Random Reminiscence (pt. 1)

From November 24, 2005 ...

So the other night I headed down to BW-3's in a town called Lewisville (about 30 minutes south of Denton) to hang out with an old friend and watch some college basketball -- and then something amazing happened.

I went to the bathroom for a routine trip, all without incident. However, as I was washing my hands, I noticed a short, pudgy little kid waddle in and head to the urinal. This kid was probably about 7 or 8 years old, with a Jose Canseco-esque mullet, complete with blond streaks to contrast with his dark brown hair. I thought nothing of him and proceded to dry off my hands. Then, he spoke. (note: I promise, these are all direct quotes. No embellishment necessary.)

"Hey buddy, want a tip?" he asked very calmly as he took care of his business at the urinal.

Somewhat suprised to have this kid strike up a conversation, I hesitantly asked, "A tip?"

"Yeah, you know, like ... information," came his matter-of-fact reply.

"Well ... sure," I said, still somewhat unsure of what advice this young man might possibly have that would warrant an interruption of precious urinating time.

"Don't eat a lot of buffalo wings with spicy sauce, or you'll be having a rough time on the toilet," he said, his masterpiece of wisdom finally unveiled. He continued, "I found out the hard way."

Unable to say much without laughing hysterically, I managed a quick reply. "Well, thanks for the tip."

This was quite possibly the highlight of the month of November for me, and I felt compelled to share it with you. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

Random Reminiscence

A few years ago, I spent a year in Texas studying under a pastor in the area. I learned a great deal about Scripture and theology and were it not for my time there, I probably would not be in seminary today. While I was there, I kept a blog to keep up with folks from back home. Remember Xanga? Yeah, it was lame, but it worked for my purposes.

Anyway, while I did learn much from my studies in the Lone Star state, perhaps some of my best memories were some of the random events that turned into some great stories. While I was there, I lived in a ranch with 19 other guys. It was the college dorm experience I never had, and needless to say, much hilarity resulted. I had forgotten about most of these until a few weeks ago, when I stumbled upon my old xanga site and got quite a chuckle. I realize that many of my friends now have never heard these stories, so over the next few weeks, I'm going to pick some of the best ones and republish them here. They won't be insightful (with perhaps one exception), but they will hopefully be entertaining and funny. So if you like embarrassing or ridiculous stories, most of which at my expense, you will love these posts. The first will be up later today. Enjoy!

Seasons Reasons?

Note: This is an article I wrote a few weeks ago and tried to get published in a few different places. I started a bit late (either that, or it's just not that good!), so I never got a response, but I did want to share it with those that come here. I might try and rework it next year and try again, but for now, it's for the blog faithful only. Hope you enjoy it!

Ginger bread. Mistletoe. Flying deer. A fat guy in a red suit. Elves.

What do all these things have in common? The birth of Jesus Christ, Son of God.

Really?

Have you ever looked at the culture that surrounds "the most wonderful time of the year" and scratched your head? How did we get here? What's the point of it all?

As I walk through the mall, my senses are assaulted from every angle with painfully obvious reminders of the season. Trudging through the department stores, I'm lost in a forest of fake trees with gaudy ornaments hanging from every possible limb. Strange songs flood the loudspeakers, containing very bizarre messages: a large, elderly man allegedly sees when I go to sleep and when I wake up, a mutant reindeer has supposedly been promoted in the arctic north, and someone is apparently trying to set chestnuts on fire … though I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Christmas.

As I drift along through the sea of commercialism in the holiday season, dodging Santa Clauses, Rudolphs, and lunatic bargain hunters, the question looms large in my mind: what does this have to do with Christmas? What really is the reason for the season?

Dozens of church signs and pastors preaching holiday sermons offer an answer. They know the true meaning of the season: it's not sales, gifts, baked hams, or even family gatherings, they say: it's Jesus. Jesus is the "reason for the season."

As a pithy saying, this is all well and good. It rhymes, it'll preach, and for all intents and purposes, it's a welcome reminder of what we truly celebrate. I wonder sometimes, however, if we have merely repeated these words in mantra-like fashion, thus robbing it of any meaning until it becomes little more than a trite slogan.

In fact, it seems that often we forget that Christ didn't take on flesh so he could hang out with some fishermen and give us some good quotes for a few thousand years. He didn't come because heaven was getting boring and he needed a change of scenery. No, the truth is much more profound. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and lived among men because the world was lost in its own sin. Wickedness plagued the heart of mankind; and without a Savior, humanity was destined for perdition.

During a brief perusal of national news outlets, I came across the story of Jeremias Bins. In 2006, Bins became enraged that his wife and 11-year-old stepson were spending too much time at her church. In his anger, he beat them both to death with a hammer before driving to a police station to turn himself in.

Jeremias Bins is the reason for the season.

In my local newspaper, there was recently an article reporting on the civil conviction of Jarred Hensley, the vice-president of the Supreme White Alliance. He was convicted of assaulting Jordan Gruver, a U.S. citizen of Panamanian heritage, leaving him with permanent injuries. Hensley calls himself "an equal opportunity hater," and the Ku Klux Klan "soft," which should give you an idea of his outlook on life.

Jarred Hensley is the reason for the season.

The evil would be more comfortable if it were relegated to news stories and confined to only the extreme dregs of society. Personal experience has told me this is not the case. The evil that lies in Jeremias and Jarred lies in my own heart, albeit in different forms. This week I have lied, cheated, and coveted. I have neglected the poor, spurned justice, and hated my neighbor.

I am the reason for the season.

In proper perspective, Christmas is irrevocably tied to Easter. The celebration of the birth of Jesus can only be fully appreciated when viewed in light of his crucifixion and death to pay the debt of sin owed by all mankind. Otherwise, Christmas is confined to mere sentimentalism. It is a time of awe and wonder at the limitless mercy of God. When we view the evil and depravity of the world around us, we can truly appreciate the angels' song to the shepherds and the Magi's homage to the King of Kings. This is not a Hallmark card. This is the hope of the nations and the Savior of the world.

Jesus is indeed the reason for the season; but not merely the reason for our gifts and our celebration. He is the reason for our wonder, the reason for our hope, and the reason for our very life. May we never become so enamored with the cute baby Jesus lying in the manger that we forget the crucified Son of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Newsweek draws the battle lines

It appears as though the battle for gay marriage is going to be a messy one, and we are just seeing the beginning. Newsweek recently published an article (on the cover, no less), called "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," and the editor has endorsed the publications stance on this issue. Albert Mohler has examined and picked apart (read: demolished) this article far better than I could, so I'll link the article itself on Newsweek's website, and his response in his blog.

First, though, here's some quotes (and my paraphrases) to get your blood boiling and to entice you to read on a bit. Lisa Miller, author of the article, writes,

"The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

In other words: Screw the Bible. Let's pick and choose some broad, vague themes like "love" and "justice" and justify our arguments that way.

"My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: 'I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.' And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for 'Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.'"

In other words: Hey, this Psalm makes me feel happy! I bet it's about gays. Also, I might add that Jesus Christ took on flesh and was crucified so people could be happy, regardless of moral and religious norms. It's in the Bible!

"Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world ..."

In other words: Hmmm, these are hard to make fit my point. Let's just throw them out!

And from the editor, perhaps the most ominous ...

"No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."

In other words: Actually, this one speaks pretty well for itself. If I could type the sound of a slap in the face of conservative Chrsitians everywhere, I would do so here.

Here's the links:

Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy -- Lisa Miller

Turning the Bible on its Head -- Albert Mohler

Marketing atheism

You may have heard of the rise of the "new atheism" in recent years, set forth by authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. In one sense, their atheism isn't "new" at all -- they still deny the existence of any higher power and purport a naturalistic worldview. However, the "new atheists" have a twist on the old atheistic argument that is quite disturbing to Christians and other people of faith. Old atheists simply maintained that religion was based on fiction. It was false. New atheists go beyond that. Religion isn't just false -- it's harmful.

