Musings of Scattered Minds

Halloween Pic

2007-11-05T11:41:00.001-06:00

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

something to consider

2007-10-31T11:59:00.000-05:00

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!

2007-10-23T14:57:00.000-05:00

Who knew?

Great Quote

2007-10-16T09:21:00.001-05:00

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

2007-10-15T09:32:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-10-07T23:49:00.000-05:00

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.

2007-10-03T09:54:00.000-05:00

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?!

2007-09-21T10:04:00.001-05:00

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?

2007-09-15T06:18:00.000-05:00

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

2007-09-11T14:28:00.001-05:00

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

"Homo politicus" (?!)

2007-09-10T05:40:00.001-05:00

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"

2007-09-07T17:30:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-30T21:22:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-30T21:05:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-29T00:20:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-29T00:00:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-27T07:37:00.001-05:00

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

2007-08-23T18:07:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-22T21:23:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-19T17:20:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-18T22:53:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-17T08:41:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-14T21:10:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-13T11:58:00.001-05:00

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"?

2007-08-12T07:59:00.000-05:00

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:

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).
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

2007-08-11T09:03:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-07T15:21:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-05T22:36:00.001-05:00

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

2007-08-05T22:27:00.000-05:00

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(?)

2007-08-05T08:07:00.001-05:00

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:

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."
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

2007-08-03T19:05:00.000-05:00

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

2007-08-03T17:27:00.000-05:00

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

2007-07-29T21:56:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-07-29T16:59:00.000-05:00

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

2007-07-28T18:29:00.000-05:00

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:

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.
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

2007-07-27T10:39:00.000-05:00

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

2007-07-26T09:03:00.001-05:00

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?

2007-07-25T22:26:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-07-25T22:07:00.000-05:00

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

2007-07-24T20:42:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-07-20T13:30:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-07-11T20:42:00.000-05:00

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?

An Explanation of the Name: BPL in Daily Life

2007-07-06T08:24:00.000-05:00

As an initial post, it seemed appropriate to explain what "The Learned Hand" refers to. For any of you who have some experience in the legal field, this explanation should not be surprising. In law school, instruction is done by individually reading assigned judicial opinions (the written copy of the court's ruling and its reasoning), almost always contained in a large textbook (think 9th grade English Class reader which contained lots of short stories, but with bigger words and duller stories), and then discussing them in class. At the beginning of almost all of the opinions is the name of the judge who wrote it. After reading enough of these, one begins to recognize the names of certain judges. One such judge was the Honorable Judge Learned Hand. As for why I decided to use it, well... its just a great name!

One thing Judge Hand did was write an opinion which became well known for utilizing something called the BPL test. Simply put the BPL test attempts to balance risk and utility. Utility balancing tests are used often in law, especially when the law is more like a standard (e.g. use the care a reasonable person would use in the same circumstance) instead of a bright-line rule (e.g. 55 MPH speed limit). The idea of BPL is that someone might be negligent (i.e. failed to use reasonable care) depending on the balancing of the risk of harm occurring * the gravity of the possible harm compared with the cost or difficulty in preventing the harm. For example, in one case, a man was electrocuted and killed when he moved his amateur radio antenna and hit a live electrical wire above his house. The question was, was the electric company negligent for not putting an insulated covering on the wires? A BPL analysis would attempt to balance the likelihood of someone coming in contact with the wire (if high enough, probably small) * the possible harm (likely death) with the cost of insulating all electrical wires ($$$). The idea is that if the cost is reasonable [utility] compared with the risk of harm [risk], then it would be negligent not to take the preventative act. On the other hand, if the cost was very high and the amount of prevention very small, then it might not be negligent to fail to take the preventative act.

Putting aside the difficulty in comparing money with human injury, this is a formula that people use all the time. The other day my wife and I were cleaning her car because we were trading it in. We were able to vacuum and clean the entire inside of the car in about 1 hr, but there was a certain spot on the inside molding that would not come clean. Since we only had a limited time to work on the car, we opted not to spend too much additional time on that spot. Why? Because of utility. For the small return (getting a small spot clean) it would take too much time and effort (perhaps a half hour or more when we only had 2 hrs total). Utility balancing is used throughout daily life. It is therefore not much surprise that it has found its way into law. Whether this is a good thing, though, especially when human life and money are compared on the scales of justice, is debatable.

Entrenched rhetorical positions

2007-07-06T07:20:00.000-05:00

This morning, I came across this article which continues the debate over the issue of "global warming". The overall intent of the article is made abundantly clear with the chosen headline. The rhetorical position of Gore, per the author of the article, is twofold:

global warming is radically affecting critical elements of our environment manifesting itself via melting glaciers, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc
those who try to argue in the opposite position are nothing more than alarmist claims of "cynical and pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth."

The rhetorical position of the article's author (James Taylor) is also twofold, yet it argues in the opposite direction:

the so-called effects of global warming are not consistent with recent scientific data
the claims of Gore (and implicitly those who are associated with him) are themselves alarmist at best, which is made evident by the first point.

One has to wonder, first of all, if Gore would see the sources[1] noted (that supposedly refute his claims) as being a part of the "cynical and pseudo-studies" that he opposes. One also has to wonder of Taylor realizes the "alarmists" tendencies implicit in his own presentation.

The final concern, for me, at least, is whether or not such an implicit polarization of positions is ultimately beneficial. It appears as though more time is spent on defending one's arguments (and subsequently undermining the other's) than on finding the necessary (and crucial) common-ground that could usher in valuable results.
___________________________________________

[1] The sources noted in the article: American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, Nature, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geophysical Research Letters, New Scientist, Journal of Glaciology, Danish Meteorological Institute, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences

Conservapedia

2007-07-03T12:42:00.000-05:00

So . . . ummm . . . a friend brought this to my attention. I'm curious what you guys think. I'll go out on a limb here and say what I think too.

Sites like this (and GodTube - I'm sure I could find other examples if I looked) frustrate me a bit . . . mostly for one reason. There seems to be a preoccupation in some Christian circles with creating a Christian subculture that acts as a parallel culture, where Christians can presumably feel safe and be themselves. Unfortunately, what usually occurs is that Christians become comfortable within this parallel culture and prefer to stay there. I'm not sure how this response fits with Jesus' admonition that Christians should be "salt and light" within society (see Matt 5:13-16).

My understanding of why Conservapedia was created comes from this article, in which the author says that wikipedia is "riddled with liberal bias." Therefore he felt the need to start a new version. I would suggest that perhaps a better approach, and one which takes Jesus' admonition into account, would be to work to add another perspective to wikipedia.

I would also, however, question the particular perspective offered by at least some of the articles on Conservapedia, which make claims that frankly would not be allowed on wikipedia (and with good reason). The site purports to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia," and one that "[has] certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts." However, some of the articles noted in the news article linked above are disturbing. Here are two examples for those who haven't read the article:

1. Femininity is the quality of being "soft spoken, childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."
2. Hillary Clinton may suffer from "a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office" - "clinical narcissism."

It is worth noting that the creator of the site defends that article as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective." I'm not sure what that means - there is nothing objective about those statements. They clearly come from a conservative perspective, and from a dangerous one at that - unsubstantiated claims of that sort could likely be considered slander. However, my main point is not to defend Hillary Clinton - it is to say that there seems to be a severe lack of self-awareness on the part of the site's creator, and the site itself. To claim objectivity for a site that obviously associates itself with a conservative political perspective is a problem - as would be claiming objectivity for a site from a liberal political perspective.

