How I Kicked Coke... Again

I used to wonder about people who smoked cigarettes. Everyone knows that smoking is a terribly unhealthy habit with seemingly nothing but undesirable consequences. So why stick with it?

Then I realized that my relationship with Coca-Cola is awfully similar. It has absolutely no redeeming value other than tasting great. It's full of serious calories, caffeine, and all kinds of other junk that doesn't exactly help the body. And it's super acidic. I've known for a long time I shouldn't drink it, but couldn't bring myself to quit because, well, I just liked it. A lot.

Interestingly enough, there have been at least two times where I conquered the addiction and quit Coke. But I wound up coming back to it. Actually, both times I "fell off the wagon" we had recently had a baby and I really felt like I needed caffeine (I don't like coffee or tea).

So here's what I've learned about how to quit your Coke (or similar) habit:

* Don't quit. Sounds like strange advice, eh? Part of the problem with going cold turkey and swearing off something (a Coke, a cigarette, whatever) is that if you "fall off the wagon" you immediately feel guilty. And then, with your streak ruined and your resolve weakened, it's very easy to slip back into old ways. Trust me, I know.

I don't think I've quit Coke - I've just scaled way back. There's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying a Coke. After all, most of us allow ourselves to enjoy other things that are not nutritious. The key is to do so in moderation.

* Baby steps are better than cold turkey. The problem with breaking an addiction is, obviously, the withdrawal phase. In my case with Coke, this involved some serious headaches, and when you live in a house with rambunctious little kids, you tend to not want to give yourself a headache for days on end.

So this time, instead of just mustering up the resolve to quit cold turkey, I scaled it back gradually. One a day, then one every couple days. Now it's been a week since my last Coke and, quite frankly, my appetite for it has gone.

My new beverage of choice -
Water with lime

* Use a crutch. When I was scaling back my Coke consumption, I allowed myself to have something sweet to eat once in a while in the afternoon. Once or twice I even got a piece of chocolate candy (a peanut butter cup - don't tell my kids!) so I could get a bit of caffeine to blunt the headache. I also didn't hesitate to use ibuprofen.

Will I ever have a Coke again? Almost certainly. And that's OK - don't judge me if you see me sipping a Coke! The goal here was not to create some kind of legalistic rule but to change my patterns and habits to be more healthful. And that's the key principle here. Legalistic rules only work for a while, and when broken they often lead to defeated resignation. But positive changes in lifestyle will, I think, bear more fruit.

And that's a principle that goes way beyond Coke, don't you think?

Meet the Sheppards

Imagine moving to a small town in the hill country of Liberia. With a new baby. Let me introduce you to John Mark and Sara Sheppard.

The Sheppards visited our small group a couple weeks ago and told us their story and about their vision to work with the Manya people in Liberia. The Manya are an unreached people group in the northwest part of the country. While 99% of them self-identify as Muslims, their version of Islam is heavily influenced by folk religion. Fortunately, theirs is a culture where people are generally very open and receptive to spiritual conversation. They told us stories of how they have already seen God begin to move among them.

John Mark actually grew up in Liberia as the child of missionaries who worked with Liberians in that country and in refugee camps nearby. The two first met while Sara was on a short-term mission trip, so I suppose one could say that missionary work is in their DNA. But the work will be challenging, and obviously it won't be easy moving a young family to a rural part of Liberia (they're reasonably confident they'll have electricity!). So the Sheppards need partners -- they covet your prayers and, quite frankly, need more financial backers as well.

You can learn more about them on their blog.

Take Systematic Theology from Wayne Grudem for Free

Got a tremendous offer for you. Interested in digging into theology and doctrine a bit, but don't know where or how to start? Consider this deal from Monergism Books - they've made noted Evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology course available for free via mp3 CDs. All you pay is $4.99 in shipping (in the U.S. - I can't speak for points further afield).

