Halloween Pic

Some of you may enjoy one of the pictures here from our church's recent "Trunk or Treat".

something to consider

My intention is to orient your attention to two postings and then ask for your opinion regarding this matter. A dear friend of mine, George, recently added a post to his blog that is worth considering. This first post deals with the quasi-recent emergence of massive crosses being constructed in Tennessee--like this one for example:

This picture is taken from a photographer named, Kenny Carter, and his comments below the picture (on his site, which is the second post) are quite telling--especially the statement from the minister responsible for these crosses (also note the comments found here). One does have to marvel at the inner-logic fueling such ideas/practices.

To get the ball rolling, here are my initial thoughts: while it is certainly fundamental to the Christian mission to stand firm and share the gospel of Christ with a corrupt world in (sometimes) bold ways; are the tactics we sometimes use ultimately counterproductive? Do our approaches create opportunities for criticism and/or laughter from those with whom we want to share the gospel?

With respect to the latter question, and to serve as an example of this potential, I just ran a Google search for "Touchdown Jesus" and found, among others, the notorious bust-statue of Jesus in northern Cincinnati--which can be seen here:

(To others in the Cincinnati area, this statue is also known as the "Mashed Potato Jesus").

While it is true that such visible creations are not indicative of the way many of us operate within Christianity; it may be safe to say that these creations do color the ways in which the outside world views Christianity. The question then becomes: are such colorings how we want Christianity to be known and remembered?

Jesus Rode a Dinosaur!

Who knew?

Great Quote

I read this quote today in an op-ed piece Stephen Colbert wrote for the New York Times yesterday - you can find it here (its pretty funny.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -- Stephen Colbert

Highly amusing.  At least to me.

Bible Prophecy

Since there seems to be at least some interest in discussing Bible Prophecy here, I will start the ball rolling with some thoughts on the interaction about Bible Prophecy between "Anonymous" and Jake. Two assertions/propositions seem latent in the discussion. Jake suggests that the Bible has much more to say about how we live than about the what is going to happen in the future. Anonymous' comments suggest a notion of Bible Prophecy that expects Prophecy to be about the future. I would like to pick up on Jake's statement about the scope of Biblical Prophecy.

The first key thing to notice is that while Jake's suggestion that the Bible has much more to say about how we live than about what is going to happen in the future is true, it is imperative that we recognize that the actual means for doing this in much of the Bible is through the genre of Prophecy. Prophecy is not primarily about the future other than in some vague sense that changing our behavior as a community is a future act and is a future implication of the prophetic oracle. Thinking that Bible prophecy is primarily (or even secondarily) concerned with providing predictors of a specific point in time at which the world will end is to fundamentally misundersatnd the notion of prophecy. This understanding of prophecy makes it quite easy to miss the "punchline" of prophecy. For example, how concerned is the American (Evangelical) church with homosexual marriage? How does compare to the outcry over crippling healthcare costs, or, God-forbid, crying out against the use of torture as a pseudo-policy, or against the deleterious impact we have had in Iraq? These are the concerns of prophecy.

This should get some things going.

TQH

Halo in Youth Group?

Hey everyone - sorry I haven't posted much lately.  I'll get back to regular posting soon - things have been pretty busy over the past week or two, but I think they're slowing down a little bit.

In the meantime, some of you may be interested in this discussion on biblical scholar Ben Witherington's blog.  I know some of you that read are Christians who also enjoy the game Halo specifically, or even video games in general.  If so, you may be interested in the post and the discussion.  Ben is questioning the use of Halo (and by extension, I think, some other video games as well) at youth group events, and seems to me to be questioning whether its ok to play the game at all as a Christian (although I don't want to put words in his mouth - that side of the discussion seems to be implicit in the conversation).  I'd be interested to hear what you think - its turning into a good discussion so far.

If you know me, you probably know I've enjoyed the Halo franchise for years, and am particularly enjoying the third installment, which came out almost 2 weeks ago.

