Favorite ChaCha Questions

Below is a sampling of the questions I answered with ChaCha today. The questions are spelled as I received them. The answers are limited to a max of 130 characters, including spaces.

Q: Who was the mexican govneor that ran for prerident? (P.L.U.)
A: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson ran for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Q: Who is in the ncaam final four
A: Michigan State, Connecticut, North Carolina, and Villanova play April 4th at 6pm est. ChaCha

Q: How old is bush
A: Bush 43 was born July 6, 1946 – making him 63, his father, Bush 41 was born June 12, 1924 making him 85. ChaCha!

Q: Why was the freedom of religion included into the constitution?
A: Nearly all previous European nations did not have religious freedom. People were persecuted because of their religious beliefs.

Q: Are there pirahnas in stockton lake in missouri?
A: No, piranhas are tropical fish. ChaCha

Q: What are vegetables which are very thinly sliced with a veggie peeler called, like carrots?
A: You are thinking of "Julienne-cut" vegetables. ChaCha


Do you ChaCha?

On NPR I heard about this company, ChaCha to whom you can text or call-in a question and quickly get a response. What makes them different is that they employ real people to give you solid answers to your specific question. There are similar apps for google and other search engines, but all you get is internet based search results, in which it can be hard to find what your looking for.

Now the key point here is real people. For all you stay at home mom and dad's, guess what I do now while sitting on my couch watching my son? That's right, I'm one of the 55,000 or so "real people" getting paid $0.10 - $0.20 per question, to answer the worlds random questions.

What are people asking? Literally everything! Want to know if your flights on time? How much wood a woodchuck can chuck? or How much sodium is in a Big Mac? If your sitting in front of a computer, it's not too hard to find an answer, but what if your on the go? By calling 1.800.2ChaCha from a mobile text enabled phone, or texting cha cha, you will get a text answer of 160 characters in about four minutes. You can see some more examples here.

Another blogger talks about his experience, and some of the cultural impact here, describing it as the new magic eight ball. Want to know what to drink at the bar? Just ask ChaCha. We'll tell you. And USAToday talked about us extensively here.

How do I like working for them? It's great, though the pay for a newbie is lousy by hourly standards. (You are paid $0.10 - $0.20/question, which works out to about $2/hr, but this is while your doing other stuff as well. Faster people, focusing in their area of expertise can make closer to $6/hr, or so the company says) But if all your doing is sitting on the couch playing hearts on your computer, it's not a bad gig. Plus, you can sign up as an expert in certain areas of information, allowing you to receive a higher payout, which also allows you to learn new things about items your interested in anyway.

Before you get started, you have to go through an on-line video course of about an hour. You then take a test of ten questions that are not live. They review your answers and then give you the thumbs up or down. If you flunk you can not re-take the test. Your out. Once you pass you go live, answering questions from all over.

Be aware, if you decide you want to get into this, you can be presented with questions of a sexual nature. (Things like "what causes herpes?") They do have a harassment policy which allows you to dump questions, but non aggressive, sexual questions of an informational nature, things you might ask a nurse, are considered good to go.

The company tries to create a fun-loving start up feel, and so far, (a few hours) it's been a good side gig.


Families: The church on a bell curve

The stratification of what we call “family” looks a little like a bell curve. On one end are any number of single people, who often become married, (curve increases) and create families of their own. These families grow, and eventually the goslings leave the nest. We begin to see the curve retract, often concluding quite sadly, with the passing of one lover before the other, returning the household to a state of singleness.

Most churches struggle with issues related to being who God has called them to be, and at Oasis we are no different. Having an ongoing conversation, when the members of the family range in age from one week to 97 years old, can be a bit challenging. For the most part it is an enjoyable struggle, but it is a challenge none-the-less. So I was struck by the juxtaposition of two passages in Matthew chapter 19. The first relates to the single life, and the second, to the life of the child.

v. 12 - Others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.

v. 14 - Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Many of us find ourselves in the middle of the family bell curve, (married with children) myself included. The tendency for all of us is to relate best to those we are most like. But what of those on the edges of the bell curve? Scripture teaches, and in our head we know, that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. But to live it out, that is a challenge.

