Thoughts on Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty

I’m sure by now that everyone is sick and tired of the Phil Robertson controversy.  Yet here I am to talk about it.  And what I have to say will probably offend just about everyone at some point, which is why I feel I need to weigh in.  Both sides of this controversy are right and both sides are wrong.

Now before we get too much further, I should point out that I have no love for Duck Dynasty.  In fact, I can’t stand the show.  When my roommate has the show on, I have to leave the room.  So I’m not coming at this as a fan of the show.

So, what did Phil say?  He had the nerve to paraphrase the Bible where it talks about homosexuality being a sin.  That got people up in arms, and A&E fired him over it, which then got Christians up in arms.

Let’s start by taking a look at what he said.  The verse he was paraphrasing was I Corinthians 6:9-10, and it says, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”  For those of us who believe the Bible, it’s pretty clear.  Homosexuality is a sin as defined by God.  Believe me, I have heard all the verbal and mental gymnastics people try to go through to explain this and similar passages away.  If it weren’t a matter of life and death, or Heaven and Hell, it would be laughable.  It is very clear what the passage means.  You can call us hateful all we want, but this and other passages make it pretty clear how God feels on the matter.

But here is where I am going to shine the spotlight on my fellow Christians.  Why is Homosexuality the sin that dare not speak its name?  Look again at that list.  All sex outside of marriage is there.  And Paul goes down to some pretty basic sins.  While in the passage, Paul is talking about some people who weren’t living to God’s standards, he drills down to some basic sins.  Yet in today’s church, this is the one we focus on.

Think I’m exaggerating?  I can remember in the 80’s and 90’s when Christians would get upset with any depiction of a couple living together outside of marriage on TV.  Now, most people I know love Friends and The Big Bang Theory.  Those shows are full of off color jokes and sex between unmarried couples.  And before I start to sound like a high and mighty person, I’m right there with you.  I was laughing at a Big Bang rerun just last night, and I have the entire Friends series on DVD.  I’m not trying to throw stones, but why is this the cultural issue we are so fixated on right now?  And heck, while I laugh at those two shows, I get uncomfortable when a gay character shows up on a show I like or in a book I’m reading.  I’m right there with you.

And this is one place the Christian culture needs to change our outlook.  Yes, we need to call out sin, but we need to do it in a loving manner.  Look at Jesus.  He called everyone to repentance.  Those who were “sinners” of His day, he spent time with and loved.  He was hardest on the religious leaders.  Yet today, we seem to be the exact opposite.  We are hardest on those who are lost, ready to judge and write them off, and we tolerate sin in ourselves and others who are saved.  We need to remember that we are all sinners who have been saved and stop judging others because of their particular sin.

So let’s go back to the passage and a point I was sort of making a few minutes ago.  Look at that list again.  Are you not on it yet?  Then let’s bring in a few more sins from the Bible.  Lying.  Disobeying parents.  Still not there?  We can go to Jesus’ comments from Matthew 6 about how looking at a woman and lusting after her is committing adultery in your heart.  Or how you can murder someone in your heart.  I know I’m on this list  of sinners who will not inherit the Kingdom of God by now even if no one else is.

But Paul doesn’t stop with the verse I’ve already quoted.  He goes on in verse 11 to say, “And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”  See.  We are all sinners.  And the penalty for all of our sin is death.  It’s not just homosexuals who will be sent to hell.  It’s the sexual immoral of all kinds.  It's the liars.  It’s those who disobey their parents.

Still, Paul continues by talking about what Jesus did for us.  And that’s what we are celebrating this Christmas - the beginning of that sacrifice.  God is completely just and holy and can’t abide our sin.  But He also sent Jesus to pay the penalty for our sin.  And what Paul is ultimately saying and really trying to communicate is that, while we need to call sin sin, we need to be compassionately calling people to repentance.  And there is no sin that is beyond God’s grace and mercy.

So let’s move on to the Freedom of Speech issue.  Actually, it has been refreshing to hear some of my liberal friends making the same statement I’ve been making for years.  While there is freedom of speech, we aren’t protected from the consequences of our actions.  In fact, the only thing we are protected from is being arrested for our speech by the government.  I’m actually going to paraphrase something that my friend Eric posted this morning.

1. Phil Robertson was free to say what he said.

2. The gay and lesbian community was free to respond and get upset.

3.  A&E was free to fire him as a result of what he said.

But this is where some people seem to stop, and there’s one more reaction here.

4. Christians are free to react to A&E firing Phil.

Yes, every person I just named above has freedom of speech.  And every person named above was right to exercise it.

The problem is that once again we are talking past each other.  Each side is so intent on making their point, they aren’t willing to listen and consider what the other person is saying.  Yes, I have seen name calling over this, even by people on my friend’s list at Facebook.  Just saying “Because Freedom of Speech shut up” is not helping anything (yes, I’m paraphrasing).

