Why Logical Holes In A Religion Actually Strengthens Its Validity

Beggar's Table Banner

I read an interesting interview this week about a Christian magazine that has been around for over 20 years. The interesting part was not really so much that it was conducted by an atheist and posted on an atheist apologetics website – that has happened before. The interesting part was that both sides respected each other and didn’t let the interview devolve into a back and forth debate over the apparent logical holes in each side.

This debate is usually what you see when atheists and Christians meet (or really any religion and Christianity meets) – both sides pull out what they think is a logical flaw in the other side and try to stump the other.  The problem is, I have never really seem any point in a debate like this that hasn’t already been made a hundred times.

So – newsflash to all would-be apologists for any religion – any point you have to make has already been made.  And a logic counter argument has also already been brought to the table.  You have already been refuted before you make your point.

But guess what? Those logical flaws that you found in the other side doesn’t prove that they are wrong, either.  Sorry, they don’t.

Look at it this way – if God exists, then this being is much more complex and superior to us in every way. There are going to be things about this being that we can’t possibly understand. So are the logical flaws that we find with any view of God really flaws that disprove existence or are they actually failings of an inferior mind (that would therefore have inferior logic)?  Better make sure you know that one for sure before you dismiss it.

But if God exists, you might ask – then how do you account for these places where we don’t get it? Wouldn’t God want us to understand it all, to have every question answered? Why would God make it so hard to figure out which religion is the right one to follow?

It is all about free will and faith.

If all of the questions were answered, and there was an air tight logical case to be made for the one true religion, then humanity would have no choice but to follow. That would effectively end free will and make us slaves to logical thought. It would also eliminate all faith.  When everything is answered, no faith is required.  All of this would turn us into organic robots – and there is very little true pleasure to be had in interacting with robots that follow you because they are trapped logically.

So all of those logical holes that many use to “prove” that God doesn’t exist or that Christianity aren’t true are to me what proves it all to be true. The true God would leave holes and questions so that we would have the choose to follow or not rather than being mentally backed in a corner. The true God would want us to take a step of faith even though we don’t have all the answers – because the only one with all the answers would be God.

I personally don’t want the responsibility of being God, so I have to accept that I will never have all the answers. I’m too opinionated to be agnostic. And I have studied world religions enough to know that there is no way for them to all be true or to all just be different paths to the same God. There is just too much that they all disagree on at the core.  I have already stated one logical reason for believing that there is a God, but I am have experienced many, many more. If God does exist, even if in some ways we are not able to fully understand how, then at least one of the religions out there has to be right. Why is that? If God cares enough to obscure His/Her/Its existence just enough so that we need free will and faith to find the Truth, then He/She/It would also make sure that at least one religion contained enough truth in it for us to find Him/Her/It.

Will Love Win In Our Response To Rob Bell?

Beggar's Table Banner

I have been somewhat intrigued by the controversy that has surrounded Rob Bell’s new book called Love Wins. Not enough to buy the book yet (no time to read with a new baby in the house), but intrigued by the responses from various places.  I can’t find a good summary of the controversy, but I’ll link to a short interview with Bell where he gets to speak his side: Is Rob Bell a Universalist? on Relevant Magazine’s website.

Before I offer my commentary on this matter, a bit of a disclaimer.  If you don’t like this disclaimer, then you probably won’t like the rest of this post.  I firmly believe that when we get to heaven, we will be shocked by how wrong we were on many things, both small and large.  If we could get everything right on Earth, then we wouldn’t need God, the Bible, or the Church.  So we’re all going to get some things wrong.

In fact, I’ll probably look back in a few years and shake my head at this post.  I have been coming to the revelation recently that my way of seeing things is always evolving, sometimes going to new areas, some times circling back to stuff that I previously rejected and realizing that I was wrong to reject.  One of things that bugs me the most is people who act like they know everything or at least act like they are better than you because they have come to a different conclusion.  Statements like “I used to think that way, but now I know better” really seem completely arrogant to me, maybe because I look back at when I have said them and can see how much arrogance was in my heart.

So here is the kicker – of course Rob Bell got something wrong.  But go pick any book you have by any great author and guess what? There will be something wrong in there, too.  John Piper, C.S. Lewis, Mother Theresa, you name it – they are all human and therefore had to have some error in their thinking. It’s a nagging little fact that I think many Christians like to conveniently overlook for people they place in the “I’m okay with you pile” but throw up huge red flags for with people in the “I’m not okay with you” stack.

