as of last week i've began putting my left foot forward.

up until now, my front foot has always been my right. i mean, i'm not choosing favorites, but it seems like doing anything else is something that could be construed as a bad thing.

this comes up as i switched the side that put my guitar effects pedals from my right to my left. for those of you that know a bit about rock guitar playing, most right-handed guitarist are prone to this left side setup due to it's easing the power stance situation; you don't have to switch your feet back and forth, which can be meddlesome. i've delayed this move because my right foot has always been my best foot: my more accurate and preferred foot for football; i ride goofy-footed skateboarding and snowboarding putting my right foot forward; gas and brake; etc.

such a silly list.

but fact is, it's a welcome change. my left foot has always been strong in its support and my right wouldn't be the same without it. really, who's to say that my left wasn't my best all along?

so many times i've heard 'put your best foot forward.' it's cliche but ever true. but i have found it to be a shame that we don't always know which foot is actually the best foot. where the steps are actually leading us. what that foot looks like to others. so although all of this came from a silly, yet important change in my musical routine, the idea of my other foot possibly being the best foot in another persons eyes, or maybe even my own, is invaluable.

at this point, my left was just undervalued. but maybe it simply has been the best all along.

i can freely admit that i may have been going about things all wrong!

this is a frequent thought.

but now i will begin to put a different foot forward. and it looks promising.

until then---

i think that i've forgotten what it means to be a friend. i'm so self-absorbed that i know that i've neglected many things about friendship that i feel are extremely important to me. so this is an apology (at least to those that read this n'er updated blog):

i'm often chasing my goals. my dreams that i've had since i was young. back then when i made all of the real decisions for my future, laying the groundwork for who i would become today. i didn't choose to become musically inclined but i did choose to follow that inclination to the bitter middle - where i find myself now.

at least that's where i hope i am.

i guess it could be the end, but then i'd really have nothing left.

at least that what i'd figure anyone would think when they've been headed towards a career for 15 years that hasn't ever materialized. failure after failure bringing about only mere flashes of real advancement but realizing that thought i may have moved forward one step, everyone else has moved twelve.

then you get to thinking 'why can't i at least move, say, eight for so many's twelve? is it me? is it my associates? where's my error?'

gotta love that spiral. it's epic.

in an era where patience is no longer a virtue but rather a death warrant, i've easily missed so many opportunities waiting for people, moments, or funding. yet i'm constantly told to 'wait for my time; it'll come.'

this advent sucks.

i've been waiting too long and not acting enough. so many windows have closed. doors once opened are now shut. people pass without so much as a 'hello.' oh yeah, that's just the bigotry in Orange County. but can i blame that?

of course i can. it's a part of the spiral.

why can't we spiral upwards?

my point is, maybe i'm not hungry enough. maybe i don't have the desire needed to make my passion a reality. i'm too soft and too patient. too not what anyone cares about - and yet not enough to satisfy the hipster kids. i don't know how to network. i don't know how to make money. you all seem to have figured it out and left me behind. and although i'm happy that you've all achieved so many of your goal in career and family, it's lonely back here staring up at all you've done.

very lonely.

maybe it can be a fire starter.

maybe it'll just dig me deeper.

but this is why i apologize: if i were you and had made it where you are, i'd probably leave me here too.

it's hard to stop a stubborn man looking to dig his own grave.

until then---

ThouGHts WHIlE StarinG at A Wall

while putting up the Christmas lights at my place of work (a house if you didn't know... and not mine), i saw a random space between the property i was on and the property next door. of course, i immediately got to the questions "who owns that? is that no man's land?" aside from the fact that i thought about this rather oft-used phrase 'no-man's land' for the first time as land that no one owned and not just as land out in the middle of nowhere, it got me to thinking. why wouldn't the phrase have been this is "God's land?"

people always got to be so negative, ha.

until then---

i'm doing this survey for USA Ultimate (formerly Ultimate Players Association) since i am a paying member, and it's kind of bad. it's like one of those situations where they're trying to lead you to say something that they want you to rather than get a genuine response (those have a specific name, but i'm at a loss as to what they are called. could just be a Leading Question, but that seems too easy.), among other things as well.
so here's a written response that i gave them, and though it's not nasty or bitter or anything controversial, i thought it'd be good to post. (the bold is from the survey, non-bold is my response.)

Since your response to the previous question suggested that you don't feel that these six goals provide the right direction for USA Ultimate...

How would you change, or add to, these six goals (shown below) to ensure USA Ultimate is headed in the right direction? (please be specific!)

