Category Archives: is it true?

When ‘only skin deep’ is a beautiful thing!

Posted on by
2

Do you know what the largest organ in your body is?

Skin.

Would you believe it covers almost 20 square feet on the average person?

It’s one of those organs that perhaps we don’t give enough credit.  The heart gets a lot of love.  And the brain gets its rightful accolades.  But the skin… well, let’s give it some of its fair shake.

skin deep

It’s good we have skin in the game!  It

  • covers and protects everything inside our body.  Can you imagine the havoc it would wreak on our other organs if it didn’t serve this important protective function?  All kinds of grime and gunk would cripple our other vital organs.  Skin protects from the viruses and bacteria to which we are exposed every day.  It also protects from sun exposure.
  • holds everything together.  It keeps our bones and muscles and organs from hanging out all over the place.
  • allows us to sense touch.  It is allows us to feel loving touch, hurtful touch and pain, fun touch… and play tag! : )
  • regulates body temperature.   It helps control hot and cold to enable our organs to function at their best.
  • kicks the bad out.  Our skin has an impressive 7 million pores through which is expels impurities and enable perspiration.

Skin serves as a protective barrier between our insides and the rest of the world, and it acts as a filter.

And not just physically.  Not just medically.

Skin is also an important protective barrier relationally.  It is an important filter in interactions with others.

A person’s skin is their boundary: it is their protective barrier between their insides and the rest of the world.  It is where they begin.

Let’s say someone makes a comment that is ‘only skin deep.’  So the comment would be simply about what is observable about another’s ‘skin’ – their physical actions.  For example, if a small group member arrives late to their 7:00 small group, the leader may start an inquiry with an ‘only skin deep,’ observable action:

“I noticed you arrived at 7:30.”

We’ve talked before about the importance of communicating about actual, factual actions.  Things that are skin-level observable.  Taking things at face value.  Commenting on things that are observable isn’t invasive because it does not go beyond skin deep.

But what if the leader took a different approach?  What if the leader presumes an interpretation of the member’s action?

“You clearly aren’t committed to the group.”

This goes beyond skin deep.  It delves into the persons heart and head, presuming to know their thoughts and motives.

Maybe the member isn’t committed.  But maybe they stopped to get a snack for the group, and while in line, they shared with another person in line about their amazing small group, which led into a conversation where they got to share about Christ.  Maybe the assumption about motive is completely off.  Maybe the interpretation of the observation is inaccurate, untrue, ignoble, and sinful.  Maybe it is actually the leader who is sinning by thinking things that are not true about the member.

Comments like this feel so hurtful because they go beyond skin deep.  When the leader comments about motives, such as presuming that the person isn’t committed to small group, they are presuming to know what is going on in the heart and mind of the member.  They are presuming to know the member’s motives and thoughts.  They go beyond the member’s boundary – their skin.  They penetrate beyond the boundary of the person.  They are a boundary-buster, and such boundary-busting causes unnecessary hurt and destruction in relationships.

This is why verbal abuse is so hurtful.  Someone presumes to know the precious things inside of you and negatively characterizes them.  They penetrate beyond the boundary of your skin.  It is not acceptable for someone to invade you in such a way; it is violating.   And that feeling is intensified when you are penetrated by someone you trust, someone in authority over you, or someone who should be protecting you.

You begin at your skin.  When someone tries to invade your protective barrier, you mustn’t let them!  It may feel rude to interrupt their sharing of their ‘perceptions’ of you, but interrupting is not a sin.  Verbal abuse is.  Saying things that are untrue about you is sinful.

You have every right to stop their penetration of you… and I would argue, every duty.  The Lord commands you to think on things that are true and noble, and if someone is trying to fill your thoughts with untrue, ignoble things about you, stop it.  Simply interrupt.

Do not let those ‘perceptions’ get under your skin!  Keep that bacteria and grime out of you.  One tiny little bacteria getting inside of you can wreck havoc on your system ~ not only mentally, but psychologically, spiritually, and physically.

So keep those tiny little bacteria out!  If a comment starts to feel like its presuming things about your thoughts and motives – that it’s getting under your skin, interrupt.  Because ‘only skin deep’ is a beautiful thing.

Trayvon and Zimmerman: Crosshairs or the Cross?

Posted on by
1

As people rally around Trayvon’s family, I am moved by all the support.

Support I love.  Support in grief is invaluable.

But part of me is deeply, deeply concerned.

As I hear so many things espoused in this intense situation, I can’t help but think of Philippians 4:8 – to think about things that are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy.

