is happening in our country. But they are not the only people under the flag. Our country almost wasn’t a country because of slavery. It was a bitter debate. State boundaries, underground rail road, a war, etc. demonstrate those who fought for America’s truest ideal: freedom. At a moment in history, other than the bible, people stated that people are free. Sadly, but not abnormally, it takes time for such a dramatic change to infiltrate all of society. Our country is incredibly young.

Idol or living gravestone?
The pushback on those defending the flag is the flag is an idol. For sure that is true for some, but I doubt it is the majority. Relatively few things should be consider so sacred we protect them. I consider the flag one of those things. For many the flag is a gravestone. For all our nations ills, and we have plenty, many have died for us. In over a decade of war, this aspect of the flag is all to real. Bashing the flag is akin to smashing gravestones.

Rights or civility?
The protesting of the flag is heralded as utilizing one’s rights. I questions whether it is the civil course of action to take. As one has a right to do something, it does not mean one should. Radical cultural transformation occurs when we lay down our rights. It happens when we radically serve and act civil. It happens when we find ways to communicate respectfully. Why? Because it is a lot easier to win friends or beneficiaries over to your cause than your enemies. Polarizing actions do just that. In regards to the flag, it’s hard to gain an audience you’re trying to influence by insulting them first.

Absent or present?
Our country already has forums to address grievances, and to work for better communities. The more I ask around the more I hear a consistent answer: no, they do not. My question is simply, do people show up and get involved in township meetings or city council meetings. I am asked why I don’t participate in protests. The issue is being present where it matters. More and more I’m becoming convinced that protesting is stupid if you really want change. Get involved and be present if you truly want change. History is made by those who show up. I’ve been to many meetings, and the chairs are often empty.

All have sinned…
Our country is new. As a student of history I’ve found one consistent pattern: Oppression, bigotry, and slavery is the norm throughout history. There is not an ancestral group that hasn’t been tyrannical to someone. And if a culture is found that has not, chances are they just never had the opportunity to. All cultures on all our inhabited continents have waged war, fought, and oppressed. It is the story of the human race. The grand exception is a moment in history men under oppression came to the conclusion that people are born free. As with you and me, seldom when we realize a truth do our whole lives and thinking match up to our ideals.

The bottom line:
The flag is us. We are not a perfect country nor did we start out perfect. We did start with a profound truth: People are to be free. This foundational principle created a massive struggle on what a free society looks like. It created the struggle on what it means that all are born free. As a young nation we have yet to live out fully our ideal of freedom. It does not mean that ideal is void or that freedom was only a buzz word. When we disrespect the flag we really disrespect ourselves. We may have the right to protest it, but our noblest sensibilities should dictate we shouldn’t. Our ideal is to be one nation where all are born free. Such an ideal stands against the tides of human history and propensity. For as one stands in protest of the flag because of oppression, remember that given the opportunity you and your ancestors would oppress as well, and have done so. The flag is us, our struggle and our highest ideal.

Church would be better if people thought like and agreed with me!

· Leave a comment ·

Coffee-LoveI finally found the solution to ALL the church’s problems! For sure this will be a chapter in my up and coming book “Humility and how I achieved it.” Oh wait! I do have a chapter about that! Let me be frank, cause I love you. Church has a big y’all don’t agree with me issue. Here is what I mean:

Be a cheerleader
That’s right. Start off by trying to encourage people not be a critic. (Yeah, some of you preacher boys should just stop reading right now and focus on this part.) We all have too many critics but not enough cheerleaders. My critics practically killed me! Cheerleading is a choice.

Be loving
There is nothing more comfortable than being around a loving person. That person may even point out where you’re wrong, like a loving mommy saying “you’re not wearing that are you!?” while baking you epic chocolate chip cookies. Seriously, love comforts. Don’t pour gas on a bad situation. Bring about peace and comfort. That’s what I do.

Be a team
You live as a team or you die as a team. Period. Work together. I do believe the Spirit is readily available to help with this. After all, if we don’t row together alike a team… Work it out and be a team. Easy to do when the above is true! So, get in line and be like me!

Be Loyal
We have affection and and sympathy for people we are loyal to. An we even do that for friends of our friends. So, care about the people I care about.