Seriously.

Check this link for a pretty adventurous (but clean) prank. What do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/10/02/news.to.me.proposal.prank.cnn?iref=videosearch

Marriages that expire?!

A (quasi-)prominent political leader in Germany has brought to her platform the idea that marriages should expire after 7 years. (See the rest of the story here). I am, for once, at a complete loss for words in how to respond. The hypocrisy latent within the arguments is just too much for me to take; so I'll open up this issue for discussion.

More OJ anyone?

The famed football star is not only once again in the news but also close to being in court. See the "full" story here.

My question would be: "you know you're already a high-profile individual who has attracted a large amount of attention--not all of it good, of course--so why intensify the fire by acting in this way (even if the stuff is legitimately yours)?" It would seem that OJ would (hopefully) go about things through the proper channels--i.e., hear about the situation, call the authorities, and then go to the casino to "peacefully reacquire [the] personal items."

But alas, such a strategy was not taken--nor any other strategy that would have not brought on massive media attention and a possible theft charge. I guess we'll have to see how this one plays out in the coming days. Who knows: OJ's next book will probably be entitled, If I Did Rob a Vegas Casino.

Kind of Creepy

And icky.  Its pretty cool, but gives me the creeps just thinking about it.  Be sure to "blow up" the picture.

"Homo politicus" (?!)

Alright, now this is a new one for me. Earlier this morning, I found an article suggesting the idea that one's political views may be hard-wired into the human brain. Here's the primary tag-line (which comes after a bad understanding of Aristotle's meaning):

Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits. Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

It goes on to suggest that one's political views are generationally inherited. Then, an odd (seemingly unrelated) test was conducted to "prove" the point where Conservatives and Liberals were both asked to perform a series of tasks to see how they would respond to the need to change one's "normal" habits. The Conservatives were found to be less likely to change (presumably because they "crave order and structure") where the Liberals were more flexible to the idea of change (presumably because they "adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances).

What intrigued me the most about this article was that Conservatives were the ones who were criticized for not adapting when faced with the idea that things "should be changed". My question would be: who are the ones calling for the need to change, and/or what are the reasons behind the "oughtness" to the expectation? The wrench that could be tossed into this criticism would be: it might be fair to say that Liberals would be less likely to "change" if the call to do so came from Conservatives.

But honestly, the overall hesitancy seems to be rooted in something much deeper than one's political views--i.e., it's not about Liberal vs. Conservative; it's about (perceived) right vs. wrong or good vs. bad. If a cannibal asked me to change my views about consumption of human flesh, I would stand firm in my belief that such a change would be wrong and/or bad. By the same token: if I asked a devout Mormon to ignore the teachings of the Joseph Smith (or the Mormon Church), they would see my request as utter blasphemy.

The question of "oughtness", however, tends to make matters a bit more difficult. The simplistic beginning point would have to be the governing reason for why a given person should change. If the reason is because person "A" wishes to exercise dominance over person "B", then the reason is unjustified. If the reason is because person "A" is truly seeking the summum bonum for person "B" (not in the Machiavellian sense, of course), then the reason is justified. Or, if the position of person "A" is actually true, then person "B" has no justifiable reason to ignore it. (This obviously calls for "fair play" from both parties).

In the present case: if a Liberal is requiring change from a Conservative simply because the Liberal wishes to appear to be more powerful and/or persuasive, the Conservative has the right to stand strong. (Also, it should be noted: the same applies in the opposite direction). Or, if the Liberal has justifiable reasons and those reasons for change are beneficial for the human race, then the Conservative needs to listen. (Again, the same applies in the opposite direction). Or, if a Liberal argument is actually true,* then the Conservative would not have any solid reason to ignore it. (One last time: this must go the other way as well). However, this article would make it appear as though this idealistic outlook is nothing more than that--i.e., idealistic (or, unrealistic). :-)
___________________________________________
* Some would criticize me as being heretical for even suggesting this idea.

