The poorest among us still enjoy the modern conveniences of our society. Homeless people carry cell phones and post to Facebook. Just across our boarder you will find people who can’t even get clean water. We read passages about the rich and think they apply to someone richer than us, but we are all rich.

God has given this to us, and He can take it away. We, like Israel of old are turning from Him in our prosperity. We have forgotten the source of our wealth. We have forgotten the reason that He provides it. Even I, as I sit here and ponder these things, only want to go so far in doing anything about them.

It is reasonable to ask what can be done. The problems even within our own nation are staggering and we have it really good. The only thing I know for sure is that nothing will have long term benefit that does not come from Yahweh. In the United States as well as in the rest of the world we must turn to Him if we really want to see change.

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? (Rom 10:14 NASU)

We are not doing enough, and we are not saying enough. Fat, complacent, and uncompassionate, we watch the world burn and throw a few pennies at those who are trying to save them to soothe our consciences. Money won’t solve the problem, though it can help. Love can, for those willing to receive it. Love will drive us to share His saving message. Love will compel us to give of all that we have and all that we are where it is needed.

Lord, forgive us and show us how to love.

I don’t know how I feel this morning. There’s some guilt because I fell short this week in many ways. I know what to do about some of that, but not everything. In two days I’m going to talk about choosing to rejoice. It’s time I learned the lesson. Is my own formula, so much as it can be called that, worth anything? It’s time to try it. I feel better already.

I do remember what You have done for me. Though it humbles and shames me for I know how little I deserve, it also encourages and strengthens me to know that You have always been with me. You have taken all my trash and are turning it into treasure. Though guarded, I have more hope now than I’ve had in many years. You are good to me. You meet me in my weakness. I should be celebrating all the time and devoted to You without reservation for no other reason than that You paid the price of my sin for me. Yet the reality of what You did is easily lost in the swirl of everyday existence. If You owe me anything it is judgment and death, but You have given me mercy and life. You keep giving, quietly orchestrating my life to be what You want it to be despite my foolishness. You love me and want good things for me. To You I gladly give control.

I may not know the reasons why things happen, but I do know I can trust You. I could imagine reasons, but that is rarely very helpful. The best place to redirect my thinking in those times is right back to remembering who You are and what You’ve done. In the face of such goodness, why would I think You mean anything but the best for me, whatever the current circumstance?

The closest I can get to reproducing at this very moment I suppose is to share the contents of today’s journal entry. I hope that doing so encourages someone else today, reminding them that You are a good and loving God. We can choose to rejoice in that, just as You commanded. Why would we not choose joy over sorrow, delight over depression and faith over fear? This is my choice today.

Please forgive me for not making the choice in the past. I am returning to You, the source of my salvation and all that is good in my life. You are Lord of my life. To obey You is to love You and find my own fulfillment in the process. You paid the price for me. This is one time when it’s good to be bought. I can’t see where I’m going, so I’d better let You do the driving. You’ve got the keys anyway. Thank You for redeeming me in every way. This is truly a day to rejoice.

I was given this email address (wecare@intuit.com) and informed that your company has expressed an interest in knowing what the potential user base would be should you make an effort to bring greater accessibility of your product line to blind users. I am almost blind. I have been a Quicken user since version 3 for DOS. Each new version of the software seems to bring with it more accessibility challenges due to the use of non-standard methods for creating controls on the screen. I do not know that I could keep using Quicken if I did not have just enough vision to employ magnification to navigate the program. With each new release I fear that I will no longer be able to use it at all, and your recent policy changes regarding the access of older versions to online data may eventually force me out of the program I have relied on for over twenty years. There are no accessible alternatives that come close to Quicken’s functionality.

Accessibility issues are not limited to Quicken. The stand-alone versions of TurboTax have been unusable with a screen reading program for perhaps a decade. The web versions work better, and I commend your efforts there, though there are still some problems.

I understand that Intuit, like any corporation, exist to make a profit.  It is reasonable to ask whether your effort will result in an offsetting rise in revenue. I don’t’ have the data to make that call, but there are some things you may want to consider.

• It’s the right thing to do. If this email address reflects the truth, then that alone should be sufficient motivation. Microsoft has provided accessibility APIs that can be employed to define screen elements without having to alter the look and feel of your applications. I do not have the expertise to conclusively state that it would not take that much effort, but as a programmer I suspect your concerns about the cost may be unwarranted.
• The population is aging, and with age often comes visual impairment. The potential market is growing. The individuals who may find themselves in need of accessible financial software will have the means to procure it. The software is not priced beyond the reach of most who would want it. Why not be the only and best option?
• It makes you look good. Put it in your advertising. Let the world know that you really do care and thus gain even more customers. I know the company who makes my screen reader of choice, GW Micro, has already contacted you on more than one occasion offering to work with you on accessibility issues in your software. See this as an opportunity rather than a threat.
• There is a legal danger in failing to address this problem. It is only a matter of time before some group decides to bring suit over the accessibility of Intuit’s products. Regardless of the appropriateness of such a suit, it would at best bring with it negative publicity. In a litigious society with an increasingly oppressive socialist government, it may be advisable to make the first move and forestall anything like this from happening.

