tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54405948510364253542024-02-08T15:51:31.028-05:00Hōdee Zahaasourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.comBlogger159125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-50503309578044100202012-03-21T14:05:00.004-04:002012-03-21T14:43:21.611-04:00Battle of the Bounty Hunters: Boba Fett vs Duane "Dog" Chapman<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SOobbb-nL2U/T2ocnuH_6kI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/hiKKU2X-W58/s1600/boba_fett_1.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SOobbb-nL2U/T2ocnuH_6kI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/hiKKU2X-W58/s320/boba_fett_1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5722417745249692226" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VXzNfpmUJ84/T2oceCRmLeI/AAAAAAAAAPE/solavb5fykk/s1600/dogchapman.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VXzNfpmUJ84/T2oceCRmLeI/AAAAAAAAAPE/solavb5fykk/s320/dogchapman.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5722417578859965922" border="0" /></a><br />I've been watching a lot of "Dog the Bounty Hunter" on TV lately. It's not my favorite show, but it's entertaining. "The Dog" is pretty good at what he does, but is he the best? The only competition for him I can think of is Boba Fett, maybe the baddest bounty hunter in the universe. Let's see how they stack up.<br /><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Best hair:</span> The Dog. Boba's hair is not apparent.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Best weaponry:</span> Boba Fett. Most of the time, The Dog only carries some mace and handcuffs. Occasionally, he open-carries a piece, but Boba always has his sweet-ass lazer gun with him, which can be set to both stun and kill.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Best body armor:</span> Boba Fett. The dog wears and open shirt typically, making him especially vulnerable to, well, nearly any kind of attack. Hell, he could be cut with a butter knife with the right person were wielding it. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Most notable bounties:</span> Boba Fett. Who of any consequence has the Dog taken down over the years? He makes a living taking down a lot of drug addicts and soft criminals. Wake me up when he brings in the head of the Russian mafia or an international criminal along the lines of Osama Bin Laden. Boba brought in -- with the Empire's help -- Han Solo and, according to Star Wars geeks, killed a bunch of Jedi.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Most bounties total:</span> The Dog. Supposedly he has taken down over 6,000 scumbags in his career.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Best looking family:</span> The Dog. The Chapmans are not a great looking bunch, but Baby Lyssa, Leland and Duane Lee are all better looking than the spawn of Jango Fett, essentially Boba's clone brothers, who ultimately became the Imperial Stormtroopers.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Superior range:</span> Boba Fett. The Dog is stuck on earth, though he does have a bail bonds business in Hawaii. Boba Fett can go anywhere in the universe, including Hawaii, if he really wanted to do that.<br /><br /><br />Boba Fett, by a 4-3 margin, is the best bounty hunter.ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-32810021391240755232012-02-21T13:33:00.003-05:002012-02-21T13:56:26.763-05:00Razor blades and shaving brushesThe seed was planted when one of my closest friends gave me a shaving mug, soap and brush as a gift for being in his wedding party. Up until that point, when I shaved, it was in the shower. Sometimes I would lather up my face with inexpensive shaving cream and scrape off the whiskers with expensive, modern razor cartridges. My beard tends to be heavy and I found shaving to be a chore. Besides that, the cartridges, though giving a close shave (assuming I let the stubble grow out at least a day) are very expensive (over $2/per.)<br /><br />The novelty of having the shaving soap and brush wore off after a week or two. For awhile during both the summer and fall, I would wear either a full or stubble beard to avoid shaving. I look and feel younger without facial hair, but the time and expense of shaving made me avoid the process.<br /><br />Something hit me a few weeks back. I just got sick of burning through modern cartridges and considered going with an old school straight razor. I tried to get that kind of shave this fall, but even barbers no longer want to spend the time and energy necessary to give a guy a clean shave with a straight razor. I figured, though, I'd learn to be my own barber and, heck, I already had the brush, soap and mug.<br /><br />So what do you do when you want opinions? You ask others on Facebook. I asked if any of my friends could tell me about shaving with a straight razor. None of them could, but I was given a few helpful links on shaving with vintage safety razors.<br /><br />My first razor was one of my pop's Gillette safety razors, probably from the late 70's or early 80's. I eventually moved to disposable cartridge razors and had replaced the old safety razor with a Mach 3 years ago. But I figured that if I could find my first razor, I'd get new blades and be ready to go.<br /><br />I couldn't find it, but I did find my old blades (still in pristine condition.) The next task was to find an old, cool safety razor from one of the local antique stores. To make a long story much shorter, in the last two weeks, I've purchased a Gillette plastic-handled double-edged safety razor (probably from the 50's), a solid brass Gem Micromatic single-edged razor (probably from the 30's) and a Shaeffer solid-brass double-edged shaver (also from the 30's.) <br /><br />Shaving has been fun the last few week. I do it at home if I get bored or restless. I like the hot towel, the brush, the lather and the hot blade across my cheeks and around my chin. <br /><br />But there had to be more to it than that. Why am I suddenly interested in shaving so much? Two months ago I was shaving 3 times a month and now I'm shaving every night. What gives? Two words: Dad, Pop.<br /><br />My dad was born in 1948 and was the quintessential child of the 60's. He was, politically and spiritually, something like a hippie. Dad was old school in some ways. I never saw him without a mustache or with a beard, and he always had a mug and shaving brush on his sink whenever I visited. He used straight-up Listerine. No Scope. No minty crap. Listerine in the tan-mustard yellow bottle. I could be wrong, but I think Dad liked Old Spice.<br /><br />Pop used a safety razor. He would take the blade out of his shaver and make his mustache pencil-thin by hand. He was born in the 1930's and was almost a full generation ahead of my Dad. He was also born elsewhere, but he did things the old fashioned way. He was a man of the 50's. After he shaved, he splashed his face with Brut which, to me, has always smelled cheap, awful.<br /><br />Those are the reasons why, at 40, I now care to shave and am doing it old school. I didn't realize it until earlier this afternoon, but I've must've decided, subconsciously, that the way they took care of themselves -- at least superficially -- were methods to be followed. I think I've stopped seeing myself as a kid and now embrace being a man; a man who tends to like the way things were more than the way things are. <br /><br />The mug and brush -- Dad. The safety razor and the razor blades -- Pop. Shaving. Me. Them. Memories. Smells. Mourning. Honor. Remembrance. Love.ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-35198935203960648502011-12-14T13:43:00.003-05:002011-12-14T13:50:14.187-05:00My new (superficial) fascination: preppy clothesI'm what I would consider a sloppy prep or a half-assed prep. I love tartans, sweaters, oxfords, ties, sport coats and khakis. I don't dress up (suits) much except occasionally where work requires. But I like wearing pseudo-preppy clothes around the house or in town. I generally dress the look down with jeans. Up top, I look preppy. On the bottom, I'm pretty laid back.<br /><br />In my search for great plaid coats and such, I've stumbled across some interesting websites. This one, Wasp 101, is another blogger site. It's got some cool stuff on it. Check it out for yourself.<br /><a href="http://wasp101.blogspot.com/"><br />http://wasp101.blogspot.com/</a><br /><br />Look, fashion isn't important. I don't pretend that how I look matters in the grand scheme of things. I try not to take too much pride in shallow things like looks or appearance. But I like to show myself in a way that matches how I view the world. I'm a traditionalist, and I think the way I dress reflects a modern traditionalism. Again, it doesn't matter. I have nothing to prove to the world, but it feels good to when the outside expresses what's inside, if that makes any sense.ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-60068219403266482092011-07-23T11:24:00.002-04:002011-07-23T11:28:44.066-04:00You can always let 'em keep itI often wonder why people that are strongly in favor of governmental programs and increasing taxes take tax deductions themselves, especially wealthy Hollywood-type liberals. If you want well-funded government programs, why shelter so much money? In fact, why take deductions at all? You could just let the federal government keep your money.<div><br /></div><div>This is less true for middle or working class folks. They can least afford to pay taxes. But they'll never have the power to make the rich pay their share.</div>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-81142561439723378612011-07-23T11:20:00.001-04:002011-07-23T11:22:13.179-04:00Well-behaved womenWomen who have "Well-behaved women seldom make history" bumper stickers, seldom make history.ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-50808677354828320882011-06-29T00:08:00.003-04:002011-06-29T00:20:04.288-04:00Thank youThank you for being a father when, although I believed I was long past needing one, I needed one as much as ever!<br />Thanks for sharing your heart with me. Sometimes even the student wants to know that the mentor is human.<br />Thanks for genuinely caring. You could have just pretended you do. Actually, you would have been wiser to do everything by the book; safer for all concerned. You never let "the rules" get in the way of real love and concern. <br />Thank you for allowing me to share some of your burdens. Lord knows that you shared plenty of mine. <br />Thank you for helping me to see myself more clearly, more positively. <br />Thanks showing me what I have to offer others but encouraging me not to give up on myself.<br />Thank you for reminding me what the true meaning is of Godly redemption. It's not striving for perfection. It's the struggle and it's not given up or shying away from it.<br />Thanks for reminding me that it's going to OK to grieve and to miss you. <br />You're leaving at a time when I feel like I can least afford that. But is there ever a good time to say goodbye, to grow up or at least grow outwardly, and move on? No, endings almost always feel wrong.<br />I don't hold it against you, but I'm going to miss the hell out of you.<br />The future's so cloudly, but thanks for reminding me that when the clouds clear, it's bright on the other side.<br />I wish you the best. I wish you all the success and happiness you deserve. Thank you for everything. With much love, more than you can imagine, I say Godspeed as you move along the new path He has set before you.ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-26806844708792580332011-06-07T12:33:00.003-04:002011-06-07T12:55:42.542-04:00Politicians = Weiners...err...wienersI do my damndest to avoid Hollywood and Washington sex scandals. One, we're all flawed and I feel a tad hypocritical delving into flaws of others, regardless of whether their sins differ from mine. Two, and maybe more importantly, I feel almost sick at how giddy people get over the prurient details of sex scandals like Clinton-Lewinsky, Tiger Woods - every woman on the planet, Schwarzenegger-the maid and now Weiner's wiener. I am convinced that we love to see people, especially men, mess up so we can wave our collective finger at them in judgment.<br /><br />The irony of it all is that we are schizophrenic when it comes to sex. We say that anything between consenting adults is OK, but an actor picking up a prostitute or a politician sending picks of his bulging underpants are not fit to act, lead, what have you. I also notice that very little of the extreme judgmentalism we see comes from the so-called "Religious Right" or "religious fanatics." People of faith seem no more willing to attack our failed, flawed Hollywood or Washington idols than the amoral, porn-loving Average Joe or the hardcore feminist.<br /><br />I've written this before in the context of Tiger Woods' troubles, but I feel I need to vent some more on the topic. We, society, make these man what they are! We put sex in their face 24-7-52. We say that sex outside of marriage is cool. We "celebrate" homosexual or other non-traditional expressions of sexuality. We buy pornography in various forms by the tens of billions of dollars a year. We sell beer by showing pretty girls in nice bathing suits. We even put women having orgasms in shampoo commercials. We dangle the fruit in front of men -- and trust me, we guys need no assistance thinking about sex -- but then all but destroy the man who eats it.