Read Well to Write Well

Has there ever been a great writer who wasn’t a great reader? That’s like asking if there has ever been a great baseball player who has never watched baseball. It’s almost a nonsense question.

But, unlike baseball, there are numerous people who seek to compose works without having read deeply and widely. Not everyone watches or plays baseball, but language is common to everyone. We all communicate via the spoken and written word, therefore people feel they can write. And in the most basic sense of writing (group of words makes up a sentence, group of sentences make up a paragraph, top to bottom, left to right) that’s true.

But good writing is a product of good thinking. Good thinking is a product of good reading. So, in order to write well OR think well one must read well.  

So I ask you, writers (and humans with brains):

What are you reading? That is, what is its quality and its message? Is it worth absorbing both artistically and intellectually? (There is some, small, value in reading bad books for the sake of knowing what makes books bad, but it is not the soil out of which good writing grows.)

How widely are you reading? Are you being influenced by geniuses of different ilks, fiction and non-fiction, men and women, philosopher and theologian, story teller and reporter? Variety truly is the spice of writing, the flavor that makes it palatable.

How much are you reading? Do you have a steady influx of the written word to refresh you, enlighten you, and hone you? What’s good for the body is good for the mind, regular exercise and a steady diet of nutritious deliciousness.

Read well to think well. Think well to write well.

Be a Few Things to a Few People

“Be all things to all people”, what a glorious sentiment, what an ideal to which we can aspire, what a meaningful existence. What a load of rubbish.

Well, it’s rubbish for writers. It is a road to meaninglessness and a total lack of identity.  Attempting to be all things for all people as a writer is really being nearly nothing to nearly everybody.

Writing needs focus. It needs an attainable objective, an aim. Writing cannot take on too many subjects at once nor can take on a single subject from too many directions.

Writing needs a tone, a rhythm. This doesn’t need to be a monotone (and in fact it shouldn’t be), but it must be an appropriate tone.

A single work cannot answer every question about a subject or deal with every contingency. Should a writer try you end up with a confused web of thoughts with numerous loose ends or a never-ending manual with sub points for the sub points. If he seeks to answer too many questions he will answer all of them poorly or fail to answer some of them at all.

So when you write do not seek to be all things to all people. Instead seek to be a uniquely valuable contributor on a single thought or small set of thoughts. Do not head down the rabbit trails. Do not be distracted by contingencies. Write with focus, a singular aim.

Write the Scenic Route

The shortest route between any two points is a straight line. It is efficient and quick. But it is rarely the most memorable. Efficiency doesn’t create impressions and memories. It doesn’t take an extra turn just see something beautiful. No, only the scenic route does that.

So much writing these days is the efficient, straight line route. It is quick and to the point. As a result it leaves little lasting impression on the memory. It tells us exactly how to get from point A to point B but fails to make the experience enjoyable. There is no scenery, no extra twist or turn to bring in some beauty. 

When a writer plows through his plot to get to the climax of his story a reader is carried for a fast ride. It is a roller coaster: a few brief seconds of thrill followed by nothing but the vague impression that you just had fun. When a writer checks off his points and moves efficiently through his explanations the reader is handed a crisp clean outline of whys and how-tos but nothing else.

Writing the scenic route is taking the reader for a journey, not a ride. It turns something fun or informative into something breathtaking and memorable. Instead of plot being the thrill giver, the reader encounters powerful characters, moving metaphors, and descriptions that transport him to a different time and place. Instead of helpful points the reader finds turns of phrase that cement themselves to his brain (and maybe his heart) and life giving analogies.

The Scenic route is not a detour or a wrong turn unless it’s done badly. It is a route of memory and beauty that turns the mundane into the amazing.

So when you write look for those twist and turns that add life to the words. When you read seek out those works and those authors who are guides not taxi drivers. Read and write the scenic route. 

What Does "Know Your Audience" Even Mean?

