Part of my past work history includes working in a coffee shop for about a year and a half. Recently I've taken a temporary job running a small country store, it's a legitimate *country* store (think, the store fits into a two car garage). It's lambing season right now and the owners are kind of busy. While working there on Saturday I couldn't help but reflect on the difference between working at the coffee shop, a more commercialized industry, and working at the country store.
At the coffee shop customer service means getting the customer in and out as fast as you possibly can, yet capitalizing those few minutes that the customer is in there by making them feel welcome and as if they have a relationship with you by rushed and hurried chit-chat. Not only that, but each mistake was closely monitored and lectures were delivered if too many mistakes were made. Also, if a mistake were made on the drink we were not allowed to offer it to the customer, but had to dump the drink down the drain.
In comparison at the country store, when the owners are there, they take as long as necessary with each customer, chit-chatting about the weather, kids, farming things, answering questions about the store, and so on. The people who are waiting their turn wait patiently, or engage in the conversation themselves. They know that their turn is coming and that the owners will take just as much painstaking care with them. Also, the owners are frequently giving away stuff. Is this good advertising? Undoubtedly, but I know these people; they are good, generous people. They give because they can, because they want to, not simply because it's good business.
Back when I was a barista we were allowed one "specialty" drink per shift. These were also closely monitored. Putting whip on a non-whip drink was discouraged, or adding syrup to brewed coffee (which was unlimited and free for employees) was considered a shift drink. My pay was at minimum wage, (plus a tip jar) when I had worked there for a year I received a nickel raise. When there was down time we were encouraged to constantly stay busy...or at least look busy. There was much unnecessary "busywork" that was done (aside from a legitimate chore/cleaning chart) simply to look busy. Our boss had camera's installed with which she could watch us from home.
Skip forward to working in a country store. The owners are as generous to their employees' as they are to their customers. If I am hungry I'm encouraged to eat or drink some of the product from the cooler. My starting wage is far above what's necessary for tending such a low-maintenance shop. The owners encourage me to bring a book or something to keep my hands busy when I'm slow. Do they have stuff that they'd like me to do? Yes. But it's stuff that actually needs being done, and isn't just silly work so that they feel I'm earning my keep.
What's the outcome?
Well, as an employee I *want* to work hard for them. I find things to do that I'm not told to. I serve with a joyful spirit, and do everything I can not to take advantage of their generosity. Did I do the same at my old place of employment? Yes, as a Christian I felt it was my duty to glorify God through hard work. But I always had a sense of dread hanging over me for any mistakes I might make.
My question is this - How did customer service go from being an intentional time of devotion to the customer in order to make sure they got what they really wanted, seeing that they were treated as a member of community that you were well acquainted with, and treating them to generosity; to getting someone in and out of the store as fast as possible, with as much stuff as you could force/suggest them to buy, while making small talk to make sure they enjoyed their "experience"?
How did we go from a mutual appreciation in the relationship between the employer-employee to a relationship where they both try to take advantage of each other however they possibly could?
Was it the development of transportation, and hence a loss of community? Was it the coming of mass production and huge corporations? Was it the growing commercialization of the West in general? Was it the dying of Christian principles and a loss of understanding in what it meant to love God and one another?
I believe the answer to all the questions about is "yes."
In abandoning Christ we have lost much. Do I believe cars, trains, and buses are wrong? No. But it certainly allows for a great deal more of unaccountably, it allows for a thief to rob their master and skip town fast. It allows for people to run away from their small town (and church) where everyone knows everything about them.
Mass production has taken from us an appreciation of how much work is put into producing something. Huge companies have taken the humanity out of employee-employer relationship. Commercialization and the advertisement emphasis has made us look to how much money we can make in order to buy what we don't need.
The Christian principles, laws that involve not going into a debt filled lifestyle, not extorting, not stealing, are in their death throws here in the West. Money is the sole focus, debt is a necessary evil (if viewed as an evil at all) and "loving your neighbor" is considered a sappy sentimental way of life that Jesus suggested, not a command to follow the law when dealing in all things. Romans 13:8-10 addresses all of these categories nicely.
"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "you shall not commit adultery," "you shall not murder," "you shall not steal," "you shall not bear false witness," "you shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment , are all summed up in this saying, namely, "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Political Dabbling
Some of you may have heard of something that went down in the south involving the CPAC (conservative political action conference) and a man names Scott Terry. I've read several different articles, that I'm not linking here about this incident. It seems that things are being contributed to this man, such as that he was advocating for slavery, which he never said and explains that here.
