What's Next?

Eventually, if you talk to enough people, and you pray and keep following God, you'll probably help someone else to come closer to the Lord, too. Even it takes you a while before you get someone who makes a new decision to follow Christ who wasn't previously a believer, you can still encourage other believers. And, you can overcome objections from non-believers. You can form relationships with those who are not followers of Christ and use that relationship to strengthen the impact of your witness. But, what will your journey look like as you are following Christ? What does growth in your relationship with Christ look like? That's the subject of a new book I recently finished reading by Bill Delvaux called, "Landmarks: Turning Points on Your Journey Toward God "

 

When I preach and witness to people, they ask me all sorts of questions such as, "If it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage, was I sinning when I was raped?" People frequently ask about suicide, homosexuality, drugs and alcohol, too. Many of these are hot button issues that a person can get used to talking to people about. The answers come easier with time, but I never know what the next question will be. So, by witnessing to others, I'm constantly being pushed forward in my pursuit of God. When I don't go out witnessing, I can become complacent. However, as long as I'm ministering to others, I have to keep moving forward myself, or I won't be able to keep helping other people. So, I can keep growing, even though I'm often pretty content (as far as I'm concerned) with where I'm at, because I need to keep learning more answers so that I can be ready when the next tough question comes.

So, you can imagine how excited I was to find Bill's book about Landmarks: it deals with a whole host of issues that were new to me. He gives perspectives on things I've never considered. Not only that, but he speaks from a vantage point further along in his journey that I am, and illustrates his material with easy to grasp comparisons to well known movies. His delivery is gentle, personal and authentic. He gives methods of explaining difficult concepts that will help me to speak to others about difficult subjects in a kind and gentle way. His nine landmarks (milestones of a Christian's development) are as follows: Story, Idols, Wounds, Sex, Identity, Battle, Bond, Mate and Quest. Now, when I first read those, I had no idea how those could be "milestones" in the development of anyone...but boy are they! Although this is a memoir, it is also a guidebook, and it has a lot of "story"...not that it is a novel, but rather you get to see the development of several characters through little vignettes about them and through comparisons (as stated before) to movies.

I might have to re-write this at some point, because I don't feel like my words are doing his book justice, but for now, trust me. Bill uses suspense and word pictures to draw the reader into the book. Some of his comparisons even have some humor. This is a great book and I intend to refer back to it multiple times. This book has lots of deep thoughts and I expect I'll really have to consider it over time to get everything out of it that I can. If you'd like to get a copy of it yourself, you can do so here.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links, so I could make a few cents off it if you decide to buy through my links. If that bothers you, get it through Amazon without using my links. Either way is fine with me, as my goal is to see the kingdom of God advanced, and the more people who are looking for ways to do that the better off we’ll all be. God bless you in your efforts to do that! :-)

Missionary Writing: Truth Hidden in the Obvious

"The first step in missionary writing is to pray. That sounds obvious, but it is frequently overlooked in the headlong rush to write." - Jeff Calloway

 

That which seems like it should be obvious, often isn't. And, what is obvious to one person often isn't to the next. Sometimes, what was obvious to me yesterday is no longer obvious to me today. I'm not disagreeing with Jeff's statement above, but rather I'm saying it is sometimes O.k., even highly desirable, to state the obvious. Think about the person who talks about the elephant in the room. Sometimes talking about the things that are obvious (but that no one is talking about) can really loosen things up. Sometimes, like when you are working out a math "story problem", it is useful to just state what it is that you know you know. That's the way much of the book "Missionary Writing," by Jeff Calloway was to me: it has a lot of things in it that seem like maybe they should be obvious, but until someone points them out to you, you might not think of them.

Surprise!

I assumed when I got this book, that it would be about how to write home to friends, family and church members about what it is that you are doing while on your missionary trip. What are you learning about? What are you seeing the Lord do in his work among the people you are ministering to? That's about the only kind of thing I had been exposed to regarding missionary writing. But, that's not what Jeff had in mind at all. His book is about how to be a missionary through use of the written word! It is the complete opposite direction from what I had thought was the obvious direction for a book like this.