<br /><br />This society gets off on others' misery. Conservatives, liberals, supposed moderates, even the apolitical. We love to see a former hero brought to his knees, especially if it's over sex. We love to make the wife or girlfriend of the dumb bastard the victim. I wonder why we don't see the so-called "pervert" as the victim of our own sex-obsessed culture. I wish I knew why we like seeing these deviants writhe in pain, have to make public apologies, give up their careers and parade their supporting families out in front of cameras.<br /><br />Perhaps just as bad as society's treatment of our fallen gods is the way in which politicians capitalize on these stories. Democrats and Republicans beating up on each other over the moral failings of members of their respective parties is such a turn off for me that it is one (of many) reasons I don't think I'll vote in the next election. I hate the idea that the parties feel like they can't win the debate on substantive issues, but need to gain ground by exploiting the miseries of failed men and, worst of all, their wives and kids. Thus, the title of this blog. Politicians that make these scandals the issue instead of real issues are the true wieners in my view.<br /><br />American society is trash. I wish we could take it out and put on the curb.ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-35726343665293510322011-03-19T22:02:00.002-04:002011-03-19T22:39:18.586-04:00When cars were still funThe last few days have been lovely outside, at least for late winter in Michigan. The sudden surge of spring is probably what caused me to dig out some Beach Boys discs to spin while out on the road.<br /><br />Anyone familiar with the Beach Boys knows that they really built their careers singer about cars, beaches and girls. In the early to mid 60's, they weren't the only ones to crank out mega-hits about automobiles. Groups like Jan and Dean and Ronnie and the Daytonas capitalized on the Beach Boys' success, making hits of their own like "Little Old Lady from Pasadena" and "Little GTO." Even the Beatles got in on the game with "Drive My Car." Of course, in the 50's, rock pioneers like Chuck Berry had already turned writing songs about cars and driving into something of an art with tunes like "No Particular Place To Go."<br /><br />There's a tendency to blow off songs about cars as pure fluff. What meaning could we possibly assign to a song about drag racing or cruising around in a convertible? Perhaps more than you might think.<br /><br />I used to believe that pop songs from the 50's and 60's like "Little Deuce Coupe" and "409" were nothing more than money grabs. When Lennon and McCartney wanted some cash, one of them would say to the other, "Okay, let's write us a swimming pool," and they'd go write their next mega-hit. Other artists of the day weren't much different and it's easy to imagine that they wrote songs about cars for one reason alone: money. People loved those songs and bought them by the millions.<br /><br />The question that raises is <span style="font-style: italic;">why</span> did people love those songs? Was it just that those songs were catchy? Not likely. It seems to me that those songs connected to people on a genuine emotional level.<br /><br />40-50 years ago, cars still captured peoples' imaginations. Those were the day of $0.25 a gallon gas, Sunday drives, cruising, drive-in movies and diners and street racing. That was the era of the hot rod. The social life of a young person (fortunate enough to own or have access to one) revolved around his car, unlike kids today whose lives revolve around their cell phones and computers. Thus, to sing about cars and driving was to sing about life.<br /><br />There are no songs about cars these days, at least not in the pop world. Sure, cars get mentioned in some pop and hip-hop songs, but the car and the driving are not the focus of the song. My theory is that because cars are no longer fun.<br /><br />With gas at nearly $4.00 a gallon and growing movement to "go green," people see cars as either transportation from point A to B, some sort of necessary evil or status symbols. The affluent want to be seen in their opulent automobiles. White educated middle class folks seem to go for practical, meaning safe, fuel efficient, reliable...but<span style="font-style: italic;"> not</span> fun.<br /><br />There seems to be guilt associated with vehicle ownership for Gen X'ers on down. If you drive too much, you're either destroying the planet or you're spending on gas and maintenance money with which you can't afford to part. <br /><br />If there's any pleasure in driving, it comes from being in a nice looking ride. To some, cars are just huge gas-powered pieces of bling. Think of the favorite luxury item you own. You might love it. You might love displaying. You might beam with pride when you wear it. I'd put money on you not describing it as "fun." If anything, you might be uptight about it. "What if it gets stolen or broken? What would I do?" you probably think to yourself everytime you pull it out.<br /><br />There's no going back at this point. Resources are only getting tighter. Gas will only get more expensive. Alternative fuel vehicles will <span style="font-style: italic;">never</span> be the center of your social life. They'll <span style="font-style: italic;">never</span> be fun, largely because no one wants them to be fun.<br /><br />Here's to a by-gone era.<br /><br /><iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/F4yqWPVjA80" width="640" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-37404882314038910882011-02-17T23:31:00.004-05:002011-02-18T01:04:46.932-05:00"Parallel Lives": Racism behind the NFHA Diversification push<h6 style="font-weight: normal; font-family: trebuchet ms;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span class="messageBody">This is downright offensive, and I'm not one that gets my underwear in a bunch very easily over racial stuff. OK, maybe I am sensitive to racial issues. Usually, though, I don't feel this level of offense. This time, though, it's different.</span></span></h6><h6 style="font-weight: normal; font-family: trebuchet ms;" class="uiStreamMessage" ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span class="messageBody">The new National Fair Housing Alliance radio ads pushing neighborhood diversity essentially say that all white people look, act and think a like and you can learn nothing from living with a bunch of other white folks. That much is stated explicitly in the ads. Also explicit is the notion that living next to people of different backgrounds will make the lives of you and your children "richer." Of course, that assumes that such people actually have something of interest to offer. They must have some sense of culture to share. If' they're a bunch of Jerry Springer watching mouth breathers, I wouldn't expect to learn much from them.</span></span></h6><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">What's similarly implied is that white people have little or nothing to offer our society. Communities can only experience true growth and vitality by getting a little piece of this and a little bit of that from various folks in the melting pot. The evidence for this is never stated. Granted, we're talking radio ads, not scholarly treatises. But I suspect there's no real data that proves "people of color" to be any better contributors to their communities than plain boring-ass old whities.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">You can hear the ad I heard this morning at this link</span><br /><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.aricherlife.org/docs/NFHA_ParallelLives_60_NO_SF.mp3">http://www.aricherlife.org/docs/NFHA_ParallelLives_60_NO_SF.mp3</a><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">I've seen this stuff from many angles, despite the fact that I'm just a generic white guy. I grew up in an all white neighborhood, but I was raised by a Puerto Rican father with dark skin. Some -- very little -- Spanish was spoken in the house, we observed a few customs on occasion and ate our fair share of Puerto Rican dishes. I had to deal with racial comments directed at home because of his accent or the color of his skin. Blacks, Arabs, Hispanics or other so-called "people of color" would not have been welcome, at least not by some.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">I also spent a considerable amount of time in my grandmother's neighborhood in Detroit. By the late 70's, a neighborhood that had been all white in the 1960's, was almost entirely black. The 3 remaining white families on the block clearly were not welcome to stay, at least not by some of the neighbors. There are very ugly, frightening incidences directed toward us about which I'd rather not speak at the moment. I can say, though, that while many blacks made it known they wanted Grandma out, others came to my rescue when I'd get picked on by neighborhood bullies.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">That is to say nothing of my experiences living in a college community or in the two places I've lived as an adult. Every where I've lived has had a different feel to it. No two places have been alike.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Alot of that is somewhat beside the point. Ultimately, trying to get to why I'm bothered by this radio ad and the National Fair Housing Alliance. Besides the radio ad's blatant anti-white racism, I'm teed off by the lie that people that "look alike," meaning have the same skin color, must </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: trebuchet ms;">be</span> alike. In the all white neighborhood in which I grew up, no two families were a like in anything other than skin color. Some went to church. Many did not. Many rooted for the Detroit Lions. Some rooted for other teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers. Some were alcoholics. Some were teetotalers. Some were educated (meaning they had college degrees) but most others were lucky to have graduated from high school. Many could fix cars. Some wouldn't even bother trying. Some ate traditional dishes past down to them by their parents or grandparents. Others lived on McDonalds and Little Caesar's pizza. We didn't even speak a like. Because more than a few families were descendants of transplants from the south, some kids even in my generation talked a little like "hillbillies." Some even said, quite amusingly, "I'm part hillbilly" when sharing their ethnic background.<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> You get the idea.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">The same was true for my grandmother's mostly black neighborhood in Detroit. We didn't know the neighbors as well, personally, but we saw how they related to us. Some were quiet and kept to themselves. Some were "decent church-going folk." Others were troublemakers and bullies. Some came to my defense, protected me. Others bullied and intimidated me. The neighborhood was a bad place to be, but that </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: trebuchet ms;">wasn't</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> because everyone was the same. They just weren't. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">In that case, contrary to what the National Fair Housing Alliance would tell you, diversity was actually a divisive thing. There were three white families, one Mexican family and a Chinese-owned business on the corner of the block. When people didn't get along, that was usually triggered by someone in the neighborhood wanting to rid the area of the remaining white families. There was resentment expressed toward the chinese business owners. Not surprisingly, that business left the city maybe 30 years ago.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">I had rich experiences growing up, but not because I was exposed to all the cutesy little things some would have you believe comes with diversification. I saw the ugly, hateful side of it. You know what I learned? Some people make lousy neighbors, others make good ones. Color doesn't seem to be a factor. I also learned that people kind of prefer to live with their own kind, so to speak. That's not because every single one of them is a clone of the other, but because commonality creates a comfort zone. I know that's changing, and that's probably a good thing. But it shouldn't change based on a lie. It shouldn't change by telling people, "Hey, you should live with people of color because white folks are all the same and you can't have a 'rich life' living with them." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">If you want to live in a mixed neighborhood, do it! There are positives. If you don't want to for whatever reason, don't do it. You'll learn plenty from whomever it is that you live around and deal with on a daily basis, regardless of skin color.