On the Shoulders of Giants

Teaching Kids about Death and Resurrection

2011-12-14T09:59:00.003-05:00

I posted previously about my first reactions to the recent death of my friend, Stacy Ellison. This is the follow-up story about how I went to church the Sunday immediately following his passing.

Despite my grief over the loss of my friend, I had to prepare a Sunday School lesson for three kids, ranging in age from 10 to 12 years of age. I chose the text of John 11:1-44, the famous passage where Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead. That text is an easy choice, since it so clearly gives Christians comfort with the hope of being raised from the dead ourselves. I was also hoping that these tragic events might make the threat of death a present reality to these precious (and mostly unconverted) little children with so much living yet to do (God willing). I prayed that if any good might come from these sudden deaths, it would be that it might awake unconverted souls to their need for salvation in Jesus.

For the sake of my emotions, I decided not to mention Stacy or his family directly during the course of the lesson. After reading through the biblical text with the kids, I proposed a three point summation of the passage:

1. Lazarus was a friend of Jesus.
2. Lazarus died.
3. Jesus resurrected him from the dead to live again.

I tried to make the kids aware of two facts. First, that the second point ("this man died") is a fate that awaits all of us assuming that Jesus doesn't come back first. And secondly, that the third point ("Jesus resurrected him") is dependent upon the validity of the first point ("He was a friend of Jesus"). My goal was to communicate to these children that if they a hope in life beyond death, then they must be a friend of Jesus, which I chose to define as "Trusting in Jesus alone for salvation."

It's a message I had presented to these kids many times over the past five years, but that Sunday I emphasized it with greater passion than ever before. On account of the death of my relatively young friend of 37-years-old, I was conscious that none of us has any guarantee on how long we will have to live before that dreaded day of earthly death falls upon us.

In my previous post, I stated that the nature of Stacy's kind of "accident" unnerved me. Just two days earlier, a Texas pastor and his wife (Jackson and Barbara Boyett) who had been friends of our church also lost their lives in a head-on collision in which an oncoming vehicle slid into their lane. At the time, I tried to justify their deaths with arguments like, "I sure do know how dangerous those country highways can be. When cars reach high speeds and drivers get lulled into distraction, bad things tend to happen." And then I heard about Stacy's crash. Apparently it wasn't the result of cars traveling at high speeds and apparently it wasn't the result of a distracted driver. From what I've read, a pickup truck driving across a busy metro bridge in a 35 MPH zone suffered a seizure, pushed down hard on his gas pedal, and slid across into an oncoming Ford Taurus, which my friend was driving. There's just no logical explanation for why Stacy was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It just seems like it was destined to happen. I don't know if there is any significance as to why these dear folks died the same way in such a short amount of time, but it felt like cruel irony. I felt like God was just trying to get my attention by saying "When it's your day to die, there is no avoiding it or explaining it away."

As I read through John 11, I was struck by the emotional rebuke that Martha appears to give to Jesus in verse 21. She said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." It's a subtle rebuke, but it's absolutely true. Jesus knew of Lazarus's ailments yet intentionally delayed a visit for two days promising that "it is for God's glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it" (verse 4). The human side of me wants to know what Jesus was doing that would have been so important. What human friend would sit around while his friend lay dying? What human father would intentionally delay going to help his suffering son? If only for an instant, Martha appeared to be angry at Jesus. Given the perplexing nature of the recent deaths of people connected with my church in Louisville, it was an anger with which I could sympathize... if only for a moment.

Yet, though Martha's faith may have been weakened with the death of her brother, it was still strong enough to confess that "I know even now that whatever you [Jesus] ask of God, God will give you." This was not a "health and wealth" mantra, but an expression in her confidence in the unbreakable union of Jesus and God the Father. Even though we may not always like how God's providential will unfolds in life, we have to trust that God work through all things for the glory of Christ and "for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28). It was an immediate rebuke to my own disappointment with God's providence over the past week.

Getting the focus back on the Sunday School lesson, I simply exhorted those precious little children to ensure their eternal destiny by putting their complete trust in Jesus to save them from their sins. In order to be raised from the dead, they needed to become friends of Jesus. As I thought of the grace Jesus had shown to Stacy, I thought also of the grace Jesus has shown to me in forgiving my sins and giving me a new heart. It was at this point that the emotions I had suppressed all weekend finally got the best of me. I had to hand over the remainder of the lesson to my co-teacher, Matt Miller, because I could only weep, in the manner of a small child who had just stubbed his toe on a door. Matt challenged the kids again not to delay matters of eternal salvation.

I genuinely hope and pray that the sudden deaths of Boyetts and Stacy Ellison might give the rest of us cause to think more seriously about the salvation of ourselves and others. Ultimately, the most important question we have to answer is whether or not we're a true friend of Jesus Christ.

What I Did When I Learned My Friend Died

2011-12-09T00:01:00.002-05:00

Today marks the one week anniversary of the tragic, all-too-soon death of one of my good friends of the past seven years. Stacy Ellison died at the age of 37 after injuries sustained in a car crash on the Louisville Second Street Bridge. Stacy leaves behind his wife, Kim, who he loved and cherished, his little girl, Ali, and his infant son, Titus. He also leaves behind so many friends and family members who loved him dearly.

The Ellison family showed me great love, care, and joy during my time in Louisville. When an ice storm knocked out power across most of the city a few years ago, they housed me and my then-roommate for nearly half a week. I considered Stacy and Kim to be like my really cool, slightly more mature cousins. Stacy was my buddy; we watched NASCAR together, played in the same fantasy football league, and we once played a little Microsoft Kinnect (the last time I was over at his house). Stacy was a good Christian man, a deacon in our church, a faithful husband and father, and, of course, he was my friend.

A little over a month ago, he made me laugh so hard when he pretended to use his son as a Yoda puppet. I got so excited I had to leave the church fellowship hall because I was distracting the kids from their lesson. That was classic Stacy Ellison.

The details of his death have been a source of grief, mostly because it doesn't appear that there is anything he could have done to avoid it. Stacy was driving north from Louisville into Indiana in a Ford Taurus on a beautiful, somewhat comfortable December afternoon. A Silverado truck was coming south in the opposite lane. Because of extensive maintenance projects on the bridge, the speed limit was posted at around 30 mph. An eyewitness who was following the truck claims he was following the speed limit and the truck seemed to be doing about the same speed. Suddenly, everything went crazy...

The truck began to swerve out of control, accelerated wildly, hopped the dividing curb, and careened into the lane of oncoming traffic. Stacy's Taurus was the lone car that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The vehicles collided head-on. The two passengers in the truck were badly hurt, but Stacy suffered unsustainable injuries and died within the next hour. Medical examiners believe the driver of the truck suffered from a "medical emergency" that caused him to lose control of his vehicle. The witness said the driver appeared to be suffering from a seizure that likely resulted in his foot smashing down onto the gas pedal, causing the terrible chain of events that claimed the life of my friend.

When I heard about Stacy's death after a call from another dear friend, I felt like I should do something to make the situation better... but that was just desperate longing to try and regain a sense of control in my life. After an hour of scrambling across the internet and across town to inform some friends of the terrible news I had learned, I returned to my apartment, unaware of what to do next.

It is my personal belief that Stacy and Kim knew how much I valued their friendship, yet I cannot recall any occasion when I bothered to verbalize that sentiment. It's the kind of thing I sometimes have trouble saying with a straight-face, maybe because of how overly-sentimental it sounds or perhaps because I don't want to find myself tearing-up unexpectedly. But one thing that left a pit in my soul was the fact that people I care about could go to their grave (and to meet God) never knowing the depth of appreciation that I had for them.

That night, I did the only thing I could do. I called up numerous people (some family, some friends) who have been important in my life over the past few years. I didn't call everybody who I probably should have called, and sometimes I only got their voicemail services, but I did manage to tell the people who answered the phone three simple words, "I appreciate you." I tried to express the nature of that appreciation, but I'm sure my attempts to do so only scratched the surface.

