I’ve read Mark D. Roberts (Lessons From Odd Jobs) on his lawn work for a gregarious and  assertive employer named Mrs. Bivans who taught him that even those who seem very professional have real lives too. Behind professional exteriors lie human hearts and emotional histories we all too frequently are little aware of.

I also read Marcus Goodyear’s post (Once Upon a Time I Was a Guinea Pig) whose experience having to stand for hours as an ergonomic study subject forever altered his perspective on Paul’s writing on how Christians have to “stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand”.

So what is the strangest job I’ve ever had and what did I learn from it? Well, I’ve only had a few jobs in my life. Just about 99.9 percent of my working life has been as a software engineer, and while you may think that is a strange job, I assure you, it is simply logical.

But after my first job programming computer simulations of nomadic herdsmen in Saudi Arabia, I found myself unable to get another software job so I tried a couple other things neither of which lasted for any amount of time. Selling solar water heaters just wasn’t my cup of tea, and telling my last prospect that I would be fired if I didn’t close my sale with him, only caused him to get angry at the company for engaging in such strong arm tactics. For some odd reason, it didn’t instill in him a desire to actually buy the product.

But that wasn’t the strangest. No, the strangest was the day I worked for Mrs. Hope Jones.

I met Mrs. Jones at a fast food establishment. She looked for all the world like a homeless bag lady; disheveled, unkempt and overly weighed down with coats that didn’t fit the hot Arizona weather. My wife and I figured she couldn’t afford a meal, so we offered to buy her some food, but we soon learned that she owned a large lot of land right next to the apartment building where we lived.

While we ate our food at that Jack in the Box, she told us a tale of woe that started with unreliable Mexican workers and ended with her son trying to steal her land from her by citing her alleged languishing mental faculties as justification. In between, we learned that she had inherited lots of money from her rich East-coast establishment family, roughly on par with the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts.

Now, it turned out she needed help as she had taken in dozens and dozens of stray dogs and put them in pens on her land. Seeing she was having trouble finding reliable workers, we mentioned that I could help her out and she promptly offered me a job on the spot.

The next day I showed up and discovered that the dogs were in horrible circumstances, with little food and water and covered in ticks. One dog literally died in my arms as I tried to give it some water and as Mrs. Jones pulled ticks off of the other dogs.

Seeing the situation and the hopelessness of being able to do anything, I never went back, but later that week, the local television news showed up and broadcast for all the city to see that the authorities had served notice on Mrs. Jones and had come to take her dogs away. The city viewed her as a crazy lady that didn’t care about what she had done to these dogs. But I saw something different.

And that’s what I learned from my strange one-day job. I learned that Mrs. Jones really did care about those dogs. She wanted to help and not let them suffer as they wandered the desert areas of hot Tucson. She meant well, but because so few took her seriously, she was unable to provide the care she wanted to.

If she would have looked like a rich Eastern-establishment family member, people would have treated her decently and offered her their services. As it was, they ignored her and treated her like a crazy woman. And maybe she was a little off, but not nearly as much as the news made her out to be.

I learned that appearances can be very deceiving. As Disney’s Beauty and the Beast reminds us, beauty is found within but we too often judge by what we see on the outside, and we pay a price when we do that. Instead of seeing Mrs. Jones as a lady who desired deeply to help stray dogs, the city judged her as a crazy lady who treated dogs poorly. Instead of seeing a person who had dignity (besides an abundance of resources), I saw a bag lady who only deserved my pity and handouts.

I meant well but I demeaned her because I allowed her appearance to stereotype my view of her. The city meant well, but they diminished her by assuming that she hadn’t tried hard to help those dogs.

At least Hope Jones shredded my stereotype of her quite quickly. How long does it take others to be appreciated for who they are, not what we see them as?

———-

If you happen by this post, why not join in and participate in this blog meme? Check out Lessons from Odd Jobs, and share your own story of the strangest job you’ve ever had and what you’ve learned from it.

Some call the youth the “Joshua Generation” implying that older people just can’t handle going into new territory and it requires the youth to do it. Is this true?