Now whether or not Zimmerman did that is one issue.

But that’s not the issue we answer for.

We answer for our thoughts.  We answer for whether or not we are thinking things that are true – actually, factually true.  Noble.  And pure.

All of our thoughts.  Including our thoughts about George.

Now I know this may sound extreme.  But negatively defining a person by telling them what they are, what they think, and what their motives are is a pretty intense thing.  It’s actually called verbal abuse.

Now what Zimmerman did or did not do, again, is his.  But what we do is ours before the Lord.

So should we be negatively defining his motives as racism?

Now I’m not trying to defend the guy.  I’m not saying he’s for sure not a racist.  As far as I am aware, the actual, factual truths include this: George is a Hispanic man who has black family members, black friends, and tutors students of all races, including blacks.   He may indeed, in the midst of all of that, have some sort of racist something in him.  Anything is possible.  But given his life – given the actual, factual truths (and not my emotions) – it seems like there could at least be a sliver of a possibility that he is not racist.

If I stand before the Lord and call this man a racist, and the Lord instead finds a man who reached out to people of other races, what does that make me?  Yikes.  I’m more than wrong.  At best I am an abuser.  A sinning abuser.  And at worst?  Well, there is a bounty on his head.

We may never be sure exactly what happened and exactly what the motives were.  But what is for sure is our Lord.  And what is for sure is His command to us.  He tells us to think things that are true – actually, factually true.  And he tells us to think things that are noble – what is a possible noble explanation?

Not thinking so is sin.

What is ours to answer is not whether Zimmerman had pure thoughts.  What is ours to answer before the Lord is whether we have pure, noble thoughts.

Will our reasoning be correct?

Never violate the principles of God in order to gain or maintain the blessing of God. ~ Charles Stanley

We mustn’t circumvent God’s principles in order to arrive at our conclusion.  Is racism wrong?  Absolutely.  I believe racism so saddens the One who created every person on this planet – including both Trayvon and George.  Is George Zimmerman a racist?  Our job is to follow God’s principles as we consider this man He created.  Our job is to view others through the cross – not crosshairs!  We must be careful not to violate the principles of God to get to a blessed conclusion.

I am so saddened about Trayvon’s death and for his family.

But I also have great concern that in our emotion, we still honor our Lord and His desires for every step of our hearts and minds.

Who actually *likes* the crust?

Posted on by
7

When my husband and I first got married, I made him 4 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch every day.  Yes – four!  The boy loves his pb&j!  Jif Creamy with my mom’s recipe for homemade strawberry jam on wheat bread that doesn’t taste wheat-y.  That is seriously his dream meal.

Our friends know how much he loves his pb&j – so much so that one of my bridesmaids got us the cutest card when we got married.  We love it and made it into a magnet for our fridge : )

So with his downing 8 slices of bread a day, we went through our bread pretty quickly!  And trying to make him the best possible meals (it’s pb&j – there is only so much I can do to make it quality!), I always gave him the inside slices of bread.  I would eat the crust pieces (most people call them the ‘heels’ of the bread – I just think that’s kind of gross to call your food by a name that is part of your foot!).

Now the crust pieces aren’t my favorite.  In fact, I think they are quite un-tasty (maybe they do deserve to be called the heel!).  So I’d turn the crust part towards the inside of my sandwich to try to hide the flavor and texture of it.  It only works so well.  But we were on a crazy tight budget, and I wanted my husband to thoroughly enjoy his lunch, and, well, I just kept trying to convince myself that those crust pieces weren’t all that un-tasty.

After a couple of months of my making him the ‘best’ pb&j sandwiches : ) and ‘sacrificing’ by eating the crusts, Dave asked me a weird question: “What happens to the end pieces?”

I let him know that I turned them inside out on my sandwiches.  Then he ever so politely asked, “Would it be ok if I got the crust pieces on occasion?”

Huh?  He wanted them?  The thought never occurred to me that some people actually *like* the crust!!   “You actually *want* those pieces?”

“Of course!  They’re the best part!”

Huh?

Well, to each his own.  Yes, I am more than happy to divvy out the crust pieces to him!  Works out pretty nicely for me, too. : )

So now that you know all about the fine dining at our house : ), what’s my point?

