This entry is to allow people to comment on essays at my Web site (those that do not have their own entry here).
You can still comment if you don't have an account with LJ. Just pick Anonymous (It would be nice if you put a name in your comment, but you don't have to).
If you comment, please mention the name of the essay you read. You may leave additional comments for other essays you read on my site.

I went to see Ben Stein's movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [Web site], this afternoon. It was well-constructed, and his interviews were well-done, showing respect for the evolutionists he interviewed and asking the hard questions of the intelligent design representatives he interviewed.
You should see this movie.
The movie is not about Creationism. The movie is not about the theory of intelligent design. The movie is about academic freedom.
Students are being oppressed in this country by those who would deny our God-given right to ask questions (partially guaranteed by the First Amendment in the redress of grievances clause). It is not whose idea is right or wrong or valid or invalid. It is that we have the right to ask questions. It should be self-evident that God has given us the right to ask questions about anything and everything. It is most profitable to us if we ask questions in humility and in the search for truth, but we can ask any question.
Except in the classroom. In the classroom, the Right of Inquiry is being denied.
That is why this movie is important. We need to be aware that the Right of Inquiry is being denied, and we need to demand that institutions and governmental bodies respect our rights of inquiry and discourse. We need to demand that theories be taught in the context of discourse and rigorous criticism.
I do not believe Creationism should be taught in a classroom funded by taxpayers. I do not believe that Intelligent Design Theory should be taught as the only theory of the origin of life. I do not believe that Neo-Darwinian Evolution Theory should be taught as the only theory of the origin of life. I believe that these theories should both (or in concert with other theories) be honestly discussed as theories put forth by their respective authors, honestly criticized in a discourse of examination and inquiry, and honestly set to rest at the end of the unit or class as exactly what they were at its beginning: theories. And let the students decide for themselves what theory they feel has the best basis in fact, evidence, logic, and their own personal worldview. Anything less is a disservice to science and to the students of our educational institutions. To teach one theory and only one theory in a classroom is to preach a dogma, not to teach an informative course in science or anything else that falls under the heading of education.
Any theory that cannot exist in an environment of discourse, criticism, and inquiry is not a serious theory. In the words of Charles Spurgeon, "Truth is a strong tower and never requires to be buttressed with error."

This evening, there was at OWC's Arts Center a lecture by Nancy Pearcey on the cultural implications of the evolution theory. This was part of the reason I chose to watch the movie today. The newspaper indicated that the movie was the subject of the lecture. It was called "Beyond Expelled"
One of the interesting things she pointed out is that roughly 80% of this country believes that an intelligent designer (either through guided evolution or through direct creation) was involved in the origin of the forms of life we see in the world today. Only 10-20% believe evolution without any supernatural force is the source of today's diverse world of life. And then she said something I thought was noteworthy:
"The public schools have a responsibility to respect the public."
Now, if 80% of the nation believes there was a designer involved, why do the school systems teach as though it were uncontested a theory of naturalistic forces without the input of a designer?

Something that occurred to me while she was speaking was the realization that the environmentalist who fights to protect the planet from polluter-humans and the amoral business that pours toxic sludge into the rivers both take their worldview from the same place. Darwinism is the belief behind both the personification of the environment, or less extremely, the dignity of the environment, that the environmental movement holds central and the contextual erasure of the exploitative business or social pragmatist. They both rely on this idea of man as an evolved animal who has no higher spiritual calling than to either fulfill his animalistic passions or to protect nature as an example of all that is pure and natural.
Neither the environmentalist nor the unscrupulous corporate raider has respect for both human freedom and dignity and for stewardship of the earthly realm. In fact, I would suggest that only a worldview based on the Bible (an economic model of Biblical capitalism, which relies on both stewardship and individual self-determination) can respect both humanity and natural stewardship.
In other words: If there is no creator, if we came from non-living matter purely by chance or natural laws, but either way without a creator, then we have no responsibility to each other as humans with dignity, nor do we have anyone to be responsible to in the question of whether to practice good stewardship of the land, because without a creator, we have no one to be stewards for... and since I have already said that without a creator there can be no responsibility to each other, there is likewise no responsibility to hold the land in stewardship for our descendants. This is the logical consequence of a worldview wherein people came from evolutionary processes alone.