Thus the proponents of the new atheism are much more aggressive than their "old" counterparts. After all, if you believe something is harmful, wouldn't you try and keep people from indulging themselves in it? Makes sense, I guess. Recently, however, a new development has arisen that irks me a bit. It seems as though the American Humanist association has put together a new ad campaign just in time for the holidays. Targeted in our nation's capital, they are devoting $40,000 to ads on buses that say, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." Their reasoning, apparently, is that " there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of nontheists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion," according to Fred Edwords, a spokesman for the AHA. He maintains that they are not trying to argue about the existence of God through their ads or try to persuade anyone to not believe, just to maybe "plant a seed of rational thought" in thinking people's minds (what's the difference, anyway?).

I have a bit of a beef with this, on multiple levels. First of all, it's just in bad taste. Why try and campaign your atheism at arguably the most religious time of year? Even people who don't go to church show up at least once this time of year -- CEO's (Christmas-Easter-Only) in church lingo. Christmas has become such a huge part of our culture that people start thinking about it even before Halloween. And invariably, through the muck and the mire of the commercialism that dominates this holiday (different rant for a different day), people are reminded of what the true meaning of Christmas is: God became man, took on flesh, and died to save his people. Though our culture does a pretty good job of shutting God out even at this time of year, it's nearly impossible to do so completely, and I would say that people's minds are on religion for this short period more than any other on the calendar. So why try and poop in everyone's coffee this time of year? Granted, I don't think the bus ads will "scrooge" millions of people and ruin the holidays (though perhaps I just have a low view of advertising), but it's just tacky. It's kind of like going to a guy's funeral and paying your last respects by telling everybody what a tool the guy was. Even if he was a tool, you're a bigger tool for completely lacking tact. And forgive me if I scoff at the "lonely atheists" excuse. Send 'em a "Christmas is stupid" card if they're really that down in the dumps about it. It seems obvious the real reason is to reach the general public, to plant that seed he honestly referenced. And to do so at Christmas is nothing if not tacky.

Speaking of that seed, since Edwords claims his ad is intended to invoke "rational thought," let's examine the rationality of this ad. "Be good for goodness' sake." Really? Besides being hopelessly circular in nature, what does that even mean? I should do good and moral things on behalf of goodness and morality itself? To do something for someone's sake implies a sense of obligation or indebtedness. In what sense is someone obligated or indebted to "goodness." What has goodness ever done for me? Better yet, is it possible for one to be indebted to an abstract thought like goodness? Or is it patently ridiculous -- one might say, "irrational"?

A better question is, what is goodness anyway? From an atheistic mindset, I'm supposed to be "good," which at best can be defined in relative terms, for the sake of "goodness," which at best can be defined in utilitarian terms. How is it possible to do good when good lacks a concrete definition? How can goodness even exist as an abstract concept if there is no basis for calling something good or evil? Why is kissing a baby better or worse than kicking one? Who's to say? Can goodness define itself, so I can do its bidding because of my obligation to it? Or have we just dipped completely and totally into the realm of irrationality?

The fact is that without some infinite reference point in the person of God, goodness as a finite concept is completely meaningless. I can neither do an act called "good," nor can I do it for the sake of "goodness" if those terms are stripped of any meaning. When God is established as eternal and primary, then goodness as a concept flows from him. Good is defined in terms of the infinite God and we do good for His sake, because our very existence is indebted to Him (not to mention salvation, from the Christian worldview). Atheists may stamp their foot all day long about rationality, but they have a long way to go to support a cohesive thought process. In essence, the AHA has answered its own question. "Why believe in a god?" In part because the second half of their ad lacks any meaning or coherence apart from a notion of God.

Perhaps their campaign will indeed plant a seed, but it most certainly will not be rational.

Further reading on Proposition 8

If you're curious to read more commentary about Prop 8, check out this article just posted in Albert Mohler's blog. It's a good read.

For all my Republican friends ...

Just in case you thought I was "going all left-ish" on you, here's a rant for you. :-)

You might have heard of the debate raging in California over the controversial legislation known as "Proposition 8", which was passed on Election Day. Essentially, the proposition modifies the California state constitution to legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus excluding homosexual marriages. The legislation passed as a result of a California State Supreme Court decision that overturned a previously voted ban on gay marriage. Proposition 8 was designed to modify the constitution so that such a reversal could not succeed again.

I applaud the legislation because it finally honors the wishes of the people. They have already spoken once in favor of a traditional view of marriage, but the judicial branch took that away. This time, at least, the people have spoken again, and I am glad that at least for right now, the people's wishes are honored above those in the higher levels of the courts.

But now there are several protests in the streets, and have been since last Tuesday. I guess my first question is ... what exactly are you protesting? You had a chance to vote down the proposition, but the people at large clearly supported it. It would seem as though they are protesting democracy itself. But more than that, I am saddened by this article I read today on the issue. In it, an Episcopalian pastor, Rev. Ed Bacon, denounces the Christian community that supported "this act of bigotry." He was referring specifically to Saddleback Church (where Rick Warren currently serves as pastor), who was outspoken in their support of the proposition. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (I feel ridiculous typing that) has also said that the war is not over, and it will go back to the courts. He comments, "It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."

This irks me a bit. First of all, Arnold, no it's not. This has no parallel whatsoever to the 1948 case, because this has NOTHING to do with race. It is a matter of a sexual preference, which cannot and should not be compared to ethnicity. Even if you contend that one can be born as a homosexual (which is hardly a foregone conclusion), homosexuality is by nature an active choice. You don't choose what color your skin is; you chose whom you have sex with, or more appropriately, whom you marry. It's also been suggested that alcoholism can be hereditary, yet if an alcoholic gets wasted and try to drive home, he will be and should be locked up, regardless of his genes. Now drunkenness and homosexuality are different in nature. I understand that, but both involve active choices, not a passive designation. The issue of sexual orientation cannot be judged along the same lines as one's race no more than one's preference for blondes or brunettes can be.

But that's really besides the point. My main issue with gay marriage is that it violates what is by nature a religious institution. Marriage has its origin in Scripture (or at the very least in religious communities), and has always been defined as a union by one man and one woman. A union that falls outside of those parameters may be called many things, but "marriage" is not one of them. If you want to call it a "civil union" and give them equal benefits as a married couple, I'm ok with that. I don't think a homosexual couple should be discriminated against by our government when it comes to tax benefits and legal standing. But that's a civil issue ... not a religious one.

As for you, Rev. Bacon, what is truly "disappointing" is that an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ would fail to recognize a community standing up for a moral mandate commanded by Scripture. If you don't agree that Scripture teaches a traditional view of marriage, then that's fine. We can agree to disagree, though I'd love to hear your exegetical reasons. But to accuse someone of bigotry for taking a moral stand that they clearly believe is taught in Scripture is despicable. These aren't like the people who tried to justify the inferiority of African-Americans using obscure passages ripped out of context. These are people following very clear teachings in both the Old and New Testaments. So, with all due respect, Reverend, shame on you.

Man, I need to stop following politics ... this can't be good for my blood pressure.

Yes We Did

I have never been entirely sure what Mr. Obama has been insisting it is that we "can" do, but I'm fairly sure we as a country did it last night. After witnessing an historic election, we can all take a deep breath and think about the future. As for me, I mentioned a few days ago I would have some thoughts on this whole election season, so I won't waste any time getting down to it. And yes, it's quite long, but I think much of this needs to be said. Some of it may sound harsh, but it is all meant to be constructive and in love. Here we go ...