</span></span>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-80373620745039001722011-02-15T09:39:00.001-05:002011-02-15T09:40:51.856-05:00Karma's a Bitch<p><span style="font-size: small;">Tim Keller's book, <em>The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism</em> addresses the overlapping issues of God as a judge vs a God of love and how a "loving God" could send people to Hell. He essentially says that the notion of a wrathful, judging God who could condemn people to an eternity in Hell is a huge barrier to belief in Christianity or even in the Christian God. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small;">I do see and hear this a lot but it has never been a hang up for me. Sure, I've wondered how God could send "nice people" to Hell, people that act kinder, gentler, more lovingly than some Christians. That's always sat a little funny with me. But I also see that most people aren't as "good" as they think they are and many are downright evil. I recognize in myself enough bad that would otherwise deserve some punishment in the absence of sort of grace or mercy. I also recognize that while I might be think myself to be more "good" thand "bad," there's no handy-dandy cosmic scale I can look at to measure how much 10 lies, 4 thefts, 13 acts of lust, etc weigh against 7 holding doors open for people, saying please and thank you anytime I'm in public, telling my wife and daughter "I love you," or doing a great job at work. What's the point system on which I can rely to measure my "good" vs my "bad"?</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small;">That brings me to the next point that is stuck in my craw. People apparently are hung up that God could judge and punish people, but they have no hangups, whatsoever, about human being extracting some amount of revenge against wrongdoers. Many might no longer believe the death penalty is a just punishment, regardless of the crime or wrong. But they would see mental and emotional, perhaps even physical, torment as fair game.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small;">More subtley yet more pervasively, westerners these days love themselves some "karma." Of course, they don't have the first clue on what Buddhists or Hindus have to say about karma, at least not with any specificity. It's a complex and varied spiritual concept and definitions vary between eastern religions. Americans like to say, "Well, it means 'what comes around goes around.'" Not exactly. Hinduistic karma's closer to the Biblical concept of sowing and reaping. However, it has to do more broadly with cosmic cause and effect:</span></p> <blockquote> <p><span style="font-size: small;">Karma is not punishment or retribution but simply an extended expression or consequence of natural acts. Karma means "deed" or "act" and more broadly names the universal principle of </span><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause"><span style="font-size: small;">cause</span></a><span style="font-size: small;"> and </span><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect"><span style="font-size: small;">effect</span></a><span style="font-size: small;">, action and reaction, that governs all life. The effects experienced are also able to be mitigated by actions and are not necessarily fated. That is to say, a particular action now is not binding to some particular, pre-determined future experience or reaction; it is not a simple, one-to-one correspondence of reward or punishment.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small;">Karma is not </span><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate"><span style="font-size: small;">fate</span></a><span style="font-size: small;">, for humans act with </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology" title="Free will in theology"><span style="font-size: small;">free will</span></a><span style="font-size: small;"> creating their own destiny. According to the Vedas, if one sows </span><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil"><span style="font-size: small;">goodness</span></a><span style="font-size: small;">, one will reap goodness; if one sows </span><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil"><span style="font-size: small;">evil</span></a><span style="font-size: small;">, one will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determines our future. The conquest of karma lies in intelligent action and dispassionate response.</span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="font-size: small;">If we say that post-modern Americans have gotten it partially right and that what comes around goes around -- which is a cousin belief to Christian sowing and reaping -- we must also say that they accept the idea of cosmic judgment and retribution. People in our society really love this idea. Do a google search of "karma is a bitch" (apologize if the word offends anyone) and you'll see that people revel in the idea that someone that does something bad has something coming to him/her in return, often worse than the original offense. You can get "Karma is a Bitch" bumperstickers. I have friends on Facebook that put "karma" out there whenever a villain gets what's coming to him.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small;">Modern, supposedly rational folks have no qualms with cosmic retribution (not tied to any physical or scientifically observable force in the universe mind you, and not even clearly attributable to a someone or something who could guide it.) Yet, they can't accept the idea that God could be the agent of retribution (or reward.) Why must God only<em> reward </em>people (for their sins and shortcomings) but we mere mortals get to sit back and enjoy "karma" crushing our enemies' souls, destroying their lives or just plain gettin' 'em back for their bad behavior?</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small;">The truth, I believe, is that people love vengeance. They just don't want to face the fact that God could be the agent of that vengeance <em><strong>and</strong> </em>such vengeance could be directed at them. Karma's for "the other guy," the one that does really bad things.</span></p>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-64839474034322762262010-11-22T11:25:00.001-05:002010-11-22T11:27:01.089-05:00Crumbs for the Little Dogs<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;" align="CENTER"><u><b>Matthew 15:21-28</b></u></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><a name="en-ESV-23654"></a><a name="en-ESV-23655"></a><a name="en-ESV-23656"></a><a name="en-ESV-23657"></a><a name="en-ESV-23658"></a><a name="en-ESV-23659"></a><a name="en-ESV-23660"></a><a name="en-ESV-23661"></a> <i><b>21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon." 23But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and begged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us." 24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25But she came and knelt before Him, saying, "Lord, help me." 26And He answered, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs." 27She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table." 28Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. </b></i> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"> In this text, we see a number of things: rebuke; rejection; modern minds may see ethnic bigotry; persistence; love; disdain; unwavering faith; miracles; reward; affirmation; prayers answered; acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><a name="en-ESV-236551"></a> Verses 21-22: <i><b>21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon." </b></i> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> A Canaanite woman – Women were not, to put it mildly, highly esteemed in 1<sup>st</sup> century Palestine. They were, at best, second class citizens. Jesus, as we have seen in other places in the Gospels, acknowledged womens' important roles in the kingdom and affirmed them as blessed and beloved of God. Ultimately, we see that pattern repeated in this story, but not in these verses. That she was a Canaanite hints at the rejection – or apparent rejection – we see in the next few verses. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> The Canaanites were dispossessed of their land as far back as Abram. Genesis 15:17-21 tells us that the “Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates...'”which included the land of the Canaanites.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> Both before and after the covenant in which the land of the Canaanites is given to Abra,, God promises children to Abram – later Abraham – and promises he will be the father of many nations, with descendants numbering as the stars. <i>See Genesis 15:5; 17:6-8</i>. In fact, in 17:8, the land of Canaan is promised to Abraham. This “everlasting covenant,” as it relates directly to the Canaanites, is repeated in <i>Psalm 105:10-11</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> The Canaanites had a long history of struggle with God's people. The Canaanites were descendants of Canaan, son of Ham. Abraham's descendants, both through Ishmael and Isaac, were descended from Noah's son, Shem. Historically, they had been devotees of Baal and even sacrificed children to that idol. Apparently by Jesus' time, some level of enmity existed even though Israelite Jews and Canaanites lived in close proximity.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><i><b>Verse 23But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and begged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us."</b></i></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> What is the significance in Jesus not answering her plea? Some commentators suggest that pattern seen elsewhere in scripture, and born out in our own lives, is that God does not always “answer” when we call, at least not in the short term. Others suggest that the silent was actually communication. John Calvin, in one of his commentaries on this chapter, supposed that Jesus, while silent, “spoke within the mind of the woman.” He added:</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; page-break-before: auto;" align="LEFT"> In this way the Lord often acts towards those who believe in him; he speaks to them, and yet is silent. Relying on the testimonies of Scripture, where they hear him speaking, they firmly believe that he will be gracious to them; and yet he does not immediately reply to their wishes and prayers, but, on the contrary, seems as if he did not hear. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> The deafening silence in response to our supplications can be one of the greatest tests of faith. Waiting for an answer also reminds us who is in charge. What is one of the first things we deal with is parents? We struggle to find the appropriate balance between promptly caring for our children's serious, immediate needs – food, changing a diaper – and being at their beckoned call. God, assuredly, does not struggle with that but there is, nevertheless, a parallel. Sometimes He, as father, makes us wait because that is best for us. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> Other commentators suggest Jesus was simply steeling the resolve of the woman. Faced with his initial silence, she had to choose between pressing forward with her petition or giving up hope, maybe rejecting God altogether. Earle, Sanner and Childers, in the <i>Beacon Bible Commentary</i>, Vol 6, p 149 cite Carr: “Jesus, by his refusal, tries the woman's faith that He may purify and deepen it.”</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><a name="en-ESV-236581"></a> <i><b>Verses 24-25: </b></i> <i><b>24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25But she came and knelt before Him, saying, "Lord, help me." </b></i> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> When Jesus does answer, without directly granting or denying her specific request, i.e. that her daughter be delivered from demonic possession, He explains His purpose is to minister to His own people. As the woman did in verse 22, she reaffirmed His lordship. This, to me, has several interesting facets. First, one not a member of the “house of Israel” recognizes the Messiah. “Son of David,” according to John Calvin, was (to paraphrase) a messianic marker. Thus she, a foreigner, perhaps even a pagan (as opposed to a “God fearer” Gentile), acknowledged the lordship of the Jewish Messiah. Second, she personally acknowledged His lordship <i><b>over her!</b></i> She gave herself over to Him, surrendering herself, calling on His saving mercy. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> Remarkable in this story is the tie-back to the covenental theology of the Jews. I am certainly no scholar and know little or nothing about the intricacies of that belief structure. But it's hard to miss Jesus showing Himself to be a good Jew steeped in the Old Testament. As various commentators have noted, Jesus' ministry really never reached beyond Judea. The Apostles, of course, carried the message to the Gentiles, spreading it all over the Roman Empire. Jesus, though, really ministered primarily to His own people. Here He expressly refuses – or at least hesitates – to extend the blessings meant for God's people to Gentiles. