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...?

Warden of Tyndale House

Here is a link to a brief interview with the new warden of Tyndale House. Tyndale house is a world-renowned library for biblical studies housed in Britain. It is evangelical in founding and mission. Well worth the read. I particularly like the succinct statement of why scholars matter for the church.

Check it.

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/08/interview-with-peter-williams.html

Jesus and the Neighbor 2

Since I'm titling this series "Jesus and the Neighbor," it makes sense to look first at the passage where Jesus defines "neighbor."  In Luke 10:25-37 Jesus addresses this question: "Who is my neighbor?"

A lawyer asks Jesus how to inherit eternal life, and Jesus affirms that he should observe the two "greatest" commandments - love God and love your neighbor.  The lawyer, in an effort to determine the bare minimum he can do to be "saved," asks who he should consider his neighbor.

Jesus responds with a story.  It's probably familiar to everyone, but just in case I'll summarize it.  A Jewish man is beaten, robbed, and left for dead on the side of the road, and several religious leaders pass him by without helping him.  Finally a Samaritan stops, bandages the Jewish man's wounds, takes him to an inn, and pays for his care.  After telling this story, Jesus asks, "Who was a neighbor to the beaten man?"  The obvious response is the Samaritan - and Jesus tells the lawyer, "Go and do likewise."

First, a historical note.  From a Jewish perspective this story would have been shocking.  Samaritans and Jews did not get along.  At all.  There was a significant amount of animosity between the two groups, to the point that they avoided any association with one another.

What is most significant about this parable is that it really does not answer the lawyer's question: "Who is my neighbor?"  The lawyer was attempting to limit the circle of people he was responsible to help.  Jesus effortlessly correct the question - the appropriate question is not "who is my neighbor?" but "who can I be a neighbor to?"  Jesus does so by choosing the most unlikely person to help the man who had been robbed (the Samaritan), after the most likely people (Jewish religious leaders) and already passed him by.  Despite the hatred that both men would have felt toward the other, the Samaritan helps someone who by anyone's definition would have been outside the group of people who might be called his "neighbors."

Who, then, is our neighbor?  Anyone who is in need.  That is the way Jesus answers the question; it is the way we must answer it as well.

How Trustworthy is Wikipedia?

I'll say up front that I love Wikipedia.  It's a valuable resource for a lot of information.  But this news report reminds us that, like anything else, we need to be aware of where that information is coming from, and remember that all information sources are biased in some form.

The news report tells about an American student who developed a program to identify who is editing specific wikipedia entries.  The results, while not completely shocking, are certainly illuminating.  Here are a few interesting examples:

• Microsoft tried to cover up the XBox 360 failure rate;
• Apple and Microsoft add negative comments to the other's articles;
• Fox News removed all controversial topics relating to the network from the Fox News article;
• The FBI edited the Guantanamo Bay entry and removed numerous photos;
• Wal-Mart removed criticisms of its outsourcing of jobs and the wages it pays its employees.

The moral of the story: anybody can edit a wikipedia entry, and sometimes its entries are equal parts propaganda and information.  The information found there should be used with caution and we should always keep in mind that the people editing articles inevitably have an agenda.  All information sources are subjective - there is no such thing as true objectivity.

Just for fun

This post will be (somewhat) out of the norm for this blog, but hey . . . it's a weekend. This will also be, to some readers' surprise, a short post. It will be a quick summary, then a question, and then a follow-up comment.

The summary
Today, after church, my wife and I went to a local cafe for some brunch. While we were waiting for our name to be called, we were perusing the tables of books in front of the neighboring bookstore. In the midst of our searching, another couple past behind us and we caught only the question asked by the gentleman (see below).

The question
"What book or books would Jesus buy?"

The follow-up
My wife looked to me, once the couple had passed, and said with a pinch of humor, "Jesus wouldn't buy any books; he already knows everything." I responded in the opposite direction by saying, "I don't think the guy meant 'buy books for knowledge sake'; I think he meant, 'buy books that Jesus would find intriguing'."

This exchange revealed a controlling issue within interpretation. A single question was asked, and two different interpretations of that question immediately emerged. (I'm sure if we asked the gentleman what he meant, a third interpretation would have been revealed). But I would like to side-step that particular issue and open this same question up to the readers. Interpret the question however you like. My concern is how you would respond to the question: What book(s) would Jesus buy? (You can even throw in some examples if you wish).

Cursing Your Enemies?

Biblical scholar Ben Witherington posted about this story on his blog - which brought it to my attention.  Apparently, this pastor has asked the people in his church to pray "imprecatory prayers" (modeled after the "imprecatory psalms") against two men who blew the whistle on his activities which violated the prohibition against churches (which are tax-exempt organizations) from using their influence to directly endorse political candidates.

What is an imprecatory psalm, you ask?  Good question!  Imprecatory psalms are psalms in which the author calls for God's wrath to come upon certain people.  There are several of these types of psalms in the Old Testament.  A couple of examples will help.  Psalm 109 (a psalm attributed to David himself) contains the following requests of God regarding an unnamed enemy:

"Let his days be few; let another take his office.  Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.  Let his children wander about and beg; and let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes.  Let the creditor seize all that he has, and let strangers plunder the product of his labor." (Psa 109:8-11)

There's more, but that's enough to get the point across.  A second example, from Psalm 137, is even more shocking.  Speaking of the Edomites, the psalmist writes:

"O daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." (Psa 137:8-9)

What are we to make of such sentiments?  Are they "God-ordained," an example for us to follow (as the pastor in the above referenced news story would have us believe)?  Absolutely not - to view these as examples of "godly" behavior would be to completely misunderstand these Psalms.  What we find in the Psalms is humanity in all its glory and its sinfulness - at its best and its worst.  In the imprecatory psalms the authors are expressing their anger and frustration to God, but it does not come out in ways that reflect God's will.  It does, however, show us that such feelings are at times natural.  However, that does not mean they are examples to follow.  But it can be a comfort to us to know that we are not the only ones who get angry - and to know that God understands such feelings.