Be one
Here is what it comes down to: You need to have the same mind and love as me. Really. Church would be so much better this way. Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that this whole thing is be in arrogant. “Oh course everything in church would be better if we thought like you, duh!” “You’re just thinking of yourself! What about diversity all?” My response? You’re just thinking about you. In fact, you think church would be better if people were one with you and not me.

Why I’m right and you should be like me
I could have had the good life, but I didn’t. I sacrificed and worked hard just like you do. But, I did it for you and not myself. I put up with a lot. And frankly, it killed me. You humiliated me and being in this job I got blamed for things I didn’t even do. But hear me out. There is a day coming when everyone will agree that I am right and people should be like me. Mark my words: everyone.

The bottom line:
This chapter is called Philippians Chapter Two. My brother Paul wrote it for me. (If y’all think like and agree with him you’ll be well on your way to being like me.) Humility is the KEY! So, what church to be better? Be humble like me. It’s the only thing that work.

Love you all!
~Jesus

Social Media, Politics & The Gospel

· Leave a comment ·

IMG_1746Speaking the truth in love is a conversation, it isn’t a statement. To separate social media, politics and the Gospel is counter productive. Life isn’t a group of separate boxes. Life is a unified whole where one area does affect another. As Christians we often use the phrase ‘speaking the truth in love,’ but we often fail to realize that is a conversation, not just making an uncomfortable statement for the benefit of another.

The social media dance
There are three groups in relation to social media, politics and the Gospel. 1)The why can’t we get along group. 2)The politics (left, right or libertarian) over the Gospel group. 3)The drop politics and only focus on the Gospel group. The dance is about trying to figure out the right balance or being naive about things beyond our focus. The danger is we see the three things as separate things.

Social Media
The first group is most vocal when there is an online ‘war.’ They’re the ones who say the online war turns people off from the church, social media isn’t the place for the discussion, etc. The problem is this group often says the same thing in private conversations too. Avoidance of conflict does not bring about peace. It sacrifices love and truth.

Politics
We the people in order to form a more perfect union have to talk. Again, speaking the truth in love is a conversation. Avoiding politics because we don’t like it hinders forming a more perfect union. How do we expect to act civil with something we don’t converse about and how are we to hold our leaders accountable if there is no conversation? We can blame our leaders, but they’re a reflection of us. Maybe many avoid politics because it forces us to look in the mirror and think. (Obnoxious political posts not withstanding.) Groups that often put politics over the Gospel forget love.

The Gospel
The Gospel should permeate ALL our life. It’s not just about getting into heaven and listening to Christian music. Truth AND love are essential. As Christians we should be prayerful, respectful and speak truth. Politics should not be about loyalty to a party, but bringing truth to bear. Justice, mercy and humility are three essentials often missing in our political discourse. To avoid politics to keep a focus on the Gospel removes influence towards peace. Love, truth and respect are needed in political discourse. After all, much of what Jesus taught should affect our political viewpoint.

The bottom line:
We need to get back to speaking the truth in love as a conversation. We shouldn’t hide from speaking to the larger issues our society is struggling with because the Bible has answers and speaks to the soul of each person. To the first group, choose courage. To the second group, tone it down and pursue truth over party. To the last group, show how the Gospel sheds light onto the challenging issues of our day.

The cost of losing our integrity

· Leave a comment ·

Two shifts have occurred in our culture from walking away from morality and objective truth towards moral ambiguity and relativism. 1) We’ve lost our integrity. 2) We’ve insulated ourselves from accountability. In our culture’s quest to be more nuanced and evolved, we’ve created an irresponsible and uncivil environment.

Lack of integrity erodes trust
Fundamental to all scandals of late is violation of trust. People are angered by government surveillance because they’ve seen violation of trust by the IRS. We’ve seen through many institutions: churches, schools, colleges, government, families, etc. a downplay of integrity and an abuse of trust. Lack of trust builds antagonism and erodes civility as culture becomes polarized and reactionary. We are angered by such violations, but why?

Moral relativism erodes accountability
Relativism means we can’t tell someone they are wrong. This further propels us to avoid conflict. Conflict has grand potential of telling someone they’re wrong. Then, once trust is violated, we become angry. Not at what was morally wrong, but at the trust violated. Is integrity more important than trust, perhaps. What we’re seeing now that a lack of morality also equates to a lack of trust. How did this erosion gain so much momentum?

