Don't Go to Sleep While Sunbathing on a Railroad Track

Two young teen girls each lost a foot when they were hit by a train while sunbathing on a railroad track in Maine. At the time of the story I read, both girls were in critical condition and had not yet been interviewed by police. Authorities speculate that either they had fallen asleep while sunbathing on the tracks or were listening to music on their Ipods and did not hear the train coming. One witness reported seeing the girls trying to scramble out of the train's way at the last moment, but they did not quite make it.

This is a tragedy and I certainly do not want to make light of what happened to these two youngsters. Yet one cannot help but wonder, "What were they thinking?" Why would anyone lie out sunning on a railroad track, much less allow herself to drift off to sleep in such a position?

News reports indicate that this appears to be a genuine accident. There is no suggestion that these young girls were attempting to harm themselves. Suicide by lying on a track is a fairly common means for troubled young people to take their lives, but that does not seem to be a possibility in this case.

The story said that this track was used by only one train a day. If the girls were local, they probably knew that and had some idea of what time the train ran. Maybe they lost track of time. If they were sound asleep, perhaps lots of time passed as they slumbered. In any event, they were not thinking clearly. They did not show proper respect for the dangerous situation into which they had put themselves and, unfortunately for them, they will have to pay a heavy price for that error in judgment.

The spiritual lessons from this story are clear . . . a lot of people are not paying attention to the danger of leaving God out of their lives. They are, if you will, asleep on the tracks. Blithely they pass through their lives without thinking seriously about the universal truth that everyone must appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Pray that the girls (whose names are Rachel and Destiny) will survive and be able to make the adjustments necessary to have happy and successful lives. However, once our lives here are over, it will be too late to make adjustments to prepare ourselves for Judgment Day. So wisdom says don't go to sleep on railroad tracks. A greater wisdom says we need to think soberly and prepare ourselves to meet the Lord in judgment.

Satan’s Summer Success Season

Blue skies and warmer temperatures are finally making more regular appearances here in the Pacific Northwest. Just about every good thing, though, has some way for Satan to make something bad out of it. In order that we will not be ignorant of Satan’s schemes [2 Corinthians 2:11], let us think about some of the obstacles he throws in our paths during the summer season.

1. The way we dress: The Lord wants his people to dress in a way which honors their bodies and shows respect to the ideals of holiness and Christian morality. Satan, on the other hand, wants people to wear as little as possible because he knows that lust is sinful thinking [Matthew 5:27-28]. He also knows that dressing in a way that provokes lustful thoughts in others makes you a participant in that sin. At the first sign of sunny weather, some people begin appearing in public in skimpy attire. Satan scores a success whenever he entices a Christian to join in and follow the trend to show as much skin as possible.

2. The way we act: Summer is a time when it is more pleasant to travel on vacations and other trips to faraway places. Some people leave their convictions about moral behavior behind when they get out of town. After all, “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” right? Wrong! The Lord knows everything we do wherever we are. Everything needs to be done in the name of Christ [Colossians 3:17]. It is never right to do wrong, no matter where you are or what people around you are doing.

3. Obligations to God are neglected because we want to take advantage of good weather to participate in all the summer sports, recreation, and cultural activities. Most of these activities are fine within themselves. There is nothing wrong with camping, fishing, going to ball games and the like. They become wrong only when we do these things instead of doing what we ought to be doing in service to God. It is wrong for us to miss worship assemblies of the church because we have chosen to do something else. It is wrong to neglect prayer, Bible study, and helping other people because we are so busy with the fun activities of summer. Whenever we let that happen, Satan wins!

Hidden Costs

American Airlines will start charging $15 to check a bag on any AA flight.

First it started with charging for meals and snacks served in flight. Then some airlines started charging for checking a second bag. Imagine the endless possibilites: they could charge $10 for use of the ramp to board the plane, $5 to turn on the light above your seat, $12 to turn on the air conditioning, $25 per pillow or blanket, $8 to use the restroom. Maybe they will even start charging $100 or so for a seat itself. Otherwise, you could pretend you're riding a busy subway and stand while holding to a strap hanging from the ceiling.