The entire point of freedom of speech is the ability to talk through these things.  However, if things are so nasty that one side stays silent, that’s not freedom of anything but power, intimidation, and bullying.  (Yes, I just said that.  Honestly, I have found some of the most intolerant people are those who preach tolerance and are anti-bullying.)  If you are going to convince anyone you are right and they are wrong, you have to engage calmly and rationally.  I know that never happens on the internet, but that should change.  Yes, I’m tilting at windmills here, but we could change that one person at a time.  If you stop name calling but engage in rational debate, truly listening to the other side, then you’ve done your part.  You are the only person you can control, but you are responsible for your own actions.

But back to the freedom of speech point.  While I certainly do agree that the government has done nothing to Phil, the fact that he has lost his job does have a rather chilling effect on free speech.  It will make others think twice before they say something.  There is nothing the government can or should do about it, but it is chilling and should be considered more rationally by those who love free speech.  Don't be so quick to dismiss someone losing their job for an unpopular opinion just because you happen to disagree with them.  The next time that happens, it might be you.

Okay, now I’m going to steal from my friend Karen.  I already noted that I’m not a fan of Duck Dynasty, but I do find it funny how many people are defending the show who would decry it’s equivalents like Real Housewives or Jersey Shore.  Yes, this family is Christian, but does that necessarily make it any better?  Oh, I get the concept of a guilty pleasure.  I watch some shows that are trashy, too.  But let’s not pretend this is anything other than what it is – a reality TV show where some savvy people are living in a fishbowl to make millions off of other people watching them..

Having said that, I do have a new respect for Phil Robertson because he took a stand despite the blowback he knew would come.  And now the rest of the family is standing with him.

Of course, the results should not have been a surprise.  Jesus predicted that the world would not tolerate those who stand with Him. John 15:18 says, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."  And remember that they killed Him.

Still, it always amazes me when Christians react to the world behaving like the world.  The world doesn’t believe the Bible.  Therefore, we shouldn’t expect them to live by the Bible.  It’s really that simple.  I’m not saying we turn our back.  We are called to be salt and light.  But we need to be salt and light to a world that doesn’t believe like we do.  And we need to remember that when we engage them.  Just falling back on the Bible is not the way to do that.  (And yes, I know I spent half of this post on Bible verses.)

So where do we go from here?  As far as Duck Dynasty, I don’t care.  While I do have a new respect for the family, I still don’t want to watch the show.  But we as Christians need to rethink how we engage the world around us and look for the specs in our own eye before we attack the planks around us.  And everyone needs to take a deep breath and a step back before they engage in conversation, really wrestling through all the implications of what their actions and the actions of others mean in the bigger picture.

Camping on the Rapture

So, this weekend was the rapture. Can’t you tell by all the people who disappeared? Yeah, same here. And as much as people have been mocking it (it was brought up for fun and for serious discussion at church Sunday, too), overall the situation makes me sad.

I can remember back in elementary school, we used to listen to shows on Family Radio all the time. They had biographies of Christians on, a show where they read a book aloud for half an hour a day, and several kid’s shows on Saturday mornings. Those were my Saturday morning cartoons growing up, and I still think about them with fondness.

I can remember the first time Harold Camping tried to predict the rapture, and it killed me. I heard the ties to Family Radio. We’d stopped listening to it by that time, and honestly I can’t remember why. Probably just got too busy to keep up with everything, but maybe my parents heard some rumblings of his teaching and so we stopped. Honestly, I’d forgotten all about him until these new predictions came out.

Here’s the thing – right in the Bible, Jesus says that no man knows the time of his second coming, not the angels nor Him. And He warns us not to listen to anyone who claims to know when that second coming will happen. So, for a man to claim to have figured out when this will all take place is the height of arrogance.

How did Camping hit upon the date? I actually found a pamphlet lying around the gave the explanation. Honestly, I don’t remember the details, but he started taking numbers and squaring them or multiplying them by each other (or both) and starting from certain dates, he came up with May 21st. As I was sitting there reading it, all I could think is how gullible you’d have to be to believe it. Yes, I said it. Anyone who believed him was gullible. The numbers and dates were completely random and made up. There was no logical reason for picking those numbers and those computations. Oh, he had reasons why he picked them, but there are just as many compelling reasons to pick another number or another date.

Another things that got me was that the numbers he got where hidden in the Bible. Really? We’re still going with the hidden in the Bible nonsense? Now I will admit that my reading of the Bible in modern times and English misses much of the nuance and historical context of when it was written. I’ll also admit that I am too much of a surface reader on anything, including modern books. But of the things I am missing in the text of the Bible, I know there is no secret code. I’ll make it easy for you, God doesn’t work that way. His ways are not our own. But when he tells us “No man knows the day or the hour,” He’s not going to turn around and hide clues to the day and hour from us. That makes God out to be duplicitous, and that’s not how He is.

Now I will freely admit that it is possible to miss something in scripture. Look at the religious leaders of Jesus’ day who completely missed who He was. It’s one reason why I don’t get too hung up on end times prophecy – my guess is we’ll only fully understand it after the fact. The main purpose of prophecy is to remind us that God is still in control. It is also to remind us to live holy and Godly lives. We are not supposed to know specifics; if we were, God would tell us.

And now that Camping has been proved wrong, what is his response? “It was metaphorical and the physical return will be in a few months.” What hogwash! Either you got it right or you have no clue what you are talking about. And yet people will continue to mock Christians because he keeps making predictions.