By the way, she also mentioned in passing the practice in many schools of telling children that all ideas have equal validity. This is a precept of postmodernist philosophy. I immediately thought of this comic: Hard Onions: Marketplace of Ideas
So, go see the movie, and check out the writings of Nancy Pearcey.

Edited to add:
Freedom of Inquiry means being able to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
There is a false dichotomy between science and religion. I believe honest scientific exploration in search of the truth will always lead to a deeper understanding of the truth of God's word.
Freedom of Inquiry means encouraging questions and seeking of the truth.
Students have the right to know that what they are being taught is accurate. How can they discover that if they can't ask questions about the validity, truth, and accuracy of what is being put forth?
"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein

One day, we will have to tell our children the truth about the environmental movement.
We will have to say:
When I was younger, we allowed a massive, unlawful cartel to control the world price of oil and damage our economy. Even though the cartel set the world market price for oil by curtailing its production whenever the price got too low for their tastes, we blamed others for the price.
We blamed the SUV owners, saying their excessive consumption drove up demand and created high prices. We blamed BP, Citgo, Shell, and Exxon for making a profit, even though their profits were only about four to eight cents on each gallon of gasoline. We ignored other things that drove up the price, like the many federal, state, and local gasoline taxes, to focus mainly on the corporations that refined and transported our fuel at meager levels of profit, and we taxed the oil companies heavily because we felt they made too much profit.
When the price reached $4.00, it was the realization of the pre-2000 dream of environmentalists, who wanted to see the price of gasoline go so high that people would stop buying it. $4.00 was a common price listed as the "no way" point back when gas was $0.99/gallon.
We refused to do anything about the price of oil and gasoline because we were following a mandate from the environmental movement that we had to eliminate our use of fossil fuels. We didn't drill for the oil we had to force the world market to correct its price, and we didn't pursue non-food crop-based fuels, such as hemp. We drove up the price of corn that could feed people in order to make ethanol, even though growing, refining, and transporting the stuff used more energy than it created, and even though it required high amounts of fertilizer and pesticide.
And because we refused to do anything about the price of oil, we followed the environmental movement's advice to conserve energy by changing our light fixtures from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent tubes, even though the compact tubes brought mercury or similar toxins into our homes and created a massive problem in proper disposal of the spent lamps.
And we gave away our freedom to climate control our homes, letting someone at a remote location control the thermostats in our houses so we wouldn't use as much electricity.
Loss of freedom and damage to the economy are the results of the policies put forth by the environmental movement. Eventually, we're going to have to be honest about this and tell our children that this is what it was doing to us. Why can't we be honest about it now and find a better solution?
Look around. Think through what the policies advocated by the environmental movement will eventually do to our nation. Then look around at the political candidates and see which ones have a record most closely aligned with the environmental movement. You can be sure that they favor policies that will have these effects:
- Higher fuel prices - Burning anything (except an SUV, it seems) is bad in the eyes of the environmental movement.
- Hamstrung economic growth - Taxing the oil companies (which are most likely in your mutual fund) hurts investors, which limits the amount of money available to start businesses, which limits the number of jobs that are created, which hinders the economic growth.
- Higher food prices - One of the environmental movement's sacred cows in this country right now is ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, even though most other nations have abandoned ethanol as more resource-intensive than petroleum. Candidates favoring ethanol from food crops favor higher food prices, which means more hungry poor in the USA.
- Less freedom - The environmental movement wants to tell you that you can't choose to spend your hard-earned money on electricity to cool or heat your home to the temperature that makes you comfortable. Candidates who support the environmental movement don't support your right of self-determination in small things... what makes you think they'll support it in large things? Maybe you've heard of the concept of faithfulness with little being an indication of worthiness to manage much?
- Hare-brained solutions and computer models that don't match facts and logic - Compact fluorescent tubes use less energy than incandescent bulbs, but they contain toxic chemicals: not a sensible solution. Candidates supporting the environmental movement follow the theory of massive man-made global warming, even though the science doesn't back the theory (maybe you read a few news articles about the drop in temperatures over the last year that wiped out a century's temperature rises, to name only one of many problems with the theory)... and even though following the theory requires steps hurtful to our God-given rights.

