Robet's Unread Rules

 Despite the fact that most people claim to use Robert's Rules of Order for parliamentarian procedure, few do so. Even fewer realize it, and still fewer have actually read the book. Being one of the very few sometimes gets to be a pain, at least if you want things to go by the book.

Some common examples of procedures that are not according to Robert but done are to call for a vote for a motion followed with saying, "Those opposed by the same sign." If the vote is by the same sign, it is a vote for the motion and not against. One of the matters that bugs me the most is when something is "Laid on the Table." The proper motion is to postpone for a set (indefinite is acceptable) time. The Lay on the Table motion is to set something aside to handle an urgent, pressing matter, which is then followed by resuming the first motion. Oftentimes, the Lay on the Table motion is used to kill a matter that no one wants to vote on.  At a recent City Council meeting I witnessed the Council repeatedly vote to suspend the rules. It was the correct motion, (since they wanted to avoid a vote on Unanimous Consent and consider something for immediate adoption rather than wait for another meeting) but the point here is that it is a regular occurrence to suspend the rules. Why have the rules if you're going to simply suspend (or ignore) them?

Organizations and governmental bodies do things the same way. They believe they are right, but the reality is they are just as wrong as the last person they saw doing it. Copying the last group has become the norm. Everyone expects things to run by the same procedure as before.

As Christians we are often similarly comfortable. We want our church services to be the same, the preacher to finish on time, the prayers to last as long, etc. Many times we want to deal with people in a certain way and for a set period of time or when nothing is bothering us. When we are annoyed we act differently. As C.S. Lewis put it in the Problem of Pain, "Everyone feels benevolent when nothing happens to be annoying him at the moment."

Just like the complacency in parliamentarian procedure, we get complacent in our Christianity copying those that came before us. Every now and then we need someone to come along and remind us to read the Book. 

Redundant Repetition

This is a post on a post. Yesterday's post to be precise. I had some reservations in posting yesterday partly because of its length and partly its content.

It grew long because of the back story, yet it was needed for the benefit of those who read my posts that don't go to church with me. I believe that most of you can relate to similar issues in your own churches. If I were politically correct I would apologize to the agnostics and atheists who may read this post, but I'm not, and I won't. Political correctness is based on the idea that you can pick up a turd by the clean end. I'd rather be biblically correct than politically correct any day of the week, so thanks for reading atheists and agnostics, but not sorry you can't relate.

In the end it is the literary content of the post I loved the most and made me publish it. The title is appropriate because that is what the guy Sunday was trying to say. As if we should have cut off our prayer, or even our lesson simply because the hands on the clock were in a certain position. Sometimes Jesus taught in the middle of the day, but some of the most memorable are when he spoke at night (see most of his boat rides). I loved the irony of the name and the length of the post. There are other parallels, but these were the most obvious.

Overall, the message of my post mimics the reason and my desire for writing. It accentuates the goal I have for this blog in that I hope to speak in many different ways to get us to review and re-evaluate our take on why we do what we do for Christ. Plus, anytime I can reference a Ted Dekker book, particularly my favorite one, it has to be good. Dekker also mimics this non-fiction theme in his first published books, one of them that ranks high on my list of books is When Heaven Weeps. If you have never read any of his works take the time, you will not be disappointed. We share a passionate love and writing spark in CS Lewis' essay Christian Apologetics. Reading that did not change my life, but it focused my walk and pushed me toward where I am headed.

Many authors think it cheapens the work to have to explain what was intended. I didn't hit on all the symbolism from yesterday in this post, that was not my point. I hoped to simply open your minds to the hidden undercurrents. Look for more, we can talk about them in the comments, but ultimately I hope you take away more from my writing than just the anecdotal stories of a prolific typist.

Related articles

• Cut It Short (byrdmouse.com)
• Interpretative Labeling (byrdmouse.com)

Growing a Human

While Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." was not the subject of the conversation the other day, it did occasion me to think of the following analogy. It is one I have contemplated for some time. Growing up we get a skeleton for our faith. This begins as our parents show their faith to us. Notice I am not saying just the Christians, Muslims do it, Hindus do it, atheists do it. Parents show their children what is important to them. More often than not, these are the ideals that the child grows up with as well. How the parent treats them, as important or not, also begins to send messages to the children as to how they should treat the matters.

Now the skeleton by itself is extremely flexible-in someone else's hands. Knees can bend in 2 directions because there are no tendons or muscles to restrict them. A child's view of religion is not very deep. It is very open to interpretation, and without guidance it can lead to anything. As we are able to grow in our faith, we understand better and are required to take fewer things by faith having gained an understanding of the truths behind them.

As we get older and bigger we add tendons and muscles and maybe eventually skin. The reasons for some of the bones being where they are becomes evident. Or at least it becomes clear that they simply are where they belong. You can't get muscles before the skeleton. And while the muscles and tendons can be seen as restricting the movement of the skeleton, it is the way the body is meant to be. The truth of the way the body should move. The more body we have built, the more truth we understand, the closer we come to having something to put skin on, and a face. Eventually if we are lucky enough, we can get a complete body. It isn't by chance or accident, and it isn't overnight.

One of my absolute favorite CS Lewis books is Til We Have Faces. It is an allegory of the Psyche/Cupid myth, and contains, of all the unlikely things, idol worship and a class of priests unlike any you would ever expect to meet in a Christian work of literature. Idol worship, sure, idol worship by the "good" guys? Not expected. It all boils down in the end to a point where the question from God to the main character is how can we speak face to face, unless you have a face? Without being able to comprehend the biggest question of all, how can it be discussed?

On a macro scale (and unless you look deeply at the remainder of the plot) this mimics the legendary agnostic Douglas Adams' answer to the question of life the universe and everything. We are given the answer (42) but cannot understand the question until a greater event has occurred.

No, these two don't go hand in hand. And likewise the moral of Til We Have Faces is not that we cannot understand anything about religion until we understand everything about religion. That is more a Josef Heller novel. The point of it all is that we start to grow our human body as a child. The input our parents give (or don't) is important in starting that off. That start also gives us the impetus to continue (or not) to build our understanding of how it all works until such time as we are able to no longer have to rely on faith alone to grasp the fundamental truths of it all.