Well consider these issues…

• Half of the world’s population is 26 or younger (according to 1996 figures from the Census Bureau). For many countries in Africa, half of their populations are 14 and under!
• The older you are the more likely you will have a family to support making it harder to give 100% of your energy to God.
• The older you get the more likely you are to become jaded and calloused and lose the heart to believe revival will really come.
• The older you get the more set in your ways you become and the harder it is to break out and accept the new ways God may do things this time around.
• The older you are the less likely you’ll become a Christian and thus in a mass revival, most people getting saved will be the youth.
• When you’re younger you have more energy and enthusiasm. You’re more idealistic and don’t comprehend the obstacles in your way that give older people pause.

To me then, this is simply a practical matter. While God will certainly use ANYONE who’s willing and obedient, it’s simply a practical matter that most people in a mass revival will be the youth.

But even if this is a practical reality, we should certainly NOT suggest that revival is somehow inherently limited to the youth. May that never be!

And while we in the “older” generation may feel we are being left out when pastors or speakers focus on the youth, let us remember that Joshua and Caleb were NOT youth themselves!

Even better, they were the leaders. How cool is that?!

The GROUNDINGS PROJECT seeks to stimulate dialog, inspiration and action among Christian artists as we walk together in an authentic pursuit of Christ and our creative calling. We look for opportunities to engage the church and the artist in an exploration of the deep and sometimes difficult issues of our times at the vibrant juncture(s) of art, faith and culture.

The first topic that she will tackle during a retreat this summer called, ON EARTH, will be on the issue of the global environment, or as she puts it:

As we discuss our environmental future as a global community, there is an growing discussion and challenge within the Church to active engagement. This week will allow individuals of creativity and faith to reflect on the beauty as well as the responsibility for caring for creation.

I was especially intrigued by how she desires to create an authentic dialog among people with differing views. Again, she puts it this way:

I have felt God telling me not to be afraid of the complexity facing us today within the world, that He will show me and the rest of us how to be “in the world but not of it”. I really feel He is encouraging me to talk about the seemingly untalkable….even though we seem to talk about it all the time. Issues like the environment or the issue of war…these are things we essentially have stopped talking about unless we are pretty sure everyone in the room agrees with us or we get our anger stirred and jump into our monlogue of conviction and opinion. I just feel He is guiding me to allow a discussion and allow people who have different opinions in the room and enter a dialog….not a compromise and not a conversion monologue but a simple dialog…and to trust Him that His truth will be revealed.

I really love this idea of a simple dialog. It can be so difficult to dialog without causing offense. And yet we grow so much when we pause to truly hear what others are saying. Growth doesn’t happen by giving up what we believe. Growth happens when we see the differing viewpoints of others who care just as much as we do.

Dialog requires more than just taking time to listen. Dialog also requires taking the time to form how to express one’s differences. It is not enough to say that a given discussion raises red flags. One must probe what those flags are, what they mean and why they are significant. And then pause to see that the intent of the person who raised the flag was not as you initially thought.

Dialog should not be used to impose or demand. Dialog should be used to understand and clarify each person’s heart on an issue. Dialog should be our opportunity to hear what others have found of value and for us to share what we have found of value. Dialog should be seen as a gift that helps us see what we couldn’t see on our own.

Dialog is for those willing to be open and vulnerable, but also willing to challenge orthodoxy and group think. Dialog is for those willing to open the windows of their box and hear the sounds of all that is wild outside. Dialog is for those willing to have their foundations shaken, and willing to prod the foundations of others.

A dialog is not a debate. There are no losers in a dialog. Everybody has the opportunity to win — and will win — as long as they dialog in love.

I also like the idea of people of faith dialoging. Is it possible for Christians to take a few minutes to seek God and ask Him to reveal things that could help us truly hear from each other? Maybe instead of thinking about how to counter what someone else says, we can ask God how we can encourage that person. Or maybe we could ask God to show something about how He made that person we disagree with unique. Or maybe we could ask God what He would want us to hear from that person that we have never really considered before.

I believe that God is well able to quickly unblock misconceptions and misunderstandings that have grown up in our lives over many years.

What do you think?