If you're unfamiliar with Wayne Grudem, he is one of the best-known and most-respected living Evangelical theologians. His Systematic Theology is a standard textbook for systematic theology courses in many evangelical seminaries (including the courses I took).

These mp3 courses would be useful during a commute or a workout, or whatever time you want to give to them. I believe that you'll find digging deeper into theology and doctrine will be rewarding and edifying. You might also consider grabbing a copy of Grudem's Systematic Theology, shamelessly promoted below (if you buy it, throw me a bone and do it here!):

Thinking Out Loud About Gay Marriage

North Carolina voters approved an amendment yesterday that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and Barack Obama today announced he was in favor of gay marriage. So here we've got a nice political wedge issue in a big election year that really strikes me as mostly an attempt to stir up "the base" in the respective political parties. I listened to some radio commentary on the subject today and have read a few articles and blogs here and there, and I have to make this confession:

I've never understood why this is such a huge issue... for either side. 

On the one side... Are there really that many gay and lesbian people that are itching to get married? If so, why? Why do these folks feel like they need a state-sanctioned blessing of sorts on their relationships? I really don't mean this to be patronizing. It's a legitimate question. Is the issue really all about equality as if a marriage license and contract can legitimize them in a way that they don't yet sense legitimacy? Or is there something deeper going on?

On the other side of the divide... does enacting a state (or federal) law against gay marriage really bring about some kind of meaningful victory in a culture war? Does that mean anything when the culture seems to largely accepts homosexuality? Does the Church really have a vested interest in what the state decides constitutes a marriage contract?

Let me be clear about a couple of things. I believe that marriage, as defined in the Scripture, is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman, and that any kind of sexual relationship outside of that covenant is sinful. I think I have a high view of marriage that is derived from biblical authority. So in raising these questions I'm not the kind of wishy-washy Christian who wants to compromise on biblical authority in the face of the rising tide of cultural objections. 

I am wondering about the wisdom of the Church becoming the vocal epicenter of these political debates. Is the Gospel really advanced when churches get waist-deep in this kind of political activism? I know there's a school of thought out there that views the church's role in politics as part of its mandate to be "salt and light" in a society, and I guess to some extent that's warranted (abortion comes to mind). But is this really a hill worth dying on? And, to be clear, I'm talking about how the state defines marriage, not how the church defines it, which I see as two very different matters (perhaps this is a key to what I'm thinking here). 

I'd suggest we need to see LGBT folks as sinners in need of the Gospel (just like everyone else) rather than as political opposition out to destroy us. And it seems to me that's more a call for compassion than fear or anger. And we can approach these people that way without compromising biblical teaching. In fact, it seems to me that Jesus approached sinful people ("others") with this kind of compassionate engagement, and obviously this happened without compromising biblical teaching. I'm not sure that political rallies and "get out the vote" campaigns are really anywhere near the core of a biblical agenda in this culture. 

(And this is absolutely NOT a capitulation to the idea that "spiritual" beliefs have no business in the public arena. I reject that kind of false dichotomy wholeheartedly. This is more a question of the wisdom of approaching this issue this way). 

I'm still thinking through this stuff so am open to engagement and dialogue. I know many will disagree. For what it's worth, I prefer a system where marriage is left alone, but I don't have a problem with the idea of a civil union where some of the legal rights of marriage (not all) are provided (I'm thinking here of things like hospital visitation, tax or probate-type issues, that sort of thing). Surely the Church would not have to acknowledge or participate in these kinds of civil contracts anymore than the Church participates in, say, "common law" marriage. 

Christian marriage can (and should) be held to a different, higher standard than state marriage contracts. In that vein, I'd suggest that the passionate opposition to gay marriage is inconsistent with tacit acceptance of no-fault divorce... but I suppose that's another subject for another time. 

But I'm genuinely interested: What do you think? 

