something to consider

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halo in Youth Group?

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

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

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

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

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

American Idol? In a Church?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optical Intercourse a/k/a Making Eye Babies

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

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

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

How Trustworthy is Wikipedia?

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

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

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

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

Just for fun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the "highlights" of the story:

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

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

Richistan

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

Growing Pains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He goes on to provide the following illustration:

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

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

_________________________________________

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

Discussing Harry Potter

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

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

Jesus Action Figure?

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

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

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

Entrenched rhetorical positions

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:

1. global warming is radically affecting critical elements of our environment manifesting itself via melting glaciers, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc
2. 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:

1. the so-called effects of global warming are not consistent with recent scientific data
   
2. 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

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."