P.S. As part of her retreat this summer she will be making a roadtrip out to see Frank Lloyd Wright’s house called “Taliesin”. On the Taliesin Preservation website they say that Wright, “learned that people are most content and happy when they live in harmony with nature rather than imposing their will upon it”. Take a look at this photo of Taliesin and see if you can catch what Wright might have been saying…

Now, If you are willing to spend forever commuting, there are some good deals about fifty to seventy miles East of San Jose, but who wants to spend so many hours of their life stuck in traffic?

Anyway, my wife and I will soon be making a trip out there just to get a better feel for the area and what might be possible. We are praying that God will show us what to do.

Dean

What do you think?

Getting Mrs. Clinton, by Peggy Noonan

I think we’ve reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don’t. There’s no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don’t. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don’t, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

[...]

I sat next to a woman, a New York Democrat who’d been for Hillary from the beginning and still was. She was here. But, she said, “It doesn’t seem to be working.” She shrugged, not like a brokenhearted person but a practical person who’d missed all the signs of something coming. She wasn’t mad at the voters. But she was no longer so taken by the woman who soon took the stage and enacted joy.

The other day a bookseller told me he’d been reading the opinion pages of the papers and noting the anti-Hillary feeling. Two weeks ago he realized he wasn’t for her anymore. It wasn’t one incident, just an accumulation of things. His experience tracks this week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing Mrs. Clinton’s disapproval numbers have risen to the highest level ever in the campaign, her highest in fact in seven years.

You’d think she’d pivot back to showing a likable side, chatting with women, weeping, wearing the bright yellows and reds that are thought to appeal to her core following, older women. Well, she’s doing that. Yet at the same time, her campaign reveals new levels of thuggishness, though that’s the wrong word, for thugs are often effective. This is mere heavy-handedness.

[...]

What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. She can’t trace the line from “this moment’s difficulties” to “my triumphant end.” But she cannot admit to herself that she can lose. Because Clintons don’t lose. She can’t figure out how to win, and she can’t accept the idea of not winning. She cannot accept that this nobody from nowhere could have beaten her, quietly and silently, every day. (She cannot accept that she still doesn’t know how he did it!)

In recent days, the Obama camp has been demanding an apology from Geraldine Ferraro, the former Vice Presidential candidate and current Hillary Clinton supporter who last week let slip that, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Though Ms. Ferraro resigned from the Clinton campaign yesterday, her remarks reveal little more than a firm grasp of the obvious, even if she could have found a less artless way to express herself. There is no disputing that Mr. Obama’s skin color has been a political boon for him to date. And the suggestion that saying so aloud betrays racial animus implies that only the Illinois Senator can discuss the issue of race in regard to his candidacy.

Now, I’ve heard radio show host Dennis Prager on this topic say that what Geraldine Ferraro said is so obviously true that how can Obama get upset about it. I’ve also heard radio show host Michael Medved say that Ferraro’s comments are demonstrably NOT true, and that Obama has every right to be upset. So which is it? Or maybe even more important, why is there such a clear disagreement on this topic even among good conservative friends such as Prager and Medved?

Well, in my view, I side with Medved, though I can see where Dennis is coming from. After all, didn’t Obama win 91% of the black vote in Mississippi? Yes of course he did, but he also won in states like Kansas and Iowa that have almost no blacks. Were the white voters in Iowa simply trying to end “identity politics” like Mickey Kaus suggests in Slate (see here)?

While that may have played a factor, to me it was far from an overriding factor. Go back and look at the polls and I’m sure most will say they voted for Obama because they liked his message over the other Democratic contenders. After all, isn’t Obama the one trying to present himself as the best candidate to bring about change, to end division (yes racial but also much more), to restore unity and bring hope to our nation? Wasn’t it his message, his optimism and his charisma that brought him to the national stage — not entirely unlike Reagan when he came to the national stage early on as a newly elected governor of California?

Yes, Andrew Sullivan has a point (see here) about Obama’s face and the potential for the “re-branding of the United States” in the eyes of Muslims around the world, but I don’t think that many votes were cast in Obama’s favor based on that factor. It is merely a contributing factor that has helped him some. The true reason he has come this far has much more to do with his message of hope that strongly resonates with many liberals who are so tired of the Bush years.