Addendum: For further reading, here are two thought-provoking articles on each side of the issue:

Kevin DeYoung: Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage

Rachel Held Evans: How to Win a Culture War and Lose a Generation

Our Experience at a Homeschool Convention

I mentioned previously that we spent a day and a half at a really big homeschool convention that was held locally. We are interested in potentially homeschooling at some point, though we are not necessarily committed to the idea at present, so we decided to check it out. There was an enormous number of seminars available that appealed to a wide arrange of styles, methods, challenges, and stages of education. A few stood out (for all the wrong reasons!):

• Let Go or I’ll Break Your Leg
• UH, OH! The Fractions Are Moving In! (There goes the neighborhood!)
• I’m German and I have PMS
• Have you ever…Dressed Up in Traditional Garb to Discuss the Baroque Period?
• Introduction to 4-Level Analysis Grammar Instruction

Now, to be fair, the seminars we actually attended did, without exception, hold some value (some more than others, obviously). There was some thought-provoking stuff, a lot of which could hold application for those who don't homeschool. Honestly, though I'm poking a bit of fun here, I have a high view of homeschooling, whether or not we opt to do it.

Evidently one of the main reasons people hit these conventions is the exhibit hall, and it was absolutely massive. There were scores of vendors. As you'd expect, many curriculum providers had huge displays staffed by multiple people to discuss their curricular offerings. There were book sellers and all manner of services that were available to provide some kind of aid in the homeschooling venture. There were also, interestingly enough, seemingly random vendors that had little to do with homeschooling, like the homemade soap people. While there were a couple of guys who seemed to think they were going to a Renaissance Fair (they were, I'm fairly certain, vendors), the majority of people there seemed, contrary to the stereotypes, pretty normal.

About 24 hours into the thing, we were out of gas. The whole thing was pretty overwhelming, and one day was plenty for us to get a feel for it, talk to people in the exhibition hall, and that sort of thing. Will we homeschool our kids? Maybe now, maybe later, maybe not at all. There are advantages and disadvantages. We'll see.

Thinking About Classical Education and Latin

'Tis the season for our annual discussion and exploration of how to educate our children. As we explore the idea of homeschooling, we're looking through various curricula and co-op options and talking to a variety of friends about what they do. One of the approaches to education that has gained traction in the homeschooling world, particularly among the theologically Reformed, is the classical education model. There's a lot to commend it, but I have reservations as well. What follows is essentially me "thinking out loud."

Photo from InsideClassicalEd.com

Classical education generally distinguishes three stages in the growth and development of children, and tailors the educational goals and methods to each stage. These are usually labeled "grammar" (for little kids through grade 5-6), "logic" (roughly the middle school years), and "rhetoric" (the high school years). The grammar phase focuses on memorizing facts and data, the logic phase begins to assemble them into greater understanding (connecting the dots, so to speak), and the rhetoric phase develops these into a worldview that can be explained, articulated, and defended. That's a rough explanation (as I understand it).

It makes sense in many ways, and certainly has strong historical precedent dating back to the Greco-Roman period - hence the name "classical" education. But I have my reservations, the chief of which is the usual insistence on most classical schools and curricula that students learn Latin. I don't think that "that's the way it's always been done" is a good enough reason to do it this way. Obviously for close to 2,000 years, Latin was a central component to education (utilizing some version of what we now call the "classical" model). The early American universities like Harvard all required a reading knowledge of Latin as a prerequisite for admission.

Image via gosummitacademy.com

But, for most of that period, Latin was the language of education because most of the source material and books used had been written in Latin. It was the universal language of the intelligentsia, the learning class across Western civilization. There just wasn't nearly as much material available in other languages. But that does not remain the case. In fact, French supplanted Latin in that role around the 1700's (giving rise to the term "lingua Franca"), and now English is the universal language of learning.

So is Latin useless? Of course not. Understanding Latin gives one a leg up in learning languages that derive from Latin (like Spanish) and in broadening one's understanding of English, much of which comes from Latin roots. A lot of terminology in fields ranging from medicine to theology derives from Latin. Learning Latin is also said to be excellent training for the mind - though I wonder if that's true of any kind of language learning.