The kind of thinking which brought about this latest American Airlines move makes it easier to understand why airlines are having such economic troubles in the first place. Common sense seems to be in short supply in modern life and nowhere is that more evident than in the airline industry. Everyone understands that airlines use fuel when they fly. That fuel comes from oil and the cost of oil is exorbitant. We don't like it, but we understand that the cost of flying has to go up. Airlines can't cope with a doubling of fuel prices without passing the cost along to their customers.

So the complaint here isn't that it will cost an extra fifteen bucks to fly from Point A to Point B. What I don't like is the nickel-and-diming. It isn't straightforward and above board.

However, it does illustrate a lesson about hidden costs. Throughout life, there are hidden costs. That's why they always tell us to be sure to read the fine print. The major life decisions we make all come with some costs.

That is certainly true with the moral compromises that a great many people have bought into in the last generation. When the "sexual revolution" came along in the 1960s and 1970s, people were told they at last had the freedom to enjoy themselves without guilt or consequences. But "free love" had a lot of hidden costs, from sexually transmitted diseases to failed birth control measures (and unwanted pregnancies) to the destructive havoc this reworking of the moral order wrought in modern family life.

The Supreme Court offered a solution to the unwanted pregnancy problem in 1973 when it rendered its Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortions. Abortion has always been billed in high-sounding terms as the free exercise of a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body. The truth, however, is that the great majority of abortions take place because women got pregnant when they didn't want to be pregnant. In other words, abortions serve as after-the-fact birth control. The hidden costs here are enormous. First (and not so hidden) is the fact that some forty million or more lives have been taken in atrocious acts that make the mass slaughters of past history pale into relative insignificance. Add to that the guilt now being felt by millions of women who have come to understand the role they played in having their own babies killed. Indeed the cost of sin is high.

However, it is also true that godly Christian people face some hidden costs in the decisions they make to follow Christ. Jesus never promised us lives free from trouble and adversity. In fact, we can count on the fact that we will suffer in one way or another because of our Christianity. Is the suffering worth it? Of course it is. Heaven is worth it all . . . whatever we have to go through as we strive to remain "faithful unto death" is not to be compared with the greatness of the inheritance we'll receive in heaven. However, there is a price to be paid in living lives of faithful Christian service and we have to be prepared for it.

So whether from our good choices or our bad choices, there are consequences. As my children were growing up, I tried very hard to drill into their thinking the reality that choices have consequences. That is always true, even if we don't always see the costs right away when we make the decisions we make.

In Defense of the Electoral College

I was critical in my last post of the venerable American institution known as the Electoral College. But I'm being nice today. Did you notice the adjective venerable I used? Other, more apt, adjectives came to mind -- words like outmoded, antiquated, unjust . . . you get the drift, I'm sure.
However, in an effort to be 'fair and balanced' I want to give honest consideration to any merits the Electoral College system might possess.

Since I am not adept at thinking of what those merits might be, I turned to Google and searched for "advantage of the electoral college" which turned up a wonderful discussion from 2001 at the site of the University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies. They offer the following points in defense of the EC:

1. The Electoral College is a stabilizing factor by limiting the emergence of multiple parties. The U. S. has always been a two-party country with the Federalists giving way to the Whigs and the Whigs giving way to the Republicans. Since 1860, the Democrats and Republicans have battled for control. FYI, the GOP has occupied the White House for 92 years while the Democrats have lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for only 56 years. The Electoral College does contribute strongly to this hegemony because in all but Maine and Nebraska, it is a winner-take-all system so third party candidates must actually win a majority of popular votes or get no electoral votes. Ross Perot won about 20% of the popular vote nationally in 1992, but received no electoral votes. If we identify preserving the two-party system as a good thing for the nation, it must be admitted that the Electoral College does assist in preserving the status quo.
2. The Electoral College keeps candidates from running campaigns focused entirely on population centers. The idea is that candidates would spend all their time campaigning in California and New York and avoid the 'heartland' like the plague. That's not necessarily true, and if it were true, it's not necessarily bad. More about that in a minute.
3. The Electoral College reinforces the role of the states in our federal system. This is unquestionably true since it makes the presidential election fifty separate state elections rather than one national election where all people get to cast equal votes for our leader. That this is a good outcome is assuming facts not in evidence.
4. (Not on the website, but often cited) The Electoral College protects small states from a 'tyranny of the majority' from the more heavily-populated states. The Electoral College does involve a slight tilting of the playing field in the favor of smaller states. This comes about because the number of electoral votes each state gets is the sum of that state's representatives in both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives is proportioned according to each state's population, but the Senate offers two senators to each state regardless of population. Therefore, small states get slightly more representation in the Electoral College than their population merits, while large states get slightly less representation than they deserve.

Response to the Arguments:

1. Frankly, the two-party system has not been working too well. The Democrats and Republicans have shown that multiple parties aren't needed for legislative gridlock. However, most countries which operate as parliamentary democracies function with three or more political parties holding seats in Parliament. Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany, and Israel are just a few of the nations which seem to manage their governments under this system. Israel does have a multitude of small parties, but leaders there manage to build the coalitions necessary to govern. In point of fact, smaller parties would join in such coalitions whenever their common interests indicated it was prudent for them to do so. Currently the U. S. Senate has two members who identify themselves as neither Democrat or Republican. Senators Sanders (VT) and Leiberman (CT) vote with the Democratic caucus, but they were not elected as Democrats. If the concern is that a President would be elected with less than a majority of the votes cast, consider that some of our more successful presidents -- Bill Clinton and JFK to name two -- were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote.
   
2. If presidential election contests continue to be as tight as they have been in recent elections, candidates will go wherever voters are to solicit support. However, the great majority of voters in the current system never see a candidate in person. Today candidates do not travel very much to states that are considered "safe." Some estimates show that only 14 states are considered "in play" in this year's election. Don't you imagine that Ohio and Florida are likely to get a great deal more attention from Senator McCain and Senator Obama than Idaho and Mississippi under the current system? Nothing really changes whether there is an Electoral College or not.
3. The problem with fifty separate elections is that voters on the losing side in any given state have no voice at all in selecting the president. If I am a supporter of Candidate X, but the polls show that Candidate Y is a heavy favorite in my state, why should I even bother to vote? It's a good civic exercise and all that, but realistically I know my vote is meaningless. However, in a system where every popular vote counts, I always have the chance to participate. Except for landslide years (1964, 1984, etc.), the national vote is normally pretty close. Thus wherever they live, voters would have a real say in choosing who the next president will be.
4. The small states are more likely than not colored red on those red-and-blue maps showing party preference in presidential elections. So the unspoken fact is that the Electoral College offers a small degree of favoritism for GOP candidates. That could change, of course, if party allegiances change and those smaller states become blue states. It is understandable that some politicians favor the status quo for partisan reasons. However, whether it benefits the GOP or the Democratic Party, is isn't fair for some of the states to have a built-in advantage in the Electoral College. Let every vote count and there is no inherent advantage one way or the other. It is as simple as can be -- the candidate who gets the most votes becomes the next President of the United States.

Imagine This Scenario

Pretend it's the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November . . . in other words, Wednesday morning after Election Day. You pick up the morning paper (or since you're a blog reader, more likely you sit down before your computer) and read the final vote tallies from a very close presidential election. As we found out in 2000, the total popular vote doesn't really matter. Presidents are elected by the electoral college. Senator McCain has won the following states: Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire -- for a total of 269 electoral votes.

Senator Obama has won the following states: California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, D.C., Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine -- for a total of 269 electoral votes.