One of the most popular pieces of advice for communicators these days is “know your audience". This is sage advice. It’s also nearly useless. It’s such an open ended piece of counsel that all meaning as has escaped. What does it mean, and if it has a meaning, how do you do it?

THE WHAT

1) Determine if you have an audience.

This is so obvious that it often gets over looked. Is your subject matter of interest to people other than yourself?  Determining this is especially important if you are seeking to sell your work (e.g. get published or get advertisers on your site). If you want people to invest time and money in your product you must first make sure there are people who will do so.

2) Determine who the prospective audience is.

               

This is a demographic and the more specific the better. It could be “writers”, but “fiction writers” would be even better. It could be “women” but “young professional women” would be better. Sometimes this is determined very clearly by subject, for example Moody Publishers released a book recently called First Time Dad. Guess who the audience is for that one? Other times it is a broad audience, like with many fiction works. In this case using works similar to yours to position it will help you and the reader understand what this is supposed to be. Regardless of the subject, a project should not be undertaken or pitched until there is a clear understanding of who is the targeted recipient.

3) Determine what this audience wants and needs to hear.

               

Many authors misguidedly start here. They have an interest in something and so they write the assumption others will be interested as well . Writing your own interests is fine if you are writing for you, but if your aim is to help others or to get published it can’t be sole determining factor.  You must find the pulse of the audiences desires and needs (they’re often not the same thing).

THE HOW

How you go about doing these things is not neatly defined. It will depend on if you start with an idea or a group of people. Let’s look at these individually.

1) Starting with an idea

If you have an idea that you want to write about then you go through the three steps above. As laid out. You do so by reading widely and surveying readers on what they have read. It is enormously helpful to find objective reviewers of your idea and your writing (emphasis on objective, those who will object to bad ideas or poor writing). As you read and survey and get feedback you will begin to find a patterns that tell you if you have an audience and specifically who they are. The last things to consider are these.

                                A) What has the audience already heard?

                                B) How was it communicated to them?

                                C) Is your writing different in content and/or style?

2) Starting with an audience

My sense is that this more rare, but it’s not uncommon (business books, books for soldiers, books for moms, etc.). But starting with a defined audience can be really helpful because it nullifies numbers 1 and 2 above. It puts all the emphasis on to number 3, determining what the audience wants and needs to hear. The same three questions must be asked here just as they were previously.

                                A) What has the audience already heard?

                                B) How was it communicated to them?

                                C) Is your writing different in content and/or style?

Knowing your audience is the most effective way to communicate with them. It is vitally important. It can also be a tremendous amount of work. But the pay-off is there because it will give you direction, give you a goal, and shape your writing into something useful.

5 Enjoyable Pulp Fiction Reads

 A Time to Kill  – John Grisham

I have read most of Grisham’s books, and this was by far his best. He is a master of banging out formulaic court room thrillers with little or no depth and few memorable characters. In this book Grisham manages to touch on the depth of racism in the deep south, write some likeable but flawed characters, tug on any father’s heart strings (any father would agree with Carl Lee Hailey’s actions, at least in part), and do the court room thriller thing.

The Bourne Trilogy  – Robert Ludlum

I am referring to the three that Ludlum actually wrote, not the series continuations by Eric Van Lustbader, which are terrible. Most people would be more familiar with the movies starring Matt Damon, which are also thoroughly entertaining. Thankfully, the books are only loosely similar to the movies. This means you can enjoy both without ruining the other. The books have a similar feel to the movies in terms of action and suspense and intrigue, but, because they are books, have far more detail and character interaction. Ludlum is also a pretty formulaic author, but these books are him at his thriller best.

A Prisoner of Birth – Jeffrey Archer

This is the first of Archer’s books that I read and that is why I enjoyed it most. He is a better story teller than many other pulp fiction writers, but even his books tend to mostly feel and read the same way. Archer is a champion of the many-main-character, final-big-plot-twist kind of novel. Think Guy Ritchie movie without the weird camera angles and music and with much less swearing.  

