Accoutability List

Accountability
I got this from Fresh Wind, a newletter I received. This came from the pdf WindSockDec.07.pdf: The Gift of Yourself. I cannot say that I am very good at this. But I did find the points a good review of what I aspire to do.
Yes I did change some of it to make it more timely. They are not substantial changes.
==========================================================================
Important leaders' fall from grace reminds us of the need for accountability relationships. Here are some quick, challenging thoughts on the subject.
Accountability suggests the lateral, horizontal aspect of life.
• We’re accountable to other people. We count to them (matter) and we count to them (itemize).
• These people need to have some authority in relation to us, which we give them.
• It involves trust of those to whom we’re accountable.
• also respect
Accountability presupposes love and acceptance (if you don't love me, I won't level with you.)
Accountability presupposes a desire to be well.
Accountability presupposes a determination to relate.
Accountability requires honesty, trust, courage in the one being held accountable.
Accountability requires trustworthiness, discretion, largeness of heart in those holding accountable.
Accountability promotes balance, health, teamness in the sense of not-being-alone.
Accountability is not an adversarial but a side by side relationship.
Accountability’s areas of concern are:
• sin
• responsibility--to agreed upon criteria
• growth
• health
i.e. the tough stuff.
Accountability allows us to be agents of each other's growth and freedom.
Accountability recognizes that none of us is a capable judge of ourselves.
Accountability provides an on-going opportunity to get real, to become truthful, to face our spiritual enemies, t olay hold of the grace to change what should be changed.
Accountability realizes that I can hold off God all day long, but I rally start to deal when I tell you, and that God is the author of this dynamic.
Accountability says “I give you permission to ask tough questions”.
• “Have you done what you said you were going to do?” “Why?” “Why not?"
• and the toughest and last question is, “Have you just lied to me?”
Accountability in the church is an opportunity to grow through a relationship that no other relationship on earth provides. No other relationship provides the combination of grace, honesty, forgiveness, forbearance, hope, and power which this can provide.
The goal of Accountability is not success but growth, not perfection but improvement, not lying solo but as part of the flock.
May I suggest a Lenten resolution to get an accountability partner?

Exaggeration

MP mentioned Saturday that idiomatic expressions are hard to translate. His example was "let the cat out of the bag" in English. Do you put it literally or try to find a dynamic equivalent in the new language? Here in Matthew 19:21, it's not exactly an idiom but a type of figure of speech. A "semitism" I think it is called. This is an extreme example used to a to make a point. There is a word for it in English too but I cannot remember it. Like Jesus' teaching about plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand, Jesus meant it as an exaggeration. He did not mean to literally pluck out an eye but to hate sin enough to cut it out to resist it. We are not to entertain sin. In the case of the rich young ruler and following commentary by Jesus he is pointing out there is nothing that RYR can do to assure himself of eternal life. That is the point of Jesus saying "no one is good but God". Only the good (righteous) talk to God. The RYR has to trust God for salvation. He has to "get in the wheelbarrow", to take the example in one of the Alpha talks. He is doing his best to earn salvation. But he comes to get approval. He hopes Jesus will say, "well done!". Jesus refuses to do that and with his first response that "no one is good but God" he is making sure to keep the tension up. He will not allow a shred of hope that works can assure him of salvation. His response to his disciples is clear. "But with men is is impossible, only with God is it possible."
After MP's session I was talking to BH. I think this relates. We spoke of the concept of "total depravity" and I confess to prattling on. BH is such an encourager. He let me go on. He listens so attentively. Afterwards I felt a bit of a fool. Like Erma Bombeck in the previous post, I should listen more and not talk so much. But back to total depravity. The result of the concept of total depravity is that we cannot do things to forward our salvation. We are too much under the control of sin and Satan. The Fall has totally separated us from God and any hope of reconciliation (on our own). While I think I accept this and believe it to be true (through my "indoctrination"
at DTS), yet on the other hand God does give us free will. How can these both be true? Is seems a logical impossibility. Yet both seem true to me. Somehow we are also free to choose him. Otherwise we are robots and God seems a monster if he chooses only those that he will by some seemingly capricious method. That seems to fly against a lot of what the Bible shows us about God. God declares himself to be righteous and compassionate, slow to anger, rich in love (to quote the song). No I believe all have the opportunity to accept God and Jesus as their savior. That is the God revealed by Jesus. He invites all to the wedding feast. Some just don't come. We have to say yes. God reaches out his hand, knocks on the door if you will. He wooes us as a lover would. He tries to "sell himself" to us as a great God above all other God's. Not only is he worthy, he is personal and compassionate. Some of the reformed stripe are offended by Christians calling God a "friend". Yet I think it is true. He wants a relationship with us like a personal friend. I can see why it is offensive. Too bad.
Yet God is also righteous. Those who finally refuse him will go on to the judgment that requires destruction.