I am so thankful for the people that God has placed in my life, at different times and in different places, that have made my life better for knowing them. Often, we don't have as much time together as we expect, but that doesn't make the time spent together any less sweet. One thing I learned after the death of my friend, Stacy, is that I have to value the important people in mind. Hopefully, I can let them know how much I truly appreciate them.

My Recent Posts

2011-02-05T22:19:00.005-05:00

It's been about a year since I've posted here, but I have written a few things on the internet!

"Why I Would Not have Supported Martin Luther King Back in the Day" (It's not as controversial as the title sounds)

"Christ, the Lion Who Keeps Getting Bigger" (I waited 2 years to post this after writing it...hmm, not sure if it was worth it, but it's an emotional subject for me).

How 8-bit Ninja Turtles helped make me a better person.

Three posts in a year? Man, the internet sure is dead these days...

I Went Searching for Chuck Norris...

2010-02-08T22:29:00.004-05:00

Here is what happened.

Google must not have been "feeling lucky"...

Special thanks: Adam Embry

Liberal Baptists are Bad for Your Computer

2010-01-28T20:50:00.003-05:00

So, back in October, I was trying to log onto the Associated Baptist Press website to read their opinion columns, and I get this warning message:

Yup, it's official liberal Baptist ruminations will harm your PC. I applaud AVG for looking out for my well-being.

Disclaimer: It all got resolved by the end of the day, but, yeah, it makes you think, doesn't it?

I've known this for a while...

2009-12-03T12:21:00.002-05:00

Couldn't have said it better myself...

Microform Abstract Art

2009-11-21T01:12:00.008-05:00

Yes, I am indeed an artistic innovator. While I was slaving over decades of the Religious Herald Baptist newspaper one Friday night at the Southern Seminary library, a printing error on the microfilm reader gave birth to artistic inspiration.

This piece should sell for a few thousand for its creativity alone, don't you think?

And behold all those subtle details!

A Beautiful Thing

2009-11-07T23:36:00.003-05:00

A sign of the times. Never before in human history have so many people said so little of substance all at the same time.

Remembering the Sega Dreamcast: 10 years later

2009-09-09T00:39:00.010-04:00

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the U.S. launch of the Sega Dreamcast, the once great company's last console. It only lasted until 2001, but it sold a few million units and had a great crop of games despite its short lifespan. Ignored by most from its beginning, the little system that could finally bowed down before the hype of the PS2 and XBox. I do not exaggerate to say that it is my favorite video game system.

RIP Sega Gaming Systems!

http://retro.ign.com/articles/102/1021947p1.html

The (Un)Natural Revisited: "Chicks Dig the Longball"

2009-09-08T00:12:00.001-04:00

Today marks 11 long years since Mark McGwire broke baseball's single season home run record in 1998. His record would in turn be broken by Barry Bonds in 2001. Both hitters' accomplishments would in turn be rendered meaningless (along with many other players' statistics and most of the MLB record book in general) by the ongoing revelations of steroids throughout the rest of the decade.

This was my original reflection from last year's historic tenth anniversary of McGwire's now infamous feat.

But this year I'll spare the melodrama in favor of a whimsical look back at this epically funny (now especially so) Nike commercial campaign:

"Chicks Dig the Long Ball!"

Yeah, the Nike girls might dig the long ball, but the only way Big Mac will be getting into the Hall of Fame is if Glavine and Maddux invite him to their induction ceremonies!

When the Obvious Hits You!

2009-07-08T23:40:00.009-04:00

This is, quite possibly, the most random thing I have ever posted, but I just had to note this for posterity!

I was struck by the difference in how we write and how we speak. For instance, in the written word, we use the indefinite article "an" (rather than "a") before words that begin with a vowel. All words beginning with a consonant are usually preceeded by the indefinite article "a" rather than "an." However, in the spoken word, this precedent does not always feel natural.

For instance, I was typing out the phrase "a SBC history" (short for "Southern Baptist Convention"). Now, if I were to say "a Southern Baptist Convention history," there would be no problem. But should I attempt to say "a SBC history," I would end up tongue-tied. Saying "an SBC history" sounds much more natural. Why is this the case?

Because we do not pronounce the letter "S" with an a "s" sound! We actually pronounce the letter "S" with an "E" sound (short "e" + long "s", like "mess" or "best").

Weird...
Is that common knowledge or have I been blessed by the Grammar Muse? :-D

EDIT: My collegiate comrade, David Wickiser, advises me that written grammar really is based on sound. Thus, "an SBC history" really is the correct way to write it out, similar to "an hour" as opposed to "a hour." Thanks, David!

The Words We Use: Profanity, Vulgarity, and the Glory of God

2009-05-01T16:27:00.006-04:00

Remember what your grandmother used to tell you about cussing? "I'll wash your mouth out with soap, young man!” Most kids learn that certain “dirty words” will get them into trouble when spoken in front of older adults or in public places. Every culture dictates that certain words are lewd or offensive by nature. Thus, in each particular culture sensibilities are perturbed when obscenities are thrown around by those who give no regard for standards of decency.

What few people realize, however, is that vulgarities are not equivalent to profanity. Vulgarities are cultural-relative, but profanity is blasphemy. Profanity by definition transcends to a higher level because it shows irreverence towards something holy. I find it peculiar that in most televised movies censored for language, certain obscenities are redubed while profanities remain, such as taking the Lord's name in vain (e.g. "God," "Jesus Christ," etc.). In the Old Testament, God forbade Israel to speak His name in vain, for there is nothing more sacred than the name of the Lord.

The exception to the rule, of course, is "God damn," which oddly enough still has the ability to offend those who take no offense in using holy names such as "Jesus Christ" or "God" in vain and do not hesitate to misuse ideas such as "damnation" out of their proper context. Complacency and nominal religion dominate the makeup of the American population but why do they continue in this irreverence? Either we do not stop to consider the meaning of the words they use, or they do not believe in the ideas that the words describe. Not only do they profane the holy, but they utter curses with flippancy. Indeed, if a man were angry at his brother for being late for a social event he might be in the right to rebuke his brother for being a poor manager of time, but to "damn" him by condemning his soul to eternal damnation would be beyond his human authority. Only God is just in such a judgment, thus we must realize that there is really no difference in the verb, "damn" and the more culturally offensive "God damn." Very few people are conscious of this truth. Worse still, many curse simply because they like the sound of a word as it rolls off their tongue.

Though vulgarities are limited to the cultural realm and usually not blasphemous per se, foul language can become an addictive habit that is not easily broken. Moreover, one who makes a habit out of it will be blind to the fact that his/her vocabulary has likely become stagnate. Language is the central medium by which we express ideas and feelings; if we take our use of language lightly then we reveal by inference that we attach very little value to those ideas that language expresses.

When studied and used properly, language can help us formulate and order our own thoughts and express them with clarity and eloquence to others. On the other hand, when taken for granted, language will degrade into mindless rambling. If we are to bring revival to our culture which is largely devoid of reverence, we must first discipline ourselves to choose our words carefully.

April Fool's Day Apocolypse?

2009-03-25T15:03:00.003-04:00

And I thought humanity had been spared Judgment Day thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger's selfless sacrifice in Terminator 2!

This story is pretty scary:
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/128643/beware-conficker-worm-come-april-1/

I had no idea hackers planned this far in advance! I really hope I'm not one of the thousands who have already been infected and await their judgment. Yikes!

The Revenge of Jack Bauer Redux Strikes Back

2009-03-14T02:03:00.006-04:00

Once again, I've felt the need to blog about the moral code of Jack Bauer. Check out my newest post: "Does Jack Bauer Have a Place in the New Moral Climate?"
http://standingonshoulders.net/2009/03/14/does-jack-bauer-have-a-place-in-the-new-moral-climate/

And don't forget my previous take at the end of Season 6 of 24 (seems like so long ago!):
"Is Jack Bauer a Christian's Role Model?"
http://adamwinters.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-jack-bauer-christians-role-model.html

The NEW "SBTS" ???