Just in case someone wants to read an accurate report, here's a link that takes the time to quote Terry correctly. And here is a website explaining the morality behind what Terry said. Last of all here's an overview of the event at large.
From what I've heard (that's TRUE) of the incident, and having the southern roots that I do, I appreciate that someone was taking a stand instead of letting the old south get demonized. I also appreciate them making the case that whites are getting disenfranchised. I wish the mainstream media wouldn't lie and defame people who have the guts to speak the truth.
Just in case someone wants to read an accurate report, here's a link that takes the time to quote Terry correctly. And here is a website explaining the morality behind what Terry said. Last of all here's an overview of the event at large.
From what I've heard (that's TRUE) of the incident, and having the southern roots that I do, I appreciate that someone was taking a stand instead of letting the old south get demonized. I also appreciate them making the case that whites are getting disenfranchised. I wish the mainstream media wouldn't lie and defame people who have the guts to speak the truth.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Old and New Testament God, or Gods?
I don't know about you but I often converse with people who imply, if not outright claim, that the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old Testament were two different Gods. Or at least a God with two different dispositions, so vastly different that He appears to be bipolar. In the New Testament He is a loving cushy God, a Father who can be driven to tears about the actions of His children, which he cannot control. In the Old Testament He is a grumpy old School master that wants to kill everybody and is always finding fault with His charges.
For this reason, and because people don't like how "unloving" the Old Testament God is, the Old Testament is frequently discounted and laid aside. Everything but the Ten Commandments of course, but only a very narrow of interpretation of these are allowed.
I've put in a fair amount of driving time and my father has been kind enough to provide me with listening material. This week the point that grabbed my attention had to do with the above mentioned issue. The verse below was the text used to deal with it. Although there are plenty of more direct ways of dealing with this topic, good ways, this method was what was recently presented to me and one I had never heard before. It's always exciting for me to make new connections regarding the scriptures.
Acts 17:11-12
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."
The speaker pointed out that those who were being addressed only had the Old Testament to search, and that they were able to find out that Paul was speaking the truth by searching it alone. This simple fact proves three points
1.) That the Old Testament is not obsolete. It was used to test the veracity of New Testament preaching, and is still valid for teaching today.
2.) The God described in the Old Testament is in actuality enough alike to the God of the New Testament for the people being preached to recognize them as the same. We can see here that obviously there must be a clear continuity between the Old and New Testament material, and the God of both.
3.) If the gospel being preached from today's pulpits cannot be compared with the Old Testament teachings then it is likely not the gospel being preached.
Finally, the God of the Old Testament did not scare these people away "therefore many of them believed."
Today it seems we are so concerned with making God seeming loving and nice that we stop preaching the God of scriptures. We forget that it is only the God of scriptures Who can bring salvation, and He is mighty to save. Yes, He is a God of righteous holiness, justice, and wrath, but this makes His gift of grace and mercy, Christ on the cross, all the more unbelievable.
Furthermore we can never keep the message of Christ on the cross in the proper perspective unless we recognize God's concern for His holiness, which is set forth clearly in the Old Testament. Did Christ die on the cross because of love for us? Yes. But the primary reason in His mind was His Father's glory, as it always should be for Christians as well.
God had promised the death of the sinner at the fall "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." - Genesis 2:16-17 Now, it is true that on the day that Adam and Eve ate of the tree they began to die, but they did not immediately physically die. Also, God made it clear that they would have children, and as long as any one of their descendants lived on then Adam and Eve lived on as great, great, great, etc. grandparents and thus were not entirely "dead" in the sense that all they were would cease to exist.
God's infallible word was in question. He had said they would die, and yet they had not. Does God not keep His word? No, because of His mercy God delayed the death sentence for Adam and Eve. Yet He still had to fulfill what He swore to them, or be called a liar. We can see a hint of God's plan for redemption in verse fifteen of Genesis two when God tells the Serpent that the Seed of Eve would bruise (crush) his head.
