Theologian Dave

Thoughts and Acts: Acts 1:6-11

2010-02-15T11:38:00.001-08:00

"So when they had come together, they asked him, 'Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' He said to them, It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.' And when He had said these things, as they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as He went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven.'” (Acts 1:6-11)

The historical narrative of Acts doesn't reveal much of the disciple's personal feelings or emotions at the beginnings of the Christian church but one cannot help but wonder. Was there a lot of excitement, fear, a tremendous amount of joy, puzzlement or plainly stated- a general thinking of 'what the hell is going on?' They had witnessed the Man that they had followed around for 3 years die a horrible death and had experienced the numbing anxiety as He was buried. As is evidenced by their question in verse 6, the disciples still had a strong hope that Jesus would be a political King and usher in a physical, earthly kingdom for Israel. A Messianic figure that would end Roman rule over the Hebrew promised land and restore what the Jewish people had in Old Testament times.

The resurrection, to put the terms in an understated fashion, must have injected the disciples with an uncanny excitement. Jesus had physically risen again and had begun appearing to many of His followers and others. Philip Yancey attempts to capture the perspective and attitude of the disciples on this morning: "This, perhaps, describes the change in the disciples' perspective as they sat in locked rooms discussing the incomprehensible events of Easter Sunday. In one sense nothing had changed: Rome still occupied Palestine, religious authorities still had a bounty on their heads, death and evil still reigned outside. Gradually, however, the shock of recognition gave way to a long slow undertow of joy. If God could do that..." (The Jesus I Never Knew, pg. 220) Perhaps the disciples thought that now would be the time, with a Man who had conquered death, to usurp political power unto Himself and begin the national kingdom anew.

Sometimes, the disciples understanding of "kingdom" is a little baffling to me. Hadn't they been traveling with Jesus for 3 years? Didn't they understand by now what He meant by "kingdom"- that this term was not to mean a nationalistic country but a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of believers? With the loaded terminology of "kingdom" though, I have to tread lightly. Kingdom is a massive word in the domains of theology and sparks much debate as to what is meant by God's kingdom. The disciples may have had similar discussions.

One of the most revealing aspects of what Jesus meant by Kingdom, in my opinion, is found in the gospel of John in Jesus' conversation with Pontius Pilate. John 18:35-36, "Pilate answered, 'Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?' Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.'" Jesus seems to be tipping his hat here at the notion of a spiritual kingdom versus a nationalistic theocracy. Perhaps even in these words is a hint of sadness. Jesus being a Jew has been rejected by his own people, indeed the people that He came to offer hope too. The fact should be noted however that both conservative and liberal scholars date the gospel of John's writing later than the other gospels. The gospel of John contains different accounts from those of the Synoptic gospels and contains a more mature Christology (meaning a more sophisticated view of Jesus being divine and human than the other gospels). This certainly doesn't make certain gospels superior to other gospels, just different and I stand by the Christian conviction that the four gospels are written by human authors and ultimately, inspired by God.

The minefield of the theological understanding of God's kingdom is illustrated further by the modern debates between dispensationalists and covenant theologians. The thrust of the debate lies on the question: is there a physical, earthly kingdom in Israel's future (as in around the time of the second coming)? Or, is some of the terminology of coming kingdom spiritually metaphorical in nature?

For the record, I reject much of dispensationalism which JN Darby introduced in the 1800s and the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909 made popular. Because of Scofield's Bible, many Christians in the 20th century have seemed obsessed and very preoccupied with eschatology and this has also led to the preposterous gibberish that Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have published. Anyways, for me, dispensationalism seems to organize time too neatly. I don't think that this was God's intent with inspiring people to write His Word. The Bible is very honest about human struggle and humanity's interaction with the true God (as well as false gods and idols). God's Word is not primarily or secondarily about organizing time, from Genesis to Revelation, in seven neat and tidy dispensations (some dispensationalists add more "dispensations" of time then seven). I also tend to view Revelation as being full of metaphors that point to a very important fact- that Christ will one day reign and restore His kingdom. This kingdom being a new heaven and new earth without the curse of sin. This general understanding of the second coming is tantamount to the faith and a major tenant of orthodox Christianity.

The one point of dispensationalism that causes me conflict is the central tenant of the theology: Are Israel and the church distinct entities? They are both the people of God, as far as Old Testament Israel and the believers that have embraced Jesus as Lord and Savior. However, what is the relationship between the two? Is the church a spiritual continuation of Israel as God's people or are Israel and the church different and separate entities? I don't have enough time for the complexity of that discussion but it is one that I think about in my studies from time to time. Enough on dispensationalism.

When the disciples ask the question, "Lord, at this time are you restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Jesus answer is perplexing. He says in verse 7: "It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has fixed by His own authority." In a way, Jesus seems to avoid their question. He does not answer "yes" or "no". He doesn't even acknowledge if Israel will be setup as a kingdom of God on earth ever again. He just says that the Father is the only One who knows such things and that the Father only knows the times as to which they will occur (whatever they will look like at that foreordained time).

However, coming from our Lord, this is probably the most important point. Jesus coming back to judge the living and the dead is God's business alone. There have been many people who claim the Christian faith down through the ages that have predicted Jesus' second coming. Infamously, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a man by the name of Charles Taze Russell, predicted that the final days of the world would come in 1914 after a war between capitalism and socialism broke out. I guess we missed that one. There have, of course, been more orthodox members of Christianity through the ages that have predicted Christ's coming. Hal Lindsay, a television evangelist, is a modern day example and a kook in my book. He has a television show trying to tie current happenings in the middle east with a strict dispensational reading of Revelation.

I hope we realize that upon our Lord's words in Acts 1:7 and also in the gospels related to the Father only knowing when the second coming will happen (see Mark 13:31-33 and Matthew 24:35-36), anyone who claims they know when Jesus will come back is fraudulent in their claim. Any person who preaches that they know the date or time is, in a sense, claiming more knowledge than Jesus because Jesus taught that only the Father knows. This is a particularly boastful arrogance on the part of heretical founders of new religions or televangelists or anyone else who may preach that they know.

The reason as to why Jesus did not want his disciples to have the information about His second coming is perhaps stated in the missiological charge of the next verse. "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." This is Jesus' final command before He ascended into heaven. Jesus asks the disciples, and the church down through the ages, to go and spread His gospel message. Matthew 28:18-20 is the Great Commission and contains a similar challenge as does Mark 16:15-16 (although the end of Mark is debated as to whether this is actually Scripture. It is not in the earliest manuscripts we have of the gospel of Mark).

The disciples and future generations of Christians were to carry on Jesus' message of testifying to the truth. The truth about the spiritual kingdom of God that exists in the heart's of all of those who believe. Jesus asks them to start in Jerusalem, their home town. Then He asks them to go to Judea, the larger and outer regions of Jerusalem and on into Samaria. Samaria was important for Jesus to include in his missional mandate. Many Jews hated Samaritans and this was a bigoted racial kind of hatred. Samaritans were ethnically part-Jewish but represented the intermarrying of Israel with other nations. Jesus clearly states that they are not excluded from His gospel message and are equal heirs to His kingdom...if they believe in Him and accept His message. Jesus then commands them to go to the "ends of the earth" taking His message everywhere on this planet. Christian missionaries have been laboring at this task for two thousand years and we still work to translate the Word of God into all the languages of the earth and to preach the good news to every person. This mandate is the central mission statement of the Christian church as far as axiology is concerned.

After giving this command, Jesus ascended into heaven. What an event for those original disciples to see with their own eyes. Jesus is taken out of view by a cloud. A cloud is a striking image in Biblical literature. There are many passages of Scripture which speak of a cloud hiding God's heavenly glory. We may recall a bright cloud enveloped Moses and Elijah during the transfiguration and from this very cloud, the disciple's present there heard God's voice (Matthew 17:5; also see Exodus 40:34-35).

To conclude this glorious scene, two men came and stood by them in white robes- obviously signifying purity. "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven." In other words, don't just look up in awe, get to work on Jesus' commission.

And did the disciples ever get to work! The remainder of Acts is about their early experiences in carrying out Jesus' missiological mandate. They were now Jesus' representatives on the face of the earth, His ambassadors, as we believers are today. Go into all the nations and preach the gospel and make disciples of men!

My Favorite Movies of 2009

2010-01-31T19:56:00.001-08:00

I thought I would share some of my favorite movies that I saw from 2009. Of course, this can only be based on the limited amount of movies that I did see. Feel free to post some of your favorites as well or maybe some flicks that I missed.

Now for my top 7:

7) Sin Nombre- "Sin Nombre" means "without a name". If a viewer sets aside any political ideology that they may have and experience this movie for what it is, they will be moved. Sin Nombre is a stirring drama but the movie also operates as a suspenseful thriller. The story involves two main characters: Sayra who joins her father and uncle in a trek through Guatemala and Mexico to get to the United States. The second character is Willy, nicknamed Casper, involved in gang activity in southern Mexico. Willy finds himself on the wrong side of his gang and seeks to flee to the United States. They ride atop of a train with other hopeful immigrants. This movie is not about what a person in the US should believe about illegal immigration but about why so many people would risk everything (even doing incredibly dangerous things) in order to come here.

6) District 9- In a year of great sci-fi movies, "District 9" stands out. This is a balls out and, at times, gruesome South African parable of apartheid. Newcomer director Neill Blomkamp really has an original take on the story structure. The beginning of the film starts out like a news cast or documentary about extraterrestrial forces over South Africa who are forced to live in a ghetto. Then the movie focuses on Wikus Van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley in a star making performance) as he becomes an advocate for their cause after being exposed to their biotechnology. This is unforgettable stuff.

5) Avatar- James "King of the World" Cameron may have just taken the throne again. This is the visual spectacle of the year but also has a solid story to go along with the ground-breaking effects. Sure, there are some weaknesses: the human characters are very one-dimensional and the theme of an individual from one culture joining another culture has been done before (Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, etc). However, while a person is watching this movie, there is such a good time to be had that the viewer forgets about those minor flaws. Two and a half hours flies by. Buy the big popcorn and go to the IMAX screening.

4) Up- The fact seems to be automatic that any movie Pixar releases will be considered one of the best movies of the year, and "Up" is no exception. With the brilliance demonstrated from the first "Toy Story" to "Wall-E", the newest movie seems to be moving Pixar toward an even greater maturity in storytelling. "Up" follows a couple, Carl and Ellie, through their courtship and marriage and life together (done through music and animation with hardly any dialogue). They then make a sad discovery which causes Carl to lose his life's partner and threaten the dreams that they hatched together. He becomes a recluse but through circumstances decides to carry out the couple's dream of going to Paradise Falls. He ties balloons to his house and floats toward Venezuela. The movie seems to set up a strong dichotomy. The grief and pain that come from such a substantial loss contrasted with the magic and awe that the world around us entails. The movie will appeal to kids but its themes are mature enough to match any other movie out there.

3) Inglourious Basterds- Who can get away with blatant historical revisionism involving a group of Jews called "the basterds" striking fear into the heart of the Nazi's during World War II? And get away with portraying these basterds whacking Nazi's with baseball bats, scalping them and carving swastikas into their foreheads? Why...Quentin Tarantino can and no one does revenge like the "Pulp Fiction" director. Here is a film filled with unbelievable performances, Tarantino's intoxicating dialogue, brutal violence and mayhem. Not politically correct by any stretch of the imagination and tapping into a collective anger and sense of justice that people everywhere feel toward the Nazi's. Tarantino's gleeful film has high entertainment value and unexpected humor. Its probably the funniest World War II movie a person could ever watch.

2) Up in the Air- Jason Reitman has done three movies (Thank You for Smoking, Juno) and this is his best. The film is a rebuke of American individualism and voluntary isolation. The story involves Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) who indulges in his life of flying around the country as a corporate terminator (he fires people that corporations don't have the guts to fire themselves). On the side, he preaches a commitment-free life and tells his audience to imagine "an empty backpack" with no attachments and little responsibilities. All seems to be going okay until Ryan realizes that the life that he leads, with no commitments or attachments, is the very hell that torments him. The film winds down with a feeling of existential dread and there are surprises waiting along the way. Perhaps most unnerving of all is the timeliness of the sub-plot. America currently stands near 11% unemployment and Bingham fires people around the country according to a corporate script with hardly a thought about it. This movie stings to your soul.

1) The Hurt Locker- While audiences were busy last summer watching Hasbro toy commercials, many missed the best war movie of the decade. There hasn't been a more personal film about men in combat since "Saving Private Ryan". The story follows soldiers in Iraq who have the job of defusing IED bombs. To most of us, this is an unfathomable job. This is about the soldiers and their psychological make-up. Why would men and women would choose a job that puts them in a chaotic life and death situation? Why do some crave these dangerous scenarios to such a degree that it becomes like a drug? Director Kathryn Bigelow shot this apolitical film around Amman, Jordan (which neighbors Iraq). The Jordan military provided security for the film shoot and Bigelow had a hard time finding actors and crew people willing to work in a volatile region. No doubt she had to also fight a Hollywood bureaucracy to get this thing made. If all ends up right, she should become the first female to win the best director prize at the Oscars. She certainly deserves it.

Other good movies I saw: Public Enemies, (500) Days of Summer, Moon, A Serious Man

Three Decades of Life

2010-01-04T20:22:00.001-08:00

The hippies used to say that "you can't trust anyone over 30". By this revelation, I'm no longer to be trusted. Recently, I have been contemplating turning the big 3-0. Growing up, 3-0 seemed a long ways away and now, the arbitrary number is right at my doorstep. Hopefully I was an adult in my twenties but now I feel like I really have to be a full on grown up with the oncoming third decade. Maybe all of this doesn't matter. A birthday is just another year and just one more number.

At any rate, I've been thinking about life goals that I have. Here are 30 of them. A lot of them involve traveling and hiking. Feel free to give me other good ideas or great experiences that you have had. Here is to another year of God's goodness and faithfulness.

1) Visit all 50 States (I have not been to: Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine). If anyone can think of a solid reason to visit North Dakota, I'm all ears.

2) Stand on the Great Wall of China

3) Attempt surfing

4) Read the fictional literary greats (I'm currently researching lists and trying to compile ones that I should read. Anyone have any other suggestions?)

5) Hike down into the Grand Canyon/ and separately, taking a rafting trip down the Colorado River

6) Tour Greece and Israel

7) Attend a Radiohead show for the first time

8) Hike up to Machu Picchu

9) Be involved in some kind of massive, peaceful protest

10) Watch all of the 100 movies on the American Film Institutes 100 best movies lists (there are actually two lists...one in 1998 and one in 2007 which was updated. I've seen 46 of these movies so far.

11) Visit the Pyramids of Giza in Egypt

12) Relax on a beach in Thailand (I hear they have the best beaches in the world).

13) Film an original movie with some friends

14) Visit Tokyo, Japan and Mt. Fuji (which is mostly inspired by the two years of Japanese I took in high school. Don't remember much though)

15) Hike the Kukui Trail in Kauai, Hawaii

16) Read through "Institutes of Christian Religion" by John Calvin (among many other theology classics but this is at the top of the list)

17) Out to sea on a Mediterranean cruise

18) Visit 6 continents (I'm leaving out Antarctica)

19) Ride on a cable car in San Francisco

20) Author a book with a topic probably relating to theology

21) Go to a jazz club in New Orleans and have dinner

22) Read the best biography I can find on George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln

23) Go on a snowmobiling trek.

24) Spelunking in New Mexico caves (Carlsbad Caverns)

25) Going over Niagara Falls in a barrel. Kidding. The falls would be nice to take in from the shore however. All the topic of New York, I would also like to go to the statue of Liberty.

26) While riding in a limo through a big city, I want to stand up through the sun roof. Bring on the fine!

27) Safari through the outback in Australia

28) As long as they don't get too "friendly", too one day swim with dolphins somewhere.

29) To watch the entire series of "The West Wing". I've actually never seen an episode but hear that the show was really good.

30) In my life, to continually follow Christ and grow in my faith for however many days that I have.

My 30 goals. I share these with you in hopes that some of you will help me accomplish some of these. So, yeah, let's do this.

Thoughts and Acts: Acts 1:1-5

2009-12-30T18:58:00.002-08:00

"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen. To them He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during the forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. And while staying with them He ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, He said, 'you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.'" (Acts 1:1-5)

The sequel begins with a recap just like so many of the current television series that have continuing story lines and often end on cliffhangers. The gospel of Luke seemed to have a solid ending with Jesus ascending into heaven (Luke 24:50-53) but still left the vital question as to what His followers would do with His ever-important message of good news. "The Acts of the Apostles", as it is traditionally called, briefly recounts the history of the ascension of Christ and the basis of the gospel message before launching into the history of the very earliest Christian church.

Luke tells Theophilus (meaning "friend of God") that in his first book, "I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up". Luke, the educated physician, investigated the matters of Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection with considerable detail according to his gospel, "...just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4). He now brings his careful analysis to church history in its infant stage. Luke was probably an eyewitness himself to many of the events that transpired in Acts and certainly had access to the people of whom the events happened too.

In verse 2, Luke mentions the ascension of Christ and the commands that Christ taught before being taken up into the sky. The treatment of the ascension of Christ is interestingly handled by the various gospel writers. Here are snippets of the handling (or lack) of the ascension of Christ:

-Matthew 28:16-20 (ESV), "Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw Him they worshipped Him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." No mention directly of an ascension but it does seem implied. Jesus is giving the disciples what seem to be final instructions and He did have them meet on a mountain in Galilee.

-The ascension in the gospel of Mark is a handful to discuss. The Great Commission here is preached to the eleven while they recline at a table (chapter 16 verse 14). There is no mention about being on top of a mountain. He also gives rather odd instructions about handling snakes and drinking deadly poisons but having these things not hurt the disciples. The words Jesus' preaches is certainly different from Matthew's gospel account. Verse 19 then continues, "So then the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God." An important note about this last section of Mark however may be that this ending portion is not Scripture. The earliest Greek manuscripts that we have do not contain Mark 16:9-20. A considerable amount of external and internal evidence suggest that this ending was not originally a part of Mark's gospel and was not written by the same author. Furthermore, fourth century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome note in their writings that the manuscripts that were available to them do not have verses 9-20.

-Luke 24:50, "And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen." Bethany is a place on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, the site of Jesus' ascension.

-The gospel of John is silent on the ascension.

As Luke records history in this beginning section of Acts, we find the disciples actively worshiping Jesus and waiting for the promised Holy Spirit. An excitement was in there air for sure and as Luke records in his gospel, they were filled with "great joy" (24:52) They had heard or seen of their Lord being flogged and crucified (Luke records these passion week events in Luke 22:47-23:49) but then they had witnessed the greatest episode of history, Jesus rising from the grave. Luke writes in Acts, "To them He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God." (Verse 1:3)

Here are the appearances of Christ, post-resurrection, that we have recorded in the Bible:

1) The women at the tomb (Matthew 28:9-10)
2) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18)
3) Two men on Emmaus (Mark 16:12; Luke 24:13-32)
4) Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5)
5) Ten Disciples (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23)
6) Eleven disciples (John 20:24-29; 1 Corinthians 15:5)
7) Seven disciples fishing in Galilee (John 21:1-23)
8) Eleven disciples in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18)
9) Five hundred persons (possibly in Galilee; 1 Corinthians 15:6- Paul's writing on the resurrection)
10) James, the brother of the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:7)

Jesus offered many eyewitness accounts to His followers and potentially more that we do not know about. Luke also states that He spoke of the "Kingdom of God". Luke's gospel has more than thirty occurrences of the "kingdom of God". By contrast, Matthew's gospel has atleast 50 uses of the "kingdom of heaven (or God)". There is much theological debate about exhaustively defining what the kingdom of God is but a good succinct definition is that the kingdom of God exists in the hearts of believers.

Jesus, while here on earth as God Incarnate, inaugurated a spiritual kingdom that exists to change the hearts of people. For if the hearts of people are changed, their outward actions will change as well. Jesus' help with the believer's change of heart is found in the promise of the Holy Spirit. Believers, in the start of the book of Acts, look to be baptized by the Spirit as an inward mark that they belong to Jesus' kingdom.

Jesus identified the promise of the Father in verse 4, "...for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." John the Baptist, the forerunner of announcing the coming kingdom, baptized people with water. Water baptism was a declaration of repentance and a symbol of the washing away of sins. "I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire (fire being a symbol of judgment for sins)." (Matthew 3:11)

The spiritual kingdom is carried on by the Holy Spirit's indwelling work in the hearts of believers. The kingdom is also carried on (and has been for two thousand years) by the church's proclamation of the news that Jesus asked us to preach to all people. The message that they can be disciples of Jesus and become a part of His spiritual kingdom.

The task at times seems daunting but believers have the Holy Spirit (recognized as the third member of the Trinity) inside of them. The power of God, to do His will, readily available as God is immanent.