I hope you will give serious consideration to this issue and do the best thing for your company and your customers both existing and future. Work with the access technology companies such as GW Micro and implement a solution that makes your product line accessible to all.

I almost decided not to finish this. I did put it aside for several days. I’ll explain as well as I can why I finally felt free to write it in the first place, but I just happened to see something a few days ago that really got to me. I’ve never quite been able to understand having a deep emotional attachment to an animal, yet watching a video of a complete stranger whose dog was shot right in front of him about did me in. The screaming of the dog and the crying of the man are now stamped in my memory like a very bad dream. I think maybe the Lord let me see that so that I would react with more compassion toward people who are close to their animals. I don’t know that it changes my opinion of how things should be, but it certainly changed my attitude toward the way things are.

When I was growing up, we had dogs at different times, but due to changing circumstances we never seemed to be able to keep one. Like many children, we wanted to have a dog, but usually didn’t do a very good job of caring for it when we got one. I suppose I loved them, but I would characterize it as the kind of affection a child might have for a favorite toy. Yet probably do to the books and television shows that depicted dogs larger than life, I always had an idealized picture of what a dog might be. I wanted the myth more than I wanted the reality. How many animals end up in shelters to be put down for much the same reason?

Even so, I never came to think of dogs as other than animals. The idea of loving a dog or any animal in the same way that we love other people is hard for me to understand. No dog can take the place of a human being. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone would put the needs of a pet over the needs of a family member or any human being for that matter. A pet may be considered a family member only in the broadest of terms. It may be loved and cared for by the family but should never be considered as an equal.

People say their dogs love them unconditionally. I am not sure I believe that a dog is capable of love. I don’t suppose that anyone can be certain of such things. Certainly there are verifiable accounts to be found of dogs doing things that sure look like love to us. I do not claim to know where the line should be drawn between instinctive and emotive behavior. After all, I will concede that much of my understanding of animal behavior comes from the same people who believe that we are nothing more than sophisticated apes. Despite such preposterous pretenders as the Pet Psychic of past television fame, none of us really know what they are feeling or thinking. As I think it through, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that some level of emotional attachment exists, just as a young child who cannot intellectualize what he feels still loves his mother and father. He may continue to love them even if he comes to understand that they do not love him.

I think that what happens between pets and people is often an unhealthy replacement for missing human relationships. Because the creature does appear to offer unconditional love and lacks the capacity to hurt us in the way that another human can, we find it to be a safe way to meet our need. However, it does not meet the need. There is no suitable replacement in the animal kingdom for the human relationships that God designed us to have. As childlike as a dog may be in many ways, it cannot ever be a child. It may perform actions that you interpret as love, but it can never tell you that it loves you in words. It has no real concept of words or the conscious and coherent thoughts which produce them. It does not simply lack the means to speak. It lacks the concept of speech. It can neither substitute for a child nor a real friend. It can only be what it was created to be, a dog. When the unequal relationship between human and dog impairs or supplants the God-given relationship between human and human, something is tragically wrong.

I know of a situation where an unhealthy relationship with a dog destroyed a friendship. I’m not at liberty to disclose the details of that, but I recognized the problem in my own life before it had a chance to become one. It was 1997 and I had just moved to Dallas. I was living alone in an apartment and I had been thinking about getting a dog for some time. This was the first place I had lived where I was permitted. I learned that a local shelter brought adoptable dogs to the pet store a reasonable walking distance from my apartment. I went up to look, but something didn’t feel right. The first week I didn’t bring one home. I had that feeling in the pit of my stomach that usually meant God was telling me “no.” That’s not the answer I wanted to hear, so I rationalized it and went back the second week.

Thus began a mighty tough week. I brought home a chihuahua dubbed Mickey by the shelter, but thinking every big-eared chihuahua in the country is probably called Mickey, I changed his name to Mighty. It kept the mouse theme and I thought it was a great appellation for a little tiny chihuahua. He wasn’t the sort of dog I imagined having. I’ve never really liked them. Most of them I’ve ever known were noisy and neurotic. Mighty was friendly and quiet.

With the vet checkup, food, and supplies plus the pet deposit I dropped $500 on that free dog before the day was out, but I had everything I thought we would need. I still remember the feeling I had sitting in the chair next to the TV with Mighty on my lap. I had a friend. I had something to love. I imagined the beginning of a fulfilling companionship that would last for years and keep me from being alone. We played with the squeaky ball and rolled around in the floor and I had what I wanted.

I knew better. Even then I knew what I was trying to do. I needed a friend. That little dog could never really be the friend I needed. As you might guess, the next few days brought home the reality of owning a dog, particularly a house dog. Due in part to the emotional instability I was experiencing at the time, I soon realized I couldn’t handle it. I wish now I had been able to hang on. The no-kill shelter took him back and I suspect he found a good home, but I’ll never know. I did learn my lesson though. God wanted me to leave room for real relationships in my life and not to substitute anything less.

