Goodbye Santa Claus

I always knew the day would come. Another milestone has passed in my daughter's life.

People debate when to tell their kids about Santa Claus. I knew the time would present itself, and today was the day. This time when she asked, I didn't evade. I told her it was time to see behind the wrappings of the gift her mother and I had given her.

And I do believe it is a gift a parent can give to their child. There are few years when the veil between imagination and reality is so thin. Santa, reindeer, elves.... I think there is a singular opportunity for blissful joy which can rarely be captured outside of a wonderful fairy tale during those early years.

A love for Santa is a love of poetry, music, daydreams. It is warm cocoa and a blazing fire. It is snuggling under the covers to keep warm on a cold morning.

I told Kathryn her mother and I had given those stories to her during those years as a gift for her to enjoy. Now it is a gift we want to give to Jacob as well. Children are so excited to know things and they have a desire to let others know that they know. I encouraged Kathryn to not take that gift from anyone.

I loved watching the thrill on Kathryn's face when she and Jacob spoke to Santa at the North Pole over a webcam this year. I am grateful for the memories of my brother Matt dressing up as Santa for her and giving her a special Christmas Eve.

I believe in Santa Claus. I know someday when Kathryn has little ones beneath her Christmas tree, she will believe in him again too.

What must I do to be saved?

I have so many thoughts regarding this question that it is difficult for me to pick a place to start. Having grown up in Evangelical circles, I know the correct response to that question - "Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior".

Over the years however, I started to notice that that concept is rarely used in the Bible. There are a few scriptures here and there throughout the epistles where you could be led to believe that was it, but to maintain that belief I think you need to ignore or trivialize a fair amount of scripture.

I'll start here. John the Baptist said in Luke:
8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
9 The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."
10"What should we do then?" the crowd asked.
11 John answered, "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."
12 Tax collectors also came to be baptized. "Teacher," they asked, "what should we do?"
13"Don't collect any more than you are required to," he told
them.
14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely, be content with your pay."

First, John said EVERY tree that did not bear good fruit would be cut down. He did not say that a tree could bear bad fruit just so long as it had made sure to accept Jesus Christ as its personal Lord and Savior.

When the people asked, "What should we do?" he essentially replied, "Be generous, be honest, be content".

Was he lying? Did he forget to add "That is, do all that stuff until Jesus comes. After that, accept him as your personal Lord and Savior and then don't worry about anything beyond that".

I know some folks are reading this and mumbling as they leave the page, "I knew it, he's all works righteousness. Works, works, works, works, works!! We are saved by Grace!"

Try not to think either/or...... stay with me.

History repeats itself. The Jews had become very reliant on their ancestry to show that they had an in with God. So John was quick to squash that idea, telling them that God could raise up from stones children of Abraham.

I think John would say to us today : Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have accepted Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

I think, when it is glanced over quickly, people believe that John is advocating good works as a solution to being saved. However, I think it goes much deeper than that.

If I give to him who has none, if I take no more than what I need, if I tell the truth even when it does me ill, if I am to do all these things; what needs to happen to me?

I have to live outward, not inward. I have to think of the needs of others. I have to change my thinking and behavior and do that which does not always come natural.

Think about fruit bearing trees. Left to their own, they rarely bear good fruit. The best trees are fertilized, trimmed, pruned, picked, cultivated. They are not left to their own devices.

Isn't that what many Christians are aiming for with their annunciations of accepting Jesus? - Leave me alone! Save me from Hell, but leave me alone. I want to live for myself-keep those pruning shears away. Save me and bless me, but I will take care of the rest.

I think Jesus is offering us better than salvation from Hell. I think he offers salvation from ourselves. As Walter Brueggemann said at a conference, "I need salvation from being a $h!T"

I think one of the primary reasons the evangelical movement has so little effect outside of its own circles is that we have turned the cross of Christ into salvation from Hell rather than salvation from ourselves, our narcissism, our sin.

I run into so many people who know, deep down, that there is something afoul inside, but they don't know what to do about it. All the church has offered is,"Don't worry about the blackness in your soul, just accept Jesus and you can go to heaven!" And then we smugly shake our heads when they go looking for relief somewhere else.

