Old Dog - New Tricks

You know how the old saying goes: “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” and it may be true for some, but I would suggest that ‘Old dogs’ (like me) would sometimes do well to go back and relearn some of those ‘old tricks’ we had once known and mastered many years before. Tradesmen use the term: “Measure twice, cut once” and the sense is obvious. You can’t undo the cut.

In general, older, more mature folks find it more difficult to adapt to change or learn new things. That could be why they are the hardest group to convince of new ideas in a church setting. But let’s be kind. Older folks have also been around the block a few times, and they have already seen some well meant changes that didn’t succeed. In fact the more appropriate phrase “crash and burn” comes to mind, and in the effort to avoid it happening again, along with the loss of some good friends and members, they are loathe to go down that road again until they are sure of success. A big part of this reluctance lies behind the definition of ‘success’. It is going to take a good argument, and a gentle push for that to happen a second time.

One of the best lessons I learned in life, was to wait a second or two before giving my first answer in response to a question. Especially one that pushes my buttons and gets my dander up. It happens. Right? And nowhere more so than on social media because each side is safely tucked behind their laptop or phone screen. Blind to the prospect of the return salvo which causes more harm than good. Sure, you got it out of your system, but the one who responds sees it as more than that. They may see it as a personal slight. Of the hundreds of people who would see the offending post, that one person will see it as deliberately aimed at them. Sadly, we were not one step ahead in our thinking when we pressed the ‘send’ button, and a few seconds of serious thought could have avoided the ‘atmosphere’ now descending on your relationship.

The lesson? Whether personally, or in a group, measure twice, and cut once!

AntiSocial Media

If you live in the UK, you will know the sad story of Charlie Gard, a little 11 month old baby who had a life limiting disease, and how his mum and dad had been through the court system, trying everything in their power to save him. His life maintaining tubes and medical paraphernalia were recommended to be removed to allow the little boy die ‘with dignity’. His parents were distraught, and were been faced with a situation which at the end of the day is the life and death of their only son, and one which no parent should ever have to face. This whole situation was played out in the media court of worldwide public opinion, which made it worse. I even saw a USA newspaper report which blamed the UK NHS and the government for Charlie’s death. In my opinion, that is one country which has no room to talk about health care and politics.

As if this heartache wasn’t bad enough, thousands of mindless people took to ‘social’ media to question the medical staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital, and their care for Charlie. Death threats were even made on so called ‘social’ media against the very people who cared night and day to keep this little soul alive while a court case raged around him. All the medical opinion was that his condition was irreversible and his life support should be removed, but these ‘not so wise guys’ who make Facebook and Twitter (there are other social media sites) their weapon of choice, think they know better. No qualifications or medical experience. No connection to the family. No heart. Just anger at a hospital who do what they can to improve the health of children when they can, and are distressed when they get too close to their tiny charges, and the unthinkable happens. Then there was the American doctor who raised false hope by claiming his revolutionary experimental treatment  could turn Charlie’s situation around. It took him months to come to London to see the baby for himself and view the case notes, and it was too late to prove anything. That speaks volumes. Heartless? Do I hear a cash register ringing in my ears? The Pope and Donald Trump also offered ‘any help they could give’, but that went silent as well.

If there was ever a case for believing our society has reached the tipping point of understanding true compassion, this is it. These thousands of mindless trolls represent the kind of society we belong to, and I am ashamed that I am seen as a part of it. This is only one part of an obviously broken community, country, and world. I believe the only thing that will help is the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will sort out the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff, the good from the evil. Only then will we rest in the assurance that the death of this little boy has been defeated, and our literally ‘God-less’ society has been set straight.

Facebook - Good or Bad?

The social media site Facebook seems to divide people into two very different and opposing groups. Those who don’t have a problem with it, and probably use it, and those others who have no time for the nonsense which pervades its pages. It is usually the case, that the latter group are very vocal in their distaste of the medium as a way of communicating. So, I have a simple question for you. Does Facebook do more harm than good?

There can be no doubt that Facebook is successful, with over 2 billion active users worldwide by Sep 2012, and used extensively by all ages. But that alone does not mean it is a good thing. I know generalising is not a good thing, but I find that regular internet users are normally on Facebook (ok, ok so not in all cases!) and those not on Facebook are a very vocal resistance group. Maybe there is good reason for this opposition, but what is it based on?

As a Facebook user, let me give you some annoying irritations:

* The posting of nonsense

* Sharing personal stuff that should stay private

* Expressing bad language or outrageous opinions

* Posting something publicly that you wouldn’t say in person

There are these benefits:

* Choosing my contacts (friends)

* Offensive people or posts can be ‘unfriended’ or ‘blocked’

* Finding and keeping in touch with old long lost friends

* Using ‘Groups’ to keep contacts together, for example a Church

For me, it comes down to a communication tool which I may, or may not choose to use. I have given you a start, so what do you think? Is Facebook a good thing, or do the negatives outweigh the positives such that we should pull out?

Social(ism)

After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there was no needy person among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. Acts 4:31-35 NIV

The US government is in real trouble. They have maxed out their credit card, and are in danger of defaulting on their interest payments, which is a national tragedy, and an international embarrassment. You would think the two party system would be able to get together to make sure there is no danger of default. In the words of the UK meerkat TV ad, *simples*, but not so fast Tonto. It don’t work like that!

Hatred reigns, thinly disguised as political wisdom in the form of the dreaded social medicine policy that is Obamacare. Simply put, that means making medical care more readily available to poorer people. Oh, too simple? Ok then, it means giving medical care to some folks who haven’t paid into the system adequately. It comes down to this: No medical care if you don’t have the right insurance cover, and we all know that insurance companies just hate (there’s that word again) to pay out. So, disadvantaged people don’t get good healthcare cover. They are second class citizens.

This was put into context for me by a US politician, who said there was a deep fear and distrust that Obamacare was a socialist doctrine, with no place in the free society that is the USA. Wow! That made me sit up. This senior politician was a Republican (of course). I put the verses up front, and I hope you read them carefully. I will paraphrase it this way: After prayer, and making all things common, they shared and had no needy person among them. Now I hate (that word again) to state the obvious, but there appears to be a direct link between the free economy Republican position, and the US evangelical churches, especially in the Bible belt. Do these well intentioned folks (I am giving the benefit of the doubt) not know the difference between being social-ly responsible, and social-ism? Apparently not, and in the meantime America shows its true heart, and it is not a heart for others, as the Apostles, or Jesus would teach.

Apologies to my US/Republican friends. Maybe I have it all wrong, so tell me where my misunderstanding lies. have I possibly misinterpreted Scripture? Is it all too complex for a mere Scot to take in? At this point I have to point out that Adam Smith was Scottish too. In the ‘self evident truth’ wording of a famous document, ‘All men are created equal’. Really?