To say Obama wouldn’t be where he is at if he were a white man is to perpetuate all the racial stereotypes that have enraged the black community for years. It seems black men have to be many times better than a white man before whites will acknowledge that they have achieved their position on merit and not preferential treatment. I would be angry myself if people said I got where I am based on the color of my skin. Why wouldn’t one expect Obama to get upset about this?

Yes, the Democratic primary has devolved into divided camps with women voting for Hilary and blacks voting for Obama. But it didn’t start out this way, and Obama may well have won over a different constituency if he had been white. I don’t think one can conclude at all that he wouldn’t be where he is if he weren’t black.

That aside, I do think it’s great that he is black. There is a real sense that the country would be relieved to get the race issue behind us. And while that sentiment may have changed some percentage of the vote in his favor, Obama no doubt also had some percentage vote against him just because of his race. Without in-depth analysis, it is foolhardy to jump to conclusions otherwise — even if it seems obvious at first glance.

Sometimes I wish I could hear Prager and Medved debate issues like these that they disagree on. They both come across as completely sure of themselves and sure of the logic of their beliefs. And yet both are conservative, both are Jewish and they are good colleagues and friends. Isn’t it amazing though how easy it is to draw vastly different conclusions — even among like-minded and well reasoned people?

But then, what conclusion would you draw?

Here is an excerpt from: Mirror, Mirror… Looking at Iraq

What is never discussed is how many Islamists flocked to Iraq, determined to defeat the U.S. military — and never got out alive. Or, more bluntly, how many jihadists did the U.S. Army and Marines kill in Iraq rather than in Manhattan?

And what was the effect of that defeat not only on the jihadists, but also on those who were watching carefully to see whether the terrorists should be joined in victory or abandoned in defeat? Who really took his eye off the ball — the United States by going into Iraq, as alleged, or Osama bin Laden and his jihadist lieutenants by diverting thousands there to their deaths, as is never mentioned?

When the war started, contrary to the current rhetoric, Osama bin Laden was popular in the Middle East, and the tactic of suicide bombing had won a sizable following. But after the war was fought, and despite years of anti-American rhetoric, bin Laden has never polled lower while support for suicide murdering in the Muslim Middle East continues to decline.

In 2001, the Arab street apparently thought, for all the macabre nature of suicide bombing, that it at least had brought the United States to its knees and such a takedown was considered a good thing; in the latter reflection of 2007 and 2008, it worried that such a tactic brought the United States military to its region, and guaranteed the defeat of jihadists along with any who joined them.

Iraq, as no one ever imagined, ended up as a landscape in which the United States and al-Qaeda would battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab world on the world stage. And in Anbar Province, the jihadists are losing — losing militarily and losing the support of the local Sunni population. Again, whereas the conventional wisdom holds that we have radicalized an entire generation of young Muslims, it may turn out instead that we have convinced a generation that it is not wise after 9/11 to wage war against the United States. In any case, there is no other constitutional Arab government in the Middle East that actively hunts down and kills al-Qaeda terrorists.

When the insurgency took off in late 2003, Europe immediately triangulated against the United States, courted the Arab world, and hoped to deflect jihadists by loudly proclaiming they were vehemently against the war in Iraq. This is in itself was quite remarkable, since the entire recent expansion of the European Union to the south and east had been predicated only on a partnership agreement with the United States to extend NATO membership — alone ensuring these weak new European affiliates American military protection.

Naturally, we’re talking about politicians whose priority is to win, not to help us make the most informed decisions, and thus their policy papers focus more on how to best differentiate and make them stand out, but even so it seems to me every one of them could do better.

I have provided below the links to their policy papers on Iraq where you can read or watch a video for yourself, but allow me to briefly summarize each of their positions, as best as I understand them.

John McCain — McCain’s focus in on developing strategies for how we can win this war. The better the strategy, the quicker we will win. He favored the surge for just this reason. The surge has improved stability and that has enabled the process of reconciliation between the Iraqi factions to begin. McCain also warns of the consequences of losing in Iraq, including a terrorist safe haven, possible regional conflict and the “nightmare scenario” of genocide.

Hillary Clinton — Hillary wants to end the war by immediately starting a phased redeployment, while simultaneously pursuing diplomatic initiatives (regional level and UN sponsored) and aid packages in an effort to broker peace and achieve stability among the various warring factions. She would continue fighting al Qaeda with targeted operations by specialized units.