I think our defining salvation in this way has led us astray from what God wants. I do believe in Grace. Like Eustace at the pool, only HE can dig deep enough. However, he will not do it without our consent. We have to truly desire to be free of the dragon skin.

Lewis said that, in the end, there will only be two kinds of people. Those who say to God, "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says, "Thy will be done".

Inerrancy... you have obviously mistaken me for someone who cares.

Every few months I am part of a conversation where the inerrancy of the Bible comes up. In the past, I listened quietly but rarely put in my opinion. Mostly because I really didn't have one, and the argument seemed to be driven by folks who enjoyed theological fencing.

However, I have become more embolden to offer my opinion because I have seen these discussions take a turn in which they begin to elevate the Bible to a place, I believe, it was never meant to be.

Consider - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" 2Tim 3:16

It is profitable for doctrine - correction and reproof - instruction in righteousness.

This is not how I am seeing the bible used. Here is how I do see it being used; see if you have encountered this.

The divinity of Scripture - The Bible as the fourth entity in the Godhead.
I see this transformation in two ways:
First, for eternal life we have added to dependence on Christ the qualification that you must believe the bible is inerrant. I am hearing more and more Christians equalize belief in Christ with belief in the Bible as inerrant. You must almost pass through the inerrancy door before you can come to Christ. The argument goes, "In order to believe in Christ, you must believe in the Bible because if the Bible contains error then how can we believe in Christ?"

The Second way I see this happening is through the synonymous usage of Christ, the word, and the Bible. Christians use them so interchangeably, that to many, there is nary a difference. Algebraic logic - Christ is the Word, The Bible is the Word, Christ is the Bible.

Pharisees and the Law, Christians and the Bible
Another thing I have encountered is the Bible being used by Christians the way the Pharisees used the Law. The Pharisees used Scripture to distance themselves from the irreligious. They made stuff complicated and difficult and thereby kept their club clean and exclusive. Unfortunately, the Bible seems to be used in the same way - not inviting people in, but keeping people out.

I believe few people come to Christ through proof. I see Christians get side tracked, and rather than talking about Jesus with unbelievers, they start arguing inerrancy. The reality is, you cannot prove the Bible is inerrant. If you choose to believe that, some of that belief must be taken on faith. So why argue it with an unbeliever? It will not change their heart. If proof were the turn-key, then the Israelites should have been the most godly, compassionate, and loving group around. No one in history saw more proof than them.

What does one mean by inerrant?
I am finding that the word inerrant has as many hues in explanation as the Trinity. What does one mean by it? To hear some folks explain it, you would think Paul was merely taking dictation. I have committed some of Paul's epistles to memory and one of the nice benefits of memorizing large portions of scripture is that you quit basing your theology on sound bites. One starts to see that it really is a letter, written by a man who is on a mission from God.

Yep, I said it, written by a man.

Is that so horrible?

This is Paul, a man who spoke with Christ, who faced all kinds of persecutions, who established churches, who was martyrd.

He is credible. I could do worse than to follow his instructions.

Are you saying you don't believe the Bible is inerrant?
No, I am saying I don't know.... and I don't particularly care.
In History you have primary and secondary sources. Primary are people or items that actually touched the event. Secondary is what it says... it came from a source secondhand.

For me, the Bible is THE primary source. I love CS Lewis, but if I find doctrine that contradicts the Bible, I will always go Bible first. For me, the Bible is used to develop doctrine, for correction and reproof, and for instructing me in righteousness. That is all it is intended for. I think to do more is to mold it into a golden calf.

Labels

"Once you label me, you negate me" ~ Soren Kierkegaard

The truth of that quote has become very real to me of late. I was listening to a talk show host who was telling a story of his mother. While driving with her, they were listening to talk radio. The mother heartily agreed with the radio announcer until she learned who it was. Once she learned it was a person she disliked, she no longer considered what the host had to say insightful or witty.

I have seen that happen so often. Rarely can an idea stand on its' own merit. We almost need to know the political or theological stance of the person advancing the idea before we will commit to an opinion.

