Fall where they may

Last entry,  I was struggling with the idea of evangelism.  I figured I needed study to settle my head.  So I took action.  I talked to a trusted friend who counsels me on lots of things.  He told me that he agrees with my approach, but he's also taken flac for it.  But he also told me he's seen others who took the more direct approach.  The proof is in the results...or the fruit, to use the Biblical analogy.

He also reminded me that there are different gifts, and though some groups try to cite the Great Commission as the bottom line of Christianity, it isn't necessarily that way.  Certainly we all have some level of responsibility to share our faith, but that there is a specific gift mentioned for Evangelism.  This reminded me of the discussion about various parts of one body.  How we are built to function as complementary parts, not all the same parts.  So in my mind, this necessarily disproves the interpretation that the Great Commission is the prime directive for every Christian.

Then I also talked to a friend who shares my faith but from a different part of the house.  He came at it from a different denomination, and then switched to one yet further down the hall from the one I came from.  So he helped me understand how those groups interpret the parts of the Bible that I was struggling with.

Then I reread a book (So you Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore) that had first gave me confidence to fully step out of the room I had been raised in.  I had poked my head out and looked up and down the hall of the wide house of Christian views, even looked int the windows of some other rooms.  But this book convinced me I needed to walk out of the one I was in.  I picked up several things I hadn't noticed before and reaffirmed the decision.  This served to help cut a few of the subtler cords that I hadn't fully broken yet.

And from there, I looked up one of the authors and found a podcast (The Jesus Lens) on interpreting the Bible as a chronicle of redemptive flow through time. The story of God's pursuit and salvation of humanity that culminated in Jesus, but continues through to this day and will progressively flow on to the end of time.  It was extremely enlightening to walk through every book this way.  I don't want to provide a cursory summary that will let a reader feel they got the idea and don't need to do the study themselves, so suffice to say this approach resolves many of the contradictory elements such as the nature of God in the Old Testament vs the New and the discrepancies in tone and approach of the New Testament writers themselves, which I mentioned as an issue last time.  I've heard many explanations for these problems, but this one is the best and most unified, to me.  So check it out if you're interested.

By this point, I was feeling more confident, so I even went through and looked up every verse that talks about the Word of God or Word of the Lord.  Actually, I looked up every instance of the word 'word'.  It's over 400 verses.  But I noticed two things:  they never refer to the written word, the scriptures, or the Bible itself.  Honestly, they couldn't refer to the Bible because it wasn't compiled until like 300 years after the last books were written.  But it never even refers to the Hebrew Law or Prophets.  These are always called out as writings.  The Word of God always refers to a live message or a person...seriously a person.  In some cases it says the Word of the Lord came to someone and said... and then the person replies.  So there's a conversation between entities here.  This is consistent with what John writes about the Word becoming flesh.

So I looked up the Hebrew and Greek words used.  'Dabar' in Hebrew and 'logos' is Greek.  They both refer to the written word only by extension.  The real meaning is the content.  They mean an issuance of information, a revelation in the strict sense.  So this just blew my head apart!  My whole life I'd been taught that the Bible was the Word of God.  Even as a toddler we'd sung songs about it.  But it's totally untrue!

In my excitement, I posted this on Facebook, which of course brought a little controversy.  But surprisingly, many people were not shocked.  So, I felt like Shinji Ikari emerging from his Instrumentality.  When it finally clicks, he finds himself standing amongst a host of people, who have also arrived there, clapping and congratulating him.

So now, I don't claim to have a better interpretation.  I truly feel confident in saying I know to be true what I already felt to be true.  And the burden of getting the right system down has been lifted.  I'm sure I don't have it totally right, but I have taken another giant step in learning to LIVE (alive, living) relationship with God.  And I am more comfortable with how to best deal with others at various points on the same road.

Because we ARE all on the same road.  Know it or not.  Believe it or not.  And I can now show you how the Bible demonstrates this.  And if I'm wrong, that's ok.  You can't convince me until my time is ripe, and I can't convince you until yours is.  So it's best to leave that job to the one who is capable of fixing us both.  Will people abuse this freedom, misinterpret what I'm saying?  Absolutely!  They already are, and have (I'm not the first to arrive here).  But potential for abuse doesn't mean we alter, negate, or hide the truth...as if we really could anyway.