1. Increase the visibility of Ultimate
2. Grow youth, college, and league Ultimate
3. Organize the highest quality US competitive events
4. Achieve sustained excellence of Team USA
5. Celebrate and uphold Spirit of the Game, as well as USA Ultimate’s core values
6. Govern the organization to ensure stability and excellence


i'm mainly concerned with what it means to "govern the organization to ensure stability and excellence." This directly relates to the other goals listed above. To keep things relevant with the problems people see in our federal government, i don't think that any of the USAU members really knows where our fees go. We have to pay for tournaments, travel, accommodations, etc. so other than a quarterly (maybe) magazine where do they go?

The increased viability (1), and spread of the game (2) are related to the same concerns. If the people that you already have as members are not sold on what you actually provide, then it's hard to spread the game with USAU having knowledge of it. The game is awesome (unquestionably) but it's played in pockets that don't use USAU at all, and this will continue. I find that part of the charm is that it's not a highly visible sport but yet you can play it at a super high level and be recognized worldwide. Kind of amazing. So if making the game more visible takes that away, i don't want it.

until then---

i've written about this topic/dilemma before, but apparently it's new again with the presidential elections coming up... next year. this article i found Should Candidates’ Religion Matter? (please visit the link if you have time, as i'm sure the author would like to see the hits he gets for readers!) addresses a bit more the same things that i was thinking. honestly, i was hoping that it's bring up more of an opposing view, but rather a more thorough one of my own is okay in my book:

Exploring the role of faith in our voting decisions.

I’m troubled when I see presidential candidates pull out the faith card. It’s even worse when they do it in ways that try to “out-Christian” the other candidates. I can’t help but wrinkle my brow with a hint of disgust and “are-you-kidding-me”.

When I was a kid, my brothers and I would sometimes use the phrase “I swear to God!” when we were trying to convince each other we should be believed. Most young boys have integrity issues (as well as a penchant for deception), so we would occasionally feel the need to bring up God’s name to back up our own word. In essence we were saying, “You may not believe me on my own merit, but I’m bringing God in on this to back me up!”

We adults are far less likely to openly “swear by heaven,” but I can’t help but wonder if we aren’t just a little more sophisticated at it. Ever see a Christian businessperson with the Christian “fish” symbol prominently displayed on his or her business card? I’ve seen it on the cards of plumbers, carpenters, car salespeople, etc. I’ve even seen lawyers and doctors use it. I live smack in the buckle of the Bible belt in Tulsa, Ok.—people slap Jesus on everything from pizza places to construction companies. But, if I’m honest, I really don’t want to know if they love Jesus when I’m ordering a pizza; I want to know if they make good pizzas (it’s been my experience that pagan pizza sometimes tastes better). Their religious affiliation is a non-question for me.

Some politicians may think they are honoring God by putting Jesus on parade, but I am suspicious that something more is going on—that many of these individuals are trying to use God to give them more credibility than they have earned on their own. I appreciate any person who is a Christian, but are they qualified to do the work they do? Do they have a good reputation? Is their customer service satisfactory? Or does their "fish" imply God is siding with them and so should I? Or are they trying to make me feel (consciously or not) like if I don’t use them I am resisting God in some way?

My father was a physician as I was growing up and he had a bad taste in his mouth about those who quickly referred to themselves as “Christian” doctors (he was an agnostic till late in life). This was because of a missionary doctor he knew who had come back to the States to practice medicine after being gone for nearly 20 years overseas. My dad said he was prescribing drugs that had stopped being used fifteen years before. He told me, “He should stop hiding behind his faith and get into some ongoing education classes. He’s a horrible doctor who talks about God all the time.”

Wouldn't you rather have a surgeon who was known more for her skill than for her faith? If she were the best surgeon in the country and you found out she was a Christian—well, that would be cool. But wouldn’t you rather be operated on by a brilliant surgeon who may be a Buddhist than by a sloppy one who had a fish logo or cross on their office sign and website?

This is the kind of thing Jesus was pushing against when He forbade “swearing.” He said we are not to swear by heaven (Matt. 5:34), but to “Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one” (v. 37). He was telling us not to bring God into the equation to prove we are telling the truth or to prove we should be trusted. People need to work on their reputations and on being the best at what they do, not on swearing by heaven.

This goes for the political candidates as well. Always bringing faith into the discussion creates a distraction from the person’s actual record. Values and morality are important, yes, but are not always an indicator of one's capabilities and policies. It avoids questions like: Is the candidate good at governing? Is she committed to justice? What is his voting record?