Back to the story.  This pastor asked his congregation to pray for the deaths of the two heads of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.  The reason?  Because he had publicly endorsed, on church letterhead, Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, and urged his church members to do the same, and they reported him to the IRS for doing so.  And they were right to report him.  Churches can lose their tax-exempt status for endorsing particular candidates, and they should.  It is an abuse of power for a Pastor to use his position to influence church members' votes.

The pastor's call for his followers to pray for the deaths of these two men shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the imprecatory psalms.  It also runs counter to Jesus' own teachings in the gospels, where he commanded his followers to pray for their enemies (which does not include praying for their death).  Additionally, at the most basic level Jesus taught his followers to love other people - the subject of my "Jesus and the Neighbor" series of posts.  It is tragic when Christians miss the point of Jesus' teaching so completely that their actions truly become a perversion of the gospel, twisted beyond all recognition.

World's Largest Cross?

Well this seems pointless - but nevertheless is amusing for its absurdity. This group's goal is to build the world's largest cross in Nazareth with a church in the middle. Here's their goal, from the website:

The Nazareth Cross Project aims to build the world’s largest and most impressive cross, standing at 60 meters tall, housing a magnificent church in its center. The cross will be decorated by some 7.2 million brilliant mosaic tiles of varying sizes, each one with a personal engraving. These tiles will be made of stone from Nazareth,or platinum, silver or gold.

You can go to the site and give money towards the cross - definitely money well spent!

If you've lived in Cincinnati, you'll note the potential similarity to everyone's favorite giant, useless religious artifact: Touchdown Jesus!

UPDATE: Here's a picture of the 60-foot cross in Texas, pointed out by Dave.

Bush's "Signing Statements" - What Do You Think?

I will admit that I still have a great deal to learn about politics. Still, I try to keep reasonably aware of what is going on in the political realm, primarily because I feel a duty as a Christian and citizen of this country to have a "prophetic voice" in government. By using this term I am not trying to claim to be a prophet; instead, I am asserting my belief that Christians who do not work in government should be cautious about being linked too closely with any governmental party, and instead should work to call all governmental officials to act in moral ways.

I ran across this story a couple months ago, and it disturbed me then. I ran across it again recently, and I'm curious what my readers think. The story discusses President Bush's use of "signing statement" - a proclamation issued by the President when a bill is signed into law. Bush has used these signing statements, it appears, to reinterpret over 750 different laws during his presidency, a record number. By way of comparison, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton issued 347 statements combined, according to Wikipedia (admittedly not always the most reliable source).

The issue, and I've heard this argued several times now, is that Bush seems to be making a concerted effort to expand the powers of the executive branch in a way that nullifies many of the checks & balances put in place when this country was founded. Those checks and balances are important, because they keep any one branch from having too much power. Since when does the President have the right to selectively interpret laws and decide which ones he is going to follow? Some examples of his signing statements can be found here - many are disturbing due to their complete lack of regard for Congress' intent in passing the bill (note, for example, the statement on torture). I think the controversy over Attorney General Gonzalez' firing of U.S. attorneys, presumably for political reasons, and the Bush administration's absolute refusal to provide information is another example of this overextension of executive power.

However, as I stated above, I admit that I'm relatively new to politics. So I'm curious what you all think. Am I over-reacting here? If so, why do you think so?

A question of use

Loyal readers/contributors will notice that this is my first post in this forum. Thank you for welcoming me with such grand applause. This post differs from others I have read here as I have a question about the use of technology on a practical level as opposed to the heady, abstract, philosophical-ethical discussion more common here as evidenced by my more seasoned and more estimable contributors.

Technology is fascinating to me for its ability to be submitted to unexpected uses. I have been ruminating on this idea as I try to figure out how to leverage Web 2.0 for business purposes that I have yet to see. Particularly, I am contemplating how to employ social networks such as facebook as ways of both finding customers, gaining exposure, and maintaining a referral network. This is certainly not the original purpose of facebook, but the business of referrals so mirrors the networks people create on facebook, and people share their wedding photos with surprising frequency that it seems only natural to employ it.

Now to the point.

The question is this: How do you manage/enjoy your music library? I am assuming mostly through iTunes and iPods, and so I am more concerned with how you have decided to approach the use of the technology. My personal library of media items numbers somewhere over 5000, and I have not even added all of my CD collection to it let alone even a fraction of my movie collection. It has swollen by the hundreds in the last week due to the discovery of iTunesU and the subscription to a large number of new podcasts (and of course downloading all available episodes of said podcasts). This presents a number of practical issues in terms of management of my music experience. I don't always know what I want to listen to, and it can be quite time consuming to make a decision. Therefore, over the last few months I have rated about 1000 songs. I have a smart playlist that keeps tabs on all 4 and 5 star songs. I then created an additional smart playlist to choose 1.2 GB of songs at random based on the primary criterion of being the least recently played (for the feeling of freshness). This generates about 240 songs that I then sync with my iPod Nano (2GB) and I play the songs at random, syncing the iPod every day or so to update the music. This keeps me cycling through music I like without listening to all the same stuff all the time. If I find something I'm really in the mood for, I can create a list customized based on my mood (I have one for ska, rap, folk, romance).

That's how I'm using my iPod and iTunes. How are you using yours?

Problem vexing me: How do I manage a digital library that is over 40 GB? My laptop harddrive is only 120 GB (=110 GB of usable space). I don't want to lose my ratings (which are not stored in the MP3 tag as are lyrics, but rather in the iTunes database), but I can't keep everything on my harddrive. I'm not sure how to solve this, so thoughts here would be nice as well.