Eventually I took in another one. When I moved to where I live now I not-so-subtly hinted that I would like to have Savanna, a chow/collie mix that had originally belonged to my sister and was with my parents at the time. I wasn’t sure how attached they were to her so I didn’t want to come right out and ask. I had always liked her. She was sweet as they come (provided you didn’t walk on four legs) and smart. She was an outside dog, though well behaved in the house. She preferred to be outside and wanted me to be outside with her.

By then I was in a very different place in my life. She didn’t come with the same baggage. I enjoyed having her around. I always felt guilty though. Dogs may just be animals, but when we take them for our own we have a responsibility to meet their needs too. It’s even written in the Bible. Proverbs 10:12 says in part “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal…” My life was just too busy. I worked down town, often had church functions, and spent most of the remainder of my time in front of the computer at home. Most of the time my interaction with Savanna was to go out and fill her food and water bowls. Like the clichéd guilty parent, I bought her toys hoping she would occupy herself with them, but it’s hard to play fetch with yourself. So, when my sister moved back to a place where she could have a dog and was considering one for the kids I told her she should take Savanna back. I did miss her when she left. Every time I walked past the back door where she would stand begging me to come out and play I felt a little pang of sadness.

I believe it was best though at least with the information I had at the time. Dogs are designed as social creatures. They need lots of interaction with either people or their own kind. If you want a well behaved dog around people the former needs to be foremost. I would not have willingly taken on another unless circumstances changed such that I had a need for the dog or the desire to spend the time necessary to treat it right.

But I did. Her name is Tia. She came with the wife. I was actually happy to have her in the beginning. She was the perfect dog for me; someone else’s responsibility yet available to me when I felt like interacting with it. I didn’t really think that way, but looking back that’s what I see. At first I walked her, tried to play with her and establish a bond. The relationship quickly soured. Linda and I had very different ideas about what was acceptable behavior and about a dog’s place in the household. Tia had been a companion and source of comfort to Linda for many hears and neither seemed very willing to make adjustments for me. That isn’t entirely true, but it was hard for me to see it.

Though not able to really understand Linda’s feelings about the dog, I recognized that nothing I could do would change them. I knew that to try to force my preferences on her would only result in Tia being between us long after her life had ended. I didn’t hate the dog. She has some behavioral issues, but she’s just a dog. She can’t have any concept of the emotional tumult surrounding her much less have any responsibility for it. She simply acts like a dog.

I think the Lord was dealing with me on what I really needed to do. As an act of love for my wife, I needed to make a best effort to love the dog. I couldn’t bring myself to do it. The best I could manage was to treat Tia with kindness and not allow my pain and frustration to be taken out on her. Sometimes when she would do something that bothered me I confess I thought about smacking her, but I never did it.

God is gracious. Despite my reluctance to do what I needed to do, He moved Linda to take the first step. A few weeks ago, she agreed to a change I wanted made from the beginning. That issue was the greatest obstacle to me being able to accept Tia and believe that I was really the most important to Linda. We’ve had a major training breakthrough, and my whole attitude has changed. I love my wife more than ever, and I might even learn to love the dog too. I’m certainly motivated to give it a try.

I had a thought. I won’t go so far as to say that any of the current players have this much of a conscience, but if one did here is a legitimate question. Does principle demand that you refuse to deal with the country, or does it actually demand that you go in? Here’s the rationale. The information accessible by searching a big site like Google or Yahoo is vast and complex. Varied also are the terms and links by which someone might stumble onto a site with information the controlling government doesn’t want them to have. Especially if one makes an effort, I suspect that getting around the sensors isn’t all that hard to do. It may be beyond the casual browser, but not someone determined to do it. So, granted that there is a monetary incentive, do you agree to the rules knowing that instead of cutting off the people completely you give them at least a chance of finding out what they need to know? Given what is apparently being done in our own country I doubt anyone is asking that question, but I think it’s a reasonable one.

I was just thinking about this from the perspective of someone who is blind. I’m sitting in front of a computer that is reading the words I type and magnifying them to somewhere around twenty times so that I can see them too. While the system doesn’t always run smoothly, it is amazing that I can sit here and type at full speed while it tracks right along with me. Sitting to my left is the laptop I use for work, outfitted with the same software combo. It’s not a perfect world. The reason I’m writing to you at this moment is that they’ve pushed some kind of install that has kept the laptop tied up all morning, but a mere twenty-five years ago what I am doing now would be near impossible. There were things out there, but they cost as much as a small car and few of us could acquire them. Beside that is a CCTV magnifier that allows me to put printed material or anything else that will fit under it for a highly magnified view. Those unfortunately haven’t come down very much in price.