A FINAL NOTE: Verse 1:4 says, "And while staying with them, He (Jesus) ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father..." With this writing of Luke, some may wonder why the disciples went to Galilee as Matthew tells us in Matthew 28:10, 16. In both of Luke's writings (Luke 24:49 and here in Acts 1:4), the disciples are commanded to wait in Jerusalem. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe have a couple of proposed solutions: "First, it is possible that the command was not given until after they had been in Galilee. In this event there would be no conflict whatsoever. Furthermore, the command to 'tarry' simply meant to make Jerusalem their headquarters. It did not preclude taking short trips elsewhere. Jerusalem was the place they were to receive the Holy Spirit and to begin their work." (When Critics Ask, pg. 400)

Black Friday Blues

2009-12-03T22:06:00.001-08:00

The mere mental image of crazy-eyed shoppers rushing into a retail store to feast upon the sales of their various outlets during the traditional fiasco of Black Friday is a rather sad picture to me. As far as I can remember, I have never been shopping on Black Friday and don't plan on going any time soon. Call me a cranky ole shopping Scrooge. I'm sure that this evening, the news will be filled with stories of assaults and customers cussing out the employees of retail shops (stuck in a level of hell for their respective shifts). Remember last year, the tragic news story of a person being trampled to death in a Walmart store in Long Island, New York.

After the Thanksgiving holiday (put into place as a federal holiday in 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln), many Americans begin to think about the coming holiday and getting into "spirit" for Christmas. Christmas, as far as my understanding, has to do with such glorious ideas as peace and giving gifts to other people and sharing lives with family and above all else, celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ nearly 2000 years ago. The latter being the very greatest gift of all, a God who would come as a human being to die in our place for our sins upon the cross.

These ideas seem completely lost today overwhelmed by a sickening tidal wave of greed and a sense of utter narcisim. If the mentality for a holiday celebrating Christ's birth has turned into a "I will get this sales deal before anyone else and trample any damn person who gets in my way", we have clearly crossed a threshold into a realm of complete stupidity and a drunken self-consumption.

Many people, no doubt, will blame the big corporations for this madness but I would like to quickly add that the shoppers who go and spend money are the reasons why Black Friday has traditionally been successfully. That is one of the noble things about capitalism (though filmmaker Michael Moore would never admit it), with our time and dollars, we "vote" for what we want or need as far as goods or services. Therefore, Black Friday is the doing of the big corporations to meet the demands of the swarming consumers.

I'm certainly not against buying family and friends gifts or celebrating this season. I just think all of us (including myself) need a real change of perspective in our hearts. Yesterday, during Thanksgiving dinner, my friend remarked that we had Christmas all wrong. He thought maybe we should serve at a soup kitchen or give gifts to homeless children. I'm exicted that the company I work for, Balcos Insurance, has decided to sponsor a toy drive for foster children this season. Wouldn't activities like these be so much more rewarding than getting a bunch of wrapped gifts that, if we are honest, is probably some stuff that we don't really need? Another lady at our Thanksgiving table remarked that a child that she knew got so many gifts for Christmas last year, that the child actually got sick of opening presents. A good question to remind ourselves of and to reflect on: what is Christmas for and to whom is it for?

Nicholas of Myra, a saint and Bishop of Myra (who was loose inspiration for the character of Santa Claus) lived from 270-346AD and used to give gifts anonymously to the poor especially children in poverty. I'm assuming he was influenced by Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount: " Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-4, NIV)

But who is this Christmas season for...it is about Jesus. Jesus is the gift of God to a lost and broken world. "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (Adam), how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification."

There is nothing wrong with shopping for gifts and there is not even something wrong with shopping on Black Friday necessarily. Wrongness only comes to the surface as an expression of the status of our hearts. When we shop, are we thinking about Jesus and other people? Are we madly trying to climb over people and stomp on their dignity as a human being in order to save a few bucks on a sale? The idea of the Christmas season needs to be redeemed in our culture and it is up to us to share the very important event and spirit that characterizes the meaning of Christmas as our hearts are prayerfully changed to reflect it.

Tax Payer Funded Abortions and Healthcare Reform

2009-11-20T18:25:00.001-08:00

A legitimate debate is going on through our country's political structures right now. How do we reform health care and create a health care system that will work for a great number of Americans? If it is possible to put aside our beliefs and feelings as to how much the government should be involved in health care or what exactly is the best way to reform the current medical system, I want to focus on another issue.

We have been told before by President Obama, various members of the democratically controlled Congress and talking heads across the cable news world that abortion (federally funded) would not appear in health care reform legislation. President Obama and Congressional leaders have recently reiterated this point to us on television. There is no other way to put this being that most of these people are smart: they are blatantly lying to us all.

Here are President Obama's words in an interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News: "You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change." (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/gibbs-wont-offer-position_n_351064.html)

I realize that pundits on MSNBC will be calling people liars for saying that abortion is in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's massive new Senate healthcare bill (2,074 pages) so let me tell you exactly what this bill says about federally funded (tax payer supported) abortion.

Beginning on line 7, p. 118, section 1303 under “Voluntary Choice of Coverage of Abortion Services” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the health plan. Senator Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Health Insurance Exchange cover abortions (line 13, p. 120).

What is even more surprising is a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all people who enroll in the new health plan provided by the government. Beginning on line 11, page 122, section 1303, under “Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

The bill would forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage. Another crux of this issue lies with the Hyde Amendment (Passed in 1976) which is a federal law that is supposed to restrict abortions being paid for with federal dollars (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid and military health care). Senator Reid's bill is trying to circumvent this amendment.

This is outrageous and unacceptable. Polls of American thoughts, across the board, on the issue of tax payer funded abortions show that Americans are completely opposed to this by a good measure. Politicians have to realize that abortion is an incredibly controversial practice in our society. To force Americans to support a procedure with their tax dollars that they find morally offensive is completely insane.

What is of even greater interest to me is how members of Congress are being disingenuous and outright lying about the presence of abortion in this bill. Why are they so ashamed of their own views? Why don't they stand up and applaud their victory of pro-choice language being thrust into this bill? Apparently, supporters of federally funded abortion, feel that the only way to get abortion in this piece of legislation is to sneak it in through the back door and then repeatedly lie about its sinister presence.

I am not ashamed of my views. I believe in an unborn child's right to life. I don't believe that any federally funded tax payer abortion allowances should be included in health care reform.

If anyone reading wants to express their views to their congressional representatives about this issue of abortion in the health care bill, I urge you to do so. Please be respectful to these individuals as they are our elected leaders and deserve the respect that their positions afford.

I will post how to contact the Senate representatives for Washington State:

Senators: Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

Patty Murray's phone numbers:
Washington DC (866-481-9186)
Seattle office: (206-553-5545)
Spokane office: (509-624-9515)

You can email Patty Murray from this link on her website:

http://murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Maria Cantwell's phone numbers:
Toll Free (888-648-7328)
Washington DC (202-224-3441)
Seattle (206-220-6400)
Spokane (509-353-2507)

You can email Senator Cantwell from this web address:

http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

From the Bottom of the World: New Zealand (Part Six)

2009-11-20T17:41:00.000-08:00

(Originally published November 14th, 2009)

Hello again from the bottom of the world.

I have been exploring up in the mountains (that would be Tongariro National Park) and then we made out way to the coastline. Here I saw black sand beaches for the first time right along the west coast of New Zealand. Of course, this is the Tasman Sea. Out on the beach and on a rocky wharf, I ran out with the water crashing somewhere below and black sand pelting my face. This all felt really great.

We stayed in an interesting place called Raetihi a couple of nights ago. At first glance, this seemed like a ghost town except for a relatively kept up piece of road down the center of the town. I met a business guy from Auckland who had come down to this town to help rebuild it a little bit. He talked about how the town was depressed but work was being done to put the place back on the map. He runs a little hostel for backpackers who journey on into Tongariro National Park which is nearby (The Tongariro Crossing is apparently a very famous walk).

While in town, I got some food at the Angel Louise Cafe. This was owned and run by a sweet old lady who fixed me up a wonderful steak sandwich with onions and plum sauce. She also made me breakfast the next morning- eggs on toast. All of this was wonderful. Speaking of cuisine, New Zealand is similar to the States in that regard. There are some things that are different for instance, they put beats on your cheeseburger as opposed to tomatoes. I also had a decent steak one night at the "Railway Station" in National Park. The steak seemed to be boiled and was put over mashed sweet potatoes.

Anyways, back to Raetihi. We stayed at the Snowy Waters Lodge which is owned by a lady named Sandy. This was, by far, the most hospitable place that we encountered (people were nice everywhere but this place went even beyond that). Sandy had worked in Auckland for years and had commuted down on the weekends to fix up this lodge which she has now owned for 3 years. This is her dream come true. It was fun to meet a Kiwi so impassioned and seeing their dream become a reality. Did I mention this place was only $25 dollars a night (and this in New Zealand dollars)? A steal of a deal. Of course, she mentioned that most of her clientale comes in during the winter months (June, July and August). The place was pretty empty during the late spring here except for another nice couple from Hamburg, Germany who told me lots of great things about the Black Forest and Munich.

All that to say...Raetihi...looks like a ghost town but is a wonderful place.

From there we ventured up to take a boat up the Whanganui River and into Whanganui National Park. This was a beautiful ride and our guide was named Brent from Maori descent. Of course, he knew lots of history when the Maori used to inhabit the land (before colonization) and the different places they lived. The river was like glass and one could easily see the reflection in the waters as we cruised along. Not much manmade around, just pristine nature. There was a couple in the boat with us from somewhere of the north island. They informed me that this was also a famous "walk" of New Zealand (I guess there are about 12 walks) but this walk, one actually did by canoe. Sure enough, we saw a lot of canoers including a couple from Belgium that were rafting the river.

We got out of the river and took a decent hike (New Zealanders think of "hike" as just a walk so they call a longer excursion in the woods "tramping through the bush"). This expedition of tramping through the bush led us to the bridge to nowhere. No, Sarah Palin was in no way involved with this bridge. This is a concrete bridge that was built in 1935. On either side of this bridge, is complete forested terrain. Hence, the bridge to nowhere but ironically, its hard to even get to the bridge to have it lead a person to nowhere. Our guide said there were about 40 families who the government gave this land to after World War 1. They gave them the land to farm which seemed like a bum deal to me. This was incredibly forested and hilly landscape which would have made farming difficult. They built this bridge hoping to develop this spot a little bit more but it did not come to pass. The bridge was built and stays.

Today, we drove from New Plymouth which has a pretty cool museum (which is free) and features Maori history and natural history of the area. Going up to New Plymouth, we had splendid views of Mt. Taranaki (or Mt. Egmont is the British name given by explorer James Cook). This mountain is on the west coast and is an active volcano. They are all active around here.

We also visited the world famous Waitomo caves. This was a huge cavern discovered in the 1800s and really no amount of description could do this place justice. Apparently, there have been famous singers that have come through and sung in a room of the cave that has been deemed the cathedral. Recently, they said Justin Timberlake and Alicia Keyes had come through. Historically, the Beatles once sang there on one of their travels. At the bottom of the cave was a boat (and underneath 6 meters deep of water) that took us further into the cave and gave us a sight of glowworms which are native only to New Zealand and Australia. Glowworms emit light to attract insects which they eat. They hang thin, spiderweb like material to trap insects. They were mostly on the ceiling of this cave which gave the impression of a massive starry night overhead...even though we were in a deep dark cave. This was really something!

We are in Hamilton and nearing the end of our journies in New Zealand...atleast for now. It will be hard to leave this place and I still have not been to Wellington (the capital that is south of the North island) or the south island at all. Perhaps a future trip sometime.

From the Bottom of the World: New Zealand (Part Five)

2009-11-20T17:40:00.002-08:00

(Originally published November 11th, 2009)

If you are living on the west coast of USA and reading this posting, you are reading the writings of a man from the future. I'm exactly 21 hours ahead of pacific time in America. The time is 4:02pm here on Thursday where the time is 7:02pm on Wednesday back in good ole Seattle.

The weather today was brilliant, sunny with some clouds in the sky. Perfect weather to venture into some mountains here in New Zealand. There were some great views (and the appropriate amount of pictures taken). We hiked a little bit on Mt. Ruapehu. This is, I think, the largest peak in New Zealand at 2797 meters. The peak is an active volcano which last erupted in 2006. It also erupted in 1995 and 1996 respectively. Needless to say, I was not blown off the face of the earth or buried under a ton of molten lava. The risk of an explosion today was 1 (being the most minimal). A number 5 would be a "run for your life" sort of deal.

The scenery was pretty brown obviously with the recent eruptions but the peak had a spectacular view of a neighboring mountain, Mt. Ngauruhoe, which is known by Lord of the Rings fans everywhere as Mt. Doom. This is one unique and amazing mountain. Almost a perfect cylinder shooting up into the sky, Mt. Doom sits at 2291 meters. Another mountain is visible in the range as well, Mt. Tongariro. Three mountains all somewhat in a row. There are famous pictures (mostly posters) showing all three mountains in one shot.

Up on Mt. Ruapehu, we learned that there was some filming of Lord of the Rings shots: they filmed where Frodo and Sam captured Gollum and also filmed some battle scenes from Mordor. We also went to Mangawhero Falls which in the creek beds above the drop, they filmed the scene where Gollum catches a fish.

The scenery of these places is unmatched and it is very difficult to put this all into words so I think I will stop right here.

From the Bottom of the World: New Zealand (Part Four)

2009-11-20T17:40:00.001-08:00

(Originally published November 10th, 2009)

I stuck my head out of a hobbit hole today.

After leaving Auckland, I was at the film location for "The Shire" in the Lord of the Rings movies which is outside of Matamata. The set (which still has some of the Hobbit homes) is on a privately owned farm land. We had a guided tour showing us around. The scenery was unbelievable. We were out in the middle of nowhere with rolling green hills, a small little lake, and lots of sheep. The experience was surreal while taking in the fact that Sir Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Peter Jackson (the director), etc had all stood where I was standing and had spent three months shooting scenes there. Of course, the scenes shot at this location were just exterior. All of the interior of the hobbit homes was filmed in a studio in Wellington.

Director Peter Jackson apparently found this bit of remote farm land while flying in a plane over New Zealand looking for the perfect spot to shoot the Shire scenes. The farm is privately owned by the Alexander family who are now probably loaded thanks to New Line Cinemas and Jackson's love of the land.

Our tour guide talked about how meticulous Jackson was as a director and told us crazy stories of his perfectionistic nature. I guess the perfectionism of it all shows in the movies. While the crew was filming at this location, the tour guide explained to us that the government of New Zealand enacted a no fly zone up to 5000 meters so it wouldn't distract the filming. Two planes were actually caught flying over this terrain and they had cameras/video devices abroad. The tour guide said that these pilots lost their flying licenses forever. Hear that folks...don't mess with Peter Jackson.

The tour guide also had funny stories about tourists who would come and go on the tour. We are talking diehard, freaky Tolkien fanatics (which one can probably imagine). He said one guy walked into the Shire, sat down in the middle of a grassy field and started reading the first Lord of the Rings book. The tour guide guessed the guy was checking Peter Jackson's accuracy next to what the book described the Shire as being. Another couple he stated spoke "elvish". Now that one is bizarre to me personally. He said the husband understood English and would translate to his wife in elvish. Um....yeah, I guess in our world people know Klingon as well.

After wandering around the set of hobbiton like some kind of fanatic, we headed further south to Rotorua. This was a town situated by the lake of Rotorua. We took a gondola ride to the top of a small mountain and I road a luge down the mountain. If someone doesn't know what a luge is, the best way to describe is "a wider skateboard that a person sits on". I got some serious speed going down the mountain and the whole experience was quite a rush. The chairlift going up however was annoyingly slow. I road the luge down the mountain three separate times.

From there we visited the Waiotapu Thermal Wonderland. This is a place of geysers, burning sulfur, lots of steam, and the place smelled awful. Walking around this place gives one the impression of being on another planet. All of a sudden, one goes from the rolling, green forested hills of normal New Zealand to...this rocky, colorful rocks and water place that stinks. Despite the smell, the geothermal place was very cool. I imagine this stop would be a geologists dream come true. They had this exhibit called "Oyster pool" or something. I nicknamed this place "the hot tub from hell" because if someone were to go in that small little pool of water that is big enough to be a hottub, they would probably melt.

Tonight, we are at the north eastern tip of Lake Taupo spending the night. This is quite a big lake that is in the center of the north island. Tomorrow, I get to see Mt. Doom ( I guess this is turning into a Lord of the Rings quest) and I get to do some hiking.

Blessings to you all.

From the Bottom of the World: New Zealand (Part Three)

2009-11-20T17:39:00.001-08:00

(Originally published November 9th, 2009)

I stood in a busy section of Auckland today glaring at the Starbucks across the street. About two blocks down the road was another Starbucks. I recall that at one place in Seattle, a person can view three Starbucks from where they are standing. Apparently, Auckland is trying to compete with the very city that founded Starbucks. This also may fuel fun conspiracy theories about Howard Schultz and his company trying to take over the world.

The ride was about 3 hours south today to Auckland- the largest city in New Zealand. There are about 1 million people that live in Auckland and about 4 million people that live in the country. From statistics that I read, 80-85% of people are in an urban living situation in New Zealand. Quite amazing and leaves a lot of room for natural wilderness and some beautiful national parks.

Auckland is a cool city. We went to the skytower today which is sort of comparable to the space needle but only bigger. They have an elevator that takes people up to an observation deck. I went to the main deck and also a higher skyviewing deck. From there, I witnessed a 360 panoramic view of the city. It really was something. The water is very bluish green and clean as it surrounds the very modern looking city with some old historical buildings thrown in for good measure. There is a dormant volcano within view across the bay from the city that last erupted 600 years ago. I witnessed a few people jumping off the skytower observation deck with ropes of course. It was about a 200 meter drop if I remember right and it takes the person all the way to the ground where they have a big bullseye that one lands on. People also bungee jump off the Auckland bridge, over water, and it looked to be about 70 feet down.

I spent a good amount of the day walking around and taking in the city. People here are very friendly from the customs official we first saw, to construction workers, to grocery store clerks that helped us when we got lost the first day. They say Kiwis (New Zealanders) are independent but friendly. This might have been a description of the Seattle area if people didn't seem so cold and closed off.

Tomorrow, we head south to some of the national parks and places where they filmed the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Some interesting, random facts I've learned about New Zealand:

-The country's bird is the Kiwi. Go figure. This is actually a flightless bird that is nocturnal.
-A sidewalk is called a footpath.
-Freeways are called motorways.
-Women were given the right to vote in 1893 pre-dating the women's suffrage movement in the United States by a couple of decades.
-A form of social security was also passed in the 1890s.
-New Zealand has universal healthcare for its 4 million person population.
-There seems to be about a 12.5% tax on everything a person buys which probably helps pay for all of these social programs. The government also gives money to the Maori peoples who are the natives of the island.
-To get to Australia, one would have to sail west through the Tasman Sea more than 900 kilometers.
-A person does not tip in any restaurant in New Zealand. All food is a set price which includes the tax.
-The capital of New Zealand is Wellington. Most of the cast of Lord of the Rings lived in Wellington for 3 years while they were filming. Unfortunately, I won't make it down to Wellington which is in the far south of the North Island.
-A visitor can take a 3 hour ferry ride to the south island (which has the large city of Christchurch) out of Wellington.

From the Bottom of the World: New Zealand (Part Two)

2009-11-20T17:38:00.000-08:00

(Originally published November 8th, 2009)

They say the New Zealander (they are actually called Kiwis) are bad drivers (not nearly as bad, in my opinion, as Spokane drivers). I haven't experienced this side of Kiwis' yet besides a wide range of vehicles that tailgate me every once inawhile. I figure though that this is due to my...well...trying to get my head wrapped around the opposite side of the road. There cannot be any instinct, I have to have purposeful thought as I drive.

We are still in Paihia and plan on leaving tomorrow. We saw another waterfall this morning that was a horseshoe shaped one. We also walked through a rather old forest that is protected by the government. This was a very peaceful experience. We were the only ones on the path except for the birds and natural sounds of the environment which was enchanting in its own right. Some of these trees were massive. Maybe not massive like California Redwood massive but perhaps the next level down.

Then we walked around the area where the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. This was between the British and the Maori tribes who are the natives of New Zealand. The Maori were the natives for thousands of years (anthropologists debate about when they first got here) until the British rolled into town. As always, the natives got screwed by the colonizers and historians recount that the Maori tribes probably didn't even understand what they were signing when the treaty was presented. As a result (and because reportedly the British didn't even hold up their end of the treaty), the Maori today (which number about 16% of the population of New Zealand) get millions in subsidiaries from the government. America gives the Native Americans land, New Zealand gives them cash.

The highlight of the day was the boat tour that we went on. We went out into the Bay of Islands (which was given that name by explorer Captain Cook). I saw the exact site where Captain Cook first landed down here and subsequently got into a conflict with the Maori who welcomed the British explorers with a war dance. Captain Cook eventually started trading with the Maori and things calmed down. He charted and mapped out the islands in extraordinary detail. He counted 144 of them as it leads out to the Pacific Ocean. I saw some gorgeous scenery if I say so myself.

We also passed by a town of Russell which is across the bay from us at Paihia. This looks like a quaint, sleepy town but our tour guide let us know that in the 1800s, the town was rather infamous for the bars and prostitution. The whaling and sea industry were huge and sailors would come into port at Russell to relax...and go crazy. One quote about this town from the 1800s was that it was the "hellhole of the south Pacific." Having just been there, that certainly is hard to believe. How things change and all...