And why exactly do we need to know if one candidate is a person of faith? Furthermore, why should we be afraid of those who come from no faith or other faiths (in this particular election, the ongoing discussion of the credibility of candidates in the "cult" of Mormonism)? Is it because we believe that if we get the “right” candidate into office that he or she will “fix” all that ails the human community? Those of us who are Christians should know better than that. It is simply not true. The “fix” we need will never be the result of electing the right public servant or having the right national resolve; it’s the stuff of God’s Kingdom. And that Kingdom is still on its way—it may be here a little, but it is not here fully. And it won’t be here fully until Jesus returns. That means this side of eternity all human systems will continue to be broken to some degree.

“Shouldn’t we try to fix what we can?” you may ask. Absolutely. But a candidate being a Christian doesn’t ensure that he or she can fix things anymore than it ensures that he or she is a good parent or a wise businessperson (How many bad Christian parents and crooked Christian business people have you dealt with?). What is really at stake here is not whether or not the candidate has faith, but whether or not he or she is actually a good at public policy and has demonstrated the capacity to marshal the resources available for the good of all.

In St. Augustine’s massive work, City of God, he argued that secular rulers are still under the providence of God—that it is okay for the Church to work with those without faith as it pertains to the governance of a fallen world. Augustine points to Jesus’ claim that Pilate’s authority was given to him by God (John 19:11), though he was not a person of faith. The implication is that we should look for, hope for, pray for and vote for individuals who are the best candidates to lead—whether or not they lead us in prayer.

Ed Gungor is a pastor and author, and sometimes blogs at SaltTribe.

as always, i'm a glutton for your thoughts. hit me. until then---

i don't normally quote my own work, but as Kindred Fall has been working on newer material, i've managed to get certain songs stuck in my head. this is one that i wrote in a moment of frustration with what's going on in my life and it's been resonating with me basically since i wrote it. i'm not going to spend time explaining what it means, but instead take it for what it is: just another song i wrote. enjoy Symphony of Fools:

i keep falling asleep behind the wheel
can't remember the place i'm headed
i am falling asleep behind the wheel
and this time it's real

like the symphony of fools
that i played on my stereo
when i tried to play it cool
you just looked away suddenly
it's the constant shock
i try to give my self
to wake up

i'll keep falling asleep behind the wheel
as long as i'm driving down that road
i'm not falling asleep behind the wheel
i've already passed away

like the symphony of fools
that i played on my stereo
when i tried to play it cool
you just looked away suddenly
it's the constant shock
i try to give my self
to wake up
again

until then---

so i was tooling around this morning looking for some current news (twitter wasn't giving me enough information), so of course i went to the NPR site and ended up finding too much to listen to/read. (this is not really a problem, but i realized that i've not been keeping current... BAD!)

i came across this piece which should be of interest to both my Christian friends and non-Christian friends alike. apparently, that has been some more dispute over the reality of science in the Christian faith. this one in particular is questioning the existence of Adam and Eve. kind of a big deal.

through my personal studies, i've come up with my own take that kind of blends the two thoughts into a very real, very possible way of thinking that the Genesis story is historically accurate and that evolution is still a very real thing (as it most definitely is). some of my college friends may have hear me speak on this before, but the logic of my stance comes from the language: once i learned that "ADAM" is a word for "man" in Hebrew, a door was open for my understanding of the intersection of my faith and science.

there are essentially two accounts of the creation of "man." the first in the linear 'day one, day two', etc. found in Genesis 1:26-31. then another account soon after at Genesis 2:7 (continuing with woman later in the chapter). in some discussions i've had in the past, this has never been explained in a way that made me think that these couldn't be referencing two different events. or better: a broad event and a specific one. God created man; Adam was one of these men and this is the story of his descendants.

just like fact that God created the universe is more important that the time period that it took him to do it, thinking that God created man, then we have a story about God's chosen people starting in Genesis 2, seems to work and make sense in my mind. it's not like there is an explanation needed for the people that Cain and Abel marry, or the many other nations that the Hebrew people encounter during the entire scripture, but this could account for it.

the report only hints at this idea of the importance of the Adam and Eve story, but that hint is huge: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity have no basis if there are no Adam and Eve. no story of the fall of God's people. the acceptance of Gentiles by God's people. all moot. science is great and there is a reason that it all works. my faith leads me to believe that the science was set in motion, and didn't just "exist" but that doesn't make it any less real. i'm curious of others thoughts which is what prompted this almost rant. besides i've not written in a while...BAD. feels good. until then---