How far is "too far"?

On August 10th, Yahoo Sports announced this story about an American pitcher (in Japan) accused of supposedly doping. They said that this was "the first player in Japanese baseball history to flunk a drug test." What bothers me about this story is the drug they found, the conclusions they immediately drew upon finding it, and the punishment given.

The drug in question is Finasteride, which is a drug whose secondary benefit is to combat male pattern baldness. (The primary purpose of Finasteride is to treat the symptoms associated with BPH). The immediate conclusion drawn was that the pitcher, Rick Guttormson, may have been using Finasteride as a masking agent to cover up (suspected) performance enhancement drugs already in his system. The punishment for this finding: $63,000. (The writer should have used Yen as the currency--it would have sounded a whole lot worse: 7,427,724).

While it may be true that some athletes have been found using other drugs to mask the more problematic ones; it is not always the case that athletes who use so-called masking drugs are using them for that purpose. It may be the case that these so-called masking drugs are being used for their intended purpose. In the situation of Guttormson, it's not like the man has flowing locks of hair or an enormous afro. I've seen pictures of Guttormson and (with all due respect) using Finasteride may be something he feels he needs to do. I think the burden of proof should be on the officials to prove that Guttormson is in fact using Finasteride as a masking agent before making such harsh accusations.

But this raises two issues that would be certainly telling for such an investigation:

1. Whether or not Guttormson would consent to further testing. If he is entirely innocent and Finasteride is being used for the sole purpose of battling hair loss, then he should have no problem in allowing the officials to test him. If he resists, then I believe the officials have a right to be suspect of his using Finasteride. (Generally speaking, people who are non-compliant in such instances are ones who have something to hide).
   
2. The article says that Guttormson has been taking the hair treatment drug for 2 years and the drug has been banned from the Japanese baseball league. The question for me would be: was Guttormson made aware that Finasteride had been banned? If he was taking the drug--for the purpose of hair growth--and he was doing so not knowing that it was a banned drug, then the Japanese baseball officials should take that into consideration. If, however, he was taking the drug--for the purpose of hair growth--and he was doing so knowing that was a banned drug, then they should reprimand him for that reason.
   

Jesus & the Neighbor 1

I'm going to start a new series of occasional blog posts.  The impetus for the series came out of a series of emails between myself and a couple friends about an email forward that touched on political issues.  I used to consider myself strongly conservative from a political perspective, but that's changed over the past 5 years - if you've talked to me about politics, you know that I would consider myself a political "moderate" or "independent."  I'm absolutely convinced that neither the Republicans or the Democrats is the "Christian" party, and that both parties have elements that are worth supporting, and elements that are problematic from a Christian perspective.  As a Christian, I believe my role in politics is to try and have a "prophetic voice," calling both parties to account when they advocate policies that cause our country to act in unjust or immoral ways.

This series is not about politics though.  As we emailed about our thoughts on this email forward, I expressed that everything about my political views that has changed over the years has done so as a result of my reflections on the Bible's teachings about justice, standing up for the oppressed and downtrodden, and especially Jesus' teaching about how we're supposed to treat other people.  In order to explain this idea better, I'm starting this blog series to explore different gospel texts in which Jesus tells us something about how we should treat people in the Kingdom of God.

I'm throwing in this term "Kingdom of God," which I believe is an important one.  I would suggest that everything Jesus said and did was an attempt to reveal the Kingdom of God, and define "Kingdom of God" very simply: living as if God is in charge.  Thus, anytime we behave in a way that acknowledges God's sovereignty, we are living in the Kingdom of God.  It is pretty common to speak of the Kingdom as having an already-but-not-yet tension - what this means is that the Kingdom of God is present now (insofar as we live as if God is in charge), but that it will not be fully present until Jesus' return and the restoration of heaven and earth.  However, this should not prevent us from doing all we can to make the Kingdom more fully present in this life - in fact, I believe that we are called to do exactly that.

So, a part of Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of God is how we treat other people.  That is what this series will be about.  Next post will start with a foundational text that is familiar to many - the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus responds to the question, "Who is my neighbor?"

The First Lady Goes to Mali

During First Lady Laura Bush's trip to Africa in late June, she visited a school in Mali. The Washington Post's article on her visit can be found here. While the Post notes her praise of the U.S. education efforts there, an NPR correspondent gave a different perspective on the First Lady's visit. As reported in NPR's "Foreign Dispatch" podcast on 7/6/07 (at roughly 14:15 into the report), the school went through "weeks of work" in preparation for the First Lady's arrival. This included the installation of electrical outlets and fans in one of the classrooms (all run by a mobile generator, as the school does not have electricity). It also included the purchase and laying down of gravel over the usual mud courtyard (only over the parts the First Lady would see), the transportation of water to the site over a period of weeks to make the trees and bushes green, the tearing out of some of the water spouts used by the children so that they would not block Mrs. Bush's path from her limo to the school, and the painting of the entrance door (and only the entrance door). Additionally, the students whose classroom the First Lady would visit spent the four days leading up-to the visit learning a 6-line song they would sing for Mrs. Bush. It took 4 days to learn because the song is in French, the official language of the country (and not one the children speak). The First Lady's visit was over in a few hours. The electric outlets, fans, generator, and furniture were torn out of the refurbished classroom the same afternoon of the visit. Said a teacher at the school, "Mali is a poor country . . . but despite the poverty level, we still want to impress the West, which, to me, is pointless. If I am poor and sleeping on the dirt and you are coming to visit me, let's hang out on the dirt. And maybe I'll have a better chance to get some help from you." I couldn't have said it better.

The "Jena 6": Need Proof Racism is Alive and Well in the United States?

