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.