Some have accused Bell of being a universalist – something that just isn’t true.  Universalists believe that at some point everyone who ever lived will be in heaven when all is said and done.  No matter what they believed or did.  Bell has stated specifically that he believes many will go to Hell.

From what I can tell, Bell is trying to explore an issue that most Christians at best try to ignore, and at worst come up with Biblically unsound beliefs on.  This issue is the one of what happens to people who die never having heard an accurate presentation of who Jesus is.  Some believe that it is our fault for not going to them and telling them.  This is very wrong in that the Bible is clear that God saves people, not us.  So for the billions of people around the world that die with no idea who Jesus is – there has to be something else.

Otherwise, how did the beggar get to heaven in the Biblical story of Lazarus and the beggar?

And then there are the people who never get an accurate idea of who Jesus is.  I’m thinking of people like Muslims in the middle east that only read about a prophet names Isa and then meet one Christian person that tells them they need to repent of their sins or Jesus will smite them.  They decide to reject this “turn or burn” version of Jesus (understandably).  Would it be loving of God to send them to Hell because they heard the wrong idea of him?

Some people talk about the witness of our conscious and the witness of creation that the book of Romans speak of… the idea that basically God has left evidence of himself for everyone to see and that if you never hear about Jesus you will get in to heaven based on how you respond to that evidence.  Basically, if you are good enough, you get in to heaven.  The problem with that is – how good do you have to be to get past the line of being “in”?  No one is perfectly good or completely evil – we all have a mix of both.  Where would the line be? If you respond correctly to the evidence 51% of the time is that enough?  Or does it need to be 70%?  What about the poor person that almost made it there at 49%?

Maybe you are an expert and you already know for sure the answers to this.  After reading through the entire Bible a good 20 times, I still can’t find a clear answer.  But that doesn’t mean I am afraid to explore the possibilities – or realize that maybe I missed something.  And that is basically what I think Bell is doing.

Really, though, we are talking about disagreements over a small number of vague scriptures.  Some would say that because some of these vague scriptures disagree with Bell, then that makes him a heretic. If that is so, then you would also have to label Calvinists and Arminianists as heretics, too.  There are a small number of vague scriptures that contradict both of those beliefs.  Of course, Calvinists and Arminianists can explain those scriptures, and even if we disagree with their explanations we still don’t label the one we disagree with as heresy.  Well, unless you are a fringe extremist on one side.  So maybe we should give Bell a little grace now.

For the record, I do disagree with some of the statements Bell has made.  Others I am not so sure on – he raises some great points.  I am sure that Bell would disagree with me on some points if I wrote a book on anything.  He still claims that Jesus alone does the saving, that it is not anything that we can do to earn it. He just has a wider view of the methods through which Jesus does the saving than many evangelical Christians do.  Even if I disagree with some of those methods, as of yet I see nothing to label him a heretic.  That doesn’t mean that might change, but I would hopefully still extend my disagreements with him in a loving way.

Oh, and what about love? I just don’t see a lot of love coming from the Bell haters.  I have a confession – I am not his biggest fan at all.  But I just don’t see how someone filled with the love of God could say something so glib and smug as “Goodbye Rob Bell” without so much as giving as an explanation why they pronounce that judgement.

How Did The Most Important Thing In the World Become Nobody’s Business?

Random Musings Header

Today I was pondering a Facebook comment about faith. Or more accurately, openly discussing faith with others.  The comment was in response to a video of Obama discussing his faith.  Interestingly enough, all of my Obama-loving friends were posting this video as proof of Obama’s faith in Jesus, and all my Obama-hating friends were posting this videos as proof that he wasn’t a Christian.  Interesting how political perspective changes interpretations of remarks.  You all do know how to tell when a politician is lying, right?

But, anyways… A few comments on the video were of the “people shouldn’t ask other people about their faith/it’s not any of their business” type.  I have to excessively disagree with this mentality.

After all, what you believe in God (or don’t believe) is the most import belief you could possibly ever have. It kind of effects everything you do. How can you really know a person if you don’t know what they believe? Or why would you want to keep it to yourself if you think you have a good answer to the most important question in life? Wouldn’t that be kind of bad or selfish?  You will talk about movies or food or tell people where to get a good sale price… but not the answers to the most important question in life?  Doesn’t that seem odd?

It seems that only in America and a few random other countries do we find that attitude, really. I have been to many other countries in Asia, Europe, Africa, etc – and no one there really thinks that their religion is no one’s business. In fact, it is usually one of the first topics that will come up when you meet someone. It’s quite refreshing – they will freely talk about it, and even if you disagree with them they will just let it be and still be friendly to you.

