My goal isn’t to cause strife, so what is the source of this impression I leave with people? When I think about things, I understand them by debating with myself. The topics change but the internal dialog never stops. It’s how I process all information, from a Sunday sermon to weekend plans. The debate even extends to topics I already firmly and passionately support. Although I crave black and white explanations, I often wonder if I hold such a confident stance because I lack understanding. A small measure of uncertainty and shades of gray comfort me. Ironic, I know.

I feel compelled to extend my internal dialog to others. It often manifests by playing devil’s advocate to different degrees. Resisting the urge to share is as difficult as ignoring an itch. I am compelled because deep down I have difficulty accepting people are not like me. They may not process information as I do. They may not care as I do. My joy and anxiety are amplified when I am asked to discuss and explore a topic with shy people. It’s like taking a recovering alcoholic to a wine tasting. It taunts me with the promise of what I love most, but then requires I exercise painful restraint.

I could not tell you how prominent the problem is anymore than my daughter could tell you how prominent her frizzy hair is. We both lack perspective because we are too close to the problem. I can tell you that I dislike people that resemble the “antagonistic” side of me. I liken this part of me to Socrates, who was a total douchebag. Yet despite how I resent this part of me, I can’t change. It isn’t something I do. It is who I am.

My ego is being healed by the new direction I’ve found for my social flaw. My inspiration comes from another historical figure, Mr. John Adams. Mental_Floss encouraged me to give the new HBO series a try. Slowly I’m starting to connect the historical facts that frame the person.

As I recount what I know, I won’t bother to separate historical fact from HBO’s embellishment. Hell, you may find I’ve read a bit into what I watched, possibly inflating Mr. Adam’s accomplishments and character. Those details matter little when looking for inspiration. In the words of Jebediah Springfield, “A noble spirit embiggins the smallest man.”

That said, consider the first episode. In it, John agreed to represent the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, despite how it would damage his reputation. Justice was more important than politics and his family’s well being. He defended them to the best of his ability, and 6 were found innocent. John defended the crown right to levy taxes, pointing out the reason they were levied and reminding people most were repealed. His low key but clear voice of reason doesn’t deter the cruel mob demonstrations that sought independence. Few things are scarier than resisting a mob. Few feats show greater commitment to an ideal. By the end of the episode King George had repealed many of the colonists basic rights. John was humble enough to recognize that this (and not petty taxes) was an issue weighty enough to defy the crown. He was pragmatic enough to support a group he did not perfectly agree with, all the while attempting to assert his righteous influence among them. Although he sounds decisive, the show focuses on the internal conflict and doubt. Does his commitment to justice supersede his commitment to his family? What use is it to support a hopeless rightous cause? How does he support the colonists without supporting their despicable actions?

I want to be John Adams.

First a few definitions: Shame comes from feeling unworthy, embarrassed, disgraced or responsible for an offense. Repentance means to be motivated by shame to change one’s mind. It implies an effort to avoid or counter the shameful act in the future. To clarify, repentance does not imply success. It merely implies effort.

Be definition shame must precede repentance, if only momentarily. Yet the two are meant to be mutually exclusive. A repentant soul shouldn’t be ashamed. In fact, any shame that remains in a repentant heart is the unhealthy sort meant to destroy us from the inside out. There is no truth or value to those internal accusations.

Shame can blind people to their own worth and obfuscate the most obvious solutions. It is our job to help guide ashamed people so they find quick and free release through repentance. We are also obliged to help people let go of residual shame once they have repented. People that deny or disbelieve heartfelt apologies seal shame and repentance in the same heart and are responsible for the damage done within.

It is silly to expect repentance from someone who feels justified or proud of their actions. I propose it is better to convince them of their shame first. If a child lies without remorse, shouldn’t we tell them they are a liar and treat them as untrustworthy. The goal isn’t to destroy their ego. Repentance is quick and free, even if it isn’t always easy. Sometimes I get the impression society expects us to preserve our children’s egos at the expense of their souls. If shame doesn’t come naturally and we can’t push them towards it then how will they ever learn and grow?