The environmental movement has failed us, and it is time to abandon it. We need to focus on being good stewards of the resources God has given us and stop blindly following this navel-gazing warm fuzzies movement. Environmentalism is fatally flawed. Stewardship is sound both ecologically and economically, as well as theologically and logically.
We must do a better job of taking care of God's green earth -- but we won't do that by joining the environmental movement in poorly-considered plans based on questionable science.
Consider this when you choose a political candidate this November. Think about what you'll tell your children.

http://skreyola.livejournal.com/268380.html

I covet your responses to this entry from way back when.
Trust me, I'm not poking anyone or feeling ill toward anyone about this. I totally understand how life can grab you by the collar and whisk away a whole semester. You may have noticed I'm not around LJ much, these days. So I'm not mad at anyone, even if you gave me a time and missed it. I feel you have done me no wrong. Life is like this.
But I'm still eager to learn the answers to my questions, so if any of you reading this have time now, or in the future, please take a look at the earlier entry and leave me a comment.
In short, it basically says this:

• Right or wrong, I wonder if there is material value to some (certainly not all) of the entries I've written in my LJ over the past six years.


• Writing is work, and it's fair to be paid for work, and someone might benefit from something I've written.


• I have the means to produce writing on a fairly consistent basis, provided the motivation to do so (someone cares that I write entries rather than not write entries).


• I am considering a collection of my best writings.


• I don't know what are the best ones, so please tell me. I don't know if this idea is totally off-base, so if you think it's stupid/conceited/pointless, tell me that.

By the by, does anyone have a suggestion for the best means of publishing something like this?

I was talking to an acquaintance, and we came upon the subject of the quality of different types of schooling. He and I had a minor disagreement about the matter, so I thought it might be useful to ask you to help me demonstrate my point.
Please ask people you know to come here to answer this, too.

Tell me what you were taught regarding the following questions (NOT necessarily what you believe but what you were taught in school), and tell me what kind of school you attended (public, private, home, hard knocks):

1. Under what form of government does the United States of America operate?
2. How are the ages of rock layers determined? How are the ages of fossils determined? (carbon dating is not the answer we want, here. There was a method for dating things before the carbon method.)
3. Regarding the philosophy, "from each according to ability, to each according to need," what are the benefits that make its application work, or what are the problems that prevent its application?
4. Where does the phrase "separation of Church and State" originate as it is applied in political discussions in the USA?
5. Suppose an economy exists with the following statistics:
Avg. worker pay: 100 units/month
Worker income tax: 5% (tax revenue stable unless more businesses start)
Investor profits tax: 15%
Avg. # of workers per company: 20
Avg. investor's return on investment: 330 units/month
# of workers: 600
# of investors: 61
Assuming that 30 of the investors would start one new company each if their tax rate were 10%, will the government collect more tax revenue by raising the investor tax to 20% or by lowering the investor tax to 10%? (taxes calculated based on one year of activity after the chage, i.e., all the new numbers for one year. For simplicity, assume all new businesses will employ their average 20 workers.)

That math problem was complicated, but please don't forget to tell me what kind of school you attended.
All comments are screened.

I set this up a while back, but I've met a few new people, and I thought it would be interesting to link to it again. It's called a Johari window. If you would like, take a few moments and visit http://kevan.org/johari?name=skreyola to select words you think best describe me.
Let me know if you make one, and if I know you well enough, I'll pick some words for you, when I can.

I'm thinking about removing a page from my Web site.
It's the one in the Hand section that lists my interests. I'm thinking about removing it because my interests go far beyond what I can hope to list, and the levels of my interest in a particular subject go through an ebb and flow, sometimes to the point of making an interest one of my interests or not one of my interests.
Because such a list is inherently inaccurate and not inclusive, I think I should remove it.
What are your thoughts on the subject? Is there something I can do to improve the list, or should I remove it?