My point is his approach.  Dave stuck with what was true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy.  He didn’t assume things about me that weren’t true.  He didn’t accuse me of motives that weren’t in my heart.  That can so easily be done!  From his perspective, crusts are yummy, and if he allows his mind to go beyond what’s true, noble, pure, and praiseworthy, he could easily have ended up accusing me of being selfish and self-centered for hogging all the crust pieces.  He could have easily fabricated motives that weren’t really in my heart and falsely accused me.  And that could have been very hurtful—especially since from my perspective, I’d eaten ucky bread for months so he could have the good stuff.  He could have said I should have known and criticized me for not being a mind reader.  He could have speculated about sin and conjured up a whole scheme about how I always do this or that.  He could have started watching for other places where he also thinks I’m acting out of selfish motives.  He could have made a whole mountain out of the issue and put together a laundry-list of other speculated sins.  He could have fixed his eyes on sin-spotting and his mind on speculations of sin, and stirred up dissension and discord over heels!

But he didn’t.  Nope.  He kept this issue as this issue.  He identified the facts and stopped there.  He stayed at what was true – which was that he noticed the crust pieces were MIA.  And he stopped.  He took captive his thoughts and stopped there and asked a question.  He had no anger or hypotheses about sin because he kept his mind focused on what was noble and admirable.  And so he simply asked a curious, fact-finding question.

And so a small, sin-neutral issue was handled as a small, sin-neutral issue… simply by living out this verse.  Dave gets his heels, I get inside pieces, and God gets glory!

And they lived happily ever after. : )

Quick pulse check

Posted on by
Reply

When I became a believer at the age of 20, I remember thinking over and over, “The gospel is so simple that I missed it for so many years.”  There are so many angles and aspects and traditions of Christianity that I missed the simplicity, beauty, and power of the heart of the gospel.  The ‘complicated’ part was distilling away the things that Christianity is not to uncover what being a follower of Christ truly is.  And there is such freedom and joy in dwelling in it.

Our discussion of truth has a similar feel.  We’ve spent several blogs distilling ‘true.’  We’ve explored “whatever is true… think on such things” with a variety of illustrations and explanations.  My hope is that we can peel away the things that we often feel justified in thinking in order to get to the simplicity, beauty, and power of truth.

So my simple summation of the last handful of blogs is this: think about things that are true.

There is such freedom and joy in our minds dwelling in it!

“Whatever is true…think on such things.”

an impassioned plea

Posted on by
Reply

May I make an impassioned plea?  Please, please, please {insert groveling} evaluate if what you would like to confront someone on is actual, factual truth.  So much time, energy, division, and hurt in the Christian kingdom is spent on fabricated sins. 

There is enough real sin in the world.  There are enough real hurts.  There is enough to do in God’s kingdom. 

We need not create things to confront.

The Office gets {dhs}-ed!

Posted on by
2

Last spring, when I was praying about starting this blog, I saw the perfect {double hockey sticks} conundrum on The Office.

Yes, I know, it is shocking that The Office is not always the bastion of exemplary biblical interaction!

In “The Inner Circle” episode, Dunder Mifflin Sabre staff is enjoying lunch in the break room.  Angela brings up that the new boss, Deangelo, is a huge sexist.  She explains that he talks to Kevin, an employee in the accounting department,  but not Angela, the head of the accounting department.  Also, he hasn’t ever met with Pam or Kelly, two other department heads, nor has he asked them to do anything.

Jim gets nominated to go to talk to Deangelo.  Other employees enter Deangelo’s office as well.  Jim confronts Deangelo that some people think he is sexist.

Shockingly, this doesn’t go well.  It has repercussions for Jim, and Deangelo addresses the whole staff trying to convince them that he is not sexist and that he can’t work there effectively if people think he is something that he is not.

All kinds of insanity.  So what could have been done differently?  Applying the stop, drop, and roll approach…

Stop at the trigger.  Remember, the trigger is the actual, factual action that caused concern.

A trigger seems to be that Deangelo hasn’t met with the department heads.

Drop all other perceptions creeping in.

Maybe he’s sexist and maybe he’s not.  Maybe he wasn’t told there were department heads.  Maybe former boss Michael Scott told him not to meet with them for some crazy reason that only Michael could dream up.  Maybe Michael told them that they do a great job and to let them do their own thing.  Maybe Deangelo is planning on meeting with the department heads but hasn’t quite gotten there yet.  Maybe he’s a bad boss for not prioritizing meeting with them… but that makes him a bad prioritizer, not necessarily sexist.  So many possibilities as to the root reason for the conundrum.

Roll on over and talk to him.