I have gone quite far afield from the scripture. Back to it: The rich young ruler goes away sad. He cannot give away all his riches and he is not assured of his salvation. That is why he came, to get assurance of salvation. At the jail I see this a lot. People fall back on their works to try to find assurance of salvation. Not even selling all his goods would really have assured him of salvation. (The tradition that he later did so confuses the point.) The disciples know that and ask a confused question when he is gone. These disciples have done, in effect, just what this RYR has refused to do. They have effectively given up all their worldly concerns to follow an itinerant preacher. But they don't feel truly assured or they would not have asked the question, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus answer gets to the crux of the matter. (Matt 19:26 CEV) Only God can raise Jesus from the dead. Only God can give us salvation.
Peter follows up by asking about the sacrifice they have all made. Jesus assures them they will be rewarded for this. They will also receive eternal life. He assures them of thrones too. He tells them they will receive rewards in full for what they have given up. But these rewards may be heavenly rewards, not earthly stuff. To me now that seems so far away. Yet it will be very real then, more real than anything today. Faith keeps us believing that.

How to be great in the kingdom

Matthew 20:17-20+

Jesus is telling them how he will attain his throne. Matthew has as main themes Jesus, Son of David, the King of the Jews. But it is a new type of kingdom. Jesus will be raised up (v. 19). He will be raised up to his throne in heaven. The next continues that thread. The sons of Zebedee come to ask Jesus to be placed on his right and left in his kingdom. I picture three thrones, don't you? Verse 20 states they come bowing down. I get a picture of an eastern potentate and subject salaaming or crawling on their hands and knees to show respect. They are treating Jesus like a local ruler. They are coming to beg a favor just like they might seek an audience with a man with power. The mother uses the word "command" in verse 21. A ruler commands. Jesus does not object.
But then Jesus turns the whole kingdom ruler on its head. His kingdom is a new kind. It is a kind never seem before. "Great ones" will be servants.
Personally: Am I willing to give up the idea of getting power and glory to be a servant? Servants get stepped on, abused, ignored, taken for granted. If I give myself over to servanthood, will people take advantage of me and desperately use me? In the old kingdom this will certainly happen and more. How new a kingdom model do we see in the church? The idea of the kingdom partially here applies to the church I think. Sometimes servanthood gets respected and sometimes not. But God sees it all and will reward in time. If not in this world, then in the next.
Am I OK with waiting? Am I OK with a heavenly reward that I may never see on the earth?
Do you identify with any of this? As I write this out I see it as perhaps unique to me.
DW had an old lady morning Monday then she went off to serve at a funeral. This was the funeral of a black lady. Everyone there was black except the people from M&M who came to bring food. The people there thought DW and friends would simply drop off the food but they stayed and served. Knowing DW she did it cheerfully. This is a SHAPE type talent that she has in abundance. They were amazed. Often black people are amazed at white people when they serve them. They have never seen it before. Both DW and I have been in this position before. It seems to be a natural ministry we just have fallen into. I do not mean this to sound braggy or anything. When people express amazement and wonder it is often when we least expect it. It seems just like the normal thing to do. It does bring to the fore the lack of humility whites still seem to have before blacks. But you probably cannot manufacture this. If by doing this yesterday M&M helps to heal some of the division between blacks and whites then Praise the Lord. It's not exactly glory or reward except there is blessing in knowing an appreciation, I guess.