The Godfather – Mario Puzo

The movie was a cinematic masterpiece. The book was a pulp fiction masterpiece. It was such good pulp fiction it was almost a literary work of art. If you have seen the movie you know the gist, but the book is so much more intricate and suspense ful and characters are so much more colorful. Unfortunately this is the only one of Puzo’s books about which these things are true.

Garden of Beasts – Jeffrey Deaver

Deaver is probably best known for his Lincoln Rhyme novels, but those are a lot like the show CSI: if you partake in more than 3 you know how all the rest will end. Garden of Beasts is a different flavor of story set in a different time (pre WW2) and place (Germany). It is actually a creative idea executed pretty well. It is certainly an enjoyable read.

What if Book Clubs Were More Like Fight Clubs?

When I say the words “book club” most people likely imagine a group of ladies gathered together to discuss The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants or Eat, Pray, Love and how these books have made them love/hate their lives more. This is because book clubs are almost exclusively comprised of females.

 

If I say the words “fight club” most people will think of the vastly over-rated Brad Pitt/Ed Norton movie that popularized groups of young males secretly gathering to pummel one another. For a period of time such clubs existed in dorms, in basements, in back yards, and in bars. But of course nobody knew much about this because the first rule of any good fight clubs is “You do not talk about fight club.”

I would not, in a million years, attend either a book club or a fight club. I have no interest in my emotions or my body being pummeled. But I love books. I love discussing books.  I know there are numerous males, manly males (like me), out there who are passionate about books with no outlet for engaging them.

But what if the concept of fight club and the concept of book club could be combined? What if The Notebook and The Time Traveler’s Wife were replaced by Outliers or The Great Santini or The Brothers K? What if instead of emotional touchy-feely stuff, ideas and themes and powerful characters were discussed? What if the first rule of book club became “You do not talk about book club”? Would this work?

So, manly bibliophiles, how will you respond? What action will you take? Will you put your man cave to good use and secretly gather like-minded men for testosteroneful discussions of great writing?  Will you dig deep into books to unearth the good and the bad and discover the freedom of sharing these with other men? Will you pummel the ideas set forth by the author and those proposed by each other until only the strongest and greatest are left standing?  

Wait, don’t answer. Because the first rule of book club is now “Do not talk about book club.”

The Delusion of Talent

We have all seen those hilariously awkward episodes of American Idol when theatrically intense “singers” slaughter various pop tunes in the hopes of impressing the judges only to be turned away. It is these people’s reactions that serves as the icing on this cake; their incredulity at being told they aren’t good. GASP!

I have gotten some good chuckles out of instances such as these, but the more I watched the more they made me think. How do people get this way?

In Acquisitions for a publisher I see quite a few proposals from writers. There is a distinct flavor of this same inability to recognize faults and limitations in many of these as well. In general over-confidence and excessively high views of one’s own talent are rampant.

Where does this delusion come from? How do people get like this? More importantly and more personally, how do I help my children not be like this?

We need to find that balance between the rubbish of “you can do anything you set your mind to”, a recipe for crushed dreams, and being harshly critical dream crushers all by ourselves. I need to be a filter for my children, my wife, those close to me to help them see what they are bad at AND those things at which they are great.

There are few greater disservices than allowing or encouraging someone to believe they excel at something at which they don’t. You are being a part of, at the very least, wasted time and effort, and at the very worst a wasted life. There are few greater services than clear, pointed encouragement to pursue something at which someone is good or has the potential to be good. 

When I see clips of those early-season American Idol tryouts, my thoughts go immediately to the family and friends of those horrendous failures. Because it is those family and friends who hold great responsibility in their embarrassment and failure.  Just as we hold great responsibility for the successes and failures of those close to us. What direction are we encouraging them?

