How Risky Is It, Really?

Bears are much scarier than cars. You will pass hundreds of cars, if you drive through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. You may see a bear, but you very well may not. I could only find one instance of a bear killing a person in the GSMNP (on May 21, 2000). However, in 2019, Nine people were killed in car wrecks in the GSMNP.

Some things are scary that will not harm us. Some things will harm us that are not scary. Actual rather than perceived risks to life and health are what we should be most concerned about. So, how do we get past what is scary but what is not risky? How do we learn to take precautions when things are risky but not scary? In other words, how can we be sure that we are doing the right things to keep us safe and healthy? That’s what David Ropeik’s book, How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don’t Always Match the Facts is all about (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010).

What Ropeik does is try to help us see what makes things feel risky or scary to us. Then, he provides advice on how to get better at evaluating actual risk.

Ropeik suggests that there are eleven things that make people, situations, or things more scary.

  1. Trust. When trust is low, fear is higher. For example, if we don’t trust our government, what they tell us to do feels scarier, even if it is not. The converse is also true as well.
  2. Loss. This is complicated, but if the potential loss is great, then it feels scarier, even if it is not a great risk. Losing a house to a tornado feels scarier than having credit cards, even though the latter is more likely to bring you to financial ruin.
  3. Control. If we feel in control, we feel safe. Airplanes are much safer than automobiles. However, in an automobile, we feel more in control. Continue reading “How Risky Is It, Really?”

The Science of Aging

Can we live a thousand years? I have my doubts.

Can we significantly reduce the effects of aging? It seems likely.

Understanding our genetic code and other research has given some insight into how aging works and how it its effects can be minimized, and there is promise of much more to come.

Newt Gingrich, known for politics, is also interested in history and science, and his podcast provides a good introduction into where we are on the science of aging. You can listen to it here.

A couple of insights that you could implement right away. There is a “longevity gene” that seems to be activated under stress. You can do two things to activate that gene. First, you can do some strenuous exercise. Second, you can do intermittent fasting. Both interviewees on the Newt’s World podcast recommend a 16 hour fast each day (most likely attained by skipping breakfast). A sedentary lifestyle where you graze constantly on food will keep that gene inactive.

The other point that he brings out is how much of our medicare costs are related to the illnesses of the last two years of life. If you could eliminate the common difficulties of the end of life, you could reduce medicare expenses dramatically. In addition, if people are healthier longer, then they can also contribute to society longer. So, reducing or reversing the effects of aging has a lot of ramifications for problems that we may currently find intractable.

Have you done any research on this subject? Any insights that you have found worth sharing? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Livin’ in America

As the 4th of July approaches, we Americans find ourselves in a nation with amazing opportunities, incredible economic power, and considerable challenges. As Christians, we face the challenges of secularization and polarization. Secularization is the result of less and less of the non-church going population identifying as Christians. Polarization is division around a small set of issues that pits one part of our population against another. How are we as Christians to live in the 21st century America? What should our basic stance be?

I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I have a few thoughts. Recently, I have been studying Romans 12, and it occurred to me that Paul is writing to a group of people who had the opportunities of Rome, the benefits of its political and economic power, and the challenges of being a minority religion in a great empire. What stance were they to take?

Let me summarize with three words: honor, love, and joy. They were to be people who knew how to love and honor others and had a joy not based on their circumstances. This was the stance they were to take toward Rome, and it seems to me that these three virtues could serve us well as a basic stance toward the United States as well.

The first word is honor. “Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” To honor is to esteem highly and to acknowledge what is good and excellent in someone or something. In the case of the ruler, it means honoring his or her position. “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience” (Rom. 13:5).

There is much to criticize in Rome. It was brutal in many ways. However, it was the ruling power. It administered the government in a large area. The rule of Rome was tough for many, but it also brought a lot of benefits and opportunities for commerce. There was more peace within the Empire than there would have been otherwise. Various ethnic groups and nationalities could interact peacefully. Rome provided a governing system that allowed culture to develop and the Gospel to travel to the ends of the earth. This is something that should be honored. In every place, God establishes a government and a hierarchy, and this should be honored.

However, governors aren’t the only ones who deserve honor. There are people around us who have many gifts, and we receive benefits from many of those gifts. This deserves our honor. In fact, the Apostle tells us to be people who “outdo one another in showing honor” (Rom. 12:10b).

The second word is love. The Christians made extensive use of one of the Greek words for love, agapē. It was rooted in the love or agapē of God who loved us when were His enemies. He reconciled us to Himself (Rom. 5:8). That’s the sort of love they wanted to have toward each other and those outside the church, following Jesus who said, “Love your enemies” (Luke 6:27).

What does this look like? It looks like blessing those who curse you (Rom. 12:14), not returning evil for evil (12:17a), doing what is right in the eyes of everyone (12:17b), and seeking as much as possible to live in peace with everyone (Rom. 12:18). It means overcoming evil with good (Rom. 12:21). This is the sort of thing that would have and actually did impress the Romans.

Do we have room to grow here? How often do we let ourselves be drawn into the tit-for-tat polarization that characterizes our society? How many of us have learned that when others attack us “the best way of avenging [ourselves} is not to become like the wrongdoer,” as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius said in his Meditations (6.6)?

When we can really stand up and love in the face of great challenges, the world will stand up and take notice, as they did in the case of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Ed Thomas family (see the story here).