And I have to think about the purpose the list serves, if any. I put it up because I thought it might, like the LJ interest lists, serve to show someone who comes across me what kinds of things I like, and that it might thereby lead them to make contact with me.
But I think that truly no one is looking for me through the Internet, or at least, not through my Web site.
I deeply want to meet new people in my area and make friends and meet my future wife. I think, however, that this page is not doing anything to further that, so it has no legitimate purpose on my site.
What are your thoughts on this?

Are there other pages on my site that give no useful information?

I've been hearing some disturbing things surrounding the upcoming 2008 election season.
I want to say a few things about how I think people should vote.

First, I think that having strong beliefs is a good thing. Part of what makes our republic work is that people on different sides of issues vote by what they believe. That is good.
What is bad is when people get so strong in their beliefs that they become extremist. It is wrong to wish bad things to happen to opponents on the political trail. It is wrong to say nasty things about people and call them demons or devils because of their stances on the issues, particularly regarding a single issue.
I think that it may be that our nation right now needs a moderate president. Someone who will not take fliers into unreasonable territory by the definitions of any legitimate party, someone who will work to maintain the strengths of our nation without trying to advance an extreme agenda, someone who will work with all the members of Congress to try to get good things to happen for the whole country, not just his friends in Congress or his party.

Second, I think it is ridiculous for anyone to make a voting decision based on any one issue other than a candidate's intention to carry out the oath of office, particularly to uphold the Constitution.
When you make voting decisions on one single issue, you give over your discretion to the manipulation of any unscrupulous candidate, who will try to get you to believe that his or her position on that issue is better than the other candidates, or worse, that there's no point in voting because their opponents are just as bad on your single issue.
Don't be a single-issue voter.

Finally, and most importantly, no matter how closely or distantly your positions on the issue are to mine, I say honestly and vehemently, you need to vote for someone.
Decisions are made by those who show up. Don't let the hype of the candidates fool you into thinking you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Vote for someone you believe in. If nothing else, write in the name of the smartest real person you know. If you don't vote, or if you write in a fictional character, you don't have any reason to complain about who gets elected.
Make a decision, don't worry about how likely it is your candidate will win, and vote for your choice. Voter turnout tends to be less than 40%. If all the people who are fed up with the way politics are done, there could possibly be a landslide for someone nobody thought could win.

Tune out the nonsense until the week of the primaries, make your choice, and vote. Then vote in the general election. Don't let your vote be wasted by throwing it to the lesser of two evils or by staying home on election day. Vote! If you can't make it to the polls, vote early by mail.

I beg you to please rate each of the following sentences based on how accurately it describes you. 1 means it's totally wrong, 10 means it's right on the nose.

I can't decide which direction to go.
I have a small child.
I have lots of little things to carry around.
I know a secret.
I like bats.
I like brown.
I like Claude Monet.
I like flowers.
I like pink.
I like potpourri.
I like red.
I like to cook.
I like to hide from the world.
I like to make salads.
I like to sleep in.
I like yellow.
I love having a mobile phone.
I think you should stop asking strange questions.
It is cold where I live.
I want to buy something handmade.
I want to catch a falling star and put it in my pocket.

Tell me what you would buy with $100. Extra points given for the most creative answer. :)

I have a list of topics I want to write about, but I don't seem to get around to it. Anyway, a few updates:
I've completed rewriting TLOC:SWL1 (Seeking What's Lost, Book 1). I need to find a few people who have spare time who can proof the book for me before I work on getting it actually published. They'll need to look for errors and tell me of places where things aren't formatted the way they are everywhere else. The proofers will, of course, be mentioned in the acknowledgements when the book is published.

I've been busy on the crochet front. I finished the scarf, added fringe to it, and started another scarf immediately. This time, I did it lengthwise and taught myself (using my bed blanket as a guide) how to do chevrons. When I finished that, I made what ended up being a potholder (or cold-dish trivet... If the yarn is synthetic, it might be bad to use it for hot things) because I put a little loop handle on it, hehe. I've made a total of three little squares that could be coasters or maybe quilt squares; I haven't decided yet. I've also made a little bookmark. I started to make another bookmark, but it seems to be too heavy, so I turned it into a bracelet.
So, I have a growing pile of crocheted items. I have not yet decided what I will do with any of them, except that i think they might make good Christmas presents.

