If you are a chef, you are sensitive to how food is prepared and presented. If you are a vintner, you probably freak over “two buck chuck.” If you are an auto detailer, you don’t want to look at my car right now.

If you are a preacher, this has not been a good time for you. I guarantee it. We have just finished an election cycle, after all. Preachers have to be so careful what they say, so that their words mean exactly what they intend them to mean. A good preacher never tries to use “spin” or verbal manipulation of any kind. Listening to candidates and campaign managers and the like is similar to going to a pro wrestling match. You don’t expect much of substance to come out, although the action is mildly entertaining.

A good preacher has a different standard.

Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching. (2 Timothy 4:2)

There is not too much “fudge” room here. An honest, careful, straight-forward study of the Bible with an honest, careful, straight-forward application for daily living is the heart of the matter for a preacher.

I don’t have any solution for “spin” and verbal manipulation. They seem like part of our cultural landscape. But, I do know we personally don’t have to buy into it.

At my best, true self here is what I will do. When you speak with me, I will give you time to express what you want to say. I will make sure what I heard is what you said. I will not be thinking of the best comeback for what you are saying while you are speaking. Pauses are not invitations to rush in with more words. If we are actually trying to accomplish something enlightening together, than let’s take some time to do that. I will not try to figure out why you are wrong if I disagree with you. I will establish in a principled reasonable fashion that you are wrong, first. And indeed, in all of this, I may be wrong. You are invited to show me this in a principled reasonable fashion.

Now you can see why preachers will never be in charge of presidential debates.

I remember when I was a kid, my parents would never let us curse. Not that we wanted to anyway. There were plenty of non-curse words that worked well when needed. A couple of classics.

“For cryin’ out loud!”

“Dog-gone it!”

“For Pete’s sake!”

Now, it was relatively easy not to curse because neither my father nor my mother did. They were consistent in modeling what they expected of their children. Once I heard my dad say, “Ass,” and I totally freaked out. I can still remember it today.

So, what has happened that civil language has taken such a dive? There are way too many suspects for this crime. But there is one that seems most rampant and most illogical.

People use cursing to aggressively stifle healthy debate. If I have made my views known, I am not interested in what you have to say. I have already formed an opinion without examining the evidence that you may bring up and so the last thing I want is for you to provide any reason for me to have to do further work in my thinking. So, f@#% off! Or something to that effect.

Name calling, or ad hominem attack, is the logical fallacy where the person is attacked rather than that person’s argument. In the election the most prevalent ad hominems were “Bush is stupid,” or “Kerry is a traitor.” Neither one of these claims is supported by accurate evidence, rather their use is simply for the purpose of demeaning the person. Consider this.

President Bush actually has an above average IQ according to records, has an MBA from Harvard, and in general, this doesn’t usually warrant the definition, “stupid.” Senator Kerry was outspoken about the war in Vietnam when he returned from duty. Some of his testimony may have been unfortunate and had a detrimental effect on the POW’s plight, but he was speaking an opinion as an American and was working within the system. He did not go over to the “other side,” nor did he renounce his country. Please note, Senator Kerry did not call President Bush “stupid,” nor did President Bush call Senator Kerry “traitor.”

So, what do we learn from this? Ad hominem attacks are never helpful. If you want to influence the position of others you have to be in relationship with them. You want the other person to be thinking as clear as possible, and because verbal attacks put someone in a defensive, anxious mode, clear thinking is not promoted. If you actually want someone to see your side of the argument, you want them at their best thinking.

What are you focused on? I want to stake a stake a claim for Jesus and his teachings. Trust in Jesus is a worthwhile focus for many reasons. Living for the sake of others is one of them.

The Christian life is to live for the sake of others. ‘Loving God/ Loving Neighbor,’ as it were. When you live your life for the sake of others it brings purpose, meaning, and richness. Even atheists sense the noble aspect of living for the sake of others. This is a high virtue for the God-worshipping and the God-denying alike.

To live for the sake of others means to deny the very core of whom you are as a human. “I am the center of the universe.” So how do you deny the concept of “me, me, me?” On human effort, especially during times of stress and crisis, people overwhelming revert to their own needs. Unless there is something beyond them at work. The power of Jesus active in your life makes it possible to live for others regardless of circumstances. Under his influence you learn that by denying yourself, you expand yourself, and you are more, rather than less.

To trust in Jesus is to be forgiven and forgiving. You are capable of not taking offense at someone who wrongs you. Not because you have become a pushover or a door mat. When you center your worth on your relationship with Jesus you can voluntarily and freely not let the opinion or actions of others towards you harm you in any way. You will respond in appropriate ways, seeking their good so they might be more likely to be influenced by Jesus. Relationships may then be restored or you may quietly refuse to get caught up in the drama.

Focus. Pure, complete, laser-beam focus. What are you focused on? What are you sold out to in your life? Whatever it is, this will drive you. This will be the place where you find significance, meaning, and purpose.

I hope this is something big. I hope it is something you can joyfully give your life to. I hope this is something that will have eternal significance. Be careful where you place your focus. Don’t except anything less than completely giving yourself away?

Now what could possibly be worth that much focus? Think about it.

Yesterday, I wrote about what C.S. Lewis termed, “Bulverism.” ‘You must first show that a person is wrong before you explain why a person is wrong.’ This is why labels are so unhelpful. Conservative. Liberal. Right wing. Leftist. On and on. Then there is centrist. What is that? You don’t believe in anything?