Now I don’t even need to go to the office, but if I do, the bus will automatically announce the streets as it takes me to the train station. The train will do the same for all the stops. I take along with me a cell phone that keeps me in touch online and reads everything out just like the computers do. That is possible because the thing has its own computer that has exponentially more powerful than the first PC I used back in ’88. I can use the phone or my dedicated digital audio book player (a Victor Reader Stream from HumanWare) to access all kinds of reading material. We wouldn’t call these items cheap, but I don’t currently know anyone who needs them who hasn’t managed to get one, though admittedly this is often with help from the government. Though I will not deny that government has played a role in advancing the availability of some of this technology, knowing how intervention distorts markets makes me wonder what amazing things we would be seeing if assistive technology companies couldn’t rely on state contracts to keep prices high and had to design and build directly for the consumer. That’s another topic for another time.

Now we’re beginning to see things I doubt many of us thought would happen. I don’t know which is more exciting, the advent of functional open-source free software for the blind, or the inclusion of accessibility in mainstream products made for the general public. I’ll tackle the latter first, since I don’t yet have any personal experience with it. Whatever you think of Apple, the fact that fully functional accessibility features are now integrated with all of their major offerings from the IPod Touch to the Power Mac is an industry first. If I were going to buy my first PC today, it would probably be a Mac. They cost more, but if I bought a PC with add-on software I would have to spend an absolute minimum of $300 extra. That as I recall is the low-end price for the least expensive commercial screen reader on the market and I’m thinking I’m short $100. That more than offsets the extra cost of the Mac. It’s likely that I would have to spend considerably more to get what I really need, amounting to the cost of the PC plus a Mac. I almost bought one when I went shopping for a new PC earlier this year. The only reason I backed out was the investment of time and money I already have in PC based software.

I can’t say that without pointing out one thing. I don’t have any specific information on this, but I do wonder if Microsoft’s tepid attempt at a screen reader doesn’t have at least something to do with the opposition it encounters when it is perceived as running other companies out of the market. Though I’ve been a fan of GW Micro and Window-Eyes for years and would hate to see them suffer the upheaval of having to find other markets, that’s economic reality. I can’t help thinking that if MS is willing and felt free to do so they could build a complete screen reader solution that would work better than anything we have today since they know the platform.

Of course, I could go with a free screen reader. Yes, there is such a thing. It’s called NVDA, and I’ve been trying it out on some other computers. It lands somewhere between Windows Narrator and a commercial solution, but initial tests are encouraging. So far I have only used it to do some light web browsing and word processing, but it has done a good job with Internet Explorer and Microsoft Word 2003. It is supposed to work with Open Office, something Window-Eyes can’t do. I have not verified this but I don’t think any of the commercial packages do. I haven’t given this a try yet.

NVDA did get me out of a jam. My wife’s new laptop runs Windows 7. We took it to church to run a DVD video for the class she is teaching, but it did not play as expected. Neither of us knew how to navigate out of the wrong video that was playing and get to the right one. I had already learned the hard way that Windows Media Player will not show protected video with Window-Eyes (or JAWS for that matter) running, but I needed speech. Having foreseen that this might happen, I had brought NVDA along on a USB flash drive. I quickly loaded it up and was able to find the navigation controls to get us back on track. It worked because NVDA does not hook into or disable features in the Windows Video subsystem. More time and testing will tell, but it looks like I could take this free screen reader to any PC that will allow software to run from a USB drive and have instant accessibility. If this proves out I will gladly donate to the project.

There’s other good news on the operating system front. If you go back a few posts in this blog you’ll find my first look at Vinux, a fully accessible installation of Linux. One common problem blind computer users face is that even if accessible solutions are available for their operating system of choice, there is no way to install the OS itself without help. Vinux addresses this problem by loading a fully functional copy of Linux from a CD. One then starts installation to the computer via a desktop icon, allowing the process to be spoken with the Orca screen reader. Since my original post a new Ubuntu based version has been released that addresses many of the problems I had with the older version. I have not had a lot of time to play with it, but so far I like what I’m seeing (and hearing.) Unless I just trashed it the other day trying to install MySQL, this version will be the platform from which I learn Linux and the tools I will need to set up a web server.

Accessibility is always a challenge. There are standards, and if all developers followed those standards then it would be easy to build solutions that allow the blind to use the same tools that everyone else is using. In the real world this doesn’t happen. That would not have to be a problem if any new elements or techniques were designed from the beginning with accessibility in mind, but most people are not aware of the problem. That or they think it will be too expensive or compromise their design to implement accessibility. That’s why there will always be room for add-on products that bridge the gap.

I recently encountered such a product, and amazingly it also is free, though donation is encouraged. I am still evaluating it and I’m not sure it isn’t causing some stability issues on my system, but with so many things running and updates constantly being applied it’s hard to tell. I think it’s a keeper. It’s a programmed with a name that makes you wonder what they were thinking. It’s called Qwitter. The site would probably tell me, but I’m guessing it’s a combo name for something like Quick Twitter. That would be a good way to describe it. My Twitter account exists primarily as a conduit for getting content to Facebook with the added benefit of exposure through another popular service. I always have Firefox open and use an add-on called Twitter Bar to quickly post status updates. My blog feeds Twitter which then feeds Facebook. That’s a bit redundant since FB picks up the blog anyway, but its RSS interface is not exactly timely, so the effect has been to spread notifications out over a few hours thus increasing the possibility that people will see it.