A few of those states are not likely to go that way (Mississippi and Idaho have not voted Democratic in a presidential election in quite a while). But on the whole, the scenario is within the realm of possibility. Fewer than 540 Florida voters in 2000 determined who would be the next president. (I voted for Bush in 2000 and I lived in Florida. . . if I and 268 of my fellow citizens had flipped and voted for Gore, the outcome of the election would have changed.) That really impresses me with how important each vote can be out of more than one hundred million cast.

This would be a good place to make a nice civic appeal for everyone to get out and vote this fall and be prepared to make a difference in determining our President. All of that is true, but it isn't my point today.

What concerns me now is the realization that in a very close election, millions of American voters are effectively disenfranchised by the structure of the electoral college system. Sometimes it is true that every vote counts. I've already mentioned Florida in 2000, but how many people realize the election in Florida wasn't the closest in the country that year? In New Mexico, Vice-President Gore won that state's five electoral votes by 366 popular votes. In an election where the electoral vote is close, every vote is crucial in hotly-contested states where the outcome is in doubt until the last minute. However, in many states one party or the other predominates. In my birth state of Alabama, the Democratic candidate has one won time since 1960. In my present home state of Washington, the last GOP presidential candidate to carry the state was Ronald Reagan in 1984. Neither of those states is likely to switch sides this year . . . so Democrats in Alabama and Republicans in Washington basically have no voice in choosing a new president. The same thing could be true for one party or the other in more than half the states in 2008. That does not matter too much when the candidate who wins the electoral vote also wins the popular vote, but on the rare occasions when the popular vote goes one way and the electoral vote goes another way, it is a travesty when votes that ought to matter are effectively discarded by the electoral college system. It is tyranny of the majority at its worst when up to 49.9% of the votes cast go for naught.
The obvious solution is to abolish the electoral college. With direct popular vote, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. I would not have been happy about that because, in my opinion, he was not the best candidate. However, in another way, I would have been satisfied that the will of the majority had prevailed. More people went to the polls and cast votes for Gore than did for Bush. Therefore, Gore should have been elected president. That is the only fair way.

The electoral college may have made some kind of sense when it was put in the Constitution back in the 18th century. Just like having state legislatures elect U. S. Senators might have made sense then, but almost a century ago people were wise enough to know that it was a better idea to let the voters choose their senators by direct election. We might not always like who gets elected but we acknowledge that it is a fairer system to let the people decide for themselves. The same thing is true when choosing the next President of the United States.

(Part II of this discussion will consider the traditional arguments in favor of the electoral college system; Part III will present ideas for revamping the primary/caucus process for nominating presidential candidates so voters across the country have a more equal voice in selecting their party's standard-bearers.)

"Gay" Acceptance

Just doing a little Internet surfing, I came across a piece on the Entertainment Weekly magazine web site talking about how the featuring of homosexuals on TV reality shows has promoted acceptance of the gay lifestyle in American culture. The author of this article seems to think this is all great and wonderful; I disagree of course. However, I think the author is probably right about the cumulative effect a flood of pro-gay propaganda has on minds a lot more impressionable than mine. I haven't watched any of the programs he mentions other than The Amazing Race, but I do know much the producers of that program have gone out of their way to show homosexuality in the most positive light possible.

I know a number of people who have turned off their televisions (except for carefully screened movies). I haven't ever been willing to go that far because I do enjoy news, sports, and other "decent" programs. My wife and I now have an "empty nest" so we don't have the concern people with young children have about exposing them to ungodly values. If I did have children at home, I would have to give much more serious consideration to the idea of a TV free home.

I'm reading a book which makes some points which would fit in well right here in this discussion. I want to finish the book before writing about it . . . but maybe I'll resume this conversation in a few days.

Happy Mother's Day, everyone!

Following the 'Golden Rule' on the Softball Diamond

A few days ago Alan Smith told a heart-touching story in his Thought For the Day email devotional. It had to do with a softball game between Central Washington University and Western Oregon. The game, which was for the championship of the Great Northwest Conference, was played on Central Washington's home field in Ellensburg, 110 miles east of Seattle on I-90. The young women on the CWU team showed great character by following the Golden Rule, as Alan describes it, when their conference championship was on the line. Their action resulted directly in one additional run scoring for Western Oregon which went on to win the game by two runs.