2009-02-24T16:47:00.007-05:00

Apparently as of around 4:45 pm today, trying to access the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's website (w ww.sbts.edu) will automatically redirect you to the site of another seminary.... the School of Bible Theology Seminary and University. That school's website is the eerily similar address, www.sbts.org. For some reason, not only is sbts.edu redirecting there but when you click on Southern Seminary's Google link it also takes you to SBTSU.

From this...

To this.....?

I know Southern Seminary has put a lot of work into their web redesign for the 150th anniversary, but I'll bet they never bargained for an obscure school in San Jacinto, CA stealing their domain name.... at least for about 15 minutes or so on February 24. ;-)

Hmm... I smell a cordially written letter of legal nature on the horizon. Seriously, though, you have to wonder why the School of Bible Theology Seminary and University didn't go with www.sbtsu.org. Something smells fishy.

Edit: Southern Seminary seems to have reclaimed their domain name as of 4:55 pm. I'm very happy as I will be able to check my student email again. :-D

Valentine's Day Lovin'!

2009-02-12T21:53:00.008-05:00

Some Valentine's Day funnies for your consideration:

Good breath is essential to getting your cousins to help you protect a good blood line!
Printed in the Comics section of the Louisville Courier Journal, 1958

Dennis the Menace teaches us some suave around the ladies. (1958)

A Valentine's Day tradition courtesy of Sonic the Hedgehog!

And was this Sonic's inspiration? Winnie the Pooh breaks PSA ground reminding us not to let someone "touch you in a not-ok-way"!

"Blessings from God"

2009-01-23T17:49:00.006-05:00

I thought this was an appropriate story for today. A woman struggles to keep the faith in spite of the struggle of trying to raise 5 children without the necessary resources.

From the Washington Post. Full Story

There are days when life for Adwai Malual looks like an endless wheel. Already she has lived through much: growing up in Sudan as war tore apart her homeland, discovering in the midst of it that she was pregnant, coming to this strange land of America.
Then, weeks later, she gave birth to quintuplets.

Now, in a small, crowded apartment in Laurel nearly two months after the babies' delivery, Malual's life is dominated by another kind of chaos. It begins every day at 3 a.m., as she wakes up to take over feeding duties from her mother, visiting from Sudan. One by one, she tends to her five babies in 40-minute shifts. By the time she has changed the last one's diaper, the first is crying for food again. And so it goes for 12 hours straight, until she hands them off to her mother so she can sleep for a little while before waking do it all again.

Life is now confined to this second-floor apartment and to the most basic of human needs: eating, peeing, pooping, burping and sleeping.
"I am grateful for the blessings in my life," the 28-year-old said recently during a rare break from her babies. "And I am tired."

All day long, her mind alternates between those two states. She thanks God for the people -- many of them complete strangers -- who donated diapers, time and money to help her through her grueling first few weeks out of the hospital. Then she prays for some way to survive the weeks ahead.

She is living, for the most part, a borrowed life. Much of the babies' clothing is donated. The two cribs they sleep in -- three in one and two in the other -- are hand-me-downs, as is the changing table. Soon, the quintuplets -- already a handful -- will learn to crawl and then walk. Getting a babysitter to watch all five, let alone a job that would cover that cost as well as her children's growing needs, will be difficult.

Even before her babies were born, Malual had started worrying about these things. As she lay in the Annapolis hospital, her doctors warned her to focus on her health whenever her blood pressure and nausea started rising. And in recent weeks -- as she has fed, changed and rocked her babies -- she has found herself facing those worries again. The future looms ominously as she struggles each day to keep up with the present.

The difference now, she said, is that she faces such fears with the proof of miracles in her arms.
"These children are blessings from God," said Malual, who comes from a family of a devout Christian. "He brought them to me, protected them through all that time. So for the future, I think I must live day by day. God will provide."

What If Lifeway Sold...

2008-12-24T15:02:00.012-05:00

The Christmas season is once again upon us, so I expect many students will be making out their Lifeway Christmas list. Now, I know the economy may encourage some of us to hold back this year. Others might well feel so burdened by their stewardship conscience to go so far as throwing away 10% of their library! Still, I'll bet students keep on buying those books one way or another. Lifeway sure does have a lot of diverse inventory, but have you ever wished they could push the envelop as to the quality of their stock? This idea originated years ago during late night brainstorming sessions with my friend, Jesse Florida.

So without further delay...

Rick Warren, The Prayer of the Purpose Driven Reformed Pastor to Desire God (Banner of Truth Trust, 2007) $12.99

Rick Warren's new appreciation of Richard Baxter is the first in a series of "Purpose Driven Paperbacks" by The Banner of Truth Trust. Warren offers a unique contemporary perspective that is sure to intrigue seasoned scholars and entice a new generation of believers to the wisdom of the Puritans. How would Baxter have balanced traditional and contemporary worship styles? What would he have thought of the 40 Days of Purpose? Warren tackles all these issues and more in a groundbreaking work that is sure to become an instant classic.

Warren: "My developing friendship with John Piper has resulted in my own greater appreciation of the Puritans. No one defines what a pastor should be better than Baxter. I am so grateful to Iain Murray and the Banner of Truth Trust for teaming up with Saddleback to produce the bold, new "Purpose Driven Paperbacks" series. These works will stand alongside the more traditional "Puritan Paperbacks" as a secondary source from a contemporary Christian worship and church growth perspective."

Bruce Wilkinson, Tim LaHaye, and Jerry B. Jenkins, The Purpose Driven Letter That Jabez Left Behind: Ancient Inspirations for Those Living in the End Times, 2 CD set. Narrated by Larry King (Tyndale Audio Series, 2007) $29.97

The best-selling book is now available on audio CD! Bruce Wilkinson takes us on an end times adventure through the eyes of the beloved Jabez. What would Jabez have told the tribulation saints? Did he know about the Rapture and the Millennium? These questions and more are explored through the masterful prose of Wilkinson, who has teamed up with Tim LaHaye's dispensationalism and Jerry B. Jenkins' storytelling to create an extraordinary work of fiction that will encourage any Christian who is suffering under the anxiety of our postmodern age.

Wilkinson: "Working with Tim and Jerry has really been a dream come true. I am living proof that God expands the territory of His children when we claim the promises He has offered us. What began as one small book on an obscure but powerful passage of Scripture has grown into a franchise far bigger than I could have ever imagined. Left Behind was the perfect fit for the next Jabez study because of its popularity and excellent marketing potential. And, of course, Larry King provides an excellent narration and the name recognition that will appeal to people outside the Church."

Larry King: "I admit I was surprised when Tyndale asked me to record this product. I don't have any particular connection with Christianity, but I do consider myself an agnostic seeker. I guess that is why this project appealed to me... Because it is about seeking answers to things nobody really knows for certain. When it comes down to it, you just have to take some things on faith."

And finally, a new tool for teaching theology to youth!
3-in-1-D Glasses™, by the Garland-Earl Corporation®, $7.99

Early Praise for 3-in-1-D Glasses:*

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.: "I must admit that I was skeptical about this being another cheesy gimmick. But after I put on those snazzy shades and sat down in my recliner with my storybook in hand, I was hooked! I can't remember when I've had so much fun reading a book, and I read a lot of books, trust me. I'm sure every Christian parent will want to buy a set for their kids. This is exactly the sort of ambitious product that churches should invest in for children and youth ministry."

Billy Graham: "These glasses really are amazing. Not only are they a perfect object lesson for teaching children about God, but they double as an efficient pair of sunglasses when I have to go outdoors. And they look great too."