Some people also get a little mad that Obama was asked this question.  Should it really matter what faith or president follows?  Personally, I don’t have a problem with a non-Christian president.  What is very important to me is honesty.  So if the president is going to answer the question, he should at least do it honestly.  If he is just telling the American public what he thinks they want to hear, then we have a HUGE problem.  If he is being honest, than great. The issue is not whether Obama is Christian or not, but whether he is telling the truth.

“The American people should demand that their President tell the truth.”

Clouds and Mountains, NorwayAfter all, what you believe in God (or don’t believe) is the most import thing there could be. Kind of affects everything you do. How can you really know a person if you don’t know what they believe? Or why would you want to keep it to yourself if you think you have a good answer to the most important question in life? Wouldn’t that be kind of bad?

The View From the Back Row

Beggar's Table Banner

Quite a while back a friend was commenting on a church decision that a pastor had made. Not my current church or pastor – but another place and another time.  He was wondering how the pastor could preach such a great sermon and then turn around and make such a bad leadership decision all in the same week. It was if he was connected with God, but not the people in Church.

This is a common problem I hear about in many churches, and I think it stems from one problem: pastors sit in the front row. Churches look great from the front row. But once you start hanging out in the back row, you begin to see a very different church. One that actually questions why we do what we do.

Because, it also seems that the first couple of rows in church are also filled with “yes men” and “amens.”

Another cliché we hear in church is that 20 percent of the people do 80 percent of the work. And I would agree this is true.  The problem is that we are usually led to believe that the 80% are just not stepping up.  I would disagree with this. I believe that it is really that the church leadership just asks the same 20% of the people to do the work stuff over and over again.

It is in the back of the church that you find the 80% who want to get involved but don’t ever get asked.  You see, only about 20% of the people out there (according to some physiological studies) even have the personality that will fill out a card or go to a table to talk to people. The rest of the people are some where in the range of “they would ask me if they wanted me” to “I wouldn’t fit in with those people who are already doing things.”

But, anyways, the view from the back. I was in a meeting last week to discuss something we lead at church. The topic strayed a bit and got on to other areas at church, and I had to confess to them I had no idea what they were talking about. My wife and I just don’t get involved in things like men’s breakfasts and women’s book clubs and stuff like that for a specific reason. We believe in small groups. We believe that it is better to have a smaller number of deeper relationships than to have a large number of surface-y relationships.

Most churches today push the “large number of shallow relationships” angle.  When there is a break at church, they encourage you to “get to know someone you don’t know.”  Every time there is a bigger event, one of the reasons always given to participate is, you guessed it – “get to know someone you don’t know.”

Someone at this meeting pointed out that the men’s ministry stuff is really not that large – 20-30 people max. To me, that is still too large.  I really would rather dig in to the lives of maybe 5-6 other men, and have them dig into my life.  I just don’t see how accountability and discipleship can happen any other way. Jesus could only handle 12 such relationships when he was doing it full-time. And he still lost one.

I sometimes feel like we are the only people in America that feel this way.  We have yet to find a church that sets up a system for smaller, deeper relationships that also holds people to it.  Most churches seem to encourage a large number of church events and a full calendar over a simple structure that leaves enough time to dig in deep with a few.  Those that do set up the simple structure generally won’t keep people to it – if someone is over committed, they tend to keep piling responsibilities on them until they are ineffective in most of them.

This last part is happening to some friends of ours right now (they don’t read this blog). They are already over-committed as it is (and letting a few things slip through the cracks because of it) – and are being asked to take on some more responsibilities that I don’t think they will like or have the time for. They can do these responsibilities well – there is not question of that. They are just stretched too thin as it is.  We have tried to give advice to them on this issue in the past, and it didn’t seem to connect with them.

Sometimes I get to the point of wondering if it is even responsible leadership to let people under you take on more than they can handle. That is kind of the double-whammy I am worried about at our current church. They don’t have a good structure for deep relationship (we have small groups, but we also have a “way-too-packed” church calendar that keeps everyone in our small group too busy to hang out) and they let people take on more than they can handle. People are always the worst judge of when they are being over-extended.