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> A fascinating parallel is Abram/Abraham's “everlasting” blessing with God at the expense, if you will, of the Canaanites and others. Jesus' blessing, tied up in His Father's covenant with Abram/Abraham, was refused to this lowly Canaanite woman...or so it first seemed.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><i><b>Verses 26And He answered, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs."</b></i></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"> Little disagreement is found over Jesus' meaning when He responds by telling her it is not right to cast “the children's bread” “to the dogs.” If He didn't call this poor woman a dog, a major insult in that culture, He certainly compared her to one. Earle, Sanner and Childers argue that Jesus actually might have uttered this with a nudge and a wink as something of a rebuff or rebuke to His disciples. The original Greek does not refer to a “dog” like a filthy street dweller despised by that culture, but as a “little pet dog” with which children would play. If so, there was no rebuke in His response. It was an inside joke between Him and the woman.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"> We tend to see Jesus in a terrifically serious light. Some of that is because we have only text, without benefit of facial expressions and body language. Any modern day American who tries to communicate by text and email knows that meanings can be completely obscured, indeed lost, when all you have to go by are words on a screen. Mark Driscoll, in his book <i>Religion Kills</i>, argues for a funny Jesus, a man with a great sense of humor. If some of the minority commentators are right, this might be one example of our Lord busting some chops.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"> Covenantal theology reappears. John Calvin explains the significance of the “children's bread” as:</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;" align="JUSTIFY">To make the meaning plain to us, it must be understood that the appellation of the children’s bread is here given, not to the gifts of God of whatever description, but only to those which were bestowed in a peculiar manner on Abraham and his posterity. For since the beginning of the world, the goodness of God was everywhere diffused—nay, filled heaven and earth—so that all mortal men felt that God was their Father. But as the children of Abraham had been more highly honored than the rest of mankind, the children’s bread is a name given to everything that, relates peculiarly to the adoption by which the Jews alone were elected to be children </p> <p style="margin-left: -0.01in; margin-right: 0.49in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> Thus, Jesus was not being distantly metaphorical. Children were God's chosen ones; His adopted kids. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><i><b>Verse 27She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table."</b></i></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> This one verse is packed full of theological punch! It is heavy and rich, like spiritual cheesecake. The next verse gives this one its full weight and meaning but I will still address them separately. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> Crumbs are “small fragments, especially of something baked (as bread.)” One could not live on crumbs. Usually they are discarded. Here, they are left for the dogs. Not given to but left for the dogs. They are so small as to amount to almost nothing. These crumbs have fallen to the floor. It is hard to know what importance this idea held in that culture but we, in a society of overabundance, where our poor are fat, it's hard to conceive of being pleased with crumbs on the floor. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> Moreover, consider how the Canaanite woman's willingness to take the crumbs contrasts with our 21<sup>st</sup> century conception of Christianity. Think of the so-called “Prosperity Gospel” that we hear preached on cable TV. God, we are told, wants to give you everything your heart desires because He loves you! But is that what we see in this story? No. We see a master that wants us to want and be happy with only the crumbs!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> It must not be ignored whose crumbs are being lapped up; the crumbs from the master's table. His crumbs – whatever they might be – are better than abundance from other sources. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><i><b>Verse 28Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. </b></i> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"> Dovetailing nicely with the discussion on verse 27 is Jesus acknowledgment of this woman's “great faith.” She was willing to take a little – even after apparently being rejected or at least put off for the moment due to her race. She endured what may have been great personal insults. Yet she persisted in calling on Jesus to save her child. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"> The crumb concept is fitting in an ironic way. She and Jesus saw her as asking for very little, but what could be more important to a parent than the healing of an afflicted, suffering child? A lesson in here, maybe, is reflected in that irony. When we ask for the right types of blessings from God, He sees them as little things. God's kingdom, we see in scripture, often operates in contradictory ways: the first shall be last; the meek shall inherit the earth; he must increase, I must decrease; you must lose your life to gain it, etc. Be willing to take the crumbs and God will richly bless. Maybe a more apt way to put it is that the crumbs will satisfy your needs, another apparent contradiction; defying human logic.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"> There are parallels, too, between this woman's great faith and the faith necessary to move mountains. Not to make too much of the “crumbs” concept, but as Jesus said, having only faith the size of a mustard seed is necessary to move mountains. Having faith enough to accept the crumbs from the master's table is sufficient to cause you to experience in an almost inexpressible miracle. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="JUSTIFY"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;" align="LEFT"> More likely, as with the mustard seed, the issue isn't quantity but quality. What God gives us, even if we think it is not enough, is sufficient! That little mustard seed, similarly, grows into a large tree, as Jesus explained. Willingness to take the crumbs amounts to great faith because it necessitates reliance on God. Analogously, planting that mustard seed with the expectation that one day it will turn into a great tree – a hope that must battle some doubt – requires belief, nurture and, most importantly, patience! </p>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-64773577598778613232010-11-05T22:31:00.003-04:002010-11-05T22:38:59.769-04:00The CallI've been wrestling with some kind of "call" by God to "ministry." I don't know what that means. It waxes and wanes, but the call has been there for a few months now. <br /><br />Right now, I'm a bit stressed at work. If I could just be a lawyer and focus on the actual substance of my job I might feel better. But I find myself working the phones and trying -- with staff help -- to line up a bunch of witnesses for a trial. For one reason or another, I can't seem to get to the point of actually working on <span style="font-style: italic;">the trial</span> stuff itself.<br /><br />At the moment, the last thing I want to do is work or think of work. But it's all consuming. When work gets like this, sometimes I run to God. Sometimes I run away from him. Now I feel like I want to run away from work, into the safe arms of some sort of work that has actual meaning and purpose.<br /><br />This is a lousy way to look at work, especially for a Presbyterian. We, after all, helped make the so-called Protestant Work Ethic what it is. Work, for work's sake, has value in that worldview. Now, though, I struggle to see value beyond my paycheck. I only see value in service to others on a spiritual level. The stress, though, puts me in a position of not seeing value in the work that I am given to do. <br /><br />Within a week, I'll get a short reprieve and life will be good again...ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-45799692316472951242010-09-30T14:50:00.005-04:002010-09-30T15:21:27.447-04:00Rush Limbaugh, M.Div.Yesterday, I had the distinct displeasure of hearing Rush Limbaugh attempt to define the "tenets" of the Christian faith, and fail miserably in doing so. I have nothing against Mr. Limbaugh, particularly. I'm also not a huge fan and I'm certainly not a "Dittohead."<br /><br />The context of Rush's remarks was that President Obama recently said, in trying to articulate why he is a Christian, that he holds to the Golden Rule (though he didn't refer to it by its moniker) and (rather oddly) that he should be his brother's keeper. Limbaugh, in suggestion that the President doesn't understand his own declared Christian faith, had this to say on yesterday's show:<br /><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="font-family:times new roman;"><span id="Par_89380" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:100%;" >RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, you have to forgive me here, but -- and not disputing -- President Obama says he's a Christian, that's good enough for me. And there's a lot of people who do not know details of their own religious belief. <span style="font-weight: bold;"> But the Golden Rule is not a precept of Christianity. I hate to point this out, but the Golden Rule does not emanate, originate, from Christianity. And this brother's keeper business? That's not Jesus.</span> I hate to say this, but Jesus Christ did not talk about brother's keeper. That is from the story of Cain and Abel, and even that story is misunderstood. The story of Cain and Abel -- my brother's keeper does not mean, "I'm going to take care of my brother or take care of my sister". The story of Cain and Abel, Cain killed Abel, and then he said he had no idea. He denied it. He denied killing Abel, and then said to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Meaning, "What, is he my responsibility? He's not my responsibility, I didn't kill my brother." Now, a lot of people misunderstand all this, but the Golden Rule doesn't come from Christianity, and Cain and Abel is not, "I'm going to take care of my brother and I'm going to take care of my sister," and Jesus Christ has nothing to do with either one of them</span></blockquote><div style="text-align: center;font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;">***<br /></span></div><blockquote><span id="Par_4584" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:arial;font-size:12px;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">RUSH: The code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon. Many people's first experience to the Golden Rule is actually... like my brother, David, told me that he first heard of the Golden Rule when he opened up a fortune cookie at the Purple Crackle Club in East Cape Girardeau, Illinois, and the fortune cookie had the Golden Rule in there as a fortune. How many of you have you seen the Golden Rule as a fortune in the fortune cookie? Now, the code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon, which is modern Iraq. Ancient Babylon is modern Iraq. You could even find the story of Cain and Abel in the Koran -- sorry -- the Holy Koran, as Mrs. Clinton points out. And so was the Golden Rule. </span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" >I'm getting a lot of e-mails that the Golden Rule is in the Old Testament, that it's in the New Testament, but it's the Code of Hammurabi, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, do unto others. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">But the point is, I am my brother's keeper. There is an effort -- the reason why this is important, there's an effort by the left to say that Jesus was a socialist, and they are using this to turn many evangelical people into global warming people. We are the stewards of the planet and so forth.</span></span><br /></span></blockquote>What Limbaugh is (quite foolishly) suggesting is that because the Golden Rule, in some other expression, predates Christian, that it's not a tenet of the Christian faith. Mr. Limbaugh simply does not understand Christianity.<br /><br />If you believe that the "tenets" of the Christian faith are expressed in the New Testament, you need only look to the New Testament to see if the Golden Rule is in it. By golly, it is! Jesus said, as recorded in <span style="font-style: italic;">Matthew 7:12</span>,<span style="font-weight: bold;"> " Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."</span> As recorded in <span style="font-style: italic;">Luke 6:31</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">"And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise."<br /><br /></span>It is completely and utterly irrelevant that the Golden Rule might be expressed outside the New Testament or even in some form or fashion in the "holy books" of other faiths. The point that Limbaugh made was that the President, in paraphrasing the Golden Rule and pointing to it as evidence of his personal Christian faith, did not express a Christian belief.<br /><br />That would be like saying that because the concept of "democracy" did not originate in the United States, valuing democracy is not valuing an American ideal or belief. If Limbaugh were correct, any expression of Christian beliefs that incorporated the Ten Commandments would not be expression of Christianity, at all, but of ancient Judaism. That, of course, would be foolishness.<br /><br />Mr. Limbaugh should stick to politics and stay away from teaching the Bible.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-55679363529129401852010-09-20T11:25:00.002-04:002010-09-20T11:25:56.159-04:00That's what I'm talkin' 'bout<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dhRAL8HIz3U&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dhRAL8HIz3U&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-65322786292110677672010-09-10T23:54:00.003-04:002010-09-11T00:14:09.082-04:00International Burn a Mosque At Ground Zero DayI am no fan of Islam, radical or otherwise. But that's not really what's on my mind. It's 9/11, the on-again-off-again "International Burn A Koran Day" at the tiny church in Florida was originally set for today. Protests against the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" still rage in NYC. President Obama is wringing his hands, worried about how these storms of controversy will cause us Americans to be perceived abroad. Meanwhile, Pastor Terry Jones somehow appointed himself -- probably not entirely by accident -- the voice of American Christianity. These are exciting, scary, and even bizarre times.<br /><br />With that as a backdrop, a few things have been nagging at me.<br /><ol><li>At the risk of being judgmental, I don't understand why Pastor Jones and his church members fail to see that they would be forsaking Jesus's commands to love your neighbor as yourself and to do unto to others as you would have them do unto you just to <span style="font-style: italic;">prove</span> that they have the <span style="font-style: italic;">right</span> to burn some books. Just because you have the<span style="font-style: italic;"> right</span> to offend someone doesn't mean you should.</li><li>I must confess that I have been impressed (at least somewhat) by the willingness of at least one Imam to talk to Pastor Jones and make a promise to approach Imam Rauf about the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. It's nice to see that Muslim leaders -- at least a few -- are willing to at least consider that things done in the name of their faith might possibly be the cause of all this backlash, what the media is calling "Islamaphobia."</li><li>That our President, General in Afghanistan and Secretary of State are concerned that the burning of a few so-called "holy books" would put "Americans in harm's way" or "endanger the lives of our troops" in Afghanistan or Iraq <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">proves</span></span> precisely what many "Islamaphobes" have been trying to say: Islam is not a religion of peace, but a religion of war, terror and death. That we have to be concerned that Muslims would kill human beings over the burning of a few hundred copies of their "holy book" is a pretty good indicator that something is aschew in that religion. Bibles are destroyed in other countries, but Christians don't murder people in retaliation.</li><li>I appreciate, as indicated, that Muslims are now forced to start considering why there is a backlash in this country. But rather than go on the defensive, why not spend time, energy and resources to de-radicalize elements within their own faith? If all the terror committed in the name of Islam is really the work of "a few extremists," the de-radicalization process shouldn't be terribly difficult. Instead of trying to convince me your faith is a "religion of peace," why don't you <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">show</span></span> me that you do not tolerate murder in the name of allah? In other words, do some housecleaning and then get back with me on your sales pitch.<br /></li></ol>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-52272763563269175822010-08-15T07:28:00.004-04:002010-08-15T07:41:03.059-04:00Ground Zero liberalism<div class="mbl notesBlogText clearfix"><div><p>The so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" seems to be the topic<em> du jour</em> in the culture wars. As G. K. Chesterton advises, it is good to put forth the points on which there is agreement before taking the contrary position. I agree that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, both as I read it personally and as a matter of law, permits Muslims to erect mosques on the private property of their choosing, subject to zoning and other "reasonable" restrictions (that apply to everyone.) If you consider yourself a liberal (small L) and your "support" of the Ground Zero Mosque is on First Amendment Grounds <strong><em>alone</em></strong>, I think we find ourselves in agreement and there is nothing further to discuss. The mosque must be permitted.</p><p><br /></p><p>But, what I <em>observe</em> amongst liberals -- and it's not just with this particular issue, but has been repeated many times post 9-11 -- is some sort of support of Islam on what I think could only be broadly labeled as "tolerance." It's the typical liberal viewpoint that "I'm OK, you're OK (unless you're a white, Christian, male Republican.)" Except that I never get the impression genuine tolerance is being expressed. Rather, leftist support for Islam seems like a "stickin' it to the Man" attitude. It's a case of, "Let's see, Christians don't like Islam and I don't like Christians so I'll say Islam is OK." I know there are people that so hate what they believe to be Christianity that they support anything that could not be possibly mistaken as Christian.</p><p><br /></p><p>I'll put it plainly. If you are a Liberal, in the post-modern western sense, <em>and</em> you do anything but vehemently oppose Islam, you are a fool and a hypocrite. Those things you say that you dislike about Christian fundamentalism are the foundations for Islamic morality, but are heaped on by the gallon. Islamic morality is also enforced by violence and terror. Islam's followers don't believe religion is a "private matter." You might want to read up on Sharia law or just take a gander at how things run in Iran to see this is the case.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You think conservative Christians are "hateful" for opposing gay marriage? How does it sit with you that (supposedly) 4,000 people have been executed in Iran since the revolution for being homosexual? You don't like that fundamentalist Christians believe that the man should be the "head of the house" -- you probably don't understand what this even requires of the man? How do you feel about women being stoned in Muslim countries for allegedly being adulteresses? </p><p><br /></p><p>Do you like the idea that fathers and brothers (in diverse places across the Muslim Middle East) will murder girls in their own family if a husband reports back that the young lady was not a virgin (meaning he could not tell that she was)? There should be nothing more abhorrent to you than "honor killings."<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Islam is not progressive. Islam is not "inclusive." Islam is not "tolerant." Muslims are not "pro-gay." Islam's followers are not anything that you think that the rest of us should be. So why aren't you speaking out against them? Other than the old worn out line that "Islam is a religion of peace," Muslim don't even <span style="font-style: italic;">pretend</span> to share post-modern western liberal values. So why do you support them streaming into our country, building their places of worship wherever they like? </p><p><br /></p><p>You will rue the day, and it may be in our lifetime, when they are of sufficient numbers to, within a democratic system, influence government policy. You'll wish the mean-spirited Euro-American conservatives were in power, suggesting you home-school your kids and honor your husbands.</p></div></div>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-72478984845795423282010-08-05T10:04:00.003-04:002010-08-05T10:07:56.973-04:00Silversmiths of Artemis<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ez6F-PZiS_M/TFrFVadp7aI/AAAAAAAAALs/rUruBBcrwzA/s1600/artemis+of+ephesus.JPG"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 278px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ez6F-PZiS_M/TFrFVadp7aI/AAAAAAAAALs/rUruBBcrwzA/s320/artemis+of+ephesus.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5501926866458111394" border="0" /></a><br /><p>Artemis or Diana was the chief goddess in Ephesus in the first century. She, of course, is mentioned in Acts. Chapter 19 describes how the Apostle Paul was run out of town because his proseletyzing was based for the business of the silversmiths who made little carved idols of Artemis:</p> <blockquote> <p><sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27603">21</sup> When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27604">22</sup> So he sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, but he himself stayed in Asia for a time.<br /><sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27605">23</sup> And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27606">24</sup> For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana brought no small profit to the craftsmen. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27607">25</sup> He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: “Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27608">26</sup> Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27609">27</sup> So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed,whom all Asia and the world worship.” <br /><sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27610">28</sup> Now when they heard <i>this,</i> they were full of wrath and cried out, saying, “Great <i>is</i> Diana of the Ephesians!” <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27611">29</sup> So the whole city was filled with confusion, and rushed into the theater with one accord, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul’s travel companions. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27612">30</sup> And when Paul wanted to go in to the people, the disciples would not allow him. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-27613">31</sup> Then some of the officials of Asia, who were his friends, sent to him pleading that he would not venture into the theater.</p> </blockquote> <p>Acts 19:21-31(New King James)</p> <p>This story in particular caused me to pause and ask, "Who are today's silversmiths of Artemis?" We always hear about some person promoting this or that belief, system, self-help technique, diet, or even religion. Often, at least secondarily, they enjoy considerable monetary gain as a result. What I don't hear asked much is, "Who stands to gain (materially) by ridding this country (or even the world) of the Gospel?" Materialiasts -- which, I think include hardcore socialists and well as dedicated money-minded capitalists -- have to acknowledge much of human action (good and bad) is done for some sort of material gain.</p> <p>Who stands to gain in the United States if the Christians withdraw from society as was demanded of Paul in Acts 19? I have a list:</p> <ul><li><strong>Pornographers.</strong> Forget all this nonsense about freedom of expression. Sex is a drug and pornographers peddle it to make money. Lots of money. They don't provide people with pleasurable experiences in the name of charity. I've checked various sources and seen a wide range of numbers. I don't think being accurate about the dollar amount of the porn industry is especially important since we are talking about <strong>billions</strong> of dollars. Consider that something like <strong>$10 to $15 Billion</strong> moves through the American economy per year for "adult entertainment." Do you think the purveyors of "adult entertainment" like Focus on the Family calling for social change in this area? As certain as I'm sitting here typing this, I know that they don't want mental health experts convincing the public at large that sex addiction is real and destructive, a view that many secular health professionals seem to hold these days.