J. I. Packer: "I wish somebody had thought of this when I was a boy. It would have given me a great head start on my theological studies. I don't give out product endorsements easily, but 3-in-1-D Glasses are deserving of my full support."

*Endorsements may or may not represent the exact views of the parties represented. Quotes were obtained through fourth and fifth degree removed sources.

All in good fun, right? But in a strange example of Christian life imitating parody, this "Magnify Your Faith" gimmick will actually be hitting shelves near you:
Merry Christmas!

Under-Rated Christmas Specials!

2008-12-23T19:35:00.002-05:00

Oh sure, everybody loves Rudolph, Frosty, Charlie Brown, and Tim Allen when they are played constantly on TV in December, but here are some other equally worthy classics that don't seem to get played on TV as much as they deserve.

1. Claymation Christmas
Will Vinton's masterpiece of visuals and sound! My personal favorites are the "We Three Kings" sung by camels with "soul," and the California Raisans' big finale of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

2. Ernest Saves Christmas
Some of Jim Varney's best work!

3. Pluto's Christmas Tree
Everybody remebers Mickey's Christmas Carol but few can recall this classic by name. Chip n' Dale sneak into Mickey's house and give Pluto a dose of Christ-"mess."

4. Emmet Otter's Jug Band Christmas
More magic from Jim Henson's hey-day!

5. A Garfield Christmas Special
His Halloween Special is also great!

Detroit Lions: 50 Year QB Curse

2008-12-09T14:54:00.017-05:00

Fast Fact: As a franchise, the Detroit Lions have 4 NFL championships to their credit, ranking 8th in the league for most total championships [Green Bay (12), Chicago (9), New York Giants (7), Pittsburgh (6), Dallas, Washington, & San Francisco (5), Detroit and Baltimore/Indy Colts (4)]. Since winning their last championship in 1957, they traded their star quarterback and have not been back to the championship game since, winning only one playoff game in 1991.

I'm used to the Lions being bad. Outside of Barry Sanders, this team has given me no reason to hope they could turn their bad fortunes around. That's OK though, since as any Buffalo sports fan will tell you, "losing builds loyalty in a fan base."

But the one thing that really disappointed me about the Lions is that they lacked the mystique of a "curse" like other historic losing franchises. Take the Boston Red Sox (who have completely lost their appeal to me since winning not one but TWO World Series in the 00s) who had the Curse of the Bambino. Or the Chicago Cubs who had that crazy old man's hex he allegedly put on the team when they wouldn't let his Billy Goat into the stadium in 1945. And the Philadelphia Phillies only recently returned to World Series success after lifting the Curse of William Penn before this season started.

I always wanted the Lions to have their own curse. I kicked around the idea of a Barry Sanders Curse since he immediately retired prior to the 1999 season after Detroit refused to trade him a season shy of breaking the all-time NFL rushing record. But that doesn't answer the problem of why they have never been to a Superbowl since its inception in 1967.

Now, I have an answer, if Wikipedia is to be trusted, that is. The Curse of Bobby Layne:

Detroit enjoyed its greatest success in the 1950s. Led by quarterback Bobby Layne, and wide receiver [Jim Doran] they won the league championship in 1952, 1953, and 1957. They defeated the Cleveland Browns in each of those NFL Championship Games, but also lost to the Browns in the 1954 Championship Game.

In 1958, after leading the Lions to 3 NFL Championships and providing Detroit nearly a decade of Hall of Fame play, the Lions traded Bobby Layne. Bobby was injured during the last championship season and the Lions thought he was through and wanted to get what they could for him. According to legend, as he was leaving for Pittsburgh, Bobby said that Detroit "would not win for 50 years". Since this time, the Lions have not won another championship and have only a single playoff game win. Some have attributed the Lion's subsequent 49 years of futility to the "Curse of Bobby Layne.

Notably, the Lions succeeded in one of the greatest comeback victories in NFL post-season history. Trailing the San Francisco 49ers 27-7 in the 3rd quarter of the 1957 Western Conference Playoff game, Lions quarterback Tobin Rote rallied the team back with 24 unanswered points to beat the 49ers 31-27 at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco. The Lions have experienced only one post-season win since.

Appropriately, it seems Detroit has been cursed at the quarterback position. Detroit has an obsession with drafting talented wide receivers with no one to throw to them on a consistent basis. They've tried the likes of Scott Mitchell (I knew it was bad when Sports Illustrated felt the need to commend him for actually throwing spiral passes in training camp), Charlie "I liked to run until I got injured" Batch, Joey "I'm gonna bring back the winning culture" Harrington, John "I like to dress up as my naked coach who went to Wendy's" Kitna, and now a whole slew of has-beens and never-wills in 2008.

But remember, the Curse of Bobby Layne stipulated that Detroit would not win for 50 years. That hex was established in 1958. Perhaps it is fitting that the Lions look like a shoe-in for an 0-16 season in 2008. Their quarterback situation is so epically bad that some people honestly believe Allen Iverson is the best potential quarterback living in Detroit.

It has been 50 years since this Curse was issued. Come 2009, it will officially expire. Granted, there may still be a Barry Sanders Curse in effect, but don't be surprised if we see the Lions near the top of the NFL pile come next season. Remember, you heard it here first. (Too bad Tim Tebow and Colt McCoy aren't due to enter the draft until after next year, but you never know.)

Happy Turkey Day!

2008-11-26T23:47:00.000-05:00

Poor kid... *shudder*

Detroit Lions: The Pursuit of Perfection

2008-11-25T09:59:00.014-05:00

My Lions are the last perfect team in 2008 and their schedule favors their chances of making history!

Also, here is a great link to the history of Lions logos and uniforms, like this 1953 World Championship commemorative logo.

Lions Logos through History

People like to play up the fact that the Lions haven't won a Superbowl, but how easily they forget about the 1953 season!

And check out this never used Barry Sanders "Run for the Record" logo from 1999! The second greatest moment in Lions history sadly never came to pass since Barry suddenly retired after Detroit refused to trade him.

Traditional Marriage: The Unexpected Flip-side of the Obama Effect

2008-11-06T16:49:00.012-05:00

The beautiful providence of God:

The real reason "Why Gay Marriage Was Defeated in California"

From Yahoo! News

Nov. 4 may have been a joyous day for liberals, but it wasn't a great day for lesbians and gays. Three big states - Arizona, California and Florida - voted to change their constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexuals-only institution. The losses cut deep on the gay side. Arizona had rejected just such a constitutional amendment only two years ago. It had been the first and only state to have rebuffed a constitutional ban on marriage equality. In Florida, where the law requires constitutional amendments to win by 60%, a marriage amendment passed with disturbing ease, 62.1% to 37.9%. . . .

Gays came back in some polls, but they couldn't pull out a win. Part of the reason is that Obama inspired unprecedented numbers of African Americans to vote. Polls show that black voters are more likely to attend church than whites and less likely to be comfortable with equality for gay people. According to CNN, African Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin, 69% to 31%. High turnout of African Americans in Florida probably help explain that state's lopsided vote to ban same-sex weddings.

Full Story

Blast from the Reformation-Ween Day Past!

2008-11-02T23:30:00.006-05:00

Union University: Hallowed Reformation-Ween Day 2004

Here's a little taste of a video project Joseph Gould and I put together way back in our waning days of Union University life. Joseph has the full version (but can't find it... DOH!). I went around interviewing people about how much they knew about the Reformation and whether Christians should embrace some of the Halloween traditions. The responses were varied and (for the most part) entertaining.

The microphone was in my tail. Seriously.

And this video also reveals my repressed obsession with the cultural legacy of Desiderius Erasmus.

Special Thanks to the ever-benevolent Kristina Michael and the ever-whimsical Willie George for being good sports for this interview!