We destroyed accountability with irresponsibility
We the people. We the problem. We don’t trust government because we don’t trust one another. By not being able to declare rights in wrongs; from that avoiding conflict, and from that removing consequences as much a possible, we undermined responsibility. In the name of compassion (which is a good thing) we sacrificed responsibility. Part of this erosion is not understanding how our government and society works. This is not the fault of public education. We the people. We the problem. We created the mess that we’re in.

Yes, we’re depraved
Some in ministry circles push to downplay total depravity, often citing it’s overuse. Some outright deny the doctrine. Until we admit and see the problem, we cannot work towards a solution. While the ultimate solution is the Gospel, there is also a need for civility. God ordained government for a reason. One aspect that is profound about our government is an underlaying understanding of depravity.

The past wasn’t so bad
We view history often as inauthentic because of glaring errors or sins. We sense disillusionment. There are two problems with this. First, we’re no better and our sense of disillusionment is just another form of the judgmentalism we deride and often do. Second, in times past one’s accomplishments were viewed more highly than their faults. We see this at today’s funerals. The integrity, humility and civility of times past allowed one’s accomplishments to outshine their faults. This is a lost art today. In reading from the men of old they did not view themselves as flawless. They were keenly aware of their faults. But, unlike today, they had a framework to deal with that.

The bottom line:
A man of honor is a man of integrity. We need to get back to this basic. In thinking we are more enlightened than times past we’re so much worse than times past as well. We need to get back to declaring right and wrong, to upholding human responsibility. We need to get back to man’s word being everything. We need to get back to three pillars George Washington talked about: education, morality and religion.

Civility, freedom and Christian discourse

· Leave a comment ·

After the ‘feast of chickens’ I’m seeing much discussion on whether the church should have engaged in the activity. One statement I read on the matter said this: “What if all those people took a day to serve in soup kitchens instead.” The statement has merit, but it misses something as well. Silence is not always king.

Civility
There is a grave lack of civility in our culture. It is completely civil to state one’s beliefs in a matter that is humble and gracious. Current rhetoric about most matters in our country lack civility. To express one’s view of marriage being one man with one women for a lifetime does not mean one is automatically homophobic and discriminatory. On the flip side, one being homosexual doesn’t mean God gave up on them and immediately sentenced them to Hell. God saves all people.

Freedom
Baptists in Virginia strongly pushed for freedom of religion. The reason: many Baptist preachers were thrown into prison for preaching without a license. From this the first amendment was born. The founders also viewed the importance of religion to speak to the conscience of a society, while at the same time understanding the state should not run the ‘church.’ This lead the amendment’s specific wording. The intent of the amendment was to prevent exactly what certain mayors did.

Christian discourse
While the Gospel is first and central, we must also faithfully teach and uphold God’s Word. Culture does not decide what is sin or not, the Bible does. Yes, the act of homosexuality is a sin. That does not make the church homophobic. Jesus saves all, desires to redeem all, and will make all things new. Homosexuals are welcome to church. Why? We’re all broken. It’s not if we struggle with sin, rather it’s what sin do we struggle with? Truth and love must be tied together, and in the Gospel they are.

The bottom line:
If I had the opportunity, I’d bought chicken too. Freedom is too precious to let people trample on it. A line was crossed that should have never been crossed. I agree with the statement above, what if we all served in soup kitchens. But, I also believe a stance for freedom is vital. Both are important. So, church, let’s do both. We must keep the Gospel first and central. Standing for a biblical view of marriage doesn’t mean we hate homosexuals. (If because of this you do, you need to repent and have the same attitude as Jesus.) Standing for a biblical view of marriage means we strive to live according to God’s plan. There is a difference.

Civility is a marathon and we’re out of breath

· Leave a comment ·

On January 6th I wrote a blog piece on the need for civility: https://twoznek.com/2011/01/06/a-return-to-civility/ . It is my desire for my boyz to live in a world were ideas are discussed with proper respect and not vitriol. Given the shootings that occurred in Tuscon, AZ soon after the blog post I wrote this: https://twoznek.com/2011/01/11/civility-civility-where-art-thou/ . Civility isn’t easy. I appreciated the way President Obama put it when addressing those hurting in AZ:

“We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country, and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American dream to future generations.”
~ President Obama.