Central may not have won their conference this year, but its softball team definitely has some "winners in life" playing.

You might have already heard the story since it has been all over the Internet. If not, here's one of many links, this one from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . Also here's a video of the act of courtesy and "sportswomanship" which has brought Central Washington's team all this attention.

Age-Fudging

When people get to a "certain age," they sometimes are reluctant to admit how old they are. I've never met any sixteen year olds who weren't eager to let the world know they had reached that milestone. They are old enough to drive! In some cases, they are old enough to date. That's a birthday people want to let the world know about.

Add a half-century to their age, and that attitude might be different. I know some sixty-six year olds who are proud of their age, but I suspect I know more who had just as soon keep it quiet. I've known some "golden agers" who refused absolutely to let anyone know exactly how golden they were. I admire that kind of gumption. If they don't want to tell their age, why should they? What business is it of anyone else anyway? Let them stick by their guns and leave us wondering.

Others "fudge" their ages a little. That is a delicate way of saying they have become revisionist historians -- you know, like revising their birth dates forward a few years. In reality, they are lying . . . and as is the case with all lies, the tangled web can sometimes turn around and catch the liar. It can be little things . . . like a "forty" year-old woman getting her invitation in the mail to join AARP or the "fifty-something" person who is found to be a Social Security recipient. Sooner or later, those deceptions do find us out.

Human beings aren't the only things that play with ages. Institutions do that, too, but they usually try to make themselves older than they are. Take my alma mater, for instance. I graduated from Freed-Hardeman College (as it was then called) in 1976. I have framed on my office wall my bachelor's degree from Freed-Hardeman. I'm proud of it; it is part of the first set of bachelor degrees that venerable institution awarded in modern times. However, the college seal printed in gold on the paper proudly proclaims that the school was established in 1908. Look at Freed-Hardeman University's literature today and you will notice that the school was established in 1869! Thirty-nine years -- that's some pretty impressive age-fudging.

If the powers-that-were at Freed-Hardeman had left well enough alone, they would be celebrating their centennial this year. Obviously, they didn't have a hundred-year celebration in 1969, because back then their founding date was 1908. Since somewhere along the way over the last thirty-two years, they decided to dabble in revisionist history, my alma mater doesn't get to mark this milestone anniversary. There is always a price to pay when we start manipulating history.

For What It's Worth: Freed-Hardeman traces its lineage back through a series of 'predecessor institutions to 1869. At one point, the line was dated to 1884 (Bicentennial Medal issued by FHC in 1976). It is a tenuous link. The present institution was established by A. G. Freed and N. B. Hardeman in 1908 and was called National Teachers Normal and Business College. The college's name was changed to Freed-Hardeman College in 1919 andthen to Freed-Hardeman University in 1990.

Looking Ahead to Mother's Day

The Bible teaches us to give honor to those who deserve it [Romans 13:7]. The idea of having a special occasion to honor mothers goes back to ancient Greece and Rome, but the celebration of Mother’s Day in the United States began 100 years ago this year, in Grafton, WV. Four years later, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a national celebration of Mother’s Day. The idea has spread around the world. Mother’s Day is celebrated at different times during the year in different places, but more than 60 countries have followed America’s lead and celebrate Mother’s Day today – the second Sunday in May.

In the Bible, motherhood is central in the lives of most women. The first mother, of course, is Eve. In fact, she received her name, Eve, "because she was the mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20). We don't know how many children Eve gave birth to. We know about Cain, Abel, and Seth, but she also had other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4).

Apparently Eve did not have any fertility issues, but numerous other women in the Bible did. Several notable Bible women had deep yearnings to be mothers, but were deprived of that blessing for a long time. You might think of Sarah who was 90 years old, well past the age of childbearing, when God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her." 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" (Genesis 17:15-17). When Sarah later questioned the idea, God replied, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” and promised that a year later Sarah would have a son (Genesis 18:14).