I ran across this story on another blog - and even though I know racism is still a problem in our country (we lived in Cincinnati for five years, and there are very real racial tensions in that city), I'll admit I'm still shocked by the blatant nature in this case.  How is this allowed to go on in our country?

Here's the "highlights" of the story:

• 3 black students dare to sit under the "white tree" at their high school;
• The next day, 3 nooses are hanging from the tree - the boys responsible are given 3 day suspensions by the superintendent, despite the principal's recommendation they be expelled;
• The county district attorney speaks at a school assembly - he faces the "black" side of the auditorium (yes, the students sat according to their color) and says "See this pen in my hand?  I can end your lives with a stroke of this pen.";
• School board officials initially refuse to talk to black parents about the issue - once they do agree, they make clear that nothing they say will have any influence on the matter;
• A black student is beaten with fists and beer bottles at a party - 1 of the attackers later receives probation, and none of the others are charged;
• A white student pulls a shotgun on 3 black students - when they wrestle the gun away and run, they are charged for stealing the shotgun;
• One of the white students involved in the attack on the black student is attacked at school after taunting black students with racial slurs - he is well enough after the fight to attend the school's ring ceremony that night;
• All 6 of the white student's attackers are being charged.  One has already been convicted of 2nd degree battery (a felony - his shoe was listed as a weapon because he kicked the white student) - he now faces 22 years in prison for a schoolyard fight.  The other students have not yet been tried, but will soon stand trial.

Truly, I'm shocked that this sort of thing can still happen - it sounds like something out of the 50s or 60s.  The officials involved should be ashamed of themselves - and the superintendent and district attorney should be fired immediately.  There is no excuse for such disparity in the way the different students are treated, and since when did a simple schoolyard fight (where the "victim" is virtually unharmed) become worthy of felony prosecution?  Frankly, I'm not sure what more to say - except to plead for anyone who reads this to pray earnestly that true justice be done in this situation.

Mortgage Woes

As is no surprise to anyone who owns a home, is looking to own a home, or is paying attention to the news for the past several months, the home market is not doing well. See this article. As was recently reported on NBC Nightly News, homes may depreciate this year for the first time since the Great Depression. That mortgage companies are tightening lending even for qualified buyers will not help, as people who cannot get mortgages cannot buy houses. As anecdotal evidence, some friends of mine have had their house on the market for several months now and have it priced so that they will merely break even. Total showings: 1.

My spouse and I have discussed who is at fault for the current housing woes. Is it the mortgage companies and banks for offering (and often pushing) low interest adjustable rate mortgages and approving sub-prime applicants, often without checking debt-to-income ratios? Is it the consumer for being foolish, risky, and / or ignorant in taking such loans? Or is it the government for not regulating mortgage lending to a greater extent?

My gut reaction is that blame, if it needs to be assigned at all, can be spread all around. First, American consumers have a certain talent for accumulating debt without carefully evaluating the consequences. While it should be noted that mortgages companies probably should have done a better job being honest with applicants on the pros and cons of their mortgage products, such information is readily available from multiple free and independant sources (especially on the internet) should anyone care to look.

However, this does not excuse mortgage companies for failing to be honest and forthright with their clients. There have been numerous reports indicating a great deal of unfair or deceptive practices in the mortgage industry during the housing boom of the last several years. At the same time, mortgage companies which did educate their clients should not be blamed if those clients still made poor choices. During the housing boom, many buyers purchased more house than they could typically afford because of the availability of low-interest adjustable mortgages, fully aware of the consequences, but took the risk that they could sell or refinance before the interest rate rose too high.

As for whether the mortgage company should have offered these products in the first place, I think these products were a result of our free market economy. There was a demand for low-interest rate adjustable mortgages, so the mortgage companies met that demand. Assuming all parties understand the risks (and I acknowledge that this is not always the case), I see nothing inherently wrong with this. Looking toward the future, however, I think the problem will be self correcting. Since these mortgage companies are now losing a great deal of money, they will quickly change course, executives will be let go, and new executives will promise the shareholders "changes in policy," which will undoubtedly include no more adjustables.

Government regulation tends to be a topic that depends on one's politics. While I think that the government should be concerned with unfair trade practices (and should punish those companies which participate in such), I am not sure that it is necessary for the government to forbid lenders from offering a particular type of loan if there is a market for it (and assuming that market has access to knowledge about the risks involved). Further, our free market economy tends to favor non-regulation over regulation, and, as noted above, the free market economy tends to self-correct these kinds of problems. Finally, I will gladly attest (as a former loan officer and manager for a national bank) that the lending and banking industry is already one of the most highly regulated and that such regulations tend to be a double-edged sword (while they may offer some increase in consumer security, they will result in a very large increase in industry costs, which is always passed to the consumer).

mixed messages(?)

To be quite honest, I really have no idea why I am even attempting to comment on matters of legality. This post would be better handled by another writer of this blog--i.e., the Learned Hand. I will, however, offer my thoughts and inquiries on this particular issue and open it up for discussion.

In a story, posted by Yahoo News, an Army Pfc was sentenced to (get this) 110-years for taking part in the raping of an Iraqi teenage girl and then murdering her and her family. What caught me off guard was the little side-note immediately following this pronouncement: Pfc Spielman would be up for parole in (get this) 10 years. Three other soldiers took part in this heinous act, and they were sentenced to anywhere from 5-100 years in prison; but nothing was said about the possibility of parole for them.

My uneasiness with this is multi-layered. Here are the two main ones:

1. There is the issue that Pfc Spielman is sentenced to 110-years with the possibility of parole in 10 years. This, according to the article, was part of the plea-deal "regardless of the jury's recommendation". The jury did offer life with parole; but, (again) according to the article, this would have caused Pfc Spielman "to wait longer for the possibility of freedom."
   