I was talking with a gentleman I know in class recently. Our conversations have sometimes turned to the theological and I was tempted last week to ask him what he was. As the words were about to escape, I caught myself. What advantage would that knowledge bring? Would it not be more misleading than helpful? If he were to tell me that he was Baptist, or LDS, or atheist, would that not cause me to consciously and unconsciously assign to him a lot of baggage and history that may or may not be true? Would it not take me longer to then unlearn all of my incorrect assumptions than to simply learn by conversation what he believes?

I probably fall under the category of Christian Evangelical, but there are numerous points of my beliefs that would fall out of line with that general definition. I sometimes hesitate to define myself as Christian, because then I feel a need to clarify all the points that one would associate with me based on that definition, and yet are not true of me.

In Silence of the Lambs, Clarice wants Hannibal Lector to fill out a personality profile. He laughs, "Do you believe you can dissect me with this blunt little tool?"

I think we do a great disservice to our development with relationships when we label. We do it for ease, but are short cuts beneficial when they lead you where you do not want to be?

Greater Things Than These

There is a scripture in John 14 where Jesus talks about the fact that those who bear his name will later perform even greater things than he did. He said this while referencing his miracles. I believe he made a similar comment in Luke.

Over the years, I have heard Christians lament that we are not seeing the sick healed and the dead raised. "Why are we not seeing these things?" they ask. What is wrong with us? Didn't Jesus say that we would do greater things than these?

An answer occurred to me one night during our family small group. I wondered if, as often is the case, we were approaching the question wrong. Perhaps we are missing a point.

First, as a people, we are very into signs and wonders. We love the "ohhh and ahhh" effect. However, when you look through scripture, fancy miracles never accomplished too much. Regardless of what one saw, no matter how grand, it brought about little heart change.

So was Jesus really insinuating that we would be performing greater parlor tricks? That, like Bruce Almighty, we would part our soup while everyone looks on in awe? Is that all Jesus is looking for?

Consider - If God suddenly granted me the authority to heal those I touched, cause the blind to see, raise some dead folks..... what has that cost me? In what way is that taking up my cross? How am I dying to self? Does my being responsible for a miracle cause me to- (borrow from Romans here) "hate what is evil, cling to what is good"? ; "Be devoted to others above my self"? "Be joyful in hope"?; "patient in affliction"?; "faithful in prayer"?. Does it cause me to "share with God's people are in need"?

Probably I would simply have another level of arrogance to contend with.

This is just my opinion, but I think Jesus had something else in mind when he said we "would do greater things than these". His miracles tended to focus on outward circumstances. I think he was saying (and I paraphrase intent here), "So you think these miracles are cool? Wait till you see what is coming! Today I fixed a problem on the outside, but in the future WE are going to heal people's hearts and lives. People can live without an eye.... they cannot live with a broken life".

Look at Peter... for all he saw, there was little change in him. He desired a lot, but lacked the power to change... and that was with Jesus being right there.

Look what happened to him tho... once he really surrendered, he was a different man and went on to help other people leave their darkness and start a journey with Christ.

Doesn't a healed leg seem rather feeble when compared to a healed life?

On Sunday, our Pastor talked about some of the stages you go through as you progress in Christ. In the beginning, it is all about "me". In time tho, if that person continues to surrender, it becomes about others and Him.

I am really beginning to think that the "greater things" Christ was referring to was not "miracles". Rather, he was seeing ahead to a day when people would set aside their life for His.

Engaging Education

My wife and I won tickets from a local radio station to go and see Dr. Laura while she was here in Salt Lake. I might disagree with the good doctor on a point or two, but overall we are on the same page. I might be a little more diplomatic in my interactions, but then she only has a minute or two to get to the point.

One story she told is of her son, who at the age of 12 had decided he wanted to quit his martial arts lessons. She told him no. When he had his black belt, then he could quit if he wanted. Her rationale was that at the age of 12, he did not have the foresight to weigh the long term benefits of staying or the detriment of quitting.

I often hear people in education seminars boasting of the effectiveness of a particular program because it is engaging. That kids learn best while having fun and working with their interests.