• I have never followed politics particularly closely, in large part due to the diarrhea of information and attacks lobbed at the American public for months on end. I grow tired of it rather easily, and have usually not been very involved in politics. I knew a little bit, but I was hardly up to date on all the issues, because all the sides were saying one thing and accusing the other side of saying something else, which the other side denied and attacked the other side for something outlandish, which was in turn denied ... and on ... and on ... and on. This election was different, mainly because of the current state of the country. I still am no guru, but this election captured my attention and made me really listen to what was being said, which brings me to my next conclusion ...
• Politicians as a whole must think we are idiots. I think I understand why I can hardly tell where a candidate stands on an issue. He won't say. He'd rather tell me about the time his opponent ran over a puppy and laughed about it with his buddies. You know why? Because he thinks that's what we care about. That's what we grab on to. Many Republicans I've heard are too busy calling Obama a Muslim, a terrorist, or the anti-Christ (or some combination there of) to hear what he actually says. Many Democrats are too busy calling John McCain senile, Sarah Palin an idiot, or ridiculing both of them for being in bed with Bush to really care what they propose we as a nation do. It's mind-numbing. It's why if I saw another ad from Mitch McConnell talking about Bruce Lunsford living in Chicago or an ad from Bruce Lunsford accussing Mitch McConnell of being "one of the most corrupt members of Congress," I probably would have had an aneurism. I think it's time we as a people stopped listening and accepting these cheap attacks as a substantive argument. I want to hear why Barack Obama's plan for the economy is inferior to John McCain's and the reasons why (or vice versa). I want to hear what you will do about the issues that threaten us, not how much of a tool you can make your opponent look like. Part of this means we stop spreading the propaganda on behalf of our own candidates. I have heard people call Barack Obama a socialist (more on this in a second) that I'm nearly certain have no idea what socialism actually is. They just heard their buddy say it, who may or may not have a clue why he even thinks it. People get a chain letter detailing the reasons why the Bible says Obama is the anti-Christ and then just spew it to all their friends without thinking for a second whether the argument even makes sense. For the sake of intellectual honesty, can we please just stop? Which leads me to my next point ...
• Barack Obama is not a socialist. Seriously. Look, I didn't vote for the man, for a variety of reasons, but this little charge has been tossed around for too long. It's ridiculous. If you want socialism, go buy a Rage Against the Machine album. Obama is calling for a tax increase for the extremely wealthy, and a tax cut for everyone else. That's not socialism, that's taxes. They're in the Bible, you have to pay them, and every government in the universe has them. It's unfortunate he chose the words, "redistribute the wealth," because all he's really doing is raising taxes for a small minority of Americans in order to give a tax break to everyone else. The people that complain that he's merely giving handouts to those who are too lazy to earn it themselves implies that everyone making less than $200,000 a year is lazy. I cannot begin to state how arrogant and elitist that sounds. For that matter, why exactly is everyone clamoring for a tax break for the extremely wealthy? If we've learned one thing from the current economic crisis, isn't it that the power of greed knows no bounds? Is it really safe to assume that by giving large companies tax breaks that they will take their savings and use it for the good of the people by creating more jobs? Take a look at AIG, who received several billion dollars worth of backing in the form of a government bailout, and then takes a $500,000 executive retreat to a resort, indulging in massages, manicures/pedicures, and other lavish expenses. Their excuse for this? It wasn't anything more than they'd always done. Case in point. Perhaps I just don't know my politics very well (which is certainly possible), but most of the people I've heard calling Obama a socialist actually stand to benefit from his proposals. Which leads me to my next point ...
• My Republican friends (in my best John McCain voice), everybody just needs to CHILL. Grab some Valium, take a deep breath, and relax. It's going to be OK. I spent a few hours watching people update their Facebook statuses last night, and it was nothing short of hilarious. You would think some people have never seen a Democrat before. We've had Democratic presidents before, and we'll have them again. Life will not cease to function. Obama will not be our dictator (as some suggested), and he will not abolish the voting process to inaugurate his reign of terror (seriously, some people actually said that). If he does, you can come kick me in the shin. I promise.
• And for my Christian friends, we definitely need to chill. I think some people have forgotten that God is never surprised by an election, nor is he ever thwarted. Every government under heaven from eternity past to the end of humanity has been instituted and ordained by God. Obama, even if he is the anti-Christ (which he's not ... that's absurd), could never thwart the ultimate sovereignty of God. "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" (Psalm 115:3). Rest in that, Christian, and act as though you believe it. The rampant panic last night does not suggest a very faithful people. Which brings me to ...
• I can't help but be disappointed by the reaction of dismay and fear last night. First, for the people threatening to leave the country ... well, you might as well pack up and go, because I can think of nothing more childish and un-American than leaving the country just because your guy didn't win (even if you weren't serious). You may have scoffed (rightfully) at the Democrats who said it when Bush was elected, and it is equally ridiculous to say it now. Also, last night, whether you like the outcome or not, was a truly historic thing in our nations history. America just elected a black President. That's HUGE. Meanwhile, most of the Christians I know are belly-aching because society as we know it will cease to exist. What a terrible message for the church to send to the African-American community. We should be marked as a people of love, rejoicing for our country's progress of racial reconciliation, and instead we pack up and make plans for Australia. Truly sad. And finally ...
• You now have an obligation, Christian. You are to pray. You are to pray for this country and you are to pray for its leaders. It's not merely a good idea, it's a command. I don't care if you hate Barack Obama with the hatred of a thousand suns, you now are obligated to bathe him and his office in prayer. So any resentment you have should be set aside, for the sovereignty of God has spoken and you have a new leader. A prayer such as, "Lord, please don't let Obama be such a tool and wreck everything" does not count. As Christians, we are called to submit to the authorities and to pray for them. There is absolutely no way around it.

There. Rant over. You can now yell at me in the comments and call me a liberal-loving moron. :-)

Irony -- breaking your promise about a political post

Since whoever is elected at all levels of government tomorrow will most likely go on to break about half of the promises they made during their mad rush to occupy their office of choice, I figured it is only fitting that I do the same. I promised a political post before election day, but I've decided to change plans a little bit. After we have elected our next President, I'll post some thoughts on this whole season, interacting a bit with the issues and commenting on the campaign process itself. Until then, make sure you vote tomorrow!

This is why I'm a UK fan ...

I'm sure some of you have seen this picture before but it makes me smile, so I wanted to post it here, especially since I haven't had time to do much lately. I'll have more time once the semester's over in a few weeks, so for the three of you that actually read this, you can expect more then. For now, I'm going to be taking a break from the REOG posts, as they're not as funny as I hoped nor particularly insightful. You might see one pop up every now and then, but I'll probably just go back to ranting and raving.

And just to ensure some controversy, I will promise at least one political post before election day. Should be fun!

Real Evangelicals of Genius #3: Rhetorical Question Answerer

For other posts in this series, click the label at the bottom of this post.

Today we salute you, Mr. Rhetorical Question Answerer. You know better than to sit quietly during a sermon. No, you narrate the subtleties for all those within four rows of you. After all, why do people ask questions if they're not meant to be answered? They don't, and you won't let them. Inner monologue? Who needs that? Not you. Even if there is no question asked, you've always got a "That's right!" or "Amen!" or "Tell 'em, now!" in your back pocket, ready to be said in a voice audible only to the guy next to you ... or shouted in a distracting manner. So here's to you, Mr. Unsolicited Sermon Feedback Person, 'cause no one states the obvious in a somewhat annoying manner quite like you.

-----------

OK, quick disclaimer. I don't have a real problem with this, nor do I think there is an underlying issue that is dangerous or destructive. I just think it's kind of funny. In fact, I love Rhetorical Question Answerer because they can make any sermon entertaining, no matter how boring or ridiculous the speaker is. This is the guy/girl that is really into the sermon, and loves providing feedback, even if it's not audible to anyone but the people around them. It's not really insightful, or necessary, but it apparently helps them, so hey ... go for it. I'm just not much of a responsive person, so I find it fascinating.

