Classicly Convicted: Episode 62

Focus on the Family is closed today due to snow, so I'm livin' the dream -- typing away in my PJs with coffee at my elbow and white fluffy flakes falling softly outside (last night they weren't falling softly...more like sideways). Yesterday afternoon I saw three guys ski down my street. It reminded me of how much fun snow can be.

But this morning I called my family near Fargo, North Dakota, and was reminded that sometimes snow is not fun. As you probably know, Fargo and surrounding areas are experiencing unprecedented flooding. Record autumn rainfall plus record winter snowfall plus a sudden March thaw plus the convergence of three rivers -- the Red, Cheyenne and Wild Rice -- has created a problem that is mirroring what happened there in 1997, only worse.

Much of Fargo and its twin city, Moorhead, is being evacuated. My sister's father-in-law was evacuated from his assisted living residence and is now with my sister and her husband. Another sister is safe at her place, but will attempt to fly here tomorrow morning, and we don't know if she'll get out (or in, for that matter, with the snow accumulation in Denver). Only a field separates my mom's house from the Red River, and water is surging across the already saturated dirt toward her back door. The Red is expected to crest at a record 43' on Saturday, and residents are currently building sandbag walls of over 40' to protect property.

Yesterday they evacuated Fargo's largest hospital of patients who are too weak or immobile to move at a moment's notice. Patients were airlifted to hospitals around the midwest, some in critical condition with doctors at their sides. The interstate is closed, as are several other major highways leading into the Fargo-Moorhead area, leaving many people stranded. A family friend had a medical emergency the other night, and members of his church had to transport him via boat across several fields in order to reach a patch of highway that could get him to the nearest emergency room.

My pastor mentioned in a recent sermon that because of the Fall, even nature conspires to kill us. I didn't like that when I heard it. After all, I'm the girl who loves thunderstorms and 5-foot snow drifts. But it's true. Once Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden, nature was unleashed. We need houses and cars to protect us not merely from getting wet or having windblown hair, but from perishing. Everything we do is an act of self-preservation. He went on to explain that everything in our world is tainted by sin: our environment, our social structures, our minds, our motives and our hearts. Only by God's grace does sin not completely destroy us.

Sometimes we get a bit too comfy here on Earth. We become used to the coffee-and-PJs scenario without recognizing the impending flood. Fortunately, my mom is here to remind me that Christ's return is imminent. She's ready for it, and speaks of it often. She doesn't care much about her house. I asked her what's in her basement, and she doesn't really know. She doesn't care. Everything she cares about is with Jesus. It's a good reminder as I nurse my anger toward my plummeting retirement funds, rising utility bills, stuffy (again) nose and less-than-satisfactory circumstances and opportunities. I'm a little too concerned about me, quite frankly.

Mary Ann, a woman in my mom's town, made the news the other day. Her house was flooding, and volunteers were working around the clock to save it. The reporter asked her if her home will survive. "Absolutely," she said. "And so will we. It's just stuff."

A lot of my life is "just stuff," and I occasionally need a jarring reality check (a la natural disaster) to remember how to use my time to best worship God, love others and, as my pastor says, "push back the effects of the Fall." A tall order, but it's time to get out of my PJs and start.

Employee Ethics -- 00:00
Workplace integrity is the talk of today's Roundtable segment. Whether it's Facebooking, shopping or checking scores on company time, or coming in late/leaving early, where do you draw the line? The team argues over the new trend in "results-oriented" workplaces and where that fits with an old-fashioned thing called responsibility.

Christian Classics with Challies -- 24:11
Popular blogger Tim Challies joins me to discuss his short list of Christian classics. And no, we're not talking Your Best Life Now. We're talking old-school texts that influenced some of today's best Christian thinkers and theologians. We also throw in a couple current reads to satisfy you contemporary types.

Claim Jumper -- 41:36
She thinks a guy in her church likes her, but her friend likes him, too, and wants to stake a claim. Um? Is Mr. "I Don't Know If He's That Into Me" off-limits due to the friendship rule, or does her friend need to get a grip?

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Brian K said the following at 2:08 PM on Mar 27:

Yesterday afternoon I saw three guys ski down my street.
Stupid global warming ;-)!