Barack Obama — Obama will immediately begin removing troops and have all combat brigades out in 16 months. Troops will be maintained in the region to protect our diplomats and to carry out targeted attacks on al Qaeda if they attempt to reestablish bases inside Iraq. He will convene a new constitutional convention in Iraq, with UN assistance, that will not adjourn until a new accord is reached. He will couple this with regional diplomacy to create a security compact with Iraq’s neighbors and confront humanitarian issues.

As you can see, Hillary and Obama have very similar approaches. She emphasizes her experience with foreign leaders which presumably gives her knowledge of how to tackle the diplomatic challenges while he emphasizes his leadership skills, a desire to talk directly and openly to all parties (including Iran), and the hope that things can change.

Both offer the hope that there is a way to extricate our military from Iraq and still bring stability to Iraq and the region. Both want to restrict our military fighting to targeted attacks on al Qaeda, in the hope that we can prevent the “safe havens” McCain warns about. Both have three point stability plans: negotiate non-interference of neighbors outside of Iraq, mediate the differences between factions inside of Iraq, and provide funding for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance.

Both assume that there is no real military solution, that the war has been too costly and that getting out will actually reduce tensions because we will no longer be an occupying force nor a magnet drawing terrorists into Iraq to kill us.

Part of the problem here is that no one can guarantee what the future will be if we take any of these paths. We’ve already been fighting for years, so how many more years will our military have to be engage for McCain’s plan to succeed? On the other hand, if the Palestinian issue is any indication, who can possibly hold out much hope for diplomatic initiatives in the Middle-East?

One can easily get frustrated, throw up his hands and say if the Iraqi’s can’t handle this problem on their own, then that’s their problem. We’ve paid a terrific price to free them, if they don’t want freedom then why should we continue to force it on them? Why not just go after al Qaeda and leave the Sunnis and Shias to fight it out?

But notice that NONE of the candidates are saying this! They all recognize the chaos that a civil war in Iraq can cause, not just for the Iraqi’s on humanitarian grounds, but also for the region which could well be destabilized leading to major problems in the oil markets — and much higher prices than we see even now.

No, all the candidates are “realists” to one degree or another. They all recognize the mess we’re in and they recognize the potential for things to get even worse. This is why they want to “stabilize” this problem. McCain prefers a military solution. Obama and Hillary prefer diplomatic solutions. But everybody wants stability.

America wants it. Our friends in the Middle East want it. Our European allies want it. Even Iran wants it — well mostly.

This is why diplomacy is seen as having a chance. If stability is truly in the interests of everybody in the world, then diplomacy and negotiation will find a way to make these interests apparent to everyone and a solution will be found.

But this is where the problem lies. Not everybody wants stability. Al Qaeda has invested everything they have to make sure stability is never achieved. This is their primary goal right now. If they can continue bringing chaos, then they know America will give up and leave. If they can continue bringing chaos, then they know the Shias and the Sunnis will never reconcile their differences and will continue to fight each other. If the can keep Iraqi’s fighting each other, then they can’t be forced out.

It should be clear. America wins if stability is achieved. Al Qaeda wins if chaos is maintained.

But what is al Qaeda’s real goal here? Why do they even care about Iraq? Is it only because we are there, and easy targets for them? Well yes, they do like killing us especially given that we have invaded “their” space. Our presence has been a marvelous recruiting tool for them.

But it is more than that. Al Qaeda hopes to create a new caliphate in the region and eventually worldwide. They believe they are on a mission from God to carry this out. They believe America is the principle evil of the world spreading cultural filth as well as being the primary military obstacle to their aspirations.

If they can make America withdrawal from Iraq, then they will not only see this as a victory, encouraging them that God has been on their side, but it will prove to them that we are a paper-tiger, emboldening them with the hope that they now possess a strategy for defeating America –  simply sow enough chaos and America will leave.

Isn’t it clear then that al Qaeda won’t stop once our soldiers leave? They can’t afford to have our diplomatic efforts succeed either. They can’t afford to have the Iraqi government stabilize and reach reconciliation. They have to convince Muslims worldwide that destiny is on their side, that America has failed completely, that there is a way to thoroughly defeat America.