Yeah, it bothers me when people lump me in with Camping. But it is even worse when they then tune me out when I start talking about Christianity because of what a nut job says. So Camping is turn people away from God by his false prophesy.

Yes, Harold Camping is a false prophet. In the Bible, God made it very clear that any person who claimed to be a prophet had a one strike and you’re out policy. If one thing he predicted didn’t come to pass, he was to be killed immediately. Kinda cuts down on the nut jobs or fame seekers, doesn’t it? This is Harold Camping’s second false prediction (and I want to say third, but I’m a little fuzzy on that). So clearly, he is not to be trusted on anything. Keep in mind I don’t think he should be killed; many of the Old Testament punishments we don’t follow any more. But he should lose his platform and followers. And yet people will believe his new date and everyone will be ready to mock Christians again when it comes and goes.

But I just keep coming back to Jesus saying that “No man knows the day or the hour.” Harold Camping has claimed to know now and in the past, and nothing has come of those claims. I can only trust one of those men, and I will trust the one who so far has been proved right – Jesus.

The Passing of a Hero

I took a couple of days off work last weekend.  Had a good time relaxing and doing fun stuff with friends.  But that will be another post.

Saturday night, I got a call from my friend Kurt letting me know that a mutual friend, Rudy, had been killed in Afghanistan.

I got to know Rudy when he was in the jr. high youth group at my old church.  He was always ready to joke around and have fun.  But he could also be serious very quickly.  My fondest memory of Rudy is his constant hugs.  Every time he saw me, he'd give me one.

I haven't been to that church for 3 or so years now, so I've lost track of him outside of Facebook updates.  I knew he was a combat medic in the Army.  I knew he was in Afghanistan, but I didn't know it was his first tour.  In fact, I thought it was his second tour.

What's amazing is how connect I truly still am to that church.  I heard about it Saturday night, but I was talking to people who also knew him at my new church Sunday morning.  A co-worker was also talking about it this morning.

This makes the war and the war effort much more real for me because I now know someone personally who gave his life for my freedom.  No, it doesn't change my opinion of the war at all.  But it does ground it in reality for me.

Yes, I am sad, but my heart breaks for his family, including two younger siblings.  It's them I'm really praying for.

Unbelievable Weekend

Sadly, I'm not talking about my weekend.  I'm talking about what happened in Arizona.

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who reads mystery novels.  I just can't imagine what would drive someone to take a gun and shoot into a crowd.  That is completely a totally messed up.  The stories coming from Arizona are so sad I can only watch a little bit of the news at a time or I completely break down.

Fortunately, I have political hacks to take me to the other extreme, boiling mad.  The bodies weren't even cold - heck we were still getting conflicting reports about whether Congresswoman Giffords, the main target, was alive or not - when Liberals started using this as an opportunity to blame Palin.  Okay, so she had this woman in her sights for the last election.  Really?  That's what led this guy to pick up a gun and kill six people?

As it turns out, that's not the case.  This man is a seriously sick guy who needed help.  I will be shocked at this point if Palin had more than a passing presence in his world.

But that hasn't stopped some in the media.  They seem insistent on blaming her and talk radio for driving the hateful rhetoric in this country.  Right.  And all those people wishing Bush would die?  All those who have dreamed about killing Palin?  The list of hate coming from the left could go on and on.  In fact, it does.

What I love most are the pieces I was reading on Sunday that basically said, "We know this guy is a nut job, but that doesn't mean that Palin is any less responsible."  Never let the facts get in the way of a chance to attack your opponent.

And that's what really bothers me most about this whole thing.  On Saturday, when we should be finding out facts, praying for those affected, and mourning as a nation, instead we were treated to hateful rhetoric from those who wanted to use this for political gain.

Not to mention the idea of personal responsibility.  Back in the 90's when conservatives wanted to tone down movies and violent video games, we were preached to on the left about personal responsibility.  Now that they can score points against the right, they'll apply personal responsibility to Palin and talk radio but not to those who actually pulled the trigger.

Much has been written about this by those better able to do so than me.  I suggest you take a look around and think critically about what you are reading.  To me, this paragraph from Glenn Reynolds best sums up what I saw this weekend:

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I hope everyone involved thinks long and hard about that before they try to make political points from a horrific tragedy again.  (Yeah, I live in a fantasy world.)

What Ever Happened to Differences?

Warning, I am about to go on a rant.

An author I am friends with on Facebook posted a link to this article this morning talking about negative reviews of classics.  Even though I am not posting much on Amazon any more, I am still reviewing regularly at Epinions.  And after all those years reviewing at Amazon, I am still curious about what is said about things over there.

As I expected, the author of the piece picked some truly horrid one star reviews to mock.  And I will also admit I don't see much point in some of them.  Heck, the read more like rants of people who were forced to read the book than honest reviews by someone trying to point out the good or bad of something.

However, having left some negative reviews of "classics" (both books and movies) and getting some nasty comments in response (I had people joining Epinions to tell me how wrong I was to dislike The Dark Knight), I couldn't help but feel sorry for the people being mocked.  And let's admit that was the entire point of the article.