Of course, being a both/and kind of person, I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment. However it is, as with many either/or arguments, missing some valid and needed alternative thought lines.

For one : If children, or any other learner for that matter, engage only in pursuing their interests... doesn't that narrow the field of their experiences? A child that decides early on that they only like macaroni and cheese at a particular restaurant, may never discover the other wonderful menu items if they do not venture out.

Second: If only engaging items are pursued, the child never learns to appreciate items with deferred gratification. For example, in one of his books, CS Lewis talks about his love of reading Greek poetry in the original Greek.. Prior to that pleasure, he tells of the tedious process he had to go through to learn to read and understand Greek. He did not enjoy that process. It had no pay off of its own. It was certainly not engaging.

Students have always complained about tedious homework. They complain, "When are we ever going to use this?!" Teachers have tried to come up with explanations in the past, but it was always assumed the work needed to be done. Now I find that parents and educators have been swayed. The student is right. They may never use this and besides, it's boring. Let them quit and do something else. If it is fun, it is worthwhile. If it is not.... well, shame on the teacher who would expect a student to do something they do not enjoy doing.

I for one quit trying to justify whether or not a child needed to learn long division or how to reduce a fraction a long time ago. My point is not that they learn these things (though that is a wonderful by-product), but rather that their mind becomes trained and that their will becomes disciplined.

I compare it to physical training. Most exercises that sports professionals go through to prepare for the game have no direct correlation to the game itself. When in real life will a man lift a weight 20 times, stop, and then repeat? The point is not the motion in and of itself but rather to train and strengthen the muscle so that it will be ready when a physical task is presented to it.

Why is it that if you were to present a new concept or idea to me and a 10 year old at the same time that I would grasp it faster... probably much faster. Neither of us have previous experience. The simple answer is that my mind has more training. It has been through the problem solving process more often. I have done the mental push-ups, so I can handle more mental weight.

The path of least resistance is to not stay on top of the kids homework, to make them practice their instrument, or keep to them on a path of completion when they would rather give up. I have often said that children will take that power of control if you give it to them - then resent you for giving it to them.

More than Passions

I was flipping radio stations today, and I heard someone sharing that God will really use us when we discover what our passion is and use it for him. I think this has become a common thought line in a lot of churches and Christian books.

Now I don't necessarily disagree with the overall point but I think, as with much Christian theology, we tend to always put things in either/or language; when in fact, I think God uses a fair amount of both/and.

I used to be on the other end of the "passion" spectrum. I was convinced earlier in my Christian theology that what you were good at or had interest in was the very thing God would NOT use. I thought if I enjoy it, it isn't sacrifice. If I am good at it, it is my power not his. My thinking changed in my early college years. A friend of mine (Rich Kifer) who worked with Detroit Youth for Christ helped me see life from a different angle. A man from my church was killed while witnessing down in Detroit. I was telling Rich that I felt like a loser because this guy had given his life for Christ, while I on the other hand do diddly-squat.

"What are you talking about?" he replied. "You coach bible quiz teams, you chaperone our trips, you do YFC promos, you meet with kids to study scripture...you do tons of stuff!"

I shrugged, "Yeah, but I like doing that stuff."

He looked at me and laughed, "Dude, you have one twisted view of God!"

I say that to demonstrate the other side of the spectrum, but I believe the man on the radio is no less erroneous.

Take my church for example. There are lots of spots where God can use your passion. Singing, speaking, acting, tech, kids... what do you like to do? There is place where you can use it for God.

However, there are also plenty of things that need to be done around the church that will probably never qualify as someone's passion. Cleaning bathrooms? Emptying leaky garbage? Stacking chairs? Mopping?

I think if we stood around waiting for people who had a passion for these things (in and of themselves) we would probably have a pretty grungy church soon.

Perhaps "passion" can become our excuse. I don't want to do job ______ because it is not my "passion" (not because it is inconvenient, or I feel it is beneath me).

I remember working at a DC/LA conference back in 96 (a big YFC rally). The 8,000 kids would get together in the arena for an hour, and then break into groups of a hundred or so to go off to sessions in conference rooms. Well, my team's job was to get the sound going at the various conference rooms in the different hotels. Staff was spread thin due to various problems that were being worked out the first morning.