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

Best cover what they can understand. This issue may be what fuels their interest in the other subjects. I figure I will continue the conversation little-by-little over our evening meals. Chances are Madison would resent even a short family meeting as some punishment and be less likely to speak her mind in the future.

My primary goal is to make clear that I am less concerned with their conclusions as I am by how they reach those conclusions. I hope to use this subject to teach them to value truth. I need them to identify weaknesses in their own conclusions rather than ignore them. There is no shame in answering “I don’t know” or “maybe”. It takes a big man to admit there are things he isn’t sure about.

I plan to start by discussing the essence of science: the scientific method, the role of observation and the nature of theories. From there I will move to my trademark talk about philosophers and sophists. My children already have a basic understanding of the two theories. I’ll use that to help explain why this debate is such a hot topic. What is each person fighting for? What is at stake? Finally I will explain how the debate regarding intelligent design often bounces between two separate issues: the origin of the universe, and the origin of species.

True, I buy into the creation account in Genesis, but only because there is no evidence in the text that indicates it is allegorical. All other symbolic stories (Revelation, Jesus’s parables) are wrapped in passages that identify them as such. Genesis bleeds into history we accept as fact. Be that as it may, I am well aware and won’t deny all the well crafted arguments that support a Big Bang, prehistoric Earth and macroevolution. Let us all hope it is enough to show them the twisted, selfish fight this noble pursuit has become. May they never enter the ring.

When we learn to laugh at ourselves, we are free to be human. The proud are easily mocked and scorned. When we embrace our foolishness, it is more difficult to shame us with it. I pity these shallow people for they have forged their own chains. Everyone is keen to the threat posed by others with vices similar to their own. Let me clarify with some examples. I was a nosy child, so I carried a deep-seated fear people would go through my stuff. I know liars that have issues trusting others. Likewise, shallow people assume everyone is as critical and unforgiving as they are. They are never free to be human and embrace real life. I imagine this fuels their bitter downward spiral.

The schools I attended did not emphasize building student’s character. Most of the rules I remember being enforced were designed to control and protect students and faculty or facilitate learning. The psychological tactics plastic people use often fall between the rules that are enforced. Even the most damaging offenses sound petty when brought before an authority. When I was young I was discouraged by what I perceived as their prosperity. I was so mislead I even adopted some of their values. Now I see the real fruits of that lifestyle. They never learn to love. Rather they endure relationships with people as selfish and loathsome as they are. They never serve a cause greater than themselves. They grow neurotic from trying to maintain a facade of perfection: never misstep; never exhale; never relax.

I am grateful that my children are humble and free. They know plastic people and have experienced their venom. Although I know the natural consequences of a shallow life, I still find it hard to forgive them and wish them well in my prayers. When my children turn to me for advice I don’t have easy responses. The godly response I must recommend isn’t one I understand. At that point it’s clear I’m asking them to be better people than I am.

Love motivates married couples to trust, forgive and compromise. Despite all this, raising a child is still a challenge. Now consider people that were unable to trust, forgive and compromise in the name of love. How do they raise a child without these tools?

The politics of some divorces are similar to those exercised by two nuclear armed counties. Allow me explain. Should any country fire modern nuclear weapons everyone loses–even neighboring countries. (Modern nuclear warheads are exponentially more powerful than Fat Man.) Pressing the big red button is never really an option, and you pray the other fella always remains sane and calm enough to understand that. Couples that were once intimate are capable of critically wounding each other. Just as in a nuclear strike, such an attack hurts everyone: children, relatives, both co-parents. When disagreements arise or stress mounts, both hope the other is rational and responsible enough to keep the finger off the button. To that end both co-parents trust, forgive and compromise but the motivation is more fear than love.

I do not mean to imply that fear is the only emotion that rules co-parents. I imagine most couples relate to my analogy to different degrees. My cold war analogy contains other facets that shed light on the mechanics of many divorced parents. I have highlighted the simplest and most common.

All new families wrestle with holiday plans. Most young new couples stress over when they will visit each other’s parents. Should one of them come from divorced parents the decision may be more complicated. I can’t imagine that is more complicated than when one has children from a previous marriage. This year neither I nor Elise were prepared for the task to coordinating so many families and creating the kid’s complex holiday schedule. Next year we plan to start making these arrangements in early November.