</li></ul> <p> </p> <ul><li><strong>Public colleges and universities. </strong> I've seen first-hand how the social agendas of the members of various departments -- bureaucracies really -- are anti-Christian, anti-traditionalism. Those in academe don't want to hear opposing views, really. They want to ensure that tuition and tax dollars continue to roll in to fund them promoting their own worldviews. For such a small minority of people, those that run our public colleges and universities really act as oligarchists. A Christian society, meaning some sort of plurality of practicing Christians, is a threat to them. So they silence Christians or, worse yet, demand that their views conform to the new standards. Perhaps I am turning this around, putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Maybe they are motivated not by the money the schools rake in but by their social and political agendas; the funding just ensures they can continue to promote those agendas. But we see that they have created a society in which the <em><strong>need</strong></em> for their services ensures their continued funding and, therefore, continued existence. They've convinced us that the only way to "get ahead" or to "be successful" in life is to get a college degree. Indeed, college grads do considerably better (in many social categories, not just income) than people without degrees. I'd not quibble with that. While I would not go so far as to say that this is some sort of purposeful conspiracy or grand scheme, I do believe those in academia recognize a sea change in society's moral outlook would be bad for (their) business.</li></ul> <p> </p> <ul><li><strong>Hollywood.</strong> An entire book could be written on this subject and I won't try to tackle it at length. I feel comfortable declaring, though, that an orthodox Christian worldview is bad for the movie-making and television industries (and the modern entertainment industry more broadly.) Remember the furor created over <em>The Last Temptation of Christ</em>? Who could forget all the hub-bub over The Da Vinci Code? Surely those controversies drove people -- tens, maybe hundreds of thousands -- to the theaters in those instances. But imagine if people actually decided they were not going to fill their heads with some of the stuff that Hollywood produces. Imagine millions of people refusing to set foot in theaters because the movies had objectionable themes. What would happen if hundreds of thousands of Christians stopped going to or renting movies produced by studio A or starring actors B, C and D. That was the kind of effect Paul was having in Asia by proclaiming the gospel.</li></ul> <p>Jesus said, "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." Matthew 10:22. Will we be hated because we, as Christians, are bad for business? Do they already hate us because they perceive a threat to their lucrative livelihoods? </p> <p>Surely the 18 year old skeptic about ready to start college, who doesn't have two nickels to rub together, can afford to be philosophical about Christianity. He can dislike it because it doesn't jibe with what he has been told in school about "tolerance" or "acceptance" or "open-mindedness." But not everyone is that kid. He'll see things differently at 40 than he does now.</p>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-48812665295423477262010-07-29T23:33:00.003-04:002010-07-30T00:09:31.009-04:00SacrificeIt's safe to say that the orthodox Judeo-Christian view of remission of sin is that something must be sacrificed, a blood offering must be made, to appease God's wrath or stay His judgment. I've never really quibbled with the truth of that, but I've never quite understood <strong><em>why</em></strong> that is the case. Couldn't He accept us doing jumping jacks or cartwheels as acts of repentence? Couldn't the giving of alms take the place of the physical sacrifice of either an animal, under the Judaic cultic practices, or a Man, i.e. the crucifixion of Jesus, God incarnate? After all, God is God, right? He could accept any mode or act in remission of sin. Or could He.<br /><br />There's an incredible amount of theological and philosophical study on this issue. I don't claim to know what most of the great minds think about it. I don't claim to have new thoughts, but only thoughts or ideas new to me.<br /><br />Like my fellow modern man, my personal inclination is to say that there's something incredibly cruel, even wrong, about killing an animal -- to say nothing of a sinless God-Man -- to appease God's anger at my sins. It <em>seems</em> unjust in a way. I don't fault skeptics for finding it so, but I, through faith, trust that God's plans and ways are better than any of which I could possibly conceive. <br /><br />It must be remembered that the sacrifice rituals performed as laid out in Exodus and Leviticus were nothing like vicious acts of bloodlust. While it's true a spotless (innocent) animal died in the process, the offered animal was eaten by the priests. Understanding that, only vegetarians and vegans would be left to say that no justification, whatsoever, for the sacrifice could be made on modern terms.<br /><br />While it is hard to come to grips with its unpleasantness, its ugliness (again, to our modern way of viewing things), I see that is <strong><em>precisely</em></strong> why ritualistic sacrifice might have had to occur. Certainly modern people would be troubled that their wrongdoing cost a cute little lamb its life. If I knew something had to die to clean up the mistakes I made, and that this process would need to be repeated as my sins piled up, I might be more hesistant to err. I might be more willing to exercise discipline, to try to flee temptation. I might take more seriously my faults.<br /><br />What would seem more unjust than to kill an innocent man for the crimes of another? To us, there is not much we would find more appalling. Yet, that is the lesson of the cross. Someone else was tortured to death for your lies, lust, anger, violence, cruelty, pettiness, impatience, gluttony, or hatred. <br /><br />You might be man or woman enough to live out your life according to your own will if you knew that only you would have to account for that. That might seem contrary to our selfish natures, but I've heard many people in my life say they didn't mind the idea of Hell. They say, half jokingly, half seriously, "Oh, what does it matter, I'm going to Hell anyway!" <br /><br />But consider that, to make up for those shortcomings, someone else had to die. What if someone else already died a horrible death to clean up your mess? Would knowing that cause you pause to examine your life?<br /><br />Roman Catholics believe that Jesus' crucifixion is -- and this is my way of explaining it -- re-enacted in the Mass and that Jesus daily presents His crucified body before the Father to stay His judgment, to cover your sins. If that is the case, you can't be content to say, "Well, He already died and we no longer sacrifice animals so this is taken care of."<br /><br />Ultimately, a blood sacrifice is a deterrent. It's a wake up call. You already have your own soul to account for; do you want another's blood on your hands as well?ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-51943429353953896012010-06-13T11:20:00.002-04:002010-06-13T11:23:24.695-04:00God's Story: A Five Act PlayI prepared this for a recent presentation at our local Church's Theology on Tap. It is a commentary on N. T. Wright's book, <span style="font-style: italic;">The Last Word. </span>I've not corrected (the several) typographical errors in it.<br /><div style="text-align: center;">****<br />“GOD’S STORY: A FIVE ACT PLAY”<br />or<br />“WHAT WE MEAN BY ‘AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE’”<br />Adopted from The Last Word, by N.T. Wright<br />For Theology on Tap, June 8, 2010<br /><br /> “God said it, I believe it and that settles it.” Some of you have heard that phrase. It’s<br /><div style="text-align: left;">the sort of thing you’d see on a bumper sticker on a big old Cadillac, driven by a white haired lady.<br />I heard one southern preacher repeat that phrase and say, “It doesn’t matter whether I believe<br />it! God said it and that settles it!” For someone like my grandmother, who took everything in<br />our Holy Bible at face value and cared nothing for what anyone else might have thought of her for<br />it, that type of approach to the Bible was completely sufficient. Those of us, though, who have been<br />confronted by a clever skeptic or the typical post-modern American who cares little for what a book<br />thousands of years old might have to say, “God said it and that settles it!” doesn’t really cut it.<br /><br /> What does it mean to say that “God said it”? Even if I want to believe it, how am I to know<br />exactly what to believe? What no longer applies – like animal sacrifice – and to what must there be<br />strict adherence? How are we to know these things? How do debates, which end up back at the<br />“authority of scripture,” get resolved? The issue of scriptural authority is not settled even within the<br />church as a whole and certainly not amongst scholars and theologians. <br /><br /> We could fill libraries on the subject, but one resource I found helpful was The Last Word:<br />Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. I am doing the<br />book an injustice to sum it up in a sentence, but I will anyway. Essentially, Bishop Wright takes<br />what something of a middle-of-the-road approach between Biblical literalism and liberalism. For<br />Bishop Wright, there is no doubt that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but he attempts to make<br />sense out of that, give some tips for how it be read so as to bridge the gap between competing<br />views of scripture. My talk focus on highlights I personally found most helpful.<br /><br /> “Authority of Scripture”<br /> <br /> In the Protestant tradition, Bishop Wright urges, emphatically, that the Bible is both the<br />authoritative “God’s Word” and that it should be translated and understood “literally.” But, unless<br />you’re like my Grandma, those ideas, without explanation, don’t get you very far.<br /><br /> He argues, “‘Authority of scripture’ is a shorthand for God’s authority exercised<br />through scripture.” God, not the Bible, is our authority. While that seems simple, sometimes that<br />gets missed, especially on the conservative side. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> The Five Act Play<br /><br /> I found Bishop Wright’s description of the Bible as a “five act play,” each act being distinct,<br />fitting in its time and place, as extremely helpful. The acts:<br /><br /> 1. Creation<br /> 2. The Fall<br /> 3. Israel<br /> 4. Jesus<br /> 5. The Church<br /><br /> We are living in the Church age, not Creation, not the Fall. We cannot return to Creation.<br />We do not walk with Jesus through first century Palestine. We live in the age in which the Bible,<br />mostly the New Testament, is the foundation for our faith, the guidebook for Act 5.<br /><br /> An analogy demonstrates this point and helped me sort out how we might make sense out of<br />the debate over the validity of, say, the Old Testament in the post-modern world. Why might we<br />not still sacrifice animals and keep slaves or observe the Jewish food laws? He explains:<br /><br /> When travelers sail across a vast ocean and finally arrive on the distant shore, they leave<br /> the ship behind and continue over land, not because the ship was no good, or because their<br /> voyage had been misguided, but precisely because both the ship and voyage had<br /> accomplished their purpose. During the new, dry-land stage of their journey, the<br /> travelers remain...the people who made that voyage in that ship.<br /><br /> Perhaps the best example of this line of thought anywhere in the New Testament is one of<br /> the earliest: Galatians 3:22-29, where Paul argues that God gave the Mosaic law for a<br /> specific purpose which has now come to fruition, whereupon that law must be put aside,<br /> in terms of its task of defining the community, not because it was a bad thing, but<br /> because it was a good thing whose task is now accomplished. But, as the whole letter<br /> indicates, the people of God renewed through Jesus and the Spirit can never and must never<br /> for get the road by which they had traveled. <br /><br />(Last Word, pp 57-58.) <br /><br /> Tradition and Reason<br /> <br /> The modern and post-modern worldviews tend to elevate “reason” over tradition. In the<br />extreme, there is no place for tradition that cannot be supported by reason. Most people, though,<br />really don’t know what they mean when that hold to that type of view. Obviously we as Christians,<br />Protestant and Catholic, give varying degrees of importance to tradition but all see it as important.<br />It seems we fight amongst ourselves over how much weight to give each in all matters of faith,<br />including the scriptures.<br /><br /> Bishop Wright, an Anglican, makes a pretty good case for harmonizing both tradition and<br />reason. With regard to tradition he says:<br /><br /> Paying attention to tradition means listening carefully (humbly but not uncritically) to how the<br /> church has read and lived scripture in the past. We must be constantly aware of our<br /> responsibility in the Communion of the Saints, without giving our honored predecessors the<br /> final say or making them an ‘alternative source,” independent of scripture itself. When they<br /> speak with one voice we should listen very carefully. They may be wrong. They<br /> sometimes are. But we ignore them at our peril.