Failing the Tea Party and the Unions
Statements by public officials and other leaders regarding the Tea Party are the furthest from the concept of what civil discourse is. Note: I am not defending, promoting the Tea Party, nor am I criticizing them in this post. The vitriol within statements regarding the Tea Party pales in comparison of the rhetoric that was scolded soon after the Tuscon shooting.  The rhetoric against the Tea Party is bigoted, caustic and beneath contempt for those holding office. It serves no greater purpose than feed hostilities. For those making such statements to promote or protect unions, it ultimately fails for it gives up the high ground

Beyond party
We see the lack of civility in both parties. President Obama wisely stated “If [the Tuscon shooting] tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.” Sadly we are currently failing in the area of civility. This isn’t a right vs left problem, it is a lack of discernment and wisdom by all of us. We the people are the problem.

The bottom line:
We need to catch our breath n the marathon that is civility. It is time for our leaders to reflect on the rhetoric they are using. They should exemplify civility. We the people should be careful with what we desire. Civility doesn’t mean being emotionless. It does mean we should accord even those we cannot stand proper respect whether deserved or not.

Book Review: Onward by Howard Schultz

· Leave a comment ·

 “Starbucks never set out to be cool. We set out to be relevant!” p. 159

Starbucks always fascinated me. I picked up a book “The Starbucks Experience” and read about the amazing organization. Starbucks produces the perfect cup of what I call liquid love. I found Starbucks stores around the area did not follow what was written in the book. This took place at the start of Onward’s story. Onward is an excellent book on leadership. It offers a transformational plan of hope that doesn’t forget the human side of things.

The perfect cup
The book talks about the romance of coffee. While this may not seem to have anything to do with leadership, as you read you’ll see it has everything to do with it. For Starbucks coffee is the main thing. It is easy for organizations to get off the main thing. I picked the book up at Starbucks. As I read I found myself sipping my grande vanilla latte triple shot with whip cream, day dreaming about my first cup of Starbucks. In the business of life I forgot how much I enjoyed coffee. Organizations can forget the romance of what they’re about.

Growth can distract
One key thing I discovered is rapid growth can knock you off the main thing. Growth becomes the objective and not your core. Growth is a good thing. It’s key to many organizations. When growth dominates losing the main thing is very quick and subtle. I became stuck on good coffee after a month of drinking nothing but Starbucks. Coffee went from a drink to an experience. When I got back home, I put in the ‘current brand’ of I used at the time. I took a sip. I spat it out and visited my first Starbucks store. When an organization loses what’s core, it’s not palatable.

The right tools
A proverb my Grandpa often said: “If you want the job done right you need to give people the right tools.” Starbuck’s rapid growth masked a venti sized whole… infrastructure. The discussion on equipping people with the right tools and supporting the team was critical to Starbucks turn around. Infrastructure and the right tools places a foundation to sustain growth.

“The volume and duration of our partners’ jubilation exceeded anything we had heard or seen that day, providing proof of just how desperately our managers needed better resources and how hungry they were to do a better job.” p. 206

Humanity
The most refreshing thing about Onward is something so vitally missing from our culture: humanity. Howard Schultz should be commended for running a business that does not forget humanity over profit, humanity over difficult decisions and humanity over what’s best for each store. This stood out most in the discussion on why Starbucks offers healthcare to even part time employees. Howard’s love for his dad was evident. Never forget where you came from. It would be a different world if organizations helped people didn’t just use them.

The Abstract
Abstract aspects that detail number cruncher types cannot wrap their minds around came up often. I’m not criticizing these types of people, they’re important. It is difficult to lead the ‘numbers types’ when you’re a dreamer. Onward will help you greatly in navigating this challenge in building your team and organization.

The bottom line:
Onward by Howard Schultz is a must read leadership book. It combines all the essential elements for leadership. It also offers hope. Even when an organization loses its way, it can turn around and get back on target. And, in that turn around it, organizations can embrace humanity in the process.

Don’t try to be clever…

· 1 Comment ·

A retired pastor gave me this advice: Don’t try to be clever, you can make things worse and people won’t hear what you are saying. This post is part confessional. When you’re involved in teaching, communication and writing you crave being unique. Given our culture, cleverness seems more a vice than a helpful tactic. I’m not saying cleverness is wrong. I am saying the tactic is overplayed. What I’m writing is easier said than done.