Coming out of Russell (and this adds to the highlight), we saw a school of bottlenose dolphins. They were swimming right up to our boat and jumping out of the water. I have never seen a dolphin in the wild before. I wanted to swim with them but the tour guide was a killjoy and informed us that the dolphins were feeding and had their young with them. We also saw a New Zealand fur seal chilling on some rocks along the tour.

All in all, two days in, this trip has been great so far. I'm fascinated by the history of another place and of course, in awe of the beauty. The world that God has fashioned is remarkedly diverse and pretty. Although, I have been learning about many injustices done in history while down here thus far, it certainly is important to remind myself that no sin is beyond redemption, no matter how wicked or how horrible.

Tomorrow, we drive back to Auckland to explore. I still have a sense of excitement and a random thought of trancendentalist Henry David Thoreau. "Suck the marrow out of life". I don't know if I'll ever be back to New Zealand so I want to suck the marrow out of my experiences here.

From the Bottom of the World: Adventures in New Zealand

2009-11-20T17:36:00.001-08:00

My New Zealand adventures have begun...

I'm alive and am now for the first time on the island of New Zealand. We had a bumpy plane flight to Vancouver BC (I seem to have a thing for Vancouver recently since I just saw U2 play there last week). From Vancouver, we flew 14 hours to Auckland, New Zealand. This is the longest amount of time that I've ever been on an airplane. No worries though. I had some books packed and some new issues of Newsweek to catch up on.

Unfortunately, as Providence would have circumstances, I sat next to a gentlemen on the flight who would fit the cliche description of a "jabberbox". The man would seriously, no overstatement, not stop talking to me. My idea of a 14 hour flight is a balanced one...a lot of sleep, conversing with neighbors, watching a movie, and reading. The fact was that it was difficult to do any of these things except listen to this guy talk about himself. In a way, I felt bad for him. According to him, he had just stopped chemo treatment and had gone on and on about having back problems. He had a wide array of medication (drugs) and this was probably one of the root causes of his behavior. Either the drugs or a disorder of some kind which should probably make me feel more compassion toward him. He got several dirty looks from others on the 747 jetliner and one kind told him directly to "shush" up. With these occurrences, I found it difficult to be mean or direct to him although I probably needed to be. By the end of the flight, he had given me all of his contact information. I said "thanks for the thought" and proceeded to give him none of my contact information.

I cannot complain about that ordeal though. I'm in New Zealand after all. We landed at 7am on Sunday. Somehow, November 7th, 2009 will never exist for me. I boarded a plane on the 6th and now am living on the 8th.

I will be doing most of the driving. They drive on the opposite side of the road here and the steering wheel is in the passenger seat. Right hand turns have become interesting but I'm getting used to a backward kind of driving for me. The item that I'm having the toughest time with is the turn signal. I keep hitting the windshield wiper button which drives me crazy. The blinker is on the right hand side.

Anyways, enough of that stuff. We drove through Auckland and saw the sky tower which was huge. The tower literally seemed like it was piercing the sky. We saw a beautiful waterfall which was 26.2 meters long...Whangarei Falls. I also went driving around near the beaches and saw incredible views of islands and clean, bluish-green water. Unbelievable beauty here. Numerous Bible verses about the beauty of creation come to mind.

Tonight, we are staying in Paihia. This is near the Bay of Islands which is north on the north island of New Zealand. I look forward to continuing to explore. I felt thankful today that I have the opportunity to be here and experience what I have and am going too.

The Webb that Derek Weaves: Review of Stockholm Syndrome

2009-11-20T17:35:00.000-08:00

Congratulations to Derek Webb! He now has the second album of his career that has been banned from some Christian retailers and radio stations across our country. Derek's first and best album, "She Must and Shall Go Free" was not sold in some Christian retail outlets back when it arrived on the scene. Apparently, upper level managers in suburban Christian America were unsettled with the song "Wedding Dress" where Derek calls himself a "whore" and a "bastard child". Nevermind that some of the inspiration for this song comes from the Biblical book of Ezekiel.

The controversy for Derek's latest album, "Stockholm Syndrome", has seemingly gone to an entirely different level. Derek got into a major disagreement with his Christian record label to the point where he sometimes had doubts as to whether the album was going to be released at all. Most of the arguing was centered around one song, "What Matters More" and wouldn't we know it...the controversy centered around the use of the word "shit". The apparently unmentionable word was in the context of Christians being so wrapped up in addressing certain societal sins (that they deem worse than other sins) that they ignore poverty. Long story short, because of this song, the record label agreed to release the album in a clean version and an explicit version. Derek was upset about this decision stating to Christianity Today: "What kind of an artist would I be if I let the constraints of the label that I'm on, or the market that I'm in, dictate the kind of art that I need to be making instinctively? I would not be an artist that should be trusted."

"Stockholm Syndrome" is a ballsy album on a couple of different fronts. The first front is innocent enough and directly involves the evolution of Derek himself as an artist. Derek's long time fans know his roots are solidly in folk rock while starting off as one of the lead singers for Caedmons Call. About 7 years ago, he started a solo career that has now spawned five records. The early records were in the style of singer/songwriter and folk rock. Derek has abandoned this style for the latest album. "Stockholm Syndrome" ventures into an electronica kind of sound with strong elements of hip/hop. I can certainly understand some skeptics at this point raising their eyebrows but having had the album playing the last couple of weeks, I can safely say that the style works.

The second major aspect of ballsiness comes in the form of the lyrics. Derek is decisively less theological and more political with his lyrics. Of course, elements of theology come into play but Derek's challenge is more along the lines of how can Christians who know the gospel hold certain political perspectives. Therein, lies the supreme element of controversy especially given that the record has a strong challenge to the American churches own self-righteous hypocrisy.

On "Freddie, Please", Derek hammers the charlatan pastor Fred Phelps whose church is known for holding up signs: "God Hates Fags" and "God laughs when American soldiers die in Iraq". This church has even shown up at military funerals in our country to hold these reprehensible signs up in front of grieving families. Derek sings, "How can you tell them you love me, when you hate me ? Freddie Please..." And retorts, "Brother, you're the one who is queer."

Other songs include hot button political issues. The civil rights movement is addressed in "Jena & Jimmy" in a very catchy and creative way. In "The State", Derek discusses the potential dangers of big government and in "American Flag Umbrella" sings about civic injustice especially related to immigration:

please take your hands off my brother
please take your laws off my lover
the agents of law
should always be blind and on time
till there’s freedom for everyone

One of my favorite songs is "Becoming a Slave" which certainly fits the definition of the wider album theme of "Stockholm Syndrome":

becoming a slave is easier than you think
there’s always a price to pay
it’s gotta hit somebody’s back
trust me, new worlds don’t just build themselves

progress has more than one face
evil isn’t always itself
there’s nothing you can change without changing
everything else

"Stockholm Syndrome" may be about the church becoming more in love with the very ideas/philosophies (read: sins) that enslave it. The album is certainly provocative and unsettling. In the hands of a lesser artist, the record may have had an angry bent but having listened to the songs quite a bit, I don't sense any anger in Derek's tone. He may be one of the only artists I can think of that can pick at the "elephant in the room" while still sounding gracious.

At any rate, this is a bombshell to the Christian sub-culture in America. Many Christian retail giants and radio stations are staying far, far away. But that doesn't mean that we should.

P.S. I want to post the lyrics to one of my favorite songs on the album which is self-explanatory. The song is "Heaven":

I was killed in a shopping cart
turned upside down and left for dead
i saw a clown try to speak to me
as i floated overhead
i found my way to a familiar place
i swear i’d been sometime before
i would’ve thought it was the marketplace
but i could not find the door

(chorus)
oh i have been to heaven
and i have walked the streets
but i couldn’t find a hand to hold
to keep me on my feet

paradise is a parking lot
a spot up front is your reward
and all the rest walk down streets of gold
to the house they could afford
i got lost in the swelling crowd
i could not afford to eat
you only have what you came in with
so i’m living on the street

(chorus)
oh i have been to heaven
and i found no relief
‘cause i couldn’t find a hand to hold
to keep me on my feet

i heard Jesus Christ was there
he had a car that’s bulletproof
that way everyone is safe
from the man who tells the truth

Thoughts and Acts: The Book of Acts (Introduction)

2009-09-28T19:18:00.001-07:00

Mars Hill Church in Seattle recently started a series on the book of Luke so I decided to explore what most scholars consider Luke's sequel, The Acts of the Apostles.

Acts has always been fascinating to me. Outside of the gospels, it is the only historical narrative that we have in the New Testament. While the 4 gospels focus on the life of our Lord and Savior, Acts reports the aftermath. It is the sequel. The followers of Christ owned His message and took His good news to the world- to Jew and Gentile. The book of Acts is exciting and shows the early church as contagious in their faith. Christianity started with Jesus, was passed to 11 disciples who quickly chose a 12th and then suddenly exploded with 3000 members (Acts 2:41). The message flourished among the poor but also encompassed people from all walks of life: from different cultures, races, religions and economic statuses. Today, this very gospel has almost been preached to every people group in our world which is approaching 7 billion people. The message all started here with the expansion of the church.

The statement that Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and Acts is not widely debated among scholars. The books are almost certainly written by the same author because they contain similar styles of writing (Greek grammar, word usage, etc) and Acts 1:1 ties the author of Acts to the writer of the gospel of Luke through the common name of Theophilus. Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all affirm that Luke is the author of both works. If the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were forged, as some liberal scholars maintain, it seems odd they would attach a relatively obscure figure to the title of the gospel. Luke is not often mentioned in the New Testament (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Philemon v. 24). A forged work might have helped the circulation by attaching a more prominent apostle's name to the gospel in order to insure a greater readership.

Luke writes both his gospel and Acts to the mysterious Theophilus whose name only appears in these two books at the beginning of each. Luke verses 1:1-4 (ESV) state, "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." In the beginning of Acts (1:1-2, ESV), Luke writes: "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen."

Christian scholars often recognize Luke as an early historian. From what I have read, I don't consider Luke primarily a historian. Secondarily, for sure, but based on his comments to Theophilus, he was primarily an evangelist. He was writing an orderly account of the life of Jesus (gospel of Luke) and then the early church in order to persuade an audience (probably mostly Roman and Gentile) that Jesus was the Son of God. He also wrote to persuade that Jesus' immediately followers carried on His truth, frequently at risk of their lives, in order to get this true message out to the world.

Luke was a personal physician (Col. 4:14- called "beloved physician") and was a close traveling companion of Paul's. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul writes, "Luke alone is with me." 2 Timothy is widely viewed among evangelical scholars as being Paul's last epistle that was written at the end of his life. Earlier in 2 Timothy Paul writes, "For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." (4:6-7) Logically, if Luke alone is with Paul at the end of his life, Luke stood as an important figure in Paul's life. Philemon verse 24 has Paul calling Luke his "fellow worker". These are the only references to Luke in the entire New Testament.

Luke, being a doctor, was very well educated in that culture. Simon Kistemaker's commentary on Acts says this, "Luke is an able writer who, compared with other Greek authors, deserves respect and admiration for composing a book that in style, word choice, grammar, and vocabulary takes a place between writers of Koine Greek and those of the classical period. In addition to excellent Greek (including use of the optative and numerous instances of the genitive absolute construction), Luke records many Aramaisms in his account...Perhaps because Luke was recording accounts that were reported to him orally, he often adjusted his style to write popular instead of literary Greek." (New Testament Commentary: Acts, Grand Rapids: Baker House Publishing, pgs 30-31) In other words, Luke would write in his highly stylized Greek but then when quoting what people said he would revert to the "popular" language that they would have spoken or how they would have spoken. Indeed, this speaks to the care and detail that Luke put into his two biblical compositions.

I look forward to exploring Luke's sequel, Acts, and further digging into the history of the early church and the theology that is apparent in this text. The passion and love that the apostles and the early church had for the truth of Jesus Christ is truly inspiring and no one can doubt that they risked all to get his message out to the world so that we could benefit from this message today and be changed.

Healthcare-a-plooza: America's Un-Civil War of Very Loud Shouting

2009-09-02T18:39:00.000-07:00

Let the name-calling begin and the assorted partisan networks start airing their propagandizing banter. Their reporting sometimes resembling outright lies and at other times, a fresh dose of disingenuousness.

The so-called health care debate alas is not about health care. Instead, prominent politicians like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lash out at protesters calling them "Nazis" and other names. Bloated, pompous radio show host Rush Limbaugh retaliates by stating that Pelosi is actually more like a Nazi than any health care protester because of her belief in a centralized government. Other democratic senators have labeled the protesters "KKK members". Conservative radio show host, Mark Levin, has labeled President Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid and others as "tyrannical Marxists" while referring to himself and the millions who listen to him as the "resistance". From his perspective (or atleast the tone that brings him very good radio ratings), the liberal politicians are all but ready to send some of us to the Stalinist gulags. While people scream, "we want our country back!" the ever so provocative Bill Maher cynically asks, "What do you want your country back from...a black guy running it?"

And on and on we go. Not debating or yelling about health care, but yelling about how much the opposing side from us is some form of radical Nazism. A legitimate political debate about how to give people quality and adequate health care at an affordable rate has de-evolved into a sideshow freakfest. The fires of this festival are being fueled by pundits from both sides of the aisle, talking heads on cable news stations, multi-millionaire radio talk show hosts, and angry, screaming citizens. In simpler terms, people are really pissed off.

I can certainly understand why people are raging mad. Some of them are getting paid and organized to be pissed. Leftist organizations like ACORN are busing people in to counter protesters. Some of the protesters at town hall meetings have been linked to national conservative groups who are, in some cases, paying people to be disruptive. Others are inspired by talk show hosts who set their minds ablaze with anger and encourage them to protest. Most people, I think, disagree with policies or where the country is headed and are making their voices heard in rather loud, obnoxious ways.

Certainly, people have a first amendment right to scream and yell whatever the hell they want but I wish that the people of America (right and left) could have a rational and thoughtful conversation about health care without all the annoying drama. One thing that both sides can agree on (I hope) is how vital this issue of health is to our country and that we would wish for everyone to have access to the best health care in the world at an affordable rate.

I don't know how to do that. I want to make that abundantly clear. There is no magical answer I have to solve our nation's health care woes. I don't even think I'm smart enough by any stretch of the imagination to solve this very complicated issue. I do have some thoughts and questions that I would like to pose, to clear my mind, and prayerfully encourage rational and healthy civic debate.

1) The insurance plan, as presented, is a public option- NOT a government takeover. Many conservatives will say that the public option is a stepping stone to a mass government intrusion and maybe that is the case. Maybe President Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Ted Kennedy all meet in some back room of the White House with maniacal smiles as they plot the coming winds of power as they instill their centralized regime. Even if that were the case, this plan- as it is presented right now- is an option. In other words, private insurance would continue. This plan would theoretically compete with private insurance. How this would affect the private industry is certainly a legitimate question and one that is good for debating?

2) How in the hell will we pay for a public insurance option? This is a very important question that I think the left glosses over or completely ignores. Some liberals seem to think that money grows on trees, as the old cliche goes. They fail to realize that money is a finite resource. There is only so much money to go around to pay for government entitlement programs. Nothing is free. Everything costs somebody something.

The Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) has calculated that the dynamic duo of mass government spending, President Bush and President Obama, have already handed our country a $12 trillion dollar debt which is where the number will be in 10 years. Obama's budget this year is expected to top $2 trillion dollars for the first time in American history. Obama, by himself, has spent more money than the fiscal policies of President George Washington to President George W. Bush combined. Now, many want to add health care to the mix.

The first report of the CBO estimated that the health care plan would cost us $1 trillion dollars and only cover 16 million of the 46 million (this number is hotly debated) Americans who are uninsured. They have since revised this plan a few times (after Obama has met with them) but I believe it is safe to assume that this plan will cost us over a trillion dollars.

Obama has said that he will not sign a bill that adds to the federal deficit or raises taxes on middle class Americans (how he defines a "middle class American" is up to your interpretation, of course). This is an absurd comment! He HAS to do one of the other. Rich people in our country (the top 2% of wage earners per household) already pay 55% of the taxes (this according to an article in the July 20th edition of Newsweek). There won't be enough of rich people's money to tax to pay for all of this spending. There will have to be other brackets of Americans that are taxed -OR- we will have to add to the deficit. Maybe there is another way that I don't see.

3) What will a government health insurance plan cover? Will a government plan cover people for everything? Will there be certain procedures that are excluded? If so, who will decide these things? The Left and MSNBC, in particular, want us to believe that rationing will not be a part of the health care bill. While it may be true that rationing doesn't literally appear in the bill, it seems a safe assumption that where ever we have a government program with a particular allocated budget that rationing will occur, will it not? Hypothetically, what if someone has cancer that is on the government plan. Maybe some options are to try an expensive, new therapy or drug which may or may not be effective. Of course, there are less expensive options for treatment for the particular cancer available but what if the expensive new treatment looks very promising? Is the government going to pay for the more expensive treatment or relegate someone to the cheaper option? Again, if this is the case, who makes these decisions?

4) Insurance companies look at all of us through risk analysis. This comment was not stated to make all insurance companies appear evil. I think some liberals go immediately to the simplistic reasoning that all insurance companies are villains. Some insurance companies do abhorrent and evil things...there is no question about that. Other insurance companies are legitimate businesses and do very good things. But, they are businesses and I work in insurance.

Health insurers, specifically, when wanting to cover a person will look at their lifestyle choices and in many cases, will have them get a physical. This is the risk analysis. How many premium dollars can they get from the person who wants to be insured versus how much they may pay out in claims? They are looking to make a profit off of these statistics. If there is someone who has had a few heart attacks and maybe is in poor health, many health insurers will decline to offer coverage to such individuals because they analyze that they may be paying claims out very shortly. This person, who has had multiple heart attacks, may find a company willing to insure them but the premium may be astronomically high.

5) What do we do about insurance companies excluding more and more coverages? The past couple of years, before the economy went down hill, health insurance premiums were going up. With the premiums going up, insurance companies were adding more and more exclusions to their policies. Many Americans, who assume that if they have health insurance are covered for everything, have found that they may not be covered for a particular operation that they may need. Suppose someone needs a kidney transplant or they are going to die. Than this person finds out that their insurance coverage does not cover this particular operation which may cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What will this person do?

6) Given the government's track record, how will the government run a health care program better than other programs? I'm not a fan of big government. Medicare, Medicaid and social security are all running out of money. Newsweek projects that social security will be bankrupt in 2040 or 2050. The Post Office is billions of dollars in debt (and raising stamp prices and may be stopping the delivery of mail on Saturdays). Public education, by a wide margin of opinion, is in deep trouble and in horrible shape. Why should we expect the government to do any better with health care? Can it do better? If so, how?

7) What about the poor in America who do not have access to good health care? This is a powerful question and one that conservatives are not addressing. If conservatives oppose the government getting involved in health care, what are ways that the free market can make health care available to the poor and disenfranchised in our country? This is an issue that needs to be dealt with. People can oppose a larger government which is a perfectly legitimate opinion (and one that I favor) but we have to offer alternative solutions to helping people in real need. I would like to hear the right talk more about this issue.

All in all, this issue is too large and complicated to cover every base or problem that arises with discussing it. But health care needs to be debated preferably without yelling and screaming and threatening people.

I worry about the state of our country. Liberals and conservatives are beginning to define morality, political philosophy, patriotism and other issues in increasingly different ways. They are growing farther and farther apart with any middle ground being swallowed up by partisan warfare. Both parties now have their own specific shouting platforms (MSNBC and Fox News) and other media outlets taking sides. The culture war continues to divide us as Americans and drive us farther and farther from resting on commonly held values.

I end with a quote from historian Will Durant when he was discussing the fall of Rome (which is quoted in the beginning of the film "Apocalypto"): "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within."

Review: The Hurt Locker

2009-08-12T21:13:00.001-07:00

Talk about a movie that an audience member still thinks about days after wandering into a darkened, air conditioned theater to partake, "The Hurt Locker" is a tense military combat thriller. The setting is our current Iraq war, Baghdad 2004, and the film follows an army unit that defuses IEDs. This war film is arguably the best and most intelligent movie made on the Iraq war.

The theme is setup at the very beginning of the film, "The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug." (a quote by Christopher Hedges). Why are soldiers, only some not all, seemingly addicted to the chaos of conflict? These are the questions that the film asks.

Staff Sgt William James (brilliantly played by Jeremy Renner) is the central character of the film. He is not a summer action, cartoonish character but a bomb defusing specialist. His calmness in situations defusing a bomb, his cocky swagger, and even his reckless attitude becomes a rather disturbing matter for the two guys he works with- Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). Sgt James walks confidently toward a bomb in the middle of an Iraqi street, maybe in full view of the person who planted the bomb whom the audience suspects may be looking down upon the situation from a balcony or tower nearby...waiting with a cell phone. One scene has James taking off his bomb suit declaring that there is a big enough bomb to "blow us all to Jesus" so he wants to die comfortably without a suit on...if he dies at all.