Does al Qaeda merely aspire to create “safe havens” in Iraq? Or is their true objective to defeat us in Iraq, making us leave? Which implies that their next objective would be to defeat us in Afghanistan, making us leave there. And what country would be their target after that? Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal? Saudi Arabia with the holy sites of Islam and modern weaponry?

It is true that leaving Iraq could spark a civil war even without al Qaeda involved. Civil wars can lead to a humanitarian crisis, regional conflict and even genocide. Regional conflict can destroy oil fields and trigger a meltdown in world markets leading to depression.

But those are only possibilities. No one knows for sure. If something really bad happens then presumably we can step back in and do something. In other words, as bad as those possibilities are, the war has wearied us to the point that we don’t care any more.

But al Qaeda goals and strategies aren’t speculation. We know how brutal, merciless and unconstrained they are. No tactic seems to give them pause. They even kill garbage collectors because they prefer the trash to go uncollected as that gives them cover for their roadside bombs (see here). They scrape the faces of women off with piano wire for the crime of showing their faces in public.

The only way we have succeeded against al Qaeda is to turn the locals against them. This tactic hasn’t been easy though. Locals, and their families, who are found to have turned on al Qaeda are sadistically murdered. Thus, it takes a significant presence that reassures locals that they are relatively safe and it takes commitment to persist so the locals know they won’t be abandoned to the al Qaeda butchers.

Isn’t it clear that only the latest strategy of the surge, that deploys soldiers and maintains them where they are deployed, is what has turned this whole thing around? Isn’t it obvious why our surge “coincidentally” coincided with the decision of the Sunnis to abandon their insurgency against us? They saw we finally came up with a strategy that might actually work!

Isn’t is equally clear then that diplomacy can never work against al Qaeda’s strategy? If our soldiers are not there in the streets, then the locals will go back to being intimidated by al Qaeda and al Qaeda will be able to regroup and achieve their goals.

Isn’t it clear then that this is a turning point in this war, in our fight against al Qaeda — in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the entire region? Because of the surge, the Sunnis have stopped fighting us, the locals have turned against al Qaeda and al Qaeda is on the run. If we abandon Iraq now all this will be undone and no amount of diplomacy will be able to stop al Qaeda’s barbarism.

Must we stay forever then? Well no. Iraqi forces continue to improve, albeit slowly, but gradually they will replace most of our soldiers on front line positions. We will be able to fall back to bases where we’ll become more of a stabilizing force than an actual combat force, and eventually we will be able to leave.

My point here is that we are at a significant turning point. From this point we can continue to drive al Qaeda back, deprive them of the victory they crave and build on the realization of local Muslims that al Qaeda is NOT the future they want. Or, we can turn from this point, allowing al Qaeda to recover their abilities to sow chaos and bring about civil war, allowing them to claim they were destined by God to push us out, and allowing them to renew their intimidation not only of locals but also of leaders throughout the region.

In other words, this is not simply the possibility of bad things happening if we leave Iraq. This is the fact that we currently have an effective strategy that is pushing back on al Qaeda. If we leave now it means we will stop pursuing this strategy which means we will stop pushing back on al Qaeda and that means they will push the other way.

Our only hope is that the Iraqi government is ready to take over what we’ve been doing. But the more precipitous our withdrawal, the more unfounded that hope is.

Isn’t this clear? Isn’t this obvious?

I honestly hope I have made this issue clearer. I hope some of the candidates will likewise be able to present this issue as clearly to the American public.

What do you think? I would like to hear from you. Thanks.

I climbed up the steep mountain slopes where there are no trails, as I did when I first arrived in Tucson back in 1978.

This looks worse than it is. However, I did fall on the way down (ouch)! I’m not sure what happened, but I took a step where it seemed easy, and the next thing I knew I was falling forward — and down the hill. I instinctively did a somersault which got me on my rear end, stopping my fall, but in the process I ran right into a “jumping” Cholla cactus.  That’s the cactus in the first photo above. If you’ve never ran into jumping Cholla cactus, believe me, you don’t want the experience. They break off and cling to you with many needles. Worse, there is no way to touch the cactus to remove it. Any attempt just causes you to get stuck more!