Toss up

So, here's a question I wrestle with.  What exactly is the good news?  I've blogged it before and I still believe that.  But the crux of it this time is more about how that should be walked out.  I grew up steeped in Evengelicalism.  I'm still not too far away from it, since we tend to orbit around the gravitational centers of our upbringing.  Though I feel more like a comet than an inner planet these days.

My struggle is this:  Evangelicals take the very plain text of Paul and others about the Gospel, or good news, which simply says that Christ died and rose again, and then overlay their interpretation of what that means.  The meaning they ascribe is something of the substitutiary atonement thing that this coming and rising atoned for sins and now people can be right with God.  It's all in the Bible.  I've read it all.  I know the theology.  The thing is, it never sits that well as they spin it.

I don't disbelieve it, but I'm not sure they (we, I guess) have it right exactly.  I see a disconnect in the things Paul says and does and the things Jesus says.  I see differences in the things the Apostles say...Peter from Paul, James from both of them.  Again, I know the theology to reconcile them, but I'm not sure it's right.  It never sits well.  Never resonates true in my deep parts.

I'm not even sure how to articulate it.  So I'll ramble.  (This has the makings of a long post, so fair warning.)  Jesus says believe on him, follow him, keep his commandments.  Got it.  But his actions and words are all about doing right, faith in God, forgiveness.  It's a topside down, knife through paper, sort of worldview that rocks the people of his day.  He lifts up prostitutes and adulterers and speaks to people's hearts.  His sermons have a more universal appeal.  He harangues the self-righteous and opens arms wide to heal, meet needs, etc.  It's a big love.  He never asks them to get in line with some theological system.

But then we get into Acts and the Epistles and we get this charge out and argue, win converts, lose your life defending the truth sort of thing.  It's far more political in a sense...or am I missing something?  Maybe I just need to do an in-depth study of some parts to get a better handle on it.  But it seems to me, either these guys are heading in a different direction (though it could be a direction they were sent, as some argue that Jesus' work is different from ours). 

Or we've missed the point of the message the early evangelists preached.  I've heard this approach too.  That we're piecing together a system out of one side of several  conversations addressing discreet issues.

So is it valid to think that Jesus' approach is what the Apostles were using?  In some cases, clearly not.  They were preaching out systematic theology.  Most of Romans is this and it accounts for most of what we call Christianity today.

So when it comes down to it, here's the rub.  I have gone out and "witnessed".  I've used the tracts.  I've used the wordless book and beads.  I've worked the tents at fairs.  And all of it was uncomfortable and hollow.  I felt like it was doing little and I just wanted to stop.  So am I so lost inside that my old nature has that much sway?  If so, I can't change it.  No fake it till you make it for me.  That's living a lie and I've done that too.  I have no choice but to wait until that is fixed within me, despite what the "get out there" people are saying.

But I am totally comfortable with people knowing what I believe.  I explain it, allude to it, talk about it in an easy natural sort of way.  I'll explain theology to people who have an interest.  Listen to people's problems, meet needs (oh this is another peeve I'll get to in a minute), pray for people.  But I don't want to whack them over the head with my beliefs.  I'm not going up to people and cold-cocking them with, "Hey dude, you know what the Bible says about following Jesus?  Let me tell ya!"  I'm not walking the streets looking for people to stop and witness to or pray for or debate with.  Heck, I'll pray for them.  I'll jump right in and meet the need as soon as it's shown to me.  Which brings me to the peeve.  If you're going out and doing any sort of ministry without first meeting the real present needs before you, you've got it backward!  I'm sorry.  You don't need to ask a homeless guy what you can pray for.  It's obvious, man!  Give the dude some food or clothes, or money even (if that won't send him into a bender).  Even regular people.  Just meet the needs, then work on the spirit.  you can't get teh spirit in tune until the animal is cared for.  But too often, Evangelicals are so after the soul part, they walk right over the needs of the moment.

And I have struggled with this for a while.  I once went and talked to a mentor of mine regarding this very thing because I was convinced I needed to start some direct ministry and was even going to abandon my community to "spend the energy on more holy pursuits".  But surprisingly, this person told me I had it all wrong.  He told me I already had my flock.  He cautioned me against what I was thinking for good reasons.  I asked how I make it more Christ focused and he said, "don't."  I was shocked, but it rang clear as a bell in my heart and mind.  I felt the peace about it.  He was right.  It went against my upbringing and theological training.  But he was right.  I should trust my heart over my head if the Spirit Lord is living in me.  When I get confirmation, I should drop anything that isn't in line with it.  But it's hard to do when I'm surrounded by the buzz of the other mess.  My mentor told me that I was to do what I'm doing.  Follow God's leading in the moment.  When he led me to speak, I'd speak.  Otherwise, live it first and foremost.  Serve my community.  My flock.  It's that simple.