Witherington Reviews J.R.R. Tolkien's "Children of Hurin"

I've long been a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien's writing - long before Jackson's superb film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, I spent many hours enjoying the actual books.  I have not yet had a chance to read the newly released Children of Hurin, but this review by biblical scholar Ben Witherington III at least confirms that it will be worthwhile when I get there.  If you enjoy Tolkien, it's worth a read.

American Idol? In a Church?

Many of you know that I am the Adult Ministries Pastor at StoneBridge Christian Church in Omaha, Nebraska.  Those who have known me for a while know that this was a bit of a change of focus for me - initially I imagined myself as a seminary professor rather than a pastor in a local church.  But I've been doing this job for about 5 months now and I love it.  I love this church and their commitment to reach people who don't know Jesus and disciple those who do.  I love being part of a staff that is absolutely committed to pursuing this goal with excellence, and is willing to try new ways of reaching out to the people in our community.  And I love the people in this congregation - their desire to minister to lost and hurting people, and willingness to devote their time and energy to the ministries of this church in service to the Kingdom of God have humbled and moved me more times than I can count.

So I got a little defensive when we ran across a blog post that seemed critical of what we were trying to do.  The author of the blog, Brandon, seems like a genuinely nice guy.  He says he never criticized what we do, and I think he sincerely means that.  He said he simply wants to ask questions.  Fair enough.  Although I can't help but think that the title of his post ("A Church is Making Idols"), coupled with his assertion that what we were doing is weird, and the fact that several people posted completely negative reactions and Brandon never responded to those reactions until we discovered the blog and posted a defense, amounts to a pretty critical take on things.  Having said that, our interactions with Brandon on his blog have been positive, and he's asked some valid questions, so I don't want to belabor this point.

So here's the issue itself.  We had a former American Idol contestant, Heather Cox, perform a concert at our church on a Saturday night.  She also led a forum that morning where people could hear about her experience on the show, as well as receive pointers on how to audition (American Idol held auditions in Omaha a week later).  As a part of the audition forum, people had a chance to perform, and the best performers were given the opportunity to perform at Heather's concert that night.  Heather is a young Christian woman, and this was an opportunity for people to hear a Christian perspective from someone involved with a TV show that has become a cultural phenomenon.

These events acted as a lead-in to a sermon series on American Idols that began the next day.  The series used the show as a springboard to move deeper into the Bible and see what it has to say about four things Americans have a tendency to idolize: popularity, beauty, money and power.

My question to you is: do you think this is weird?  That is the question posed by Brandon on his blog.  You can see the responses to his question at the link above, as well as my explanation of why we do events like these.  The short version is, we want to bring the community into our church, with the hope that they'll like what they see or hear and return.  I believe pretty firmly that every event we hold does not have to include an in-depth discussion of the Bible - sometimes we just want to connect with people in our community in a non-threatening way.  And I'm disappointed that some people (like several of the commenters on Brandon's blog) are so willing to make snap judgments about churches that make an attempt to be culturally relevant.  When did "relevant" become a dirty word in the church, anyway?

PS - Here's a link to another church member's blog on this topic.

Africa: How do we Respond?

I strongly urge everyone reading this blog to read these two articles - Jubilee: A Sabbath from Suffering and Bearing Witness.  Both deal with problems in Africa and other third world countries.  I found myself both moved and convicted as I read each article - moved by the very human faces they put on the problems (especially the second article) and convicted because I feel like I need to do something.  Problems like debt relief and HIV seem so big - and I'm not really sure what it is that I can and should do.  But the more I read about these issues, the more I think I need to do something.

Why do I feel such a great need to act?  Because more and more I realize that the way we live in the U.S., and the politcies made by the politicians that we elect, has a great effect on people in third world countries.  Our extraordinarily high levels of consumption, when coupled with trade agreements that favor wealthier nations (see this article on how trade agreements often work), have an effect on poor children in Africa who don't have enough to eat.  Our willingness as a country to forgive debt that should never have been incurred in the first place has an effect on mothers and fathers trying to make a better life for their children.