Two groups entering Kegan's Jail

I think it is symbolic. The Alpha group goes into Kegans along with group of four Muslims. They are black but I do not know if that makes them Black Muslims. We don't ask. But last night a couple of our members attempted some friendly chatter. We are stuffed into a couple of small chambers as we pass through to the prison population. It is hard to ignore each other. In the past we mostly have ignored them. They responded a bit. The coolness was breached a little. Aside from our different faiths we also vie for the one TV-DVD platform available and the chaplain has ruled we can have it. After all we have been there longer and we have the warden's approval for this special J-Dorm initiative. But they even used it in their response. The coolness will remain, probably.
What I think is symbolic is how the two groups dress and behave. They are all four of them dressed in black pin striped suits. They are all thin, well groomed, and decorous. We on the other hand are a scruffy lot. We are dressed casually, casually groomed, mostly overweight, both men and women, and we laugh and talk during the time in the waiting room before we go in. They all look much alike. It is almost a uniform. We on the other hand look very different. Some are in shirts and jeans. Some have the dress shirt slacks look. One lady often wear a business suit. Some men have longish hair and short hair. At least one man has a beard. While they wait they sit or stand without talking. Some read, others just wait. One is obviously their leader. I think you might be hard pressed to tell who our leader is. No you could tell, that part might not be so different. We catch up on what has happened to us during the past week. We speak of people we know and trade prayer requests and praise reports. As far as I can see they do not share their private lives with each other. Perhaps they do that elsewhere. For their sakes I hope so.
Isn't this symbolic of the different faiths? I think it is. Islam seems mostly about submission, as the name implies. These men are very much the paragons of submission. Submission to a standard. These people fit the qualifications of an austere religion. We on the other hand exemplify following a more loving God who accepts (and uses) people just as they are. We trust it is God who does the work. This is not about looking and acting a certain way so that God will act or expecting that God will only work if we meet a certain standard. I think it is cool that this contrast exists. Most of the men in the prison population will never be able to live up to the standard of these four men. One could try I suppose. But we hopefully are modeling a God who accepts people as they are and is willing to forgive sins and shortcomings. We serve a personal God.

Song of Songs

The three year Bible reading cycle I am on has just about left Song of Songs. I have had nothing to say about this selection. As I've read it in past years I have read it chastely, you might say. I've read it to spiritualize it. Some translations are actually very helpful in that regard. But commentors and even professors have talked of this as an erotic love song. DW mentioned that Jewish men were not allowed to read it until they were 35. That sounds an exaggeration. Well anyway, imagine Playboy for teen age Jewish kids at the time of Jesus. It's forbidden, that makes it all the more erotic. heh
Still one has to do a lot of work to see the eroticism. I do anyway. I think it comes down to language. The Hebrew language had very few words compared to English. So each word has to do a lot of heavy lifting. Each word can mean different things in different contexts. Here the context is passion, love making, sexual images. So I am trying to read it in that context.
But I have to stretch. How is a pomegranate a sexual word? Actually I think I know. But its not easy. One has to decide this word must be erotic and then go from there. How are breasts like a palm tree? It's a strange word picture for me. I have to use my mighty imagination. ;-)
There are fawns, gardens, mountains. All these can be interpreted erotically if one will. I suspect this was easier, more natural to the original Hebrew reader.
Isn't it amazing that such a book would be included in the Biblical canon? Surely God did create sexuality as good, and not just as a way to procreate the race. He meant for it to be mutually pleasurable.
There are even some spots which seem to address the angst, disappointment, insecurity that love can bring.
I always note with interest that the human condition has been the same since God made us and Adam fell into sin. I become aware of how we are part of the march of time. We are here for such a short while. Then we will be gone and others will continue on, just as we have continued on in the place of many before us of whom we only have records, maybe a few pictures, or maybe nothing at all.

Houston Rockets - Almost a Dynasty in the 1980's

This is a trip down memory lane and a rant at the same time. How cool!?!