However, this is veering towards politics and that wasn't my intent with this post. My main point, and the question I pose to any readers, is this: Is the creation of this site the best course of action for someone who doesn't like wikipedia? Stated more broadly: Is the creation of a specifically Christian alternative the best response to something in society that does not meet Christian approval? I don't think so - I think the harder road is to work within society and culture to present a truly Christian perspective. The "I'll take my toys and go play in another sandbox" response benefits no one, and does not honor Jesus' admonition to be "salt and light."

New Beginnings

2007-06-28T22:00:00.000-05:00

So . . . I've decided I need to be posting regularly to this blog, or shut it down. I don't want to shut it down, so I've taken this opportunity to rethink what I'm doing here and try to ensure that there'll be something good to read here regularly - and thus hopefully make it worth checking regularly. I've spoken with three good friends, and we've figured that if we all post at least semi-regularly, it should be enough to make this blog worthwhile. They're all good people with good things to say - I think the blog will be better for their contributions. I expect they'll each begin posting here soon. I suppose it goes without saying, but just in case . . . I'm not responsible for the opinions they post, nor are they responsible for mine.

Since the blog is kind of "starting over," I figured I'd reiterate the reasons I started it in the first place.

1. I want it to be a place for dialogue regarding issues that are important to me and the other posters. Hopefully they are issues that are important to people reading as well. It'll probably cover a lot of space due to some of our varied interests - Christianity (and religion in general), pop culture, movies, music, politics, law, education . . . just about anything you can think of. Whatever the topic, my goal is to bring a Christian perspective to a variety of topics.

2. I view myself as somewhat involved in the enterprise of "reclaiming Christianity" (I'll admit, I borrowed the phrase from a friend). I suspect that the other posters would agree with this sentiment. If that sounds at all arrogant, I apologize - it's not meant that way. What I mean is that I think there are a lot of poor examples out there of what it means to be a Christian - usually by well meaning Christians who are struggling, as I often do, with how to relate the Bible and what we believe to be true about God to what we see in the world around us. I hope that I can contribute, even in a small way, to helping Christians become better at interacting with our culture--again, I know the other posters feel the same.

3. I'd like this blog to be a place for posters to share other resources/articles/etc. on the internet that they find helpful. In particular it can be a place to reference and discuss helpful news articles, essays, etc. So I hope readers will be in the habit of checking links out - at least if its on a topic that interests you!

4. I hope people will feel free to comment. I'd love for this to be a place for people to discuss different ideas. I find good blogs have helped me begin to think through a lot of different issues - I want this to be a place where people can thoughtfully and respectfully discuss their ideas, even when we don't agree.

That's plenty for now - I'm sure the other posters will be posting relatively soon. I do hope the blog is helpful to any of you who take the time to read it.

Update

2007-03-26T07:32:00.000-05:00

Cari's mom passed away about 4 AM this morning. Funerals will most likely be both tomorrow and Wednesday. We appreciate everyone's prayers.

Jim Wallis & James Dobson - What are the "great moral issues" of our time?

2007-03-21T17:03:00.000-05:00

I received this article in Sojourners Magazine's free weekly email "Sojomail" (you can find it here if you're interested - its usually pretty good). I was aware of this issue and Wallis' request for a debate/conversation with Dobson. The article is quite good - I thought it would be worth posting for you all to read, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Personally, I'm encouraged to see the NAE broadening its idea of what constitutes a "moral issue" - I find Dobson and his supporters' definition far too narrow, and I find it extremely distasteful that he would call for Cizik to be fired because he doesn't agree with him.

The Big Debate (by Jim Wallis)

Last week, a letter from James Dobson and friends to the board of the National Association of Evangelicals challenged NAE vice president Rich Cizik's efforts on global warming as "dividing and demoralizing," claiming they shift "the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time."

In response, I invited Dobson to a debate on the question, "What are the great moral issues of our time for evangelical Christians?" and suggested that a major evangelical Christian university should host it.

On Saturday, the Los Angeles Times reported on the debate invitation, and this response: "A Focus on the Family vice president, Tom Minnery, said he would be happy to take up that debate. Dobson himself, Minnery said, is busy writing a book on child rearing."

I’m also busy writing a book, but I suggest that when we’re both finished, we hold that debate. My personal invitation to James Dobson still stands. And since he was the primary driving force behind the crucial letter, the conversation should be with him. But let’s change the tone of this from "a debate" to "a conversation." This is, in fact, the big conversation going on among evangelicals (and Catholics, too) across the nation and around the world.

In his letter, Dobson named the "great moral issues" as "the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children." I said in my last blog that I believe the sanctity of life, the integrity and health of marriages, and the teaching of sexual morality to our children are, indeed, among the "great moral issues of our time. But I believe they are not the only great moral issues." As many writers have been saying in this blog, the enormous challenges of global poverty, climate change, pandemics that wipe out generations and continents, the trafficking of human beings made in God’s image, and the grotesque violations of human rights, even to the point of genocide, are also among the great moral issues that people of faith must be - and already are - addressing.

Just in the last few days, we have already received invitations from six major Christian universities eager to host this conversation between James Dobson and me. But this is bigger than just two people: It’s the conversation we need to have on every Christian campus, in every church, and in public forums around the nation, especially as we approach another election season. So let’s do that together.

The board meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals also ended Saturday, and in the words of their own press release: "NAE Leaders Advance Broad Agenda with Landmark Document on Human Rights and Torture." The release begins by noting:

The board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals advanced a broad public agenda at its annual meeting this week, endorsing a landmark document on human rights and torture, and reaffirming its "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Public Engagement," first adopted in 2003.

Specifically, the board noted it

...reaffirmed its support for the landmark "For the Health of the Nation" document unanimously adopted in 2003, commending its "principles of Christian political engagement to our entire community for action."

These principles include: (1) We work to protect religious freedom and liberty of conscience; (2) We work to nurture family life and protect children; (3) We work to protect the sanctity of human life and to safeguard its nature; (4) We seek justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable; (5) We work to protect human rights; (6) We seek peace and work to restrain violence; (7) We labor to protect God's creation.

The only mention of Rich Cizik, whom the Dobson letter had singled out and called upon the NAE to fire, came with these words in the official NAE press release:

Speaking at the annual board banquet, Rev. Richard Cizik, NAE vice president for governmental affairs, quoted evangelical theologian Carl F. H. Henry in his wake up call to evangelicals sixty years ago: ‘The cries of suffering humanity today are many. No evangelicalism which ignores the totality of man's condition dares respond in the name of Christianity.’

The NAE statement went on to say:

Speaking of a new generation of evangelicals that has responded to those cries, Cizik said: ‘We root our activism in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross and are giving it a proper temporal focus by emphasizing all of the principles that are found in the Bible. We come together in a positive way as a family bonded by the love of Christ, not as fractious relatives. We desire to be people known for our passionate commitment to justice and improving the world, and eager to reach across all barriers with love, civility, and care for our fellow human beings.’

I knew Carl F. H. Henry, during my seminary years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and through many conversations together during our early years of Sojourners. His biblical theology, social conscience, and political balance provided a younger generation with crucial moral guidance. We miss his voice today.