While Rhetorical Question Answerer usually just makes me smile or occasionally feel a little uncomfortable (something about social norms being ignored just makes me cringe sometimes), the real gold is when a rhetorical question is answered incorrectly. You know what I'm talking about. RQA isn't paying a ton of attention, mishears or misunderstands the question, and murmurs a "no" when the speaker is obviously hinting at a "yes" (or vice versa). They quickly realize their mistake, get embarrassed because everyone heard them say the wrong thing, and good times are had by all.

But occassionally, if you're lucky, you'll see a rhetorical train wreck. This is when God has shown favor on your congregation, because nothing beats the awkwardness and hilarity of this moment. A quick story to illustrate my point:

I spent a year in Texas after graduating college to go through an intensive discipleship program, covering Old Testament and New Testament Bible study, systematic theology, church history, apologetics, hermeneutics, homiletics, etc. One day, our church history teacher, John Brown (one of the smartest guys I've ever heard), is lecturing on some of the early church Christological controversies. He was trying to illustrate the difficulty for the church fathers to understand a man who was both 100% man and 100% God. Admittedly, it's hard to get your mind around, even when studying the texts of the New Testament. So he asks a rhetorical question to get across the gravity of the situation. "So what do you do with the incarnate, pre-existent Son of God come to Earth?" Most of us understood his question. One of us, apparently, did not. This anonymous person (let's call him "Wes Ffolkes") answers loud enough for everyone to hear, "You kill him."

I cannot overstate how awkward this was. Everyone turned with mouth agape, shocked at the near blasphemy just uttered. John Brown stammered, "What???", then burst into maniacal laughter, as did the rest of us. "Wes" was trying to imply that the Pharisees and religious leaders, when confronted with Jesus, responded by killing him. Which is true, of course, but not ANYWHERE CLOSE to what was being discussed. RQA strikes again. (I should note that "Wes" is a great guy, was liked by all, and this was not the norm for him. But he will never live this one down.)

So, the moral of the story is: if you answer a question, just be sure it's the right one. Or people will blog about you three years later. If you have a funny RQA story, please share in the comments, it could be great fun for all.

The "born again" fad?

I came across this entry in Dr. Mohler's blog the other day, and found it to be very interesting. It seems being "reborn" is the cool thing to do in Thailand. Give it a read.

Real Evangelicals of Genius #2: Super Cool Youth Pastor Guy

For other posts in this series, click the label at the bottom of this post.

Note: I don't know if this guy is a youth pastor or not, as all the images I could find were real people, and I'd kind of feel like a jerk if I put someone's staff bio picture on my blog to make fun of them. Instead, this is a picture that made me laugh, from www.larknews.com, a very funny site you should check out sometime. I'd like to think he's a youth pastor, though.

Today we salute you, Mr. Super Cool Youth Pastor Guy. You know what it takes to reach the youth of America: a fo-hawk, some tight jeans, and a cool tat of some Greek word. You know better than to bring any of those lame "senior pastor" jokes into your sermons. No, your sermons are decked out with references to "The Hills," as you sip your triple venti latte and show YouTube clips to "illustrate spiritual truths," or to watch a skater fall on his man parts. The youth are the future of America, and they're not going to come to church if it's lame! Your totally rad (is that word still cool?) youth ministry is here to eradicate lameness, complete with haze machine and electric guitar worship solos. So here's to you, Mr. Guitar-Hero-Master-For-Jesus, because no one can relate to the immaturity of an adolescent quite like you.
------------

Perhaps I'm being harsh with Super Cool Youth Pastor Guy. I'm not trying to be, it's just that I find it funny sometimes how much like a high school kid a high school pastor can act. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I wonder what kind of implications lay behind the actions of many youth ministries around the country.

Let me first start out by saying how much I respect youth pastors. They're vitally necessary in most church models, and what they do can have an enormous positive impact. They're also frequently pressured to get as many kids in their youth ministry as possible, so even well intentioned youth pastors can be somewhat forced to tweak their presentation (and even content, at times) for the sake of being "relevant." So I understand where they're coming from. Plus, I know several guys that do it right. But that's not who this is about.

That said, I think "relevance" has become something of an idol in many churches today. We have to make church relevant to unbelievers so they'll come and hear our message. Without going too deep into why I see this as a potential problem, you can see that at some point this can have a spiral effect, until even the content of the gospel is altered in some (extreme) cases. Most of the time, though, our strive for relevance just sends subtle messages.

It seems that by catering to the pattern and the culture that the world sets, we set the church in competition to the world by trying to provide all it offers in addition to the spiritual side of things. Christianity then becomes somewhat of a "good deal." Perhaps you will see why I think this is incorrect. Following Christ is nothing short of a total renunciation of the world and its ways. It doesn't mean that we have to live like Quakers or something, but it does mean that the church is not the place for entertainment -- it is the place for the edification of the body and the teaching and preaching of the Word of God. It doesn't have to be boring. But if we're concerned that the only way our church members will sit through a service is if it has enough bells and whistles, then perhaps we have a larger problem than relevance. Perhaps the problem lies in the health of our congregation.

You can see how this larger issue relates to Super Cool Youth Pastor Guy, but specifically my question for him is this: does a high school kid need a peer he can relate to a model he can look up to in his youth pastor? No, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I can't help but wonder if we're out of balance here.

Quasi-Hurricane 2008

Well, it's been an interesting couple of days around here. I, like about half of Louisville, lost power for a couple of days, but things seem to be getting back to normal, so I might actually get around to regular posting. Our house regained power in the middle of the night last night, so perhaps something resembling normalcy will return to my neck of the woods.

These past few days, though, I've been thinking about the curious predicament Louisville has been in since Sunday. To recap the bald facts, a hurricane went north of us to Indianapolis, but happened to cause some high winds in the area. Then 300,000 people lost power.

Huh?

Does that seem odd to anyone? The wind blew real hard for a couple of hours and now our entire city is crippled. Seems kind of ridiculous, doesn't it? There was no tornado, no lightning, not even any rain to speak of. We had gusts up to 75 miles an hour and society as we know it is upside down. I went out to lunch yesterday (my work still happened to have power ... yay), and it felt like Armaggedon. I tried to get gas because apparently everyone in the city has decided to flood gas stations and empty them out, only to find that the Thornton's I went to was out of power. Instead I decided to try McDonald's for a quick meal. No power. Subway next door? Nope. Interestingly enough, both had lights on and a neon sign that said "Open", yet they weren't open. Whatever.

Finally I find a Quizno's that has power, only to find about 30 people crammed in the lobby as 3 sandwich makers struggled to keep up with the demand, doubtless pondering just how much they hated their job that day. Long story short, I went about 3 miles to a gas station and a couple of restaurants and got back to my desk 45 minutes later. Any other day, that trip takes about 10-12 minutes. On my way home I see people lined up three deep at gas stations to try and fill up (I eventually found a place to fill up myself), while other shopping centers look like ghost towns, completely devoid of power.

And it never even rained ...

This seems a helpful reminder of just how frail we are as a people, and how silly all our bravado and chest pumping seems at times. A little gust of wind can cripple life as you know it, and send you rushing to a gas station to pay $4.15 a gallon when you scoffed at that price two days ago and would have driven another 5 miles to find a cheaper price.

Kind of makes you feel small, doesn't it?

America has talent???