I'm looking forward to the Challies interview since I've joined on the last couple (Real Christianity is a tough read for me. Both convicting and just solid writing!). I would recommend anyone who ventures here to check out his work and join in (and in the memorizing scripture, too!).

2. jrsong40 said the following at 2:26 PM on Mar 27:

Excellent Lisa. Well said! Thank you for this post.

3. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:44 PM on Mar 27:

She thinks a guy in her church likes her, but her friend likes him, too, and wants to stake a claim. Um? Is Mr. "I Don't Know If He's That Into Me" off-limits due to the friendship rule, or does her friend need to get a grip?

I've been the friend that liked the guy who was interested in my friend.

From being in that position myself, one thing I DEFINITELY have to say for the girl who's liked is to sit down with your friend, be open and honest, and ask her if its ok with her if she lets this guy pursue her.

Now...that's the friend thing to do. However, the other friend thing to do would be the one who isn't liked to actually give her friend grace and wish her the best...and promptly attempt to get over the guy...especially if the guy really is interested in friend-liked.

If friend-not-liked says no, then in my opinion, they rescinded their friend rights by getting in the way of something that could actually turn out to be really good for friend-liked...and friend-liked (after much prayer) should go ahead with the guy.

However, friend-liked should tread carefully and not be jumping the gun. What are her reasons for believing the guy likes her?

4. Courtney said the following at 3:04 PM on Mar 27:

I'm from South Georgia...we are way too familar with floods. In 1994 my entire city (yes, city!) was under water with houses completely submerged to where roof tops weren't even visible. In 1998 we had a repeat. Fortunately it wasn't as bad as the first, but it still wasn't pretty. From what you are describing here, it seems to be a very similar situation. I know first hand how devastating that can be on a town and so I will pray with extra fervency for your family and friends. Also, I now have family and friends that live there as well. I know it's just "stuff" and it's a good reminder to look to Jesus for everything, but it is also very hard to lose everything (in some cases, twice).

5. Craig M said the following at 4:20 PM on Mar 27:

"Loyalty. That's real nice. But you know where loyalty gets you in Guitar Hero? Nowheres."

6. J said the following at 8:54 PM on Mar 27:

It's interesting that the subject of Results-Only Work Environments was included in an ethics discussion. I did some research, and it was actually started at Best Buy's corporate office for the purpose of increasing productivity and decreasing voluntary turnover (quitting), not by whiny employees who wanted to work in PJ's.

The concept makes a lot of sense. I'm in an extremely inefficient work environment with some amazing coworkers. It would be something to see what our team could accomplish sans the time/location restrictions. You can have casual conversations and be available without sitting in an office 40-60 hours/week. You would have to be more intentional about it, but that may not be a bad thing.

It's sad that so many people live for the weekends and dread Mondays. Maybe if work didn't feel like prison, employees would be able to flourish, and so would the companies. (The ones who couldn't handle the responsibility would be fired, instead of the good ones leaving for greener pastures.)

Here's an article from Time:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1810690,00.html?xid=rss-business

And then a recent one on the latest organization to change to a Results-Only Work Environment:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_11953999

Of course there is freelancing and entrepreneurship, but it looks like supporters of Results-Only Work Environments are more interested cultural change. After all, "the way it's always been done" isn't always the best way. It will be interesting to see where this is in 10 years.

7. Jo said the following at 5:51 AM on Mar 28:

Christina #3:
"If friend-not-liked says no, then in my opinion, they rescinded their friend rights by getting in the way of something that could actually turn out to be really good for friend-liked...and friend-liked (after much prayer) should go ahead with the guy."

That's interesting. I've sort of been in this situation. Friend and I both liked the guy, but Friend liked him first and was very unhappy about my interest, even though I'd promised her I wouldn't do anything about it. He maybe liked me, maybe didn't. If he did, I probably sent very mixed messages, and he never made a move.

Anyway, Friend didn't speak to me for 6 months. She decided to speak to me again when she didn't like him any more. I still did, but by then he was with someone else (now his wife), and I'd missed my chance - if I ever had one.