But the NAE board, and its president Leith Anderson, know that a new generation of evangelicals wants that same sound theology and good balance, and believe that Christian moral concerns (and God’s concerns) go beyond only a few issues. Recognizing how their broader agenda is resonating with evangelicals around the world, the NAE announced that at its fall board meeting in Washington, D.C., October 11-12, "the association will host an ‘International Congress on Evangelical Public Engagement,’ drawing prestigious leaders from around the world to meet with American leadership around the principles of the Association's ‘For the Health of the Nation’ document." It seems the broader evangelical social agenda has solid support and is moving forward.

So, let’s have the big debate, and make it into the kind of deep and necessary conversation among the people of God that it needs to be. And to Jim Dobson I say, let’s finish our books (as a Dad with two young boys I look forward to reading yours on child rearing!), and then agree to a public conversation at the right place and the right time. I look forward to that.

A Long Overdue Update

2007-03-18T22:21:00.000-05:00

I've been putting off doing a much-needed update on what's going on in our lives for a couple of weeks now while waiting for final notification on a fairly major change in our lives (no, Cari is not pregnant, so just put that out of your mind right now). However, it is much needed, and things have finally developed to a point at which I felt it was a good time to post.

As most of you know, we've been living with my mom since May while saving up money and figuring our next move, which we had believed would be to move some place (possibly overseas) for me to pursue a Ph.D. I've decided not to do so - the short reason why is that I discovered that there were no positions available teaching the topic I wished to teach (Religion and Culture). We weighed several different options for a month or so (teaching in a university, teaching a different subject, educational work in a church, etc.), and finally determined that I liked the idea of doing educational ministries in a church if I could find the right church.

About the same time as we reached this decision, an Adult Ministries position opened up at my home church in Omaha, and I knew this would be an ideal position for me. Its a strong, growing church that is outreach-minded and pretty progressive as far as Christian Churches/Churches of Christ are concerned. I've known several of the ministers and elders for years, and knew I would enjoy working with them. And the position is exactly what I was looking for - it is primarily focused on the church's adult education and small groups program, with additional duties including occasional preaching, pre-marital counseling, weddings and funerals, etc. I've been pursuing the position for almost 3 months now, through 3 interviews, and was offered the position today - my first day on staff will be April 1. I'm very excited about the position, and really looking forward to getting started in a few weeks.

Of course, this new position means we'll be settling in Omaha - I never expected to be saying that! Over the next week or two we'll start looking for a house out near to the church - obviously we're looking forward to that as well. It'll be nice to know that we're settling down without the constant knowledge that we'll be moving in a couple years, and it's certainly nice that we're going to be near both Cari and I's families.

In the midst of this career change, we also learned several months ago that Cari's mom, MaryAnne, had cancer. By the time it was discovered it was already pretty advanced, and had spread to several different organs. They attempted treatment for a couple of months, which slowed the growth in some areas but not in all of them. A few weeks ago they went to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, where they recommended that they discontinue treatment and work to control pain and symptoms. Obviously this situation is difficult for us, and certainly for MaryAnne and the rest of Cari's family. We greatly appreciate everyone's prayers.

These are the major developments in our lives over the past few months. I'm sure I left some things out - if so, Cari will remind me and I'll post them later. Hope everyone is doing well. Take care.

Global Education and the "Information Explosion"

2007-03-14T17:12:00.000-05:00

I know its often said that people are less apt to follow links than to read a complete post, but I'm going to start occasionally linking to interesting posts, articles, etc. that I find - I think its one of the most useful features of a blog, in that it allows me to draw readers' attention to relevent/interesting information located in other places on the internet. So, I do hope you'll check these links out. And in this case, I don't yet know how to embed a YouTube video, so I couldn't post this video here even if I wanted to do so.

Anyway, this video on a friend's site is quite interesting - it certainly helps to give a more realistic perspective regarding globalization and education, and offers some intriguing statistics in relation to the "information explosion" that is currently occurring worldwide. I'm interested to see if anyone has any comments.

An Inconvenient Truth Part 2

2007-02-28T22:30:00.000-06:00

I hope my friend Carl, who commented on my last post, will not be offended that I am using his comment as the occasion for my next post. I do so not because I think his comments are foolish, but because I think he raises objections to An Inconvenient Truth that I believe many other conservatives would also raise. I think they're worth discussing, and so I am including them in a post in order to draw attention to the discussion, rather than having it hidden in the comments section.

Here is Carl's response:

I cannot make any judgments on Gore's politics, simply because I haven't had the time to keep up with them. But I do find a bit of irony (if I could even call it that) in the whole enterprise, which leads me to the question of: how much jet-fuel did Gore burn while promoting his endeavor to be more friendly to the environment? It seems to me that if you want to be a poster child for being more eco-friendly, then you should find other ways to market your ideas instead of using ones that only contribute to the problem.

On a completely different but slightly connected note: I also found it interesting this past weekend that, while watching the History Channel, some scientists were working out scenarios of how to cope with a possible mini Ice Age--much like the one that hit in the 14th century. Here's why it strikes me as interesting: these scientists are running predictions for such an event taking place this century. Yet, other scientists are running predictions for global warming for this century.

As I see it, Carl has raised two issues - I'll respond to each in turn.

First, Carl indicates that he sees Gore's actions as inconsistent with his message, in that he uses large amounts of fuel traversing the globe in order to spread his message of energy conservation and care for the earth. This observation may or may not be true, although I would argue that if Gore is successful in getting his message heard, what is gained is probably much more than the fuel he uses. However, I also feel compelled to say that I don't think it matters one way or another. This argument, in philisophical terms (for those of you who don't know Carl, he has a strong mind for philisophical arguments), commits the ad hominem logical fallacy. Essentially, he is making a personal attack on the bearer of the message (in this case, Al Gore's warnings regarding global warming), while not dealing with the argument itself.

My essential point is that, whether or not Gore's actions are problematic, this has no bearing on the truth or falsity of his message. This is my fear regarding political conservatives' reactions to this movie - that they will reject the warnings about global warming without really considering them, simply because they don't like or agree with the bearer of the message. I was never a fan of Gore when it came to politics - nevertheless, I believe that his arguments regarding global warming should at least be given fair consideration.

Carl's second point is a significant objection. I will confess that I am a newcomer to this issue and at this time I do not understand the science behind the issue with a great deal of sophistication. However, my limited understanding is that some scientists who believe global warming is taking place fear that it could eventually lead to another ice age. If I understand correctly, and at the risk of over-simplifying complex scientific theories, they believe this could happen as a result of shifting ocean currents brought on by global warming. As the effects of global warming are felt, it is believe that this will affect the complex ocean currents which govern global weather and climate patterns. Frankly, I'm not sure anyone actually understands what will happen when these currents change, but an ice age is one of the possibilities that has been advanced. So, I am not sure that scientists who fear a future ice age contradict the arguments that global warming is occurring. (Here is one article, which is a few years old, which explains this idea).

My thinking about global warming is that if Gore's warnings are legitimate, our children and our children's children are the ones who will pay for our refusal to deal with the issue. For this reason it is worth considering. And whether global warning is ultimately a legitimate fear, reducing global energy consumption and pollution is a worthwhile goal. From a Christian perspective, it is astonishing to me how often we forget that God entrusted us with the care of the earth - for this reason Christians should be leaders in taking care of the world we live in. With this in mind, I want to draw my readers' attention to this .pdf document, which gives ten simple suggestions for cutting down on energy consumption. Americans should particularly pay attention to these suggestions, since we are by far the largest contributor, per person, of pollution in the world.

New Movies

2007-02-20T22:13:00.000-06:00

Hmmm . . . so it's been a little while since I posted. And the long promised TV posts are still coming . . . but not yet. Instead I thought I'd get things started with a short post about two movies we've seen recently - one which was quite good, one not so much.