2. The other soldiers, who apparently took a more active role in this crime, got a lesser sentence. (The article even states that Pfc Spielman "received the longest sentence of the four soldiers"). Granted, they were still charged with a number of crimes and convicted of such crimes; yet, the duration of their punishment was not as long Spielman's. (But the bottom-end of the range [i.e., 5-years] seems to contradict this statement).
   

What strikes me about the first point is that the jury is under the impression that justice will be served--according to the recommendation they provide. Yet, unbeknownst to them, an alternate line of justice was already established. There is also the issue of: why issue a sentence 110-years if it is already known that a) it will never be humanly fulfilled--no one lives that long any more; b) had the jury given life without parole, the sentence would have been overturned; and c) parole hearings would commence within the first 10 years?

What strikes me about the second point is that Pfc. Spielman is charged more severely for--per the testimony given--standing guard, acting "as a lookout". I understand that there is a moral and ethical imperative that says: if something wrong is taking place, and it is within your power to stop it, then do what you can to stop it. Now, in this case, Spielman ignored this imperative and he should be charged accordingly; but to charge him more seems to suggest that his actions were more severe than what he watched.

I leave these two points up to those who know more about this sort of thing, and I earnestly seek counsel in this regard. My concern is that (at least) these two points imply a mixed message about justice and how it is upheld.


A brief side-note:

The sister of Pfc Spielman, after the sentence was given, cried out: "I hate the government. You people put him [in Iraq] and now, this happened." What intrigues me about this twofold comment is the shear lunacy of it--the second part more than the first.

The government did not necessarily put her brother in Iraq; he put himself in Iraq. When he enlisted in the Army, he agreed to protect the freedom and livelihood of this nation if it was being attacked. If that attack was taking place in Iraq, then he must fight in Iraq; if that attack was taking place in Siberia, then he must fight in Siberia. Granted, he may not want to fight in such places; but he must fulfill his duty as a soldier in the US Army.

She then blamed the government for putting her brother in jail. (I would feel safe in assuming that she was also blaming the government for her brother's actions--i.e., because they put Pfc. Spielman in Iraq, they caused him to commit such actions). She failed to see/hear that Pfc. Spielman admitted his culpability in what happened and that he accepted the weight of his punishment. But she would probably retort with: "He admitted to it because they made him admit to it".

Religion Beat Becomes a Test of Faith

I highly recommend checking out this article,* written by the former religion reporter for the L.A. Times.  It is a well-written, moving account of his spiritual journey, which began as an adult converted in an evangelical church, and has sadly arrived at the current point where he is not sure he believes in God.  The reason?  Here are a couple excerpts:

Regarding the Catholic sex abuse scandal:

"Many of these victims were molested by priests with a history of abusing children.  But the bishops routinely sent these clerics to another parish, and bullied or conned the victims and their families into silence.  The police were almost never called.  In at least a few instances, bishops encouraged molesting priests to flee the country to escape prosecution."

Regarding the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN):

"Some of the nation's most powerful pastors - including Billy Graham, Robert H. Schuller and Greg Laurie - appear on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, benefiting from TBN's worldwide reach while looking past the network's reliance on the "prosperity gospel" to fuel its growth."

Regarding Packy, an Eskimo who was sexually abused by a Catholic missionary - Packy is now in prison:

'A lot of people make fun of me, asking if the Virgin Mary is going to rescue me,' Packy said.  'Well, I've gotten helped more times from the Virgin Mary through intercession than from anyone else.  I won't stop.  My children need my prayers.'  Tears spilled from his eyes.  Packy's faith, though severely tested, had survived.  I looked at him with envy.  Where he found comfort, I was finding emptiness."

As I read the article I was struck by how damaging the sinful actions of Christian leaders can be.  Please don't misconstrue me - Christian leaders are human, and will make mistakes, and its a mistake to place them on any sort of pedestal.  At the same time, their actions can have very real consequences in people's lives, made stronger by their position as a religious authority figure.  Likewise, as I read his words about TBN, I wondered about the complicity of religious leaders who, while certainly not teaching the prosperity gospel, choose not to speak against it - indeed, appear on the station at various times.

My heart breaks for people like this reporter, whose faith has been so severely damaged by the actions of other Christians that he may never regain it.  I pray that my actions will never affect someone in a similar way.  And it makes me more committed to the idea of "reclaiming Christianity" that I mentioned here.  There are so many poor examples of what it means to be a Christian - sometimes from leaders that should know better, and sometimes from Christians who do the best they can with the knowledge they have.  Regardless, we often are not good followers of Jesus.  I know we can do better.

* The article does require registration with the L.A. Times - its free though, and the article is worth it.

Richistan

First, I must give Jake credit for pointing this article out to me. While it must be observed that this article does not attempt to be neutral on the material, it still seems incredible that some of these facts actually exist. Unfortunately, I do not have much formal Economic Theory experience, so have little to say about the "trickle-down" economic theory. As a lay person, however, I find it disturbing that some have so much while others have so little.

Christians United for Israel

Biblical scholar Ben Witherington posted recently on his blog about this disturbing video.  The video contains footage of a recent conference put on by Christians United for Israel, a political lobbyist group founded by John Hagee, a Christian televangelist who is well-known for his dispensational premillenialist interpretation of the "end times."  I tend to think that people will believe what they're going to believe about Revelation and the end times, and while I have my own views that I'm more than willing to discuss, I do not think it is a salvation issue, and therefore is not something I emphasize greatly.  I think it has become far too divisive an issue in many instances.