And that's what I'm trying to do.  I just wish I could settle my head around these other issues.  Like I said, I think I need a period of intense study to come to terms with it so I won't keep feeling like I'm missing it when people start jawing that other stuff...that isn't wrong necessarily.  Do what you gotta do, man.  But let me do what I gotta do.

System

Most people aren't taught to think critically... to analyze.  I think everyone can to some degree.  I was fortunate to be trained in it from an early age, and then more formally in school.  I have a knack for it I think, so it wasn't hard.

Honestly, it has many benefits.  So I want to describe just a bit of the process.  But I doubt you'll actually take the time to see if it works because discipline is another thing most people lack.

Given any question or situation, you simply think to the next logical conclusion, then go back and identify as many other possible conclusions you could come to.  Then you weigh the liklihood of each.  Followed by the positives and negatives of the most likely. 

See, not that complicated.  The hard part is stepping outside of yourself (your own opinions, programming from school and culture, etc) to see other possibilities.  Of course it will be slow at first, but you'll get faster as you get used to it.

From there, you can expand into longer chains of conclusions, learn to work backward to causes, and even play with variables.  It truly turns the world into an erector set of constructs to play with.

But it isn't just mental gymnastics.  The goal is real world application.  The best illustration of it I've seen is in the Robert Downey, Jude Law Sherlock Holmes movies.  They freeze the film at pivotal moments and play through Holmes' thoughts. Then once he's decided, speed up and watch it play out.  It's just like that.  It happens in milliseconds if you get used to it, but can also be used on longer range things.  It's a type of systems thinking.  It allows you to predict many futures with reasonable accuracy and understand causes from mechanical things to emotions.  And it instills a desire to learn more.  Tools for the toolbox, so to speak.  Anything that helps us better process the massive overload of data our brains are constantly receiving. Most people just let their brains parse it out and it never enters consciousness.

This fact actually allowed me to disappear...to become invisible on several occasions.  If I can process what people are noticing and place myself outside of that, I very truly cease to be there in their minds.  I once walked right up to a friend I happened to see in a mall and took his bags.  I walked full in front of his view and he only saw me once the bags moved from his feet.  Another time, I appeared "magically" in front of a friend who was actually looking for me at a crowded movie theater.  I saw him, but he didn't see me until I stepped into his consciousness.  And I frequently used it to walk right past teachers in school, even as other kids would get stopped.

It's useful in driving because I can lay out a path through shifting traffic.  I have used it at work when I noticed that a certain terrible boss would always issue pointless orders (even though the work was done) as he blew through, but only if we were wearing the teal uniform shirts.  That was his unconscious cue.  So I'd casually slip mine off when I saw him roll in and he'd pass me by every time.  People even commented on it.  I told them, and it worked for them too.  Currently, I often leave a few "easter eggs", let's say, in a document or image I send for review.  This lessens the number of comments I get back because reviewers want to find things.  If they don't, they get pickier.  A few subtle but catchable mistakes, results in less needless overhaul.  Of course it's not perfect.  Sometimes unpredictable happens, but that's part of the game.

Of course, there's a downside, if you get really into it.  It tends to make the world far less stable.  In the long run, this is probably a more truthful view, and therefore better, but it makes security an utter illusion.  At best, our most protective systems only account for the few most obvious scenarios.  So if you take this to heart, get ready to swim in deep water forever.  Dry-ground is going bye-bye in this world.  Also, get prepared for the vast majority of people to not understand you at all.  You'll be labelled as negative, critical, manipulative, weird.  And you will be.  Or at least you'll be perfectly capable of it.  So be prepared to hold a tight moral and ethical compass.

Perception is not reality

I described this to someone recently.  I don't know where it came from originally.  I don't claim credit for inventing it.  She was going to look for it online.  Now she'll find it.

Answer?

Last night, I was thinking about how churches often drive for participation.  I've discussed that on this blog at length.  But as I've alluded, I rarely jump to conclusions.  So even though I am staunchly opposed to coercive participation, when faced with yet another instance of it, I still find myself stepping back, and thinking, "Am I the one who's wrong?"