But then I started reading the comments.  I was blown away by the snobbery expressed there.  Most of the responses were by people saying, "Any idiot can leave a review" (which is true) "and the fact that people are expressing their lack of intelligence shows what is wrong with this country."  Heck, some of the commenters I read concluded that all these people must be stupid GOP TeaBaggers.

Which I found ironic considering how at least one person commented on how the Internet has allowed people to say things behind anonymous user names they would never say to someone face to face.  Exhibits A-E were on the same page as that post.

Now, in all fairness, there were some people bringing up the point I would have made there if comments were still open.  And since comments aren't still open there, I am going to make it here.

Some of the comments read like teens letting off steam after having been forced to read the book for English class.  And I read some "classics" that were pretty bad.  I also read some books for school I enjoyed.  Many people said they reread stuff they hated in school and loved it as an adult.  Opinions can change.  There's nothing wrong with that.

But the thought the kept entering my mind was, what ever happened to differences of opinion and freedom of speech?  Just because a book is a classic doesn't mean that every single person on the planet will love it.  It doesn't make the book any less valuable.  It doesn't mean that person is an idiot.  It just means they didn't like the book.  Shrug it off and move on.

But what scared me more was the underlying idea that these people shouldn't be allowed to post at all.  No, no one actually came out and said it.  But I felt several of them felt they should have just kept their opinion to themselves.  That's just wrong.

Now I will sometimes read negative reviews of something I loved (or the other way around).  Sometimes they help me shape what I think about the book a little better.  And sometimes I just shake my head at how the person missed the point or didn't see how horrid it really was.  Yes, there are times when the review just seems stupid to me, and some of the reviews posted are more on the stupid level than the thoughtful review level.  But I never feel like a review should be taken down just because they disagree with me.  There may be other people out there who will benefit from knowing not every person on Earth liked the item in question.

You know, if you don't like something, give some thoughtful reasons why.  Don't just name call or call for them to shut up.  Your response shows as much about you as it does the person who left the original comment.

You Can't Have One Without the Other

One of the blogs I've started following in the last year is My Friend Amy.  Every Saturday, Amy posts a question for Faith 'n' Fiction Saturday.  And multiple weeks, I've thought about joining.  But this week, I actually am.  The topic?  Easter.

For the last few years, I've been thinking about how Easter seems to be short shafted, at least in my church at the time and my circle of friends.  This was really brought home to me one Easter Sunday morning.  I went to church ready to worship the risen Savior, only to have almost all the songs the choir did be about his death.  The last song was an Easter song, and I left thinking, "But this was supposed to be an Easter service."

So I've long been on a soap box about how the church seems to short change Easter in favor of Good Friday.

Now don't get me wrong, I know exactly how important both days are.  But it seems to really have hit me this year.

Let's start by thinking about what each day represents.  Good Friday is when Jesus died on the cross, taking the punishment for our sins.  It's that sacrifice that frees us from the power and penalty of our sins.  Pretty important stuff.

Easter Sunday is the day Jesus rose from the grave, crushing death.  As Paul says in I Corinthians, if Jesus had not risen, we'd have no hope for a resurrection ourselves.  Think about it.  Without the hope of Heaven, why live life in view of the next one?  This is all we get, so eat drink and be merry.

So, as you can see, both are very important.

But let's think about what one means without the other.

Okay, so I pretty much already gave my Good Friday no Easter speech.  Our sins are forgiven!  Wonderful!  So we deny ourselves the momentary pleasures of sin here on Earth.  Yes, we don't have to face the consequences of our sin (which is always a good thing).  But there's no future for us.

And Easter without Good Friday?  That's just as depressing.  Yes, Jesus conquers death.  But that does us no good because we will die in our sins and be separated from God forever.  After all, "There is none righteous."

So we really do need both.  And we as Christians need to balance both.  Jesus died to pay the penalty for my sins.  And He rose again to prove He has conquered death once and for all.  When He promises me eternal life with Him, I know I will have it because of both Good Friday and Easter.

As I said on my Facebook page today, "You can't have Friday without Sunday.  And you can't have Sunday without Friday."

Merry Christmas!

Just a quick post to wish you all a Merry Christmas. Hope it is a good day with family and/or friends.

But in the midst of all the presents and good food (both of which I plan to enjoy), take a few moments to remember what this day represents. God sent us His Son. Jesus became man. And all so He could die for us to pay for our sins and then rise from the dead to offer us the hope of eternal life.

Still blows my mind.

What Are We Owed?

I realize I am a fanboy. Get me started on Babylon 5 or Trixie Belden, and I can go for hours. (Just ask anyone who knows me.)

But I like to think I have some balance or perspective on things.

What brought all this up? This week saw the release of the second season set of Pushing Daisies. I loved that show and am bitterly disappointed that it was canceled. But I do understand that it tanked in the ratings, so I'm not surprised. After all, television is a business.

Yet reading comments from others at Amazon made me shake my head. (And no, they weren't reviews.) One person said that since ABC canceled Pushing Daisies, he had canceled ABC and would never watch them again. Um, so what happens when they have another good show on the air? You'll just skip it?