Although not what I expected, this book has been helpful to me in my quest to be a better writer in several ways. First, it is practical. This book is a how-to. It doesn't have a lot of flowery language or metaphors. It is a straight forward, easy to understand book on how to write as a missionary. Beyond that, though, it has advice that applies well to how to be a better writer in general. For example, it has a great section on seeing with fresh eyes. Although the words were about being a missionary to your readers, about showing people the Lord with your written words instead of just with your speech or your bodily presence, I kept seeing things that apply equally well to how to write a sermon or even how to write persuasive materials unrelated to Christianity. Also, it worked for me like a long set of writing prompts: it helped me look around and realize how many things around me were "obvious" (as in, right in front of me), but until one takes the time to deeply consider them, they are easy to overlook. Jeff has clearly spent a lot of time considering his subject. As someone who has lots of experience with missions and missionaries, the things he writes about are probably second nature to him, but he has the gift of writing it down in such a way that they seem like we should all have been doing it his way all along, because it is just "obviously" a really good way to do things. After having read Jeff's book, I see so many more things that I could write about than before having read it. He opened my eyes to vast quantities of material that are all around me (yet, I was having trouble seeing).

Seeing with New Eyes

I hope I’m not going on about this obviousness thing way too long, but it really is a big deal. To get an idea how big a deal this is, think about the areas of your life where you know a lot about a subject, but you've been using the things you know so much and for so long that you've forgotten that you ever learned them. The fact you are reading this means there is a VERY large number of these things that you know without knowing that you know them. Think of taking care of a baby. The baby doesn't know how to eat (at least not with fork and knife), or bathe itself, or walk, talk, or use a toilet. It can't dress itself. It can't do math or drive or pay bills. The list is almost endless, yet these are things that we, as adults, do almost without thinking. (Maybe we have to think about math and paying bills...maybe we have to think about those quite a bit, but you get the point. The baby can't do them at all and most of us can do them without a lot of help.) I loved this book partially because it tells us one thing after another that are foundational truths to the work of being a missionary. These truths are the things that allow a person to walk and talk like a missionary: ideas like chapter 4, "Understanding Those I Am Writing For". These truths are so foundational (like being able to walk and talk) that we can sometimes forget about them. And, these are things a newcomer to the field might not think to do the way the author suggests.

A Confession

Over the years, I've gotten better at writing. However, I still sometimes just run out of things to say. I also get tired of writing. Sometimes I'm frustrated by the lack of response my writing receives. In fact, I was recently so frustrated that I hadn't written anything substantial for this blog in months and also hadn't written anything for the Lord on twitter in a long time. But, a number of the books I've recently gotten from StoryCartel.com changed all that and Missionary Writing is one of them.

Other Content

Aside from the effect it has had on me, from a nuts and bolts perspective, you should know some of the breadth of content in this book. Aside from a section on "seeing with fresh eyes," it also has a great section on vision casting. That is, not on seeing the things around you in a new way, but rather the process of coming up with a vision for where you want to go with your writing. There’s a section on tools to use to help you with the process and the business end of your writing. To make any of the above things work, he starts with a section describing the subject of missionary writing (definitions, basis, mission, calling and some common roadblocks).

Summary

This short, but practical, book has a breadth of topics related to missionary writing. It opened my eyes to a wealth of ideas related to broadening the possibilities for things I could write about and I expect I’ll refer back to this little book over and over again when I need help with my writing. I found it useful and would recommend it to others writing with an intent to further Christ’s kingdom regardless of whether they are approaching believers or prospective converts.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links, so I could make a few cents off it if you decide to buy through my links. If that bothers you, get it through Amazon without using my links. Either way is fine with me, as my goal is to see the kingdom of God advanced, and the more people who are looking for ways to do that the better off we’ll all be. God bless you in your efforts to do that! :-)

