According to this article in the Boston Globe, the US military is considering opening recruitment stations outside of the United States, holding out the carrot of US citizenship as a reward for foreign nationals who join. Now, I have no particular problem with this in and of itself, but it smacks of hypocrisy to do something like this at the same time we talk about building walls to keep immigrants out.

If a non-government agency went into foreign countries to actively recruit employees to come to this country, there would be outrage. Why is it OK for the military to do so? Granted, according to the article, this is only being proposed, but, apparently, current law allows it. Only Pentagon policy prevents it.

(HT: Imitatio Christi)

Alan Hartung has blogged about an article he published at THEOOZE, looking at the 80/20 rule. Basically, the 80/20 rule says that, in any church, 20% of the people will do all of the work of the church, while the other 80% just attend services, without being more actively involved.

He starts out talking about “traditional” approaches to this problem, but then he takes an unexpected twist. He posits that this ratio is fundamentally embedded into existing church structure. After all, there are only so many “jobs” to do for a Sunday morning worship service, and, as long as that service is the primary focus of church, then churches actually need those 80% in order to keep the 20% busy!

While I think that may be a bit extreme, I do think he raises a serious point. It echoes what my wife has been saying to me about worship taking too great a role in the life of the church today. Now, before you start the fires to burn me as a heretic: I’m not saying that worship is unimportant – it is important. But so is service outside of the church, and study, etc, etc.

As Alan points out, a lot of those 80% like not having any responsibilities, and will probably leave the church if more is expected of them. That’s to be expected. The more significant point he raises, however, is that you’ll probably also lose some of the 20%! They like being needed and at the center of attention, and may, at some level, resist change which takes that away. They may say, and even believe, that getting others more involved is a good thing, but then attempt to block changes that might help accomplish it. A few of those 80% leaving might be painful, but expected. Losing even one or two of the 20%, however, might scare the leadership into rethinking their position.

Of course, we could take this a step further. Maybe the 80/20, rather than being embedded in the church’s structure, is embedded in our human nature. After all, most organizations and institutions have a few leaders, and many members. So perhaps that’s not inherently a bad thing.

So, what do you think? Is Alan right? Is the 80/20 rule implicit in our church structure? And, if so, is that a problem?

We’re having a New Year’s Eve party at our house. Everyone’s invited. The festivities will be starting around 8PM, and will go until whenever. We’re hoping that the weather will cooperate, and we can have the pool heated and ready for a “first swim of the new year.” The hot tub will be going in any case.

An RSVP would be appreciated, though don’t let a failure to do so keep you from showing up. Let me or Wendy know if you need directions. (If nothing else, you can use my “Contact Me” page )

BTW – parking near our house can be a serious problem, unless you don’t mind a bit of a walk. Car pooling is always a good idea.

OK, Monty Python fans

Spamalot will be at the Hobby Center May 22 – June 17, 2007. For some reason, Wendy doesn’t seem interested in going, but Kate and I definitely are. I’ve been looking at possible dates, and I thought I’d throw it out there to see if there might be others interested in joining us. I suspect that this particular show is one that will be more enjoyable with a group.

Anyone interested?

I know, I know. Wendy (and probably others) thinks I’m a “privacy nut.” I digitally sign all my emails, and would prefer it if all the email I sent and received were encrypted as well. But read on.

The government (and it’s agents) need a search warrant to read your mail. Most people, myself included, assumed that applied to electronic mail as well as physical mail. As this article explains. that’s not true. Apparently, the argument is that, since the mail is stored in a third-party location (your ISP’s server, usually), it’s fair game for law enforcement. I personally don’t buy that. You’re renting that space from the ISP, so I don’t see why it’s any different that renting your house (and mailbox) from your landlord.

Many people argue that, since they have nothing to hide, what difference does it make whether the police can read my mail or not? Well, I think it makes a big difference. Even disregarding the basic principles involved, comments in emails can easily be taken out of context. I think a burden of proof equal to that of postal mail is appropriate. How would you feel about your local police department secretly opening and reading your private mail, whether postal or electronic?