It's always a possibility.  Especially when one finds the same message occurring repeatedly, it's wise to take note and analyze again.  So, I found myself mulling this over as I went to bed.  Remembrance of times when I've tried to buy in and go with it, only to end in disaster.  Debate amongst messages I've received, verses I know, Truths I hold.

And so, as I tried to turn off, I asked God to show me the answer.  And I fell asleep.

So this morning I awoke with two vivid dreams in my mind.  As always, some details are fuzzy, but the important part of any dream is what isn't fuzzy.  In the first, I was going about some business or other when a highly contagious disease began to be noticed among people.  It was subtle, really, starting with few symptoms that were easily misinterpreted.  Tiny red spots, etc.  But if untreated, it ended in death.  It quickly became an epidemic and was still spreading.  I found myself trying to spot people with the disease and help them in any way I could.  At one point, I ended up with a sort of clinic that was set up like a pizza delivery.  Drivers were going out on calls to provide aid, or bring in patients while the doctor and office staff kept calls coming in and treated patients.  I stepped in as a driver and spent the dream taking errands to bring aid, help the sick, bring them in.  I remember being slightly concerned that I may be infected, but didn't have time to be concerned.  I might be infected anyway and these people certainly were.  They needed help.

In the second dream, I was volunteering at a church camp.  I went to sign up and was explaining my experience with education, even coordination, and program development.  The staff seemed too busy to be interested, but when I mentioned education, they started jargoning about educational theories, statistics, etc.  I realized I couldn't possibly keep up with that, since I wasn't a classically trained educator.  But I knew how to work with kids.  So I stepped in and began to relate to some waiting kids.  Then we were ushered into a big room where activities were underway.  I tried to hang on and be useful with no idea what was happening or what I was needed to do, as I've done many times in church ministry.  And that's when I started looking for the red spots again.  I knew some of these kids must be sick.  I needed to find them.  To help them.  I woke up from this.

It was soft morning and I immediately began to think about the dreams while they were fresh.  They didn't feel like my normal dreams...not fueled by my health condition (which produces a characteristic type of dreaming), not the usual amalgam of recent experiences.  It wouldn't be the first time a dream had directly answered a prayer for me.  But any dream could also be my own thoughts.  So I searched for confirmation.

That's when the words of Jesus came to memory, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." and "I came to seek and save that which was lost."  Could that be right?  Did this really apply here?  Was it my imagination pulling together relevant information?  I felt moisture drip down my cheek.  I touched my eyes.  They were wet.  This is often confirmation for me.

I thanked God for answering my prayer.

Then I woke my wife to tell her and see if she confirmed it as well.  In conversation, I became more certain.  This was a reminder of what I had known.  I know my mission, and it is not in vane.  Religious organizations and ministries will churn and that is not my concern.  The secular world will churn and that is not my concern.  Both are equally irrelevant to the task.  The sick are among us.  The disease is rampant.  Symptoms are slow but definitive.  But I am to look for them, and aid where I can.  This is it.

The aid will take various forms: comfort, support, steering toward healing, taking to the Doctor, bringing medicine to the sick.  I don't have to think about being infected.  I just have to help.  I don't even need to cure the disease.  And I'm not alone.  There are many doing the same.  We know each other when we see, but keep at our work.  It compliments each other and we know what to do in this effort.

And if by chance the pizza delivery has a physical manifestation, I'll keep my eyes open.  But the context doesn't matter.  The disease doesn't respect persons or status.  So the cure can't either.

The Difference

I was once told by someone who had just met me in person that I was not what she expected.  She said my writing was fierce and angry, but sitting in front of her, I was nothing like that at all.  Of course she fell prey to a common fallacy of generalizing a very limited experience (of me, in this case) to what is a much larger and more complex reality.  But I don't want to bash her logic.

Instead, I want to apologize...in the old sense of offering a defense...for this blog.  It is intended to be a very real and raw and unfiltered record of my experiences.  As such, the tone vacillates, mostly across the more troubling spectrum of human emotions, since obviously, I'm not wrestling with much in the busy or more pleasant times; leastways, I don't have time to write about them.

So it occurred to me that the few of you who read this, especially any random surfers who hit on it, may easily get the impression that I'm a hateful and angry person.  And in some aspects you would be absolutely correct.  But that certainly isn't all I am.  Nevertheless, mistaking my state is less of a concern than if you were to mistake my intent toward others.