The Death of Conservativism in America: Andy Griffith Goes Blue

2008-10-23T23:32:00.016-04:00

In a pro-choice rally before Planned Parenthood, Barak Obama called for the end of the "culture wars" in America, calling them "just so 90s." Now it seems he may have his way. Last week Colin Powell made headlines in his endorsement of Obama's presidental campaign. It was a hard hit for the McCain camp, but this week's bombshell may effectively signal the death kneel of small town conservativism in America:

Oh, Andy, say it ain't so...
Still, even I have to admit that this is very well made and effective. I love Andy's comment about avoiding the "butterfly ballot." Almost prevents me from crying myself to sleep...

Why a Christian should vote against the "cool" candidate

2008-10-20T14:29:00.004-04:00

Sorry, Donald Miller:
Full Story

From Denny Alcorn:

But Obama is savvy. He wants to attract young voters, including young evangelical Christians who are sort-of-prolife. He knows to say that he favors reducing or limiting abortions. Which is like limiting rather than criminalizing murder and rape and kidnapping and slavery. A candidate could say “I’m personally opposed to rape,” while he has a 100% voting record favoring the legality of rape. And he could say he favors limiting or reducing the number of rapes. But if he actually supports the legality of the hideous crime of rape, discerning people would see through his rhetoric of rape-reduction.

When I discovered Obama was an all-out defender of legalized child-killing, I was disappointed beyond words. And I knew that in the next election, I was not going to get to be cool.

So Obama and McCain walked into a dinner party...

2008-10-16T23:37:00.009-04:00

Barak Obama and John McCain attended the traditional Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner on Thursday . . . hilarity ensued.

From David Espio, the Associated Press

John McCain and Barack Obama swapped self-deprecating jokes instead of campaign jabs Thursday night, the Republican saying he had replaced his team of senior advisers with "Joe the Plumber" while the Democrat claimed his own "greatest strength would be my humility."

Full Story

Granted, this is a very serious election but I found it refreshing to see the candidates take an opportunity to show some humility and make light of the more trivial aspects of this campaign.

Some gems:
Barak Obama

Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton and sent here by my father, Jor-el, to save the planet Earth.

John McCain

What they don't know is that Joe the Plumber recently signed a very lucrative contract with a wealthy couple to handle all the work on all seven of their houses.

Even in this room full of proud Manhattan Democrats, I can't shake the feeling that some people here are pulling for me. I'm delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary.

Obama is ready for any contingency, even the possibility of a sudden and dramatic market rebound. I'm told that at the first sign of a recovery, he will suspend his campaign and fly immediately to Washington to address the crisis.

I don't think I've felt this warm and fuzzy about the election since the JibJab video.
Now that that's out of the way, we now return you to your regularly scheduled political mudslinging and factual distortion.

BONUS: Here is President Bush's introduction of the Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings to the White House. Like a lot of people, he mispronounces "Detroit" but overall this is one of his more witty speeches. Very funny.

Nintendo meets the WMU: SBC Convention Retrospective

2008-10-05T01:22:00.006-04:00

"Wii Want to Change Lives"

I picked this up at this year's Southern Baptist Convention in Indy. The WMU (Women's Missionary Union) teamed up with Nintendo Wii for a cross promotion. The WMU booth hosted a playable Wii and held a drawing to see who got to take home the prize. Needles to say, I didn't win (I did, however, score an awesome Cooperative Program t-shirt!).

If I might speak critically, I have no clue why the WMU thought this partnership would make sense and advance their cause other than the fact that it guaranteed the WMU booth would be one of the most visited booths on the SBC convention floor in 2008. It was indeed, thanks in part to myself, a non-anonymous Wii junkie always looking for his next opportunity to get another Wii buzz. I can't say I think these sorts of partnerships are in the best interest for Southern Baptist institutions or auxiliaries, but it was a lot of fun.

The only game playable at the booth was the original Wii Sports... except for the boxing competition. When I asked about playing it the representative fellow got a little excited and made it clear boxing would not be allowed. I told him former president Jerry Vines is a fan of boxing but that didn't change his mind. Oh well, I settled for Wii tennis. That doesn't tire me out near as much as the boxing one does. *Phew*

USA Yesterday

2008-09-16T20:15:00.002-04:00

Here is a scan of that frontpage I mentioned earlier. Sure brings back memories. Look, the DOW was up... big! Seems like so long ago...

The (un)Natural

2008-09-09T18:59:00.017-04:00

On September 8, ten years ago, I witnessed what I believed to be the greatest accomplishment in the history of sports. Mark McGwire broke Major League Baseball's single season home-run record. I still have the USA Today newspaper published the following morning. The headline reads: "62: Unbelievable!" (The unbelievability aspect now stings me as sadly ironic.)

1998 was arguably the best single year in sports. It had Jordan's climactic game winner vs. the Utah Jazz in the finals, John Elway winning his fist Super Bowl and then leading his team through the playoffs on the way to a second, Dale Earnhardt's overdue Daytona 500 win and Jeff Gordon's record setting 13-win championship season, the Detroit Red Wings' emotional Stanley Cup victory in honor of former teammate Vladimir Konstantinov (crippled for life in a car accident the previous summer), 125 victories by the late great New York Yankees, the Peyton Manning vs. Ryan Leaf NFL draft debate (ha!), the incredible Lady Vols, and the record setting Minnesota Vikings offense (the second best team never to win a Super Bowl, IMO).

But one single story trumped all of these notable stories at the time. The Great Home Run Chase of '98, staring Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. They were chasing Roger Maris' 37-year-old single season home-run record. They not only broke it, but they did so with such ease that it made us believe that we were witnessing the best hitters that there ever were and there ever would be. When McGwire hit 62, Sosa ran out from the outfield to embrace him. It was a beautiful moment. But when Barry Bonds came along in 2001 and broke McGwire's record, we knew something was amiss. When Sosa, McGwire, and others were summoned to Capital Hill to testify about the problem of steroids in the game, we learned just how deep the scandal went. Our heroes became all too human.

Ten years ago, Big Mac was the King of the World:

But a few years later, he wasn't prepared to talk about the past:

In retrospect, it is evident that Big Mac and Slammin' Sammy were not gods. But they weren't devils either. They were human beings, desperately depraved, and finding ways to justify and rationalize their selfish ambition to be the best hitters the game had ever seen no matter what the cost.

We want our heroes to be like the film version of Roy Hobbs who never let the fans down, when in reality they often end up turning into the Roy Hobbs of the novel (who took the bribe and threw the game) instead. We want to see a supremely gifted player win the big game by playing the right way. We want to see them refusing to have an unfair advantage in the name of integrity and sportsmanship. But all too often, the allure of fame and the almighty dollar corrupts the ideals of purity and fair play. McGwire and Sosa remain two infamous poster boys of that reality.

Knowing what we know now about the state of baseball since at least the 1990s, I can no longer respect what McGwire and Sosa accomplished. I still have fond memories of the thrill of that summer, but I cannot look back with admiration. It was a grand scandal, and we the fans were the true victims, along with every other player who has played the game the right way. In my opinion, justice demands that we wipe clean every statistic from the careers of any player who is proven guilty of steroid use (so I guess McGwire and Sosa might get off the hook under those standards).

This summer gave us a new hero to embrace, Michael Phelps. His 0.01 of a second victory to win his 7th gold medal of the 2008 Olympics is the greatest sporting feat I have ever seen. Phelps is no god either, but I at least hope that he has set his records through nothing but development of his God-given talent and unmatched determination. Perhaps in another ten years, we will know whether or not we can admire him in the way we all wanted admire McGwire and Sosa.

Dr. Mohler: "Let's Get Dangerous!"

2008-09-02T10:19:00.007-04:00

In honor of Dr. Mohler's 2008 Convocation challenge to the Southern Seminary community that we commit this year to "living dangerously" in our Christian ministry, I offer hardy agreement with this anthem:

(In case you are confused, please fast forward to the 0:23 mark.)

Sarah Palin: Only in America...