First, the not so good. "Music and Lyrics" looked promising, as romantic comedies go. Hugh Grant's movies often have a dry, quirky humor that can be quite enjoyable. Sometimes they are a little satirical, like last year's "American Dreamz," which, while you can argue about the sophistication and success of its satire, was a fairly enjoyable satire of American culture. I also will admit to having enjoyed "About a Boy" and "Love Actually." This movie, however, was a disappointment. It started out somewhat promising - the opening scene, which consists of a terrible 80's style music video, was pretty amusing. The majority of the movie was passable, but the ending was inexcusable. Not only was it completely cheesy, it lacked any internal coherence with the rest of the movie. I won't say anymore, since I might give away something for those of you who dare to see it.

So, on to the good. While some of my readers may be skeptical, my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed "An Inconvenient Truth." I'll admit, I enjoy well-made documentaries, and this one qualifies. I'm not positive where I land on the global warming issue, although I do not find it nearly as easy to dismiss as some people do. Al Gore makes a convincing argument that it is a pressing danger - certainly enough to warrant further investigation. My one criticism of the documentary is that there are several sections that deal slightly with his political career, and I think these could have been left out. The sad truth is that many people will be turned off from this documentary because they don't agree with Gore on political grounds. However, I would challenge anyone to try to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" with an open mind, free of any disagreements with Gore's politics. The reality is that if Gore is right about global warming, we (meaning the entire human race) have a great deal to lose. If he is incorrect, curtailing pollution and conserving energy is still a very good thing. We have a great deal to gain, and very little to lose, by taking this issue seriously.

Jake Goes to Washington

2006-11-15T20:51:00.000-06:00

Cari and I are flying to Washington D.C. tomorrow morning - we'll be spending almost a week in the area. Cari is going to visit our good friends Curtis and Amy, who live in Maryland about 30 miles away from D.C. (that's them below). While she is partying away, I will be attending the joint annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion. Its the largest gathering of biblical and religious scholars in the world - last year I believe there were over 10,000 people. Believe it or not, it is my idea of a good time. I was able to attend the conference last year and thoroughly enjoyed it - a lot of stimulating discussions, and I really appreciated the free exchange of ideas that occurred in the discussions after scholars presented their papers. This year I will also have the opportunity to meet with several scholars from the Ph.D programs I am interested in, so it should be a good week.

Needless to say, the likelihood is I won't be posting much or at all while I'm at the conference. However, rest assured I will return next week with a couple of posts on television - I know you're all waiting on the edge of your seats.

Good Television - Part 1

2006-11-12T23:01:00.000-06:00

Many of you are probably aware that I enjoy TV a great deal. Our collection of DVD seasons -- which includes the full run of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Dark Angel, Firefly, The Office, and Friends, in addition to incomplete collections of Seinfeld and Scrubs -- stands as witness to my obsession. I try to keep the number of shows I'm watching in a given season down to a minimum, but inevitably there are 2 or 3 (or 4 or 5) shows that I try to keep up with on a regular basis. Despite this fact, it occurred to me that I have not yet written a single post about television. So, in an effort to remedy this oversight, I am writing a couple of blogs about some of what I believe to be the best current shows.

First, I thought I'd begin by offering an explanation of why I enjoy good television so much. As I have reflected on my enjoyment of television, I've come to the conclusion that on the whole I enjoy television series even more than most movies. The primary reason, I believe, lies in the character development that occurs in many television series -- at least, in the ones I tend to enjoy. I find that in most all narrative media I enjoy -- fictional literature, television, movies, etc. -- I am most drawn to longer series' which provide an opportunity for the audience to get to know the character(s) and watch as they develop over time. There are numerous examples: books like Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, Stephen King's Gunslinger series, and Robert Jordan's massive Wheel of Time series; in movies, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars (the original trilogy, of course), Harry Potter (I still haven't gotten around to reading the books), and X-Men; in television, virtually all of the DVD collections noted above fall into this category, and almost all of the shows I discuss in these next couple posts will as well. However, while character development is present in any good example of fictional narrative, I find that it is typically present more in television than in movies, simply because of the amount of time available to the show's writers to explore the characters and their story. This conduciveness of the television medium to character development, coupled with the fact that the quality of writing for television seems to have improved a great deal over the past 10 years, explains why I enjoy television so much.

In the interest of keeping this relatively short, I'll cut this installment off here. I'll post another one or two within the next few days.

Christian Voting

2006-11-05T23:03:00.000-06:00

To anyone who is interested in such things, I commend to you this excellent Issues Guide for Christian voters - it was put together by Sojourners, and a longer version is available here after a short registration. Christians are too often guilty of one or two issue voting -- certain issues like abortion are highlighted as the only significant moral issues, and candidates are therefore chosen solely on the basis of their positions on a very short list of issues. While abortion is undoubtedly an important moral issue, there are other important moral issues. This issues guide does an excellent job of highlighting this fact. I know I found it helpful - I think many of you will too.

Compassion and Economic Justice

They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands (Isaiah 65:21-23).

God shows a special concern for those in poverty and acts in history to lift them up. The Bible teaches that societies should organize so that all members have genuine access to the resources needed to live a decent life and provide for those who are unable to care for themselves.

Does the candidate support measures that provide for family economic success and security by “making work work,” that promote fair and decent wages, that show a serious commitment to lifting children out of poverty, and support policies on aid, debt, and trade that would bring extreme global poverty to an end?

Peace and Restraint of Violence

They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more (Isaiah 2:4). Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God (Matthew 5:9).

We face a major challenge of how to resolve conflicts, reduce violence, and defeat terrorism without endless war. War has become a first resort instead of the last resort. In a world full of terrorists, terrorist states, unilateralist superpowers, and weapons of mass destruction, we need practical alternatives to an endless cycle of violence.

Is the candidate committed to a serious plan for ending the war in Iraq, to joining a real national debate on how to remove American forces while seeking both security and peace for Iraq, to the elimination of nuclear weapons, to supporting security and freedom in the Middle East, and to strengthening international law to fight terrorism?

Consistent Ethic of Life

Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being (Genesis 2:7).

We believe that all life is a sacred gift from God, and that public policies should reflect a consistent ethic of life - and address all the places where human life is threatened. We believe abortion is always a moral tragedy, but how do we find real solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies and supporting women caught in very difficult and desperate circumstances?

Does the candidate support policies that will dramatically reduce the number of abortions, end capital punishment, and stop genocide, especially in Darfur?

Racial Justice

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

Full humanity and dignity are denied when people are discriminated against for ethnic or racial reasons, whether intentionally or due to systemic structures. Racism is a sin and undermines the integrity of a society.

Is the candidate committed to reversing and ending racial discrimination in all aspects of our society, especially in the criminal justice and education systems?

Human Rights, Dignity, and Gender Justice

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27).

We recognize each human being as created in God’s image. We urge policies that both protect life and promote human dignity. On the issue of torture, for example, it really isn’t the terrorists and what they stand for; it is about us, and what we stand for. On immigration, how do we welcome the stranger, respect the law, and insure national security? And how do we combat the growing epidemic of sexual trafficking and virtual slavery?

Does the candidate support humane and holistic immigration policies and comprehensive immigration reform? Do they insist on policies that end torture, stop human trafficking, promote religious freedom, and protect women?

Strengthen Families and Renew Culture

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God (Romans 12:2).