Too often the church responds to this bell curve in much the same way as the rest of the world, not with authentic love, but with programs, throwing money at the “problem”, and further stratification. We place the children over here, those poor singles over there, and the weak and aging somewhere else. This way, we who are the majority can get on with the business of life and church, unencumbered with the distractions of people not like us; people who quite frankly remind us of our own mortality and the fragileness of life at beginning and end.

At Oasis, we are no different. We don’t excel at breaking down these barriers, but we would like to. (You may have some suggestions on how to do this.) To further complicate things, running up against the value of togetherness is a value for communicating appropriately within a given culture. This value includes children, and so in the near future we will be starting up a “children’s church”, something which at first glance would seem to perpetuate the conflicts of interest we have been talking about. And to some degree it does. What we want is to have our cake and eat it too, and I think we can, if we approach this challenge with the right attitude. We want to value our children, and at the same time communicate with them in ways that meet their needs, without simply shoving them off on a volunteer.

Also present on this bell curve are those who are single, whether young or old. And these too, the church constituted by the majority, (those married with children) often struggle to embrace. Our first reaction is often to help them be just like us. We want them to enjoy all the benefits and consequences of marriage; forgetting that both the apostle Paul and Jesus suggest that in fact it may be better not to get married. We in the Evangelical community would do well to consider other traditions, which seem to have done a better job of embracing the life devoted to God.

At Oasis, (and where you’re at as well I’m sure) we would like to create a community where young and old can live, and play, and serve together. The question then is how? I believe we begin by learning to truly believe that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. The next key, as it is in breaking down any barrier, is intentionality. We need to intentionally build relationships with people who are different than us, and create structures which facilitate this. Children are not a nuisance, the elderly are not a problem, and singles do not need to get married. We are humans created in the image of God, and together (not apart) we are the church.


Beleving : A Short History

One of my friends, Mike, sent me this link: Biggest Intellectual Fights of All Time with the following question.

I had a conversation with the guy who sent me it. I asked if he agreed with me that the Socrates part was slightly mistaken. I explained that the Sophists believed truth was not absolute but established by persuasion or argument (or truth is constructed by language as Post Modernists would say, basically the same thing as there is nothing new under the sun.) The headline reads something like "Socrates vs. the Gods, logic wins". It seems that logic lost if people can just make up whatever truth they want.
He went on to say that our senses can deceive us and truth can't really be known.
Thoughts? How would you take that conversation? It went out ok, I learned from him and hopefully he heard some of what I said. Hit me back when you can.


This is how I responded.


There used to be powers that controlled what people thought. In centuries gone past, the perception was that to run afoul of the church seriously put one in danger of hell. Something similar happens today in terms of being "politically correct". To run afoul of these norms has dire political or professional consequences; though many feel free to ignore these norms and live outside of their power, some for the better, others for not. (Commitments to a particular religion on the good side, but sexest or racist jokes, the KKK, and things like that on the bad side...) Cultures in every age have always had their norms and ways of controlling people, and conversely those that chose not to be controlled; sometimes for better, "the earth really is round", sometimes for worse, "sex whenever, wherever is a great idea"

I think logic and science still play a huge role, but their scope has shrunk. In answering questions like "what should we do about terrorism, or the global financial meltdown?" you will probably use logic, and quite possibly some kind of economic, or political science.