2008-08-31T18:23:00.013-04:00

There has been much talk about Sarah Palin's qualifications to be a heartbeat away from the United States' Commander and Chief. There is much about Palin that I don't know. But from what I have seen so far, it seems that Palin is the embodiment of the American dream, an ordinary person rising to extraordinary heights. In a year that is especially notable for the first African-American man winning the presidential nomination of the Democratic party, Sarah Palin also reminds us that America is the land of opportunity.

To me, this video is illustrative of that fact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bza63nnqiKA

Forget, for a moment, the fact that she is a woman and mother of 5 running for Vice President. In what other country can a local sportscaster from Alaksa ever hope to be running for the second highest office in the land?

EDIT: Too bad my Pistons lost that night back in 1988. Even at 24, she really knew how to talk smack about those Minnesota Northstars! Maybe that’s why they left town and went to Dallas? And if you were wondering, the Northstars were an NHL team… you know, the National HOCKEY League?

Hat Tip: Yahoo!

Standing on Shoulders of the Dark Knight

2008-07-25T00:28:00.002-04:00

Well, I've plugged this post everywhere else on the internet, so I might as well promote it from my own blog:
http://standingonshoulders.net/2008/07/19/why-so-serious-because-death-is-no-laughing-matter/

Here are my thoughts on the Joker phenomenon.

Conventional Thinking

2008-06-09T19:56:00.002-04:00

I'll be off at the SBC Convention in Indy this week, so no real posts for a while. :-)

Speaking of which, I called the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary main office today and asked if anybody there had any information on the Seminary's luncheon at the convention. The seminary representative replied, "what convention?" Oy!

It's How You Play the Game

2008-05-02T00:05:00.007-04:00

I found this to be a fascinating story. Imagine, you're a player on a softball team in playoff contention, playing a team that's in the same boat as you. You give up a homerun to potentially lose the game, but just when you thought it was over, the baserunner injures her knee running the bases. The ump rules that unless the player comes around to touch home plate, the home run doesn't count. You think, "her teammates will carry her home." But, no, that's against the rules. So that means your team is suddenly in a great position to win and advance.

Now, the only thing that can keep you from victory is if you decide that some things in life are more important than wins and loses.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=7635680

An amazing act of charity to say the least.

I wonder if the Red Sox would help out a Yankees player in a similar situation?

Ben Stein Wants You (to see Expelled)

2008-04-07T02:16:00.007-04:00

Does anyone know why the creationists are not in the classroom today? "Anyone? Anyone?"

This past Monday, I had the opportunity to see a special screening of Ben Stein’s new documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. While I must confess that I’m not the kind of person who considers a documentary the best utilization of the cinema experience, you cannot really go wrong with Expelled. It is an informative film that simultaneously serves to educate, entertain, and provoke its audience to critical thinking. The thesis of the movie is that the scientific establishment of American academia has resolved to ridicule and prosecute any of their own members who might be tempted to entertain the notion that our universe is “intelligently designed” rather than the product of random chance or naturalistic evolution. Stein, himself as a long-time advocate of intelligent design, sets off on a world tour to investigate the truth behind the perception that creationism is under fire from “Big Science.” After a pilgrimage stretching from Seattle, Washington to Washington, D. C. to Oxford University, it becomes clear to both Stein and the viewer that “intelligence” is no longer tolerated as an explanation for existence.

The impetus for this documentary was the apparently forced resignation of Richard Sternberg as editor of the Smithsonian associated scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, in 2004 after he published an article citing creationist Stephen C. Meyer and suggesting that intelligent design may be a legitimate explanation for the universe. I’ll let Ben fill you in on all the details when you see the film. Suffice it to say that the scientific establishment has built a wall around our educational institutions and decides what to tell our media. This metaphorical wall has been making it loud and clear that neither creationism nor God will be tolerated in the Academy.

Stein makes a compelling argument for what it means to be a free citizen in a free society. America is a land built on the principle of freedom. Science, especially, should promote the freedom to pursue truth no matter how ridiculous one might look in holding to an unpopular idea. But American ideals have been circumcised by the oppression of high Darwinism, which will not budge an inch from its presupposition that “intelligent” people must not believe in intelligent design.

Leading scholars from both the mainstream scientific establishment and the Intelligent Design movement are interviewed at length, with revealing insights. Many of the secularists interviewed on this film have complained about being misled by the directors concerning the tone of this production, and they may have a legitimate beef on that point. Though villified in this film, these scientists are given a chance to explain the basis of their own agenda. (And, really, Richard Dawkins is the self-proclaimed atheistic nemesis of Judeo-Christendom and proud of it. What's he really got to complain about?) Stein shows that there is no vast “right-wing” conspiracy to corrupt our nation’s youth with bad science. Intelligent design proponents are simply scientists who believe the best explanation for life, the universe, and everything is the handiwork of an omnipotent, benevolent, and wise God. This simple argument is presented with flair and humor that only Ben Stein could execute with a straight face. All jokes aside, Stein reminds us that unbridled naturalism has a dark side upon society, which the world has seen before. What fate will befall America if “Big Science” discrimination has its way? No spoilers here as you’ll have to see it for yourself. But remember that you were warned, because it isn’t a pretty picture. Again, this is one of the aspects opponents of the film point to as villificaiton of Darwinian atheists, but I thought it was presented tastefully.

Allegations of misleading productions ethics aside, the film's thesis is, at least, convincing. If you care about the proper relationship of faith and learning (or if you just believe in freedom to let the truth be known), you owe it to yourself to see this film.

Like another recent documentary, Stein challenges us with "an inconvenient truth."

A Brave New World of Blogging...

2008-03-13T23:01:00.004-04:00

"Standing On Shoulders"

There is a cruel wind blowing through our generation. Some of us feel it, and if the rest of us don’t, perhaps it is because we lack the perspective to see what is going on. But here is the truth. We have forgotten where we sit in the unfolding of history.

Our generation will stop at nothing in the vain pursuit of self-promotion and self-expression. Our attitude towards the past can be summed up by Calvin’s conviction that, “up till now, all history has been moving toward its culmination… namely, the emergence of myself onto the scene.” (I’m referring to Calvin & Hobbs, mind you, not the Reformer.)

Past generations recognized the importance of building upon the work and experiences of those who have come before us, and they applied this truth to incredible results. Isaac Newton confessed that “if I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” We, however, have forgotten our proper place as humble dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants.
So, why another blog in this culture of egocentric self-indulgence?

The mission of “Standing on Shoulders” is to band together in order to enlighten each other (and all whom the Lord might bring our way) concerning the power of God’s providential oversight of history. Doing so will help us to see our own failures and ignorance in light of a great cloud of witnesses who offer up so great a testimony if we would but hear them. In turn, we believe this great cloud of witnesses has much to offer as we seek to interpret and speak to the culture in which we live today.

Joseph A. Gould
Adam Winters
Adam B. Embry
Jason Adkins
Matthew Crawford

Recommended Blog

2008-03-05T02:31:00.004-05:00

Here's a good idea for redeeming the blogging culture:
Redeeming History
http://redeeminghistory.wordpress.com/

A Ph.D. candidate at Trinity, Mark Rogers is hard at work establishing a history blog.
Here's to Mark, making the blogging world much better, one post at a time!

Union, Dearest Union...

2008-02-06T23:12:00.001-05:00

www.uu.edu
www.uurebuilding.com

www.uuemergency.com
http://uuemergency.blogspot.com/

Amber Mathenia: The Passing No One Told You About

2008-01-25T21:44:00.003-05:00

Also see: Tim Ellsworth on Amber Mathenia

In this week that has claimed the lives of one popular celebrity and one distinguished Baptist scholar, the death of one young woman has gone unnoticed by most of the world. Ironic, since those are often the sort of people who deserve the most admiration. In this particular passing, that adage is true in spades.