So Latin is fine and has some value. I just have not been persuaded that it's important to begin having young kids memorizing Latin as opposed to a "living" language like Spanish or other academic pursuits. But I'm open to argument on that point.

Kindles Aren't for Small Group

I like my Kindle Touch and have enjoyed reading with it. In many ways it's easier to read than a physical book due to the wonders of e-ink, it's obviously much more portable, and books are accessible via phone and computer. So I'm a very content Kindle user. But, one thing I've learned the hard way, is that the Kindle is not a great tool for leading (or probably for participating) in a small group book discussion.

Now, I could certainly be missing something because I remain a Kindle novice. But the biggest hindrance I've found is that, at least in some books (like the one we're reading!), you can't see page numbers. Instead, you get something called location numbers. That's fine when you're reading a book, but problematic when discussing it. "What do you think of what he said on page... ummm... location 2138?"

A second problem, also quite problematic, is that not every book published on the Kindle includes endnotes and appendices. And, in many cases, study questions are found in an appendix!

The bottom line is that the Kindle is fantastic for personal reading, but is not a great tool for small group discussion. By the way, this is my first act as an Amazon Affiliate... If you want to check out the Kindle Touch, Wi-Fi, 6" E Ink Display, do it here!

The Danger of Facebook Ads

We recently launched a new division of our insurance agency called Go Mission Trip Insurance, which is aimed at providing travel/medical insurance coverage to missionaries - especially short-term mission teams. After putting a considerable amount of time as well as some money into building the website, setting up the business, and that sort of thing, we turned our attention to spreading the word (a process we're still very much engaged in).

I thought it might be interesting to experiment with Facebook ads. The idea is pretty cool - people tell Facebook so much about themselves that you can do some narrowly targeted advertising. You can, for example, target ads to people by age range (or just a certain age), by marital status, by where they live, and by their various interests, "likes" and affiliations. So I put together an ad aimed at people who were interested in various "mission" related keywords, as well as those who "liked" a bunch of mission agencies, seminaries, and notable figures. The first ad bombed -- not sure anyone saw it and don't know that anyone clicked through.

So I went back to the drawing board, changed the ad around, widened the scope, and... BOOM! After a week or so I realized our traffic had gone through the roof and that it was clearly the Facebook ad doing it's thing. "Well," I thought, "it's a good thing I had put a cap on how much money we can spend each day!" But... and it's a very big but.... I soon learned that Facebook increased my buy without my permission.

I won't get into my specific reaction(s) to this when I realized what had happened. But let's just say that we don't have much of a marketing budget (I mean... hardly anything - we're not a big company!), and this was going to hurt. Turns out that, sure enough, when you get into the nitty gritty of Facebook's ad program, they can (and evidently, they DO) increase your cap automatically if your ad is getting a lot of play.

This, of course, begs the question: Why give me the illusion of control by letting me set a cap?

The moral of the story is that you need to be very careful in setting up your Facebook campaign, and you need to keep a very watchful eye over it's success rate. I've not given up on Facebook ads (though I don't have any more money for it right now!), but next time you better believe I'll be very careful. You should too.

My Experience of the 2012 South Carolina Primary

Living in an early primary state comes with certain opportunities and certain annoyances. Among the latter are incessant advertising through every form of media which leads one to eventually missing low budget ads from auto dealership and sleazy local attorneys. But it also leads to unique opportunities to get a little closer to these campaigns and their candidates. It's been more than a week now since the Republican primary here in South Carolina, so I thought I'd briefly describe my experience of it.