Then there was the one coming up with the theory that the government should sponsor one show a year that is excellent TV and not doing well in the ratings. That way, it would continue to be made. And the network would have to air the show. Yeah, that's the ticket. Government bailout of struggling TV! But only as long as the show was too good to fail. (As if the government bailouts we've seen this year weren't bad enough.)

Now I am currently working on tracking down a copy of the new comic book for The Middleman, the one with the unfilmed season finale in it so I can find out how that show ends. And I will do the same if they continue Pushing Daisies in comic book form. I would love for both those shows to continue in TV form. But if people aren't watching, it doesn't make any sense.

That's one reason why I review. It's yet another way for me to spread the word about the great shows (and authors) I love in hopes they'll become successful. But if people don't tune in, oh well. I did my best, and I got to enjoy the show while it aired. Hopefully the next show I find I love does better.

Anxiety and Frustration

Saturday night, I got the official word. One of my roommates is moving out here in a couple of weeks. Frankly, I'm not surprised. He's in a one year program here at the college, so I figured he'd move on after he graduated.

Talking to my other roommate Sunday, I found out he will most likely move closer to his college sometime this summer.

Honestly, I thought I was doing pretty well with all of this. In fact, at one point on Sunday, I actually thought to myself, "Maybe I have learned to trust God through the roommate searching process." (Now my new friends Josh and Joe might feel differently since they heard me talking about it Sunday night.)

And at some point Monday it hit me hard. By the time I left work, I was frustrated that I still have to have roommates at my age and very worried about where I would find them and how it would all work out this time around.

Then I opened the book Respectable Sins, which my career group Bible study is going through. And what was one of the chapters we are discussing tonight? Anxiety and Frustration.

My first thought was "Why this week?" Then I just started laughing.

I'd like to say that I will conquer these two sins with the help of the book. But I know me too well. At least I got the excellent reminder I needed at the right time, however.

Now to remember it every day of my life.

Why are We Here Again?

So last week in my readings I ran across a post from someone. (Yes, I am being vague here so you can't track it down.) The subject was how likely you were to get spiritual advice from complete strangers. This person said they lived in Northern California, so any spiritual advice they would get would be about chrystals and other new agie things. Since this was a Christian site, they said they couldn't wait to get back to the Bible belt and be around people who believed as they do again.

All I could think was how sad.

Now I grew up in Northern California myself, so I know it's not easy to deal with people who believe something other then you do on a daily basis. In the four years I spent in public high school and junior college, I faced that every day.

But that is exactly what God calls us to do. Remember the great commission? Go into all the world and preach the gospel. Not if you feel like it or are comfortable doing it. Not go hide out with all your friends in one part of the world and let everyone else go to hell. Go and preach the truth.

We so often think about missionaries when that verse comes up, but it applies to every one of us. God has placed us around unbelievers and we need to share the gospel with them.

Now I realize I am being slightly hypocritical here since I work at a Christian college. But I do play ultimate Frisbee with unbelievers. I don't live in a Christian compound. And Los Angeles isn't exactly nothing but Christians.

So remember to share the gospel wherever you are, not just run back to your comfort zone as quickly as possible. And, to borrow from St. Francis, use words if necessary.

Good (Earthly) Night. I'll See You in the Morning

So, the co-worker I mentioned last week passed away this afternoon.

I'm not surprised. Honestly, it would have been so much harder for him and his family if he had lived. But I am surprised at how sad it has made me.

Jim was a cheerful pressence all the time. I honestly can't remember seeing him angry or upset, and he worked outside my office. Frustrated, sure? Especially when his computer did something he didn't understand or expect. But he always had a smile and friendly greeting for whoever walked through the door.

And he was a consistent employee. By that I mean he hated to take time off. He was dedicated to getting his work done in a timely manner.

He made a point of learning and remembering people's names. It actually upset him if he couldn't remember to greet someone by name.

And he made a point of saying "Good morning" and "Good night" to each of us every day.

Since Jim worked outside my office, his abscence this last week has been noticable. And I know it will be moreso as time goes by.

In fact, the news that he was in Heaven hit me harder then I expected it to. I knew it was coming. But there is a finality to it. It can't be undone.

So yes, I am grieving right now.

But it is that weird grieving with hope that Christians experience. See, I know exactly where Jim is right now. He is in Heaven. He is not suffering here on earth. (Honestly, a prolonged illness would have been devistating to him.) He is face to face with God. He is in a place so magnificent that they walk on pure gold. I mean, think about that.

And I know this seperation is just temporary. I will see Jim again and get to spend all eternity with him.

And that is a comfort. Not that it doesn't hurt, but that it helps.

Right now, I am picturing Jim smiling down as he says, "Have a good night. See you in the morning."

Thursday Threesome for October 2nd

I'm hoping to get back to the Disney trip tonight, so I thought I'd post this now. Brought to us this week by ...tom... and The Back Porch.

Onesome: Your-- ability to see beyond the horizon is limited only by your imagination. Discuss !
But what if your imagination and what is really over the horizon don't match up?

Twosome: mileage may-- be lower for some drivers due to variables like under-inflated tires or speeding up to get to the next red light. Hmmm... Any tips out there for those trying to stretch their fuel dollars?
While I have become quite the led foot, I do take my foot off the gas if I know the light is red ahead of me. Not only does it save gave, but it saves your breaks, too.