Strong families are the essential foundation of a good society. A culture that promotes healthy families is necessary to raise our children with strong values. And parenting has become a countercultural activity in America. How do we find real solutions, and not just scapegoats?

Does the candidate support policies that strengthen marriage and families, restore integrity to our civic and business practices, and act to prevent violence in our society - especially the alarming incidence of domestic violence against women and children.

Good Stewardship of God’s Creation

God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good (Genesis 1:31). The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it (Psalm 24:1).

The earth and the fragile atmosphere that surrounds it are God’s good creation for the sustenance and enjoyment of all things. We support policies that protect creation from interests and activities that damage it. We believe global warming is a religious issue.

Does a candidate support protections to clean air and water, to reduce the dangerous emissions that cause global warming, to shift from our addiction to oil and fossil fuels to cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy sources? Do they support the transformation to conservation and new energy sources that could provide jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, help solve the Middle East crisis, and even reduce the threats of terrorism?

Next Tuesday, we will not establish the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is not on the ballot. But you can vote to strengthen the common good. There are important things at stake in this election, including many lives in the ongoing war in Iraq. This is an important election for our country, and I urge all Christians to take time this weekend to think and pray about their choices, evaluate candidates on all these issues, then go to the polls on Tuesday and vote.

And after we vote, no matter who wins, we must be at the doorstep of politicians the next day to hold them accountable to the issues that arise from a broad biblical agenda.

Image and Word

2006-10-28T16:22:00.000-05:00

There's a short, interesting commentary on Breakpoint's website here regarding CNN's recent choice to air footage of a terrorist sniper shooting an American soldier. (For those who don't know, Breakpoint is an organization formed by Chuck Colson, a conservative Christian author.) The author of the commentary takes issue with CNN's decision, comparing it to Rome's choice to publicly crucify more than 6,000 slaves who revolted in the first century B.C.E. While I think the comparison might be a little overblown, I agree that CNN's decision seems to be in extremely poor taste--they justified it with a claim of presenting the "unvarnished truth," but in an era where any form of controversy can generate attention, it is difficult not to see dollar signs behind the decision.

What caught my attention more than the issue with CNN is the author's claims regarding the use of images in general. He quotes from several Christian thinkers who are critical of the use of images--the following two quotes particularly caught my attention:

"Far from offering truth, [Francis Schaeffer] said, "every television minute has been edited. The viewer does not see the event. He sees . . . an edited image of that event.""

"And as Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis notes, with television, reality becomes the image, "whether or not that image corresponds to any objective state of affairs—and we are not challenged to engage in this analysis.""

These are strong statements regarding the use of images in general, and the medium of television in particular. Both Schaeffer and Groothuis, as far as I know, are extremely critical of television as a medium of communication--Groothuis seems to view it as a completely debased and useless form.

It is worth noting that these criticisms are valid. Television, as with any form of communication, has weaknesses, and it is good to point them out. One should always bear in mind that television is a highly edited medium, and Groothuis is at least correct that many people do not take the time to think about what they are watching. My difficulty, however, is that the implicit assumption behind these statements (and I believe Groothuis' writings confirm this interpretation) is that image is somehow inferior to word. That is, textually based information is viewed as having a greater claim to truth, or at least a much greater ability to communicate truth.

However, I'm just not sure that this is true--that image is inferior to word when it comes to communicating truth. Different, certainly, but inferior? Part of the problem is that it seems to be barely acknowledged (if at all) that texts suffer from the exact same limitations noted above regarding the use of images. All textually based material is necessarily edited by its author, and is written with an agenda in mind. Word/text is always produced for a reason--everything is subjective, and any claims to complete objectivity are automatically suspect. I believe this is part of the human condition--while we may legitimately try to limit the extent to which our own experiences, ideas, and agendas influence what we produce (be it image or word), true objectivity will always elude us.

Accordingly, while the above criticism of images, and of television in particular, is certainly valid, it seems inappropriate for it to be used to privilege word over image. God himself seems to value both--while the Bible is the Word, isn't Jesus the ultimate Image?

Recent Movies: The Prestige

2006-10-24T21:24:00.000-05:00

Cari and I had been looking forward to seeing this movie for the past few months - the previews looked great, and its hard to turn down a movie starring Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman, Scarlett Johansson, and Michael Caine, and directed by Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins).

The movie centers around two dueling magicians in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I don't want to reveal any more of the plot because much of the enjoyment of watching the film comes from trying to navigate the different twists and turns of the story (in the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that Cari figured out the big "secret" before it was revealed--I did not). The movie is well worth seeing--I found the characters to be well developed (particularly Bale and Jackman's characters) and the plot twists did not feel as contrived as they did when we saw Martin Scorcese's The Departed a few weeks ago (Scorcese's movie is also worth seeing, but I enjoyed The Prestige more).

Republicans and Democrats Can Work Together? Who Knew?

2006-10-24T18:24:00.000-05:00

My friend Carl pointed out this interesting story on GetReligion.org, a blog which is run by several journalists and is devoted to discussions regarding the media's coverage of religion. The post is about the Joshua Green's cover article "Take Two" in the November issue of the Atlantic, which deals with Hilary Clinton's attempts to turn herself into "the consummate Washington player." According to Green's story, the primary catalyst for Hilary's "transformation" has been her involvement in a prayer group on Capitol Hill.

Apparently there are a number of these prayer groups where lawmakers gather together for some form of private worship. Most of these groups are affiliated with a secretive organization known as the Fellowship--according to Green, the Fellowship was:

established in the 1930s by a Methodist evangelist named Abraham Vereide, whose great hope was to preach the word of Jesus to political and business leaders throughout the world. Vereide believed that the best way to change the powerful was through discreet personal ministry, and over his lifetime he succeeded to a remarkable degree. The first Senate prayer group met over breakfast in 1943; a decade later one of its members, Senator Frank Carlson, persuaded Dwight Eisenhower to host a Presidential Prayer Breakfast, which has become a tradition.

While the existence of such groups is interesting in and of itself, what is particularly interesting is what occurred through Hilary Clinton's involvement in one of these prayer groups. These groups are primarily attended by conservative congressmen and women, and Hilary was in a group with Senator Sam Brownback, a well known and influential conservative from Kansas. Here is how Green describes what happened in the group:

One spring Wednesday, a few months into the term, Senator Sam Brownback’s turn came to lead the group, and he rose intending to talk about a recent cancer scare. But as he stood before his colleagues Brownback spotted Clinton, and was overcome with the impulse to change the subject of his testimony. “I came here today prepared to share about this experience in my life that has caused great suffering, the result of which has deepened my faith,” Brownback said, according to someone who watched the scene unfold. “But I’m overcome now with only one thought.” He confessed to having hated Clinton and having said derogatory things about her. Through God, he now recognized his sin. Then he turned to her and asked, “Mrs. Clinton, will you forgive me?” Clinton replied that she would, and that she appreciated the apology.

Green goes on to explain that as a result, Clinton and Brownback have worked together on two separate initiatives--one to protect refugees fleeing sexual abuse, and another to study the effects that violent video games and television shows have upon children.

There are two things that are significant to me about this story. First, it is refreshing to see two politicians who could not be on more opposite sides of the political spectrum working together. One could hope (probably futile, but lets pretend it is not) that such activity could become the rule, rather than the exception. Second, it is interesting that this bipartisan cooperation came about as a result of a regular prayer group. Green notes that these groups may be one of the last venues in which politicians feel free to share their faith and thoughts in a private setting--a place in which they can truly be themselves with one another. I find it fitting that this venue would be a prayer group, because it is exactly how the church should function--bringing together people from diverse backgrounds on the basis of their shared belief.