Elise had been divorced for several years, so I expected her to be familiar with some of the shuffle required to keep all everyone happy during the holidays. As it turned out, this is the first year she has spent away from her children. She has maintained a fantastic relationship with David and his family. They often spent Christmas together. Now, Elise is familiar with what the holidays can be like for the children of divorced parents. Her own parents divorced, and her siblings recall opening presents in the car while being shuffled from house to house. She will testify: it is better to spend more quality time at fewer houses than spread the children out so thin they have no real quality time anywhere in particular. However, her kids can’t understand this, Madison in particular. Madison is very sympathetic and giving. She knows everyone will want to see her during the holidays and I am certain she’d give until it hurt if she might please them all. In the end, it will be up to the adults strike a compromise.

The trouble is too many families in too little time, so I proposed we declare a new holiday: The Weekend before Christmas. The title is a bit of a misnomer, for this year it is the weekend of the 16th which is two weekends before Christmas. The goal is to capture a day that is closer to Christmas yet still far enough off that no family would likely desire it. Ironically, that is the weekend David’s extended family spend with the kids, but we worked around that. Once we have one of the families together I am certain I can conjure up enough holiday magic folks remark, “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Christmas”. I just gotta add a heaping helping of holiday tunes and old televised Christmas specials, stir in a liberal measure of gifts and edible goodies and maybe sprinkle in some neighborhood carols or tickets to a local Christmas play. Very few were immediately enthused about the idea, but most are warming up to it. In the end, the new holiday gives us twice as many December holidays to celebrate, potentially adding twice as much holiday cheer to the kids and twice as many families.

If only that was the end of the complications. You see, one of the families lives in another state. It is very important to Elise that the children spend Christmas day at home. I imagine I take the joy of a Christmas at home for granted. My parents intentionally hosted the family Christmas so I would never have to travel on Christmas day. I now understand one of the consequences of starting a family far from my home town: chances are slim I (and my new family) will wake up in my childhood home on Christmas and visit with all my extended family through the day. After a very encouraging conversation with my father it became clear that Duluth is now my family’s home. He explained how he expected he would travel between different homes as a grandparent at Christmas. That is the new role a grandparent assumes in order to ensure the grandchildren enjoy the same peaceful home-bound Christmases their own children did. Older traditions make way for newer ones.

Noah and Madison are fortunate to have so many people that care for them. A day will come when they understand that twice the family benefits includes twice the family burden. Until then, I am grateful these people that care for them are kind and understanding enough to shoulder some of that burden while they are still young.

First and foremost, a leader moves his people towards the group’s goals. The goal might be a military objective, winning the big game or hosting a fun day at the zoo. In his analogy, the ships destination is the fleets ultimate goal.

The leader ensures each member is best equipped to work towards that goal. Part of this means “coaching” members so they are personally able to attend the tasks needed. This is the hardest for American’s to grasp because it often impedes on “personal rights”. A coach urges his team not to stay up late before the big game. A church works to ensure each member does not go astray. Lewis used the ships to represent individuals. He compared this “coaching” to maintaining each ship so it is sea worthy.

Another part of ensuring each member is “best equipped to work towards the goal” is preventing members from disrupting each other’s efforts. Without government a group will dissolve. Personalities will conflict. Perspectives will not agree. People will fear being “short changed” by others. All this and more are used to justify actions that hurt other team members. Often these are decisions members feel are a “better means” to the ultimate goal. Even when that may be true, the “better means” are much less effective without support of the others. Lewis compared this aspect of leadership to keeping the ships in proper formation so they would not collide.

First, notice how all the concerns listed are related to the goal. The goal shapes the boundaries of a team’s influence and a leader’s authority. Broad goals such as those of the church and family imbue a broad scope of power. Second, notice how none of the leadership concerns edify the leader himself, outside what is required to achieve the group’s goal. Simply put: leadership is a position of service. A quick example: a small country may see fit to dress a diplomat in regal attire in order to negotiate with other diplomats who judge by appearances, even if the money could be used to feed its starving citizens. That is different than a leader taxing his group to fund an opulent lifestyle that does not serve the group. This is also different from a team that has agreed to compensate the leader. Most churches pay their elders and pastors and have Biblical grounds to do so.