The solution to this is simple:

  1. Stop doing programs that encourage big meetings over deeper relationships. Create a flexible system of small groups and filter all church activities through that. If bigger scale activities happen (which is great occasionally), still coordinate those through small groups.
  2. Some things like worship and youth have to happen at a global scale. So make it a requirement that people can only be involved in two things, and only one as leadership. This should apply to all levels, from pastor/elder to greeter.
  3. Go to the uninvolved people in church and personally initiate with them to get involved. Cards and tables only work with a small subset of personality types.
  4. And for goodness sakes, don’t be afraid of critical people. They wouldn’t criticize if they didn’t care. There is a big difference between judgment and criticism, but the average church treats all criticism as if it is judgment.

Why Do We Do the Things We Do In Church?

Beggar's Table Banner

Does anyone know how popular reading is?  Kind of a nebulous concept, but I decided to take stab at it. Many people say that Harry Potter has re-energized the world’s passion for reading. Kids everywhere are reading more, and the adults are following. So, researching the first Potter book should give me a good answer to my question, right?

i was kind of shocked at what I found. Do you know how many people in the U.S. alone have read any one Harry Potter book?  I remember once that a really popular book will see one copy borrowed and read for every copy sold.  So, take the sales of a book, double it… and you should have the number of people reading that book.  So I did that for the first Potter book, and then doubled that number (because it is really popular for kids to check it out and read).  What percentage of U.S. do you think I came up with? 50%, 60%, 80%? Not even close.  Turns out that even with my generous estimate of readership, the first Harry Potter book has probably only been read by less than 20% of the U.S. population.

Contrast that with movies. If you had a big budget Hollywood movie that was only seen by 20% of the population… you would have a huge box office bomb.

Yet in the Church, how to we usually set up learning opportunities? Book reading clubs.

Studies show that up to 80% of the people who don’t go to church would go if invited. The notion that people in the U.S. just hate churches and that we are losing ground because we are chasing people off just doesn’t hold weight to the evidence out there.  People rarely get invited, and when they do… they run in this weird event that they just can’t understand.

Why do we have sermons after all?  I still can’t figure that one out. I like them myself frequently… but I am still not sure why we have them.  In fact, if I think back on the times and events that shaped my spiritual life, not a single one of them involves a sermon.  I can barely remember any of them, come to think of it.

That is natural for humans. Hundreds of years of educational psychology have told us that we will only remember 10% of what we hear.  The sermon has never been educational valid (but for that matter, neither has the lecture), yet we still keep doing them, over and over again.

I ran into this article that sheds some interesting historical light on the topic:

The Godfather of Christian Media: Exploring the Sermon

Turns out, the sermon is a relatively new blip on the map of human history, something that has its roots in pre-Christian Greek society.  It is interesting to note that the modern-day equivalent of this ancient Greek practice would actually be a movie theater, not a church sermon.

Here is one of the most convicting quotes:

“The original proclamation of the Christian message was a two-way conversation… but when the oratorical schools of the Western world laid hold of the Christian message, they made Christian preaching something vastly different. Oratory tended to take the place of conversation.”

And we wonder why people are leaving the Church? They want a conversation and we give them a sermon.

Young Adult Ministries as Church Mutiny?

Beggar's Table Banner

Interesting article today over at Relevant Magazine: Church Mutiny: Are young adult ministries killing the church? Some great issues are raised in this article. I don’t agree with every statement in there, but I also can’t count how many times I have run smack into “Arrogance Against the Old” in church. In fact, I was at a leader’s meeting just over a week ago when I ran in to it.  People in the 20 somethings age bracket really do feel that older adults have nothing to offer them. I have heard them say it directly occasionally.  Usually, however, they like to couch their arrogance by saying things like “I don’t want to hear about how you dealt with this issue 20 years ago – I want someone who is dealing with it right now, so they can give me empathy.”

Really? All you want is empathy? Dude – I want to change and get better. I want to know how the older person survived their issue 20 years ago… so maybe I can to. It gives me even greater comfort to know that someone actually survived what I am going through – not just that they are also going through it and can only “empathize” with me. You can empathize with me? Big deal! Show me how to get through what I am going through.

The crazy thing is that if you actually give “old people” a chance – they will usually give you empathy and help. But you would have to give them enough credit to maybe know more than you do in order to even sit and listen long enough to get help.

I’m beginning to feel that the problem most young people have with Church really has nothing to do with the Church itself.  The reason they don’t come is that Church is for the broken and messed up people in need of savior. If you already have all of the answers – who needs to be saved from that?

Becoming a Better Church: Hearing vs. Doing

Beggar's Table Banner

William Glasser is quoted as saying:

“We Learn…
10% of what we read
20% of what we hear
30% of what we see
50% of what we see and hear
70% of what we discuss
80% of what we experience
95% of what we teach others.”