Selling Ideas

Every product is an idea at some point. But most products go from idea to something tangible. Goods and services become concrete.  You can drive your car, drink your coke, eat your hot dog, go to the doctor’s office, stay at a hotel. These materials and services are the execution and fruition of the idea.

But what is a book? Sure it is tangible. It has pages and a cover. It appears on your kindle screen or iPad. But unlike other products, the quality of the book has almost nothing to do with the material used to produce it. The ingredients that make books great are the ideas themselves.

What does this mean for a writer? It means you are idea developer. It means the idea you are writing must be honed and polished to be a great product. Your idea must be thought through, dwelt with, left for a while, returned to, and wrestled into a shape that is good.

It also means you have a greater challenge than an inventor or engineer, or at least an entirely different kind. You have to make your idea work in the hearts and minds of a reader. The only objective standard for an idea is the standard of truth. But while a great idea must be true, a true idea is not necessarily great.

It means that you are probably the worst judge of whether your idea works. You can’t run a test to determine its capabilities. You can’t taste it yourself to see if the flavors mix well. Because a book doesn’t come from outside you, it comes from you.

To assess an idea you need an abundance of counselors.  Most people can give feedback one aspect or another. One might tell you your writing style doesn’t fit the idea (too abrasive, too conversational, etc.), another might point out a flaw in your reasoning, and a third might tell you he read the same subject matter elsewhere. A writer needs all these people and more. These people are the litmus tests, the test pilots, the taste-testers, and the market research of your idea.

Writers, idea people, if you don’t have these folks find some. You need to. From a publishing perspective, I beg you to find them.  It’s hard enough to sell a proven product or a helpful service in an overloaded market place. To sell an idea without it being as proven as possible is nearly impossible.

5 Great Authors

Joe Posnanski - Joe is my favorite sports writer. That's because he's a fantastic writer who also happens to write about sports, a passion of mine. He has the ability to pull a reader into his stories better than any other sports writer I have ever read.

Tim Keller - I've never read a bad book by Keller. I  can't even remember reading a bad chapter. His clarity of thought and pointed insights are a powerful combination. He argues truth without being bombastic, sensational, or argumentative. He communicates rationally, but without sacrificing passion.

Bill Simmons - Unique in style and content, Simmons combines sports insights, fandom, pop-culture, and humor into his columns and books. He writes as a passionate fan, but not an irrational sports viewer. This is the way I fancy myself, so I think I'm a little like Bill.

Paul Tripp - No author has consistently ministered to me through his writing like Tripp has. He has a gift for getting at the heart of issues, cutting through circumstances and symptoms to get to causes and bases. He is not the best pure writer, but what he has written has struck me the deepest.

Pat Conroy - Conroy writes some of the most depressing stories you will ever read full of the most captivating characters. He writes novels autobiographically, so every character feels like someone he knows (or is). The stories feel like life: a bunch people being themselves around each other and things happening as a result (rather than an author having a plot line and writing flat characters to fit it).

Imitation and influence

There is a fine line between being influenced by someone and imitating someone.  One of these can be a great gift for a writer (and thus the reader) and the other usually produces mediocre results, at best. Imitation may be the greatest form of flattery, but flattery is not the greatest form of writing.   

Being influenced, at its best, is subconscious. It is a shaping and directing of the writing that hints of the influencer without undermining the writers own style and voice. Being influenced is a product of having absorbed an enormous amount of the influencer’s material and then having it ooze back out between the lines of your own composition. It is a flavor, a suggestion, but not a style itself.

Imitation is asking the question “how would so-and-so write this?” Imitation is a disservice to the reader. If they wanted to read the other person’s style and voice they would be best served skipping what you write and going straight to the source.  A writer can never imitate his way to a work that is better than what he imitating.

A writer can be influenced without even realizing it, but he can never imitate without realizing it. Imitation is brutally self-conscious which makes it brutal for the reader as well. 