My opinion now: I should never have promised not to do anything. That was stupid. If the same thing happened now, I would be honest with her and sensitive to her feelings, but I wouldn't rule out the guy. No way.

8. Chris said the following at 2:25 PM on Mar 28:

I think that instead of 'staking a claim' it should be 'first come, first serve' This problem that the girls have is partially because they are waiting for the man to ask them. I think the girl that likes him should just ask him out. Then if he responds positively then great, if not she knows where she stands and she can leave him for other girls.

9. Carol said the following at 10:28 PM on Mar 28:

I just want to tell you that your comments abou JFK Jr. being stolen from you by Caroline Bisset had me laughing out loud.

By the way, it is hard for me to be productive if the internet is easily accessible. It was especially tempting in my old job, which was more results-oriented. However, now that I'm a school teacher, I never struggle with this at work. I never have time to actually sit down.

At home is a different story.

10. P&P said the following at 9:23 AM on Mar 29:

I really enjoyed the workplace round table. Having worked in both a "punch the clock" and a "results oriented" office and I've found that the "punch clock" office is actually the more productive environment.

If everyone is in an office at roughly the same time, there's more opportunity for teamwork and collaboration, which turns out a better product in less time. I also think it can create a better sense of corporate "community," where people have a greater stake in the overall success of the organization. If you're only responsible for yourself, you only care about yourself, which is a small part of how we all ended up in this current economic mess (IMHO).

That's not to say that the "whip cracking" mentality that Motte (or was it Steve?) espoused is effective, either. That kind of lock-down thinking is a fast way to encourage employees to see how they can skirt the rules.

I've felt that if your team has to come in on a weekend because of a systems change or special project, it's only fair that they build up a "time bank" that can be used when they need to get their hair done (yep, I've done that) or they just need some down time after an intense project.

I also believe that true "flex time" is for when you have a major personal crisis; recovering from an illness, helping with a family crisis, septic tank explosion, etc. If you're able-bodied and your life is relatively stable, you should be able to show up at your office wearing clean clothes and and your hair combed. Blizzards notwithstanding, of course.

Heck, even the fabled "Fly Lady" of home organizing fame tells homemakers that if they want to get their houses in shape, they should start by getting dressed down to their shoes. By taking pride in your appearance and setting a schedule, you're going to have better overall results.

11. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:49 AM on Mar 29:

There was something one of the guys said about being available to your employers after hours.

What about employer integrity? Or is integrity only limited to employees?

I mean, I'm married to a guy who is a great worker! And he built his reputation up while he was single - working 60-70 hour work weeks, effectively cutting his salary in half. Yeah, he's salaried, sure. But at that point, he'd be making more if he WERE being paid hourly.

But where's the cut off? When does the employer start crossing boundaries? At 2am phone calls (when they are in CA working a third shift and calling my husband in Florida)? At sending him on travel the day after he gets home from his honeymoon? At sending him on travel the week before his first baby his due?

Sorry, but I think employers are changing just as much as employees are and firm boundaries DO need to be in place by both. Because employers are just as likely to take advantage of their salaried employees.

I drew firm boundaries. Yeah, I'm paying for it now, but seeing where my husband is right now and knowing where I want to be, looks like I made the right choice. I have the freedom to be available to our family now - which is the role that I want in our family.

**I married the guy knowing full well how demanding his job was. For the most part, I suck it up and deal and am as supportive as possible. However, there have been instances where I desperately want to draw the line.**

12. Kelly said the following at 11:16 PM on Mar 29:

Christina - that sounds awful! (And part of me wonders just how ever did he find the time to meet you, given how much he worked during his single days?!)

I think it's ridiculous how employers take advantage of employees like that. :(

I've worked for companies that believe they can call an employee at any time. I made a career choice to leave them behind and I'm much happier these days. Yes, I still work long hours, but when I leave work, it's LEFT there.

I generally leave my phone in a corner on weekends (on silent!) unless I'm expecting friends or family to call.

13. BDB said the following at 12:04 AM on Mar 30:

Borrowing from petty cash? I fired someone for doing that - since they paid it back, I didn't press charges.