Jesus came along of the Davidic line, of the Noahic line, of Seth's line, and finally of Adam's lineage. He was to die the physical death that had been promised to Adam. He was to take the old man of Adam's nature and upon Himself (not that He was sinful but He took our sin upon Himself) and at the cross fulfill God's promise of death to Adam. He died a complete physical death due to our sin, if we had not sinned, or if God had not chosen to have mercy upon us, Christ would never have needed to die. Who made the promise of a redeemer? Who had mercy on Adam delaying his death sentence until one who could fulfill God's oath and die in Adam's place came along, and yet give eternal life to Adam's seed? It was the God of the Old Testament that so many accuse of being unloving.
For this reason, and because people don't like how "unloving" the Old Testament God is, the Old Testament is frequently discounted and laid aside. Everything but the Ten Commandments of course, but only a very narrow of interpretation of these are allowed.
I've put in a fair amount of driving time and my father has been kind enough to provide me with listening material. This week the point that grabbed my attention had to do with the above mentioned issue. The verse below was the text used to deal with it. Although there are plenty of more direct ways of dealing with this topic, good ways, this method was what was recently presented to me and one I had never heard before. It's always exciting for me to make new connections regarding the scriptures.
Acts 17:11-12
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."
The speaker pointed out that those who were being addressed only had the Old Testament to search, and that they were able to find out that Paul was speaking the truth by searching it alone. This simple fact proves three points
1.) That the Old Testament is not obsolete. It was used to test the veracity of New Testament preaching, and is still valid for teaching today.
2.) The God described in the Old Testament is in actuality enough alike to the God of the New Testament for the people being preached to recognize them as the same. We can see here that obviously there must be a clear continuity between the Old and New Testament material, and the God of both.
3.) If the gospel being preached from today's pulpits cannot be compared with the Old Testament teachings then it is likely not the gospel being preached.
Finally, the God of the Old Testament did not scare these people away "therefore many of them believed."
Today it seems we are so concerned with making God seeming loving and nice that we stop preaching the God of scriptures. We forget that it is only the God of scriptures Who can bring salvation, and He is mighty to save. Yes, He is a God of righteous holiness, justice, and wrath, but this makes His gift of grace and mercy, Christ on the cross, all the more unbelievable.
Furthermore we can never keep the message of Christ on the cross in the proper perspective unless we recognize God's concern for His holiness, which is set forth clearly in the Old Testament. Did Christ die on the cross because of love for us? Yes. But the primary reason in His mind was His Father's glory, as it always should be for Christians as well.
God had promised the death of the sinner at the fall "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." - Genesis 2:16-17 Now, it is true that on the day that Adam and Eve ate of the tree they began to die, but they did not immediately physically die. Also, God made it clear that they would have children, and as long as any one of their descendants lived on then Adam and Eve lived on as great, great, great, etc. grandparents and thus were not entirely "dead" in the sense that all they were would cease to exist.
God's infallible word was in question. He had said they would die, and yet they had not. Does God not keep His word? No, because of His mercy God delayed the death sentence for Adam and Eve. Yet He still had to fulfill what He swore to them, or be called a liar. We can see a hint of God's plan for redemption in verse fifteen of Genesis two when God tells the Serpent that the Seed of Eve would bruise (crush) his head.
Jesus came along of the Davidic line, of the Noahic line, of Seth's line, and finally of Adam's lineage. He was to die the physical death that had been promised to Adam. He was to take the old man of Adam's nature and upon Himself (not that He was sinful but He took our sin upon Himself) and at the cross fulfill God's promise of death to Adam. He died a complete physical death due to our sin, if we had not sinned, or if God had not chosen to have mercy upon us, Christ would never have needed to die. Who made the promise of a redeemer? Who had mercy on Adam delaying his death sentence until one who could fulfill God's oath and die in Adam's place came along, and yet give eternal life to Adam's seed? It was the God of the Old Testament that so many accuse of being unloving.
God promised Adam would die if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Christ came to fulfill that promise; first of all so that God's name would not be impugned, but secondly so that we ourselves would not have to die. God could have chosen that Adam die immediately and thus have cleared His name without sacrificing His own Son. This would have shown that He was indeed a just God, yet it would have called the mercy of His character into question. So in order to preserve both the justice of His name and prove the mercy of His character God chose that His glory should be made known and His mercy shown in allowing us to live and sending a propitiatory lamb in our place.
Thus we can see God's character of mercy, justice, and love displayed in the Old Testament and the fulfillment of it in the New Testament. Not two different God's at all.
Thus we can see God's character of mercy, justice, and love displayed in the Old Testament and the fulfillment of it in the New Testament. Not two different God's at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)