Labels mean nothing when it comes to discourse and clear thinking. Either your ideas are supported in a principled reasonable way or they aren’t. The search for truth doesn’t wear a label. If the weight of evidence supports your viewpoint, it doesn’t matter what someone calls you or what you call yourself.

It seems we have to categorize everything. I argue we are so bombarded by stimuli that we try to skip some steps in thinking. This may be a defense mechanism in the overload of modern society or it may just be laziness. Careful thinking is simply that. Careful thinking. But don’t take my word for it. I am just an unorthodox orthodox follower of an unorthodox orthodox Master Teacher named, “Jesus.”

One of the most frequent logical fallacies out there today is the “genetic fallacy.” A “genetic fallacy” is when you judge an argument by its source (“genetics”), not by its content. C.S. Lewis spoke of this mistake in logic in his book, God in The Dock. Lewis coined the term, “Bulverism,” named after a fictional character in the book, Ezekiel Bulver. Lewis said it this way, “You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.”

We see genetic fallacies all the time. I use them. You use them. They are hard to escape. Take the Swift boat issue, for example. The lead man criticizing Senator Kerry, John O’Neil, was immediately cast as a pawn of President Bush’s campaign, and what he, and several hundred other Swift boat vets, said, couldn’t be trusted. This is a genetic fallacy. First, you would refute the details of everything these men testified against before you would disparage who they were. In the case of O’Neil it wasn’t logical to dismiss him as a lackey of the Republican Party to begin with, anyway. For example, he supported Al Gore in 2000.

Some of the Swift Boat criticism was accurate, according to Senator Kerry’s own campaign. Some of it was inaccurate. Whether we will ever get to the bottom of the truth vs. propaganda aspect of the Swift Boat Vets is uncertain. The election is over and we aren’t likely to hear much more. But “Bulverism” is alive and well. Tomorrow I will visit the concept of genetic fallacy again.

I came across this article yesterday. The media has such a hard time understanding Christianity, I thought I would highlight this reasonable attempt to explain some things about Christians. You cannot take the “cookie-cutter” approach. Here are some examples.

You could make a principled case for voting for President Bush using Christian values. You could make a principled case voting for Senator Kerry using Christian values. Not because they themselves are Christian, as I have talked about in earlier blogs, but because of their positions. To take this even further, some “conservative” Christians voted for Senator Kerry, and some “liberal” Christians voted for President Bush. How could that be? One brief example for each.

The Bible takes a strong view of caring for the natural world as a responsibility given to us from God (e.g. Genesis 2:15). “Conservative” Christians who focus on environmental issues may have voted for Senator Kerry because they thought he would be a better leader on environmental issues.

The Bible takes a strong view on the sacredness of human life (e.g. Psalm 139:13-16). “Liberal” Christians who view abortion as taking a human life as opposed to protecting a mother’s privacy and focus on this issue may have voted for President Bush.

Christians can be fairly complex creatures.

When people say they don’t believe in God because there is so much suffering in the world, I don’t understand. Suffering is not a sign there is no God, because happiness and pleasure are also very evident in the world. The question, “Why is there so much evil?” could just as easily be, “Why is there so much good?”

The next group of people say they believe in God, but they will not worship him because there is so much evil in the world. Some people even despise God for that. They see God as the source of evil.

But, evil is not a thing. Evil is what is left when you take away good. It is the absence of good. God makes good but he doesn’t make evil. Just like darkness isn’t a thing, it is the absence of light.

Evil is allowed by God because he gives us the freedom to love him and follow him or not. When you follow God’s ways, you do not do evil. When you don’t follow God, you are left to yourself as the source. And unlike God, we are quite capable of doing evil.

So, if you are angry at God because he allows evil, it really means you are angry at God for giving you conscious life. You are angry at God for giving people the freedom to choose. The freedom to love God or reject him seems a very honoring and noble gesture on God’s part. He must value humans so much to allow us to live in this way.

So really, all the suffering in the world is evidence that there is a loving God.

When you see news of someone cutting off someone’s head as an act of worship, chanting, “Allah is good!” then you are going to have a problem with religion if you aren’t religious. The chances are you haven’t done enough careful study to know that not all religions are the same. Also, if you aren’t religious there is a reasonable chance you follow “moral equivalency” thinking. You might think morality is cultural and so one religion can’t be considered “better” than another. So your answer to the fact that almost every major conflict in countries around the world has an Islamic connection, is, “All religions are dangerous.”

When you say “all religions are dangerous” then you haven’t thought clearly on many different levels. A few examples.

Jainism- A religion that thinks of living thinks as so sacred that Jaina (followers of Jainism) will watch where they walk so they don’t step on bugs!

Christianity- The relationship between a Christian and a non-Christian is to be loving. “Love,” “to choose actions for the good of the other,” is the driving force of the religion. A Christian is only allowed to use force if working in military or law enforcement, in defense of others, or, if conscious permits, in self-defense. Revenge or being the aggressor is forbidden.

Islam- Yes, many Muslims adhere to the Wahabi branch of Islam, or a derivative, which leads to acts of violence as we have seen throughout the world. But the vast, vast majority of Muslims are not part of this thinking. Other branches of Islam, such as Sufi, are beautiful in their principles of compassion and care for the other.

Obviously, the worst atrocities in the last 100 years have been committed in the name of forms of Marxism, in the Soviet Union (under Stalin 30+ million dead) and in China (under Mao 30+ million dead). Marxism does not recognize a god at all. “Religion is the opiate of the people,” and such.

So, what can you say? Bad thinking followed by people unusually willing to do evil is dangerous.