Using my newfound skill in making chevrons, I am making a baby blanket of multicolored yarn. I think this will keep me busy for a little longer than the other projects.

I saw an ad the other day for an LG machine that plays BluRay and HD-DVD. This is what I expected. Format wars aren't what they used to be. Now consumers don't have to choose. They just wait until the multiplayers come out, and they have access to both. As for me, I'm fine with the plain old DVD format. Every time the compression and resolution takes another step forward, the shiny factor is nice, but every time there's a step forward, glitches become more obvious and more annoying than they were with the technology before.
With analog, a little bit of transmission noise meant a little static. With HD, a little transmission noise means large blocks of screen artifact, or freezing, etc. Compression is impressive, folks, but it's still lossy.
Well, anyway, have a great week. God bless you all!

[Edit: added picture of pile]

1. Botnets surpass DoS as top security issue, survey says
2. When Macs Attack (Actually, the exploit was for PHP, not MacOS or Linux)
3. Attack of the PC Zombies!
4. Are you in a botnet?
5. 1/4 of all computers are zombies (part of a botnet)
6. Is Your Computer Part Of A Botnet?
7. Note to new Linux users: No antivirus needed - Personally, I use ClamAV, but the author is right. I don't really need it.
8. Five Flaws
9. Bugs/1000 lines of code
10. Zombies at Wikipedia

I found all of these because I was reading the first article. And I immediately thought of the fact that most botnets use Windows(tm) exploits to embed themselves on systems, and that most of the malware is written for Windows(tm) (because of its market penetration), and that most Windows(tm) users don't take the time to properly secure their machines (and many don't even know how). And I thought I ought to look around for some information. So I looked up zombie on my favorite search engine (AltaVista) combined with Mac/Macintosh(tm), PC/Windows(tm), and Linux. Interestingly, for Macintosh, most of the results had to do with a game called Stubbs the Zombie. For Linux, most of the links were informational about zombies and botnets in general. For Windows(tm), most of the links were about computers infected by malware.
Botnets are responsible for a lot of the spam you get in your inbox. It could be your best friend's computer that sent it, and neither of you might know.
I think people should switch from Windows(tm) to Macs or Linux-based PCs, as they tend to be more secure out of the box. And if you're running a secure machine, you're not sending spam.
People need to take more responsibility for securing their computers. If you don't secure your computer, you might unknowingly be violating your ISP's terms of service by sending spam... not to mention garnering for yourself the curses of those who receive the spam your computer is sending out... that might be why it runs so slowly.

So, take some time to inform yourself. Then either take the time and effort to secure your Windows(tm) machine (a starting point) or make the switch... You can get a Mac here. You can get Linux here (I recommend Ubuntu for the non-technical and Debian for the power users).

http://articles.tlug.jp/Windows_Is_Free - What can I say? WOW. This is an amazing article. The author makes an incredible number of excellent points. Even if you don't normally follow the links I post, you ought to view this one. It is quite interesting and informative. It's not very technical, so even if you're not technically inclined, you can get something out of it. You might even be able to impress your geek friends by talking about the points raised.

Hmyyaiesdcpgp?
oaoornrtirtrh
wnfueteenyoay

The purpose of this meme is to see if any one LJer can be connected to most (if not all) of their LJ friends through real life connections. For the test to work, you and your friends, and their friends, and their friends' friends (ad infinitum) must comply with this meme. :-)

Task:
List all the LJers on your friends list you've actually met in "real life" before. Post this on your own LiveJournal, and ask all of your friends to do it as well.

LJers on my flist I know I've met in real life, whether pre-LJ or after:
carlyd81 I met when I went to her house a few years ago. Long drive.
darlacia used to live near here, so we had coffee and tea together a few times, but then she moved away, but I forgive her. ;) J/K
janiah came all the way to my town to meet me.
lbgderrick I met in Jax in real life and talked into getting an LJ account.
mathermom3 I talked into getting an LJ account. Okay, I set it up myself.
t_jay I met in Ohio. Another long drive. :)
Wow. Short list. There were some other Jax people, but they aren't on my flist.