While I most certainly reference and sometimes quote actual events and people, some of whom might actually read this blog on occasion, you'll also notice that I never use names or identifying characteristics.  And as an added safeguard, I'll let you in on a little secret: I sometimes even swap pronouns or other subtle indicators just in case someone starts to think they know who I'm talking about.

Why?  Because my intention is never to judge or condemn the person.  We are, all of us, much more than any single incident.  More even than a history or a portfolio of behavior.  We are complex, living people who change and grow and fail and succeed.  I have felt the daggers and darts of judgement and misunderstanding and I would never be the source of pain to another.

Like Paul, I am keenly aware, more than most, of my own failings.  As raw as this blog is, you are not privy to my most inner thoughts and feelings.  The climate in my head is a harsh and terrible place of extremes built in arid arid regions of asceticism, glaring plains of self-scrutiny, tempestuous seas of emotion, and dark mires of spiritualism.  Trust me, no one survives there, even myself.  My point is that I expound externally nothing harsher than I have already applied to myself.  And while you have the option of turning off my blog, I can't get out of my own head.  I am very much the subject of the old Linkin Park song.  But while this explains it somewhat, it does not excuse my virtiolic.

The difference, I think, is in the target.  If you read carefully, you'll notice that my attacks are always directed at a fallacy of logic or belief.  Particularly where that fallacy has a negative impact (intended or not) on another and usually weaker party.  You see, the vitriolic is toward the idea and it's manifestation in behavior.  Not the person.  If we were all to play so nice as to not offend anyone about anything they do, the result would be that the weakest and softest among us bear the undue burden of our mistakes.  So I'm sorry, I have to speak against it.  I know you are not your actions or even your ideas and are therefore not receiving the bullet that you assume to take.  No one has the right to allow their problems to harm another without their consent, even if your personal well-being is so entangled with your behavior that you feel personally wounded when I speak against it.  In fact, the wound, even as fallacious as your affront is, will likely do you good by forcing you to pay attention to it and perhaps disentangle yourself from yourself somewhat, though even that is categorically not my intent.


As I have said before, I am a sheepdog.  I help the shepherd herd the sheep.  I know my flock and I will continue to uncompromisingly attack those demons and shades that would harm them, even the ones that pretend to be shadows of holy and upstanding people.  If my jaws happen to snap a little too close for comfort, please remember I'm aiming for the leech on your neck and the wound you feel is from it digging in, not from me.  Just like any dog, grudges are not held.  When things are safe and good, you're welcome to lay your head on my back and we can gnaw a bone together.

Money

Ok.  Nothing tricky here.  Just some thoughts on money that occurred to me today on my drive home from work.  I hear many modern Evangelical Christians talk about money.  It's perhaps the most distasteful topic someone can preach on.  We often assume this is because people are so addicted to money.  Servants of Mammon, to use a Biblical reference.

But I don't think this is necessarily so.  Obviously there are plenty of people calling themselves Christians who most certainly are wrapped up in money, and if not money itself, then the culture of consumerism, which is simply the same vice, a step removed.  But then I believe there are a great number of people (I know several who are decidedly NOT part of this culture of money) that still take issue with it.  Why is that?

I think first, it has to do with context.  Most people who preach about money are doing it in a context where the method of parting with it (for our own good, they say) is to give it to the speaker.  OK.  So you just told me how bad the money is and I should improve myself by giving the bad stuff to you.  Classic con game!

I'm not saying pastors asking for money are intentionally trying to con people, though I know undoubtedly some are.  I think most actually believe their own rhetoric.  Which often includes the ever-popular story of the rich young ruler in the Gospels.   This is where Jesus tells a man to be perfect he must sell his possessions and makes the famous camel through the eye of the needle comment.  I will resist the urge to digress into the misinterpretations of this story, since they are much more eloquently discussed by so many more qualified people than me.  Suffice to say, the speaker most often obviously hasn't followed this himself, so he's got no right to talk.