Delivery vs substance: Democracy in America (Published 1835-1840)
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America about his observations and predictions of America. One key prediction as I read is book was this: Soon the appearance or things will be more important than the quality of things. This prediction has very much come true. The vice of cleverness is the appearance vs substance. In the end substance endures. Cleverness, once figured out, carries potential to be dismissed.

Action vs silence: The Pensées (Published 1600’s)
Blaise Pascal wrote The Pensees near the end of his life and did not complete it. We often think of his wager, but the central focus of his apologetic was silence from distraction. Pascal endeavored to bring people to the point of silence where they would be forced to listen to their soul and deal with aspects of life that one would rather avoid. We fear solitary confinement for this reason, he states. In America, our greatest fear is being bored, for in boredom we are forced to think and listen. Our thirst from cleverness comes from this.

Complexity vs simplicity: The Scewtape Letters (Published 1942)
C. S. Lewis described in The Screwtape Letters that distraction and complexity is one of  the best tools and tactics against people. My wife brought this up to me as we discussed the protection from leaving and acting with simplicity. This theme is prevalent throughout church history and too often is ignored. Business is the vaccine against intimacy. Cleverness often takes what can be simple and makes it overtly complex.

Captivating vs seriousness: First Corinthians (Published 1st century)
Saint Paul in First Corinthians juxtaposed man’s wisdom vs God’s. Paul’s focus was to speak the Gospel with clarity. He was not defending being uneducated. Things of a serious nature are best spoken with absolute clarity, leaving as little room for misinterpretation. Clarity sometimes is quite complex, as in the book of Romans, or simple an in the letter to Philemon. Cleverness distracts one to the speaker instead of engaging one in the message.

Fleeting vs steadfast: A friend (Still being written)
Harold H. Comings delights me with his wit. Is wit a form of cleverness? Yes. What surprises me about my friend and others who have wit-ability, is they mastered the art of substance, silence, simplicity and seriousness. The foundation of these things lend itself to being witty, and the discernment on how to engage in proper discourse.  The question of discernment is this: How can I say something in a way that it will withstand the test of time? Cleverness often focuses on the now at the cost of life down the road.

The bottom line:
Focus on substance, silence, simplicity, seriousness and steadfastness. These will carry you to the finish-line. You do not need to be a salesmen or a showman to be an excellent communicator. Enduring works and messages contain most of these elements. If God graced you with the abilities of cleverness, humor, charm or the ability to be poetic- use it to glorify God. But, don’t try to be these things and let us not make them the standard of good vs bad discourse. Perhaps conflict in public discourse would be more civil  if we ceased trying to be clever. This would allow us to listen to and hear each other.

Civil Discourse, Conflict and Social Media

· 1 Comment ·

Civil discourse does not mean the lack of confrontation, and social media brings a new avenue it. Quite a few social media stints caught my attention. The most recent was discussion about a book coming out by Pastor Rob Bell. He is not the point of this post, but the discussion did instigate this post.

Social media is public discourse
While some may disagree with this, it is true: Social media is a public face. One reality we are facing is many people do not know how to engage well in public discourse. The quip “Politics will be getting very interesting in the next 20 years because of social media” carries my point well. A good rule of thumb on social media is this: What do I want my public face to look like?

Conflict can bring clarity or collision
You cannot avoid conflict, and that is true within social media as well. Disagreements exist and there are times when public disagreement is proper and times when such is not. At the founding of our country there was vehement debate on our constitution. The book “The Federalist Papers” resulted from the collections of articles from the debate. It is wise to engage in conflict with the goal of clarity. Such is prudent, helpful and benefits all. Engaging in conflict to win or gain one’s own rights is often foolish and brings collision.

Civil discourse can be spirited
Civil discourse focuses on courtesy and politeness regardless of emotion. Civil discourse does not mean one is dull or trite. One can be quite spirited in their discourse and be polite as well. Third person is often used to support objectivity. It lacks poignancy or cheer of first or second person and is quite dry. Given our culture’s tendency towards rash speech, a little dryness may be in order, or we can chose to be polite in our discussions. Be polite. Be gracious. If you cannot, do not engage in public discourse.

The social media variable
The variable that social media brings to civil discourse, especially on conflict, is speed. This is known as trending or going viral. The problem with going viral is people often do not ‘listen’(read) and speak past each other. Discussion quickly turns to raw emotion and a mess ensues. Regarding discourse, often in the form of reposting articles, keep this in mind:

A posted article or a retweet without comment can mean many things from agreement to disagreement, from seriously!? to interesting. A reposting of something with comment also means many things from gained context, topic, or one’s view. If an article goes viral it doesn’t mean people agree with that post. Sometimes it can mean shock, anger, humor, etc. When something goes viral its best to listen more carefully and exercise far more discernment.