The suspense that this film generates is uncanny. It's one thing for a movie to have lots of action and characters who swing machine guns around wildly. It's quite another to have a movie get under an audience's members skin and almost kill them with sheer tension. One can feel the painstaking detail and every ounce of terror as these troops work to diffuse roadside bombs. Hitchcock would have been proud of this film.

The director of this movie is Kathryn Bigelow, a veteran of film whom most people are probably not familiar. One can only imagine how hard she had to lobby to get a film like this made among a bunch of politically correct Hollywood studio heads who want highly budgeted toy commercials made. A person can almost sense the criticism she received,"Why should a woman direct a movie about guys in war?" (There aren't that many female directors in Hollywood oddly enough). Well, she absolutely nails this movie and should be (if this film gets the attention it deserves) on the short list for a best director nomination. Not only is this movie impeccably made, it features great acting from a largely unknown cast. My belief is that great acting from people not as established or from bad actors who happen to turn in a good performance is unequivocally related to a great director. Finally, this was filmed on location in Jordan (which neighbors Iraq) and reportedly, there was trouble finding a production crew that was willing to go to the middle east to make this film to create the aura of authenticity.

Most importantly the movie tells a great story and doesn't delve into political discussions of the Iraq war. This is not about crackpot, liberal politicians preaching to us about this desert war from the confines of their air conditioned Washington DC office. Nor is this about millionaire, blowhard radio talk show hosts who drape themselves in flags and talk about situations of which they have never been involved. This is about the feelings of those in combat as they are consistently involved with painstaking life and death situations and impossible moral dilemmas. One moment, their buddy is next to them and joking with them. The very next moment, he is gone forever in the midst of chaotic and out of control battle. Why would someone become addicted to these situations? How could they get to the point where they love a situation like this even more than they love their family back at home?

The film is too smart to offer any easy answers. My friend, who has been to Iraq, says this is the most accurate movie he has seen on this war which speaks to the exhaustive research of screenwriter Mark Boal, director Bigelow and lead actor Jeremy Renner (who reminds us of a young Russell Crowe). It stands as one of the best movies I have seen in 2009. Now, it needs more attention and more people seeing this work. That means you.

Love and (early) marriage?: My response to "The Case for Early Marriage" in Christianity Today

2009-08-08T16:38:00.003-07:00

Trust me. This topic is not some vain attempt to get people to read my blogs (or is it?). I was reading the recent issue of Christianity Today (August 2009) which had a cover article entitled "The Case for Early Marriage" so I immediately became intrigued and read the piece. I know people (myself included) who have been known to poke fun at or mock couples who have gotten married rather young. Of course, I'm dumb for mocking them because what do I know about marriage? Not much. I just find it sort of odd that people might get married, say, before age 20 or even right out of college at age 22.

My thinking was rather rational. I have read scientific studies that say the male brain, on average, really doesn't mature until about age 25. I know what some of you ladies are saying, "Well, I know a guy whose 40 and..." Yes, we all know guys who are forty who are...well...maturation challenged.

The thinking goes deeper. Should we really consider marrying someone when we really don't know who we are yet? In other words with the way our society is setup, can we really know ourselves right after graduating college before we even jump into a career or join the "real world" (whatever the hell that is?) When do we truly "know ourselves"? What rite of passage do we need to travel through?

This article in Christianity Today was written by a sociologist at the University of Texas named Mark Regnerus. Indeed, he states he has gotten quite a bit of crap for his position of advocating for earlier marriages. He states: "..after years of studying the sexual behavior and family decision-making of young Americans, I've come to the conclusion that Christians have made much ado about sex (remember all those youth group abstinence talks) but are becoming slow and lax about marriage- the more significant, enduring witness to Christ's sacrificial love for His bride. Americans are taking flight from marriage. We are marrying later, if at all, and having fewer children." (pg. 23)

His primary reason for wanting earlier marriages appears to be to eliminate sexual tension in Christian young people. The assumption here is that if someone truly does love Christ and wants to live for Him, they will want to follow His commands (John 14:15) and remain chaste until marriage. The average marriage age of women in the United States is 26. For men, it is 28 (and I'm now 29 and past that). The author compares these statistics to 1970: the average age for marriage back then was 21 for women and 23 for men.

Looking at these stats, the dilemma is quite obvious. Christian people who are striving to follow Christ and hopefully trying to remain pure in their single life are waiting longer to get married. In doing so, they are going through the most intense time in their lives as far as sex drive is concerned. Scientists routinely identify that hormonally, a man's sex drive is more powerful from 18-24 than it will be the rest of his life. Most Christian guys are going through this period being single.

The apostle Paul has a rather interesting instruction in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." This seems like Paul is saying something similar to the author of the article. If one really wants to have sex, they should get married. However, it is important to understand the context of this passage. Many Biblical scholars have postulated that the apostle Paul believed that the return of Christ is coming very soon as in before he would die. I don't know if this is true but later on in the passage, Paul does talk about this "present crisis" (v.26) and for my money, the crisis is that Christians were being burnt at the stake in Nero's garden parties. In other words, why be focused on marriage when persecution is heavy and we may all die soon? Many have interpreted 1 Corinthians 7 as Paul downgrading marriage. I think he does no such thing.

Having said all of this, is the instruction really helpful to tell young people to get married so they can have sex? I'm assuming as a 29 year old guy knowing nothing about marriage that marriage is a whole lot more than sex. Ha! Probably safe to say, right?

This is perhaps my main objection to the article although I will put myself in the category of certainly understanding the author's point. To be clear, he is not saying sex is the only reason to marry young but he definitely argues that this would help the sexual tension in believers who are seeking to follow the Lord.

He identifies objections to young marriage in the article and offers his thoughts. I will summarize the points and add my questions/thoughts:

1) Economic insecurity. I think this is an important factor for sure and one that is touted often. Biblically, a guy and girl should be concerned about how they would potentially provide for a family. Then again, there are many people who marry in poverty and have wonderful marriages. How much money does one need in order to be ready for marriage?

2) Immaturity. I already touched on this one earlier in my blog but here is my thought now: Who is EVER ready for marriage? Who is EVER as mature as they can be for marriage? We are all constantly growing, learning, repenting and so on. How do you know that you are ready when you are probably never going to feel ready or as ready as you want to be?

3) A poor match. Compatibility is important and people against earlier marriages again cite this reason as a case against it. Does a person really know who they want to spend the rest of their life with at 20? How about 22? But then again, how about 30? Marriage is a commitment no matter what age a person is at the time of marriage. My friend Jake Wilkinson (who is married) says that "Love is a learned response to commitment over time". I like that quote.

Whether we agree with an article like this or not, I think we can all agree that the piece argues a provocative topic. Why do many of us delay marriage for so long? I can certainly ask this of myself and there are many reasons as to why I'm single. Are we holding out for good reasons? Maybe we are looking to get economically stable which may not be a bad thing. Maybe God is working with us on things about our character and there are sins we would like to conquer before thinking about marriage.

I would like to think that a lot of us have good reasons but I suspect (including myself) that more often than not, our reasons may wade into selfish territory. Perhaps a lot of us have unrealistic expectations. This is defined as us demanding a member of the opposite sex be a certain way (more often than not- physically) before we would consider dating them. Maybe we have let a very self-indulgent culture contribute to our own thinking and we avoid commitment because we don't want to be sacrificial. We like our single lives and refuse to consider drastically changing our lives to include someone else.

Of course, we can't judge others because these matters are all about the heart. People can marry at any age, within the will of God, and it certainly is clear that people can be happy (or miserable) after marrying at any age. Most of our reasons are probably very complex and I guess that's why I wanted to write this blog. To explore the issues/thoughts/dilemmas that may keep some of us from settling down.

Also, this entire blog is written with the full knowledge that singleness and marriage are both good things. One is not better than the other. God values singleness but He also, clearly, values marriage by providing Adam and Eve (thereby the rest of us) with this gift.

Spiritual Citizens: What is a Christian's Responsibility in the Realm of Politics?

2009-07-29T17:49:00.000-07:00

The other night, I got into a good discussion with friends about the very important issue of what a Christian's involvement in politics should be.

If there is any issue that causes great debate these days within the confines of Christian community, the examination of a Christian's responsibility in the area of political activism is sure to elicit a passionate response. We are blessed to live in a nation where anyone can air their political views (no matter how radical) and with this truth, several questions arise as to how much a Christian should be involved in national political affairs and specifically what the church should do.

Should a Christian have a role in a nation's politics? If so, to what extent? What issues should a Christian give a passionate voice toward? Should a Christian align themselves with a particular political party?

As we know, the latter question can especially be a divisive one. In the late 1970s, after the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1972, influential Christian personalities such as Jerry Falwell and Dr. James Dobson heavily persuaded millions of Christians to embrace the Republican party which had adopted a pro-life platform. President Ronald Reagan (the hero of the conservative wing of the Republican party) was elected in 1980, spoke often of being pro-life, and was heavily voted for by evangelical Christians. Many Christians to this day support the Republican party largely because of the pro-life issue. Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's architect of his two election campaigns, called evangelicals the key to victory in 2000.

Other Christians, of course, have remained skeptical of the Republican party's involvement with evangelical Christians. Many Christians, who way very well be pro-life as well, embrace the democratic party because of the focus on the government helping the poor, needy and oppressed voices in society. Jim Wallis and his sojourners have criticized the Republican party for cynically manipulating faith in order to get votes. Singer Derek Webb provocatively sings, "There are two great lies that I've heard. The day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die. And that Jesus Christ was a white, middle class Republican..." (from "A King and a Kingdom" on Mockingbird). Of course, the statement is absurd to say that Jesus is a republican just like it is absurd to say that Jesus is a democrat or libertarian. Still more Christians around the world live under monarchys, communist governments (even regimes), or European-brand socialism.

I believe the fact is quite clear that a Christian can be anyone of these options. A Christian can even believe in non-involvement in government policies which many Mennonites (starting with Menno Simons) and other denominations have done. The body of Christ is certainly diverse in the realm of political perspectives.

What does the Bible say about involvement in politics and what did Christ teach? Not too much, in my opinion. The Old Testament deals with a theocracy with the nation of Israel and then a monarchy. The New Testament talks a lot about Christ's coming kingdom which is definitely spiritual and physical and tied to the 2nd Coming. There are a few nuggets to be gleaned from the Scripture on a Christian's involvement in government and politics:

In Matthew 22:20-22, Jesus tells His disciples to pay taxes:

20"and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away." (NIV)

Obviously, this would have been a shocking sentiment. A lot of Jewish people living in this culture and time did not like Roman rule over them. In some their minds, they awaited a Messiah who would lead a revolt against Roman rule. Jesus said similar things in: Mark 12:16-18 and Luke 20:24-26.

A powerful and telling comment by Jesus in regard to the relationship with the state is found in John 18:35-37:

35"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." (NIV)

Jesus in saying "My kingdom is not of this world" establishs an important precedent for all Christians, regardless of their political persuasions to keep in mind. Our allegiance as believers is to a higher kingdom. This is a kingdom of our Lord where sin does not reign and a kingdom that is coming led by Him who we look forward to seeing. On these points, all believers can have unity as we discuss our political differences.

With these facts, the questions still arise. What should our level of involvement be? Faith in Christ affects every aspect of one's life and also should change our thinking to be in line with His teachings.

I myself, obviously, believe we have a tremendous opportunity to make our voices heard in the free society of America. However, we have to keep in mind that this country was founded on religious freedom. The right that we have to express our beliefs and views is the same right that other religions (of whom we disagree) have to express their beliefs as well as atheists and agnostics. America is not a theocracy and should not be one.

The Life and Death of Dr. George Tiller

2009-06-14T17:26:00.001-07:00

The media has exploded with coverage of the shocking murder of Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller was known as one of only three doctors in the country who would perform "late term abortions" (defined as an abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy). Reportedly, he performed an estimated 60,000 late term abortions which made him a multi-millionaire. He contributed to Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius's campaign (a fact which Governor Sebelius dutifully tried to hide).

The result of the shooting has fanned the flames of the abortion debate in America and has set off a war between media outlets (particularly Fox News and MSNBC).

The shooting of Dr. Tiller is appalling. Vigilante justice is not justified in our society because we have the due process of law which allows us to rally to change laws through the electoral process. I have always understood the pro-life movement as a peaceful movement. Those of us involved in the pro-life movement are against, what we believe to be, a "violent act" committed against an unborn human being. We hold a high view of human life which should include respecting not only unborn children but the lives and well-being of those whom we disagree. This includes those who we would deem "political enemies".

David N. O’Steen, director the National Right to Life Committee released this statement on May 31, 2009: "National Right to Life extends its sympathies to Dr. Tiller’s family over this loss of life. Further, the National Right to Life Committee unequivocally condemns any such acts of violence regardless of motivation. The pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life. The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal." Indeed, everyone should express their thoughts and prayers toward the Tiller family during this time.

Going in a different direction, I'm not only offended by the murder of Dr. Tiller but am concerned about how some in the media are presenting this situation in light of the larger debate of partial-birth abortion (late term abortions).

I was watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC (his June 1st show). Throughout his program, Mr. Olbermann blamed personalities at Fox News and seemingly outspoken pro-life people in general for inciting violence against Dr. Tiller. He specifically mentioned Glenn Beck's name as well as Bill O'Reilly because both Mr. Beck and Mr. O'Reilly have apparently reported on their programs on the actions of Dr. Tiller and have repeatedly condemned his actions over the years.

I don't often listen to Glenn Beck or watch his show and I'm not a huge fan of Bill O'Reilly but I find the point that Mr. Olbermann was making deeply offensive. Has Mr. Beck or Mr. O'Reilly EVER advocated violence toward Dr. Tiller or any abortion doctor on their respective programs? Mr. Olbermann cited a whopping ZERO examples of them doing so. He played lots of clips of Mr. O'Reilly talking about how horrible the fact is that Dr. Tiller was killing thousands of unborn fetuses. Mr. O'Reilly was then blamed on this MSNBC show for inspiring the murder of Dr. Tiller.

Here is Mr. Olbermann's logic on this point:

1) Bill O'Reilly is deeply offended and against partial birth abortion. He repeatedly spoke out against this on his show.
2) Dr. Tiller was murdered by a right wing extremist (who belonged to an anti-government group).

Therefore, Mr. O'Reilly is responsible for inciting Dr. Tiller's death.

By this line of reasoning, any person who found Dr. Tiller's actions evil or reprehensible is apparently a co-conspirator in the death of Dr. Tiller. Especially if these people have verbally spoken out against such actions.

I personally have heard of Dr. Tiller long before his shooting. I have been deeply troubled and offended by this man's actions from the moment I heard about him. His actions were evil, they were immoral...this man ended the lives of an estimated 60,000 human beings. That is 60,000 potential United States citizens. Since the fetus is viable at this point of late term abortion and can live outside of the womb, I personally would call this infanticide.

Some in the media would argue that by writing this, I am condoning violence and wishing for people to hurt abortion doctors. I AM NOT! I am stating what I believe to be true about a person's actions. I would never and have never wished Dr. Tiller or any abortion doctor to be dead. Never! At the same time, I am offended by their actions.

With all of this, I hope that all of those in the pro-life movement would absolutely condemn violent actions against abortion doctors or pro-choice people. I pray that the movement would be peaceful and would work within the confines of the law of our government to debate and further our cause.

Inspiration and Biblical Difficulties (Ehrman Part 2)

2009-05-24T18:27:00.001-07:00

Oh, this blog will be long. Just a warning. There are a lot of issues to deal with in regard to this topic.

First and foremost, as a Christian, I believe that the Holy Scriptures (from Genesis to Revelation) are inspired by God and they are His very Word. "...and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." (Paul to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:15-16, NIV) Furthermore, 2 Peter 1:21 says, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (NIV)

These passages clearly communicate the status of "Scripture" as being "God-breathed" by the Holy Spirit. The interesting fact regarding these two passages, as they were written by Paul and Peter, is that the New Testament canon was not formed when these letters were written. The earliest listing of the New Testament books being recognized as Scripture (altogether) is by Athanasius in 367 AD with one of his festival letters. He records all of the books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament in regards to them being Scripture. When Paul and Peter wrote their respective letters, what did they regard as Scripture when they wrote? They may not have realized that they were writing God's Word, which would be canonized over time, but they set forth the precedent that Scripture (what would become Scripture) is given by God as inspired and truthful.

Of course, Bart Ehrman challenges the very ideas of inspiration and inerrancy (as I commented about in my first post on this topic). He claims that what he perceives as discrepancies or Biblical difficulties call into question this doctrine. While he certainly raises some fascinating points that should be wrestled with by anyone, I will argue that the points that he brings up do not really change any essential doctrine of Christianity. I will bring up some of the challenges that he makes to the New Testament (no space to bring up all of them) and then will comment on them myself:

JESUS' BIRTH

Ehrman accuses the Bible of historical inaccuracy in the accounts of Jesus' birth (which are only in Matthew and Luke). He claims that in the historical record, there is no evidence or another ancient source mentioning that King Herod was slaughtering children in or around Bethlehem at this time. In fact, this is only mentioned in Matthew's gospel. Not in any others.

Furthermore, he challenges Luke's records of Caesar Augustus, "For one thing, we have relatively good records from the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home." (pg. 32)

He also cites what he thinks are discrepancies between the two gospels. "Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew. Matthew mentions dreams that came to Joseph that are absent in Luke; Luke mentions angelic visitations to Elizabeth and Mary that are absent in Matthew. Matthew has the wise men, the slaughter of children by Herod, the flight to Egypt, the Holy Family bypassing Judea to return to Nazareth- all missing from Luke. Luke has the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Caesar, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger and the inn, the shepherds, the circumcision, the presentation in the Temple, and the return home immediately afterward- all of them missing from Matthew." (pg. 33)

These arguments by Ehrman are not particularly strong, in my opinion. Just because archeologists have not uncovered evidence of a census or Herod slaughtering children does not mean that these respective events did not happen. People have ridiculed Biblical accounts through the centuries about there being no evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah existing or that the city of Tyre did not exist. This past century, we now have evidence that both of these cities did in fact exist in ancient times. I know I'm making an argument from silence but perhaps, we may find other evidence one day besides the Biblical account.

Furthermore, differing accounts in Matthew and Luke should surprise no one. All scholars agree that Matthew and Luke wrote independently of one another and used Mark (the earliest gospel) as a common source. Just because these two books emphasize accounts that differ (and I might add, do not necessarily contradict) does not mean that there are discrepancies between the two gospels.

MATTHEW'S GOSPEL QUOTES THE WRONG PROPHET

A minor but interesting issue:

"When Matthew indicates that Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, he notes (as by now we expect of him) that this was in fulfillment of Scripture: 'Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, 'And they took the thirty pieces of silver...and they gave them for the potter's field.'' (Matthew 27:9-10). The problem is that this prophecy is not found in Jeremiah. It appears to be a loose quotation of Zechariah 11:3" (Ehrman, pg. 51)

Matthew apparently whiffed at quoting the right Old Testament book. What is ironic is Ehrman actually quoted the wrong verse as well! The passage is actually Zechariah 11:12,13 (I guess Ehrman was close enough). His point still stands, however, that the prophecy that Matthew quotes is not in Jeremiah- it is found in a loose paraphrase in Zechariah.

Zechariah 11:12-13 reads, "Then I said to them, 'If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.' So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me: 'Throw it to the 'potter'- that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter." (NKJV)

John MacArthur's study Bible has an interesting note on this issue: "...the Hebrew canon was divided into 3 sections. Law, Writings and Prophets. Jeremiah came first in the order of prophetic books, so the Prophets were sometimes collectively referred to by his name." (MacArthur Study Bible, pg. 1447)

The problem with MacArthur's perspective is that I can't think of any Jewish source that referred to the "Prophets" as Jeremiah collectively. Is there a source out there? I'm unaware of it.

WHEN DID JESUS DIE?

Ehrman discusses next what he alleges is a discrepancy about the exact day that Christ died. He says this discrepancy occurs between Mark and John. The alleged discrepancy is between Mark 15:25 when Christ was crucified in this gospel and John 19:14 which has the account that Jesus was on trial during the same time that He was crucified in Mark's account.

Ehrman writes: "After the meal they go out. Jesus is betrayed by Judas, appears before the Jewish authorities, spends the night in jail, and is put on trial before Pontius Pilate, who finds him guilty and condemns him to be crucified. And we are told exactly when Pilate pronounces the sentence: 'It was the Day of Preparation for the Passover, and it was about noon.' (John 19:14)

Noon? On the Day of Preparation for the Passover? The day the lambs are slaughtered? How can that be? In Mark's Gospel, Jesus lived through that day, had his disciples prepare the Passover meal, and ate it with them before being arrested, taken to jail for the night, tried the next morning, and executed at nine o'clock A.M on the Passover day. But not in John. In John, Jesus dies a day earlier, on the Day of Preparation for the Passover, sometime after noon. I do not think this is a difference that can be reconciled." (pg. 26-27)

This is an interesting challenge by Ehrman. I consulted the book, "When Critics Ask", by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe who respond to this challenge with a rebuttal that Ehrman does not acknowledge in his book: "Both Gospel writers are correct in their assertions. The difficulty is answered when we realize that each Gospel writer used a different time system. John follows the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system. According to Roman time, the day ran from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hour period began in the evening at 6pm and the morning of that day began at 6am. Therefore, when Mark asserts that at the third hour Christ was crucified, this was about 9am. John stated that Christ's trial was about the sixth hour. This would place the trial before the crucifixion and this would not negate any testimony of the Gospel writers." (pg. 376)

I would add that this point by Geisler and Howe makes perfect sense. Mark was the first gospel and may have been written when the early Christian church was largely Jewish. The gospel of John is universally accepted as being written later (possibly in the 80s or 90s) when there would have been more Gentile converts.