I follow a few people on Twitter using its RSS feature, but mostly I stick to Facebook. That may change now. For one, I hear there may be plans to add Facebook functions to Qwitter, but even without that this program is a uniquely effective way to handle real-time Twitter monitoring and participation for a screen reader user. It works directly with your screen reader of choice or you can use Windows’ SAPI speech interface. It relies on a collection of hotkeys much as your screen reader does and therefore can be used from anywhere. There is no need to switch to the window where it is running. It’s as close as you will get as a blind person to having a docked program on the screen like a sighted person might use for a similar purpose. It notifies you when new things come in and you then interact with it through the keyboard to read and respond to the posts. There are a lot of keystrokes to remember, but they are mostly tied by pneumonic to functions you’d expect. It can do just about anything with Twitter that you can do on the web site. The only exception I found was changing basic account information, which I suspect Twitter doesn’t provide API calls to do.

I would be remiss if I didn’t give credit to Rick Harmon of the Blind Geek Zone for turning me on to this program. Check out his site for all kinds of info on all things technological as a blind user.

All that is just to say we are blessed to be living here and now. I don’t know what the future holds. In fact if things go the way I think they might, a statement like that may not be so easy to make in a few years. That is unless Jesus’ return is immanent, which seems very likely though we cannot know for certain. For now, appreciate what you have. Find ways to share with those around you. This is a pretty amazing place, but nothing compared to that which awaits those who trust in Jesus. If you don’t yet have Jesus, all the cool toys aren’t going to be worth anything in the end. I’d be thrilled to talk to you more on that subject if you are interested.

I suspect that only one child in the history of humanity accepted His parents’ rules without complaint. We don’t like rules. We don’t like anything that keeps us from having what we want when we want it. Often we rebel and do as we please anyway. When we were children, our parents responded to this rebellion with some form of punishment. In this case the consequence of our action is contrived, but with good reason. If we do not learn that our actions have consequences as children, we will learn it as adults and they will be much more severe. Examine our prison population if you need proof. A majority of the offenders there lacked strong discipline at home.

Why did our parents treat us this way? In most cases, they were not exercising power for its own sake. They did not take pleasure in causing us pain. They did what they did because they loved us. All of the rules, admonishments, lectures, and punishments were intended to shape and protect us. They were saying, “I love you. I want the best for you. Don’t hurt yourself.” Most of us figure that out at some point in our lives. We come to understand that love doesn’t require unrestrained indulgence.

This letter is written to all of us, but in particular to you who for whatever reason may have kept your distance from God or “religion.” Or, maybe you just aren’t comfortable with everything that’s in the Bible. For the purposes of this post I’m going to assume at least an acknowledgement that God exists and has a part in human affairs.

It is no mere accident of language that God defines Himself as our Father. He gives us (though regrettably not including me) children so that we can understand that aspect of His love for us. He sets boundaries for us and gives us instruction to protect and nurture us because He loves us. If you’ve ever read the first few books of the Bible, you saw a whole lot of rules. They are there to help us understand our relationship to a holy God and our abject need for His redemption, but many of them also served to protect His people. In an era when no one could have known about the unseen pathogens that spread sickness and disease, God provided detailed instructions regarding clean and unclean that kept the people as safe as possible. All of the rules were motivated by love.

Though Jesus has made a new and better way (Rom 5:8-9) and we know that salvation cannot be earned (Eph. 28,) He has given us instructions that are for our own good. The ultimate tragedy is to refuse the gift that Jesus offers in Himself. Miss that and nothing else really matters. Yet it remains true that following the principles of living that He laid out for us in the Bible will keep us from much harm. This is the ache that is in my heart when I see people making poor choices. When we share the Gospel message, one of the verses commonly referenced is Romans 6:23, which says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” We speak of the final damnation in Hell, but one need not look so far to see the truth in this passage. Most of us will experience the consequences of our sin while we yet live on this earth. This is often true even after we have repented and been forgiven. We may be spared the ultimate consequence, but some things are going to happen just that’s because the way things work. Unless God in his mercy intervenes, we will not be spared earthly repercussions.

Oh loved ones, I wish I could call you by name, but that would not be appropriate here. Choose life! Enough suffering comes to us just because we live in a fallen world. Please do not add to your misery by choosing short term pleasures that will bring you long term pain. Study God’s word and live by it. He makes no promise of freedom from suffering in this life. In fact if you are truly devoted you may find that too brings you grief, but the reward is eternal! Do not turn away from the One who loves you with everything He has. I would see you truly live and not die. In my own poor way I love you, but His love will never fail.

Thus it was that I began my little misadventure yesterday. It doesn’t feel right to label the experience that way. Overall I enjoyed it. I did make my destination and had a great time while there. It was just the traveling that didn’t go so well.