Not to others, and not to Jim, but directly to the person who has caused the trigger.  So if Angela is really concerned, she would go directly to Deangelo and inquire is he has plans to meet with the department heads.  Without accusations of motives, without spreading false perceptions, and without having others speak on her behalf, she goes as a mature adult to ask a mature adult question.  And – in case it’s something like an oversight so he doesn’t look like he’s being called out in front of a group – out of respect and consideration, she approaches him one-on-one.

That’s just a few foibles.  Feel free to chime in with other things that could have been handled differently to create a more honoring environment and interaction!

Gotta love when a conflict dissipates!

Posted on by
Reply

So we’ve covered valid and sound:

valid   =  logical
sound =  logical + true

What in the world does that have to do with Mark and Larry?

I’m so glad you asked!

Larry’s valid perception looks something like this:

Mark did not share in the group game that he wanted to be a chef.
Not sharing in the group game that he wants to be a chef is disrespectful.
Therefore, Mark was disrespectful.

So his argument is valid.  But is it sound?  Is each statement true?

Mark did not share in the group game that he wanted to be a chef.

It is indeed true that Mark did not share with the group that he wanted to be a chef.

Not sharing in the group game that he wants to be a chef is disrespectful.

While being disrespectful is one possible reason, there are a myriad of possible reasons that Mark did not share his desire to be a chef.  In this instance, it is because he does not want to be a chef!  This statement is not true.

Therefore, the conclusion,

Therefore, Mark was disrespectful.

is valid (logical), but it is not sound (truthful and logical).

So just because Larry has a valid thought doesn’t make it a sound or true thought.  While Larry’s initial statement, “But my perception is valid,” is accurate, his perception is not sound.  It is not truthful.  So certainly perceptions can be valid, but why would we kick around a bunch of logical but potentially untrue thoughts?  There are much better things to do than that! : )  Relationships are more important than that, and people are more valuable than that.

Now for the second part of Larry’s statement: “Mark is responsible for giving the perception that he disrespected my authority.”  Is he?

Larry is thinking something that is not true about his brother in Christ.  His thoughts are not consistent with what God desires us to think – things that are true (Philippians 4:8).  If Larry first worries about righting himself before the Lord, then he would first change his thoughts to what God desires them to be — ones that are true.  If Larry takes captive his thoughts and makes them obedient to Christ, then… well… then there is no problem. If Larry is thinking things that are true, there is no conflict.  Yeah!

Whew!  How easy it can be to dissipate that conflict… if only we keep our thoughts focused on things that are true.  People are worth that honor.  Relationships are worth that trust.  And Christ’s kingdom is worth that peace.

But my perception is valid

Posted on by
6

After An Untrue Mess and Stop at the Trigger, Larry still isn’t convinced.

“But my perception is valid,” Larry quips.  “Mark is responsible for giving the perception that he disrespected my authority.”

Is he?

The concept that “my perception is valid” didn’t sit well with me. Am I unsettled about it because I don’t want to accept it, or am I unsettled about it because it shouldn’t be accepted?

I did a little digging, and I learned a bit about things that are ‘valid.’

It may be just a phrase, but my journey led to some things that have been really helpful and clarifying for me.  I hope they are for you as well!

Now this may sound a smidge nit-picky or splitting hairs at the beginning, but it turns out to be a valuable distinction.  I really think this is helpful stuff, so I hope you’ll stay with me!

So… just a taste of intro philosophy or logic (I promise our brains won’t hurt for long!)… to help us understand ‘valid’:

For an argument to be valid, the statements in it do not need to be true. Validity is concerned only with logical structure.

Hang with me here!  It’s helpful – I promise. It’s worth getting.

Ok, so here’s an example of a valid argument…

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

This is a valid argument.  The logic holds up… even though the statements themselves are not true.  (I promise this is ultimately helpful!)

But it is not sound.  (Stay with me – we’re almost there! : ))

We call an argument “sound” if the argument is valid AND all the statements are true.

Here is an example of a sound argument…

No felons are eligible voters.
Some professional athletes are felons.
Therefore, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

Here the statements are actually true.  The argument is both logical and true, so it is sound.

You’re still with me, right?

So in a valid argument, the statements are logical but not true.  In a sound argument, the statements are both logical and true.

All sound arguments are valid, but not all valid arguments are sound.

There are some pretty big implications to this, but maybe that’s enough for one day?  We’ve covered valid and uncovered a distinction between valid (logical) and sound (truthful and logical).  So what’s the difference between the two?  Something God cares a lot about!  Truth. That’s an important bulls eye to hit!