Personal Evangelism: a Surprising Book

Raw. It is a word with a lot of different connotations. It could mean, "Dangerous," like uncooked meat. It could mean, "Healthy," like a salad. It could mean, "Damaged," like flesh rubbed raw. When it comes to Evangelism, it can mean uncut, unedited, unprocessed. Yes, it can be healthy, but it can still be dangerous. And, the flavor of raw evangelism can be startlingly strong like raw garlic or raw broccoli. But, it is what it is. When people come in contact with other people, the interactions can rub a person the wrong way: particularly when those interactions take place in the midst of evangelism. The word, "Evangelism," comes from Greek meaning the spreading of "Good News." But, people have all sorts of hang-ups around the ideas behind evangelism and have a lot of different ideas about what is right and wrong. Sometimes, when you confront people with new ideas about what is right and wrong, those hang-ups can blow up in your face. Often, when people don't understand the finer points of right and wrong, they can do things that are wrong without meaning to do so, and the results can be touching...or frightening...and sometimes very funny.

The book, B-More Stories by Jeff Elkins, is a raw book. And, even if he wasn't thinking about it this way when he wrote it, it reflects the realities of personal evangelism. He calls it fiction, but it has a lot of truth in it...sort of like Pilgrim's Progress...except that B-More Stories isn't an allegory. Although everyone recognizes that the characters from Pilgrim's Progress weren't literal individuals in a history book sense, there was still a lot of truth in Pilgrim's Progress. So it is with "B-More Stories".  Although the characters in the book are not meant to be actual individuals, there is a lot of truth in the interactions between the characters.

The book has 21 short stories about life in Baltimore and many of the characters are involved in church activities or are actually pastors. The 21 different stories often re-use characters, and don't flow from one to the next. So, while it isn't really a novel, it is more than 21 individual stories. One of the stories captures the awkwardness of a white man getting his hair cut at an all black barber shop. At the end of the story, after the men in the shop have very candidly shown their feelings about a local church and the pastor at that church, the white customer reveals that he is a pastor, but breaks the awkwardness partially by telling them a joke. He shows the men he's with that he doesn't have any hard feelings towards them because of their dislike for abuse of church authority.

When I read/hear about "personal evangelism," I mostly find that the term revolves around training non-professionals in how to share the gospel with people one on one, but it also means building relationships. It means getting people comfortable with Christianity one-on-one or in small groups rather than confronting them with their sinfulness by yelling at them from a street corner. It isn't what is done from the pulpit, either.

Another story is about a pastor receiving a phone call from a man who wants the pastor to find a good Christian man for his girlfriend to sleep with. Yes, you read that right. I know, it doesn't make any sense...at least at first. However, as the story goes on, he reveals that his girlfriend won't have sex with him because he isn't a Christian. He thinks that sex is good. Since he loves his girlfriend, he thinks she should have sex. So, he's trying to find someone for her to have sex with.

As strange and twisted as that may sound, when I am out witnessing to people on the streets, I routinely hear things which make as little sense to me as the above described phone call. The strange and twisted things people come up with are often hard to believe. (As in, "I can't believe I just heard what I think I heard.") And, people often say such things using so much profanity it practically makes one's ears wilt. Is that hard to take some times? Yes. But, these people don't see any point in abstaining from profanity. And why should they? They don't believe the Bible, so what difference does it make to them if it says we shouldn't speak that way? So, they try to look cool and use lots of profanity.

The book also has some stories about some murders taking place in the area. I'm not sure exactly what to make of these. Maybe they are in the book to add "interest" for those not interested in just stories about lives of pastors. Maybe they are there to show that people sometimes do bad things out of confusion or confused motives. I don't know. But, on the whole, it was a very well written book. (Now, since I've put affiliate links on the page, if you decide to buy using my links, I could make a few cents. If that makes you think this review is suspect, fine. But, I really am trying to be honest about the book here. :-) Also, in the interests of full disclosure, my copy of the book was free in exchange for an honest review on Amazon. By reviewing it here, too, I'm going above and beyond my agreement. But, I think the book is worth it!) If you've read this book or would like to comment on any other aspect of this post, I'd be delighted to hear from you. Please contribute to the conversation. If you'd prefer to let me know what you think through twitter (@DaveDerPunkt), that would be great, too. Happy reading and God bless!