My destination was the Plano chapter of Blind Ambitions Groups. It’s a local support group that meets once a month in various locations around the Dallas area. My wife and I attended the Dallas meeting one time and found out about the Plano group, which we also made just one time. Things never seemed to work out for us to go back. I had looked into going by myself before, but using the DART (local bus service) site to plot the route made it look more difficult to get to than going to the Dallas meeting that is much further away.

I don’t remember what made me try it on Google Maps. It might have been simply the discovery that the service is better than DART’s own for plotting a trip by public transit. I should note that at last check the site had accessibility issues. They have a more accessible version, but it seemed to lack the most helpful features. It could be I didn’t spend enough time looking. I just fall back on ZoomText and use the regular site. Recently they have even included walking directions so that you know how to travel between the bus or train stop and your destination. This was my first time to try them out. I’ll tell more on that shortly.

The trip started out well enough. I got on the same bus to the train station that I take when I go down town for work. The driver saw my white cane and wanted to be sure I knew I didn’t have to pay the full fair. I almost always pay full fair. It is partly because I have never taken the time to go get the ID card that would officially qualify me, and partly because I have never liked to take handouts I don’t really need. It is a reasonable argument that whatever I think about subsidies they do exist and my taxes are paying for them, but it just never feels right. For the same reason I have not tried to get myself onto the paratransit service, for which my qualification is questionable based on my proximity to a bus line.

Things started to go south when I made it to the train station. Literally, I took the south bound train instead of the north bound train I needed to be on. Don’t ask me why. There is no confusion as to where to get on each train, so I can only blame myself for that one. I realized my error as the doors closed behind me and the train pulled away from the station. I had to get off at the next stop and wait for the one going back north, costing me a valuable ten minutes or more. The north bound train was standing room only and the operator did not announce the stops as they are supposed to do when no automated system is in place. Maybe he or she wasn’t aware that the system wasn’t working. I made it to the down town Plano stop without further incident, asking my fellow passengers for help.

Then I needed to get from the station to the church where the meeting was held. That should be no problem, right? I have my trusty Google Maps walking directions. The trouble is that they were a little misleading. They may have been technically accurate, but they left me the impression that one street would curve and become another when in fact what confronted me looked like a standard intersection. Maybe J Avenue ended at a right angle there, but I was confused. In an instant my internal map was shredded and I didn’t know where to go. I knew the general lay of the land and thought I knew where some of the major streets were, but I could not find most of the signs using my monocular. After a bit of wandering around and a conversation with a friendly apartment dweller, I made my way to 15^th street where the church is located and got to the meeting about thirty minutes late.

I thoroughly enjoyed the meeting. Amazingly or maybe not so amazingly listening to how the order process kept being interrupted by random conversation, the planned meal had not been ordered yet. It was a very small group, but I like that. The larger the group the more isolated I feel. I made new friends and got to know another one a little better.

When the meeting was over, I had to get back home. I had no problem getting back to the train station. I got an earlier train than the one I planned for, so when I got off I thought I could walk the approximately two miles from the train station to my house before the next bus would get me there.

I suppose I might have learned from the first experience that relying on what Google told me might not be the best idea, especially since it was starting to get dark. No, how hard can it be? All I had to do was make it down to Arapaho and go over to Custer. Yes, there is a major highway between me and my destination, but I’ve handled that before. I didn’t foresee any major difficulty in doing it last night.

Maybe in the full light of day I might have seen a better way to get across the on and off ramps to Central Expressway and continue my journey home, but what happened instead is that I made it under the bridge and then realized that I was in a very bad position. There is a large area of concrete off the road where I was standing, but in the failing light it was hard to be certain that I wasn’t in the road. Between me and safety was the off ramp to the highway and anyone making that turn would not have been able to see me and stop before hitting me. I could not see around the concrete wall to attempt crossing the exit before a car would come flying down the ramp. Getting into that situation wasn’t easy, and when I went back to see if I could retrace my steps to the bus station I realized I was in no better position on the other side.

After a couple of unnerving false starts, I saw that I was in trouble. I just stood there looking around and hoping some kind soul would rescue me. I started holding my cane up over my head, but I was not in a good place for anyone to stop if they were of a mind to. They probably thought I was begging. I finally managed to swallow my pride, and not knowing what else to do, I called 911. I might have called my wife or other friends in the area, but I didn’t know if I could tell them how to safely get to me. So it was that I finish my trek in a police car. At least I wasn’t in the back. Thank you Sergeant Holly. I don’t think I’ll be trying that again.

To cap off this fine evening and explain what walking on water has to do with anything, I entered my house to find that our water heater began leaking while I was out. Linda had everything in hand, and I was just glad to be safely home. My first thought was to rejoice, because the One who really walks on water has reached out His hand and pulled us up. I’m ready for next time, but I think I’ll wait for the bus.

That grants considerable liberty to state and local government. In fact many would be horrified by the strictly religious nature of many a jurisdiction of the time. This leads to a more philosophical question. What are the reasonable responsibilities of a local government? It has considerable latitude within the framework of state and federal law and would have a lot more if the Constitution were properly observed and its principles carried forward by the states.