Of course, everything states in this story could be political rhetoric--certainly Hilary could benefit politically from being viewed as more moderate. While the cynic and realist in me thinks this is probably the case, the idealist in me hopes that maybe, just maybe, this story is an example of politicians doing something right.

Recent Movies: Little Miss Sunshine

2006-09-16T23:01:00.000-05:00

While I'll still likely post plenty about politics, simply because it is a topic I'm increasingly interested in, I also want to guide this blog a little more towards pop cultural topics as well. I'm going to try posting about some of the movies we see (there haven't been very many lately) and we'll see if any of them are "discussion-worthy."

A few weeks ago we caught "Little Miss Sunshine" - we'd been looking forward to this one since first seeing the previews several months prior to its release. We loved it. Its a pretty "off the wall" comedy/drama about an extraordinarily dysfunctional family that ends up taking an ill-fated road trip through California when the 7 or 8 year old daughter makes it into the national Little Miss Sunshine contest. The family includes a motivational speaker (the father, played by Greg Kinnear), a suicidal Proust scholar (The Office's Steve Carrell, in a characteristically great performance), and a teenage devotee of Nietzsche who has taken a vow of silence. I don't want to go into any more detail because this movie really is worth seeing - it is an endearing study of family dynamics and how members of a family support one another, no matter how flawed they may be.

Update #2

2006-09-16T22:44:00.000-05:00

My apologies to anyone who has been faithful in checking this blog with any regularity over the past couple weeks. I haven't been able to post as often as I had planned or would like to, partially because of a lack of time recently, and partially because of a lack of ideas. Still, I hope you'll all stay with me - I do plan to continue posting, and hope to do it at least a little more regularly.

By way of an update as to what's going on with Cari and I, we're doing well in Omaha. Its been nice to be closer to family for a little while, after being 9-12 hours away for 5 years. I am currently working at TD Ameritrade opening new accounts - while it is not my dream job, its not bad. I spend my days processing new account applications while listening to my headphones (usually jazz - instrumental music is better when I have to concentrate), and occasionally I speak with customers when I need additional information. Its a job that requires a good deal of technical knowledge, but I'm starting to feel more comfortable with it. Cari is still working for Avantas.

We had a chance to travel to Spearfish, SD over Labor Day to visit our friends Matt and Becky Branum, who moved there a couple years ago to plant a church. They're doing well, with a very cute little girl around 2 years old (and I don't always think kids this age are cute) and a growing church. Cari and I saw Mount Rushmore for the first time (it was cooler than I thought it would be), and we visited Bear Country as well. Bear Country is a drive-thru outdoor zoo - lots of animals (I'm sure it will surprise you to learn they have bears), and at one point our car was literally surrounded by a pack of 6 arctic wolves. It was pretty cool.

This week (Thursday, September 21) we'll be celebrating Cari's birthday, and this weekend we'll travel to Des Moines to celebrate her Dad's birthday as well. We also hope to make it to Norfolk, NE soon to visit some college friends. Sometimes it seems like we travel every weekend, but Cari assures me that is not the case.

Jim Wallis' "God's Politics"

2006-08-28T21:18:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Carl for bringing this interesting review of Jim Wallis' God's Politics to my attention. The author is fairly complimentary toward the book, although she does offer some serious criticisms as well. For my part, I have not yet read the book, but I find Wallis' writings to be excellent and thought provoking - he does an excellent job of challenging both conservatives and liberals to think more deeply about their beliefs in light of the Bible's teachings.

I appreciated the review because it raises some interesting questions about the intersection of religion and politics. I offer the following quote as an example:

"Nevertheless, certainty grounded in unbending religious conviction can (and often does) produce a remarkable rigidity that brooks no compromise. Which is precisely the place where religion and politics may not blend very well: Whereas compromise is the coin of the realm at the political negotiating table, it is often a sign of moral failure in a religious frame."

While I absolutely believe that religion has a place in political discourse, this quote does highlight one of the chief difficulties in meshing the two. There is a constant tension between the absolute claims a religion like Christianity makes, and the demands of democracy in a pluralistic environment, which inevitably require compromise.

Sunday School Teacher of 54 Years Dismissed Because She is a Woman

2006-08-23T19:25:00.000-05:00

My friend Stewart brought this story to my attention. An 81 year old Sunday School teacher who had taught in her Southern Baptist church for 54 years was "dismissed" from her teaching duties, ostensibly because she is a woman. The news story can be found here, and an insightful post on the subject by biblical scholar Ben Witherington can be found here.

It's pretty shocking that what looks to be a very young pastor (watch the videos on the news site) would dismiss a woman who had faithfully served the church for such a long period of time. I suppose if he really believes the Bible prohibits women from teaching (I don't) , he may have felt it a move he had to make. The problem, it seems, is that there is some doubt as to the real reason. The letter in which they dismissed her (yes, it was a letter - he did not even have the courtesy to do it face to face) refers only to 1 Timothy 2:8-15. However, it appears that church politics are also in play - the church has now said that there were other (undisclosed) reasons (which were not listed in the letter) and it does appear that the teacher had some disagreements with the pastor in the past. This possibility makes the situation even more disturbing because it seems likely that the Bible is being used as a smokescreen to cover up more personal issues.

While I do believe that some allowance needs to be made for differences in interpretation regarding the Bible, such prohibitions of women from service in the church grieve me deeply because they stifle the gifts of many very competent women, whose abilities will never be fully utilized in their churches. There are other (I believe better) ways to interpret passages such as 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and most interpretations that prohibit women's activities in the church are remarkably inconsistent (for example, how many people honestly prohibit women from braiding their hair, or from talking at all in church?).

Interesting Video - Can the Media Be Trusted?

2006-08-19T08:59:00.000-05:00

A friend brought this video to my attention, and I thought it might be worthy of discussion. For those who choose not to watch it (you probably should if you're able), it presents numerous examples that the authors (of the video) believe demonstrate that the news media have doctored photos of the destruction in Lebanon in order to create more sympathy for the Lebanese, and less for the Israelis. Aish.com is a Jewish website, but I'm not sure who produced the video itself.

First, I think that if these examples are true, they are undoubtedly problematic. I would probably quibble with a couple examples - most notably the woman decrying the destruction of her home. Just because one photo came out several weeks after the first does not necessarily indicate an attempt to mislead - for whatever reason, it was simply published later than the other. However, I have no trouble believing that some of these photos were indeed staged, which certainly highlights the fact that some reporters are not honest in the way they report the news, and it is always good to think critically about what we are told.

However, I cannot help but think that the same should apply to watching this video. While I don't doubt that some of what it says is true, I do think that we should think critically when viewing this "expose" just as we should when dealing with any other piece of reporting. The video is obviously put together by someone who supports Israel's current actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon. While this is not necessarily problematic, it is nonetheless true that this report is every bit as informed by the author's agenda as any other report. I guess I'm just a little troubled because I see political conservatives talk about the left's "agenda" quite a bit, and I think we need to remember that both sides have an agenda, and both sides are full of rhetoric. Legitimate complaints have been advanced against the so-called "liberal" media (and I view this video as one of those complaints), but there are also legitimate complaints against news sources like Fox News, which in my estimation is also far from an impartial news source.