How to Understand what the Bible Leaves Out

Perhaps this sounds like an ambitious thing to tackle in a blog post, however, someone asked some good questions over twitter recently, and although I tried to answer her question, I'm not sure I was doing well over twitter. So, I'm going to give a more full answer here, where I have more space. The question was, basically, "Are we supposed to get baptized in Jesus name only, or in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?" The question was raised because of a perceived conflict between two verses. The two verses are as follows:

Matt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  (ESV)

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Also ESV)

There are two ways to approach this question. First, does it matter how we are baptized? Second, how do we know what to do with two verses that seem to contradict each other because of differing amounts of detail?

One of the answers to the question of how to be baptized was to point the questioner to a CARM page on baptism, which has a link to an explanation of what that verse has to do with baptism (http://carm.org/baptism-and-acts-238)
That web page has an in depth, technical explanation of the Greek in Act 2:38.  However, I'm guessing that most people asking the question about which verse to follow aren't interested in a technical explanation of the Greek grammar behind one of those verses. If you skip that explanation, it also has a good explanation of the idea that salvation does not come because of getting baptized.  So, it really doesn't matter (much) how you get baptized, because that's not what gets you saved anyway. I'm not saying it isn't important to do what God's word says. The idea of obedience is good, certainly. The biggest issue, though, is that a person is acting from right motives. So, if a person is honestly trying to do what is right, then that's what counts. If they are in a group that believes in Jesus only baptisms, and so they believe they should be baptized in the name of Jesus only because they don't realize that the Bible has anything else to say on the subject, God isn't going to punish that person for having acted out of a good conscience and for not having been baptized the "right" way. This goes for any other question regarding baptism, too. If you are in a group that practices dunking, sprinkling, immersion, whatever, it isn't the most important question. If you were baptized in any of those groups (regardless of what is "correct" in an objective sense), that's fine. If you did it as the answer of a good conscience towards God to make a public confession of faith towards God, you did it with right motives. That's what counts. That said, if your conscience is bothering you, by all means, do it again! If you've decided that the group who originally baptized you didn't have everything right and so you are concerned that it "didn't take" or something along those lines, go do it again. The Bible is pretty clear about maintaining a good conscience (see 1 John 3:19-23 or so). Also, if those around you don't believe that the way you did it in the past was valid, for their sakes, do it again.

The second question is the more important question. How do we know what to do regarding two verses that seem to contradict each other by giving differing amounts of information? First of all, this pair of verses (Matt 28:19 and Acts 2:38) don't contradict each other. If you are baptized in the name of the son of God, then you are baptized in the name of Jesus. The two things mean the same. If you are baptized in the name of the father and of the holy spirit, you are still being baptized "in the name of" God, which means you are doing it because he (God) commanded it. You are acting as his agent. Because God is one God, whether you do something in the name of Jesus, or in the name of the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit, it is all being done in the name of God. Now, if someone doesn't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, then that's an issue, because there are a LOT of scriptures which substantiate that doctrine. If someone says, though, there is a difference in meaning because the one tells me to be baptized in three names and the other says only to be baptized in one name, that person needs to consider this:

If I go to a party and am telling everyone about a car accident that was really shocking that I witnessed on the way to the party, I might give a LOT of details to the first person I tell about it. I might be still trying to deal with what I saw and I need to just have a shoulder to cry on, so to speak. But if someone else comes over and asks what we are talking about, I'm probably not going to go into as much detail. If yet a third person comes over and asks what we are talking about, I might shorten my recap to just a few words. "Oh, I was talking about an accident I saw." Done. End of story. Say no more. Does it mean that I'm "changing my story?" Is there a contradiction present between my various retellings of what happened? Not at all. These changes are completely natural.