With 20 minutes till the kids came, me and two other guys were setting up the sound in two conference rooms. One of the DC coordinators poked his head in and said, "Guys, would you mind getting chairs set up when you're done? We don't have anyone on that for this building". Dave started setting up the hundred chairs that would be needed while Rich and I finished the sound. What is interesting is that the speaker for this break-out session watched the whole exchange - and he continued to watch. For the remaining 15 minutes, he sipped his coffee while we rushed to get ready before the kids came. It seems setting up chairs wasn't his passion.

Rich had a cool insight that evening. He was commenting on 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul is talking about various spiritual gifts. Paul concludes by saying "but eagerly desire the greater gifts". However, Paul never said which gifts were the greater. Rich said that the greater gift is the gift God needs at the moment. The gift God needed to make use of that morning was the gift of service. Therefore, that is the gift we should have desired.

I remember reading about Henri Nouwen. He was a Harvard and Yale divinity professor and authored many books. God called him to work at a home for the physically handicapped and mentally disabled. He said at one point, that it was there that he really was used by God and got close to his heart. He said (I paraphrase here) ' None of these people had any use for me as a professor or an author. My talents were of no use. It was then that God worked THROUGH me".

I believe we limit the potential for God to grow in us and through us when we only offer him our passions. Scripture tells us he wants our weaknesses too!

Hell No!

I have really been committing to get back into reading. I just got done with Brian Mclaren's "The Last Word". I am presently reading "Blue Like Jazz" and upon recommendation, shall be taking up "the Sparrow" next.

I highly recommend "The Last Word". If nothing else, it give you a peek into some alternative thoughtlines that exist in the Christian world.

Brian McLaren really challenges the typical evangelical thoughts on and purposes in preaching Hell. I found a letter that I sent out to a bunch of friends about 6 years ago when I first started wrestling with Hell. Here is that letter, and my thoughts at the time:

Hello all,
I have been hit by a new theological trauma that has been giving me the runabout for the past few days, so I thought I would toss it out to you and see what you think.

It all came about the other day when I was listening to talk radio. There was an atheist on there begrudging the whole "see you at the pole" event. He was a usual ranter and party-liner, but one of the callers said something that really threw me.

“It is not so much that I don’t believe in God,” he said. “But I have a hard time believing that a being such as has been described would use violence of the ultimate sort as punishment for non-compliance."

How had I missed that question all these years? We all know the arguments for why “a loving God sends people to Hell,” but in the moment following that question, all of those arguments fell apart for me.

Many of you have read C.S. Lewis’s The Problem of Pain. Though the issue of pain is a stumbling block for some, and though it is a struggle to deal with at the time, it can always be brought to near triviality in the scope of eternity. As Paul said in countless different ways in the epistles “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us”. I wish Lewis had written a book called the Problem of Hell.

Here are the questions that have been rolling in my head the past couple days, which I am having difficulty finding solutions for.

First, there is the finality of it all. If suffering can be used as a tool to develop empathy, correct us, refocus us, cause us to go deeper, then there is an ultimate good to it. In my present paradigm, God can do nothing else. What man (or Satan for that matter) intends for evil, he can always turn it to a good. God can wrench glory from even the direst circumstances.

What then, does Hell provide? There is no ultimate good that can come out of it, because there is no opportunity for redemption. I realize the usual argument would be to say that they had an opportunity to accept salvation, but rejected it. This doesn’t seem to wash with me anymore for three reasons:

Can it truly be said the people who have rejected Christ have a clear understanding of what they are rejecting and what they are accepting in his place? I don’t think so. I don’t think that most Christians have even begun to get a handle on this, let alone someone who has no familiarity with the ways and teachings of God.

IF such a person existed, could they be truly sane?

IF they were sane, is hell a reasonable result?

I think the reasonableness of hell is really hard for me to grasp. However rebellious or hideous a man may be; is hell a good solution? Eternal torture beyond measure?…forever?…. for the choices of eighty mortal years? When I sit down and consider that eternal destiny, I start to wonder.