Amber Mathenia, a 2001 graduate of Union University, was neither a pop-culture star nor an acclaimed seminary professor. Yet, in her 28 years on this earth she accomplished more for God than most people will achieve in a lifetime. She and her husband, Anthony, had been serving as full-times missionaries to Ethiopia for the last few years. The life of a missionary, of course, is always filled with danger and uncertainty. Yet, Amber was not called home to glory as a martyr. She finished her earthly pilgrimage when she and her two children were involved in a car crash while visiting family and friends in west Tennessee. The children were unharmed.

Amber was a woman whose life was characterized by a joyful submission to the will of God in all circumstances. She followed the will of God when she married a godly husband. She followed the will of God in standing by his side while serving the cause of Christ in Ethiopia. And she followed the will of God in the adoption of two Ethiopian children: Ellie, 4, and Isaac, 6 months.

As the world mourns the loss of an actor whose movies will surely preserve his legacy, and Baptists mourn the loss of a great statesmen whose publications will surely preserve his legacy, I ask that we all pause and mourn the loss of a godly woman whose legacy will surely live on in the hearts of those whom she blessed in life. Let us pray for her family, her father does not yet know the Lord. Let us pray for her children, Ellie and Isaac, now without their mother. Let us pray for Anthony, now left to persevere in the service of God as a single father and missionary. And let us pray that God might grant us the grace to conform our lives to the gospel with the same joyfulness as Amber Mathenia. In this way, we may honor her legacy in a way she would have wanted.

To live is Christ. To die is gain.

In lieu of flowers, the family is asking that monetary donations be sent to Christ Community Church in New Albany, Miss., where the Mathenias receive their support. Gift cards from Target, Wal-Mart or Babies R’ Us are also needed to provide for their children. The church’s address is P.O. Box 795, New Albany, Miss., 38652.

What Shall We Call Our Women?: An Observation from T.T. Eaton

2008-01-22T20:03:00.000-05:00

In a widescale attempt to provide lesser known blogs with good publicity, the honorable Owen Strachan has linked my blog with the notatable description: "history." I have to admit that while historical reflection was the reason I started this blog, my recent posts haven't exactly lived up to that vision. That said, it's time I started getting back to the basics. So without further a-doo-do...

I was digging through Boyce Centenntial Library's T. T. Eaton Papers today when a particular essay caught my eye. This Eaton essay was entitled: "What Shall We Call Our Women?" Eaton was a unique man of Baptist history, described by Russell Moore as "a man of the church who stood athwart history, yelling, 'STOP,' with a Bible in his hands." I also heard it said that Eaton represented simultaneously both what was right and what was wrong with 19th century Southern Baptists. If that is the case, then surely this essay represents all that is right and good! This man had an uncanny talent for observation and unintentional wit as evidenced to this very asute point that would have otherwise escaped my attention.

Eaton, certainly not known for progressive views on social activism or women's rights, lamented the fact that Americans had no good formal title with which to refer to the bone of Adam's bone and the flesh of Adam's flesh (aka: the woman). Most cultures divide women into two classes: married and unmarried. In English, the married woman is known as a "Mizzez" (note the hard pronunciation), while the unmarried woman is referred to as a "Miss."

First, Eaton took issue with the appropriateness of "Miss" when referring to a single woman. Webster's Dictionary, of course, defines "miss" with such undesirable connotations as "a failure to hit the desired mark." Clearly, as Eaton suggeted, this is not the sort of implication we should convey to our young, single women! As if to add insult to injury, the "miss" stem is often used as the base of many unpleasant compound words such as "mistreat, misunderstand,

Eaton, upset that even "Mizzez" sounded too gruff and unpleasant an honorific for the glory of man, conceded that other cultures have bested the English language in their formal references to the fairer sex. German uses the dignified distinctions of "Frau" and "Fräulein." French makes use of the magnificent terms, "Madame" and "Mademoiselle." Spanish uses the sweet sounding "Señora" and "Señorita." But English, that great universal language, can only muster up the unpleasant "Mizzez" and potentially embarrassing "Miss." America, according to Eaton, possessed a superior sort of women to any of these forementioned cultures, yet it rewarded them with the least attractive honorifics.

What then shall we call our women? I don't really know what Eaton what have recommended, as I did not have time to finish the essay and couldn't run off a copy since it was a manuscript from the library's special collections. But I suppose we are all captives to our culture at some point.

With great indebtedness to our late Brother Eaton,
I am,
On the Shoulders of Giants

Passing the Torch to the New "Person of the Year"

2007-12-21T22:43:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of Hank Aaron, I want to pass the proverbial torch and congratulate President Vladimir Putin as this year's ambassador for Time Magazine's Person of the Year.

I have to confess that being named Time's 2006 "Person of the Year" came as a surprise to me. Sure, I managed a good GPA and made decent use of time as a research assistant. But I never once thought that anything I had done was earth-shattering or particularly meaningful to the world. However, as Wylie Burp told Fievel, sometimes the real hero is the last one to know about it. So, it is with such a humble spirit that I acknowledge the wisdom of naming me a recipient of this award last year. After all "it is a great accomplishment, which requires skill, longevity, and determination," as Hammerin' Hank might say. Being a student and part-time research assistant who tries to find the time to watch the occasional YouTube video is tough work, though I dare say Putin's 2007 has even surpassed the greatness of my 2006. I move over now and offer my best wishes to President Putin with the hope that his accomplishment will inspire others to chase their own dreams, whether it be watching streaming video on YouTube or leading entire nations.

President Putin, I suspect, will discover as I have that living with the burden of representing Time for a whole year will lead to immense bouts of self-doubting and anxiety. Once people associate you with "Person of the Year," it becomes difficult to meet their expectations. Yet, in spite of the tribulation, I do not regret the journey. Like an Olympian, I pass this prestigious torch. Though my light may fade from the public scene, we can only hope and pray that Putin's lantern has only begun to show us the way for a better 2008.

Revisited: What if LifeWay Christian Stores Sold . . . ?

2007-12-03T22:30:00.000-05:00

Seeing how the Christmas season is nearly upon us, I expect many students will be making out their Lifeway Christmas list. But have you ever wished Lifeway could push the envelop as to the quality of their stock? This idea originated years ago during late night brainstorming sessions with my friend, Jesse Florida. I was further inspired to do this as a result of a related post by Tom Ascol.

So without further delay...

Rick Warren, The Prayer of the Purpose Driven Reformed Pastor to Desire God (Banner of Truth Trust, 2007) $12.99

Larry King: "I admit I was surprised when Tyndale asked me to record this product. I don't have any particular connection with Christianity, but I do consider myself an agnostic seeker. I guess that why this project appealed to me... Because it is about seeking answers to things nobody really knows for certain. When it comes down to it, you just have to take some things on faith."

And finally, a new tool for teaching theology to youth!

3-in-1-D Glasses™, by the Garland-Earl Corporation®, $7.99

Billy Graham: "These glasses really are amazing. Not only are they a perfect object lesson for teaching children about God, but they double as an efficient pair of sunglasses when I have to go outdoors. And they look great too."

J. I. Packer: "I wish somebody had thought of this when I was a boy. It would have given me a great head start on my theological studies. I don't give out product endorsements easily, but 3-in-1-D Glasses are deserving of my full support."

*Endorsements may or may not represent the exact views of the parties represented. Quotes were obtained through fourth and fifth degree removed sources.

All in good fun, right?

Merry Christmas! I'll see you in thirty.

You Might Be a Creepy Seminary Guy If...

2007-10-30T18:26:00.000-04:00

I hadn't heard of this label until I arrived here at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. When I was in college at Union University, most young women figured they would get their Mrs. Degree before graduation. For many students, marriage was their 4-year goal. But in seminary, it is often expected that the student will already be married before enrollment. In my experience, the peer pressure put upon single students to marry is exceedingly beyond anything I knew at college. I suppose it is this high stakes game of "keeping up with the Joneses" that has given birth to the concept of "The Creepy Seminary Guy," that creature which no man desires to be as perceived as. But what does this term mean and what kind of fellow meets the criteria? I propose to offer some suggestions:

You might be a Creepy Seminary Guy if...