JESUS' RESURRECTION

"Who actually went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem- possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and 'other women' (Luke 24:1; see 23:55)? Had the stone already been rolled away from the tomb (as in Mark 16:4) or was it rolled away by an angel while the women were there (Matthew 28:2)? Whom or what did they see there? An angel (Matthew 28:5)? A young man (Mark 16:5)? Two men (Luke 24:4)? Or nothing and no one (John)? And what were they told? To tell the disciples to 'go to Galilee', where Jesus will meet them (Mark 16:7)? Or to remember what Jesus had told them 'while He was in Galilee', that he had to die and rise again (Luke 24:7)? Then, do the women tell the disciples what they saw and heard (Matthew 28:8), or do they not tell anyone (Mark 16:8)? If they tell someone, whom do they tell? The eleven disciples (Matthew 28:8)? The eleven disciples and other people (Luke 24:8)? Simon Peter and another unnamed disciple (John 20:2)? What do the disciples do in response? Do they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appeared to them (Matthew 20:9)? Do they not believe the women because it seems to be 'an idle tale' (Luke 24:11)? Or do they go to the tomb to see for themselves (John 20:3)?" (Ehrman, pg 48-49)

Again, while these are some interesting issues that Ehrman raises, there are certainly ways that they can be addressed. There could have been multiple trips to the tomb by women or there could have been different groups of women going to the tomb who were there at different times and left at different times.

Furthermore, even if a critic wants to see these issues as "discrepancies", the fact remains that all four gospels speak that Jesus was crucified and rose again. Those major elements of Christianity are accounted for in each gospel account (and they are even accounted for in extra Biblical materials).

CONCLUSION

Finally, I think it is important for believers to be aware of these issues in the Scripture. These issues are a part of having a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible, which I don't possess, but hope to continue striving to learn more. These issues are now appearing in popular books, on the history channel and even on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". Christians need to be aware of Biblical scholarship and the current issues that scholars wrestle with.

Throughout his book, Ehrman simply encourages people to study the Bible more...and how can I disagree with him on this point. His book, "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the hidden contradictions in the Bible and why we don't know about them" has caused me to recently study the gospels intensely yet again.

Inerrancy of the Bible and Bart Ehrman

2009-05-16T14:20:00.001-07:00

My philosophy professor, Dr. Skip Forbes, used to have a mischievous grin on his face in our college New Testament class. He would hold up his worn, leather bound Bible in the middle of class and declare, 'This book did not drop out of heaven one day." He would go on to explain that the Bible was the product of many people writing (or orally transmitting the accounts) over thousands of years, multiple authors, diverse cultures and several languages. The Bible, as affirmed by us Christians as the Word of God, stands as the most influential and well regarded book in the history of western civilization (and one could argue the world entire). Thinking of the Bible as the Word of God leads Christians to attribute the Bible to be inerrant in its accounting of history and events as well as infallible in the authority of the book in a believer's life.

Wayne Grudem, author of Systematic Theology, has this definition of inerrancy: "The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. This definition focuses on the question of truthfulness and falsehood in the language of Scripture. The definition in simple terms just means that the Bible always tells the truth, and that it always tells the truth concerning everything it talks about. This definition does not mean that the Bible tells us every fact there is to know about any one subject, but it affirms that what it does say about any subject is true." (pg. 90-91)

This definition makes sense according to the Christian perspective of God. God is holy and perfect therefore the Word that He inspires should be inerrant and true in the discussion of events and history contained therein.

I've heard pastors speak from the pulpit about how to handle people who say the Bible has errors. The pastor usually says something akin to this, "Well, we hand that person our Bible and say, 'Show me where? Where are the errors?'" The pastor usually has some story about the skeptical person not being able to find an error. Of course, this challenge is based on a presupposition that is very true. Most people don't KNOW the Bible. Most people in our society can't name the ten commandments. Some people think the sermon on the mount has something to do with baseball. Most people in the church don't know the Bible very well and even if they do, they have not intensely studied the text. How can they be expected to find an error...if an error even existed?

Bart Ehrman is someone who has studied the Bible for a good part of his life and has entire sections committed to memory. Personally, I first heard of Bart Ehrman while listening to a podcast sermon by John Piper. Piper mentioned in passing a guy named Bart Ehrman who was from his alma mater, Wheaton College (I wonder if these two guys were perhaps classmates). Piper commended his congregation to pray for Dr. Ehrman who "had walked away from the faith." I believe this was after Ehrman published his New York Times bestselling "Misquoting Jesus" in 2006.

Anyways, before Wheaton College, Ehrman had attended Moody Bible Institute. Ehrman claims that by all accounts he was a professing conservative, evangelical Christian. The story continues with him attending Princeton Seminary where he claims he was ready to argue with the "liberal" professors for the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. I'm assuming his "discoveries" about the Bible happened over time but he came to the place of being convinced of Biblical errors which threw him into a whirlwind of doubt. Ironically, he claims that the alleged Biblical errors are not what made him leave the faith for agnosticism but his trouble of dealing with the issue of theodicy (why a good, gracious God allows so much suffering in the world- OR- just plainly, the problem of evil)

I plan on writing a few articles about my responses and challenges to Dr. Ehrman after reading his book, "Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible and why we don't know about them". This book is not a grand work of theological, non-fiction literature and I find that he repeats himself fairly frequently in these pages, but this book's ideas in many ways have challenged me in my Christian convictions about what I think of the Bible.

I believe wholeheartedly that Jesus Christ is divine and fully man and that He rose from the grave. I won't be discussing those issues, per se, but will be talking about how we view the Bible as it is the Word of God.

Let me end with a question: if there were discrepancies, seemingly contradictory accounts, or difficulties in the Bible...how would this affect your Christian faith?

***A final footnote: Go back and read Grudem's definition of inerrancy. Notice how he says, "original manuscripts" when referring to inerrancy. Most church doctrinal statements have these same words. We don't have the original manuscripts.

The Best Films of 2008

2009-05-02T23:12:00.001-07:00

I always have to give a disclaimer before I make such a list as the best movies of any particular year. That disclaimer is that I have by no means have seen every movie that came out in 2008. Not even close. I don't have the time and don't want to wade through heaping piles of celluoid crap (although it is fun to give negative reviews). I choose my movies based on what I think looks good and by what my various trusted sources tell me is good. Every once inawhile I feel adventurous and might watch something that I normally wouldn't see.

I have a tradition of watching all 5 nominees for the Oscar best picture race every year and I have done that again. Someone may notice that only 1 of those best picture nominees even made my list. No "Slumdog" (although this was a good movie), No "Benjamin Button" (good as well but sort of like Forrest Gump and a little long), No "Reader" (this movie sucked and further proves that Harvey Weinstein buys his way into the best picture race), and no "Milk" (this movie has extraordinary acting and not just from Sean Penn).Here is a top 7 from 2008. I want to feel different, I guess, so that's why I don't want to do a top 10.

7) In Bruges- This is a great, dark comedy somewhat in the style of the Coen Brothers. The movie is about two hitmen from Dublin who are ordered by their boss to lay low in Bruges, Belguim. There are funny moments as well as thrilling moments and in the end, "In Bruges" becomes a film to ponder upon. The theme of judgment that pervades this movie is provocative and thought-provoking.

6) Frost/Nixon- Not only is this a well-made film built around a somewhat simple premise, it feels incredibly timely. The movie delves on themes of the liberal/conservative divide and of course, Nixon's assertion that a liberal media was out to take him down. These thoughts that the characters had were alive and well in 1973 and today, it seems like ideologically driven news with a particular partisian bent is all there is out there. The performances in the film are outstanding with Frank Langella and Michael Sheen not just trying to impersonate real life characters but channel their thoughts and emotions. This movie sometimes feels like a cat-and-mouse thriller. The reporter trying to dig for a confession and embattled president trying to make it through the interview and collect his cash. "I'm saying if the president does it, it's NOT illegal." There probably was not a more haunting line to be found in the movies last year.

5) Ne le dis a personne (Tell No One)- The film that would have made Alfred Hitchcock proud. This French thriller is riveting from beginning to end. The story revolves around a man whose wife is brutally killed and 8 years later, he emerges (again) as a prime suspect. But is she actually dead and what is with the bizarre plot twists that keep happening? The strange thing about this movie is just when the viewer believes that they have found multiple plot holes, this movie goes and explains them all in a rational way. Compared with other French films I've seen, this one really has a different feel to it.

4) Doubt- There was probably not a better acted movie last year than this one. The cast deserved every reward they won. Faith and doubt and all that is in between take center stage in this work. The miraculous thing about this movie is that even with the ambiguous feel that it evokes, the film still manages to be intriguing and powerful.

3) Wall E- Pixar is not only the king of animation but they are probably one of the most consistent studios in pumping out high quality films. Their track record for great movies is unbelievable. Here is another...a movie brimming with biting irony. Robots feeling love and evoking emotion while humans are pampered and lazy is ironic and has unnerving rings of truth as we think about the future. An environmental message is in full force as well as humans have trashed the planet and now live on space ships. The movie is bold and is not only a good movie for children but a thinker for adults. Wall-E is a revolutionary film for the animated and sci-fi genre at the same time.

2) The Dark Knight- Director Christopher Nolan from “Memento” to “The Dark Knight” has not made a bad film. As a matter of fact, he hasn’t even made a mediocre one. This movie feels like an absolute classic action-adventure film from the get go. I thought of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and other action movies and subsequent effect that those movies have had on pop culture. There is not much more to say about this movie that hasn’t already been said and written about. It contains great performances (especially from Heath Ledger and not just for sentimental reasons), stunning action sequences, and social commentary related to our own political times. How does a society stop a raving, anarchist maniac hell-bent on blowing things up and killing people? Those issues are wrestled with in the film and there are no easy answers. However, the bottom line is: this is one exciting film.

1) Gran Torino- I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood (so that might be a bias in this decision) especially the director/actor's work from Mystic River to Gran Torino. This movie is definitely among the best work Eastwood has ever done. Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a retired Detroit autoworker whose wife has just passed away. He is one of the only white people left in a neighborhood that is becoming increasing diverse. He is bitter, angry and racist. He frequently launches profanity laced, racist diatribes against his Hmong neighbors. When the next door teenager, Tao tries to steal Eastwood's prized Gran Torino, Eastwood reluctantly becomes involved in the family's life. As the movie goes on, he discovers he has much more in common with these neighbors than his own family- who seem all too eager for him to kick the bucket so they can collect on his inheritance. Of course, a monumental moral dilemma comes into play and Eastwood is left with a stark choice. Some people criticized this movie for having a predictable ending. This movie is not about having a surprise ending or "pulling the rug out" from underneath the viewer. This is a movie about atonement and redemption for deep wrongs that have been committed. Eastwood has said this will be his last acting performance. If that is true, he goes out with a performance equally as ugly as it is powerful and redemptive.

Review: Doubt

2009-04-25T14:10:00.001-07:00

"Doubt" is one of the best movies that I saw in 2008. The film unravels an unsettling and ambiguous story that takes place in 1964 at St. Nicholas in the Bronx. Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysius who is a strict, traditional nun who seems uncomfortable at the reforms taking place within the Catholic Church via Vatican II (then still going on).

In the movie, she carries out an undeclared war against the Parish priest, Father Flynn, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. She is particularly rattled by a progressive sermon preached by Father Flynn in the beginning of the film on the subject of (you guessed it) "Doubt". She also hates ballpoint pins and seems rather uncomfortable with the racial integration that is beginning to take place in the school.

The final issue becomes a rather poignant issue within the story. One African American student, Donald Miller (Joseph Foster II) is attending the school and is mocked by many of his fellow caucasian classmates. Father Flynn takes Donald under his wing. He encourages Donald in sports and appoints him as an altar boy. The incredibly sweet, but naive, Sister James (Amy Adams) notices that Donald is being called to the rectory...alone...to meet with Father Flynn. Upon the boys return, he is acting "funny" and appears to have drunk communion wine.

Sister James reports these findings to Sister Aloysius and the battle is taken to a whole new level. Sister Aloysius accuses Father Flynn of the unthinkable. She believes that Father Flynn has taken advantage of a boy in a tough social situation for devious purposes. Father Flynn denies these charges stating that he has compassion on the boy due to the circumstances that he was facing.

Sister Aloysius is "certain" and says she has her "certainty" that there has been an improper relationship between the boy and Father Flynn. There is only one little, tiny problem. There is no evidence.

What becomes of this is a dramatic battle, filled with incredible tension, created by some of the best actors/actresses in the world. There probably was not a better acted film last year with Philip Seymour Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and a rousing performance by Viola Davis.

The movie is based upon John Patrick Shanley's Pulitizer and Tony award winning play. He has successfully directed the piece to a motion picture adaptation.

Some viewers may be frustrated, in the end, by the ambiguity. The point of this film is not "did he do it or not". The theme of the film is faith and doubt and the relationship between the two. In regard to the situation that arises, all the characters believe things and are certain about the things that they believe. But are their beliefs accurate?

The nature of faith implies some element of doubt, does it not? The term "leap of faith" implicates a risk. Everyone has faith: the Christian, the atheist, the Buddhist, the Hindu, etc. Therefore, everyone has doubt...to one degree or another.

The unknown writer of Hebrews says, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Other translations replace "certain" with "confident". Indeed, the difference between certain and confident is massive.

This unnerving principle is at the heart of "Doubt". The movie comes highly recommended.

To Do or Not to Do? Questioning the Axiology of Government

2009-04-25T14:07:00.001-07:00

Newsweek has proclaimed on a recent cover, “We are all Socialists now!” but according to a recent USA today poll (on the cover of the April 15th edition), many Americans are not feeling the same sentiment. 44% of people polled disapprove of, what they view, as the Obama Administration’s massive expansion of the federal government. 39% approve of expanding the federal government to help with the current economic crisis but once the crisis is over, they favor reducing government. I guess this is the pragmatic view. Only 13% favored continually expanding the government through the crisis and beyond. 4% of people seemed conflicted and confused about which is the best route.

This has got to be disheartening for liberals who, in general, believe in a larger role of government in the public’s life. I have always thought that in the American DNA, there is a strain of rugged individualism. This is what may separate our culture from the societies of many of countries in the world. The director and actor Clint Eastwood once stated that he is a republican because he wants the government to “leave him the hell alone.” (My paraphrase)

Further frustration for liberals may come in the fact of the last election. Yes, they won the election based on a well-run and brilliantly orchestrated campaign by Barack Obama. They also won the senate races in 2006. However, looking at the numbers from the last presidential election, one can entertain some interesting facts. Most people, even some conservatives, view George W. Bush’s presidency as a failure. The republican name brand was severely damaged by Bush administration officials through numerous scandals, a controversial war in Iraq and the economic meltdown. As the election results rolled in on that big night in November 2008, we would discover that 58 million Americans still voted for the republican candidate, John McCain, compared to 66 million that voted for President Obama. A republican received approximately 47% of the popular vote when many people in the country viewed his party as the reason for why we were in an atrocious mess. Those are staggering numbers. Could it be that many people automatically vote against democratic or liberal candidates largely because of their views of a larger government being involved in people’s lives?

Conservatives believe that rugged individualism is written into the Declaration of Independence. The phrase, “each person is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” has conservatives arguing that the individual is guaranteed freedom and liberty from a massive bureaucracy ruling over them.

To preach these values is easy, but to suggest how they play out in everyday life is more complicated. It is easy for right wing radio show hosts to go on the air and pound their desk for the cause of limited government. The ideal of limited government (one that I support in general) is a lot harder to define. How far should the reach of government go? What issues should the government be involved in?

Most conservatives I know would favor the government providing a national military. They would also favor a government that provides police officers and firefighters to assist our society when needed. Roads and infrastructure are also viewed as the responsibility of government. The issues of social security, public education, Medicare, and others become more hotly debated. According to the ideology of limited government, where exactly is this governance supposed to stop?

Like I said, I lean toward the perspective of a limited government but recognize the reality that it is good for the government to be involved in some ways in the life of our society.What should the government be involved in regard to our civil affairs and what should the government stay out of?

A final note: I’m glad we have a multiplicity of political perspectives in our country. We need liberals and conservatives to have these debates. I wish that we could intellectually have rational discussions but in my surfing of cable news channels, it seems that a lot of what we do involves calling each other names. I saw several interviews with attendees of the tea party calling President Obama a “fascist”, “dictator” (that word is the same treatment the left gave President Bush by the way), “socialist”. It is irrelevant to call somebody a bunch of names and label them some arbitrary title. We can certainly disagree with Obama’s ideas (I have problems with many of his political beliefs) but let us stick to debating/dialoguing about ideas instead of attacking someone’s character.

Resurrection Day: Easter 2009

2009-04-25T14:01:00.002-07:00

"In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, 'Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; HE HAS RISEN! Remember how He told you, while he was with you in Galilee.'" -Luke 24:5-6

I never knew what Easter was celebrating until I became a Christian. Growing up as a child, our family never went to church (not even for the traditional events of Easter and Christmas). I would wake up on Easter morning, not thinking about the resurrection of Christ, but speculating as to where my Easter basket, filled with candy and possibly a video game, might be located. Truth be told, no one ever told me what exactly was being celebrated on Easter. I wonder how many kids or even adults might have a story like mine or still not know exactly what Easter commemorates.

The resurrection is the centerpiece of Christian theology, thinking, and experience. Upon the historical rising of Christ from the grave, Christians across the globe build their worldview. Paul in Ephesians 2:20 calls Christ Jesus the chief cornerstone of the faith and indeed, the authenticator to Christ having this title is the resurrection. The resurrection event ultimately proves this Man's identity and provides a ringing authority to His teachings.

The resurrection is hope within a dark world on multiple levels. We learn that death is not the end and that we can also trust in Jesus as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6).

Of course, the resurrection cannot be proven in spite of the best efforts by Christian evidentialists in their various apologetic offerings. A lot of their historical arguments do have merit and certainly are reasonable, however, the resurrection is an event that a person accepts on faith. To deny the resurrection is also a movement of faith.

While virtually all of us Christians believe the resurrection is primary and foremost to our faith, there are still some self-professing Christians who deny the resurrection. In their position, they would not say they deny Christ's rising. Instead, they would claim that His rising is a metaphor that we can believe true in our hearts. Maybe a metaphor for His teachings continuing on through the ages. An excellent moral fable that they can share with future generations.

This version of the resurrection is not Christianity.

The words of the Apostle Paul help us here. "By this gospel you are saved, IF you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." -1 Corinthians 15:2-8 (NIV)

Paul continues in the Corinthian letter, "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God that He raised Christ from the dead. But He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. BUT CHRIST HAS INDEED BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." - 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 (NIV- emphasis mine).

Paul was convinced that this was a physical, literal resurrection. He is not talking about a metaphor or a nice fable story. He is preaching the gospel with one of the key elements being that Christ has historically, and for all time, conquered the grave. Paul endured beatings, torture, imprisonment, and eventually death because he refused to stop preaching this message. The other disciples whom he references in his letter went to their deaths as well, preaching what they believed with all of their hearts to be their Master's resurrection from the tomb.

Christianity does not work and is not true...if the resurrection did not occur. Jesus either rose or He did not. There is no middle ground. Here every person who hears this message makes their decision.

Today, I have complete confidence through faith that Jesus, my Lord and Savior, has conquered death. That He is who He said He was. I know that He has changed my life which mainly involves helping me to see the world today as I do in our contemporary time.

"There are two ways to look at human history, I have concluded. One way is to focus on the wars and violence, the squalor, the pain and tragedy and death. From such a point of view, Easter seems a fairy-tale exception, a stunning contradiction in the name of God. That gives some solace, although I confess that when my friends died, grief was so overpowering that any hope in an after life seemed somehow thin and insubstantial.

There is another way to look at the world. If I take Easter as the starting point, the one incontrovertible fact about how God treats those whom He loves, then human history becomes the contradiction and Easter a preview of ultimate reality. Hope then flows like lava beneath the crust of daily life. This, perhaps, describes the change in the disciples' perspective as they sat in locked rooms discussing the incomprehensible events of Easter Sunday. In one sense nothing had changed: Rome still occupied Palestine, religious authorities still had a bounty on their heads, death and evil still reigned outside. Gradually, however, the shock of recognition gave way to a long slow undertow of joy. If God could do that..." -Philip Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew. Pg. 219-220

He is risen...He is risen indeed!