I made a big mistake last night. I was sitting around, flipping through the channels (a luxury I can rarely afford), and I landed on "America's Got Talent." Wow. I've watched the show before, in pieces, but this was one of the final rounds, and I was somewhat depressed as a result. A few quick observations about my experience:

• For a show involving the words "America" and "talent," I saw very little of either last night. Two of the judges are British, and the only country that still seems to like Hasselhoff is Germany. As for the talent ... well, it was there ... sometimes ... in a way.
• I'm not sure who ever decided to make Hasselhoff a judge of talent, but one quick look at his previous work should cast a little doubt on his qualifications.
• I think this audience would give a standing ovation for a crippled dog in a Christmas sweater chasing its own tail. Seriously, every time an act begins, it's like the Beatles are performing in 1965 or something. If they are that impressed by everyone that performs, I weep for my country.
• I cringe every time Hasselhoff speaks. It feels like I'm watching the Office when Michael Scott tries to run a meeting or interact with another human being. I want to curl up in a ball and pretend he's not there.
• One of the top 20 acts is a 4 year-old girl singing "Beauty and the Beast." Seriously? Sure, she's adorable, but in the top 20? SHE'S A 4 YEAR-OLD GIRL! She can't even pronounce some of the words in the song. If the show was called, "America Is Cute and Innocent," then give her the prize, but can anyone say with a straight face she is one of the 20 most talented acts in the country? Piers Morgan, one of the judges, tells her she's adorable, but this might be as far as she goes, and the entire audience boos him. In a previous episode, he also told a man who dressed up like Britney Spears (complete with "pectoral enhancements") and did a painful lip sync to "Hit Me Baby One More Time" that he just didn't think grown men should dress up like teenage girls. The crowd booed him there, too. My weeping continues.
• Quick note from Wikipedia -- apparently David Hasselhoff is also known as: The Hoffenator, The Hoffenhessen, and my personal favorite, The Hoffetron. My comparison to Michael Scott is now fully justified.
• Jerry Springer and Sharon Osbourne are two of the most normal people on the show. Think about that for a minute.
• The point of the show is to find an act that can have a show in Vegas. I wonder if everyone voting realizes this. I've seen one or two acts that I would pay any money at all to see, much less whatever exorbitant amount a ticket will run in Vegas. But a 4 year-old singing Disney covers? A 12 year-old girl (who sounds like she's from Pike County, KY) fake beating up her dad and a bunch of other guys with mildly impressive karate moves? A group of 20 middle-aged fathers in tuxedos doing a tap dance routine? A chubby kid twirling a flaming baton? Sure, they're all talented (some moreso than others), but would I actually pay to watch them do it for an hour or two? Ummmm, not so much.

Update on my hypocrisy

Quick post today. I've been thinking a lot about my last post, and the whole Christian parody thing, and how my whole series kind of violates my own ideals. Last time I pledged to think of a new title, but I fast started to realize that the whole concept on these posts is satirical and based on the model from the ads I'm mimicking. So all that to say, I'm going to keep the original title and style, even though it is clearly a parody much like those I made fun of.

Why? A few reasons. One, it's funny. It's a great concept that those ad gurus have set forth. Plus, they always say imitation is the highest form of flattery. Two, the reasons Christian knock-off t-shirts seem ridiculous to me is not just that they copy a recognized logo or slogan. It's that they do it ALL the time, and they're usually not very funny, or even clever. It's primarily a taste thing for me, and while some people might enjoy it and like them, I just think it's kind of cheesy. I'd like to think that what I'm doing with these posts both serves a real purpose and is larger than just the shell of a radio commercial. And finally, parody can be a great form of humor, if done well and in moderation. I'd like to think I am doing it well (though you may disagree), and it's not like all of my posts are knock-offs of some kind.

In summary, I guess it's kind of like the difference between liking Weird Al Yankovic and buying his CDs. I've always heard some of Weird Al's songs and thought some of them were pretty funny. So one day I bought one of his CDs ... not so funny. He's a great distraction and sideshow, but no one could ever really take him seriously as a real artist. It's just not the nature of his game. So in closing, I guess the less I resemble Weird Al, the better.

Actually, that's true on a great many levels, in all facets of my life. Words to live by ...

Real Evangelicals of Genius #1: Christian T-Shirt Designer

For the introduction to this series of posts, click here.

Today we salute you, Mr. Christian T-Shirt Designer. Your job knows no limits of normal work weeks, scarce production, or artistic originality. No, as soon as you see a commercial on TV or growing social trend, you think to yourself, "Hey, I can rip that off ..." and off to work you go. Unlike those pagan t-shirt designers, you have a lot of responsibilities: Bible reading, sin abstaining, church attending, intercessory praying, et al. You don't have time to think up original designs or slogans, so you wisely manage your time by scorning copyrights and trademarks, all in the name of spreading the gospel. You will gladly endure the persecution for the hope that someone might finally realize that "Jesus died for MySpace in heaven." Besides, you have scriptural support! So here's to you, Mr. One-Letter-Away-From-Spiritual-Significance, because no one turns "Subway" into "HisWay" quite like you.
------------------------

Now, I should note, many of these REOG are things that I have some real qualms with. They usually belie a larger issue more than what lies on the surface. This is one that I don't really have a major problem with. I still think it's kind of ridiculous, but it's more a reflection of personal taste than anything. But regardless, I must still point out that I don't have a problem with Christian t-shirts, nor do I deny that they can be used for good. And not all Christian t-shirts are lame, or rip-offs; but let's be honest: most of them are either one or the other, or both.

My biggest issue with the Christian t-shirt designer is that it says to the world that we as Christians have little to no originality. Seriously, go to a Christian book store and look around at t-shirts and other paraphernalia. I guarantee 75% or more of them are some recognizable slogan or logo used by a secular company twisted into some spiritual truth or phrase. Why? I just don't get it. Sure, it's kind of clever (sometimes), but why does EVERY t-shirt have to be a rip-off of some kind? I understand the value and humor that exists in parody, but it just seems like there's a LOT of parody out there. Is it that hard to think of something original? Perhaps it is. As I'm typing this, I'm remembering that I'm taking the name of this series from a popular Budweiser ad on TV and radio. So I guess even I'm not free from my own accusation.

I really think that Christians need to value originality and creativity more, for many reasons. God certainly is the author and originator of creativity, and man made in his image should embrace that. Christian music shouldn't be as bad as it is (on the whole), and our t-shirts should not reek of lameness. There are times it almost seems like just laziness to me. Surely I realize that is an unfair statement, but I see it in my own heart at times, and I have to wonder how much it contributes to the problem (if it can indeed be classified as a problem) as a whole. There is the whole side issue in this of why Christians generally are just kind of weird (and feel that they should be), but that's a whole other thought for another time.

So for now, I will pledge to you that I will think of another title for this series to show I'm not a blatant hypocrite, even if it's not as funny. I'm surely not as smart or witty as the ad gurus at Budweiser, but I will at least have something of my own. For now, consider this the start of a discussion. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

Just thought you might want to know ...

Ok, now YOU go run back a fumble for a touchdown!

Yeah, just thought you guys might want to know the mighty UL offense managed 2 points today, and you can thank Mike Hartline's lame intentional grounding in the end zone for that.

27 - 2 ... that's all I'm saying.

Real Evangelicals of Genius 0:-D

That's a halo emoticon in the title, in case you didn't know,
and he's smiling so big because he has the joy of the Lord, just like Super
Christian here. Just FYI ...

It is with great pleasure and anticipation that I announce the beginning of a new series. If you've grown up in the church like me, you have no doubt noticed some select groups of people who exhibit unusual behavior in the church. These people mean well, for sure, but sometimes their thoughts and behavior betray something beneath the surface that may be less than desirable for believers. So in a light hearted, firmly tongue-in-cheek approach, I hope to describe some of these groups of people and offer some thoughts on their eccentricities.

This won't be a regular series, necessarily, and I'll have some random posts in between each one. In all reality, it will probably be something of an ongoing feature to break the routine occasionally. Hopefully you will enjoy them as much as I have enjoyed thinking about them. So stay tuned, the first installment will come later this week or early in the next!

DISCLAIMER: Please don't be offended by any of these posts, even if you might fall into one of the categories to some extent (I doubt any of these people exist in the extremity that I plan on describing them). The truth is, I know some of the people will describe me well ... uncomfortably well, at times. Please understand that my intention is only to have some fun in a satirical manner, and offer some legitimate thoughts underlying some of the ridiculousness.