On Monday, I was having some pain in my leg, and I began to worry about it. I asked some friends to pray for me that the pain would be nothing serious and that I wouldn't freak out.
My mom showed me a week-long series in Daily Guideposts 2007 on worry.
May 7: "Next to me, an older gentleman stretched his arms to the ceiling and announced to no one in particular, 'If I knew life was going to turn out this good, I never would have worried so much!' .... I happened to know that his life was not without difficulty." --Edward Grinnan
In the May 9 entry, Grinnan recounts a lesson given him that worry is a self-focused activity and that it blocks positive thoughts we could be having, including a focus on God. He points out that worry is heavily related to control. I think that may be why I worry so much. I like to be in control, and I'm usually not in control of anything. I should not worry.
In the May 11 entry, Grinnan mentions something that can help us to not worry: "Enthusiasm is one of the greatest blessings we can receive-- and, I'm beginning to think, the perfect antidote to worry."
So think on the good things, be excited about good things that can happen, and don't worry. These are hard instructions to keep, but if we did, we'd be much happier.
I continue to covet your prayers, because I am still having some pain in various places. I think it is from a little bit too much exertion one day this weekend and from being tired from not sleeping enough. Please pray for me that that is what I am experiencing (I may also have caught a touch of a summer cold), and that I don't worry. And don't you worry. And pray that I get the rest and whatever else I need to be healthy.

  Jesus' call to serve is that we see others, that we reach out to others, and that we invite them to serve Jesus.
  Consider the call of Levi, also called Matthew. Tax collectors in Jesus' day were more hated than tax agents today generally are. In the Roman Empire, tax collectors had a set amount they had to send to their superiors, but they often overcharged those in their dominion to line their own pockets, something that is not prevalent in the U.S.A., at least. In those days, it was nearly ubiquitous. So, tax collectors were hated and considered common, so Matthew was, but Jesus wanted him. Jesus wants each of us, no matter how much our society thinks we are worthless. Jesus wants you to be in a relationship with Him.
  But understand the costs. Jesus' call cost Matthew a lot, but it changed his life. He became a giver rather than a taker. He gained a new life and a new job that involved clean hands rather than deceit. He got peace of mind. And he got something else, something unexpected: He got immortal and world-wide fame.
  But the reason we should do missions is not any of these things we might get from answering Jesus' call. We need to do missions because Jesus calls each of us to do missions. He doesn't call everyone to go to Africa. He doesn't even call everyone to go to another country. But He does call everyone to missions.
  Every member of the Body of Christ needs to be involved in missions in one or more of three ways:
  Praying. Every member of the church is able to pray for those involved in local, national, and foreign missions. If you're not doing either of the other two things, you need to be praying. If you are otherwise involved, praying is a good thing to do, as well.
  Paying. The work of the Kingdom is not profitable. The gifts of God are very costly, up to and including His only begotten Son. Mission work tends to be more expensive than monetarily rewarding. Mission teams and individual volunteers need financial support so they can do mission work. Individuals living abroad need support so they don't have to spend part of their time putting food on their own tables. What they do is important, and they should have their needs provided for by the Church, particularly by their home church. Some people are called to go into the business world and earn as much money as they can, so they can give as much away as they can. Those who write out the checks serve a vital role in missions. It shouldn't be the only role, but their wages help others who have no money to go.
  Playing. Actually going on mission teams or serving as individual volunteers. Everyone understands this, because this is where the rubber meets the road. But do we really understand this? There is something for almost everyone in missions. Even if you can't give up three years to go to Honduras or somewhere-- Even if you can't swing a hammer or saw a board-- Even if you can't teach a class--- Even if you have no money to spend on missions-- --you can do something. There are opportunities to do missions in a variety of ways, wherever your talents are. And even if you think you have no talents, there are small jobs that contribute in big ways.
  Here are some of the things you could do in missions, starting with some big ones: Swing a hammer. Measure boards. Cut boards. Paint walls. Paint pictures. Teach a class. Referee a game. Sit and talk with someone. Listen to someone. Hold someone's hand. Watch the kids while parents do work or attend a class. Count adhesive bandages into groups of six. Sort buttons. Measure and cut fabric. Write a note and mail it. Compile health/school/sewing/layette kits. Smile.
  In missions, there are players, payers, and prayers. Are you doing something for missions? What on earth are you doing for heaven's sake?