High Rollin: Away to Vegas

2009-02-24T18:07:00.000-08:00

From the plane, in the middle of the day, I could see the strip stretched out for miles in the middle of the desert. The canyons of glitz and glamour called for all to come and participate.

Las Vegas is such a particular place. I've been here twice in my life and have had a great time on both occasions. However, one can't help to feel something shallow beneath the non-stop show that goes on around a person for 24-7. What is underneath the sleak, modern and cool looking hotels/casinos/resorts? What is beyond the intricate labyrinths that are the casino floors and the stunning modern architecture that captures anyones imagination?

Probably a lot of debt. I thought yesterday about the many people who gamble away their houses or even worse, their childrens college tuitions. I can certainly understand how gambling can be addictive...especially if one doesn't set boundaries for oneself. I heard yesterday on the Las Vegas monorail that 40 million people visit Vegas every year. Of that 40 million people, the average person spends $627 dollars on gambling. That is quite a lot of money to throw away. But people do so with a bright smile on their face.

Now, I don't want this to be an article talking about the dangers of gambling or lecturing people one way or another about the culture of this place. There is a definite evil here but there is anywhere. Most people, myself included, have a fun time in Vegas. I can certainly say that is true for me with the two times I have been down here. Granted, I'm not a high roller and all I usually play is blackjack. I hate slots and haven't mounted up the courage to visit a poker room. I wished I understood roulette fully but maybe that will be the project for next time. The game just looks like a blast to play.

I've never come away from Vegas feeling bad about the amount of money I spent. As a matter of fact, the first time I came away ahead $160 dollars and this time I'm about even. My friend Jake, however, is up...BIG TIME...and all we have played is blackjack.

Blackjack is one of the things I enjoy but I also find excitement walking on the Vegas strip. Taking in the spectacle that is some of the biggest hotels/casinos/resorts that a person could ever see if there life.

At night, the place is amazing. All the casinos are lit up. The Bellagio has a fantastic waterworks display to old classical songs by Frank Sinatra or Dean Martin. This was the site of the final scene of the film, Oceans 11. In front of the "Mirage", a fake volcano erupts at night sending water high into the air that is all colored in red. The "Luxor: (the big black pyramid- where we stayed in 2005) shoots a giant beam of light from its top point into the heavens.

I also liked playing cards at MGM Grand. In this massive casino is a lion habitat. This is an enclosed place that houses 3 or 4 lions. Saturday, I saw one of the trainers lying down right next to the one of the lions with the lions paw wrapped around his chest. I can't say I have seen anything like that before.

We caught two shows while down here. Criss Angels' "BeLIEve" and the Blue Man Group. "BeLIEve" was OK...I liked some of the artistic aspects of it but being that Criss Angel is a magician, the magic was the weakest part of the show. This part seemed like second rate David Copperfield. The Blue Man Group was fantastic and right now, I'm trying to find the words to describe this show. Description evades me. Blue Man Group is a variety show that heavily involves the audience. It is very random and the guys in blue makeup do not speak and don't show any emotion throughout the show.

I'm leaving today and feel thoughtful about this place. I'm sure I'll come back at some point but this is a city that one doesn't know how to think about it. Most people have fun, a great time as a matter of fact. But everything here is one big show and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I would say enjoy the surface-level presentation and don't think too deep. There is nothing underneath.

Time Keeps on Slippin...Slippin...Slippin...into the Future

2009-02-23T10:00:00.000-08:00

"Time is now fleeting, the moments are passing,
Passing from you and from me;
Shadows are gathering, deathbeds are coming,
Coming for you and for me. "
-from the hymn "Softly and Tenderly" by Will Lamartine Thompson 1847-1909

How many clichés have been written about the passage of time? Pop songs express time being like a runaway train that will never be stopped. Worn out metaphors such as time slipping like sand through one’s fingers have been expressed over and over again. And then there is the conception of time (also a cliché) being a ticking time bomb- much like the show “24”- counting down…in our case, counting down to our demise.

The answer from many people seems to be: “live life to its fullest” or “live always in the moment” but which person among us knows how to fully do these things? We are busy people. Scrambling around from one event to another and working and hanging out with friends and following our daily schedules. This is the reality of living which often does not include being thoughtfully reflective of every passing moment.

I turned 29 not too long ago and am getting closer to the number that many signify as the end of youth- 30. I’ve talked with many of my friends recently about the passage of time. We talk about quarter life crisis or that college just seemed like yesterday or I still don’t completely know what I want to do with my life and I should since some arbitrary number apparently means I should be an adult. Being an adult may imply too many- “I have it all figured out”.

Nobody has much of anything figured out, I’m convinced. God does…this I believe and I wonder what the experience must be like to sit above a timeline like God does. He created time and is not limited by it and has complete autonomous freedom from time. Peter wrote, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:8, ESV- this being in the context of discussing the judgment of all at the end of time but also indirectly teaching that God is not bound by time). I am a created being which directly implies my point of beginning and a long period prior of eons that I did not exist. Isn’t it unfathomable to try and conceive of long periods of history that one did not exist? Then to think that I’ve only been alive for 29 years…

Time seems to go faster. This is probably because now as an adult I can remember stuff vividly that happened four or five years ago. Also, when I was growing up, I think I longed to be older especially as a teenager. When I had this mentality, I didn’t reflect on the past or prior events as much as I do now. I’m trying to think of the time that I stopped wanting to be older. Where is that line where we stop wanting to be older and actually want to stop time…if only we could?

One of the more interesting verses in the Bible about time is in Ephesians 5:15-17: “Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.” The phrase “the days are evil” jumps out at me. The days are fleeting and passing by and counting down to our inevitable decline. This a result of the Fall of humanity and thereby, sin. “The days are evil” but we are to seek to understand the Lord’s will.

The Lord’s will can be mysterious but was summed up by Jesus (who was equating the whole Old Testament law to this command), “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.” This is God’s will and what a monumental task to strive to do within time. To love God with every aspect of our life in whatever we do and to love our neighbor is the purpose statement for living life in this bubble of time.

We can spend our time doing a lot of different activities, vocations, and travels. However, as time slips into the future (to use another cliché), the focus that we are to have- the one that gives a deeply personal meaning- are the words of Christ.

A Government Imposed Violation of Conscience (Coming Soon?)

2009-02-04T18:28:00.001-08:00

Just in time for January 20th "March for Life"...

The following, angering article announces a bunch of lawsuits that have been filed by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc. They are opposing a Bush administration federal law that allows doctors and nurses to opt out of performing procedures that violate their religious convictions or conscience.

In other words, these organizations are trying to sue our government in an attempt to force or mandate medical professionals who have moral objections to abortion or other controversial medical procedures to perform them anyway. How this can even be a question in a free society that expresses the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion is completely unbelievable.

This further exposes the agenda of the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and other radical liberals who want to impose their beliefs of abortion on demand upon people who find great offense in the procedure. This is a violation of any doctor or nurses civil liberties when they are forced to perform procedures that they deem morally offensive. Thereby, the ACLU has become the epitome of absolute hypocrisy (which probably comes as no surprise to anyone). Please read the following article from cnn.com:

"Seven states and two organizations have sued the Bush administration in an attempt to block a federal regulation that would further protect health care workers who refuse to perform abortions or other medical procedures because of religious or moral reasons.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal filed a lawsuit Thursday on behalf of his state, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island.

Blumenthal said the regulation would put women's health care at risk and would undercut state contraception laws.

'On its way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking legal time bomb set to explode literally the day of the inaugural and blow apart vital constitutional rights and women's health care,' Blumenthal said in a statement. 'Women's health may be endangered -- needlessly and unlawfully -- if this rule is allowed to stand.'

He said the regulation 'intentionally shrouds' abortion in 'new and unnecessary ambiguity,' encouraging individuals to define it and to 'deny virtually all forms of contraceptions, even emergency contraception to rape victims.'

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and American Civil Liberties Union, which was acting on behalf of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, also filed separate suits Thursday.

The Department of Health and Human Services said the regulation would allow the federal government to withhold federal funds for state and local governments, health plans and health care facilities that do not follow existing federal laws that ban discrimination against doctors and other health workers who refuse to participate in procedures such as sterilizations or abortions or to make referrals for such procedures.

'We have not had an opportunity to review the lawsuits and we will respond to the court on any pending litigation,' department spokeswoman Rebecca Ayers said in an e-mail. 'The department followed appropriate procedures to put the regulation in place and the regulation is fully supported by law.'

The department promulgated the rule last month.

'Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,' Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a statement then. 'This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.'

The department has said that it believes the public and health care providers are unaware of the federal anti-discrimination laws.

'Many health care providers routinely face pressure to change their medical practice -- often in direct opposition to their personal convictions," said the department's assistant secretary of health, Adm. Joxel Garcia, in a statement in December.

"During my practice as an OB-GYN, I witnessed this firsthand. Health care providers shouldn't have to check their consciences at the hospital door. Fortunately, Congress enacted several laws to that end, but too many are unaware these protections exist.'"

From: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/16/lawsuit.health.care/index.html?eref=time_health

America the Intolerant

2008-12-28T08:43:00.001-08:00

In a postmodern age (whatever that term means) when many people believe in moral relativity, I find it truly amazing that the same people who we may find as the proponents of relativism use such absolute language to define their political opponents.

Take "The Human Rights Campaign" which is America's largest gay rights organization as an example.

President Elect Barack Obama has recently named Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. This has sparked a flurry of controversy and outrage from some groups. The aforementioned "Human Rights Campaign" has publicly branded Rick Warren that ever so popular and convenient term...INTOLERANT!

(The following is exerpted from an article on CNN.com) "Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights campaign, said Wednesday he feels a 'deep level of disrespect' over the choice of Warren and is calling on Obama to reconsider the move. 'By inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table,' Solmonese said in an open letter to Obama that was released by his organization." Thereby, Mr. Solmonese may be implying (ever so slightly) that Obama himself is intolerant.

Here is a definition of intolerance from encarta.msn.com: "Unwillingness or refusal to accept people who are different from you, or views, beliefs, or lifestyles that differ from your own."

I guess, by this definition, Mr. Solmonese is right. Pastor Warren is intolerant. He publicly supported Proposition 8 in California and believes a marriage should be between a man and a woman. I suppose maybe Obama (by a stretch) is intolerant for associating with SUCH people.

However, what we don't see acknowledged by Mr. Solmonese, the "Human Rights Campaign", and other liberal groups is that they themselves are intolerant. If intolerance is an unwillingness or refusal to accept people who are different from oneself or whose beliefs are different than one's own, the "Human Rights Campaign" is intolerant of Pastor Warren's beliefs and apparently, is intolerant of President Elect Obama's attempts to atleast listen to a diversity of opinions.

Obama has defended his inviting of Pastor Warren as exactly this...an opportunity to involve people in his administration from all different perspectives, viewpoints, and beliefs. For the bulk of his campaign and also during his victory speech in Chicago, Obama has promised to be a president to all Americans and involve people of different political persuasions in his administration. So far, he has made attempts to do this.

It is absurd to think that Obama agrees with Pastor Rick Warren. He doesn't on many issues including abortion (Warren compares this to the German Holocaust) and gay rights (although both Obama and Joe Biden stated that they oppose gay marriage but support civil unions). However, the two men do agree on helping the poor, fighting AIDS in Africa, and many other social issues.

Obama may find the attempt at the middle road a pretty lonely place. He'll be gutter sniped from all sides. Some on the right wing will always criticize him as a far left zealot and some of those that are a part of the left wing will call him a traitor if he doesn't shove a far left agenda down the throat of America.

But let's stop with this nonsense of using stupid terms like "intolerant" through the media. We are ALL intolerant. We ALL discriminate as we see the world from our own perspectives and judge others accordingly. We are America the intolerant. Let's be honest now for this is our common ground.

Gay Thoughts: My reaction to Proposition 8

2008-11-10T18:28:00.001-08:00

Granted, this blog may get me in trouble with a lot of people but the debate about proposition 8 in California which would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry has created a plethora of issues for people to think about. I can't help but write my comments down. At the heart of this debate is not only what one thinks of homosexuality but also what one thinks of democracy or majority vote.

A little background about this issue: "Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition that would amend the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It would overturn a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 is 'Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.' The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.'

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $35.8 million and $37.6 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest. The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage while claiming that failure to change the constitution would require changes to school curriculum and threaten church tax benefits. The opponents argued that eliminating the rights of any Californian and mandating that one group of people be treated differently from everyone else was unfair and wrong."

The California secretary of state will publish the official final election results on December 9, 2008. As of right now, the vote stands:

Yes on proposition 8 (banning same sex marriage): 5,682,924 votes (52.3%)
No on proposition 8 (recognizing same sex marriage): 5,193,672 votes (47.7%)

A close vote to be sure. Now I foresee, and I could be wrong, a judge or judges in California working their activist benches and overturning what the majority of voters in California have put into law. This brings me to the first point:

1) What do we think about democracy? If America is a democracy and a clear majority of voters have decided on an issue, should a judge be able to overturn what the majority has actually voted for? To me, this would be like a judge saying, "John McCain is president" even though the majority of America has voted for Barack Obama.

In a secular democracy (which I believe America is), the appropriate thing for gay rights activists to do would be to put another initiative together for the next election. America is a marketplace of ideas and people from all different perspectives are out there advocating their positions. Then we vote on those positions. That's how I believe America should be.

2) The issue of gay marriage promotes an interesting dilemma for those who call themselves "conservative" in regard to politics. The conservative agenda (indeed the one that usually separates conversatives from liberals- unless your name is George W Bush) is the issue of limited government. Ideally, conservatives want to see as little of government as possible in their lives. They tie the idea of limited government to freedom. This is a glorious idea that involves people deciding what they want for their lives (with as little government interference as possible) so long as they are not infringing on someone else's rights.

When it comes to gay marriage, people are arguing for the issue of two consenting adults. Here is the question for conservatives: does a secular government have the right to tell two consenting adults what they can do in their own bedroom? Does a secular government have the right to define a relationship, according to specific terms, for two consenting adults? This is an interesting issue for those who believe in "limited government".

Of course, the presuppositions are as follows: America is not a theocracy and is not a Christian nation. I believe both of these statements. Believe me, I do not want Jesus' name being associated with some of the things that America has done. And it seems to me incredibly silly to call a block of land "Christian". I realize a person can be a Christian or not a Christian...but a land mass?

3) What do we think about homosexuality theologically or what does the Bible say about homosexuality or how should we think about homosexuality as a moral issue? There are around 7 passages which address the issue of homosexuality in all the Bible or atleast directly allude to the act. I want to focus on one particular passage written by the Apostle Paul.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done." (Romans 1:24-28, ESV)

The passage of Romans chapter 1, in context, is talking about people who invert God's original plan. People take up worshiping the creature or the creation RATHER than the Creator. They take up same-sex passions and relationships RATHER than abiding by the original order of male and female. Although some contemporary theologians try and make this passage about homosexual gang rape, pedophilia, or other nefarious activites, it seems like Paul is making a lengthy case in regards to any same sex relationship in the eyes of God. Notice the words about giving up "natural relations" and being "consumed with passion for one another". This seems like consensual homosexual relations, not forced rape.

I believe the Bible makes the case that homosexuality is a sin. It is important to note that homosexuality is not a special category of sin (as some people seem to make it out to be). Homosexuality is a sin just like pre-marital sex is a sin, adultery is a sin, or lusting after someone is a sin.

Those facts make us ALL guilty of sexual sin and thereby in need of the Savior, Jesus. Although I may be labeled as a fascist bigot or other colorful words, this is my position that I base on my study of Scripture.

Conclusion: There are complexities to this issue. I may believe that homosexuality is a sin but how do I approach this issue in a secular democracy, of which the ideals include people who are free to choose the kind of life that they want to live? Christianity should never be forced on anyone and no one should be coerced to follow Scriptural principles.

However, the question remains. How should Christians think about the relationship of their faith to government action or representing their particular perspective at the polls? The conundrum is we live in a very diverse society that is inclusive of people who are going to want to choose to behave the way that they want too. Diverse religions, lifestyles and political views. Most of us believe that government should not suppress these as long as no one else's rights are being violated.

Anyways, some controversial (as they say) food for thought.

Christians and politics schmolitics

2008-11-03T19:53:00.001-08:00

"Jesus said, 'My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place'" -John 18:36 to Pontius Pilate.

This is a poignant verse in the gospels. A sweeping statement by Jesus as He was on trial before Pilate. His kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom is not America or any other nation. His kingdom exists in the hearts of any person who chooses to love God and love their neighbor as themselves. A vast spiritual kingdom that is concerned with the things that God is concerned about. That people would love and know Christ (Philippians 3:10), they would help the poor (Matthew 25:35), feed the hungry (Matthew 25:35), care for widows (James 1:27), defend (I would argue non-violently) the defenseless (Psalm 10:16-18- David prays for God to defend the fatherless and oppressed).

All Christians, I would hope, would agree with the above values and many more that are expressed in the Bible. Of course, these values stem from the historic and foundational rising of Christ from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12-14) which is the cornerstone and prime issue for the Christian worldview.

I have observed in this election that Christians (friends of mine) are supporting a variety of candidates. Many believers are supporting McCain or Obama and yet others are refusing to vote for the two powerful parties and instead are lobbying for third party candidates. Christian musician Derek Webb has written an article giving Christians permission to not vote at all if their consciences' are violated by the two top tier candidates.

With all of this diversity, how do Christians come together without being divided? In America, politics seems like the issue that quickly divides families, friends, and sadly the Body of Christ. The old cliche is: don't talk about politics or religion...at risk of some lame politically correct argument that we might offend somebody.

I would hope that everyone in our society is open to talking about religion and politics. These two important categories give us glimpses into someone's soul, what they value, and how they see the world. Of course, we have to be ready to engage in proactive listening and respectfully defend our own entrenched positions.

I especially want to speak to the church (and myself therein) which has a wide variety of political positions. We are all guilty, to some extent, of demonizing people of other political perspectives and even perhaps making them into not "true" believers...like us, of course. Sadly, this IS the game of politics. The realm of civil discourse has not become one that fosters interaction and healthy debates but one of mudslinging, lies and straw man arguments. The ideas themselves are sometimes not even spoken on in favor of name-calling and trying to "label" or characterize an opponent whose position is different than our own.

Yet, among all of us believers in Christ who believe very different political ideas, we are called to be unified. Jesus prayed for a unity that would be a testimony to the world at large. "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You." (John 17:20-21)

The question to all of us: how do we hang onto and articulate our political views AND remain unified as the Body of Christ as Jesus' prayer states?

Dave's presidential campaign commentary

2008-10-29T18:22:00.001-07:00

In one week, it will be over! The election that seems to have begun at the dawn of man will finally fold behind the curtain of history. I realize in the grand scheme of things, my thoughts don’t mean much, but obviously I’ve been taking in the news of this campaign for two years and have gathered a few thoughts along the way.

My initial thought, going beyond all the propaganda and name calling, is that we have reason to be positive as a country about our next leader. Both presidential candidates seem to be good men. Both candidates have made extraordinary personal sacrifices for the betterment of the country. John McCain’s story is well-known. He is a highly decorated war hero who endured more than most of us could imagine in service to our country. Barack Obama is an intellectual who received the opportunity to study at some of our most prestigious universities. After being president of the Harvard Law Review, he turned down many high paying jobs to go and work with the poor in Chicago. This also, a great sacrifice on behalf of citizens in our country.

I want to comment on the candidates:

Barack Obama: I recently saw a right wing video which, at the very beginning, kept saying Barack Hussein Obama over and over and over again. I kept thinking to myself, ‘Is this really necessary?’, I mean- never have I seen such an obsession over someone’s middle name. And what is the point, really? What if John McCain’s middle name was Stalin? Would that affect someone’s decision to vote for him?

Anyways, I think Obama is a brilliant politician (meant as a compliment). He has run an incredible campaign…even Bill O’Reilly (!) exclaimed that this is the best campaign he has ever seen. So, here is one thing to think about and it is very simple. How someone runs a campaign…isn’t this a great testament as to how they could run a country? Think of all the coordination. The speech performances and the speech writings (Obama’s speech on race he reportedly wrote himself). All kinds of advisors explaining the issues to a candidate, from foreign policy to economic to domestic, to give the person a grasp on how to approach or make a decision about anything under the sun. Obama on this point, no matter what one thinks of his policies, has been uncanny.

The propaganda surrounding Obama has been absurd. The first charge the right wing threw to the masses was that Obama was some militant Muslim, hell-bent on taking over the country with his hand firmly placed on a Koran. When I first heard this, I laughed because I thought it was some late night talk show joke. Apparently not! Now I know people who actually believe this in spite of the fact that Obama had been a member at a Christian Church (which teaches a variation of Cone’s Liberation Theology) for about 20 years. This seems like the last thing that a fanatical muslim would do but (sigh)…one cannot talk sense to some people.

There are also charges of Obama being a socialist. Well, he is liberal…kind of…but a socialist?? Toward the end of this presidential campaign, one may have noticed in his rhetoric that he has definitely moved more toward the center. This is a common occurrence in presidential campaigns. The socialist charge, of course, has to do mostly with the tax plan. Taxing the richest Americans (those making $250,000 a year or more) and giving tax breaks to those who make less than that (about 95% of Americans). This is in direct opposition to Bush’s tax cuts which were for the wealthy. It seems to be the inverse.