The Investment of Time (2 of 2)

For the first part to this post, see "Nerds of America, meet your match ..."

The thing about triviality is this: if all you waste is valuable time that could be spent elsewhere, you get out pretty lucky. More often the things that mire us in wasted time have more devastating effects.

James 1:27 says, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

While the first part of James’ definition is vitally important, it is this second aspect that I want to focus on today. “To keep oneself unstained by the world” is a vital part of living out faith in Christ, according to the apostle. It’s not hard to understand what he’s trying to say, and yet time and time again I could charge myself with having more than a few stains on my spirit.

It’s alarming how the infiltration of worldly ideas and images can stain your thinking. When I find myself rolling around in the mud of the world, the effects can be truly frightening. I start to look at sin differently – it’s not so bad, maybe it would be a lot of fun. I start to look at others differently – boy, they don’t really measure up to the people I see on TV/movies/internet. I start to think of morality differently – why am I leading this monkish existence, denying myself of what these people enjoy so much? I start to view humor differently – I can be a pretty mean-spirited punk if I’m not careful. I start to view God differently, relationships differently, my (future) career differently. Even the plausibility of my faith can come into serious contention.

This is why we, as believers, must be very careful what we feed our minds. Now, don’t get me wrong – there’s nothing inherently wrong with indulging in some mindless acts every now and again. It can be downright beneficial. Most people’s schedules are pretty hectic, and the healthy person knows when he needs to sit down and take it easy, without worrying about getting something accomplished. One of the smartest (and godliest) people I’ve met once said, “Sometimes the most godly thing I can do is to sit down and watch a football game.” My own sanity would behoove me to learn this lesson quickly.

However, this is most certainly a balance, and the consequences for indulging ourselves too often can be difficult to overcome. Think of it this way, if you really were motivated to spend 18 hours fighting an online monster in a fantasy game, on the surface you’ve just wasted a day of your life that you’ll never get back. But what were the relational sacrifices that were made? How many friends do these people have? How healthy are their relationships? If you’ve spent 18 hours in one sitting, my guess is you’ve spent an inordinate amount of time glued to a computer screen, taking in and immersing yourself in a reality that doesn’t exist. How dissatisfied would you be with the world if you spent most of your time plugged into an entirely different one? Could you even function? Not well, I would guess. While that's obviously the extreme, the same questions could be asked of the things I mentioned earlier, and I doubt the answers would be more comfortable.

I believe that the Christian who wants to be influential and disciplined must view time as an investment. If I plant myself in front of a computer screen and pour over my fantasy football team for hours on end, I have invested part of my life devoted to a fake game based on a real sport played by people I’ve never even seen in person before. In moderation, not so bad. In larger portions, kind of silly. If I spend all my time involved in the gossip scene of Hollywood, or filling my mind with the images that magazine photographers flood my senses with, I am training a part of me to become ingratiated with the world – a world that is antithetical to the kingdom of God and a world that is quickly passing away (1 John 2:17). What will I have to show for that at the judgment seat of Christ? Conversely, if I make an effort to invest my time in the Scriptures, to prayer, and the fellowship of believers, I am preparing myself to be the man that God has made me to be, and placing my treasure in a heavenly kingdom that will last into eternity.

Considering the market, I’d say that’s a pretty good return.

Nerds of America, meet your match ... (1 of 2)

I will be the first to admit that I've played some video games in my life. Especially as a younger kid, I played a LOT of video games. I've even played some pretty nerdy games in the past. My personality lends itself to games that are expansive and involved (read: dorky), and I have enjoyed the occasional RPG (role playing game), like the Final Fantasy series, in addition to the more standard shoot-'em-up and sports games. Now I rarely have the desire, much less the time, to turn on the ole PS2 and immerse myself in my inner nerd-dom.

So while I usually have sympathy for those that play some of these games, this is just ridiculous.

I encourage you to check out that article from yahoo, but let me hit the high points and offer some thoughts. Final Fantasy XI (yeah, there are eleven of them, actually more than that) is an online RPG, kind of like Everquest or World of Warcraft, if you're familiar with those. If not, here's the gist: you control a player, which you build up and equip through the game, which is played online with and against other players. Typically you team up with some other adventurers to advance the story line and make your characters stronger. There's much interaction and chatting between characters, and from what I understand, much of it is very much "in character." There's no talk of Tom Brady and his chances at an undefeated season; it's more about what spells you are fond of and which guilds you recommend.

Now, to quiet the snickering, I should say this: I have never played this game. I've already admitted to playing other such games (I really can't believe I'm typing this right now), but none of those involved this online component. Most are one player story line games -- one nerd limit. I have always restricted my nerd-dom from being shared with others in an online community. That's just a bit much for me. I liked to relish my nerdiness in isolation, to hide my shame from the world.

So anyway, the upside to an online game is that there are always updates that the developer can introduce: new bosses, side quests, equipment, etc. Square-Enix, developer of the series, recently introduced its latest addition -- a new super boss named, "Pandemonium Warden." Naturally, after hearing of its existence, some top level gamers ventured out to take it down. Only problem is, it's quite a resilient little bugger. In fact, these high-level characters blasted away at the monstrosity for over 18 hours straight, with no sign of weakening it. In fact, according to the yahoo article, leaders of the "player's guild" (go ahead, you can laugh at that) complained to Square-Enix that gamers were "passing out and getting physically ill." From a video game.

I'll give you a moment to take that in.

I'm pretty sure I couldn't (and wouldn't) do anything for 18 hours straight except breathe. Maybe not even that. But here's where this hits home: it's easy to make fun of people who would fight a ridiculously named online monster for the better part of a day if we weren't guilty of essentially the same thing.

See, in our culture we are awash in a sea of triviality. It is absolutely astounding how much time we devote to things that are completely meaningless, mindless, or both. Sure, you might not burn the midnight oil via online gaming, but how much time do you spend on Facebook every day? For what purpose? "Staying in touch with old friends?" Please. Rifling through hundreds of pictures in people's photo albums of people you've never met, scouring the news feed for gossip, and updating your status every 15 minutes is just as absurd as a prolonged battle with Pandemonium Warden. There are some legitimate uses to Facebook, I'll admit, (some even are useful in ministry) but if we're honest with ourselves, we exhaust ourselves of those uses pretty quickly.

Do you watch "The Hills"? I have a hard time believing you could convince me that there is one thing about that show that isn't completely meaningless. What about You Tube? How edified are you by watching that dumb skater kid fall and land on his daddy parts for the fourth time? Or that cute kid giggle at that bunny rabbit? What about sports? If you spend as much time as I have in the past pouring over statistics for your fantasy team or rumors of collegiate recruiting, you have wasted a good chunk of your life.

And yet we complain that we don't have enough time to spend in God's Word? To witness to our friends and family about our faith? To commune with our Lord in prayer? To read books to grow in our faith and knowledge? To invest in others lives in discipleship?

Sounds like a cop-out.

to be concluded ...

Back to school

It's mid-August, which can only mean a few things: college football, NFL football, fantasy football, and reading until I vomit. Yes, it's back to school time for me, so you likely won't be reading as many novel-posts, like several I've put up so far. I'll still be committed to posting something at least once a week, and hopefully it will be entertaining or enlightening for you.

I've always heard some things said in class or in my studies that I've wanted to use somehow, but never had much of an opportunity. So now I hope to be able to use this outlet to comment on some of the overflow of the flood of information I'll be gushed with this fall.

If you care, I'm taking the following classes: Old Testament Theology, Greek Exegesis of Romans, and Elementary Hebrew.

What I've learned so far: Hebrew is hard.

The quest for more (part 2)

For the first part to this post, see “King James? Or James El Rey?"