The question remains - should this video have some impact upon those who believe that Israel has acted inappropriately in the current conflict? The authors of the video clearly believe it does - the entire video seems to argue that the fact that these photos are doctored indicates that what is going on in Lebanon is not as bad as has been reported, and that the damage is being exaggerated to turn people against Israel. The response the authors of the video seem to desire is for people to accept that news reports have been falsified, and to support Israel's actions based upon this information.

I'm not sure, however, that the video accomplishes this purpose - at least it didn't in my case. While it is certainly an indictment of some of the techniques used to "report" the news, it had little impact on my thinking regarding the current conflict - mainly because my reasons for thinking that Israel has gone too far are based upon accounts from multiple news sources (including those favorable towards Israel's actions like Fox News), not upon pictures from the media. The possibility that some of the pictures taken in Lebanon are doctored really does not affect the validity or non-validity of the arguments against (or for) Israel's actions in the current conflict.

Unintentional Effects of Israel's Offensive in Lebanon

2006-08-19T08:49:00.000-05:00

My good friend Jody noted this article on one of the comments pages below, but I thought it was worthwhile enough to bring to everyone's attention here. I would quibble with a few points, and at times his tone is a little more argumentative than I think is helpful, but he argues a point I have tried to argue here - that Israel's actions in Lebanon are actually counterproductive - much more eloquently than I have been able to do.

Jazz Improvisation

2006-08-10T20:18:00.000-05:00

"This is an important distinction for an understanding of jazz. Improvisatory creation is not a medium that half-heartedly tries, but won't rise up to, a written composition: on the contrary, it gives jazz its grandeur, which is a potential to eclipse written music in its performance. . . . [I]f all the written music in the world suddenly burned up in a flash, who could still do a gig the same night, with complete strangers, and no rehearsals?"
-- Brad Mehldau, from the liner notes to Art of the Trio 4: Back at the Vanguard, writing about the difference improvisational and more structured forms of music

I just liked this quote - nicely captures at least a little bit of why I enjoy jazz music so much.

"Hater" Jesus

2006-08-09T23:35:00.000-05:00

Some of you may have seen references to the recent controversy over the new Everclear video for their song "Hater," which features a Jesus figure roaming the streets and smoking, beating up an old woman, and engaging in sexual activity with prostitutes (and there is more offensive material than that). I don't necessarily recommend watching the video, although it's out on the internet if you want to do so. Just be forewarned that it is extremely offensive and even contains a small amount of nudity. I thought it was worth mentioning here because of the explanation that Everclear's frontman, Art Alexakis, has given for the video.

Alexakis was interviewed on the O'Reilly Factor tonight, and a partial transcript (the website notes it is edited for "clarity") can be found here. As usual, O'Reilly does his best to prevent any sort of reasonable discussion, but some of Alexakis' comments are still enlightening. He notes that the Jesus figure is not supposed to be Jesus, but a representation of a Jesus who "made the wrong choice." The video is dedicated to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and the band's intent seems to have been to criticize the brand of Christianity they believe is exemplified by these two figures, rather than to attack Christianity as a whole (as many have assumed). The song refers to Alexakis' divorce and his own feelings of hatred which resulted from that experience. The video, however, recontextualizes the song to criticize those who use religion to justify their own hatred of other people, as Alexakis notes in another interview: "Politically, I thought it was a really cool statement (dedicated to all the people who use religious beliefs to justify their own hateful feelings)." (Note: One could argue that this does not describe Robertson and Falwell, but the band's perspective seems to be that it does)

Please note that I am not defending the video. Frankly, I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. While I am sympathetic to the band's stated concerns, many of the video's images are terribly offensive. I often land on the side of artistic expression, but at the same time I don't really see much value in using art to deliberately offend, as the majority of this video seems calculated to do. Any thoughts?

More on Lebanon

2006-07-30T14:49:00.000-05:00

Not to harp on this topic, but I've found the current situation in the Middle East highly disturbing. Note this article on the most recent Israeli airstrike, which killed over 50 civilians, most of whom were children. The reason for the strike? Because Hezbollah guerillas had fired rockets into Israel from near that building. So here is the logic - guerillas stood near the building while they fired their rockets, therefore we'll level the building, regardless of who occupies it (in this case, sleeping Lebanese villagers).

Israel's extraordinarily disproportionate strikes in Lebanon are counterproductive. Not only do they create more ill will towards themselves through the needless destruction of innocent human lives, but they are also derailing the peace process. The article reports the following:

The Lebanese government this week had put forward ideas on disarming Hezbollah and deploying an international force in the south. But after the strike, Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said any negotiations on a broader deal were off.

So, it seems that some progress was being made, but it's one step forward, two steps back due to the current strike. While Israel's prime minister has apologized, he is unwilling to take any action (like curtailing the strikes) that would demonstrate any real remorse.

I am especially saddened by the fact that the United States has continually resisted pressure from numerous other countries to push for an immediate cease fire. Instead, we continue to demand that a complete plan for removing Hezbollah guerillas from Israel's borders and placing an international peacekeeping force in the area be in place before the bloodshed is halted. The end result of such an all or nothing approach is more lives lost, and the consequent deepening of hostilities between Israel and the rest of the Middle East.

Israel & Lebanon

2006-07-28T00:14:00.000-05:00

I highly recommend checking out this article, written by Jim Wallis, about the currently escalating conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Regretfully, you must sign up to receive Sojourners weekly emails to view it, but for what it is worth, they are worth receiving, and easy to unsubscribe from if you don't want them. Wallis is regularly insightful, and the current article is no exception. Here is an exerpt:

Jan Egeland, the U.N. under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, who has been critical of Israel's "disproportionate" response, has also assailed Hezbollah's tactics: "Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children."

Hezbollah's rocket attacks into northern Israel have killed 19 civilians and injured hundreds more. But the disproportionate Israeli air strikes in Lebanon, with their horrible death toll among civilians with nothing to do with Hezbollah must also be condemned. The latest estimate is more than 400 Lebanese civilians killed, with the needless destruction of the country's infrastructure, which took 15 years to rebuild after the devastating civil war. Israel has gone after Hezbollah, but is destroying Lebanon and, don't forget, its fledgling democracy. And let there be no double standards when it comes to how we label "terrorist" acts. When a nation state, such as Israel, carries out military policies which it knows will kill many civilians, including the use of cluster bombs, and deliberately targets civilian infrastructures and areas, does not the label also apply?

Prior to this excerpt Wallis is careful to note that the current conflict is ultimately the fault of Hezbollah, and later he goes on to discuss possibilities for the United States and U.N.'s possible role in resolving the conflict.

What I appreciate here is the acknowledgement that Israel's response, even though some response was certainly necessary, is problematic. The U.S. is well known for its support of Israel as a nation-state, and we should absolutely support and defend their right to exist, but I'm afraid we are at times too quick to condone their actions no matter the cost. As Wallis accurately points out, Israel has escalated the situation, and caused a great deal of hurt doing so. A cease fire is essential, but thus far it is unlikely because the both Israel and the U.S. want an entire package from the outset - a cease fire accompanied by concessions to certain demands. Unfortunately, the result of such an all-or-nothing approach is that while they argue, more (mostly innocent) people die.

The Rise and Fall of Ralph Reed - Christians and Republicans

2006-07-26T09:11:00.000-05:00

I ran across this article the other day and found it interesting. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I never cared for Ralph Reed. He always seemed a little phony to me - a little too slick and self-satisfied, and far to ready to play the political game. I guess he never seemed genuine to me.