Threesome: Vary-- this, vary that, and pretty soon you've broken up a routine. Here's one: what routine of yours really needs to have a little variation introduced? (I'll exclude changing the flavor of your Friday evening ice cream snack; while a little change may be good, radical events should be planned out!)
My weekends could use more ultimate Frisbee, something I hope to change soon.

Gays and Christians

This week, I found out about a Christian singer who has come out of the closet. He's divorsed his wife and is now attending a gay friendly church and a living that lifestyle. This is a classic Christian artist who has probably faded from the minds of most Christians. And no, I am not going to name names because it is irrelevant for this discussion.

The article I read it on allowed comments. And the comments were fairly typical. There were those who promised to pray for the man. There were those who quote the scriptures that condeem the gay lifestyle. Then there were those who attacked the Bible thumpers for being hypocrites and compassionless. There were even those who praised the man in question for being true to himself.

And you know what. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

Let's make it abundantly clear I believe God condems the gay lifestyle. I am not going to go over them again because everyone on both sides is familiar with the verses that talk about this.

But what is the first Christian response when we learn someone is gay. To shun them. Take a step back, sometimes almost literally. To condeem them to hell. To throw up our hands and walk away because they have turned their back on God. And by all means, don't get too close because we might catch it. Whatever it is.

Now the pro-gay side is quick to point out that Jesus never said one word on the subject. And they are right. (Frankly, that's a red herring.) They are also quick to point out that Jesus showed compassion and love to those his society considered sinners. And they are absolutely correct. Remember, the Pharisees condeemed him for eating with tax collectors and prostitutes.

And remember his response. "It isn't the well that need a doctor but the sick."

On the flip side, we need to remember Jesus's words to the woman caught in adultry. Yes, he said "Neither do I condem you." But look at his next words. "Go and sin no more."

Yes, Jesus was kind and compassionate to sinners. (Praise God He was.) But He also called them on their sin and called them to repent. Remember Zacheaus. Jesus spent time with him, and as a result he repented. Would Jesus have continued to hang out with him if he rejected the call to repent? Maybe, maybe not.

Of course, Jesus did have an advantage because he knew the heart. The best we can do is love and call to repent. We will never know if someone's heart is beyond repentence or not.

But I want to look at the charge of hypocracy leveled at the people condeeming the sin of homosexuality. There is a certain point where it is true.

Let's look at the Christian music scandels of last decade. Sandi Patty admitted to an affair, got divorced, then married her lover. Amy Grant also divorced and remarried. And Michael English got someone other than his wife pregnant. In two of those cases, there was clear violation of the commands of scripture. In Amy's case, it really is hard to know all the facts to judge if there was sin on either side.

And how were they treated? Amy was hardly hurt. Sandi Patty disappeared for a year then came back. Only Michael English truely was hurt by his affair.

And I'll admit I was right there. While I haven't bought any more of Michael's music, I certainly continued to buy Amy and Sandi's music.

And there is a point where I can't judge. I am only getting part of the facts.

But when someone is living in sin, it is my job to call them on it, especially if that person is a believer.

Now, is the sin of homosexuality the unforgivable sin? Let's remember what Paul said in I Corinthians. "And such were some of you." And, while God dispises it, remember that list from the preceeding verse. "Neither Homosexals nor adulterers nor forecaters nor liars nor thieves will enter the kingdom of Heaven."  Fornecaters.  You know, anyone who has sex outside of marriage.  If that doesn't get you, there's always thieves.  And if that doesn't get you, there's liars.  Basically, this verse points out that no unforgiven sinner can enter the kingdom of Heaven.  So we can't sit here and judge someone else as worse than us.  In God's eyes we are just as deserving of hell as the homosexual.

So I can't sit here with impure thoughts and judge this person as worse than I am.

I can't sit here with anger against someone in my heart and judge this person as worse than I am.

And that's just from the last few days.

The truth is we are all sinners saved by grace. And we all will struggle with sin until the day we go home.

But there is another angle to all this. I just acknowledged my sin (rather publically). When I repent, I am forgiven. But this man isn't struggling with sin. He isn't trying to repent. He is living in it. In fact, he has embraced it. That is not something to celebrate. That is something to grieve over. And that is certainly something to pray over.

So yes, I will be praying for this man. But I will also continue to examine my heart. Because I am no better than he is without God's grace forgiving me daily of my sins.

This has been a rather series topic for Watercooler Wednesday.

Eli Stone and Teen Sex

I have a feeling that most of my Water Cooler Wednesday posts will be light and fun. But every so often, I do intend to take a hard look at our culture's entertainment from a logical and Biblical perspective. Today is one such day.

When Lost returned at the end of January, it was pared with new show Eli Stone. Starved for new TV, I started watching it. Of course, it helped that I Victor Garber was one of the cast. I've been a huge fan since his days on Alias. It only took me an episode or two to warm to the quirky show.