Actually, one of my rules was that if people reported a mistake honestly immediately, I lowered the level of discipline by one level. For example, instead of a written warning, it would be a verbal warning.

The peson fired for borrowing petty cash was reported by a coworker who discovered the theft - one who had previously experienced the reward of honesty in keeping her job after making a mistake.

Though, as for Internet shopping, I deliberately let my employees do that, because I worked for a company that sold Internet service, and many employees didn't have computers at home. I wanted them to know how to use the product at work so they could discuss it with customers.

The best office-hours plan I saw was one the Federal Government had. Everyone was expected to be in the office Tuesday-Thursday from 10am to 3pm. These "core hours" were for meetings with coworkers, schedule via outlook with each other.

Most people worked a 9/80 schedule. That's 80 hours over 9 days every two weeks - typically taking off every other Friday or every other Monday.

One huge advantage of that is people have a weekday to do all the normal stuff in life - drycleaning, getting work done at their house, stuff with the kids, volunteering, etc. etc. This significantly cuts down on the need to do these things during a normal workday.

The one thing that really bothered me was a boss that expected me to be in the office Monday-Friday every week, PLUS take every other Saturday for some meeting. Meanwhile, he would take days off during the week - a privledge he did not extend to others. NOT a good example.

14. BDB said the following at 12:31 AM on Mar 30:

Sounds like Tim Challies started his blog for the same purpose that people use facebook.

I'm curious - does anyone from the Reformed side of the house have an opinion on the writings of Andrew Murray or George Müller?

15. Loris said the following at 7:33 AM on Mar 30:

I've been in the position of liking a guy I knew a friend liked, only the friend was my roommate. When the guy asked me out, she threw me out. In hindsight, I would have been better off talking to her than trying (unsuccessfully) not to like him for her sake. The relationship ended in disaster, and I felt doubly dumped because I'd lost both a good friend and my boyfriend. After several years, I found her again on Facebook and apologized for the way I'd handled it. It's all moot now. She knew at the time she had a snowball's chance of dating him-she wasn't a Christian and he was-and I'm married to somebody else now, but I felt it was important to hash that episode over so we could move on.

16. yet another jen said the following at 9:55 AM on Mar 30:

What about two guys liking the same girl? Seems like a different problem since they are the ones that can DO something about it.

From the guys' view, would you ask out a girl that you knew your buddy liked? OR would you give it up for him? And how many of you guys would ACTUALLY TALK to each other about this? :)which seems like the most sensible thing to do....

From the girl's view, if she sees this happening, should she give up on both, thinking that their loyalty to each other is stronger than any potential relationship?

What if she herself is conflicted on a preference for either one? Just wait till they sort it out and the firs-come, first-served business works itself out? IF she knew which way she leaned on the matter, I suppose she could make her interest known. But if not, she's wouldn't want to ruin a good thing with either one.

Sigh...the trouble we put ourselves through...

17. BDB said the following at 3:27 PM on Mar 30:

yet another jen (#16) wrote:

>>And how many of you guys would ACTUALLY TALK to each other about this? :)which seems like the most sensible thing to do....<<

Typically, these thing are solved with a hand of poker...or a dragrace...

18. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:03 PM on Mar 30:

Kelly (#12),

We met before he was on this particular program.

We started talking seriously through IM at work while he was on travel (he pinged me on V-day...one lonely person to another).

Whenever he was in town, he'd try to talk me into doing something around town in the evening.

It helped that we work in the same place, so running into each other wasn't all that uncommon and we had mutual friends.

When I started showing more interest, he started cutting back on work and pursuing me a little more actively when he was in town, though his program now had a huge dependence on him.

He's cut back a lot on work when he's home, but his job hasn't given him any slack. So the trade-off has been work invading home-life. And lots of traveling.

I'm glad he's more willing to walk out on an 8 hour day when he's home so we can spend time together. And at least he has job security. So, I guess there's some good to the bad.

19. Tami said the following at 4:06 PM on Mar 30:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say NEITHER of these girls should date the guy. At least for now. And certainly not because I think anyone should play into to one girl's emotional blackmail. To "stake a claim" on a guy is not cool and it is junior highish. A more mature woman -- *not* a peer -- should let the "claimer" know that her claiming behavior is unhealthy to herself and others, and is highly unlikely to bring about the results she desires.