How many of you know that the Houston Rockets were once almost a dynasty? It's true. The 1981 and 1986 teams made it to the NBA finals. They were the only team in the 1980's to come out of the Western Conference that wasn't the Los Angeles Lakers. Yes that makes the Lakers the true dynasty. But they had a lot of help from the league office. The Lakers were the glamorous team with Jabbar, Worthy, Nixon, Magic Johnson, etc. But Houston had the lunch pail team. In 1981 it was Moses Malone and Billy Paultz jamming up the middle and Mitch Wiggins, Lew Lloyd driving the basket for dunks or drawing fouls. They had the makings of a great team for long into the future. All those guys, except Paultz were young, in the prime of their careers.

But the powers that be did not like this. They wanted the star studded LA - Boston finals each year. Houston in the finals cut down on the TV ratings. Big time. No one had heard of these guys. Paultz was fun to watch if you were a Rocket fan but he did it ugly. That was the appeal. The underdog beats the giant, in this case skyhooking Kareem Jabbar.

So during the off season after 1981 Lloyd and Wiggins were throw out of the league for drug use. You cannot tell me they were the only two players in the league using drugs. We were singled out. No one else got this stiff treatment. And there was really no explanation. I think they followed them and found a reason to break up the team.

In addition the Rockets signed John Lucas to be our new point guard. He was a good player and would compliment the other returning players. The team needed a ball handling distributor. In those days the league gave the team losing a player some compensation. But this was usually a draft pick, something nothing like the player obtained. But for this situation the president of the league gave as compensation two of our regular starters. In short the players lost were worth more than the player signed. It was again the second strike in an obvious attempt to make sure the Houston Rockets could never again break into the league's glamorous finals of Boston - L.A.

Sad but true. That 1981 team, as it would have been constituted, would have been a formidable threat to the Lakers' domination of the west. And they were a fun team to watch. All the players were quick and athletic. They played great team defense. They passed the ball. They were unselfish. Well maybe not Malone but we can forgive him, he was the star. He did play defense, blocked shots, and could run the break. He was a lot like Hakeem Olajuwon.

But the brain trust in NYC did not like it. And they took steps to quash it. It's really a story that should be told.

The Rockets would come back on 1986 with an entirely new team. That too was pretty exciting. Olajuwon and Ralph Sampson played almost a double post. Lucas may have still been on that team. If you were watching you cannot forget the shot with .5 second left that beat the Lakers in the finals. But in both years the Rockets lost to the Celtics in six games. Those Celtic teams were loaded with hall of famers and the Rockets who were expected to lose in four straight managed to win two games each time. They hung in there pretty well and with some breaks might have won more. Sampson got injured though and it wouldn't be until 1994 and 1995 that the Rockets won through and became champions led by an older and wiser Olajuwon.

It is this as much as anything that soured me to watching pro sports, especially pro basketball.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

I went to see this movie last night with DW. It was the best thing showing at Angelica downtown. This movie house is so close to home and I hate driving across town. Angelica is sort of likes to be an art house. I wanted to see one of the three chick flicks currently showing but none of them is showing at the Angelica.
Diving Bell and the Butterfly is kind of like a documentary. I think this is how documentaries are done these days. There is much more emphasis on entertaining.
It was pretty good. I expected it to be depressing. It was a little depressing. But it had enough amusing elements to keep it light.
I'm not sure I'd recommend this film. There is no great educational reason for this movie. It's about the heroism of a man who really has nothing to live for. Additionally it is about a lot of medical professionals who also performed heroically.
If you didn't know this movie is in French with English subtitles. I have never heard French much before. It's cool. I'd heard it is a lot like Spanish and now I believe it more. It just looks so much different as it is written.
DW spent the last two days working at a garage sale to benefit the Konderlas' missionary hopes. She was so spent that we decided not to go to the Valentine's dance at church. By the time she was done it was well past 6 PM. There was just no time to get ready. But she did stay awake for the movie.

Political musing - Money Talks

I was surprised that Romney quit the race. Perhaps I shouldn't be. National and even statewide politics are based almost solely on money. Now that he disappointed in the Super Tuesday elections he will not get much money. The vast majority of money goes to front runners. He has already spend $40 million of his personal fortune. Like any good businessman he realizes it is foolish to throw good money after bad. So he quit in a timely fashion. He did not drag in out fruitlessly spending his and others' money. I would like to see him stay in to the convention but I certainly understand the reason he has bowed out. And I respect his decision. He still ought to get an early day convention speech. That would be a friendly thing for McCain's people to do. It would also help to show the party is unified.