The article, of course, argues a similar point, and believes that it proved to be his downfall. Specifically, the author notes that his close relationship with Jack Abramoff likely cost him the Republican primary in the race for Governor of Georgia. It likely cost him the election because the Christian voters he was so good at producing throughout his career chose not to vote for him when as the connection between Reed and Abramoff became public knowledge.

The reason I found this article worth noting here is that it exemplifies something I have been concerned about for a little while now - that in many cases, Christian votes are used by the Republican party. Many Christians will blindly vote for Republican candidates, assuming that they have a monopoly on morality (they do not), and Republicans are more than happy to take advantage of their ignorance.

A couple of examples will illustrate my point - one from this article and one from the last presidential election. The article notes that Reed was once paid a very large sum of money by one indian tribe to run an anti-gambling campaign in order to prevent another indian tribe from opening a casino. Reed's campaign against gambling, of course, was based on religious reasoning and supported by many Christian voters. If this information is true, and it seems to be (although Reed denies knowing where the money came from), it certainly provides an example of an instance where Christian voters were mobilized and used under false pretenses.

The 2004 presidential election provides a second example. I find it interesting that the issue of homosexual marriage became such a "hot button" issue during that election, but seemingly disappeared completely from Bush's agenda after the election was won. It seems to me that the reason it became so "important" is because it is an issue that typically mobilizes conservative Christian voters, the great majority of whom also typically vote Republican. Thus, focusing on the issue brings more conservative Christians to the polls, which results in more votes for the Republican party. The fact that it disappeared so quickly after the election leads me to believe that the focus on the issue was politically expedient, but not based on any genuine conviction regarding the issue.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that Christians should not vote Republican, or that they should vote Democrat. I am also not trying to imply that Republicans are the only party guilty of using people to get what they want - unfortunately both parties are guilty of such behavior. What I am saying, however, is that it would behoove some Christians to be a little more wise when determining who will receive their vote, and I would emphatically argue that the Republican party is not the Christian party or "God's party," as the bumper sticker above proclaims. I'll leave it at that for now, since this post is already much longer than I intended.

Update #1

2006-07-24T01:43:00.000-05:00

I mainly want to use this blog for other purposes, but I do occasionally want to give a quick update on what is going on with Cari and I since so many of my readers (do I have readers yet?) are not in town.

So, for those of you who don't know, Cari and I are in Omaha, Nebraska for a little while - probably about a year. It was quite hard to leave Cincinnati, but we're settling in, and its nice to be closer to family and some of our old friends. We'll (hopefully) save some money and pay off lots of bills, and then we'll be off someplace else so I can work on my Ph.D, which will be somewhere in the area of Cultural Studies, Religion and Culture, etc.

Cari is working for Avantas, a company owned by Alegent Health - she's in a pool of Administrative Assistants that fill in when people are on vacation or sick leave, or have to be gone for an extended period of time for some reason. She's been there for about a month now. It took me two months to find a job, because she is MUCH more employable in the business world than I am! However, two days ago I was offered a job at Ameritrade, which I happily accepted. Nothing too exciting - its a data entry position - but it pays well and I have a friend who enjoys working for the company so I think it'll be good. Honestly, I was just happy to have a job! I will also be teaching one course at my alma mater, Nebraska Christian College, this fall - a freshman Life of Christ class.

That's life right now. I hope you're all doing well.

Atom Feeds

2006-07-22T13:43:00.000-05:00

Just an FYI - if anyone uses a service with Atom feeds (like, for example, my.yahoo or gmail), you can actually add this blog by looking it up using the following link: http://this-sky.blogspot.com/atom.xml. This allows you to add the blog to your page, and it automatically shows any posts that are made to the blog. If someone wants to do this and is confused about how, let me know in the comments section - I think I know enough to walk you through it.

Safe for the whole family?

2006-07-22T00:18:00.000-05:00

Soon after we moved back to Omaha I noticed a billboard advertising the local Christian radio station, KGBI (100.7). The billboard proclaimed, in large, bold letters, that the station was "safe for the whole family."

On the surface this would seem to be a welcome characteristic, and perhaps it is for a Christian radio station. I'll tell you why it rubbed me the wrong way, though. It seems to me that this billboard reflected an idea prevalent among conservative Christians that the definition of Christian art/entertainment should include the idea that it be "safe for the whole family." This was exemplified during my short period of employment at Berean Christian Stores. In the movie section, Berean carried the typical array of Christian movies, of which none could be accused of being inappropriate for children (unless, perhaps, one considers the "Left Behind" movies too intense). I suppose Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" could also be considered an exception, although an astonishing number of Christian parents considered that ultra-violent movie acceptable viewing for their entire family. However, what was astonishing to me was that Berean also carried a variety of movies which had nothing to do with the expressed purposes of the store (as a Christian bookstore), but were considered "family friendly" - including The Polar Express (with Tom Hanks), Because of Winn Dixie, and the Garfield movie and cartoons. At the same time, Berean stocked the movie "Woman, Thou Art Loosed" (based on a novel by Bishop T. D. Jakes) but kept it in the back because they feared offending patrons. Additionally, an excellent movie like Hotel Rwanda would never have been carried because of its disturbing subject matter, despite the fact that its message is far more Christian than that of Garfield.

Certainly some of this was wrapped up in marketing agreements with certain companies (in this case, I believe they had an agreement with Fox to sell a line of family movies they produced) - I could write plenty more about the inherent problems with such an arrangement. But I do think this also reflects the perspective of Christian art that argues that it must be appropriate for viewers of all ages.

However, I wonder if there is not a place for Christian art that may not be appropriate for an all-ages audience? In fact, I would emphatically argue that there is a place for such art. Art should reflect life, and life is not always as clean and "safe" as we would like it to be. Still, such art can be profoundly moving, and even redemptive, as evidenced by movies like Schindler's List, Hotel Rwanda, Million Dollar Baby, and American Beauty. The subject matter of these movies is certainly not appropriate for younger viewers, but each deals with themes that are profoundly Christian. A Christian perspective on art needs to judge art by different criteria than whether it is "safe for the whole family."

Beginnings

2006-07-21T23:16:00.000-05:00

Well, this is it . . . the long awaited blog. I wanted to start by explaining a few things - my purpose in starting a blog in the first place, and my choice of a title.

I hope for this blog to be a regular outlet for my thoughts on a variety of issues, mostly centering around religion, popular culture, and politics. There'll likely be a good amount of music, movies and television thrown in as well. And, the occasional update on what's going on in Cari and I's lives. Obviously this covers a wide range of topics, but hopefully what I have to say will be of interest to at least a few people. My hope is that my posts will generate some discussion - people won't always agree with me, and that's alright, and discussion sharpens everyone. Additionally, it is also a way for me to improve my writing abilities - to learn how to better communicate what I'm thinking.

And the title. A poem by a 14th century Sufi Muslim poet may seem like an odd choice for inspiration, particularly if you know me and know that I really don't care for poetry. This poem forms the basis of a great song by an even greater band - the Derek Trucks Band (if you haven't heard them, you really should check them out) - this is how it came to my attention. I like it because "this sky" seems to encompass, at least in my interpretation, the entirety of the world we live in, and that fits this blog, since it touches on such a wide range of topics. Hopefully that makes sense.

I do hope to post regularly here . . . several times a week if possible. I'm pretty sure I can find enough to write about - we'll see if I have the time. Thanks for taking the time to check it out - I hope that what I have to say is of some value to you.