If I'm trying to find a job and so I apply to multiple potential employers, the job descriptions might vary quite a bit. If they each require three completely different skill sets, I might tailor my resume to match each of those three requirements. If I leave out my computer programming experience while applying for a sales job, it doesn't mean I haven't ever worked as a computer programmer. It just means I've changed the focus of my resume to match the needs of my audience.

We often see instances in the Bible of the same circumstances being recounted by multiple witnesses. Jesus life is retold once in each of the four Gospels and each one is different. What to do? If you get more detail from one account than from another, you have to believe the one with more details. 2Ti 3:16 states that, "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" So, you can't just toss out the longer verses because they seem to disagree with the shorter verses.



What do you think? Am I missing anything in my explanation of what to do with those two verses? Is my focus or set of priorities wrong? Can you give me any suggestions for improvements in my reasoning or my examples? Or, if this has been really helpful to you and you just think this is the most wonderful blog post you've ever read, either way, let me know! I love to get comments. Thanks in advance and God bless you!

Weed and the Gospel

Many of the arguments against using drugs are the same regardless of the drug. However, many of us don't know those arguments (when it comes to drug use and Christianity), so I thought I'd write up a quick synopsis of them. There may well be more, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this in the comments, but this is the way I'm thinking about it currently.

The first argument has to do with the meaning of the word from the Bible translated as sorcery. Although most of us don't think of sorcery today as having anything to do with drugs, in the time the new testament was written, it did. This comes as a surprise to most people I talk to when I'm out witnessing in the streets, but if you look it up in "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary," it is right there in black and white. I had a hard time with this, although I heard friends of mine saying things about this on a regular basis, until I looked it up myself. The definition given in Vine's is pretty explicit, so I will quote extensively here.

Sorcery:
A. Nouns
1. pharmakia (leaving out the greek spelling) (Eng., "pharmacy," etc.) primarily signified "the use of medicine, drugs, spells"; then, "poisoning"; then, "sorcery," Gal. 5:20, RV, "sorcery" (KJV, "witchcraft"), mentioned as one of "the works of the flesh." See also Rev. 9:21, 18:23. In the Septuagint, Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18; Isa 47:9, 12. In "sorcery," the use of drugs, whether simple or potent, was generally accompanied by incantations and appeals to occult powers, with the provision of various charms, amulets, etc., professedly designed to keep the applicant or paitient from the attention and power of demons, but actually to impress the applicant with the mysterious resources and powers of the sorcerer.

The word "sorcerer" is only slightly different. The second meaning in Vine's for "sorcerer" is as follows.

2. pharmakos (greek spelling omitted), an adjective signifying "devoted to magical arts," is used as a nound, "a sorcerer," especially one who uses drugs, potions, spells, enchantments, Rev 21:8, in the best texts (some have pharmakeus), and 22:15.

Both "Sorcery" and "Sorcerer" are sometimes the words used as the translation of words of another root, "magos", whose definition doesn't have anything overtly to do with "drugs" or "potions". However, for your ease of reading, I've included some of the above cited verses below.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 First of all, sorcerers are listed right along with murderers, whoremongers (RSV uses "fornicators" here. Several other translations say just, "sexually immoral people") and idolaters, each of which is worthy of death in the old testament law. Second, it says that these people "shall have their part in the lake which burn[s] with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." That sounds pretty bad to me. Going from Vine's definition alone, one might say, "Well, the problem with whatever it was these people were doing was that they were actually committing idolatry. It had nothing to do with the drug usage." But, idolatry is listed, too. So, if idolatry was the only problem going on, it wouldn't be listed separately. In Rev 22:15, we see that sorcerers are not going to be allowed to enter into the "New Jerusalem" with the murderers, whoremongers and idolaters. In Gal 5:20, the word for "witchcraft" is pharmakeia. In Gal 5:21, we find that people who practice "pharmakeia" (right along with, again, murderers and such) "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." There doesn't seem to be any symbolism there. As if "lake of fire" and shut out of "New Jerusalem" weren't enough, those who do "pharmakeia" won't inherit the kingdom of God.