Stop, Drop, and Roll

Posted on by
5

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m blonde… so simplicity – and silliness – work well for me. : )

So this is my latest silly simplicity…

When I feel anger creeping in, when I feel that fire starting to rise up inside of me, a great way to contain the fire is to Stop, Drop, and Roll.

stop sign with stop drop rollStop at the trigger.  Identify the factual trigger in the situation.  What is the true, factual thing that caused you to start feeling angry or upset or mad or hurt?

In our earlier example with Samantha, the factual trigger is that she arrived fifteen minutes late to group.

Drop all other perceptions creeping in.

Maybe it’s because she’s not committed to group and she doesn’t respect the group members’ time.  But maybe not.  Maybe she just got some bad news and needed a few minutes to process.  Maybe she helped a homeless man on the way to group. Maybe she had to leave a work meeting an hour early in order to make it to group only fifteen minutes late.  Maybe there are lots of possible reasons.  Whatever the case, I drop all perceptions and speculations and desire to know her true heart and see her and the situation as Christ sees it.  I free myself of speculated judgment and instead devote my attention to caring for her.

Roll on over and talk to her.

Not to others, not waiting for it to build and build and build, not getting myself worked up… but simply rolling on over to ask a simple, easy question before anything ignites.  “Hey – so glad you could make it tonight.  I noticed you were late – is everything ok?”

{Sigh.}  No big fires, no arguments, no fabricated false motives, no imposed sins… simply keeping little things little things, keeping facts as facts, and keeping fires from inflaming.

Such simplicity is rewarding.  It keeps me from filling with anger and her from filling with hurt.  It feels good to be treated this way, and it feels good to treat others this way.  And it makes for quite enjoyable relationships.

When a diamond isn’t a girl’s best friend!

Posted on by
3

I was talking with one of my friends about some of the trigger malfunctions of perceptions, and he responded with this illustration.  I just love it!

He said that it sounds like the formation of a diamond.  Someone speculate s about a person’s motive. Then they think they see other actions with the same motive.  Then they think they see additional actions and still more actions with that same motive.  And they keep piling on to their theory.  And the pile grows heavier and heavier.  And the time grows longer and longer. So the pressure grows greater and greater. And the speculated ‘motive’ seems to become more and more solidified.  And with all the things piled on and the pressure that creates and the time passing, it seems like something hard is forming.  It becomes so solid that it seems to be true.  It seems that out of a little bit of carbon, a diamond seems to be forming.  And it seems to be so hard under all the things piled on and time passed and pressure that has built, that it seems to be rock solid.

And so we end up confronting people on these things that seem rock solid.

Think about how often this has occurred in the world!  How often has a speculation become seemingly rock solid?  Someone speculated that the earth was flat, and for years, that is what was taught and believed as fact.  Not too long ago, people speculated that those of certain skin colors were more or less superior to other people. And they thought they saw actions that supported the theories, so the theories seemed to become more and more rock solid until they became to be believed as truths. And for years, that is what was taught and believed as fact.

But it was not true of God’s creations.

The seeming rock solid truth was really a bunch of misperceptions and untrue thoughts piled and piled and hardened to form a seeming truth.

Though they seemed rock solid, the lattice of ‘facts’ holding the ‘truth’ together was not.  Like a diamond, they seem hard but their bonds were actually somewhat weak.

This is kind of fascinating – diamonds are one of the hardest things we know of.  Graphite, which is made up of the same stuff that diamonds are (carbon), is softer than diamonds (think pencil lead).  Even though diamonds are harder, graphite holds up better under fire.  Weird, huh?  This is because diamonds’ carbon-to-carbon bonds are weaker than graphite’s carbon-to-carbon bonds, so oxygen can separate the carbon molecules of diamonds more easily than it can those of graphite.

This means that if your diamond rings were to burn on a lump of graphite, you would end up with a lump of gold from the ring sitting on the lump of graphite… but the diamond would be gone forever as a carbon+oxygen combo: carbon dioxide.

Fascinating.

Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry (he discovered that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen), put a diamond in jar of oxygen.  He focused a ray of sunlight on the diamond via a special (enormous) magnifying glass, and poof!  It became CO2 and disappeared.

Crazy, huh?  Crazy that a diamond, which seems so rock solid, can literally vaporize with some strong light.

So these perceptions that we may have of another person that seem rock solid… are they?  If some Sonlight {I couldn’t resist : )} is focused on them, will they remain as solid as they seem to be?  Or will their hardness dissipate under the Light?