<br /><br />(Last Word, p 117.) <br /><br /> Secularists, skeptics, atheists, agnostics and even theological liberals would dismiss much or<br />all of scripture on the grounds of reason. But the church, I believe, should embrace it as a vehicle<br />for revelation. The place of reason, Bishop Wright says, in applying scripture is:<br /><br /> Likewise, reason will mean giving up merely arbitrary or whimsical readings of texts, and<br /> paying attention to lexical, contextual, and historical considerations. Reason provides a<br /> check on unrestrained imaginative readings of texts (e.g. the proposal that Jesus was really<br /> an Egyptian freemason...) <br /><br /> ‘Reason’ will mean giving attention to, and celebrating, the many and massive discoveries in<br /> biology, archaeology, physics, astronomy, and so on, which shed great light on God’s world<br /> and the human condition. This does not, of course, mean giving in to the pressure which<br /> comes from atheistic or rationalistic science. We must never forget that science, by<br /> definition, studies the repeatable, whereas history, by definition, studies the unrepeatable.<br /><br />(Last Word, pp 119-120.) Reason does not become an “independent source” of authority, over<br />scripture and tradition, but is a “necessary adjunct” to them.<br /><br /> Honoring Scripture, i.e. Making it Authoritative<br /> <br /> He proposes five (5) ways of honoring scripture, i.e. making it authoritative. <br /><br />A Totally Contextual Reading of Scripture:<br /><br /> Where Bishop Wright parts company with Christians on maybe the more fundamentalist end<br />of the spectrum is with his rejection of scripture as a compendium of “timeless truths.” He does not<br />say, of course, that scripture has no meaning for us in the modern age, but that it has context and is<br />rooted in the places and times of its writing:<br /><br /><br /> We must be committed to a totally contextual reading of scripture. Each word must be<br /> understood in its own verse, each verse in its own chapter, each chapter in its own book,<br /> and each book within its own historical, cultural and indeed canonical setting...All scripture is<br /> ‘culturally conditioned.’ It is naive to pretend that some parts are not, and can be treated as<br /> in some sense ‘primary’ or ‘universal,’ while other parts are, and can therefore safely be set<br /> aside.<br /><br />(Last Word, p128.) <br /><br />A Liturgically Grounded Reading of Scripture:<br /><br /> Essentially what Bishop Wright means by reading scripture liturgically is that it should take<br />“central place” in our “public worship,” regardless of tradition. We shouldn’t avoid verses we don’t<br />like:<br /><br /> There is simply no excuse for leaving out verses, paragraphs or chapters, from the New<br /> Testament in particular. We dare not try to tame the Bible. It is our foundation charter; we<br /> are not at liberty to play fast and loose with it.<br /><br />(Last Word, p 132.) <br /><br />A Privately Studied Reading of Scripture:<br /><br /> While Bishop Wright does not express it in exactly these terms, one of the criticisms leveled<br />against the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura (or even more extreme views of scripture and the<br />individual) is that too much of an emphasis on personal study can easily lead to heresy. You can<br />imagine that a group like the Branch Davidians became what they were because a mentally ill man<br />like David Koresh was left to figure out scripture on his own and, worse yet, teach it to others.<br />Charles Manson thought he was fulfilling the events described in Revelation when he ordered his<br />“family” to go on a murdering spree. <br /><br /> He does say that “western individualism” tends to make “personal reading” primary and<br />“liturgical reading” secondary, and posits that the order should be reversed, as he did in the book.<br />He treats private study as more of a function of personal devotion, but stresses it has a purpose in<br />the larger body:<br /><br /> If it is part of the privilege and duty of each Christian to study scripture, and to read it<br /> devotionally, it is important that the wider church should be able to hear what individual<br /> readers are discovering in the text. Of course, not all private readings will come up with<br /> significant new insights; but many will.<br /><br />(Last Word, p 134.)<br /><br />A Reading of Scripture Refreshed by Appropriate Scholarship:<br /><br /> Bishop Wright describes “Biblical scholarship” as “a great gift of God to the church.”<br />Holding to the Reformation’s “emphasis on the ‘literal sense’ of scripture,” he explains that we are<br />not necessarily wise to “take everything literally,” but instead must, “‘discover what the writers<br />mean’ as opposed to engaging in free-floating speculation.” (Last Word, p 135.) So, for instance,<br />the literal sense of a parable is its intended meaning, not treating it as an historical anecdote. <br /><br /> Biblical scholarship should “explore different meanings,” not for the sake of being modern or<br />scholarly, but because, “Any church, not least those that pride themselves on being ‘biblical,’ needs<br />to be open to new understandings of the Bible itself.” This approach prevents us from “being blown<br />this way or that by winds of fashion,” or, “being trapped in our own partial readings and distorted<br />traditions...” (Last Word, p 135.) He’s careful to caution liberals about “thumbing their noses” at<br />“cherished points of view,” reminding them the purpose of biblical scholarship is to “serve the<br />church.” <br /><br /> A Reading of Scripture Taught by the Church’s Accredited Leaders:<br /> <br /> By leaders, Bishop Wright is referring to not only to church hierarchy and pastoral staff, but<br />to Sunday School teachers and home group leaders. He reminds us that church hierarchy are often<br />muddled in the business of running the church and, thus, do not have the time to give the church<br />“careful and prayerful study of the text;” they turn to old sermons in the can. The “leader’s” role is<br />primarily to teach, he argues:<br /><br /> If, therefore, those called to office and leadership roles in the church remain content merely<br /> to organize and manage the internal affairs of the church, they are leaving a vacuum exactly<br /> where there ought to be vibrant, pulsating life...[H]ow much more should a Christian<br /> minister be a serious professional when it comes to grappling with scripture and ...If we are<br /> professional about other things, we ought to be ashamed not to be properly equipped both to<br /> study the Bible ourselves and bring its ever-fresh word to others.<br /><br />(Last Word, pp 138-139.)<br /><br /> I like that he, following the Reformers’ reference to the sacraments as God’s “visible<br />words,” says that sermons should be “audible sacraments.”<br /><br /> Summation<br /> <br /> What I like about these five (5) points is that they are very organic and all fit<br />together nicely. We might wish to consider whether we can appreciate scripture and<br />allow these different approaches to it to help the word become authoritative in our church<br />body and in our personal lives.<br /></div></div>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-71664810040181620062010-05-18T11:16:00.003-04:002010-05-18T23:36:53.050-04:00Be Ye Separate Part 1: Public PrayerThe culture wars are being fought over hot button socio-religious issues and some of those issues not only seem to be further distancing (in a negative way) Christians from society, but they are even dividing the Church itself. <p>I would like to start flushing out what I see as a new perspective that I'm gaining. It's new to me, but I don't pretend or claim it to be a new idea. This perspective has existed, in some form or fashion, almost over the entire life of the Church. But it's new or different in the sense that I don't hear other evangelicals holding or pronouncing this perspective. </p> <p>In short, I'm starting to believe that the best thing for both the Church and society is for Christianity to be removed from the public (and by that I mean governmental, not societal) sphere. I hope explain why as this series (I don't know what else to call it) continues.</p> <p>II Cor. 6:14-17 says:</p> <blockquote> <p><sup id="en-NKJV-28909" class="versenum">14</sup> Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? <sup id="en-NKJV-28910" class="versenum">15</sup> And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? <sup id="en-NKJV-28911" class="versenum">16</sup> And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you<sup value="" href="%22#fen-NKJV-28911b%22" title=""See">b]" class="footnote">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-28911b" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">b</a>]</sup> are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
<br />
<br /> <i>“ I will dwell in them</i>
<br /> <i>And walk among them.</i>
<br /> <i>I will be their God,</i>
<br /> <i>And they shall be My people.”</i><sup value="" href="%22#fen-NKJV-28911c%22" title=""See">c]" class="footnote">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-28911c" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">c</a>]</sup> </p> <p> <sup id="en-NKJV-28912" class="versenum">17</sup> <i> Therefore</i>
<br />
<br /> <i>“ Come out from among them</i>
<br /> <i>And be separate, says the Lord.</i>
<br /> <i>Do not touch what is unclean,</i>
<br /> <i>And I will receive you.”</i><sup value="" href="%22#fen-NKJV-28912d%22" title=""See">d]" class="footnote">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-28912d" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">d</a>]</sup>
<br /> <sup id="en-NKJV-28913" class="versenum">18</sup> <i>“ I</i> <i>will be a Father to you,</i>
<br /> <i>And you shall be My</i> <i>sons and daughters,</i>
<br /> <i>Says the LORD Almighty.”</i><sup value="" href="%22#fen-NKJV-28913e%22" title=""See">e]" class="footnote">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-28913e" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">e</a>]</sup></p> </blockquote> I hope to explore and apply this commandment to the way I feel some of these societal (legal, political) issues to be unfolding and I'll start with public prayer.
<br />
<br /><p>The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is well known to most politically astute Americans. It reads:</p> <blockquote> <p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</p> </blockquote> <p>Entire books could be and have been written about the import of this most sacred amendment and how it has been changed -- I'd argue corrupted, poisoned -- over the last 60 years. I am not going to take that approach here.</p> <p>Here are some cases which have applied to public prayer. <em>Engel v Vitale (1962)</em> stands for the proposition that required recitation of a prayer, even non-denominational prayers, are unconstitutional. Time set aside in public schools for religious education is also unconstitutional. <em>Zorach v Clauson (1952)</em>.</p> <p>More recently, in <em>Santa Fe Ind School Dist v Jane Doe (2000)</em> the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional student-led prayers which were <i>t</i>o be broadcast over the public address system before high school football games.</p> <blockquote> <p>We recognize the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions' significance...But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment." wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.</p> </blockquote> <p>Similarly, Prayers delivered by clergy at official public school graduation ceremonies are unconstitutional. <em>Lee v. Weisman,</em> 505 U. S. 577 (1992).The fact that a prayer is nondenominational or voluntary does not render it constitutional. The U. S. Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on whether student-initiated nonsectarian graduation prayer is constitutional, and the lower Federal courts disagree on the issue.</p> <p>School officials, employees or outsiders must not offer prayers at school assemblies. Even if attendance is voluntary, students may not deliver prayers at school assemblies either. <em>Collins v. Chandler Unified School Dist.</em>, 644 F. 2d 759 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 863 (1981). <em>See Santa Fe Independent School district, supra.</em> </p> <p>There's little or nothing left of school-sanctioned prayer and student-initiated prayer might only be permitted under very limited circumstances.</p> <p>I notice in these cases -- and the cases involving "Under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" on money, or the Ten Commandments in public buildings -- those arguing for public Christian prayer try to sell a non-sectarian prayer to get around the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The idea is that if a prayer is not exclusively Christian it cannot be offensive or coercive and, therefore, should be permitted. Federal courts haven't seemed to buy that argument, at least not broadly.</p> <p><strong><u><em>That</em> is where I, as a Christian, think it's time to rethink this battle!</u> What good is a non-sectarian prayer and why would we as Christians want people to say that prayer? Why would we want non-believers to say a prayer to a God which they refuse to serve? Will God bless a nation of people who say words they don't mean for the sake of tradition?