The fact that a guy -- or perhaps more accurately, the idea of a particular guy as a boyfriend – is getting so between these girls is a little distressing. To be honest -- to me -- the whole thing reeks of the Enemy attempting to be divisive.

I've never seen this end well; and when it occurs, it has a tendency to implode not just the friendship, but a whole circle of friends.

And the WORST thing you can do is start viewing the girl as the enemy. She’s got some wrong thinking and attitudes going on; but, she is still a *friend* and should be treated as such – with honesty, but not hostility.

Also I think when you’re the “chosen” you can start to feel prideful over the other girl that was “not chosen.” Another opportunity for an attitude check…

I think that if the guy really is interested in the letter-writer, she should tell him she really likes him, but ask him to wait for a while (maybe six months) to officially begin dating. The waiting time will reveal what’s up. If the dating relationship is meant to be, it can handle a few months of waiting for the dust to settle. She is 21, which isn’t necessarily too young to get married, but it certainly isn't *old.* Not old enough for 6 months, in and of itself, to be a time dealbreaker, unless one of them is moving. If, on the other hand, the guy isn’t so great – for example, some people thrive on getting in between friends of the opposite sex and causing drama – time and prayer will reveal the truth, and will reveal what the guy is really interested in.

After talking to the guy, she should talk to the "claimer," explain the situation, and tell her: “I really like this guy, and he likes me. We want to see where this goes because we think it has potential to be a serious relationship. So for this reason, as your friend, I’m asking you to relinquish your ‘claim’ on him.” From there, the friend’s reaction will tell her how to continue. My guess is one of two things would happen in the immediately preceding moments/days: 1. The “claimer” will sheepishly take back her “claim,” and endeavor to support her friends’ relationship (even as she hurts); or, 2. She will get really angry and defensive and start accusing the other girl of all manner of garbage. I’m sure there are other possible reactions, but I think those are the “big two” in my experience.

My ultimate prayer is that this all moves on with growth and without a bunch of drama. It won't be easy but I think it can be without carnage.

20. J said the following at 7:49 PM on Mar 30:

Re: #10,

From what I've read about the Results-Only work environment, it's not at all individualistic. So -- when the way to produce the best results is getting everyone together, then everyone gets together for that purpose. But, if you get done at 4:15, you don't sit there for 45 minutes talking about country songs, or stretch out the meeting to fit the clock.

And, if you are doing something like studying a manual, writing an article, etc. and could be better accomplished in solitude, you have the freedom to find the necessary solitude.

My workday often consists of a 10-minute conversation stretched out over the whole day making it impossible to concentrate on anything during all of that "being available" time.

I guess those in a situation that's productive, pleasant, and doesn't feel like a "lock-down" (good description!) would be less likely to see the positives of a Results-Only Work Environment.

21. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:07 AM on Mar 31:

BDB (#17),

Ah the days of duels...

22. Tami said the following at 10:34 AM on Mar 31:

Sorry, I realized I wrote "immediately preceding days," and meant "immediately FOLLOWING days." :)

23. dc said the following at 5:19 PM on Mar 31:

About the two girls having some interest for the same guy and one of them calling a claim on him. Suppose this girl's claim was because her and this guy had been in a relationship, and he had dumped her. Would that change the advice given? Is it still childish to tell your friend to not get involved with a person who had dumped you?

This doesnt exactly relate to the above question, but Boundless is very good at encouraging us younger people to being open to and pursuing relationships at church. Which is a good and helpful thing to do. Still hoping they will give more advice to when those relationships go horribly wrong. People dumping and getting dumped, people who dump a fellow church goer so they can date another person at that church and so on. Seems like no matter how hard you try to do things right, they still do go wrong.

The girl who has staked her claim is being being childish, but she may also be experiencing some real hurts/insecurities that could drive her out of that church if others dont tread carefully.

24. BDB said the following at 9:09 PM on Mar 31:

Christina (in green) #21 wrote:

>>Ah the days of duels...<<

Or, God forbid, a Dance War.