Right there is a good answer to preachers that ponder why their church never does anything that they preach about. If people disagreed with you, they would leave the Church… right? So they stay, listen to your sermons, nod their heads, and then… nothing. Few people get moved to action. Many pastors have grown frustrated trying to figure out why.

Here is where I have to say the hard stuff. You ready? Are you sure? You see, the problem is that sermons aren’t a good way to get people to learn.  As much as people talk about “experiencing” God at church, that is not the kind of experience Glasser was referring to above. If you ask a question during your sermon, I am sorry… but that doesn’t count as discussing. And no matter how cool your PowerPoint background animations are, they don’t count as “seeing” on the list quoted above.

Yep… this is the hard part. People are only going to learn 20% of what you preach. And if you tell funny jokes 20% of the time… guess which 20% they are going to remember best?

To be honest, the educational theorist in me can’t figure out a true use for sermons. I have preached many myself, actually. But I still can’t find a reason to justify their existence.  We will only learn 20% of what we hear at any given sermon… and that is if it holds our attention.

For that matter, I also can’t find a good, valid reason for a lecture at school.  There is over 100 years of educational research that has proven that the lecture is the least effective way to teach. But we still yak away in colleges, grade schools, and churches every day all the time.

The thing is, I love the communal aspect of the Sunday morning meeting.  Worshiping together, shaking people’s hands, getting caught up on someone’s life, hearing announcements (I like announcements. Really. I think I am the only one sometimes…), getting prayer,  and all of those other activities are vital for a healthy church.

But what to do with the sermon? I have thought that maybe churches should just cancel the sermon and have small group meetings after worship.  Everyone goes from church to the house they meet at, has a focused discussion, and then eats together.  Or maybe the sermon could be a time to cast vision for the church after an extended time of fellowship.

The best thing I have for the sermon, however, comes from an educational idea called the Microlecture. Maybe we should have microsermons that get right to the point. Then, people gather together in groups to explore the key concepts. Of course, that is supposed to be the point of having small groups midweek.  So, once again… what to do with the sermon time?

I can’t think of an effective alternative that just doesn’t recreate other things that are happening in church.

The only thing I can up with is this: don’t expect people in your Church to learn what is preached from the front.Their main avenue of learning has to come from another source – one that allows them to discuss, experience, and teach others.

Those are the avenues I want to explore next.

Becoming a Better Church: Building An Active Atmosphere

Beggar's Table Banner

Note to self: don’t start a new blog series right before a holiday. I will take forever to get around to continuing it….

Anyways, I started writing in my last post about how the church can become better at what we do.  Churches already do a pretty good job at what they do, but I also feel that there is room for more variety out there… or maybe, space to also do something completely different.

This, of course, is all a response to a post by Ryan about being better communicators. I responded that church leaders need to learn educational theory to be better communicators.  Ryan wanted me to expand on that, so naturally I posted about a new way to build church buildings.

Urrr… huh?  How do those two concepts fit together?  You see, in order to do something new with communication in church, you need an entirely different atmosphere. The current church atmosphere in most churches is of the “sit and soak” variety.  You sit and listen during the sermon.  That works for some.

However, I am going to go on a tangent about “active learning” and how we need it in church. Active learning won’t work in a passive church atmosphere. Note that I am not referring to worship style here. Some churches have a very lively, interactive worship time at church.  Once that is over, however, everything else is passive – everyone sits when the preaching starts, or Sunday School begins, or pretty much when anything else related to “discipleship” starts.  The result of this is that few people go out and do what they heard. Passive listening to preaching will lead to passive learning, which in turn equals a passive spiritual life.

What I am shooting for is an active spiritual life, which requires active learning.  Active learning requires active teaching.  Active teaching will require an active atmosphere – one where people are used to things happening all the time. Thus the need for a new church blueprint.

The ideas I explored in the last post are just one set of ideas for how to create an atmosphere that is active at church. People would become used to activity happening all around their building. They would also begin to realize that their church is different, and then they just might be ready for the different experience they are going to get during the sermon: an active learning experience.

Which I will go into more detail, Lord willing, next blog post.