Having said that, I think that Hagee's particular brand of end times belief is dangerous.  Many of the comments in the video disturb me greatly, although in fairness it should be noted that the video is obviously assembled by someone who strongly dislikes the organization.  Witherington gives the following "top five" things about the video that he finds problematic:

1.  The Anti-Christ will be a person who will seek to make peace between the Arabs/Palestinians and the Jews;

2.  Armaggedon is something to look forward to, when we will have 'the cleansing of the earth';

3.  U.S. support for Israel should be unconditional, regardless of how they treat Palestinian Christians;

4.  If we want to participate in the second coming of Jesus, then we have to unconditionally support Israel from now until then, regardless of their policies or behaviors, otherwise we miss out on the parousia blessing;

5.  It's a Biblical idea to have a pre-emptive strike on Iran before they cause more trouble for Israel.

I really don't want to step on anyone's toes here.  At the same time, these ideas have very real ramifications in today's world that need to be addressed.  Christians United for Israel actively lobbies Congress for a) increased territory for Israel, and b) a unilateral, pre-emptive strike on Iran, based on the fear that they will cause problems for Israel.  I'll state unequivocally that I find this to be an immoral proposition.  Even within the Christian "just-war" tradition, there is little to no leeway in the idea of a "pre-emptive strike."  To suggest such a strike because of the fear they will cause problems for Israel, knowing that any war will inevitably lead to the death of many innocent civilians, not to mention soldiers, shows shockingly little regard for life, especially Muslim life (for the record, I also don't agree, as people in the video state, that Muslims are our "enemies" - our enemies are "not of flesh and blood" [Eph 6:12]).  From a Christian perspective, however, all life is valuable--Israeli life should not be considered more worth protecting than Arab life.

I do believe that these ideas are based on shaky theology.  Paul seems clear that the church is the "new Israel."  While I fully believe that the modern-day Israel has every right to exist, it no longer fulfills the role of God's "chosen people" - the Church universal, made up of both Jews and Gentiles, has assumed that role.  Again, I strongly believe that end times theology is not a salvation issue and therefore people should have great freedom in what they believe.  However, when that freedom leads to such potentially dire consequences for so many people, I think it is important to speak up.  And I'm frightened that so many Christians can so easily call for war on Iran, with the unavoidable loss of life that would accompany it.

Selling Weapons (again)--for what purpose?

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the Bush administration's decision to hold a weapons yard sale. (The gist of this story can be found here and here). I admit that my initial response is not overly supportive. This type of move seems reminiscent of decisions made over the past two decades. Weapons were (then) given to Iraq, Iran, and Afghani freedom fighters--many of which wound up being used against the US in some way.

The difficulty with this type of situation is that it is impossible to know (for certain) how the recipients of this sale will use these weapons. I am sure that when the previous (similar) sales took place, fear of the weapons being used against the US was not a controlling variable. The same is apparently the case here. The motivation for the sale does seem to be genuine:

The officials said the arms deal aimed to bolster the militaries of the Sunni Arab states as part of a strategy to counter what it sees as a growing threat posed by Iran in the region (BBC quote)

If this is indeed the case, and the Bush administration is seeking to offer additional support for such a purpose, then my hesitancy is (somewhat) lessened. As allies, it is completely logical to provide whatever (acceptable) assistance is needed. (Luke 6.31 would be appropriate here). However, the reason I remain somewhat reluctant to stand behind this choice--even if it is innocent--is due to the fact that it is all too easy for the weapons to wind up in the wrong hands. I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

Growing Pains

Friday night, I caught a segment of 20/20 dealing with teens who struggle with their height. From my own (continued) experience, I can sympathize with the overall dilemma. But, also from my own (continued) experience, I cannot support the way in which the two teens decided to deal with their situation. My lack of support comes partly because of the reasons provided by both the teens and their parents.

[Kaitlyn Christopherson] said the hardest part of being short is just feeling odd. "Feeling like you're different, like you're weird. You know, I want to be normal. I want what everybody else wants."[1]

[Ryan Hersch's] dad, Danny, says he fears Ryan might never grow past 5 feet. "Certain opportunities won't come his way. Out in the business world, dating girls."

To a (very small) degree, I can relate best to Kaitlyn's comments because that was my experience throughout high school. I had so many nicknames for my height that I honestly lost count. But here's the twofold deal:

1. that's just high school--and/or middle school. (Pre-)Teenage kids are simply vicious when it comes to acceptance and rejection. It's more of an exertion of assumed power and authority rather than statements of actual fact.
   
2. if Kaitlyn "feels" different or weird, then that's her choice. She can choose to ignore it, she can choose to stay away from people who make fun of her, she can choose to overcome the criticism[2], etc. But she didn't choose any of these options. She took the choice that only solved one problem: her height.

The problem that remained unsolved by Kaitlyn manifests itself in the struggles of Ryan. As before, (social) acceptance in the (pre-)teenage years is a troubling issue. What strikes me as odd is that the mentality of discriminatory acts by the "mean" kids are deemed ridiculous and childish. These mean kids just need to "grow up" and stop treating other kids the way they do. Yet, this same mentality apparently exists in the business world, which is ostensibly run by adults who have "grown up" and/or "grown out" of their childish ridiculousness.

The reporter covering this particular story responded to the comment made by Ryan's dad (noted above) in this way:

Studies show that tall men and women earn more money: A 6-foot-tall man earns on average almost $5,000 more than someone 5 feet 6 inches. In fact, each inch adds an average of almost $800 a year.[3]

He goes on to provide the following illustration:

Height even matters in elections. Twenty-one of the last 26 presidential elections were won by the taller candidate. President Bush was an exception, but even he's 6 feet tall. Bill Clinton was much taller than Bob Dole. The first President Bush was much taller than Michael Dukakis. Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower were all taller than their opponents. William McKinley in 1896 was the last president who was shorter than average.