<br /></strong></p><p>Jesus, before teaching us how to pray (the Lord's prayer), clearly and unambiguously addressed the issue of public prayer and cautioned against it. Matt 6:5-7 says:</p> <blockquote> <p><sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-23284">5</sup> “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-23285">6</sup> But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who <i>is</i> in the secret <i>place;</i> and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.<sup title="See footnote a" value="[<a href=">a]" class="footnote">[<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:5-15&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-23285a" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">a</a>]</sup> <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-23286">7</sup> And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen <i>do.</i> For they think that they will be heard for their many words.</p> </blockquote> <p>Then, of course, Jesus commanded us to pray to "Our Father, who art in Heaven..."</p> <p>Does Jesus condemn all public prayer in these passages? I do not believe so. The verses suggest that the intention of one's heart is at issue. If you're praying to be seen, to be thought of as pious, you pray in vain. Any public prayer <em>potentially</em> runs afoul on such grounds. We should at least question the motivation for prayer "on the street corners" before doing it. Even a prayer to <em>the One True God</em> could be an error if done out of improper motivation.</p> <p>Likewise, the Ten Commandments get at this:</p> <blockquote> <p><sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-2055">3</sup> “<strong>You shall have no other gods before Me. </strong>
<br /><sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-2056">4</sup> “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness <i>of anything</i> that <i>is</i> in heaven above, or that <i>is</i> in the earth beneath, or that <i>is</i> in the water under the earth; <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-2057">5</sup><strong> you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. </strong>For I, the LORD your God, <i>am</i> a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth <i>generations</i> of those who hate Me, <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-2058">6</sup> but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exodus 20:3-6.</p> <p>It seems to me that a prayer to anyone but the Lord God is a prayer to another god. That, it seems patently obvious, is idolatry. For me personally, I'd rather not pray than pray to some amorphous god that is representative of that being adored by various faiths of the world. <em>That god</em> is not God!</p> <p>President Obama is well known for his non-sectarian public invocations. People are starting to take notice and question whether or not that approach makes any kind of sense or, worse yet, does damage.</p> <blockquote> <p>"The larger danger isn't for the Obama administration, it's that the prayer becomes so vacuous," said Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College and an editor of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today. "That, to me as a person of faith, is a larger worry."</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030903043.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...</a></p> <p>See also this blogger's excellent article <a href="http://chrisberryonthe.net/2009/01/08/nonsectarian-prayer-is-nonsense/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://chrisberryonthe.net/2009/01/08...</a></p> <p>Conclusion:</p> <p>I think it's time to stop fighting this battle. Instead of pushing for insincere, if not idolatrous, public prayers, let's try to win souls. Let's put that energy and money into serving people in the name of the True God.</p>
<br />ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-25472299352118485562010-05-17T11:50:00.000-04:002010-05-17T11:51:26.572-04:00Strangely dim<div id="spBody" class="Forum_Normal"> <p>There's some risk in saying what I'm about to say. One, it could be taken as preachy or holier than thou. Two, it could appear prideful or suggestive of some belief of having arrived. I present this humbly and in awe of God's power, and not my own.</p> <p>As a kid one of the worship songs frequently sang in our Church was "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," written by Helen H. Lemmel in 1922. The refrain goes</p> <blockquote> <pre><span style="font-weight: bold;">Turn your eyes upon Jesus,</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Look full in His wonderful face,</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In the light of His Glory and Grace.</span><br /></pre> </blockquote> <p>If you know me well you, might be scratching your head. I tend to feel very uncomfortable with this kind of flowery expression of love for God. Maybe it's my masculinity fighting against sentimentality.</p> <p>More than the specific words, though, I am struck by how <u><strong><em>true</em></strong></u> the refrain is in my life. While I wouldn't express it the way that the song does, it captures it perfectly. <strong style="font-weight: normal;">The more I get to know God through studying the Bible, communing with Him through prayer, and sharing my thoughts with other believers, the <em><u>less</u></em> important the things of "the world" are. </strong></p> <p>This type of change can happen over a short period of time. Just a few months ago, I was focused on music and writing and whatever my (secular) hobbies and interests were. But God has turned my mind both inward (looking at my spirit) and upward (looking to Him.) I find myself losing interest in things that even weeks ago captured my imagination.</p> <p>I will readily admit that this type of transformation, if you want to call it that, has taken place in my life in the past. In each instance, it has "worn off," as if it were a fad or trend. I suspect that my corrupted human heart and mind tries to flee from God -- rebel against Him! Hopefully that is not the case now.</p> <p>Whatever the future holds I do not know. But I am certain that the more you focus on God the less important everything else will be to you.</p> </div>ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-15336422776498296772010-05-05T11:28:00.004-04:002010-05-05T11:50:23.341-04:00For Ernie<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ez6F-PZiS_M/S-GOqxyQo5I/AAAAAAAAALg/mXDJmdW91gk/s1600/harwell.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 212px; height: 300px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ez6F-PZiS_M/S-GOqxyQo5I/AAAAAAAAALg/mXDJmdW91gk/s320/harwell.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5467808288174285714" border="0" /></a><br />William Ernest "Ernie" Harwell died at age 92 after a year-long battle with cancer. Everyone from Michigan -- and baseball fans from around the country -- knows (and most likely loves) Ernie. He was a Hall of Fame broadcaster, a giant in his field.<br /><br />Bloggers are blogging. Facebookers are posting memorials. Email reminiscence are spreading. Message boards are lit up. Thousands are paying tribute to Ernie on this sad day.<br /><br />The theme I keep seeing over and over is how Ernie is and was so much a part of our memories, often of simpler, happier times. A lot of us connect Ernie's golden voice to lovely Michigan summer days spent in the backyard, at the park or on the boat with our fathers, uncles or friends.<br /><br />I'll always link Ernie Harwell and Paul Carey's radio call of Detroit Tigers games to days spent with my Pop. I see him in the backyard, working on some new project, fixing up the boat, cleaning fish, digging a well, working on one of the cars or even gardening. Pop, who passed away in 1997, liked me to believe that he wasn't a Tigers fan, but he <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">always</span></span> had the game on the radio if he wasn't watching it on TV. In some way that is hard to describe, Ernie connected me to Pop and for that I will forever have great feelings for Ernie.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">But</span></span> those feelings, which a lot of us Detroiters share, are not the measure of Ernie's greatness. I prefer to think of Ernie as a great human being who happened to be a very gifted broadcaster. I'm convinced that you'll not find a single person on this planet that would have a bad thing to say about Ernie. He oozed kindness, humility, warmth, friendliness and a genuine love of people. You didn't even have to know him to know that about him. He was one of those people that you could just tell was not faking it. He was genuinely a person of tremendous character, as evidenced by his involvement in our community.<br /><br />More than that, he professed Jesus as his savior and, unlike a lot of us, actually demonstrated that by his actions and deeds. He was one of the few public Christian figures I've followed in my life that appeared to actually have Christ-like qualities. I'm not deifying him, but only suggesting he had what Christians refer to as the "fruits of the spirit."<br /><br />We all knew this day would come and we knew it would come sooner rather than later. It is, in a way, sad that it is now here and he has now passed. But I'd like to believe he is rejoicing in heaven and God has said to him, "Well done thy good and faithful servant."ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-87133087571813965692010-04-19T12:46:00.002-04:002010-04-19T12:48:38.288-04:00Tents of Shem: a new online communityI've been asked by a dear friend to help him with a website. I feel very important to have the title of "Admin." Seriously, I love what the site is all about and I'm pleased to share it here.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.tentsofshem.com/">http://www.tentsofshem.com/</a><br /><br />For us, this is a Christ-centered online community where we'll tackle any number of topics. We hope both Christians and non-Christians will join and participate in the community. All are welcome.ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-70235426793831253792010-04-19T12:42:00.002-04:002010-04-19T12:46:01.335-04:00Look! Squirrel!When I started this blog I made a commitment of sorts that I would regularly post, mostly as a way of continually working through whatever creative urges I might have.<br /><br />Since then I've picked up other hobbies: other blogs, playing bass, heavy reading and study, wasting time on Facebook, and, now, I'm administering another website.<br /><br />I've not forgotten this little blog, but work, family, the grind of daily life, hobbies and other stuff have kept my focus elsewhere. I hope to write more here in the coming months.ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5440594851036425354.post-20879311288066595272010-03-29T21:37:00.002-04:002010-03-29T22:03:55.682-04:00Untitled cultural critique no. 1What follows is scattered, unorganized and rambling. It's rather free-form and somewhat influenced by the meds I'm taking to kill a crippling headache. But here it is anyway:<br />*****<br /><br />Until I had something like an epiphany yesterday, I viewed the United States -- or at least certain elements here -- as preserving western culture. I've been very defensive on this point, despite <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">hating</span></span> certain aspects of our culture, mostly the trashier elements. The truth, though, is that several decades ago this country started down the road of culture toward an elevation of pop culture above high culture, history, tradition and faith. Pop culture is no longer culture as such but is nothing more than a hodge-podge of entertainment opportunities.<br /><br />Reality TV<br />Celebrity worship and stalking<br />Obsession with sports<br />The complete blur between news and entertainment<br />Abandonment of objective journalism<br />Music made by and for pretty people<br />Grossly disturbing views of beauty<br />Sex sex sex<br /><br />There is little that is high or elevated. Nothing is sacred in Post-Modern America. If it dulls your senses -- mindless crap on TV -- or gets your adrenaline pumping (MMA), it's good.<br /><br />The closest we get to spirituality these days, without being blatantly "religious," is to do yoga.<br /><br />Traditionally western spirituality, primarily European brands of Christianity, seems to be in serious decline. Churches have to come up with various ridiculous gimmicks to get butts in the pews. The only western music left is pop-rock. Easter is about the bunny. Christmas is about shopping and eating until you can't move. Thanksgiving is about getting wasted on the "biggest bar night of the year." I won't even talk about what the mouthbreathing frat boy party types have done to St. Patrick's Day. <br /><br />If the people didn't have Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken and Keith Olberman telling them the "truth," they wouldn't have a clue where to find it for themselves. Reading and self study are out; the History Channel (a great resource, no doubt) and wikipedia are in.<br /><br />Americans seem hell-bent on being European. At least the elitists on the left do. Europeans seem to be coming more American, though they're not honest enough to cop to it.<br /><br />It seems to me that much of what made the western world free, prosperous and progressive has been thrown out and replaced with cheap, plastic imitations. <br /><br />America is not preserving western culture. It is destroying it, at least the more classical variety. In some ways are critics in the east are right and have been right for awhile.<br /><br />The more I see this the more I find myself wanting to withdraw.<br /><br />Admittedly I'm a product of Post-Modern American culture. I like popular music, I love the internet. I like sports and enjoy being entertained. Yet, I feel myself slowly peeling away. TV here has been replaced with books, some limited movies and even contemplative time (music, prayer, study, writing.) I care not for the goings on of celebrities. I'm more interested in St. Augustine, John Calvin, the Founding Fathers and C. S. Lewis had to say than what Limbaugh and Olberman think. <br /><br />There is no longer a place for people that see things in this way. We're eccentrics. "Boring." "What, you don't have cable? What's wrong with you? Too cheap?" "You don't know what's going on with Tiger Woods?"ourboyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15734445572948903891noreply@blogger.com1