The basic premise is that Eli Stone is a lawyer for a prestigious firm in San Francisco. He's engaged to the boss's daughter. Things are looking great until he starts getting visions. While his brother quickly diagnosis him with an inoperable brain aneurism, these visions seem to be more then that. They are actually guiding him on the cases he should take and how he can win them. Unfortunately, he never knows when they will come, like while in a meeting or even in court. The show is a fun mix of humor and legal drama. And, since Eli's acupuncturist thinks that these visions might be from God, there is even a little bit on faith mixed in for good measure.

The one thing I knew going in was that some of the court cases handled might bother me. And I wasn't a fan of the week the sub-plot involved two lesbians fighting over custody of their unborn child since the one carrying the child had refound her Christian faith. But I actually liked the ending, and it made me think that they might present an even hand in the future.

That was before this last week's episode. It centered around a teen who was expelled from school for playing George Michael's song "I Want Your Sex" during a school assembly about abstinence. She was blaming the fact that the school was teaching nothing but abstinence for several friends' pregnancies and STD's. The principal's only response was, "If we teach anything else, we loose government funding for sex ed." Fortunately, the episode ended happily when George Michael agreed to do a benefit concert for the school.

Oh, where do I even begin?

Let's start with the fact that these are teens we are talking about. The laws vary from state to state about what constitutes statutory rape, but according to the official laws on the books, sex for anyone under 18 is discouraged if not illegal. I know it was at one time here in California. So why are we encouraging teens to break the law? We've got huge ad campaigns up about drugs, smoking, and alcohol. Why is this law different?

More then anything else, this comes down to self-control. Remember, we are not animals but humans. We have a brain. We have conscience thought. We can choose to give in or choose to show restraint. I know it isn't a popular topic in our culture today, but everyone needs more self-control. And I'm not just talking about sex here. Overeating is a matter of self-control. Lack of exercise? Self-control. The previously mentioned illegal drugs and alcohol? Self-control. I'll freely admit I don't have nearly the level of self-control I need. But that's at least a place to start.

Then there's the issue of whose job sex education is. Guess what, it isn't the job of the schools. That's right, it is the parent's job to teach their kids about sex. And if they should use whatever they this is appropriate. I especially loved the part where the school principal was so upset about loosing money for sex ed and not being able to teach anything. When we have students who can't read or write or do math, why are we spending time and money on any form of sex ed, abstinence included?

And, frankly, I'd like to know what kind of abstinence education the school is providing. If it amounted to "Don't have sex," then I agree they weren't doing their job. (Yes, we are going to pretend it is their job, even though it isn't.) Why not discuss the consequences of sex. Like pregnancy and STD's. And I love the fact that everyone's solution is to hand out condoms. Guess what folks, those don’t always work. I think sharing some information about how little those really protect would open a few eyes. I know they opened mine.

Now, I'm not naïve enough to think this would convince everyone. In fact, I know it wouldn't. But if we held them to a standard and explained why, it would get through to some. And if we really had their best interests at heart, wouldn't we want to discuss what would truly be best for them.

Because we haven't even gotten to the emotional impact yet. And that's something that you can't protect against no matter how much you try to do. God designed sex to be a wonderful thing between a husband and wife. It is the ultimate act of intimacy. And when you throw that out the window and bounce around from partner to partner, it is going to be hard on everyone. Even in a committed relationship without the benefit of marriage, it is going to be emotionally harmful.

When I was in public school, I suffered through an AIDS awareness week. Frankly, what we did was a joke. In my history class (yes, history), we watched the infamous "how to put on a condom" video that uses a banana. And in my chemistry class, we use chemistry to show how quickly AIDS can spread. Everyone in class was given a test tube. One of us was "infected" with something that would make the liquid turn red when mixed with another chemical. This represented AIDS. The rest of us had water. We then had to mix our test tube content with three other people. After that, our teacher added the chemical and we saw how many people's test tube turned red. Once we knew who lived and who "died", the teacher took an infected tube and poured it "into" another test tube with plastic wrap in it to show how a condom kept you safe. As I sat there not saying a word, all I could think was "And if you didn't mix things together at all, the clean test tube would definitely stay that way." No, I didn't actually speak up. I should have, but I didn't.

So, given all this, why do adults not try to protect teens? My theory is because they know they would be hypocrites if they said "Do as I saw and not as I do." They can get away with it with smoking and drinking because there are laws in place that make it illegal for someone under a certain age to partake. I'm probably wrong about the statutory rape laws. Or maybe it is because they aren't enforced. But teens are smart enough to recognize "This is okay for me to do but not for you" as the crock it is. And since adults don't want to show any restraint in this area, they aren't going to try to set a good example for kids.

But let's be honest. "Recreational" sex is not better for anyone (no matter what age they are) then smoking or excessive drinking.

It's funny that this should be on my mind this week since Mike Janke posted something in a similar vein as well. His take on it is well worth reading. And I freely admit I stole a couple points from him. He always points things out in terms I hadn't thought of, and I love reading his blog for that reason.

So, rant aside, will I keep watching Eli Stone? (You know, the show that started this rant?) Yes, for now. I do like the characters and am interested to see where they take things, especially their thoughts about faith. But if they continue with episodes that are thinly disguised liberal agenda lectures, then I will stop watching. I have better things to do with my time then be fed lies.