Leaders are meant to serve the team, yet the reverse is so common many people don’t understand why it is wrong. A poorly communicated or poorly defined goal will free a leader to indulge his selfish requests. It is possible the leader himself has lost sight of the goals so that his abuses are unintentional. Some examples of this kind of abuse: A church begins to lift culture and traditions to the authority of scripture. Parents work to mold a child’s personality in addition to the child’s character.

Groups are often required to tend to many menial tasks that indirectly bring the group closer to the goal. The number of tasks and the distance from the original goal contribute to these “forgotten goals”. Often those menial tasks can become the goal. Think of a stubborn department in a business that refuses to sacrifice in order to accommodate another department. Think of a church that becomes so lost in theology and worship they forsake charity. My old professor (Dr. Doran) would take considerable class time to remind us that the grade was not the goal. He’d remind us Computer Scientists are more than code monkeys. We are problem solvers and tool makers.

Let me review real what I’ve said before I close: A leader serves the team. He moves them towards the goal and ensures each member is effective. Leaders are human. They are prone to abuse the authority they require to direct the team and use that authority to serve his desires that are unrelated to the team’s goals. This problem is so common, many people can only identify grossest abusers. The less clear a team’s goal are, the easier it is for a leader to abuse his power.

Until recently issues like birth, death, welfare and marriage were all within the church’s domain. Within the past century or so authority of these issues has passed to the state. The church was reluctant to issue divorces. The state took a similar stance, denying divorces unless one spouse had significantly violated the marriage agreement. Couples determined to separate would do so by any means nessesary, which often meant perjury …or worse!

It was perjury that prompted governments to provide a straight-forward means to end a marriage without all the deceit, petty charges and arsenic. In 1970 the “no-fault divorce” law was passed. The gist of a “no-fault” divorce is that either spouse can terminate the marriage at anytime. No one needs to violate the marriage agreement and protests from the other party will not stop the proceedings.

The terms for a “no-fault” divorce differ from state-to-state. Surprisingly, New York is among the strictest states, requiring both spouses to sign a separation agreement and remain separated for a year before the proceedings can start. Could this be the reason New York has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, significantly lower than every state in the Bible Belt? A small group began to lobby for a legal alternative that would allow couples to choose to deny themselves no-fault divorces. This new kind of marriage agreement is called a covenant marriage. The idea being that marriage would once again be a significant agreement by which a significant violation is required in order to terminate it. The most common violations are abuse, felony, adultery, abandonment, and long periods of separation. (As for the difference between abandonment and long-term separation, it is lost on me.)

• Wikipedia: no-fault divorce, covenant marriage

Joke: So this sandwich walks into a bar and asks for a beer. The bartender replies, “I’m sorry, we don’t serve food here.” &gtdrumRoll /&lt

Interesting Fact: I do not wear shoes while I am in the office.

Last night I watched Unsolved Mysteries of World War II Volume 4. It was the only DVD in the series that did not get blasted by reviews from my fellow netflix members. The documentary was not produced very well, but the subject was interesting. Two thirds of the DVD was dedicated to exposing the Nazi party’s cultic roots and the bizarre cult-related secrets hidden in Himmler’s castle. Outside video games, it is difficult to find documentation about the Nazis efforts to create an army of uncontrollable zombies hell-bent on consuming human flesh. Although the documentary did not directly make this claim, I think the viewers got the picture.

As I was returning from the grocery store I saw a beautiful thunderstorm off in the distance. There was just enough light left in the sky to make out the outline of a huge cumulus cloud. The cloud looked flat in the twilight. Each arc of lightning within the cloud would illuminate a small portion of the cloud, giving just that portion of the cloud some depth for a moment. It was so beautiful the handful of people in the Publix parking lot set aside a few minutes to enjoy it before they went on their way.