So, why do we not honor and love others? I think that sometimes it is because we are so afraid that things will not turn out well for us individually or collectively that we cannot focus on giving others what they need. And that’s why we need joy. Joy is a major theme of Scripture. In Romans 12, Paul told the Romans that they were to be “joyful in hope.” He told them that the kingdom of God was all about joy (Romans 14:17). His conclusion of the teaching in Romans was a blessing that they would be filled with joy (Romans 15:13). Rejoice! This is a key to the Christian life.

Dallas Willard describes joy as the internal elation at knowing that all things will turn out well for us. So, joy is rooted in hope, a confident expectation of good things. That’s why joy can also co-exist with sorrow as Paul says in 2 Cor. 6:10, “sorrowful yet always rejoicing.” There are hard things along the way that requires us to be patient in affliction (Rom. 12:12), but they don’t keep us from being “joyful in hope.”

Nowhere is the foundation for this joy expressed more clearly than in what Paul says in Rom. 8:18-39. There he says that the present sufferings are not worthy to be compared with the glory that will be revealed in us (Rom. 8:18). He says that we know that all things work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28). The reason for this is that nothing will separate us from the love of God in Christ (Rom. 8:38-39).

Honor, love, and joy. Will it work? Yes and no. We cannot say for certain that such an approach will “win” our culture. What we can say is that it will be better for us, and it will have a positive impact. The approach of honor, love, and joy is inherently more helpful highly reactive approach to the politics, news, and culture of the day. As the Apostle Peter said: “For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:8, 11).

That’s not to say we should avoid politics. We should be involved, but we need to enter into with the character of Christ, as those who honor, love, and rejoice. We should do nothing that compromises our character. We should be above party spirit, even in the midst of contentious issues. We should avoid any blind devotion to groups, causes, or people. Character first!

Political involvement profits a little, but being a loving and joyful is far more profitable for us and those around us, having profit for this life and the life to come. The Apostle Paul recommended honor, love, and joy as the basic stance of the Roman Christians in the rich and yet challenging environment of Rome. This same basic stance can serve us again in our day.

Nationalism, Globalism, and Rugby

The movie Invictus explains how Nelson Mandela embraced the white South African passion for rugby and made it a sport for the new multi-racial democracy. It is a wonderful and inspiring movie, and I would highly recommend it. After I watched it, I thought, rugby is a sport I could get into.

Several years passed with that thought in the back of my mind. From time to time, I would watch a little bit of rugby when it was on TV. Then, this past summer, I watched Amazon Prime’s show All or Nothing that featured a season of the New Zealand All Blacks, the New Zealand national rugby team. I loved it.

After that, I spent some time figuring out how I could watch the New Zealand All Blacks. Eventually, I discovered that you could watch them on ESPN Plus. The matches were at convenient times like 3:00 a.m. So, I decided to get up as close to the original time as possible on a Saturday morning to watch the replay. For most of August and September of last year, I would start my Saturday’s with coffee and rugby.

Since then, I’ve gotten into new teams. I try to watch one rugby match every week. I often watch the finals of the Rugby Sevens tournaments that are held around the world. Rugby Sevens is played with 7 players instead of the normal 15 on each side. My passion for rugby has only increased.

What makes rugby so much worth watching?

  1. It has the intensity of American football. If you like the intensity of football, then you can enjoy rugby. If you think football is barbaric and abhorrent, you probably won’t like rugby. By the way, American football and modern rugby both evolved from an early form of rugby.
  2. It lasts half the time of American football. You can watch the whole match in two hours instead of the 3.5 to 4 that it takes to watch American football.
  3. It keeps going. The clock almost never stops. One exception is the very brief replays, but the officials do the replays with an efficiency that puts most American sports to shame. Other than that, the game keeps going. It’s like the continuous play of soccer or basketball with the physicality of American football.
  4. The standings are based on points and not just wins. Like soccer, the leagues are organized around points. So, there is always motivation to keep playing and scoring. You get extra points for keeping the games close or for winning by large margins. This makes the whole game important. You never have a situation where teams are just waiting for the game to be over and putting in their worst players.
  5. It is international. Watching rugby has made me realize how insulated Americans are. Rugby is a truly international sport. Nations play against other nations. The Guiness Pro 14 League, for example, consists of different teams from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, and South Africa. Super Rugby is a pro league for teams from the Southern Hemisphere. There is a world cup (this September!) and not just a national title that is give the misnomer of a “world series.”

That last point has really broadened my horizons. A couple of months ago, I listened to a TED Talk by Wanis Kabbaj entitled “How Nationalism and Globalism Can Coexist.” He explains how much that we like in our nation is derived from global sources and how those who care most for their nation care most for the world. Nationalism and globalism can coexist. It’s a helpful talk, which I would recommend.

Rugby has provided me a visual illustration of how globalism and nationalism can coexist. The international competition is about national pride. It’s very moving to see the various teams ardently singing their national anthems. It is a celebration of the individual nations, the powerful thought of all that one’s ancestors have sacrificed to make your nation what it is. See an example in the video below.

At the same time, it is an international competition. It is a community of nations that are playing together and enjoying the goodness of the sport. It celebrates the camaraderie that nations can have together in proper competition.

In fact, nothing beats the international competition. It is the pinnacle of rugby competition. The nations can make one another better. They can work together and compete together in peaceful ways.

Yet, without the love of one’s own nation, you would not see the intensity that you see in international competition. Those who play for the national teams play for something larger than themselves, and it seems to motivate them to give their all to win.

Rugby is fun to watch, and it has broadened my horizons. It illustrates to me the good of both nationalism and globalism.