This same principal holds true for preaching, for composing or performing music, for any form of creation and communication. So put yourself in a position to be influenced. Absorb great creators of the written word, the spoken word, the musical work. But do not seek to mimic them.  Nobody benefits from that.

The Laziness of Againstness

A few days ago I wrote this post about defining yourself or your organization by what you are for rather than what you are against.  After considering being against (or “againstness” as I’ll call it) here are some further thoughts.

Againstness is lazy. It’s the easiest way to give a label to yourself or to your organization.  It’s the easiest way to position yourself. Except that it isn’t truly positioning yourself at all. It’s just floating off the shore of whatever you are against.  It doesn’t land anywhere it just avoids certain people/causes/attitudes/etc.  It is a pretend label that reveals very little and gives no direction as to what you are trying to be.

It is lazy because it doesn’t require work, just a little observation. All you need to do to be against something is keep an eye out for it and separate yourself from it while declaiming it as loudly as you please. This is true unless, of course, you are the more militant type of againster in which case you follow the object of your ire around and attack whenever possible. This is no less lazy because you aren’t deciding what to do or where to go, you’re just being an unwitting follower of something/someone you reject.

It is much harder to pursue something, to set a goal and go after it. It requires serious thought to define the goal. It requires constant vigilance and judgment to determine if you are on the right course in the pursuit. It requires regular status checks to see what kind of progress is being made. It is constant motion, constant consideration, constant vigilance to be sure that nothing which you are against is deflecting you off course.

I have two final thoughts. First, pursuing a goal necessitates being against certain things, or at least having no part in them. This only needs to be antagonistic if they threaten your pursuit of a good goal. But these things are not what primarily defines you.

Lastly, againstness is as lazy and unhelpful in a work place as it is in a home or a relationship or a church or a school.  If I define may parenting by what I do NOT want to be I will be lesser as a father than if I aim at raising my children to be something great. If I seek out a church primarily because of what it’s not I have settled lazily into the same parasitic pattern of againstness.

Againstness is an easy place to land, and an easy thing to rationalize because there is much in this fallen world to be against. But it aims at nothing, takes us nowhere, and gains us little.  So aim at what is good, and don’t fall into the trap of just being against againstness

Rivalry

This evening the Minnesota Twins (good guys) will face the Chicago White Sox (bad guys) in the first of a 4 game series. This match up is a true rivalry. (Cubs/Sox doesn't count for so many reason, primarily because they play in different leagues and the Cubs are terrible.) Here are some fun facts interspersed with some opinions that I think are fun.

• Over the past 2 seasons (not including this year) the Twins and the White Sox have nearly the exact same record against everyone in MLB besides each other: 156-133 for the Twins and 156-132 for the Sox. 
• Over that same time frame the Twins are 25-11 against the Sox.
• This year a putrid, last place Twins team with more injuries than base hits (or something like that) is 4-0 versus the Sox.
• 5 years ago when I would wear Twins gear to the Sox home stadium I would end up with beer all over me and at least 3 profanity laced death threats per game. Now I'm lucky to get a "boo". It seems someone is feeling intimidated.
• Ozzie Guillen says at least 4.5 times as many nice things about the Twins as he does about his own team. Ozzie Guillen is also certifiably insane. And even more certifiably entertaining.
• There is always the hope that A.J. Pierzynski will get hit in the ribs with a fastball or someone will go all Michael Barrett on him 

I think this sums up the past two years to the great satisfaction of Twins fans and the great, well, whatever of White Sox fans. But who cares what they think.

(via the great Twins blog http://www.twinkietown.com)

Doing Something Hateful to Love Someone Better.

Is it worth doing something you abhor for the sake of loving someone else? Here’s a story of how I have been exploring that very question.

I hate cats. I have been heard to call them such things as "Satan's spawn" and "what happened to dogs when Adam and Eve sinned." I boldly, proudly, loudly hate cats. They are truly abhorrent creatures.