Furthermore, is the socialism charge fear-mongering from the right wing? Here are ways that McCain may be construed as a socialist: (shamelessly borrowed from a post by my friend Jacob Wilkinson)

“McCain wants the government to buy up large amount of personal failing mortgages... McCain wants the government to stake claim in banks... McCain wants the government to lead in energy innovation and not the private sector... McCain endorsed $700 billion government bailout for private companies... Government control is just as much an act of Socialism.”

By this line of reasoning, would Republicans who charge Obama with socialism be willing to vote for McCain who also favors mass government intervention in certain areas?

I do have my sharp disagreements with Obama. I am opposed to abortion on moral grounds and Obama certainly may have the chance to appoint Supreme Court Justices (the only real way a president can affect this issue). Some of his other left-leaning policies I might not be the biggest fan of but I’m not offended by them on any moral grounds.

The most interesting twist that Obama has shown the world is on the issue of foreign policy. He, in many regards, has spoken more aggressively than McCain at winding down the Iraq war and proactively going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and potentially in Pakistan. This is a big switch for a democratic candidate. Probably because John Kerry was viewed as being a big wuss.

Obama, no doubt, inspires confidence and leadership. He has done so in his campaign.

John McCain: Who cannot respect such a man as John McCain? A genuine war hero. A republican who, of course, sides with his party on most issues but is not afraid to vote according to conscious on others (this has drawn fire from the far right wing earlier this year). He is a candidate who has a solid pro-life voting record going back to the 1980s (he favors abortion in cases of rape, incest and the mother’s life being in danger).

McCain knows politics and he would undoubtedly know what to do or how to command in the heat of a war. McCain would work to keep our nation safe while abiding by law.

One of the strongest positions of McCain is that of his anti-torture stance (he defines waterboarding as torture). This is a break from many people in the Republican party and- honest to goodness- is there anybody else more qualified to speak on the issue of torture than McCain? Perhaps people should listen to him.
However, McCain has had his weaknesses. His campaign has seemed confused at points and what is there main message? McCain has hammered the pork barrel spending issue but is that really something that is going to resonate with American people right now? Embarrassingly enough, he supported the $700 billion bail out package with millions of dollars in pork barrel spending (including money for archery camps in Oregon). His health care plan seems abysmal and no one can forget the irritating “bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of “The Beach Boys” song “Barbara Ann” last year.

Something that I don’t understand either is why McCain criticizes Obama so much for wanting to talk with other world leaders who we may not like? The fact is, this may be a better move than getting involved in several more wars…if by chance, we could successfully talk issues out.

And then there was Sarah Palin….Honestly, there is not a person I fear in this campaign becoming president more than this woman. Some on the right may hate me for saying this but hear me out. This woman has been governor of Alaska for two years. She has no foreign policy experience and she hasn’t even travelled overseas very much in her life. Why would we want her to be president in the midst of being in two wars, having the global Islamic threat, having countries threatening the well-being of Israel, and being in the midst of an international energy crisis?

This to me seems similar to going in for brain surgery and having an amateur perform the procedure on you. Would you want an amateur working on your brain? Why would we want an amateur in the most powerful position in the land…in the middle of an economic meltdown?

One may say she is not running for president but as vice president BUT her job is to be ready to take over the presidency. This issue has to be looked at because McCain is 72…the oldest elected president in history if he wins. The average life span of a male in our society is around 72. This is a major issue!

I’m sure Palin is a nice, great person but she’s not ready to lead a nuclear superpower yet.

Conclusion: These are my views. I encourage everyone to vote obviously and make themselves heard. These two candidates are WAY better than the last election we had so I think there is reason to be positive. However this turns out, I believe that God is sovereignly in control and guides the heart of the king. As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome. I hope, however, that a diversity of opinions over the realm of politics will not cause division.

Review: "W."

2008-10-22T19:07:00.002-07:00

"Whatever you think of Dubya, he has balls." -Peter Travers, Rolling Stone.

Apparently, Oliver Stone has balls too. Can you imagine trying to sell a biographic account of one of the most unpopular presidents of modern times to a movie studio while he is still in office? Can you see movie studios balking at a script that doesn't mock W or seek to parody him? Can't you see more than one studio saying that people will feel like they watched George W. Bush the movie for the past 8 years?

Director Stone has always had cinematic balls which is why I've always liked him...even when I haven't liked some of his movies. I found "W.", Stone's latest political musing, to be a fascinating look at the life of a man who is way more complex than people make him out to be. Sure, a lot of the movie is fiction or maybe a better way to describe the film would be Stone's interpretation of the known facts of Bush's life.

Stone portrays "dubya" as a man who was consistently wounded growing up by his father's preferential treatment of his brother, Jeb. In one scene, during W's younger days, he comes home drunk and wants to pick a fistfight with the elderly Bush only to be broken up by Barbara and Jeb. According to the film, the elderly Bush was grooming Jeb for a run at the white house but opportunity fell into W's lap. This is the strong theme of the movie, playing off of the Oedipus Complex.

The movie moves back and forth in an out of sequence time line structure between Bush's college party days, the BBQ where he first met Laura, his conversion to Christianity, his run for governor of Texas, his ownership of the Texas Rangers, and his meeting with advisers on invading Iraq. Stone has based a large part of the material on biographies of George W. Bush as well as reporting accounts written by Bob Woodward and Ron Suskind.

If one did not live through the presidency of George W, they may have thought this movie was a fairy tale. The story of an underachieving drunk who became a Christian, completely sobered up, and then attained the most powerful position in the world. That's why this film's story is so intriguing.

I found the conversations about the invasion of Iraq, both leading up to the strike and looking back on the strike, to be the best parts of the movie. Richard Dreyfus plays Dick Cheney (and gives a brilliant supporting performance by the way) as an intelligent Machiavellian manipulator skillfully plotting how the United States can conquer most of the world's oil reserves and thereby create an empire for years to come. Donald Rumsfeld (played by Scott Glenn) chimes in that they will topple Saddam's weak army quickly and wouldn't need a lot of troops to fight the war.

Colin Powell (another great performance from Jeffrey Wright) is the only one in the room to argue against this strategy. Why attack Iraq? Why not stay in Afghanistan and hunt for Osama Bin Laden? His arguments are quickly shot down by Cheney and Rumsfeld. When Powell asks about an exit strategy from Iraq, he is met with an uncomfortable silence. (We know that later on, Powell would resign and now supports Obama for president). Through all of these debates, Bush does not speak much but looks on silently. He reminds Cheney in private during one scene that he, as the president, is the ultimate "decider".

Was Bush really competing with his father on his decision to invade Iraq and finish the job on Saddam Hussein? Remember that "HW" stopped short of going into Baghdad at the conclusion of the gulf war. The movie certainly leans this direction.

However, Bush also speaks to his advisers, out on his ranch away from cameras or media. He tells his advisers that they will be freeing the Iraqi people and will be greeted as liberators. He says that democracy will flourish across the middle east. In real life, Bush has said this many a times at press conferences. I have no doubt that he probably really believed this and maybe still does. Therein, lies the fascination of a president that most people are willing to just write off. For all the cynicism that this administration has produced, there is an overlying sense of idealism...or perhaps naivete.

I want to mention for a moment the performance of Josh Brolin as W. Brolin gives the performance of his life in this movie capturing Bush's temperament as well as distinct movements of the president. This is one of the top performances I have seen this year so far. He shares the limelight, in my mind, with the late Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. Brolin's performance is definitely worthy of an Oscar nomination. Even when the film gives way to a weakness (the out of sequence storyline grows distracting at points), Brolin and also the rest of the cast really carry this thing through to the end.

Director Stone, while leaning left, has made a movie that seeks to be empathetic to W. This is not a comedy but a genuine attempt to understand the current president and make sense of his life. While this is certainly not as good as JFK or even Nixon (two of Stone's other movies), it is a worthy addition to the film catalog of a director who is known for pulling no punches.

Review: Taxi to the Dark Side

2008-10-08T18:07:00.002-07:00

"…We have to work the dark side, if you will. Spend time in the shadows of the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion …"- Dick Cheney, September 16th, 2001 on "Meet the Press"

Alex Gibney's "Taxi to the Dark Side" is an unsettling and powerful documentary on the Bush administration's policy on torture. To put it mildly, this film is not for the faint of heart.

The movie uses the death of an Afghan man named Dilawar in December of 2002 as a lenses into "secretive" activities that were ordered by top administration officials. Dilawar's story was featured in the New York Times as well as other publications. He was a peanut farmer along with his family when he scraped together enough money to buy a taxi. Upon becoming a taxi driver, he was turned over to American forces at Bagram Air Force base. Five days later, he was dead.

A report was circled that Dilawar had died of "natural causes". The New York Times discovered an official military document labeling Dilawar's death as a "homicide". This official document was given to Dilawar's family in Afghanistan. No one was ever charged with his murder. There is not a single shred of evidence that Dilawar was ever involved in any nefarious activities- whether terrorist or otherwise. An autopsy revealed that Dilawar's legs were so severely beaten that, had he not passed away, both of his legs would need to be amputated.

This sobering story becomes a catalyst to discuss the abuses at Abu Gharib and the broad agenda of torture supported by the Bush Administration. The photos and interviews presented in this movie bring back the memories of everything that had been broken to the press. Forced nudity, prisoners being led around by dog leash, prisoners being subjected to barking dogs (in Arab culture, a dog is considered unclean), severe beatings, forced homosexual acts or masturbation, stress positions, water boarding, etc are a part of the activities forced upon detainees.

The film strings together interview after interview, and press conference after conference of administration officials including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others demonstrably lying about their knowledge of these activities going on and lying about what they knew and when they knew it. Gibney interviews soldiers in prison (or who had been to prison), convicted of torturing detainees and this is when the truth of the matter comes out. Somehow, the soldiers who inflicted the torture are punished and sent to prison while the politicians who ordered these atrocities to occur still walk around free.

All of this and more is the epitome of injustice.

I know what some on the right wing will say. They will dismiss this film as some propaganda from the left wing. This is not some liberal film out to discredit conservative republicans. It is a fiery indictment of those who have supported and condoned torture, period. John McCain is shown in the film fighting for the military to adhere to the Geneva convention which condemns torture. In one scene, he is grilling military officials at a hearing, stating that their answers (and the convention itself) is too vague regarding treatment of detainees and needed to be more specifically defined. (The film alleges that McCain was threatened by members of the Bush administration regarding his stance against torture. The administration stated that if McCain did not agree with them, they would work to discredit him with conservatives.)

For the Christian, the issue of torture is clear. If all human beings are made in the image of God, as Genesis teaches, than torture is a devastating and egregious affront to the worth and dignity of a human being as given by God Himself.

"Taxi to the Dark Side" serves as a peaceful rallying cry. A plea to citizens to demand accountability from government officials who break the law without warrant. Citizens who should desire to have checks and balances for those who abuse and mistreat people. The vast majority of these people have not even been assigned their Habeas Corpus rights.

This documentary won the Oscar for best documentary feature of 2007. It deserves the award. This is an unforgettable film.

The War in Iraq: A final discussion with Christopher Hitchens

2008-09-20T19:57:00.003-07:00

"I used to wish there was a useful term for those of us who thought American power should be used to remove psychopathic dictators." -Christopher Hitchens in an interview with New York Magazine, after being asked if he was a hawk. Hitchens' is a self proclaimed "liberal socialist".

Hitchens may be the only self-professing liberal who offers even a glimmer of support for the conflict in Iraq. He argues in his book, "god is Not Great" that Saddam's regime was not secular, as an endless amount of talking heads in our media might suggest, but rather religious in nature. Granted that Hitchens is hostile to the philosophy of any religion (except of course his own- see my first post on this topic), I still don't think this is the sole reason for his support of the war. He talks in his book about being friends with religious people and also stated in the New York Magazine interview that he would not mind if one of his children "found God".

So, in other words, Hitchens is not Stalinesque toward religion where he supports attacking the faithful just for...well...being the faithful. His position on Iraq intrigues me as does the opening quote.

He begins a small case (this is obviously not the focus of his book) for his perspective on the war by explaining Saddams' "religious regime":

"I shall simply say that those who regarded his regime as a 'secular' one are deluding themselves. It is true that the Ba'ath Party was founded by a man named Michel Aflaq, a sinister Christian with a sympathy for fascism, and it is also true that membership of that party was open to all religions (though its Jewish membership was, I have every reason to think, limited). However, at least since his calamitous invasion of Iran in 1979, which led to furious accusations from the Iranian theocracy that he was an 'infidel', Saddam Hussein had decked out his whole rule- which was based in any case on a tribal minority of the Sunni minority- as one of piety and jihad...Saddam had inscribed the words 'Allahuh Akhbar'- 'God is Great'- on the Iraqi flag. He had sponsored a huge international conference of holy warriors and mullahs, and maintained very warm relations with their other chief state sponsor in the region, namely the genocidal government of Sudan. He had built the largest mosque in the region, and named it the 'Mother of all Battles' mosque, complete with a Koran written in blood that he claimed to be his own. When launching his own genocidal campaign against the (mainly Sunni) people of Kurdistan- a campaign that involved the thoroughgoing use of chemical atrocity weapons and the murder and deportation of hundreds of thousands of people- he had called it 'Operation Anfal' borrowing by this term a Koranic justification- 'The Spoils' of sura 8- for despoilment and destruction of nonbelivers." (pg. 25-26)

Saddam was a monster. Make no doubt about that fact. After switching his justification for the Iraq War several times, President Bush seems to have landed on the role of our country being to remove an utter madman. The trouble becomes if the United States should remove every monster in the world but a lot of this has already been discussed.

I will say this. I disagree with Bush on several issues and I have not supported the Iraq war from the beginning. However, Bush is not the ignorant or terrible person that many liberals make him out to be. True, he has staked the entire reputation of his presidency on the Iraq war which, in retrospect, certainly does not seem like the greatest move.

Fast forward 20 years or so. What if the nation of Iraq becomes more steady and is a key ally in the middle east for the United States and other countries? What if a pluralistic democracy begins to flourish in that region? What will people say of Bush?

Will he be the leader with balls of steel, defying public opinion polls, to hold true to his convictions? I have heard so many people from both sides of the aisle lament on politicians for being "wishy washy" and changing their minds at the slightest indication of a fluctuation in public opinion polls. People's complaint about Bush is that he does NOT change. Doesn't anyone else find this ironic?

I'm trying to be fair here. I could have written another article bashing Bush and his administration but what is the point? Everyone else does that and it is relatively easy to do. I look forward to how history will remember Bush...and my prediction is, it will not be as the worst president ever (sorry to disappoint MSNBC) but of course, it definitely will not be as the best president ever.

I wonder how much people have thought through what they really think American foreign policy should do. Where should we stand? How far should we go? I will admit straight out that I haven't studied or read nearly enough on American foreign policy. The invasion of Iraq did not make sense to me because we were not attacked by them and they had not attacked another country. However, the travesty of Saddam is well documented. One really does feel sick and saddened at what this guy did to his own people...and in some cases, his own family.

"At a minimum, it can be agreed by all that the Iraqi people had endured much in the preceding thirty-five years of war and dictatorship, that the Saddam regime could not have gone on forever as an outlaw system within international law, and therefore that- whatever objections there might be to the actual means of 'regime change'- the whole society deserved a breathing space in which to consider reconstruction and reconciliation. Not one single minute of breathing space was allowed." -Hitchens (pg. 26)

On Morality: Part 3 of dialogue with Christopher Hitchens

2008-08-22T12:15:00.004-07:00

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." -Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion"

Well, you know what they say about people who think that EVERYONE else is deluded. Dawkins is a colleague of Christopher Hitchens which is why I bring this very provocative quote up to the surface of the discussion of morality. Hitchens, in his book, "god is not great" will attempt to do a similar thing as Dawkins. He will try to portray God as immoral, evil, unjust, unethical, etc.

The fact may surprise you that I actually like the above quote. Not because I believe that the statement is true rather quite the opposite. I find a kind of entertainment from the writing as well as a biting sense of irony (my personal favorite humor brand which may explain why I admire the filmmaking of the Coen bros so much).

The irony of the statement goes something like this: It is reasonable to conclude that if someone states that someone or something is moral/immoral, there has to be an overriding standard by which to make such a deduction. If, by chance, there was no standard or universal principle to declare what is moral or immoral, ethical or unethical than WHO decides what behavior is acceptable or unacceptable?

In other words, by what standard is Richard Dawkins judging a "fictional" God by? What doctrine is he subscribing too in order to make his rather poignant claim that God is racist or homophobic or genocidal? That IS the irony. An atheist, who by definition, cannot believe in a higher, universal standard attempting to apply a moralistic standard to God.

Hitchens does much the same thing. "The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals." (pg. 102) So, the same question can be posed to Mr. Hitchens. What standard does he appeal too?

If we assume that blind, naturalistic atheism is the truth of the world; really the only rule of nature is the following: survival of the fittest. Therefore, there is no judgment and ultimately, no accountability as long as one doesn't get caught by a human government or if someone (say Josef Stalin) IS the government. 20 million people (perhaps more) were killed in the 20th century because of this leftist, atheistic lunatic. While atheists can be nice people and good thinkers (I'll put Hitchens and Dawkins in this category even though I vehemently disagree with them both), atheism leaves us with no standard other than a faulty human one. Thereby, each individual person would have their own morality standards (including a loathsome Green River Killer) and who is anyone else to tell that individual what they can and can't do?

The statements by Hitchens and Dawkins about the immorality of God are so ludicrious to me that I won't spend a lot of time arguing with them (because there are bigger fish to fry). I will simply say that the Bible, Christians believe, is a record of human experience with the Divine. Sure, there is slavery, massacres, child sacrificing and all kinds of horrendously evil atrocities because the Bible is telling the story of history. History is ugly precisely for the reason that humanity is sinful and does what God does NOT want people to do. Ultimately, the Bible is a story of redemption in which Jesus comes to save humanity from their sins and to declare teachings (conveniently left out of atheism manuals) like "Blessed are the peacemakers, they are the sons of God." (Matthew 5 as well as various other places)

Being that Christians believe Jesus to be God, it is hard to imagine Jesus advocating child murder (quite the opposite actually since Jesus said that whomever harms a child should tie a stone around his neck and jump in a lake), massacres or slavery. Jesus advocates feeding the poor, helping widows, speaking for those who can't speak for themselves, and inviting strangers in (all in Matthew 25). Paul in the book of Romans condemns a person taking revenge. Really, these are just a few examples. The atheists seem to leave these teachings of Scripture out of their respective diatribes.

And if that wasn't enough (and here I will spend some time), Hitchens calls the whole idea of Divine redemption an immoral case of child abuse (and in grandiose style joins some of those boobs from the Emergent church movement). They attempt to rationalize that if God the Father sends His Son Jesus to die than He is engaging in a kind of sadistic child torture and abuse. Hitchens writes, "Once again we have a father demonstrating love by subjecting a son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress god. He is god, and he is trying to impress humans." (pg. 209)

Anyone who subscribes to the above line of reasoning is completely ignorant of orthrodox Christianity and uneducated in the basic teachings of Scripture. The accusation of God the Father being a child abuser is one of the most idiotic assertions that has ever been postulated about the Christian faith. Let me give you the words of Jesus: "No one takes it (life) from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again." (John 10:18, NIV) Jesus had the authority and choice to lay down His own life on the cross. This is not divine child abuse. This is divine choice.

Furthermore, Jesus claimed to be God. He claimed He was "I AM" (John 8:58) which is the Old Testament Jewish name for God given to Moses at the burning bush episode. The crowd that heard Jesus make this proclamation recognized His message. In John 10:31-33, the understanding of the message plays out. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone Him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews (Pharisees), 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"

Jesus, as God, made a divine choice to lay His life down. He did this on His own accord. He was not trying to impress humans but He was choosing to demonstrate how much he loved the world. (Romans 5:8)

The bottom line: if anyone ascribes to morality, they have to have a basis for their claim. If there is no God and no higher standard, there is no morality outside of an individual's opinion. Relativistic morality, based upon a rampant individualism, is common in our time but is an unlivable tenant. Leading postmodern American philosopher (because most of them come from France) Richard Rorty ran into trouble at a debate when he was asked why the German holocaust was wrong. He, of course, as a believer in cultural relativity when it comes to morality had postulated that morality was based on human communities and their various perspectives. In other words, how can one culture (or country) tell another country that they are wrong? Good question. So, Adolf Hitler wants to exterminate a race of people, the Jews, and sets this as the morality of his country. If we live in a different country, operating by our own set of relativistic morals, who are we to say that Hitler was wrong?

Atheism, again, has one moral: survival of the fittest. This principle has charged radical capitalists such as Ayn Rand (author of "The Virtue of Selfishness" and an atheist) as well as a vicious, murdering communist like Iosef Stalin (who called belief in God the most extreme evil). Apparently, Stalin was OK with his death toll of 20 million (journalistic Martin Amis- a friend of Christopher Hitchens- argues that the count may have been 40 million in his book "Koba the dread: Laugher and the 20 million") and his practices of starving mass amounts of people to death, including children, to usurp for himself more political authority. Stalin was fit to survive and made a career stamping out those not as fit.