(And as a reminder, this week Water Cooler Wednesday is offer a chance to win an iPod shuffle if you do a post. So if you enter, tell them I sent you.)

Al Gore? Seriously?

Okay, I'd begun to write off the Nobel Peace Prize for a while now. I could understanding giving it to President Carter, although the timing was suspect. The final straw for me was when they gave it to Yassir Arafat. That man never met a war he didn't like. To say he had anything to do with peace was laughable.

Yet, somehow, they managed to top themselves.

This year's winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is...Al Gore. No, I'm not making it up.

Granted, he had to share it with the UN's panel on climate change.

Now I will freely admit part of my problem with this is I don't believe in Global Warming. With as cold as the winter was last year, I find that rather hard to swallow. Plus, we have only been keeping track of temperatures for 120 years of so. So who really knows what normal temperatures are. Then there's my always favorite little factoid - 30 years ago, Global Cooling was a fact. The cause? Human CO2 emissions. Yep.

But leaving all that aside for the time being, what in the world does Global Warming have to do with peace? Someone please tell me that.

This was absolutely nothing but a shameless stunt by a bunch of lefties to promote their agenda. And give the US another dig since Al Gore lost the Presidency in 2000 and they would have preferred it if he had won. (Yes, he lost it and tried to steal it back, but that's another issue.)

At least one world leader recognizes the idiocracy of it all. Unfortunately, it's the Czech President. Unfortunately only because it wasn't the leaders of a bigger country with more pull in the world.

Prague (dpa) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus, a rare vocal global- warming sceptic among heads of state, is "somewhat surprised" that former US vice president Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, the president's spokesman Petr Hajek said in a statement.

"The relationship between his activities and world peace is unclear and indistinct," the statement said. "It rather seems that Gore's doubting of basic cornerstones of the current civilization does not contribute to peace." Klaus said in a recent speech that environmentalists' efforts to halt global warming "fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity."

And I love this quote from further down the article.

In a newspaper interview earlier this year, Klaus said that only Al Gore, and not a sane person, would say that mankind is ruining the planet.

For more of his thoughts, check out this article from earlier in the year.

Now before you write me off or flame me, do know that I care about the environment. I think hybrids are wonderful and hope that we can figure out ways to consume even less. But let's do it logically and not as a crazy rush in a panic because of some theories that may or may not be the case.

Ironically, just last week, the University of Illinois reported on global ice caps. The ones in the Northern Hemisphere are at record lows right now. But guess what. The ones in the Southern Hemisphere are at record highs. Seems like that wouldn't be the case if the entire earth's temperature were really rising. Talk about an Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore!

My Epitaph

While I was driving to and from the guest ranch in Arizona, I listened to a few of the Chronicles of Narnia, including The Last Battle. I ran across a great quote there I had forgotten. But I have decided I want this on my tombstone.

Aslan is speaking. He has just told the characters that they have died and are in Heaven. And he says:

"The term has ended. The holiday has begun."

If that doesn't sum up life on earth vs. life in Heaven, I don't know what does. And that's why I want it on my tombstone/plaque/whatever I get.

Famous for Being Famous

Anna Nicole Smith died yesterday.

I first learned the news from an Epinions message board I'm on, but then saw it again at a Trixie site. My first response was shock. I thought she was younger then she was, but even so, 39 is very young. Just ask this 31 year old.

Personally, I was ambivolant about the woman. I don't read Playboy, thought the previews for her reality show looked dumb, and didn't care one way or the other about her court battles. Frankly, at times, I just wanted to go some place where I didn't have to hear about her any more.

Not that I wanted her to die. Let's make that perfectly clear. I just didn't want to hear about the parentage of her baby any more.

Then I got home last night, turned on the TV, and saw more coverage of her death. In fact, TV Guide channel was nothing but people talking about her and her legacy. That's when it hit me.

She was famous for being famous and nothing else.

This is a phrase they use all the time on Fox News Watch, a show I regularly watch on weekends that analyzes the news. And she's not the only "celebrity" that they've used it on. In fact, they use it on many a celebrity. But it certainly applies here.

Not that I'm saying she wasn't a very smart woman. She took an award for Playmate of the Year and turned it into a lifetime of fame. I bet many people wouldn't be able to name the other winners of the title, yet almost everyone knew who she was. That's saying something.

But now I'm going to sound like the panel on News Watch. There are lots of important events going on in the world today. Do we really need coverage on the nightly news of this woman's death? Was she that important? Does it effect our lives? No. There are a million more important things happening in our world today.

Not that I'm going to claim innocence here. I want to hear the results of the autopsy, too.

And I'm only going to let TV Guide partially off the hook. No, I don't expect them to cover serious news. But wall to wall coverage?

We've had a lot of celebrities dies in recent years. Most of the time, it's announced briefly and we move on. It's not the headline, however. And we don't get weeks of coverage from all news sources, something I expect this time around.

Yes, I was saddened to hear of Anna Nicole Smith's death. I feel for her family and especially her daughter.

But it also caused me to think. We as a culture are amusing ourselves to death. And this is just another sign of it. I hope in all the coverage we will get the next few days (or weeks or month) that it will make you stop and think as well.