Romney could be back in 2012. He likens himself to Reagan in 1976 (I think). In 1976 Reagan lost in a pretty close battle to Gerald Ford. Ford was an unelected incumbent. It's really not analogous. But heck it probably excited Romney's supporters.

On Super Tuesday Huckabee did much better than the national pundits thought he would. Romney came in third in a lot of states. Romney had a lot more money than Huckabee but it didn't translate into votes. Huckabee came in second to McCain. But for the most part this is only for bragging rights. Most Republican primaries were winner take all elections. So McCain got all the delegates. Huckabee can probably keep running his frugal campaign through the rest of the primaries. Ron Paul will continue also as a gadfly with an energetic grass roots following that is not all about winning. They perceive they have truth on their side and they wish to evangelize all who will listen.

I was thinking of voting for Romney but several weeks ago DW spoke of voting for Huckabee after she did some internet research. I think she has convinced me. I will probably still vote for Huckabee even with McCain the certain winner now. My BF is going to vote for McCain.

Next to that we read that Clinton is out of money. She has "loaned" herself money to run after her disappointing result in Super Tuesday. Obama is out-funding her. Two sidelights to this are that Clinton refuses to disclose her income and assets as completely as Obama has. The implication is that she and her husband have things they wish to hide. It is important because the rules say she can only donate half the value of her assets. The value of the Clintons' assets is not clear at all. Secondly most of her donors are fat cats who have already given the maximum of $2300. They can give an extra $2300 if she wins the primary to spend in the general election. She is encouraging them to give early. If she does not win she will have to give it all back. That's going to be a lot of money. It's like mortgaging the future. So she is pretty desperate. In contrast Obama gets a lot of smaller donations from often first time participants.

One has to think this shows a tendency to be a spendthrift and perhaps poor physical planning on Clinton's part. Would a Clinton presidency have the same tendencies?

Clinton still leads the delegate tally but because Obama has more money to spend he has a lot of momentum. It's like a sporting game where one team is in the lead but obviously tired as time is running out. Also, the image of a horse race is commonly used in regards to elections. We have one horse leading but another one charging as they approach the finish line.

Ash Wednesday musings

Copied from xanga, just to start off.

Ash Wednesday

Listening to an Ash Wednesday sermon this morning about dust to dust: Don't keep you Christianity private. And I know just who to talk to about it.
Reading Psalm 51. What stood out was "my sin is ever before me". The psalm makes that seem like a good thing. Yes, I am constantly aware of my sin. Often as I am doing it. So what am I doing to change it? Sin is the constant condition of man.
Also the prayers, and the sermon mentioned much about money. We are certainly still the richest nation on earth. He mentioned that if Americans tithed 10% of our income there would be 180 billion dollars more to help people in poverty or to proclaim the gospel throughout the world.
Do I trust too much in money? My efforts to retire are all about trusting money it seems. I keep thinking of things that I must put off until I am retired. Retirement = freedom in my mind. I realize that I cannot simply put everything off for retirement. For one thing it may never come. For another this idyllic concept is not real. Retirement does not mean freedom like I want it to mean. I will still have bills and responsibilities.
I believe Janis Joplin up to a point. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left, to lose, (you're) nothing, nothing if you ain't free!" Joplin was wrong though if she meant you could be free and simply avoid responsibilities. That is simply irresponsible and quickly runs into a dead end (so to speak).
I talked to my brother yesterday about what might happen after the company is dissolved. After it all settles I may still be servicing the portfolio as it "bleeds" off. Wow. That would take years. That is not my desire but truly I do not have any obvious alternatives right now. Hopefully my hours could be cut back and be very flexible.
I'm reading a Wycliffe newsletter. They are constantly looking for overseas volunteers. A lot of this stuff would be temporary but some gigs could be for several months. I could volunteer as a teacher of translator's kids or as a guy wielding a hammer.
But for that and many other things I have to wait until I am retired.