Becoming a Better Church: Start With the Blueprint

Beggar's Table Banner

I’m reviving this blog because of a discussion on another blog.  I’ve always had ideas rattling around in my head about how the Christian Church of today could do a better job at… well… being a church.  My friend Ryan was blogging about being better communicators at church. I commented that if pastors want people to actually do what is preached on Sunday mornings, then they basically need a better grasp of educational theory – not just learn how to become better communicators.  There are many really excellent communicators out there in many churches, but we still see church attendance declining.  Ryan challenged me to share my thoughts on that. Basic summary, skipping some details, but you get the picture. You being Ryan, because I bet you are the only one that will read this post 🙂

Anyways, as I thought about it, I can’t really start with just how to do better preaching.  There is a bigger picture out there of how the Church needs to become a better Church. Not as in “toss everything out and start over,” or even as in “abandon the whole concept as obsolete,” but more as in “build on the strengths that are there and redo the things that aren’t working.”

The first thing that is not working, from what I see, is the church building itself. Why would I start a series on how to become better at preaching with a post on what we need to do differently with the Church building? Well, hang with me and find out.

Ever noticed how cold, uninviting, and abandoned church buildings look during the week? If you didn’t attend one – would you ever set foot in there? I even saw one Church building in Arlington that had a huge fence around it and a keypad-guarded iron gate. This “house of God” looked more like an exclusive country club than a place where people can find spiritual respite from the crazy world around us.

Let’s face it – no matter how “alive” your church is during your services and special events, the building itself looks dead 90% of the time.  And that makes the Church an intimidating place for new people that pass by it during the week.

When I first moved to Dallas, we lived in East Dallas and attended a church there. I noticed that many people who didn’t go to church were constantly in and out of the building all morning long… because we met in a community center. So that made me think: what if the church building itself were a community center?

I don’t mean “what if it met in a community center?” I mean, if you build a new church building and make that into a community center rather than a place that gets used a few hours a week, double bonus time if there is a wedding?

You would have a large meeting area, that could probably double as a gym or some other venue during the week. Then you would have your classrooms for Sunday morning. But then what if you opened up those rooms during the week for exercise classes, job skills classes, community meetings, family reunions, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, you name it? Get the community flowing in and out of the building all day long.

But why stop there? Why not have a wing of office spaces. Members of the church that are doctors, counselors, lawyers, restaurant owners, artists, etc could rent out office space there.  They would get subsidized rent there, passing those savings on to their customers. They could also hold free clinics and festivals and other events for the community.  Of course, you could also see outreach ministries setting up office here, as well as the pastor. Think of the impact that would have on people to just be able to run in to a pastor in the hall when they go to see the doctor or grab a scone at a coffee shop. They could see he is just a normal person.. and maybe his church isn’t half bad?

And don’t forget about the land around the center. There should be enough there for outdoor activities, games, soccer fields, basketball courts, a community farm, picnics, playgrounds, etc.

The point is to make the church building an active, alive hub of activity throughout the week… a place to build community like never before.

So that is where I would start: redo those church building blueprints out there.  But that is not all: I do still want to examine how we preach in church, and why that is failing us overall. A few points that I will hit on in the future:

  • No matter how good of a communicator a preacher is, the typical church sermon will never get people to actually do the things that are being preached on a significant scale.
  • The best tool that most people have on them to help them learn is the cellphone… and we tell people to turn it off during church.
  • The Internet is one of the best tools that we have to teach people how to live out their faith, but most people in the church that are even interested in the Internet are too caught up in figuring out what Church people want in a website that they never ask what people really need from website. A Church leader need to lead people to what they need online, not just follow his or her flock in to whatever they are interested in.

I Need to Patent My Ideas

Beggar's Table Banner

Somewhere on this blog, I wrote about an idea I had for social justice.  I was lamenting the fact that it was hard to find places to volunteer at the random times I had free – most organizations needed help during the day when I was at work, or needed 3-4 nights a week in a city 5 hours away.  Which I also can’t do.  I was wishing there was a website that could help me find local needs that I could practically help out with.  Without spending weeks searching.

Leave it up to Google.  AllForGood.org is not as robust as I was thinking, but  it is a good start.  Change your location to your city, and then search for categories of things to help with – education, food, health, etc. See their locations on a Google Map.  Share with your friends. Pretty slick.

One idea I have: I would like to see a calendar added to it also, so that you can search by date as well as location and category.  But give it a whirl to see if there is something near you that you can help with.

UPDATE: I found the post that I originally wrote about this:

Social Action For the Common Person

Also, once I got signed up and started poking around, I did see that there is a fuction to look by some dates: “today”, “this week”, etc.  Just not a full calendar to click on upcoming days and times you are free.