A local government must of necessity be concerned with the mechanics of day to day life in a way that higher entities need not be, but I remain convinced that sound principles of government will work at all levels. It should provide protection and keep the peace. It probably must to some extent be involved in the management of local infrastructure, but should stay out of the way as much as possible.

However, I also recognize that this kind of government only works when the people as a whole are of good character. If they refuse to function within the law and with proper respect for those around them, then it becomes necessary to have more authority in the hands of the government. John Adams said of the US Constitution, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This is why there are some truths we cannot ignore, no matter how offensive they may be to a small segment of the population.

What does this mean in practical terms? I am still left with questions about what the local government should and should not do. I suppose one answer would be whatever the citizens decide that it should do. This is reasonable, but can we reach a point just as we have at the federal level when government has grown beyond the control of its citizens? When this happens, it is our right and responsibility to regain that control. Local municipalities regularly commit acts of tyranny every bit as egregious as those perpetrated at the federal level, less frightening only because they lack the overwhelming power of the Big Brother state. When they act in concert as in the case of New London, Connecticut one begins to lose hope. In this case the High Court ought to have done its job and protected the rights of the individual.

Citizens also may abuse their power. I wish I could find the article I recently read by Thomas Sowell I think explaining how zoning gets misused to assert the rights of one group over the rights of another. I understand the desire to keep some sort of order. Honestly I’m glad the city can keep my neighbor from tearing down his house and replacing it with a porn shop, but the question needs to be asked whether I should have the right to tell him what to do with his property. How is it that my rights are more important than his? Let’s consider something a little less controversial. I recently attended a birthday party at a restaurant featuring a large outdoor deck with a mariachi band and Aztec dancers. The restaurant backed right up to a residential neighborhood. From our seats on the deck we could look right into someone’s pool in their back yard. I suppose if the owner of that house were the partying type he was in a prime location. He got free entertainment every night. I just kept thinking it must be a terrible annoyance to the people who live in that neighborhood to have that kind of noise going on all the time.

I don’t know who came first, but whose rights should the city protect? Whose rights are actually in question? We have defined a lot of things as rights that are not rights at all. There may be a question of what is right in this situation, but not of rights. Should not government be a defender of what is right?

Is it right for a city to force a resident to modify his property because his neighbors don’t like the way it looks? I suppose one may argue that the home owner has a responsibility to maintain the standards of the neighborhood in which he has chosen to live as a courtesy to his neighbors. He may in fact do financial harm to them by lowering the value of their properties. Is it right for them to force him to do so, even if it will cause him harm?

These are some of the questions I ponder as I watch my own city government in action and contemplate my level of participation in it. I have not even touched on the monetary issues. I suspect that if its functions were reduced to those essential to the maintenance of the city and the rest were left to private enterprise, there would be no monetary questions and we would enjoy even better service.

I would like to know what others think about these things. Your comments are welcome on the blog or on my Facebook notes, but if you live in the city of Richardson, Texas, I urge you to respond to this post on the Facebook group page I created to advance the cause of responsible government in our city.

The two stories are in Matt 25:14-30 and Luke 19:11-27. On a little side note, be careful of the headings that might be in your Bible. In this case, the one over the Luke passage is particularly misleading. This story is not primarily about money usage, and that is made apparent from the content of verse 11. Headings are great, but they are also a form of commentary inserted by the publisher and should be taken only as guides for finding particular passages and not necessarily accurate descriptions of what they mean.

Comparison and Contrast

Though these stories are similar, they differ in significant ways and so I take them to be told by Jesus on separate occasions. It appears from context that he shared them at the approximate time of His entry into Jerusalem days before the crucifixion. They both share a theme of responsible stewardship while the master is not present. Mathew’s account is part of a series of parables emphasizing preparedness for His return. Luke tells us in 19:11 that Jesus is responding specifically to the belief that His kingdom would be established immediately. The string of parables in Mathew may be a response to a similarly motivated question (Matt 24:3.) Both highlight three slaves, though Luke says that there were ten slaves given one mina each.

Both parables feature a master giving charge of money to his slaves. In Matthew’s account each was given resources according to his ability. Luke’s version gives the same amount to all. In Matthew the two successful slaves both double what they have been given. In Luke they increase ten times and five times respectively.

Luke adds another dimension to his story by recording that the master was a ruling official. Jesus is clearly illustrating His kingdom in this parable. The dissidents who refuse His rule are to be slain before him, just as all who reject Jesus will face a final judgment when He returns.

The accounts of the unproductive slave seem to differ only in minor detail. The major points are consistent between them. They both have an unreasonable fear of the master born of a misunderstanding of his character. They describe him as opportunistic and demanding at best. The description they provide implies evil rather than good (Matt 25:24; Luke 19:21.) They both choose to hide their master’s money instead of using it for the purpose he intended. They attempt to justify their action by means of the accusations cited above.

