Note to Self

Eavesdropping?  One of life's guilty pleasures. In the sauna at the gym the other day, I was pondering the sad picture that of the 8 of us in the hotbox, I was the only one without earbuds and an mp3 player or cellphone filling the potentially valuable time for personal reflection. So when a couple guys came in, talking, I had no choice - I had to listen.

The one told the other, "It's my birthday on Friday." The friend asked how old, and the first one responded, "25. A quarter century. [Deleted expletive]."

Funny how perspective interprets that number. To him, he considered that old. To me, with the half-century mark in view? Oh, sweet youth.

Closing in on 25 years old...

So, I did the old guy thing - I butted into their conversation. I was thinking about being 25, and what I'd tell my younger self if I could, so I suggested, "Hey, birthday boy. Happy birthday. I'd recommend finding five people who have already been 25, and ask them what they'd want to tell someone your age. It will change your life." I'm pretty sure Birthday Boy left the sauna muttering, "Nutjob!", but I think it's good advice.

So here's the top things I'd tell myself, if I could send a letter back in time:
1. Put money aside every month. I know you're broke, but you will be for a long time. Save now.
2. Try new things. Push yourself, figure it out.
3. When faced with a choice between something hard or something easy, pick hard.
4. If you are asking, "Is she the one?", she is. You won't regret it.
5. Ride a motorcycle, do more camping, hiking and outdoor adventure. Learn to fish, because you'll want to teach your kids how.
6. Be a minimalist when it comes to technology. Embrace only what's necessary, and dump the rest.
7. Don't buy that TV.
8. Form a rock band.
9. Call your parents more.
10.Practice your music.

What would you tell your 25-year-old self if you could?

And the winner is...

Yeah, so a couple weeks ago I attended my son's academic awards ceremony. This is a nice event to recognize those students who are above average academically. Cool. And I'm proud of my son.

But I gotta ask, when did we start giving students grade point averages above 4.0? I've seen it before - I know that college entrance to the good schools recognizes those students who achieve greater than the maximum grade.

I admit: I'm confused.

It's like the athlete who claims to give 110%. What? How is that possible? How can one give more than the maximum?

I know, it's the middle-age thing creeping in again, the old, "They sure didn't have that when I was a kid." But honestly, they didn't. Because there was a standard in school - 4.0 - and you either met it or you didn't. Your effort was compared to a set, measurable, objective standard.

Instead, we've removed the objective standard so that all measurement is now subjective. The student can never know they've measured up, because they could always go higher. Their score only matters in comparison to others. A 4.0 is meaningless if others receive a 4.1. And the 4.1 fades in comparison to the 4.2, and so on.

Here's my beef with this. First, it's unrealistic. In the marketplace, these students are going to be surprised that employers and customers have measureable, objective standards. Second, it creates a constant state of stress, the pressure to always do better. There's no chance to sabbath - to rest - saying, "I've measured up." Third, it renders the measurement meaningless. For example, the student who scores 3.5 (a respectable grade in former times) now knows that the score is a joke, even if they've done all the required work.

Here's the real carry-over. It's a mirror of what's happened culturally. Just as the objective standard has been removed in academics - that is, there is no rule by which to be compared - any objective moral standard has also been removed. Our post-modern culture tries to deny any external measurement of morality, replacing it with a comparison approach.

That means I no longer view my behavior as right or wrong, just as better or worse than others. You cheated on your boss? Well, you're not that bad, because your co-worker cheated AND lied about it. And they're not that bad, because the boss cheated too, and lied, and got caught, and... you get my point.

But there is an objective standard, and God will call us to account on a final day. Hebrews 9:24 reminds us that "each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment." And Jesus warned us that "the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father and will judge all people according to their deeds" (Matthew 16:27).

I've given my life to proclaiming the grace of God, that through faith God has made a way to free us from the consequences of our sinful deeds. That's the good news, and if morality was simply a matter of comparison, there would be no need for grace, save for the very worst in the world. No, we all need grace, because we all fall short of God's perfect standard.

No, none of us will achieve perfection in this life. And all of us will fail on some level. Let's be thankful for grace, but be careful not give in to the lie of comparative morality.

Are We Any Better?

I am reluctantly weighing in on the Bin Laden assassination. I know that even naming it that is going to aggravate some.

The problem is not that US forces ended his life. I'm not opening the "Should we have forgiven him?" question. We chose retaliation over forgiveness ten years ago, and his demise was, in my opinion, inevitable. I expected he would perish in a rocket attack or gun battle.

I was at the gym on Sunday evening when the killing was reported. People around me were stunned, thankful, and cautiously relieved, as was I. It was the later reports that concerned me - the president smugly taking credit for ordering the operation, and Americans in the streets, celebrating, chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A".

I was immediately drawn back to that horrible day nearly ten years ago when the towers and the pentagon were attacked. I remember the moment and the very spot I was when I heard the news. Even living in Canada at the time, it was deeply disturbing, and people everywhere grieved with the American people. Worst of all were the news images of Arabs dancing in the streets, celebrating this attack on civilians, ending the lives of thousands. "How could they?", I wondered, "Don't they realize these are innocent people?"

I'm not suggesting we're celebrating the loss of civilians in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya. That horrifies us. But we're the free west. We've been taught that we have inalienable rights to liberty and justice. Things like a right to a fair trial when accused of a crime. I know that most of us would say that Bin Laden relinquished those rights when he attacked America. But on what basis?

I wonder at what point do we justify our president ordering a death squad to eliminate someone who attacks Americans? Should we have sent the Navy Seals to take out the Unabomber, Tim McVeigh, Charles Manson? Those men were, after all, out to destroy innocent people in support of their own twisted ideologies.

The work of the al Qaeda network disgusts us. It is evil, demonic, directed from the forces of hell. I want to see it destroyed completely and permanently. I also know we are at war with them, a war we all want to end soon, but successfully. Our service men and women are daily putting their lives in danger to reduce and hopefully eliminate future terrorist attacks on the USA.

I just wonder if, in celebrating the work of the tactical killing team, we've lowered ourselves to the bloodthirstiness of those who oppose this great nation. There's something in the glee of the president especially that disturbs me. The mix of blood and power is frightening elixir that stokes an insatiable appetite.