Not all Short emails are Inane

"Thanks"
"You're welcome. And thank you"
"No, no. It was nothing"

Inane emails. None of those should have been written, let alone sent. (Ok, so the initial, 'Thanks', maybe).

But not all short emails are inane. Here's one that I wish I received more often:

"Yep. I can make it. Locked into my calendar."

If I'm trying to coordinate a meeting with multiple parties by email, those are the emails I want back. Even if one person has said, "Nah, I can't make that time. Sorry! How about... x, y, z (time, place)". Even then, I still want to know if *you* can make my originally proposed time. Two reasons:

• I may not consider that first person essential to the meeting--I obviously care about their coming, or I wouldn't have invited them, but that doesn't make them essential.
• There may be no time in the near future when everyone can gather at once, so I may split the meeting. i.e. meet with persons a, b, c. Then, an hour later, meet with persons d, e, f. (Obviously, for this to be even vaguely sensible depends on the purpose of the meeting).

Make sense? I'd be keen to hear how others manage to efficiently coordinate meetings with vast networks of volunteers.

Jesus, History, and paving the way for Investigation

Occasionally, I read Dave McDonald's excellent blog. Among other things, he reviews lots of books; and just recently, this one caught my eye: his review of John Dickson's latest, Investigating Jesus: An Historian's Quest.

In general, I'm a big fan of John Dickson's books. But that's not what grabbed my attention.

Here's the thing: around the traps I get the sense that we Christians are generally seen as kinda thoughtless about the reality of the things we believe.

• Are they real? 
• Is there adequate warrant for your beliefs? 
• Can you demonstrate it? 
• Have you investigated it? 
• Are you even willing to engage with criticism?
• Are you equipped to face it?

Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly, but this expectation/presumption seems to lurk beneath the surface of two areas of discussion:

1. creation/cosmology, and 
2. the historical events of Jesus' life.

Now, that presumption of thoughtlessness encompasses much: blasé disinterest, woolly thinking, vested interest in clinging to out-dated conclusions, fundamentalist/obstructionist opposition to contrary positions,... you get the picture.

With that enormous preamble, here's all I wanted to say: I'm pretty keen to check out Dickson's book, because I reckon I (and 'we') need to become really well-practiced in articulating the historical credibility of our convictions regarding Jesus. Obviously, this isn't evangelism (proper), but it's pretty jolly handy as a preliminary :)

Two Right Answers

I just read this secular article entitled, The Power of Being Single. Worth a read. Take this for example:

"the language of singleness is really the language of couples who are pitying single people"

Their diagnosis of marriage's misuse is pretty accurate, in my opinion. But it lacks a cogent vision for what singleness is good for. Instead, the supposed benefits of singleness seem to be largely borrowed from those (mistakenly) held out for marriage: self-legitimisation, maximising my own happiness, etc.

For what it's worth, Tim Keller's The Meaning of Marriage and Andrew Cameron's Joined Up Life each make a far more satisfying account of both Singleness and Marriage, and why "there’s such a thing as two right answers", as Cameron charmingly puts it (Joined Up Life, 236).

My own stuff on Singleness you'll find here.

The Poison of Costly Narcissism

This article puts its finger on a real poison, to which gospel ministers are not immune.

Those selected for development have one universal trait in common: They are by definition high achievers. But there is a difference between those superstar achievers that can make the leap to CEO and those that will implode: To what degree do they feel invigorated by the success and talent of others, and to what degree does the success of others cause an involuntary pinch of insecurity about their own personal inadequacies?

On a related note: I'm not such a fan of their suggested appeal to self-interest as cure. I think there's a better way.