Other rhetoric centers on the verse about serving God and Mammon.  I've heard lots of exposition on Mammon as a god of wealth or a symbol of the corrupting power of money, but my favorite mammon speech is that it's actually a spirit which curses all money.  Conveniently the way to remove this curse often has to do with giving money to the speaker, but I'm getting ahead of myself.  In this speech, the pastor tries to convince the crowd that money is not bad, it's only the cursed money.  This is my favorite because it expertly circumvents the problem of the church receiving the vile stuff which they then use with relish.  The biggest problem here is that it is not anywhere found in the Bible.  It's all made up once they depart from the one line that says 'Mammon'.  I think it's a popular tactic because it allows the speaker, who is generally an educated person with some training in logic and apologetics to self-delude.  Ignoring issues that include how it got cursed in the first place and why God allows a good thing to be emphatically cursed.  The answer is often that it's God's way of making us give to Him what's His, as if God were a peevish and selfish gangster who would use curses and spiritual thugs to enforce his will.  Instead of the source of love and light near which no unclean thing may approach and from which our definition of "good" is derived.

Back on the practical level, as I was getting to above, the first twinge of dissonance occurs, often subconsciously, by the fact that the speaker is taking our money!  If it's bad, you, pastor, don't want it either!  And if it's cursed until we give it to you, why is not cursed again once you take it?  Is it the act of giving that removes the curse?  What if I was to re-give a pure gift, a birthday present.  Is that cursed?  Someone gave it to me!  If it's cursed once I get it even if given to me, why is it not cursed when you take it?

The answer propounded to this is that it's cursed until I give it to God (i.e. your church, as His agent).  But first I have to ask, what year is this?  Curses and Spirits? Real or not, is your audience even buying that?  And secondly, I can make up stuff too, bro!  If we're just going to pull it out of any random word, I can present you with just as much Biblical proof that God has chicken wings!  And I'm not kidding about that.  Ask me.

Seriously, you just can't ask people to give up money because it's bad for them and then take it yourself.  You really can't even ask for money that you'll use at all without seeming like what you're doing: MOOCHING! to put it kindly.  That's what we call it in any other relationship and you're human too, bro.

Here's what you can do. If your motive is really to help your listeners become better people by letting go of money.  Then don't take it.  Lead by example.  Take up a collection that is 100% going to someone else reputable and unaffiliated with your organization (not a parishioner, either).  Give it away.  See if that boosts your totals that week.  No games, no shaving, or calling your building fund an 'outreach opportunity'.  No lame rebate guarantee "if God doesn't bless you" (I've actually heard this one too).  Simply say, "to prove the principle, all money collected today is going to Samaritan's Purse."  Or whatever charity.  Unless of course you're with Samaritan's Purse, in which case I don't think you're using these tactics anyway, but if you are, give it to someone else.

Better yet, do what Jesus himself did and tell them to give it to the poor... unspecified.  That's what he did with the Rich Young Ruler.  He didn't take it for his ministry!  He set the challenge and sent him off to do it.

The other approach you could take is to specifically tell people what the money is for.  I've watched a struggling church receive a dismal offering at collection time, but then the same crowd dump their pockets for a guy who was building schools in Africa.  Same day!  Same service!  One plate got pittence, the other overflowing!  Why?  Because the school builder was offering a tangible product.  People were buying in, plain and simple.  This of course does nothing to stir people from their money-driven mindset, in fact it might reinforce it.  But at least the money flows to a place where it can do some good and no one looks like a shyster.

But I haven't even mentioned the elephant in the room yet.  This is of course the fact that churches in general are so into money themselves!  They need it.  The organization requires funds to support the overhead and the ministries, etc.  Sounds a whole lot like a non-profit corporation to me...Oh wait, that's what it is.  The modern church organization has become no different than the Red Cross, the World Wildlife Fund, or the ASPCA.  Of course, they'll tell you it takes money to reach people.  But I emphatically and totally disagree.  It takes money to run your organization, yes.  But Jesus himself and countless others have reached many people without a dime.  Yes, you, modern church, are more addicted to money than the majority of people you preach to.  Seriously!  The people you preach to gave some of theirs away and aren't out begging for it!

Your faith was founded by a guy who left his home and career.  A guy who gave up everything.  A guy who never asked anyone for money and never gave it to anyone either.  Sure he used it, but only for it's intended purpose: as a medium of trade.  But he really and truly didn't rely on it.  He even sent his first disciples out with the command to take no money so they would be forced to see God's provision for them.

Bottom line is that you can't tell a kid not to smoke with a cigarette in your hand.  It is the definition of HYPOCRITE!  And we see it. Your mental gymnastics (or the bugaboo ghost stories) won't get around this plain and simple fact.  Even if that isn't your intent, avoid the appearance of evil, yeah?  Give it up!

I speak for the trees.