The real problem is not that someone appears to be short. The problem is how people in society treat people who appear to be short. And, with respect to Kaitlyn and Ryan, this real problem is so seemingly insurmountable that the only solution is to inject a drug whose long-term effects are completely unknown. In fact, Ryan's mom was uncertain about whether or not the drug would cause cancer or affect his ability to have children. But, apparently, these concerns were secondary to Ryan's being picked on because of his height.

_________________________________________

[1] On a slightly ironic note, see a Good Morning America story, found here.
[2] See this story, which highlights the decision to overcome the social obstacles instead of trying to alter the physical ones.
[3] This quote comes from another site covering the same story, found here. This take on the story (thankfully) provides a good perspective to the whole dilemma (found at the end of p.3 and the start of p.4); though, it seemed to be included only as a side-note.

The Dangers of Torture and Denying Human Rights to Terrorists

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .

-The Declaration of Independence

What is interesting to note about this statement is where it claims human rights originate. It says that the rights we enjoy come from our Creator and that those rights are "unalienable." It is therefore disturbing when people, both Christian and non-Christian alike, say that it is okay to torture terrorists or to deny them other human rights because they are enemies of America and / or not American citizens. Here is the danger in such thinking: it makes one believe that our rights come by virtue of being American and not by virtue of our Creator endowing us with them. In fact, it was the very argument that these rights do not originate from one's government that made the founding fathers feel justified in rebelling against the sovereign of England. Putting aside, for now, the question of whether, in fact, our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable Rights or whether the revolutionary war was Biblically justified, if as Americans we stand behind this document and the reasoning behind its arguments, then it is impossible for us to also claim that those captured outside this country should not enjoy the same rights to fair justice as we do. Saying that our rights come by virtue of our Citizenship places the origins and foundations of our rights in the hands of government. If a government can grant rights, it can also take them away. Such a thought is antithetical with the Declaration of Independence. Our justification for setting up our own country is that our rights originate not from the government, but from our Creator. When we begin to lose sight of this understanding, we open the doors to allowing our freedom to be stripped from us, even under the guise of security.

Discussing Harry Potter

I love that the Church of England, rather than outright condemning the Harry Potter books as somehow promoting witchcraft and the occult (as if the "magic" in Harry Potter and witchcraft in the Bible were remotely the same), has chosen to release a study guide that uses Harry Potter as a starting point to discuss Christian themes.  Granted - such study guides can be done quite poorly, and I haven't seen this one.  Still, I think this is a much more healthy and constructive approach to the Harry Potter phenomenon than Christians condemning literature simply because it involves some form of "magic."

"Jesus used storytelling to engage and challenge his listeners," [Diocese of Oxford Bishop John] Pritchard noted.  "There's nothing better than a good story to make people think, and there's plenty in the Harry Potter books to make young people think about the choices they make in their everyday lives and their place in the world."

Jesus Action Figure?

Umm . . . so Wal-Mart is apparently set to begin selling Jesus action figures - along with other "faith-based toys" (think Samson and Daniel with a Lion's Den).  They'll only sell them in 420 stores though - only the stores that "sell a lot of Bibles."

I realize that some Christian parents want to give their children "wholesome" action figures, but seriously - what do they think their kids are doing with them?  I seriously doubt they're re-enacting Jesus healing the blind man . . . 

My favorite comment reacting to this news?  "Go ahead.  Cast the first stone!"  Hopefully they'll include that on the packaging.

Do Some Evangelical Leaders Perpetuate Cycles of Domestic Violence?

That's a pretty sobering question, isn't it?  The contention of this article is that some evangelical leaders (James Dobson and John MacArthur) help perpetuate domestic violence and endanger victims through their teaching.  I highly recommend reading the article - if the author's contentions are true, its pretty disturbing.  Here's one of the relevant quotes from the article regarding John MacArthur:

Andersen also takes on MacArthur: According to a tape titled Bible Questions and Answers Part 16, a member of Grace Community Church asked MacArthur how a Christian woman should react “and deal with being a battered wife.”

MacArthur’s answer contained “some very dangerous advice to battered wives. He said divorce is not an option to a battered wife, because the Bible doesn’t permit it.” While saying that it was okay “for the wife to get away while the pressure was on” it was with the understanding that she would return. “He warned wives to be very careful that they were not provoking the abusive situations. Because, he said, that was very often the problem.”

It seems at best irresponsible to indicate that wives are responsible for the abuse they endure (or husbands if the situation is reversed). Even if some case could be made that they were provoking their husbands, there is never an excuse for domestic violence. Ever. And if MacArthur is correctly represented here, the language he uses could easily be seen as justifying the abuse, whether or not that is his intention.

Religious leaders need to think deeply about the implications of the things they teach. I'm confident neither Dobson or MacArthur would ever want to condone, justify, or in any way help perpetuate domestic abuse. But that doesn't mean that the things they teach are not responsible for exactly those things.

Read the article - what do you think?

Bush, Freedom and Theology

Today I ran across this interesting post on Christianity Today's blog.  It's worth reading the actual post, but basically its about a backlash Bush has experienced lately regarding a recent comment he made about freedom.  Here's the quote:

The other debate is whether or not it is a hopeless venture to encourage the spread of liberty. Most of you all around this table are much better historians than I am. And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it's hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It's idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist.

A number of prominent bloggers have taken issue with this statement (Rich Lowry from National Review Online, Rod Dreher from Beliefnet, and Andrew Sullivan and Ross Douthat from the Atlantic Online).  While I might quibble with individual points in their arguments, I also am quite disturbed by the quote.  Some people don't think that a politician's religious beliefs should affect their policy decisions--I'm not one of those people.  My religious beliefs inform every decision I make, and I'm not sure why it should be different for politicians.  Unless one was to compartmentalize their beliefs as something separate from other areas of their life, I'm not sure how they could keep their religious beliefs from influencing their decisions.  With that said, I think there is a fine line to be walked--in a democracy and a pluralistic society, there are necessarily other voices besides the Christian voice that need to be heard.  Still, I believe that the Christian voice needs to be heard.