Also, what would the reason be for such an extreme punishment? (And this is the ultimate extreme). I have trouble reconciling it with the character of God, as I understand it. Is this vindictiveness? Getting even? What possible motive could God have? Holiness alone does not seem to be enough. Holiness says sin cannot be in God’s presence. Hell is an eternity beyond a mere removal from God’s proximity.

Another curious point- what would motivate God to think up such a place in any case? He teaches me the proper way to think in Philippians. Hell could not come into that thought line. How does one, in line with goodness, contemplate the torture of his creatures?

I have started a casual study of scripture at this point, and have gotten few answers. The Bible has a lot to say about sending people there, but little reason why… other than they are sinners. This always leads me back to my list of questions.

Anyway, these have been my thoughts the past couple of days. Romans 11 says to ‘consider therefore, the kindness and sternness of God.” I am troubled considering that sternness.
Feel free to respond, or not, at your leisure.

Love God, Love his Children

Whom does the heart of God desire to dwell with?
People who bear his name, but despise their fellow men created in his image?
Or people who purport to have no interest in Him, but love their fellow men?

I try to think of this from my view as a Father.

A friend has affection for me, but despises my children?
An aquaintance has no interest in me, but loves on my children?

Whom would I prefer in my house?

Hmmmmm......

Train Them!

It says in Hebrews 12:
No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
I read that scripture countless times back when I was a Bible Quizzer. At the time I took it to mean that the discipline God gives me will probably not be fun, but will be for my good. It was a hopeful passage.

I read it entirely different nowadays. Flip it around. Read it from the discipliner's point of view. Being a parent the past 8 years gives me a new perspective.

No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful... a teachable moment in the life of my child is presented, but I don't feel like dealing with it... I would rather fiddle on the computer, or watch TV, or continue my conversation. To stop and address the situation will take time... this is painful.

Later on however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. If I take the time to parent now... to fulfill my responsibility, I will reap a harvest of righteousness and peace.

I write this with some trepidation, because I am a heading into boasting territory. But I will boast with a purpose.

My wife and I have great kids!

We often get compliments on their behavior, but I will occasionally hear something to the effect of, "Yes, but you have naturally compliant children."

I want to shout "NO!" This has not come without cost! My wife and I think about, consider, and discuss our parenting. We plan for how we will deal with situations. We read. We study. We observe and consult with successful parents. We observe unsuccessful parents to note what we want to avoid doing. We are very conscientious of our parenting. We take time to parent. We both would say that it is the single most important thing we do in our lives. The behavior of our children (or sometimes lack thereof) is NOT an accident.

Perhaps it is because I teach for a living that I am always looking for teachable moments.

The other day I carved a turkey and set aside the wishbone. I told my 4 year old son and my seven year old daughter about the game of the wishbone. I debated not mentioning the wishbone to them because my son is very sensitive and I knew he was going to lose.

No, I told myself, he is old enough to learn to lose properly.

Each child grabbed an end... made the wish... snap.... and my son's lip tightened, his foot slammed the floor, and frustrated tears began to well up in his eyes.

"Jacob...., no".

I sat down in front of Jacob and took both of his hands in mine.

"Jacob, I love you... please look at my eyes (I never discipline without eye contact). My son, you lost just now and I know you are frustrated because you wanted to win. There are times you win and times you lose. When you lose, you may not stomp your feet and cry. That is not right. Everyone loses sometimes don't they? When you lose... be happy for the person who won... and do you know what the right thing to do would be? (with his lips puckered he shakes his head)... you go over to the person who won and shake their hand like this (shake) and say 'Congratulations'. Do you think you could do that?"

My son nodded, took a final sniff, and walked over to my daughter and took her hand, "Congratulations Kaki" (his nickname for her). She replied with a thank you and a hug. Then they went off to play.

Now I by no means think that this will be the last time Jacob pouts and cries when he loses; but he will be taught each time that is not appropriate and will be shown what is appropriate. Perhaps someday soon, he will fly in that area on his own.

Until then, my wife and I will be looking for teachable moments, because we want that harvest of righteousness and peace... for ourselves and our children.