Rebekah, Hannah, and Elizabeth were other women in the Bible who were barren until the Lord blessed them and allowed them to become mothers.

Some women do not ever become mothers. In some cases, it is because they are not able to conceive children. In other cases, women never marry and although they might like to be mothers, they understand that procreation of children is something meant to take place within marriage. Some women make a conscious choice not to have children. In some cases, that is no doubt a wise decision, but something very important is missing from the life of a woman who does not become a mother.

Most mothers (and fathers) readily acknowledge the truth of the 127th Psalm that children are a gift from the Lord. Verses 3-5 read, "Behold, children are a heritage [gift, NASB] from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. 5 Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate" (ESV).

Honesty compels us to admit that children are also a challenge. The Lord gives us a whole series of responsibilities to go along with the blessings of being parents. One of the characteristics of the older women to be honored in 1 Timothy 5 is that she be one who has "brought up children." There is quite a lot involved in successfully competing the task of bringing up children. Proverbs 22:6 ESV says, "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." Ephesians 6:4 ESV says, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." These parental responsibility passages in the Bible seem to be directed more to fathers than to mothers, but neither gender has exclusive responsibilities.

Think about Timothy's home life as he was growing up. His father was not a Christian, so his faith was taught and nourished by his grandmother and mother (2 Timothy 1:5 ESV I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. ) A part of Timothy's upbringing was being taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15 ESV and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.) In this case (as in many others down through time), the task of teaching God's truth to children fell to the women in the family.

Our common sense tells us that there are things in child raising that dads do better, and there are things that moms do better. In 2003 (latest figures available), 68% of children in America lived with both parents. 23% lived with moms but not dads in the home. 5% lived with dads, but not moms in the home. So whether it’s a traditional two-parent nuclear family or one of the growing number of one-parent families, chances are that women are going to continue to have an important role in bringing up children.

Modern women have to juggle a lot of responsibilities. I Timothy 5 does not say anything about a mother having a career and bringing home a paycheck . . . a fact of life for a lot of mothers today. It is increasingly hard for one-income families to survive economically. The families who discipline and sacrifice material things so mothers can stay home and be a full-time moms deserve honor and commendation. At the same time, we have to recognize that is not always possible.

It is nothing new for women to be hard workers. Look back at the “worthy woman” passage in Proverbs 31. The woman pictured here is often presented as an ideal woman, but she was certainly a “working mom” in every sense of the word. We find her rising early, providing food for her family, then buying fields and planting vineyards. She makes and sells linen garments. If you think of an adjective to describe this woman, it might very well be “busy.”

Yet, read Proverbs 31:28 ESV “Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:” Her children rise up and call her blessed – maybe that’s the first Mother’s Day because they were certainly honoring her for her success.

Shelf Life

On a Saturday morning with nothing profound to write about, I started thinking . . .

I love bananas, but they don't last very long after you buy them. Costco always has good prices on bananas, but you have to buy four pounds, and it is hard to eat four pounds of bananas before they begin to get too ripe. Look carefully at the bananas pictured. You can see the little spots appearing on the peeling which indicates that the banana is fully ripe. In another day, they will still be OK for making banana bread, but they won't taste their best.

On the other hand, as far as I've been able to tell, Sweet 'n Low pretty much lasts forever. I was making myself a cup of hot tea last night and noticed that the little dish we keep on the countertop stocked with Sweet 'n Low packets was empty. I went to the pantry to restock the dish from the big "club size" box and noticed that finally the box is getting low. Sometime in the next few months, it will be empty. I say "finally" because I have moved that box from one kitchen to another in three different moves over a period of about fourteen years. That's right. We bought that Sweet n' Low from Sam's Club in, as near as I can figure, 1994. I can't tell that the taste has deteriorated at all. Whatever you think of the taste of Sweet n' Low, you have to admit that it has a fantastic shelf life!