I ended up using rocks to scrap the cactus off my hands, wrist, neck, and head. I removed the needles I could but the ones in my head had to wait until I got home and my 16-year old daughter volunteered to help get them out. The moral is to be even more careful than I typically am!

Now, it’s not easy to describe a revival. As Matthews says at the end of this chapter, “one realizes the limitations of his human vocabulary when attempting to describe these scenes”. Nevertheless, because I have had some experience myself in seeing God move (through the Toronto Renewal), I feel as if I understand a little of what Matthews is trying to convey, and in that regard I’d like to add some comments to what he has written.

Please note that Mathews wrote this in 1957, fifty-three years after the events he describes took place. Isn’t it interesting how events like this can be so significant and yet it’s not until years later that we realize the importance of recording them so that future generations will know what took place — not entirely unlike the situation the Gospel writers found themselves in decades after Jesus rose from dead.

IN THE MIDST of the Loughor turmoil, something suddenly occurred causing Mr. Roberts to stretch his spiritual wings, and increase his sphere of influence and service for the Master. A church of his own denomination in Trecynon, a suburb of the mining town of Aberdare, had read accounts in The South Wales News and Western Mail of the work of grace taking place in Loughor. For some reason, which can only be described as one of God’s glorious accidents, their appointed minister for that particular weekend had canceled his engagement. Someone ventured to suggest, perhaps timidly, that the young revivalist be invited to occupy the pulpit. That was the limit of their intention.

I’ve heard many a minister implore his audience on what they must do to see a revival. We must fast and pray we are told. We must evangelize the lost. We must pray for the sick. We must give more — to the poor, to missions, to building programs.

Many of these things are great and I’ve certainly done my part, and yet in large measure we are still waiting for the revival we all hope and pray to come. On the other hand, the people of Trecynon were merely trying to fill their pulpit for a given Sunday. They weren’t striving for revival. They weren’t praying for one and they certainly weren’t fasting for one.

And yet revival came to them because of only one thing. They just happened to pick a certain young revivalist to fill their pulpit. He was in the news and some had read the reports and were curious. That’s all it took. They had no idea at all what they were in for and what would happen that Sunday.

Believing that he was led by the Holy Spirit to do so, Mr. Roberts accepted. No one doubted later the reality of this divine guidance. Early Sunday morning, after having spent the whole of Saturday night conducting—if that is a correct term to use in view of what followed—the revival, he arrived practically unannounced. He was accompanied by two young lady converts mightily inspired by the revival and brimming over with the joy of the Lord.

One must understand that Evan Roberts wasn’t exactly sitting around waiting for requests to speak at churches. He was engaged in full on revival where he was at. Meetings were taking place every day and would last well into the wee hours of the morning, some going to 4 AM. Roberts spent the entire Saturday before going to Trecynon in meetings. His acceptance then of taking the pulpit in Trecynon was no little thing. Evangelists typically don’t like to leave a place when God is moving. Who can say what will happen in the next city, especially if there has been no advance preparations to get the people ready?

But when a revival breaks out on the level of the 1904 Welsh revival, niceties such as advance planning and preparations just don’t seem to matter. It’s like a tidal wave that has wiped out one city, leaving glorious results behind, turning to see where else the wave can be directed.

But notice also that Roberts didn’t go alone. He brought two new converts, who had been greatly “inspired” by the revival in Loughor. They had no in-depth theological training. They had no history of Christian service. They were young and by definition inexperienced. But they had one thing. They had been transformed by revival and were “brimming over with the joy of the Lord”. They were infectious, energetic, unqualified believers in what God could do, and above all, they were unquestionably moved to tears and joy by what had happened to them.

They arrived at Bryn Seion Church quite a while before the scheduled time for the ordinary morning service. From the moment they entered the building, these young enthusiasts rehearsed and described some of the marvelous scenes witnessed in their village.

What’s this? A special guest minister arriving early? Didn’t Roberts know how such ministers are to be escorted in at the proper time? Didn’t Roberts need time to rest from the revival services the night before?

Apparently not.

Didn’t the young enthusiasts know that they should wait for the meeting to begin? Didn’t they understand how these things need to be choreographed for maximum impact?

Apparently not.