Christianity and social media
We should not be afraid of disagreement or conflict. Christianity is damaged more by trying to look and be perfect than being real. Silliness in public discourse comes when civility is dropped. We are family and we will disagree. Part of disagreement is resolution. In the meantime there may be fear as how the conflict will end is unknown. Such fear should not cause us to avoid conflict, even if it goes public. It is part of being authentic.

Remember that the heroes in the Bible were not perfect and their flaws are quite public. We preach about them, discuss them and even debate them. Our lives, just as those in Scripture, are open books. Social media makes this a greater reality. But, acting like there is nothing wrong is just another form of hypocrisy. Grace, wisdom and discernment should govern our public discourse. At the same time we shouldn’t be afraid when our debates become public. It’s part of ‘iron sharpening iron.’ The Gospel moved forward despite the very public mistakes of our heroes in the faith.

The bottom line:
Be civil in public discourse, especially in times of conflict. Remember that social media moves rapidly. In all things we should exercise grace, wisdom and discernment. If you cannot do that, say nothing ‘for even a fool is considered wise when he is silent.’

For Christians, do not be afraid when conflict goes public. The growth and promotion of the Gospel rests in God. We will make mistakes, but those mistakes are covered by the cross. Remember, the same man who shamed the cause of Christ also became the focus of a beautiful story of reconciliation, he gave the first sermon of the Church, was publicly rebuked, and died a hero. His name is Peter.

Manic Monday: Death by adjectival hyperbole

· Leave a comment ·

Whispers are heard loudest in a world of shouting. In reflecting on how we speak, I noticed, for whatever reason, our over use of adjectives and hyperbole. In a world of increasing virtual experience, reality needs to get back in vogue. A good number of us, me included are guilty of death by adjectival hyperbole.

Let it be what it is
The best descriptions are honest and clear ones. Describe something for what it is. Conferences often use death by adjectival hyperbole. The nature of selling things is to describe it well. In such, we do things by ascribing radiant, epic, great and awesome adjectives on what may be just normal. There are times when grand adjectives are proper, and hyperbole prudent. All the time or nearly every time is not such a time. Describe things as they are.

Let history be the judge
Death by adjectival hyperbole is a vain attempt to preëmpt history. At a men’s conference I attended the MC stated: “We’re about to continue with some great and wonderful music…” It wasn’t. A few years later I attended a back woods church hymn sing. The musical quality of the group was lacking. However, it was the most profound worship experience I had. People who had little to nothing, no musical talent gathered to worship their most precious relationship, God. History judges by the substance of things.

Lets be who we are
Let your greatest adjective be you. In history, seldom is greatness manufactured or sought. Gettysburg was epic and a mistake. The Boeing 747 was a result of past failure and basically a hail Mary for the company. The Battle of Bastogne was epic, where men did their job despite being overwhelmed and under supplied. Flight 93 was epic. Grandiose adjectives are best used for grandiose events. The substance and character of a person is found, forged and displayed in adversity. An unknown person or event often influences people to do what is epic. Focus on developing who you are and being a blessing to those around you. This is how great epics form.

Musical interlude, an analogy
We live in a world of ‘shouting.’ Alan Bloom in “Closing of the American Mind,” discusses his issues with rock music. Historically, great victories and religious celebrations were the place for the style and energy of rock music. In essence he thought younger generations were celebrating when there is no victory or substance to celebrate. He was not arguing against rock music, rather demonstrating what he viewed as its proper place. Like Ecclesiastes states, there is a time and place for everything.

The bottom line:
Whispers are heard loudest in a world of shouting. When everyone shouts the virtue of shouting is ignored. Our culture is increasingly asking and trying to discern what is real. The buzz words of genuine or authenticity show this point as well. Shouting is a metaphor for death by adjectival hyperbole. We can be colorful and enticing while still being accurate.

Perhaps now more than any other there is a need for more precise speech. Given our capacity for creativity, we can be precise without being droll, boring or bland. In working on developing who we are perhaps God, in his timing, will allow us to form something Epic.

(especially on Monday)