I feel like I should start by clarifying my problem. I’m not mad at Shaquille O’Neal for making more than Tuvalu. Ultimately, it’s not really his fault. I’m also not really concerned with whether European basketball threatens the NBA’s dominance on the world. I have opinions on the matter, and much more can be written, but that’s not really the point of these posts. (In fact, I’m not entirely sure where I’m going with this. I just know that something strikes me about this whole scenario, and I feel the need to express what seems like an all too familiar trend. After all, what good is a blog if you can’t write stuff like this? :-) These are not complete thoughts; they’re really more the start of a discussion. Feel free to chime in. But back to “the point.”)

The point lies beneath the surface, and the NBA is just one of the many areas where it manifests itself. It is a pervasive idea that undergirds almost every business model and personal financial plan in this country. It is the insatiable and inherently unattainable quest for one thing: more.

Everyone in America may like what they have, but what they really want is more. Sure, Donald Trump’s got a lot of cash. But why does he keep building hotels and casinos? He wants more. Maybe he has to take in a lot of cash to maintain that dying animal on his head he calls a haircut. Or maybe it’s just that he’s not satisfied with what he has. Maybe it’s not even money that he wants more of. Maybe it’s fame … prestige … power. It’s a rabbit trail that has no end.

This is the issue with these pro athletes. The guys I mentioned in the last post make PLENTY of money, and most have plenty of prestige and fame. They don’t need more money. They just want it. Sure, you get your taxes taken care of in Europe, and the team typically provides a house and a car. But come on. Are these guys really struggling to pay their mortgages? They don’t care about a house payment. They care about more. LeBron James isn’t thinking about playing in Europe cause he needs the cash. He’s said that he would entertain these offers in order to make a statement – to brand himself as a global icon. He’s already one of the most recognizable figures on the planet. But he wants more.

It’s not just in the billionaires, either. It’s right around the corner, in your own neighborhoods. People want more money so they can have bigger houses, nicer cars, more stuff. Why? They probably couldn’t tell you. They just want it. Sure, that stuff brings a level of comfort, but are they really uncomfortable where they are? And if so, isn’t it really due mostly to a comparison with people that have more? I know I’m not dissatisfied with my ’97 Nissan Maxima until I see one of my friends with a 2007 BMW. Then all of a sudden I’m not so “comfortable” anymore.

I just bought a new iPhone 3G about a month ago. Why? I have no idea. Steve Jobs told me to, I guess. It’s not that it’s not cool, or useful. It is. I love it. But why did I buy it? I really have no answer, other than to say that I wanted it. Which begs the question, why did I want it? The answer to that is probably a little less comfortable.

Please understand – there’s nothing inherently wrong with buying an iPhone, or wanting a nicer house or car. There are plenty of times when the Lord blesses us with financial benefits that can be used for our own pleasure and enjoyment. What I’m more concerned with is the attitude that underlies everything. So often we just want more for more’s sake. What sense does that make? Where is that in a biblical worldview? And more practically, where does it end?

God typically does not take kindly to those who squander wealth in frivolity and lavishness while people go hungry and lack basic human needs. Deuteronomy, for example, mandates several provisions for the people of Israel to take care of those in need in their community. The Lord saw this quest for more imbedded in human nature and expected his covenant people to rise above it. I believe he asks his new covenant people, the church, to do the same thing.

At this point I suppose I could go into a rant about how Jesus is the answer to our quest for more, and that he is the only one that truly satisfies. But I kinda hate that, to be honest. It’s not that there’s not an element of truth in it, it’s just that I hate trying to make Jesus fit in a Sprite commercial – like he’s the one that truly quenches your thirst for more toys. He doesn’t. If you are obsessed with a desire to have more on this earth and find true satisfaction and happiness in it, you will find Jesus fantastically disappointing. He won’t give you more, he’ll ask you to be content with less. It’s not that he wants to make you miserable, but he certainly doesn’t want you getting fat off your own blessing.

The truth is, true satisfaction really is found in Jesus, but it’s not the same satisfaction we search for. He won’t provide the answer to your quest for more, because there is no answer. It’s a bogus quest. In fact, in many ways, Jesus offers a respite from satisfaction itself. He offers a way out of the rat race for more by reorienting our focus. We no longer have to scramble to build and maintain our own kingdom out of the fool’s gold of this world, but instead we can follow him in building God’s kingdom on earth – a kingdom that is built on a sure foundation and will never fade.

Why Non-Americans Shouldn't Talk Crap Like Americans

Part 2 of my NBA/Europe post is coming later today or maybe tomorrow, but I have to stop and comment on the Olympic 4x100 meter freestyle relay last night. If you haven't seen it yet, you need to. Now. I have no idea where they're replaying it, but it's worth watching. I woke up yesterday at 4:30 AM CST in St. Louis, and stayed up to watch this come on at 11:30 PM EST. Probably not my smartest moment, but it was worth it.

What makes it so great is that the French decided to run their mouths. At the Olympics. Apparently Alain Bernard, the French anchor for the team, pre-emptively put his foot in his mouth last week with these words: "The Americans? We're going to smash them. That's what we came here to do."

Bad idea.

Nobody excels at beating other people and letting them know about it like Americans. It's one of the things that makes this country great. We don't just win. We win loudly. And last night, we showed that no one else should really try and take that mantle from us. Even though France was the odds-on favorite to win the event, I knew that you don't give us that kind of bulletin board material without paying for it.

Michael Phelps led off the relay, but failed to make a significant lead for the Americans. Garret Webber-Gale pulled out to a slight lead in the second leg, only for Cullen Jones to give it up in the third leg. Everything was going as France, and everyone else, expected. So when Bernard entered the water with a .6 second lead on Jason Lezak in the anchor leg, and proceeded to stretch it to nearly a full body length, I kinda thought we were screwed.

Then Lezak went all "American" on us and torched it. He didn't lead until the last tenth of a second, but the last 50 meters was epic, as he gained on Bernard each stroke, finally touching him out at the wall.

But as amazing as the race was (I've probably never been so excited about a swimming relay in my life, including 10 years of my own races), what I love is the interview afterward, the only place where Americans excel more than on the field, court, or wherever their sport is played. Michael Phelps referred to their competitors as "the Frenchies," and Webber-Gale admitted, "I was pounding on the block, saying the 'f-word.'"

I love America.

For further reading, I highly recommend Pat Forde's article on ESPN.com.

Oh, by the way, Bernard? Your dignity called. It misses you. It wanted to know when you guys could hang out again. My advice, dignity? Give it a couple of weeks.

King James? Or James El Rey? (Part 1)

Wow, two sports posts in one day? I know, call me one dimensional. Truth is, I was planning on posting this thought today, and when the Favre news hit, I just couldn’t resist. Rest assured, though I might mention sports every now and again, this is by no means an exclusive sports blog. Breathe easy, female readership (read: Mom).

I wanted to mention this, because it’s a fascinating story in the early stages of its development, and its implications are far beyond the realm of sports. It seems quite a few people are choosing to play ball in Europe rather than the NBA. For those of you new to the story, let me catch you up to date.

The craze started a few months ago when Brandon Jennings, one the top 5 high school recruits in the country (ranked #1 by some services), reneged on his commitment to Arizona to sign with an Italian team. Most people still expect him to declare for the NBA draft next year, but he has set a precedent for high school recruits looking to get around the one-and-done rule. Why go to college and make a mockery of an educational institution by labeling yourself a “student-athlete” (seriously?) for nine months when you can essentially take a year-long vacation, make some euros, and dunk on some Serbian fools? I’d certainly be tempted.

People have noticed this was an option ever since the one-and-done rule was put into effect, but Jennings is the only player (at least certainly the most notable) to actually take advantage of it. But the story doesn’t stop there. Ever since Jennings’ decision, several NBA players have left the league for the seemingly greener pastures of the Euro-league. Carlos Arroyo (formerly of the Orlando Magic) recently signed to play with a team in Tel-Aviv, and Earl Boykins (a 10-year veteran most recently with the Charlotte Bobcats) just became Italy’s Virtus Bologna’s (insert lunchmeat joke here) highest paid player, making around $3.5 million for the upcoming season.