I'm not suggesting that atheists agree with or condone the actions of Hitler, Stalin or others who have taken their radical influence from Charles Darwin and Karl Marx and extrapolated these ideas to political situations. However, I am arguing that the atheistic worldview has no foundation to rest its morals upon. No frame of reference to determine what is right and what is wrong outside of an individual or perhaps communities opinion.

Designing Chaos: Part Two of Dialogue with Christopher Hitchens

2008-08-11T17:28:00.004-07:00

"The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -Psalm 19:1 (NIV)

"But the process by which the results are attained is slow and infinitely laborious, and has given us a DNA 'string' which is crowded with useless junk and which has much in common with much lower creatures. The stamp of the lowly origin is to be found in our appendix, in the now needless coat of hair that we still grow (and then shed) after five months in the womb, in our easily worn-out knees, our vestigial tails, and the many caprices of our urinogenital arrangements. Why do people keep saying, 'God is in the details'? He isn't in ours, unless his yokel creationist fans wish to take credit for his cluminess, failure, and incompetence. Those who have yielded, not without a struggle, to the overwhelming evidence of evolution are now trying to award themselves a medal for their own acceptance of defeat. The very magnificence and variety of the process, they now wish to say, argues for a directing and originating mind. In this way they choose to make a fumbling fool of their pretended god, and make him out to be a tinkerer, an approximator, and a blunderer, who took eons of time to fashion a few serviceable figures and heaped up a junkyard of scrap and failure meanwhile. Have they no more respect for the deity than that?" (Hitchens, "god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" Pg. 85)

Christianity in modern times has been full of fads. Some annoying and some thoughtful. The latest fad that may date back about ten years or more is the intelligent design movement. There are many great thinkers in the intelligent design movement and not all of them are Christians or necessarily traditional believers in God (no matter what the media or Hitchens tells you). The theory of intelligent design goes something like this: "The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes." (from answers.com)

One may observe that this definition of ID does not talk about who this "intelligent being" might be nor do the words lend credence to any particular faith.

Hitchens especially attacks the idea of intelligent design or any kind of purposeful direction in the universe. To make his argument, he lists off several examples of seemingly purposeless things in our universe and even items that, in his opinion, could have been designed better had there been a Designer.

Hitchens attacks the pinnacle of the design argument, the human eye. "Now we are being told that astonishing features, such as the human eye, cannot be the result of, so to speak, 'blind' chance. As it happens, the 'design' faction have chosen an example that could not be bettered...There is further proof of the evolution of the eye, as (Dr. Michael) Shermer points out. This is the ineptitude of its design: 'The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but 'intelligence' in its design. It is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens aquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses- which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?'" (pgs. 81-82)

Hitchens certainly has some valid thoughts to add to the argument. He fails to talk about design as an ordered universe, i.e how do random chance processes account for gravity or the orbits of planets or the perfect characteristics on earth that allow for life. An observer, with these arguments, can be caught in a conundrum. To an honest person, there are aspects of our universe and world that display remarkable systems that one would find hard to believe arose from blind chance processes. On the flip side, and as Hitchens points out, there are random aspects of creation that seem embedded in chaos or that seem completely random and senseless. How does one explain this?

These points serve to further the viewpoint that I will espouse in this writing. Intelligent design cannot be proved by scientific arguments alone. Rather, we need theological interjecting to help us. My point is: one cannot be an evidentialist and argue for a particular viewpoint (atheism or religion). One rather chooses what to believe (the point I made in the last post) and as an outworking, begins to see the world this specific way.

Hitchens has read Genesis, I'm sure, and is of course as biased against the Creation account as I am biased against unguided, blind naturalism. The worldview of Christianity (when looked at as a whole) fits the description of our present world and the ages past. Over and over again in Genesis 1, God pronounces the creation "good". But if the creation is "good", how do we explain all of the points that Hitchens brought up about a faulty universe. When God pronounced the creation good, this was before the fall. Here are some accounts:

Genesis 3:17-18 give account of the curse of sin upon the world, "To Adam He said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat,' 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.'" (NIV)

The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 8:20-22, "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

These accounts provide a worldview that fits with our world. God created the world very good- systems, planets, stars, animals, human beings, etc BUT because of sin, the world has fallen. The world has become imperfect. There are elements to the creation that seem random or useless. The theology of the fall affects not just humanity's morality but all of creation.

Thereby, one cannot argue only from science but if we believe the Bible to be God's Word- we must interject the theology of the fall into our understanding of the universe.

The intelligent design movement will falter at this point. If we only try and explain the universe strictly by science, we will not arrive at a holistic conclusion. Science is valuable, yes and so is theology.

Hitchens has an interesting comment and an interesting quote in regards to this topic of design. "There is an intriguing paradox here: evolution does not have eyes but it can create them. The brilliant Professor Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of the double helix, had a colleague named Leslie Orgel who encapsulated this paradox more elegantly than I can. 'Evolution,' he said, 'is smarter than you are.'" (pg. 82)

So goes the irony, or paradox is an even better word. An atheist giving characteristics to the process of evolution that make this naturalistic method almost seem like the process has a personality. It must be hard to believe that the world, the universe entire is the result of random, chance processes that seemingly came from nothing. If evolution were true, it would not have a personality and could not even comprehend eyes or no eyes. It would just be.

Denying the Faith: Part One of dialogue with Christopher Hitchens

2008-07-28T21:43:00.005-07:00

"I trust that if you met me, you would not necessarily know that this was my view (atheism). I have probably sat up later, and longer, with religious friends than with any other kind. These friends often irritate me by saying that I am a 'seeker,' which I am not, or not in the way they think." (Hitchens, "god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" pg. 11)

Denying the faith is not so much in reference to stating the obvious, Christopher Hitchens' unrelenting atheism, as the term is a reference for a person who chooses to deny that they themselves have faith. Denying faith seems to be quite common among more intellectual atheists who love to think of themselves as rational, open-minded, and not chained to any dogma.

In the opening of Tim Keller's interesting book, "The Reason for God", he entertainingly quotes Darth Vader, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." All do respect to Keller (whom I admire) but I don't believe that a lack of faith is the problem with an atheist paradigm. Faith in the wrong view, most certainly I believe atheism to be, but also perhaps, an atheist may have too much faith. I'll explain what I mean later.

An important disclaimer before I start: Although, I will challenge Hitchens at the very foundation of his perspective, I do have respect for him and do not want to make light of him as a person in any way. Hitchens is brilliant, plain and simple, and as a journalist has a tremendous command of the English language. He is an engaging writer, perhaps a frustratingly effective writer for many, who can articulate what he believes better than most people.

"god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" is Hitchens diatribe against religion including Christianity. He not only argues that the Bible was written by stupid, ignorant men (thereby establishing the idea of God or faith as man-made) but also that the Bible is incredibly immoral and leads people to horrendously unjust practices. (I'll deal with Hitchens on the morality kick in a future blog).

Atheism, of course, is laid out as being the rational perspective. The enlightened path based on reason and science. But is it? Let's consider how the faith is being denied.

"And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically:" (Pg. 5)

Besides overstating the obvious of this passage sounding like some kind of doctrinal statement, it surely does seem that Mr. Hitchens holds his conclusions pretty dogmatically. Read the book yourself to discover if Hitchens is some fair and openminded person. In one sense, I don't blame him because after all, the above sounds like any church constitution which simply states what a specific group believes and how they go about their practices (sacraments perhaps).

Hitchens' dogma is founded on the basic assumption that everything in our world, galaxy, universe has a naturalistic explanation. This is a worldview (like all the rest of them) that is completely unprovable because no person has searched the entirety of the universe and discovered that everything has a natural cause or explanation. He accepts this position on faith- there is that tricky little term again.

One may be saying at this point that I'm making an argument from the unknown. Processes, people and all kinds of things we observe today can be traced to a naturalistic cause- as far as we know. If one extrapolates this assumption to everything in the universe than perhaps it can be postulated that everything has arisen as a result of natural law.

However, there is a glaring problem in the atheist worldview and one that I would argue will never be satisfactorily answered. An atheist, by definition, cannot believe in a miracle (a miracle being defined as a breaking of natural law, possibility but not necessarily, by the interjection of a supernatural Being). If someone rejects a supernatural Creator or realm than all we are left with is matter.

Assuming that atheism is true, we would have to believe that a really, really long time ago there was non-living matter (we won't bother with how this matter got there to begin with). Eventually, after eons of time, this non-living matter "evolves" and becomes living or meets the definition of life.

Given that in science we have the law of biogenesis (not a theory but a LAW) which states that "life can only come from life", if non-living matter became life at any point than we are most certainly looking at a miracle- a willful violation of natural law. Therein, lies the problem for the anti-theist at the very foundation of their worldview. This marks the certain introduction to the incredible faith that they have.

Of course, there are attempted arguments to get around this. "There are many disputes between evolutionists as to how the complex process occurred, and indeed as to how it began. Francis Crick even allowed himself to flirt with the theory that life was 'inseminated' on earth by bacteria spread from a passing comet." (pg. 86) Despite the attempt, it still does not answer how life arose from matter (or where the process that makes comets came from).

All of this, some of you have probably heard before, and none of the above writing really proves anything...except that people have faith. Faith that there is a God or faith that there is not. Both have their consequences and both have their points. In the pit of each person's heart, they make the decision of what to believe.

I have certainly made my decision and will concede to anyone that I have faith and struggle to practice it. Hitchens has also made his decision but by all accounts, denies that he has faith. To me, this fact becomes an interesting irony. Trying to destroy "faith", while building up science and reason, and one's own "faith" in these worthy disciplines.

NEXT POST: Talking about the design argument for God's existence and my actual agreement with Hitchens on this issue. As always, anybodys comments or thoughts are welcome.

Review: The Dark Knight

2008-07-22T22:23:00.002-07:00

If there is one thing that is obviously certain upon seeing the new Batman film "The Dark Knight", it's that producer/writer/director Christopher Nolan should be permanently escalated to the ranks of some of the best filmmakers in movie history. Consider his track record thus far at the age of 38: the indie gem "Memento", the underappreciated thriller "Insomnia", an excellent revitalization of the Batman franchise "Batman Begins", a dark and contemplative take on magicians and human nature "The Prestige" and now "The Dark Knight". Not even Spielberg in his early days could post a resume this impressive.

"The Dark Knight" picks up right where "Batman Begins" leaves off and does not let up for a second. The movie is a riveting action-thriller that is layered in strong character development and an exploration of themes that are familiar to our culture. Nolan has chosen to move away from the cartoony Batman of Joel Schumacher's movies and instead, grounds the Batman myth in as much reality as possible.

In this second film, the Joker joins the fray (an amazing performance by Heath Ledger) with wild attempts to humiliate the good in Gotham City and reveal to everyone the secret identity of Batman. The twisted clown fashions together a hit list including Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), the mayor of Gotham City, and the new DA Harvey Dent, a politician who is truly committed to courageously standing against the mob and keeping the city safe. But, at what cost?

Oh, does the movie have some surprises in store. Good vs evil is never quite easy to define sometimes and "The Dark Knight" muddies the waters. If there is one overall theme that seems to carry throughout the film, it is the uncomfortable realization that everyone is on the razor, knife's edge of goodness and madness- of darkness and light. Batman (arguably) and the Joker (most certainly) are mad to different degrees. Batman, in his madness, struggles and strives to do good even when he is misunderstood by people in the city. The Joker is an anarchic terrorist who gets his kicks out of destruction, suffering, and turning people against each other while forcing them to make impossible ethical or moral choices.

By the end of the movie, Batman's status as a hero will be utterly threatened and perhaps destroyed. "I've seen what I have to become to stop him," says Bruce Wayne in the movie's darkest moment.

The script is fantastic and revolves around well-staged action sequences. The characters are well-written and we come to care a lot about them. There are also side themes within the script that play on our deepest fears today in America. Batman and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) argue about wire tapping people in the city to find out where the Joker is. Batman thinks this action is necessary to stop a terrorist. Fox thinks the decision is unethical and threatens to quit Wayne Enterprises. The movie doesn't preach one way or another to the audience but rather leaves us thinking about this moral quagmire of a question.

The acting is top notch all around. Michael Caine is wonderful as Alfred the butler, Freeman gives a solid performance as Fox and Gary Oldman, the veteran actor, returns as Commissioner Gordon. Maggie Gyllenhaal is an absolute improvement over Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Aaron Eckhart also plays successfully one of the movie's more interesting characters, Harvey Dent. Of course, Christian Bale is great again as Bruce Wayne/Batman but that leaves us with one other major character.

All sentimentality aside, Heath Ledger gives a stunning and brilliant performance. He creates a Joker that is not just crazy for the sake of craziness but a man who suffered through childhood trauma (like Batman) and now wants the entire world to feel his pain. There are several levels of brilliance to Ledger's performance: the first one is his voice for the character and way he moves which is very distinct. The second one is his perverse reasoning and explanation of his psychotic plans and the way he attempts to ground it all in a disturbing reality. The third, and most important I think, is Ledger never really steals the show from the other actors. And this would have been easy to do. He instead fits into his role and riffs off of the other characters letting everyone else play their part and tell the story as he does the same.

In Tim Burton's first Batman movie, Jack Nicholson played the Joker and gave a legendary performance. I would argue, however, that Jack totally stole the show. He was larger than life in this film (and deserves credit for a good performance). Ledger does something completely different. He notches down the Joker into a twisted reality and hits all of his notes perfectly. Ledger's performance is better and indeed, I would say, worthy of an Oscar nomination.

The one criticism of Batman that I have is why was this released during the summer? This has all the good writing, performances, and thought-provoking themes to be released at the end of the year in the heat of awards season. Of course, more serious minded awards would probably never nominate a movie like this and I guess the overall point is that this movie feels very different from anything else released in the summer. It is miles ahead.

I cannot recommend this film enough.

In Memory of Roy Daily

2008-07-11T17:54:00.001-07:00

With a good deal of sadness, I attempt to write about a dear family friend who has passed away at the age of 85. Roy Daily was like a third grandfather to me. A gentle, kind and generous soul of whom you cannot imagine anybody anywhere ever saying anything bad about.

Thankfully, I got to see Roy on the 4th of July while he was in the hospital. That Monday, he had been filling his car up with gas at an Arco station when he tripped and fell. This collapse to the pavement caused him to suffer a broken hip.

Upon seeing him in the hospital, I was amazed because I have never seen someone before in such good spirits while laid up in the plain, white-sheeted bed and sharing a room with a complete stranger. Roy still flashed his trademark smile and told his old school jokes and repeatedly laughed about what he called his "clumsiness" which apparently had caused several accidents over the years.

All seemed to be going well as the hospital was going to release Roy that 4th of July evening to return to his wife Phyllis and the home they built together 32 years ago on Lake Tapps. Roy did go home that evening, did some physical therapy and more than likely enjoyed the majestic display of fireworks that hurtled over the water late into the evening.

On Sunday morning- July 6th, Roy suffered a stroke and would not recover.

I have many memories of Roy during my life. Most of them revolve around visiting him and Phyllis on their waterfront property. Their old, wooden brown house was built in the 1970s and they were my parents landlords for awhile. The landlord (business) tag is probably the wrong way to put the relationship because it was less business and more Roy and Phyllis inviting my parents over for meals and card games. I would benefit later from this close friendship.

On many childhood occasions, Roy would take me out in their boat that must have been from the 1960s (the interior was never redone). He would show me the various mansions on the lake (one of which was the owner of Gordon trucking- this guy started with one truck and built a multi-million dollar business). He would also tell me about the deepest parts of the lake, hundreds and hundreds of feet down which fascinated me as a kid. There were also moments of attempted wakeboarding and much inter-tubing behind his boat. More than anything, I remember splashing around in the roped off swimming area right behind their home and doing cannonballs off their old wooden dock.

Card games (which mostly was hearts- and Roy was a particularly vicious player) and many games of pool filled many childhood Saturday evenings. Roy was a good pool player and taught me how to play and gave me many pointers.

When I left the hospital on Friday, I told Roy that I looked forward to playing pool with again in a couple months time when he had recovered from his hip surgery. He seemed excited by the idea. I regret that this game of pool will not take place.

...and, a good friend will be missed.

Barack the "flip-flopper"???

2008-07-06T14:14:00.002-07:00

"I am surprised at how ... the press ... I'm not trying to dump on you guys, but I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured...I wasn't saying anything that I hadn't said before. That I didn't say a year ago. Or when I was a U.S. senator. If you look at our position, it's been very consistent. The notion that we have to get out carefully has been a consistent position." -Barack Obama to press reporters

Obama is trying to be nice to the press. I won't be so nice. I first watched this non-story on one of the most incompetent news networks in recent times, CBS. On Thursday, they reported (atleast strongly implied) that Obama was switching his position on the Iraq war after his comments at an earlier press conference where he stated that he was willing to "continue to refine" his position regarding Iraq upon making a trip over there.

I watched the charlatans of this media network play video clip after video clip of Obama stating that he has been against the Iraq war from the start. Most of these were said when he was vying for the nomination against the corporate sell-out, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In grandiose journalistic style (or not), they then compared these clips to his comments about refining his position making a very strong inference that Obama was a flip flopper.

This is the most outrageous news story regarding a politician since that leftist manifesto of a newspaper (The New York Times) implied that John McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist. Of course, the times had a mountain of evidence to support this serious accusation which included two anonymous sources and NOTHING else (please feel my sarcastic wrath).

The media has long sold out the standard of pursuing the truth based on credible sources and reporting grounded in fact. Now, all the public gets from supposedly standard bearers in journalistic tradition, is inflated, yellow journalistic, trashy innuendo that must make the National Enquirer feel proud.

Take this Obama story: what kind of stupidity takes Obama's numerous comments against the Iraq war and then states that he is switching his position when he says he is "refining" his ideas about the conflict?

A definition of refine is as follows: "improve or perfect by pruning or polishing". This definition (Christians might be familiar with this in the popular worship song "Refiner's Fire") does NOT imply that a change of position is coming but the saying does lend credence to the fact that Obama is further defining a position he has held since the beginning of the war.

What person wants to remain stagnant in their views? Our views grow as they are challenged and as we experience first hand the outworking of those ideas (Obama going to Iraq and meeting with commanders/troops on the ground is a big step in this direction)

"One of the things I've always tried to do is learn from mistakes and get better, and I think we've run an awfully good campaign and I think if I hadn't been a pretty good candidate, I wouldn't be standing here. But that doesn't mean I can't get better, that my answers can't be crisper, that I can't be more precise." -Obama

In other words, he is still refining and good for him.

Starting place of ideas

2008-07-05T22:12:00.007-07:00

So, I've started a blog. I do not mean to be arrogant about my title "Theologian Dave" by the way. A theologian is anyone who thinks about God. By that definition, EVERYONE is a theologian...even the hardened atheist. Thinking about God is a central aspect to whom I am and will be discussed frequently in my blog as well as ideas centered around religion, politics and film.

My philosophy professor, Dr. Forbes, used to say the world is a "shopping mall of ideas". If there is one thing our incredibly diverse world can agree upon, it would have to be the multiplicity of perspectives that people hold too around the globe.

Right from the start, I will tell you, I'm certainly not one of those quacks who will insult a rational person's intelligence (you, the reader) by suggesting that everyone is correct in their ideas. Now that I have committed the cultural sin of "political incorrectness" and probably offended Oprah (like she would ever read this blog anyway), we can move past the postmodern mushiness and into, what I sincerely hope will be, good discussions. (By the way, "Politicially Incorrect with Bill Maher" used to be one of my favorite tv shows in college until ABC unbelievably canceled him because of those infamous 9-11 comments.)

Ideas have consequences. Within the fabric of our minds, ideas have the potential to radically alter our behavior or lifestyle. People, like me, can often say with our lips that we believe something but our actions may indicate that we believe something else entirely. Therefore, the way we live tells the tale of what we believe to be most true in our hearts.

So, I am attempting to start a (hopefully) meaningful blog in regard to my ideas on religion, politics and film- the three topics that I find myself most interested in. Indeed, I cannot claim any of my musings on these categories will be totally original. I echo the writer of Ecclesiastes (one of my favorite Biblical books), "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, 'See, this is new'? It has been already in the ages before us." (Ecc. 1:9-10, ESV)

My perspective of everything that will be written on this blog...in the armpit of cyberspace or wherever we're at...is influenced and informed by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Ideas come out of a worldview. My worldview or foundation or starting place is built upon Jesus rising from the dead. This is the basic lens that I see the whole canvas of the world through. The resurrection is the starting place for all of my thoughts in regard to religion, politics, or film and is the most significant event in human history (the crucifixion of Christ or God creating the universe may battle for a close second).

Well, I've always wanted to write a book which is still very much my goal...one day. I suppose for now, this blog can be practice. Please feel free to join into the discussion by leaving comments. I would love to hear from you whether you agree, disagree or think I'm raving mad.

I sincerely thank you for stopping by during this opening experiment.

Dave