As always, I'm looking for some kind of spiritual analogy and I think I've found a good one. The nature of God is like the Sweet n' Low . . . it stays the same year after year. God is eternal and unchanging. His love for his people is constant and steady. He always wants what is best for us. No matter how often we sin, he is always ready and willing to forgive us if we will only repent and seek his forgiveness. The same is true for his Son. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

On the other hand, the opportunities God gives us may be more like the bananas. Sweet n' Low might last fourteen years; sometimes bananas do well to stay in the best condition for fourteen hours after you purchase them. Opportunities to help people and influence the direction of their lives may be here today and gone tomorrow. The old saying "Strike while the iron is hot" could not be more true. Whenever we find a teachable moment when someone is open to hearing the gospel message, we should be prepared to walk through that open door. Human nature is very different from God's nature. We humans are unstable and constantly wavering. Today someone might be willing to sit with you and talk earnestly about his soul. Tomorrow, his interests may have changed and he no longer has time for such things. Like a spoiled banana, a lost opportunity is something that once lost can never be regained.

So, eat your bananas while they are still good and don't put off until tomorrow any opportunity you're given to influence someone in the direction of heaven.

Everything's Great

Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford says everything is great with the Bowl Championship Series arrangement for determining a champion in college football. Swofford is current head of the BCS governing group which is made up of major conference commissioners plus the Notre Dame athletic director. He reported that the BCS was enjoying "an unprecedented state of health" as they rejected further consideration of any plans for a "plus one" national championship game after the round of BCS bowl games in early January. Only Swofford and SEC commissioner Mike Slive were willing to even talk about the plan any more. All the other conference leaders apparently think everything is hunky-dory and there is no need to even think about doing anything to help the BCS do a better job determining a true national champion.

Disclosure: I have never been in favor of doing anything which substantially alters the unique quality of college football where every game during the regular season is exceptionally important. In Major League Baseball, a team which loses only 1/3 of its games is thought to have done exceptionally well. Several times in recent years teams which did not win their own divisions in the regular season have gone on into the playoffs as wild card teams and ended up winning the World Series. In the current NBA playoffs, several teams with losing records made the playoffs. In the last NFL season, the Giants won the Super Bowl after going 10-6 in the regular season. In college football, they would not have been in contention at all with that kind of record. LSU became the first team in almost 50 years to win the championship with two losses! I am strongly opposed to any playoff system which takes that characteristic away from the college football game -- every game must count for something!!!

However, the plus-one system does no harm to that essential quality of college football. In a normal year (which 2007 was not because of an inordinate number of upsets among top teams), the top four teams would either be undefeated or have only one loss. So every game still counts for something and we would have a true national champion. I know teams 5, 6, 7, etc. would argue that they ought to have made the top four -- but, hey, if there are four slots available to compete for the championship, they had their chance. At the very least, no big conference team is going to go undefeated as Auburn did in 2004 and be frozen out of any possibility of winning the championship.

The BCS leaders may think their system is enjoying robust health, but that opinion is not shared by the public or the sports media. I don't know if any polling has been done since Swofford's statement, but I am confident that if the public is surveyed, there will be strong disagreement with Mr. Swofford's optimistic assessment. Perhaps those commissioners need to take off their rose-colored glasses and look at reality.

This isn't a sports blog, so you might rightly expect some kind of application to spiritual matters. It's not unusual for complacent church leaders to approach the situations that exist in congregations much as these football commissioners look at their BCS system. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an appropriate idea sometimes. It's even kind of biblical (see Hebrews 8:7), but taken to extreme, it become a rationale to excuse complacency and self-satisfaction. Maybe I'm not taking the statement out of context too much if I quote this phrase from 1 Corinthians 14:12, ". . . strive to excel in building up the church." It's quite easy to get to liking the way things are so much that we are not interested in doing better. Our aim in the way we do the Lord's work should be to excel -- do our very best. Mediocrity is never good enough because the Lord Jesus Christ deserves everything we can possibly give to His service. The BCS should not be satisfied with a mediocre product when they can provide something better. The same thing is true for you and me as we work for the Lord. He deserves the very best!