So what’s the big deal? Is the league really mourning the loss of Carlos Arroyo and Earl Boykins? Not really. It’s part of a growing trend of parity on the global stage, though. Americans were shocked to discover that other countries actually had players on par with the USA’s best when the Americans were defeated in the 2004 Olympics twice, earning a bronze medal for their efforts, and bested again in the 2006 World Championships. That was one thing, but now to have players like Boykins, who’s never played outside the NBA in his career, be lured overseas is cause for a little concern.

But it gets worse. The biggest name to head overseas recently is ex-Atlanta Hawk’s forward Josh Childress. He’s not exactly a household name, but he was a solid contributor for the Hawks (who nearly upset the champion Boston Celtics this year in the playoffs), and was the 6th overall draft pick taken in the 2004 NBA draft. He’s no scrub. He’s no slouch, either, as he’s now making about $20 million over 3 years for Greek powerhouse Olympiacos.

But the biggest news of all is that reports have surface that LeBron James, the king himself, would entertain offers to play in Europe “for a year or two” when he becomes a free agent in 2010. In fact, he’s already talked to teams in Moscow and the aforementioned Olympiacos team in Greece. Now, his condition is that the offer is for $50 million per year, but still. Can you imagine the fallout if the NBA’s golden boy ditched the league to play in Europe? Commissioner David Stern would have a stroke.

See, lots of NBA players leave to play in Europe. This year alone, the following players have left for European pastures: Nenad Krstic, Juan Carlos Navarro, Jorge Garbajosa, Carlos Delfino, Bostjan Nachbar, and Primoz Brezec, in addition to the above named players. But even the casual observer will note a common thread in these guys: they ain’t from ‘round these parts. They all came from overseas, and played for professional squads over there. Their leaving isn’t that big of a concern, because it’s happened for years, and it makes sense. But Josh Childress played ball at Stanford, and grew up in California. LeBron James is from Akron, Ohio -- how less foreign can he be?

So why would these guys leave the greatest league on earth to play for such “lesser” teams? Well, it actually makes a lot of sense. For one, at the time of this writing, $1 is worth about 0.65 euros, and that’s the highest I’ve seen it in a while. Also, the money in Europe is essentially tax free, as teams usually pay their athletes’ taxes for them. Also typically in the deal is a free house and car. And to top it all off, there is no salary cap in Europe. Some team would actually be allowed to pay LeBron $50 mil, if they could afford it (and it’s not out of the question by any means). No NBA team can even hope to match that. For comparison, the salary cap last year was set at $55.63 million per team. Match a $50 million offer, and you couldn’t afford to pay me. OK, you could afford me, but not much else. And yes, I know there are salary cap exceptions, but my point still stands. No salary cap > salary cap.

Plus, if you were an athlete in the prime of your life, where would you rather live? Cleveland, Ohio or Athens, Greece (home of Olympiacos)? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

But here’s my point in all this: where does it end?

Undoubtedly, once the collective bargaining agreement is up in 2011, there will be an outcry from the players to boost the salary cap (or eliminate it) to compete with the money being offered overseas. But is that really the solution? Pay our professional athletes more money? I would imagine the average working man would balk at that, rightfully so. After all, increased salaries ultimately mean increased ticket prices, and a quick glance at the economy today suggests that isn’t exactly a change people would be welcome to.

Is catering to our athletes even more really what America needs? This is the problem inherent with America – indeed, with capitalism itself. There is no possible way to satisfy the greed of human beings. Every year athletes are whining and pouting that they’re not being paid enough when they’ve already seen more money than 99% of the world will ever see. In the 2007-2008 season, Shaquille O’Neal made about $21 million. The country of Tuvalu, a small nation in the Polynesian islands, posted a GDP in 2007 of $15 million. Think Tuvalu is insignificant? What about Zimbabwe? They’re only worth about 30 Shaqs. And they have more than 13 million people living there. 1.8 million of them live with HIV, and the life expectancy for females is 34 (males are 37).

Something is wrong here.

Favre to the Jets ... can we please shut up about it now?

This picture was on ESPN. The "Worldwide Leader In Sports," and the best picture they can manage of Favre is from a video game. Hilarious. Don't they have Photoshop or something up there in Bristol, CT?

Anyway, I was ecstatic to hear this news, only because it means that I don't have to hear any more Brett Favre news every 15 minutes. (BREAKING NEWS: Brett Favre just went to the bathroom! No word yet on whether it's #1 or 2. John Clayton is perched near his septic tank for an update once the deed is done.)

Have fun getting smoked by the Patriots, Brett. Cheers.

Breaking news: I have become "that guy" ...

Yes, folks, it is with great humility and sadness that I admit that I have become "that guy." I have started a blog. I didn't meant for it to turn out this way -- things just kinda happened. And before I knew it, there I was. A blogger. Sigh ...

Perhaps I should explain a bit. I kinda have a history of doing this. See, when MySpace first came out, I mocked. Why be friends with people on the internet when you can be friends in real life? Lame. But, in May of 2006, I was a not-so-proud member of MySpace. Then came Facebook. Yet again I mocked. Facebook is dumb -- you can't have cool songs on your profile. Plus, what's with the whole "poke" thing? Creepy ...

Yet again, in March (or so) 2007, I joined up. I at least had the self-respect to delete my MySpace profile, as I refused to be a part of two social networking sites at the same time. But I succumbed to the social expectations and listed all my hobbies and interests for anyone that wanted to be my "friend" could see.

And now, blogging. I've made fun of blogs for a long time now. I'm not completely anti-blog, because there are a lot of people who are smart and important enough to blog and have people care. Guys like Albert Mohler and many other evangelical leaders have stepped up and used this format to provide an intelligent and reasoned voice on a great many current events and hot topics, and I have gladly read and supported their efforts. Many others outside the Christian world have valuable insights and reports on blogs that are a great help to the masses. But that's just the thing: people actually care what they have to say. And let's be honest. The average blogger is not exactly on an intellectual or journalistic plane with the really useful blogs. It's often just a guy (or gal) who think he's a little better writer than he actually is, commenting on things he has little clue about. Or it's a guy that wants everyone to know what happened to him that day, with little regard for how interested anyone actually is. For them, perhaps that is helpful. For me, it just wasn't really my thing.

I doubt anyone is scouring the internet to get my input on the upcoming election, or the struggle in Iraq. I doubt even more seriously that anyone cares to get online and read a glorified version of my diary, detailing what I did today and who said what, and why I'm mad at so-and-so because she talked about me behind my back. Lucky for you, the reader (if there are any at all), I have no intention of venting about my emotional frustrations, nor do I have any delusion that what I have to say is so important that it demands its own corner of the web and your attention.

No, this isn't really about that at all. It's really nothing more than an echo of what the Lord is doing in and through me. I have no idea whether that's of interest to you or not, but it seems worth writing about to me. He's taken me on an amazing journey in the 24 (almost 25!) years of my life thus far, down many roads I never thought I'd see, and blessed me in some tremendous ways. It's not that my life is so important, but that his doings are worthy of reflection and recollection. That's why I've titled the blog, "lines on the road." It's a phrase from a Derek Webb song, "Faith My Eyes" (If you haven't heard it, stop immediately and go listen to it. Seriously. Do it.), as he reflects on where the Lord has led him. Similarly, as I'm led down the road to wherever it is I'm going, this is a place for me to document what it is I see and hear.

It certainly won't be all serious, and I surely hope they're not all this long. I'll be as likely to comment on a sports story or a funny picture as much as on a serious event or insight. Maybe it will be useful, entertaining, or insightful to you.

Or maybe you'll think I'm just being "that guy."