If you haven't ever tried to witness to people about the Gospel and had them try to justify themselves, then it might be hard to imagine all the different ways people try to wiggle out of their responsibility to do what's right. In case you, like me, think the above things make "doing drugs" look like something we really ought to avoid, I'll try to help you see things from the point of view of those I witness to. They say things like, "Well, maybe it was some other drug that was being talked about there. How do I know that is really talking about weed?" In response, I try to explain to them the principle behind these prohibitions. I tell them this is no different from alcohol usage (1 Cor 6:9-10, no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of heaven). The thing that unites the two is Matt 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." The point here is not that a man can't look at a woman. The point is also not that a man can't feel attracted to a woman. Rather, if a man notices that he is being tempted to do something he should not (lusting after a woman he's not married to), he should avoid the source of the temptation. That is, a man being tempted by a woman's beauty should look away! The problem with both alcohol and weed is that they both dull the mind and prevent people from being able to choose right from wrong.

The third argument is that marijuana should be avoided because it is simply not good for you. This argument has a number of different approaches. We are told we are not to defile the temple, and the body of the believer is the temple of the Lord. (retort: What does it mean to defile the temple?) We are not to commit murder, and because we are killing ourselves by smoking (whether marijuana or tobacco), we are committing murder by smoking.

The obviousness of the above is pretty clear to me. However, when I bring this line of reasoning out into the streets, I'm often told, "Oh, no. Neither alcohol nor weed does that to me." I used to drink alcohol, and I find it hard to believe that it doesn't make it more difficult for ANYONE to do what is right. I've never used marijuana, but I've watched people who have, and having done that has been enough for me. Today, though, I found a book in the library that gives me further evidence to support my ideas. It is "Forensic Pharmacology," by Beth and Morris Zedeck, 2007. On p. 51, it says the following.

Marijuana has a range of behavioral effects, including feelings of euphoria, relaxation, mood changes, panic reactions, and paranoia. It also causes an altered time perception, lack of concentration, and impairs judgment, learning, and memory. [...] Other changes include psychosis, delusions, and hallucinations. [...] The physiological effects of marijuana include increased heart rate, dryness of the mouth and throat, increased appetite, enlargement of the blood vessels and pupils, sleepiness, decreased repiration rate, and psychomotor impairment. Ataxia (unsteady balance) and bloodshot eyes are characteristic of marijuana intoxication. Use of marijuana over a long period of time can cause lung damage, impairment of cognitive function, alteration of the immune system, reduced testosterone levels and enlarged breast tissue in males, and schizophrenia, a mental disorder that results in disorganized behavior and social withdrawal.

A friend of mine once told me about a movie he considered to be completely ridiculous called, "Reefer madness," which he said claimed some of those same things. As I remember, his rationale was, "I've known a lot of people who have used pot, and none of them had the things happen that were portrayed in that movie." I've not seen that movie, but if a book on "Forensic Pharmacology" says these things happen, I believe it does happen. How often, I don't know. However, is it really something that should be risked? I personally don't want to mess with anything that could cause me to become schizophrenic. 

1Cr 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Now, knowing what marijuana does to people (from a medical/pharmacological perspective), is using it really something likely to be "to the glory of God?"

A Shilling Tale of Deception

A small crowd of people huddled together at dusk on Alexander Platz in East Berlin staring at the ground watching intently. A few were scanning the passersby looking for police. Every so often there would be a small groan, or an excited yelp to declare triumph! It was illegal, of course. These con-men stole money from the innocent just as surely as if they'd put a knife to your throat, except that their theft was non-violent...usually. I mean, if someone got upset enough and attacked, then the con-man was sure to have his back up within easy reach. They always worked in groups, but I didn't know that at the time. Who was who? Hard to tell. But you can be sure the man with three hats had a lot of friends, even if he didn't use hats.