I love dogs. I love big dogs. I grew up with a big dog, and she was nearly perfect. Naturally my wife (an all-around animal lover) knew what she needed to do. So for Father's Day she surprised me with a 9-week-old black lab puppy named Belle. I fell in love. For 48 hours. Until we discovered that our younger daughter is allergic to dogs.

There were no dry eyes in our car as we drove Belle back to the pet store. It was over, no pets for this Piper family.

Until last two weeks ago, that is. An e-mail went around the office that a former employee had nine kittens to give away. Naturally, I deleted it.

My conscience did not. My conscience kept reminding me of my daughters’ pleas for a kitty (and my wife’s, they work as a team) and of their tears driving home with an empty car from the pet store. What to do? My daughters love kittens. My wife loves kittens. I love my ladies. I hate cats.

My family never needed to know. It's not like they would see the e-mail. It wasn’t even like I was hiding anything from them. I was simply protecting them from temptation and/or heartbreak. Right?

All my life I have railed against the evil of feline life. A portion of my very identity was tied up in this ill will toward cats. It was truly a matter of pride. I would never, NEVER own a cat.

But it came down to this: Do I love my family more than I hate cats? That was a surprisingly hard question to answer. I guess that reveals something about the pride in my heart.

But the answer is yes, I do love them more than I hate cats. On Monday evening 2 weeks ago I drove out and picked up this mewing gray ball of fluff and brought her home to surprise my girls. I have never seen them so happy. Ever. Not even with the puppy (unfathomable, I know). This was no “fun new toy, but now I’ll be bored with it in 48 hours” situation either. In their minds this was a new family member.

So is it worth doing something abhorrent to you to love someone else better? Grudgingly I say yes. (Although this does not yet extend to watching romantic comedies with my wife or letting my 5-year-old give me a pedicure). Pride tastes bad when you swallow it, but it's good medicine for the heart.

Postscript: My 5-year-old daughter, apparently in an attempt to destroy every vestige of pride and hard-heartedness I had left, decided to name the kitten Stormy Rose. Seriously. Stormy freakin Rose. I am humbled (and slightly humiliated).

For or against?

Every organization must be against things be they actions, beliefs, theologies, societal issues, etc. Every individual must be against things too. But should they be defined by what they’re against?

Shouldn’t what we are against be a byproduct of what we are for? If we are in pursuit of something, we are, by definition, running away from something else. If we are simply running away from something we are not necessarily running to anything at all. We are just aimlessly fleeing.

If an organization builds its identity by defining what it is against it becomes cloistered, inbred, paranoid, accusatory, legalistic, nit picky, and immobile. It will never achieve anything great because it isn’t pursuing anything great.  All the same things are true for an individual except “inbred” (because that would just be kinda weird).

On the flip side, if an organization or person builds its identity by what it pursues it has the potential to be open-minded, active, welcoming, creative, and productive because it has a goal, an objective. Success depends on the quality of the goal and in the way in which pursuit is undertaken.

Is your church in pursuit of a great goal? Is the company for which your work? Is your family? Are you? Pursue something, don’t just flee things. Let what you are against be defined by what you are pursuing and how you are pursuing it.

Pastors and the Humblebrag

A while back this article by Harrison Wittels was posted on www.grantland.com about the “humblebrag”. A humblebrag is defined by Wittels as “basically a specific type of bragging which masks the brag in a faux-humble guise. The false humility allows the offender to boast their "achievements" without any sense of shame or guilt.”

This got me to thinking. You know who does this a lot? Pastors. On Twitter. I suppose it’s true of many Christians, but I especially see it from pastors.

I suspect many pastors don’t realize that what they’re doing is humble bragging. They may just be genuinely thanking a congregant for his praise of a sermon or for giving him an opportunity to pray for a certain request. But it often doesn’t come across that way.

Publicly announcing your praying habits or retweeting appreciation for your preaching and writing looks self-congratulatory.