In both cases the master’s response is also similar. Since both slaves behaved in the same manner, we may apply the judgments of the master in both passages to both slaves. They are described as lazy, wicked, and worthless. It appears that if they had even done the minimum of putting the money into a bank they would have been spared. I will not attempt to address the implied indictment of banks except to point out that God had commanded His people not to charge each other interest (Ex 22:25.) Jesus is speaking to Jewish people here, so this is the context they would have for the reference to banks.

Both slaves have their money taken away and given to the most productive. In Matthew Jesus goes on to say that the worthless slave is to be thrown out into “the outer darkness.” He uses language here common to other references that He makes to Hell. We may safely deduce that the slave of Luke’s story is bound for the same fate.

Conclusions

These are illustrations of principles of the Kingdom of God. They tell us what God is going to do, how we must respond, and what will be the consequences of our response. Jesus is master and king. He gives to us different resources in the form of money, ability, circumstance or anything else that we may use. Some things are given according to our ability to use them. Others are given to everyone equally. We all have access to His love, grace and mercy. All who have believed in the Lord Jesus have been given of His Spirit (1 John 4:13.)

We must now choose what we will do with what we have been given. It was given to us to put to use. It is expected that we will cause it to multiply. Some of us will produce an abundance so great that it seems to others to be too much. Some of us night not be able to produce very much at all. God’s requirement is that we do all that we are able to do. We bring Him joy when we put His gifts to good use, and He will reward us accordingly.

The lazy slaves in these parables are not simply complacent nor are they ignorant of the master’s expectations. They have made a conscious decision not to do what has been asked of them. This becomes clear as they attempt to justify their actions upon the master’s return. Despite the evidence of his goodness they deem him to be unreasonable, demanding, and dishonest; taking what does not belong to him.

We do the same. We redefine God in a manner that permits us to do as we choose. Perverting the good news of His grace we cite our inability to live according to His standard and falsely justify our sin. We take what He has given and hide it in a hole where it can do no good for us or anyone else. We make Him into a fierce and tyrannical being and then act in self-righteous rebellion against our manufactured nemesis. All the while our true enemy laughs, knowing that we have sealed our own doom.

Another thing that strikes me about these parables is that there does not seem to be an expectation that the money is to be returned. Though it clearly belongs to the master and each slave brings it back along with the increase they have made from it, he seems to indicate that it will remain in their charge as if it were their own (Matt 25:28; Luke 19:24.) This exposes another flaw in the thinking of the lazy slaves. The money was given to the slaves for their own benefit, not that of their master. By returning unused what was given to them, they completely missed the master’s intent, which was to bless them, insulting him on several levels.

God loves us. From the beginning he intended to lavish it upon us and that we would in turn give it to each other. This is how we return everything that we have been given. We multiply it by sharing with those around us. When we keep it to ourselves thinking that we need only return it to Him in exchange for salvation, we have become worthless for His purposes.

What follows is hard for us to accept, especially in our culture of increasingly socialist ideas of equality. It even sounds crewel. Take away from the one who has nothing even what he does have and give it to the richest one? How is that justice? This tells us several things. God rewards success. He even rewards extra success with extra blessing. This is true justice, for the one who works hardest deserves reward commensurate with his effort. This does not mean that God in his grace and mercy cannot reward equally someone who though just as committed did not produce as much. See Matthew 20:1-16.

Consider also that none of these slaves had anything before their master entrusted it to them. In the same way we have nothing that God did not give us, therefore it is foolish of us to judge Him for doing as He pleases with that which is His in the first place. The unproductive slave had nothing even when he had the money for two reasons. First, as we have just seen it is his master’s money. Second, he made no use of it. It did him no good because he hid it away and did nothing with it.

This should serve as a strong warning to all of us. We may genuinely cherish what we have, both the tangible and the intangible. Imagine you inherited a collection of rare and beautiful art. You have a family and you have been struggling to make ends meet. This collection will set you for life and allow you to care for your family. Invested wisely the proceeds would benefit generations to come. However, you cannot bear to part with it. You keep it in a closet. Every so often you secretly pull it out and admire it. Maybe you even let your closest friends get a peak at it, but then you hide it away again. Meanwhile your children go hungry. Who among us would do that? Yet that is exactly what we do with a gift that is far more precious than anything man ever created on this earth. We hide it behind the walls of our churches and grudgingly let a few people slip in and have a look. It does not occur to most of us to take it outside and share it. If it does, it’s often someone else’s job. We just keep this life saving gift all to ourselves. If this is our attitude, maybe we need to question whether we really have it at all. It is a gift that is of no value to us or to our Lord if we will not share it.

Maybe you think that you have nothing to offer. In one sense that’s true of all of us. We have nothing that is not from God. If you have received Him, you have the greatest gift of all, and it is your responsibility to share it. God didn’t stop there. I know He has given you other things that he intends for you to share. My wife, Linda, and I attend a church with some people who are barely able to move or to communicate. They have a purpose in God’s kingdom. When I speak in a few weeks I will remind them that one doesn’t need a mouth to pray and that God responds to intercessory prayer. No matter how much or how little we think we have been given, God expects us to multiply it.