I'm new to many of these issues, and I realize that there are different sides to every issue.  Economics, global trade, HIV in Africa - these are enormously complicated issues - but I'm convinced I need to learn more.  I'd love to know what all of you think.

Thoughts from Criminal Law

In case you haven't guessed, school is back into full swing and so you can likely expect my posts to be more sporadic and to focus on legal issues more heavily (because, quite frankly, law school is an all-consuming beast that leaves little time to read or even think about much else).

There is a theory in the philosophy of punishment called utilitarianism. Essentially the utilitarian looks to the future rather than the past and justifies punishment based on whether it will provide any good for society (e.g. if punishing a criminal will deter him or others from committing crimes, then he should be punished; alternatively, if it will neither deter him nor anyone else, then he should not be punished despite his crime). An extreme utilitarian view might even suggest that the punishment of an innocent might be justified if it had a benefit for society (e.g. deterrence, maintain social order, etc.). Here is an exercise we engaged in on our first day of my criminal law course to help us explore this:

First, a real case from 1884: The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273.

Four men are on a small life boat after their ship is lost at sea. Three are older, experienced seamen with families. One is a 17 or 18 year old cabin "boy." For two days they eat canned turnips. After these run out, they catch a turtle and ration it for 9 days. Two days later, now nearly two weeks since their time in the life boat, their fresh water runs out. Four days after this the 3 older men begin to consider killing the younger one in order to survive (yes, by eating him). One of the men dissents, but the other two are in agreement. Note, that the younger man is now sick from dehydration and from lack of food (for some reason he is not fairing as well as the others), and is likely to die soon. Three additional days later, now three weeks at sea and a full week without fresh water, the two men kill the cabin boy. The three men eat for four days and are then rescued. The two men are prosecuted for murder. Question: Was the killing justified, given that the life of 1 saved 3 others? If not justified, should the two men at least receive a lesser punishment (death was the only punishment for murder at this time)?

Next, a hypothetical situation suggested by my casebook author, Joshua Dressler, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, 4th ed., 37 (2007):

An especially violent murder occurs in a small, racially divided community. The victim is white and, although there is no hard evidence to prove it, a rumor quickly spreads that the killer was black. As the result of racist activity by white supremacist groups, a white mob threatens to enter the community and kill innocent African-Americans and burn down their homes in order to exact vengeance. The town sheriff realizes that she lacks adequate personnel to stop the mob. She is convinced, however, that if she arrests an African-American for the crime and promises a quick trial, the mob will be satisfied.

Assume that the sheriff has only the two options presented. Would she be justified in framing the innocent person to save the lives of others in the town?

Finally, consider William Blackstone's: "[It is] better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Do you agree with this? If so, how many guilty persons would you be willing to let escape in order to ensure that the "one innocent" does not suffer? One hundred guilty persons? One thousand? All of them? Consider your answer and then see my comment on the "comments" section of this post to see what our professor left us with that day.

Optical Intercourse a/k/a Making Eye Babies

This is a rather short post only because a mention of this article actually made it into my law school criminal law text book. While discussing the importance that criminal laws provide notice to the public on what kind of conduct is criminal, thereby giving people the opportunity to conform their behavior appropriately, the case book editors noted an incident at Pensacola Christian College. Apparently, a female student was disciplined for engaging in "optical intercourse" or "making eye babies" with a member of the opposite sex. The case book then challenged us, without further details, to imagine what such an offense might be.

Putting aside the absurdity that is Pensacola Christian College (see the article for further details as well as an explanation of the offense mentioned above), it bothers me to think what will happen to some of these students when they have to face the real world. Additionally, it bothers me that this is the public impression the school is giving of what Christians are like. And if one doubts that the public is seeing this... remember, it has made it into my textbook.

PS: I pull the associated photo from PCC's website. I wonder if that guy is engaging in some optical intercourse...?