When I saw them, they always used match stick boxes and the ball was always just a little wad of paper or a rolled up candy wrapper, but it worked plenty well anyway. I'd never seen someone work that game so well before. Surely you have seen it at one time or another.  In cartoons, they always use big cups or bowls. The person working the bowls has three of them and only one ball and is supposed to move the bowls around so quickly that the onlooker loses track of where the ball is. When asked to choose, the onlooker gets it wrong because the three bowls moved around so quickly. It is always drawn in the cartoons as though the bowls are just a blur, but no one can move bowls so quickly that they become a blur.

The funny thing about the three hat game is that the bowls don't move quickly at all, and they don't have to be moved around very many times, either...because the trick isn't in the speed of the bowls. The beauty of using matchboxes and a little wad of paper is that the paper is small. When I first saw them playing, I had thought that the whole trick was in that they used cups with velcro in them, or that the game was played on a table and the ball was dropped out from under the cups by being moved over the edge of the table. But in Berlin, they play on the ground, and they'll let you inspect the match boxes to show you that there isn't any velcro. There is no trick (as far as you can see). And, sometimes people win! So, it must be an honest game, right?

That's where the shill's come in. The guy moving the boxes takes the ball out from under the box when he first puts the box down. Then he puts it back when he lifts up the box he wants the ball to be under. The speed comes in how quickly he sweeps his finger under the box to get the ball out, or in the angles. I'm not sure. I've never been able to do it convincingly (although I’ve never been interested in putting a lot of time into getting good at it). All I know is that if you watch them play for a while, the people who lose look like they must be complete morons. And, when the people win, it doesn't look like they're any geniuses, either. The boxes and ball are just not moving that quickly. So, it looks like a piece of cake. But, somehow, when I tried it, even though I was sure I knew where the ball was, it wasn't there when the guy turned the box over. One of the onlookers shook his head and told me I needed to step on the box with the ball under it and turn it over myself so that the con-man couldn't pull the ball out when he turned the box over. But, even though I was sure I had the right box, the ball still wasn't there. What about the people who won? Those are the shills. And the people who lose who look like complete morons? Those are often shills, too. The con-men work in groups: they have the spotters, the bodyguards, the people who are designated to lose and those chosen to win. Of course, it is all fixed ahead of time so that the innocent onlooker thinks only stupid people lose and you don't have to be that smart to win. So, playing should be easy money...except that it isn't.

Now, if you were brought up being taught about all the ways people can con each other, then maybe you'll think people like me are just really stupid. Anyone who doesn't already know how that type of game is played deserves to lose their money. But, that isn't the point. In college, I earned two degrees with three majors in four years. Two of those majors are in natural sciences with lots of math. I'm not stupid.

A few years ago, I was bitten by a dog. It didn't take my arm off or anything drastic like that, but it did leave a scar. The funny thing about it was that I saw the dog coming at me. I had been in a stand off with the dog for several minutes and it didn't attack until after I thought it had lost interest in me and I started to back away. If you've read enough of my other blog posts, you might know that I spent several years practicing Aikido (a Japanese martial art) when I was younger. Before that, I had spent several years learning western style fencing. Before that, I had spent several years as a wrestler. I've had my fair share of fights between the three of those sports. I'm used to things coming at me quickly. I don't say any of that to brag, but rather to emphasize that until you've seen how quickly a strong dog can move when it wants to, it is hard to even imagine how fast it is. I saw the dog coming at me. I pushed it away to try to protect myself. I never saw or felt it bite me. But after I pushed it away, I was bleeding.

The human eye can only see things that take longer than about 1/20th of a second. That's it. Any faster than that and things just disappear: a finger under a matchbox or a dog snapping its mouth shut.

2Cr 5:7    (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
Hab 2:4    ... the just shall live by his faith.
Pro 12:20 Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, But counselors of peace have joy.
Prov 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.

What counselors are you listening to in your life? Is there someone by you telling you to just step on the match box and you’ll win, or do you work harder than that to figure out who to trust? Do you trust your eyes as the final arbiter of truth? Is seeing believing, or is there more to it? I'd love to hear your comments.