Unfortunatly, the church at the time of the enlightenment had WAY overstepped it's bounds, beveling itself to be the sole owner of ALL truth. Imagine if the church had embraced science and logic as complimentary to theology and philosophy. It didn't and we reap the consequences to this day. Eventually it did, but by then it was too late. Today the church continues to use science and logic when most people have quit using these tools to determine spiritual truth. (more on that in a second)

Science and logic eventually replaced the church as lords of authority. Unfortunately, many in that community make the same mistake the church did, and imagine that those gods can control all knowledge. However, most people in today's culture recognize that not everything falls under the authority of science and logic. Consequently, when it comes to religion and spirituality, people feel free to believe whatever they want. Convincing people to accept a particular authority in these areas requires spiritual authority, not usually the authority of science and logic.

Sincerely, David


At $347,000 Per Baptism Maybe It's Time To Rethink Church

In at piece at Inside Work - Business Spiritually Engaged (an organization I just discovered which I think I really like) Bernard Moon writes an article analysing how much money is given to churches and Christian non-profits world-wide in relationships to the baptisms produced globally. A number of estimates put the number in the $300,000/baptism range.

Here is how he got this number.

The International Bulletin of Missionary Research estimated $410 billion/year in giving to “Christian” causes worldwide over the recent years. This was broken down to $160 billion to churches and $250 billion to parachurch organizations every year. Let’s assume that $347,000 per baptism is simply the total giving of $410 billion divided by the number of baptisms tracked. If this simple method was used, then the cost per baptism is tremendously overstated since we would have to assume a large portion is allocated to the operations of those churches and parachurch organizations.

I am assuming the primary mission of these organizations has something to do with making followers of Christ. The question is how much is being spent on the core mission of these organizations and how effective are they? A comparable question in the business world is asking how much do we spend on marketing and how effective is our program? For many companies, the benchmark is approximately ten percent of budget. Ten percent of $410 billion is $41 billion, which would make the figure $34,700 per baptism.

I would assume though that a church and parachurch organizations should be more focused to their mission than a companies, and, one could argue, their core mission should be their only focus. If a church were a business, would it really only devote 10% of the budget to getting out their message? Eyeballing, 30% or higher seems more appropriate. If this really is the case, I think $104,000 per baptism—or higher—is flabbergasting. And I suppose if one went with the argument that the only mission of a church or parachurch is making new Christians—a premise I don’t think stands up to biblical scrutiny—then the simple arithmetic of total expenditures ÷ number of new converts = cost/baptism, more or less. $347,000.

I agree with him that this is very troubling.

However, while I think the point that he is making stands, I'm concerned that the method this was arrived at is not quite right, which we talked about in some comments on the site.

I had this to say (among other things).

Just wanting to better understand what your saying. I guess what I’m hung up on is this part.

"And I suppose if one went with the argument that the only mission of a church or parachurch is making new Christians—a premise I don’t think stands up to biblical scrutiny (I agree)—then the simple arithmetic of total expenditures (you just said this is not "biblical", I must be missing something) ÷ number of new converts = cost/baptism, more or less. $347,000."

Do you see what I’m getting at. If the mission is about more than making new Christians, (that’s kind of been my point all along) why are we dividing new converts by total expenditures, when much of these expenditures go to something besides conversion efforts? Wouldn’t it make more sense to capture the amount being spent on advertising/evangelism/whatever you want to call it, and then come up with a number? Which I would probably agree with you is still too high. Am I nit-picking? I guess my concern is that if were going to put a headline out there $347,000/baptism, people are going to want to know where that came from.

I believe churches are unique organisms, which have multiple mandates. Consequently, not just baptisms, but alleviating suffering, pursuing justice, and making disciples, to name a few, are all aims of the mones given to the church and other Christian organizations world wide.

That said, his larger point, that there is no doubt way too much waste going on stands, and I agree with him.

You can check out the original article and our comments conversation here.


In the Worst Way

Integrating our faith with the culture that we are is paramount, but it has to be done appropriately. It's hard to define when that is being done well, vis-a-vis poorly, but you know it when you see it. This article How Soccer is Ruining America, is a mixing of faith and culture in the worst way. Take heed.