Pastors, if you wouldn’t say it from the pulpit don’t say it on Twitter. Furthermore, if you would say it from the pulpit but with context and clarification, don’t say it on twitter. 140 characters is plenty of room to come across badly, but not nearly enough to qualify a statement. Twitter is ideal for sharing information and inspiring thought, but don’t use it to publicly pat yourself on the back.

5 Good Books

I have no favorite books, at least not any which are favorites for long. There are too many good ones to have a top 5 or top 10 that isn’t constantly revolving. But I have loved many books, so periodically I’ll run down some that have especially grabbed me.

Rescuing Ambition by Dave Harvey
This is one of the most encouraging and challenging books I have read in recent years. It reins in unbridled ambition and lights a fire under dormant ambition. I was challenged and convicted and lifted up by Dave’s book.

The Soul of Baseball by Joe Posnanski
I love everything Posnanski writes, but his journey with Buck O’Neil was truly wonderful. O’Neils accounts of playing in the  Negro leagues are fascinating for a baseball fan.  His gracious demeanor after decades of facing discrimination is inspiring. When one of my favorite writers recounts tales of a remarkable man like Buck a fantastic book is born.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl who Played with Fire, The Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, by Stieg Larsson
I’m a sucker for thrillers, but these books took thriller to a different level. The character development and intricacy of the plot was fantastic. They are not a trilogy but rather volumes 1-3 of a gripping story (thus they count as one book, not three).

Whiter Than Snow by Paul Tripp
I have been blessed by much of what Paul has written, but this little book stands out. It is comprised of 52 short reflections on Psalm 51, and it is rich.  Tripp is uniquely gifted at getting under the skin of an issue to its heart, and in this book he digs out the sin that is in the heart and helps the reader to cleansing and wholeness.

The Lords of Discipline by Pat Conroy
It’s not Conroy’s most famous book, but it was the first one I read. Conroy writes characters better than almost anybody. He does this by writing autobiographical novels, so all his characters feel real and rich. I won’t ruin, or even recount, the story, but just know that I have never read another book like the ones Conroy writes. He is unique and amazingly gifted.

Thinking Critically Uncritically

When did critical thinking get so critical, or rather so full of criticism? What I mean to say is when did it get so negative.

Critical thinking seems to mean sifting out the bad and dangerous content from whatever medium you're engaging (movie, music, book, etc.) and emphatically denying it while forgetting everything else. Many babies have been disposed of with the bath water in this way..

It seems to me that true critical thinking means sorting out the good AND the bad and treating them as they deserve.

Sometimes the bad is so prominent that the good isn't worth dwelling on. But just as often there are strikingly good qualities to the content under scrutiny that are at least a shame to ignore and possibly harmful.

The other side of the coin is the overwhelmingly good content that some people feel deserves nit picking and warnings. Let people make their own [uncritical] critical judgments. Let the petty warnings slide in the face of overwhelming good so as not to taint the good with them.

Conservative Christians (referring to theological, fundamentalist, or legalistic conservatism) seem particularly addicted to negative critical thinking, as if all things must be labeled "good" or "bad". In this fallen world nothing is good OR bad. It's all good AND bad.

Uncritical critical thinking sorts the good and the bad and responds rightly. 

Regrets, I've Had a Few

How does someone who believes in a sovereign God handle regrets? I believe the first and have the latter. It's a conundrum.

I believe God's purpose was served by my bad decisions throughout life  sometimes in ways that are clear and sometimes not so much.  I also  believe God was dishonored by these very same decisions.

I would go back make different choices about hundreds of things. But I wouldn't give up the wisdom, discipline, and blessings God has brought through my bad decisions.  God has grown me through my foolishness, but I still wish I hadn't been a fool.

So am I to regret, to be thankful, to be . . .what?

This much is certain, without a sovereign God my foolishness would be for naught. I would compound it with foolishness. It's the way sin works. It would be a hopeless spot.

Since God is sovereign I have hope. I can move ahead. I can marvel. And I still regret.