  This segment was informed by a sermon by John Wesley Spivey, and by a talk given by Nick Elliott on the 3 P's of Missions.
If you want more information about things you or your church can do in missions, leave a comment, and I'll direct you to resources about what interests you.

  We need to remember as we do missions that missions is not for ourselves. If we are doing missions for some benefit to ourselves, we are doing missions for the wrong reasons. Even if our hope is for our church, that is still something for ourselves, our group. And that is not the point of the Church.
  "The Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members." --William Temple
  We need to live out that description of the Church, because if we do missions, or really anything, for the purpose of attracting members to our congregation, we are missing the point of missions. The point of missions is not to bring people to our church but to the Church, that is, to Jesus Christ and a disciple relationship with Him. We are to make disciples, and it should not matter in the least to us whether those disciples attend First Church, South Street Church, Westside Church, or Community Church. It should only matter to us that they become disciples of Jesus.
  Many churches today have fallen into a worldly trap of doing missions and ministries as a means of attracting new members for their rolls. We need to be doing missions for the right reasons.

There are many types of missions. Some are highly visible, like Paul's journeys to other nations, preaching and bringing people to Jesus. Some are also visible, such as construction projects, where there is a building for years afterward attesting to the work done there on behalf of Christ and His Kingdom. But some are less visible and often overlooked. Some missions help people but don't directly relate to the Kingdom or to souls, but we need to remember that these missions are important, too. Paul talks about planting seeds, watering plants, and reaping. Some helping missions meet people's needs without any direct relationship to salvation or Kingdom-building. But these are still important, because they most directly embody the Spirit's love, because they seek to do good to others without any form of repayment. Some people think doing good to others should be dependent on their acceptance of Christ or on their listening to the Gospel. This is wrong thinking. We should do good and show love because we follow Christ. If we are only doing good to others to get them to listen to our doctrine, we are not showing love but seeking some benefit for ourselves. Let us seek to do good to others to show love, unconditional, not dependent on their agreeing with us on any thing. Beloved, let us love one another.

  In addition to the variety of places people can serve in missions, there is also a variety of different works people can do. Each person is given talents, abilities, and passions by God for different types of work. As I Cor 12:27-30 tells us, the Spirit gives different tasks and abilities to different people, but we are all one Body, and we should not begrudge others their gifts and callings. We ought to work together, each doing what God is leading, all working toward the common goal of building up the Kingdom.
  Let each person use his or her talents and abilities to share God's love and grace, like a candle giving light to the place where it is. But Paul goes on after that passage to point out that the greatest gift is simply loving others. If we love one another, as Jesus commands, people will know that we belong to Christ.

  One of the most important things to remember about missions is that we do not forge a path into uncharted territory, taking the Lord with us. When we go into places away from our home, we are joining Jesus in work He's already doing.
  I once heard an excellent paraphrase of Psalm 59:10, which was, "My God, in His lovingkindness, shall meet me at every corner." Every time we approach a corner and don't know what's around the bend, God is there providing for us. Every time we come to a corner and feel trapped, God is already there providing for our needs. Psalm 139 tells us in verses 7-13 that no matter where we go in the world, even to the heights and depths of heaven or hell, God will be with us.
  I mention this because I know there are times we forget it.
  I heard a story a few years ago about a mission team that went to Poland. The story was told to me by a Pole, and he said that when they arrived in the airport in Warsaw, they were wearing shirts that said something like "Bringing Christ to Poland". He said the sight of it made him sick. I can well understand his feeling. Christianity was adopted in Poland in A.D. 966, over a millennium ago.
  And even if the team had been going somewhere with no formal history of Christianity, they still would not be taking Christ anywhere He had not already been. Christ precedes us in missions. Christ is at work wherever He calls us. We need to remember that we are not the root of God's grace, from which we take and spread it abroad. Nor are we the vessels where God's grace ends up, to be stored and enjoyed. We are conduits, the branches (Jn 15:5) that carry God's grace from the root to the leaves like water; living water flows through us, and while it nourishes us in passing, it does not stop in us: we pass it on.
  Remember, when you go out in missions, that you are not taking Christ anywhere. You are following Him.