But I digress.  While I believe a politician's religious beliefs will inevitably influence their decisions, I find Bush's statement above highly suspect from a theological perspective.  Bush's claim seems to be that, because the gift of God to all is "freedom," this means that America should export its particular brand of freedom to the rest of the world.  The implication is that western democracy is somehow a part of the "freedom" which is God's gift.  And you simply cannot defend that position from the biblical text.  The "freedom" associated with being a Christian is freedom from slavery to sin--it is emphatically not political freedom.  If it was, Jesus would surely have worked for the overthrow of the Roman empire--instead, he tried to defuse Jewish nationalistic fervor which was focused on revolt against Rome.

Of course, this does not mean that it is necessarily bad to bring western democracy to other nations (although I think we need to be very careful in assuming that everyone else in the world does or should want our political system).  It does mean, however, that the spread of western democracy cannot be justified on the basis of Bush's vague "theology of freedom."  His attempt to do so completely misrepresents the kind of "freedom" Christ died to provide.

prejudice, profiling, proof-in-the-pudding (?) . . . what's the point being made?

Yahoo news, on behalf of the Associated Press, released this recent study on "racial disparities in prison".[1] I read the article in about 2 minutes and spent the next 5 minutes wondering what point the writer was trying to make. Nothing is ever clearly stated over why they statistics are presented.[2] There is one line that makes me think this article was leaning toward the idea of racial prejudice:

Such figures "reflect a failure of social and economic interventions to address crime effectively," as well as racial bias in the justice system, said Marc Mauer, the group's executive director. (emphasis added)[3]

My question would be: what proof is there in the overall findings that would justify a charge of racial prejudice? Unless I completely misread the article, there is absolutely nothing to support such a conclusion. The article is spotted with ratios and other key figures; but the inclusion of these numbers does not--in and of themselves--point in any direction other than what the numbers merely state. It would be the same as me saying: for every Dogwood tree in the state of Georgia, there are 58 evergreen trees.[4]

Let me take one more blurb from this article in order to highlight my struggles with its implicit argument:

In Iowa, blacks are imprisoned at a rate more than double the national average. For every 100,000 people, Iowa incarcerates 309 whites and 4,200 blacks, the study said.

Now, if the facts were: for every 4,200 blacks who were incarcerated only 10 of them actually committed crimes, then that would be proof of a serious flaw--i.e., a "racial bias in the justice system". The same would hold true for the other variable: if for every 309 whites who were incarcerated there were actually 5,000 who committed crimes worthy of jail time, and only the 309 were locked up; that would be a serious problem. But, if the facts were: if all 4,200 blacks who were jailed did in fact commit crimes that justified imprisonment, that's not prejudice or profiling--that's simple justice. The same holds true for the 309 whites who were sentenced--if they did it, they do the time.

If we as a people are going to uphold and promote social justice in this country (if not throughout the world), then we must face the facts and deal with them accordingly. We cannot simply alter our commitment to justice or cry out "racial prejudice" because the numbers are not comfortable and/or appealing to one race of people. Lady Justice, last time I checked, is still wearing a blindfold. She wears such a garb because the commitment to maintain justice is not racially determined. If for every 100,000 people, 4,509 people in the state of Iowa commit crimes, then justice requires that they are appropriately punished.

__________________________________________

[1] If the link ever goes cold, just Google "racial disparities in prison" and see if it gives you a link.
[2] See my post on the problems with statistical analysis, found here.
[3] Note that the implication of racial prejudice comes from the article writer and not Marc Mauer.
[4] I have no idea if this ratio is true. I simply made it up to illustrate the point.

Christians: Revolutionaries and Barbarians or Not?

My wife is going to camp next week with her home church as an adult volunteer. One of the books they are reading in preparation for the week is "The Barbarian Way" by Erwin McManus. First, I have not read the book, so the following is not a critique (though my wife does not seem very impressed so far). Instead, I would like to point out the notable trend in Christian discourse to adopt the vocabulary of war as a means of discussing the role of Christians in the world. This includes phrases like "be a solider for Christ" or references to Jesus as a "revolutionary" along with admonishments to follow Him as revolutionaries. The other day I watched a video of a presentation by Dr. Alan Keyes where I noted his frequent references to the war against the family and the war against religious freedom (there were a number of notable points in this presentation which I plan to address in a future post).

The question this raises is whether this trend is a positive one. Are Christians meant to be "barbarians" or "revolutionaries?" Certainly many of those who adopt these words hijack and nuance their meanings for specific purposes, but the question remains whether one can completely redefine words which already have meaning within our social discourse. As July 4, Independence Day, just past, it reminds that the word "revolutionary" has great significance in the American tradition. The American Revolution was a violent and bloody affair. Most revolutions are. Further, the language of war suggests fighting, strife, and death. Jesus' call, however, is different. While He was clear that violence against his followers would be a real possibility, perhaps even a likely one, He was equally clear that they were not to respond in kind.

So are we at war? Should we be revolutionaries or barbarian? The answer is both "yes" and "no." As is made plain by the words of Paul, if Christians are at war, it is a spiritual one and not one against other people. The problem then, is that when we talk about our various "Christian" causes (e.g. abortion, gay rights, marriage and the family, posting of the Ten Commandments, etc.) using the language of war, it tends to be groups of people (e.g. "those liberals") or organizations (e.g. the ACLU) we reference. Is this truly reflective of the kind of grace under which we live? Is this truly reflective of the salvation being offered to those people and the members of those organizations?