No, they just couldn’t contain themselves. What they had seen and heard in Loughor was to such a degree and such a magnitude that the stories came spilling out like a torrent of raging waters.

They exhorted all present to “be obedient to the Holy Spirit” when they came together for worship. It is safe to assume that not a single member of the audience had any inkling of what was about to happen in this never-to-be-forgotten service. There had been only a brief announcement in the national dailies on the Saturday morning, giving a colorful description of the Loughor meetings and suggesting that Mr. Roberts might be leaving for Trecynon, Aberdare, very soon. “Just an ordinary weekend appointment” was the mental attitude of the church leaders as they entered the building. Imagine their astonishment when they found two young, inexperienced women facing them, and in the most moving tones beseeching them to surrender to “the leading of the Holy Spirit.” They proved to be two young revival fire-brands.

But look at this. These “young revival fire-brands” didn’t stop with telling stories, they repeatedly exhorted all present to “be obedient to the Holy Spirit”. In the most moving tones, beseeching them to surrender to God.

The implication here is that the moving stories they started to tell of the revival in Loughor could happen in Trecynon, if only they would surrender to “the leading of the Holy Spirit”. The joy and passion that was theirs could be obtained in Trecynon, if only everyone obeyed the Holy Spirit.

What kind of talk is this? Why haven’t we heard similar talk? Why haven’t we been implored to surrender and be obedient to the Holy Spirit? Why not?

The sober, sedate Calvinistic congregation that gathered in Mount Seion that morning received a shock. They looked askance when they saw their minister’s place occupied by a young man, accompanied by such youthful maidens. Instead of announcing the customary hymn for the commencement of the service, one of the young women burst forth in a spiritual song expressing her new experience, tears streaming down her cheeks. The whole congregation gasped! Before the solo concluded, her partner joined her. What did this mean? was the question on every lip. Like the people in the Gospel of Mark, they felt like exclaiming, “We never saw it on this fashion before.”

Cannot we exclaim the same thing as the sober, sedate congregation of Mount Seion? Cannot we likewise say we have never seen it “on this fashion before”? Don’t we also expect church to follow familiar and customary steps? Wouldn’t we too be shocked to see young ladies burst forth in spiritual songs with tears streaming down their cheeks?

Remember, some of those in church that morning would have arrived later and missed hearing from these girls before the service began. They would have arrived expecting nothing unusual. They would have arrived expecting a normal typical service. What a shock indeed!

That prim congregation breathed heavily and deeply. But the young minister in the pulpit—for such they all considered him, remained absolutely silent. They observed, however, that his body shook perceptibly as tears coursed down his pale cheeks. Then, we were told, a strange stillness fell upon the people, like the quiet presaging an electric storm.

This is it. This is the point at which revival hit Trecynon — and Roberts hadn’t said anything! How can God move like this? Doesn’t He realize it requires a sermon to move people into revival? Doesn’t He realize that it requires a minister with a distinguished background and an eloquent message?

Apparently not.

Apparently, all it takes even for a sedate and sober congregation is passion unleashed in their midst — and the imperative to surrender in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

Now let me add that I know well this moment that is like the presaging of an electrical storm. In my experience, I have often compared it to a huge capacitor that is building up a great charge. You can feel it. You can sense the moment of discharge is at hand. There is nothing like it. You can see other people notice it as well. You can see that people know something is up. And then it hits. Wow!

Have you ever felt that electric “charge” building up? Have you ever seen it released and a meeting take a turn that no one had expected it to?

I don’t know about you, but this is what I live for. I even actively push for it. When I sense that moment approaching, I lean into what God is doing more than ever. As a singer, I’m quite aware of what the worship team is sensing and I join in with my voice to encourage them to go for it. Too many times we back away when things get to this point. We don’t realize that we are close to a tipping point. We don’t know that the dam is about to burst. We think that we’ve had a good meeting and we assume it’s time to move on to the next item on the agenda. That’s why when we get close to a moment like this, I want to be one pushing to keep going. I don’t want things to end.

If I’ve learned one thing, times like these are when we need to surrender to the Holy Spirit. Too often we ruin the moment by taking charge and not letting Him be in charge.

What do you think?

Part 2 later this week…