Rick Santorum

My view of Rick Santorum

The first visit to a campaign stop was not planned in advance at all. I had said that I really wanted to hit a campaign event (didn't care who) just for the experience. But what originally caused us to head to Spartanburg on a Wednesday morning was not Rick Santorum, it was the Duggar family (you know, "20 Kids and Counting"). At least the prospect of seeing a bunch of them at a Christian bookstore. Fact is, we sometimes watch their show and find it amusing. Keri just thought it would be fun to go see them, but only two of them were at that event. So we decided to head a mile up the road to the Beacon, a local hole in the wall that is famous for... I'm not sure. It's a poor man's Varsity, if you're familiar with that iconic Atlanta establishment.

JimBob Duggar

And once there, we were, in fact, in the middle of a genuine presidential campaign event. Santorum gave a nice version of his stump speech, and it was nice to hear the whole thing instead of 30-60 second soundbites in a debate. There was a warm crowd, a large media contingent (including a rather surly Carl Cameron), and all that stuff. And, yes, there were a bunch more Duggars present as well, so mission accomplished. We left feeling glad we had experienced a slice of a real Presidential campaign. We thought that would be it, but as it turned out, several other opportunities remained.

Ron Paul

My view of Ron Paul

I've always liked Ron Paul and his outside-the-box message, style, and campaign. His strict adherence to the Constitution and libertarian approach to most domestic issues is very attractive and sensible to me. His much-maligned foreign policy is not perfect, but overall I like him very much. (In fact, I think he's the most likable guy in the campaign). I recently wrote a longer take on Ron Paul here.

Now, I decided to catch Ron Paul in a hangar near the downtown Greenville airport as he was barnstorming the state on the eve of the primary. That crowd was totally different than the Santorum crowd - younger, much more raucous, and quite devoted to their guy. They're all convinced that they are the vanguard of a real revolution, and I'm not sure I disagree. In fact, I hope they're right. Paul was exactly what you'd expect. He is who he is all the time, I guess, which is pretty refreshing in a politician. Worth getting soaked for the experience.

Mitt Romney

Enthusiastically awaiting their guy

Less enthusiastically waiting

Our family expedition to see Mitt Romney was almost completely spontaneous. We were talking about it at dinner with my in-laws, and the next thing you know, we're all heading downtown after dinner to catch the last pre-election rally for Mitt Romney, which would also feature SC governor Nikki Haley and VA governor Bob McDonnell.

Not the best photo of Romney!

Nikki Haley with Ann Romney
& Bob McDonnell

Now this was a top-end political event, staged by an experienced crew. The room was stuffed with enthusiastic, sign-waving supporters. There was music thumping (the kind of classic rock Americana style you expect at these things). There was an oversized American flag and a huge contingency of local and national media. The room was hot and the boys were pretty miserable (after all, they could see nothing and the crowd was thick). We learned that my in-laws were in an overflow room and that the stars of the show would be coming by to greet those in the overflow room, so we decided to head that way.

Ann Romney seems to be the
most popular person in the room

The next thing you know, I'm with the boys and their grandparents right in the front/center of a small stage in the overflow room. After a nearly insufferable wait, we found ourselves a couple feet from the Romneys, Haleys, and McDonnells. Somehow I made eye contact with Romney and he came over to shake hands with the boys and I, as did his wife and, a couple minutes later, Haley. Everyone thought that the experience was pretty cool, and I think my oldest son, age 6, will likely remember the experience. He didn't want to leave, actually, wanting to head back to the main room to hear the speech (which is ironic, because he was quite vocal in not wanting to go at first).

Conclusion
Before you ask, I could not decide on a candidate until I was walking into a booth to vote. And I'm yet conflicted about who I voted for. Suffice to say that, from my perspective, all four candidates have pronounced strengths and pronounced weaknesses, and I could have given my vote to any of the three I saw on the trail. I'm glad that we took some time to experience the campaigns this way, though. It was honestly pretty cool.

Homer Simpson Would Love This

Here's an image that seems fairly descriptive of a fairly wide swath of our culture. It seems this is a remote control that doubles as a bottle opener. And, just in time for the hyperbolic run-up to the Super Bowl, it's available at a Groupon special price. Oy.