1. If you go to a Boyce College [SBTS's undergraduate Bible school] social event to scout out "the prospects"...

2. If your Facebook "friends" are mostly young ladies you haven't met face-to-face...

3. If you refer to your Facebook friend accumulations as "research and development"...

4. If you plan your course schedule based upon which girls are signed up for which classes...

*BONUS*: If you feel God has called you to a church with a large single ladies' ministry...

5. If you've ever called a girl in response to an unspecified "Roomate Wanted" flyer and proposed matrimony right over the phone...

6. If your "little black book" consists of the campus student directory (minus the Seminary Wives section, of course)...

*BONUS* If that "little black book" does indeed include the Seminary Wives section, then you are without a doubt a creepy seminary guy who should re-evaluate your calling.

7. If you can't remember the chapel sermons because you spent the whole time staring at a pretty face in the choir...

8. If the first thing you look for in a woman is whether she has a ring on her left hand...

9. If you memorize a girl's class schedule to increase your chances of running into her...

10. If you are single... and in seminary...

Then you might be a Creepy Seminary Guy!

In Jest and Joviality,
I am,
On the Shoulders of Giants

"Strict Communion Less Exclusive than Paedobaptists?" or "Should the Water Divide Us?"

2007-08-29T00:30:00.000-04:00

The Open Communion VS. Strict Communion debate has once again enticed a generation of Baptists holding to competing views. The question is an old one, "should our churches invite all Christians to partake of the Lord's Supper or just those who have been baptized?"

The open communicant answers, "All Christians should be invited to partake of the Lord's Supper."

In contrast, the strict communicant (under which I include both "close" and "closed," though I disagree with the latter) answers, "Only those Christians who have obeyed Christ and have been properly baptized (baptism meaning "immersed as a believer upon profession of faith") may be invited to take the Lord's Supper." This sort of answer immediately brands persons of this persuasion as exclusive, divisive, and more committed to ecclesiasticism than Christian love.

For the sake of putting my cards on the table, I confess I lean closer to the strict communion tradition.

This nuanced debate is unique to Baptists, as far as I can tell. Baptists are concerned about how to treat a Christian of another denomination if he should attend a Baptist worship service in which the Lord's Supper is being served. Is excluding him from the Lord's Table equivalent to an insult against his godliness?

The best argument I have heard on the subject is quite simple. I encountered it in John Quincy Adams' (not the U.S. president of the same name) Baptists: The Only Thorough Religious Reformers (1876).

To paraphrase Adams' argument:
1. In the New Testament churches, all who were baptized and members of the church were admitted to the Lord's table.

2. One considered a proper subject of baptism would never be excluded from the communion.

3. Baptists receive all proper subjects of baptism (i.e. believers who have been immersed upon their profession of faith).

4. Paedobaptists consider infants who are sprinkled to be legitimately baptized and members of the visible church.

5. According to this logic (of #4), all baptized infants should be admitted to the Lord's Table.

6. Yet, these infants are excluded, and thus the "paedobaptists are most inveterate closed communionists."

7. Paedobaptists have no argument against strict communion Baptists, who "refuse to receive persons whom we consider unbaptized, when they will not receive their own baptized members."

John Quincy Adams, Baptist thorough Reformers (1876), Reprinted: Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers, 1982, 160-161.

Solid paedobaptists and the like all believe that no one should be admitted to the Lord's table without being properly baptized. I find it ironic that on this particular point, strict communion Baptists agree with them 100%. The disagreement is on what constitutes a proper baptism. At the risk of sounding cliche, I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "is" means.

Speaking of the Dead (in Christ)

2007-08-24T01:37:00.000-04:00

Speaking of the dead... I'm finally getting around to updating my blog!

The title of this entry carries a double meaning.
There are a number of reasons I have cut my blogging back to a minimum these days. One is that I have a very slow computer that always eats away more time than I can spare on little excersies like blogging. Another is that my brain is low on creative impulses. But the biggest reason is that I am trying hard to briddle my tongue so that I won't write something I might regret later. I believe blogging is a good thing, but I'm trying to mortify a few areas of my life that need more discipline.

One important reminder in this struggle occured a few months back when I forgot the important fact that what one writes on the internet doesn't always communicate as well as a face to face conversation.

I left a mildly sarcastic comment on a blog in response to something another commenter had written. I'll spare the names of all parties involved, but the gist of the exchange was:
Commentator: "Was [said theologian] fat? I like fat theologians!"
Me: "Yes, and skinny theologians everywhere are offended. :-)"

At the time, I did not think my comment was rude or disrespectful.
A few weeks later, however, a respected mentor of mine came across the same blog and noticed my comment. He confronted me about the matter, and ,while not expressing any explicit signs of anger, challenged me to consider whether such a comment displayed appropriate respect to the legacy of this particular glorified saint. As a result of this conversation, I realized that my statement was careless if not intentionally disrespectful.

I was challenged with the concept of speaking of the dead in Christ as if they are still alive. In a very real sense, of course, they are. As Hebrews 12:1 reminds us, "Therefore, having so great a cloud of witnessess around us . . . let us run with endurance the race that is set before us."

I want to be careful not to suggest anything akin to saint worship, but the Bible reveals that God's glorified people, faithful in life, faithful at death, now serve as historical testimonies to the grace of God. Their lives and ideas are not above criticism and godly evaluation, but they are all certainly worthy of our respect, no matter how prominent or how obscure.

So, as I continue to meditate upon the application of this truth, I conclude this entry with a deep appreciation for those who have tilled the soil in which I now labor.

I am,
On the Shoulders of Giants

"Iron Sharpens Iron" or "Spiderman Returns"

2007-07-26T21:17:00.001-04:00

Matthew Crawford offered his thoughts on the flawed spiritual foundation of two of this summer's biggest blockbuster movies. One of them was, you guessed it, Spiderman 3.

Matt makes some insightful points that I avoided for spacial reasons in my original critique of the movie [Read it here]. Although he takes a very different conclusion away from the movie than I did, his insight is a wonderful example of how we need other voices in the Kingdom of God to illuminate the full truth of Scripture.

In the end, we both agree that Spiderman 3 is an imperfect movie when judged against the criteria of Scripture. However, I stand by my analysis that the movie does have commendable relative merits for what it was made to be: a superhero movie about struggling with personal depravity, forgiveness, and reconciliation of friendships. Does it succeed in telling the whole story? Of course not, and Matt makes that fact oh so clear. That said, I still recommend the movie for both enjoyment and evaluation. Just remember, Christians are never given a free pass to turn their brains off for anything!

But even more than Spiderman 3, I recommend everyone check out Matt's articulate cultural commentary [Click it here!]. You'll be glad you did.

"Family-Friendly" the New Orthodoxy?

2007-06-28T23:05:00.000-04:00

Ok, I'll eat crow.

You see, I really believed the majority of Bible-believing evangelicals would be offended by the premise of the new movie, Evan Almighty. So imagine my surprise when I spotted the cover of the latest issue of Christianity Today. The new "Noah" is featured complete with about a dozen pairs of wild beasts and a giant ark of gopher wood. The headline reads "Evan Help Us: How a movie- and a movement- are partnering with the church to change the world." Also don't forget the little note at the bottom of the page reading "Popcorn in the Pews."

To be fair, this isn't the actual cover to the magazine on account of the fact that there isn't even any story about the movie in the issue. No, this apparent "cover" is actually just a special advertisement. But its a very blatant advertisement. Seeing as how the famous CT title is boldly in view, we can't assume anything but that the magazine's creative board went along with this marketing scheme with gung-ho gusto. The inside cover of this advertisement promotes a new parachurch evangelical benevolence ministry (http://www.arkalmighty/) officially licensed by the movie's brand name. Willow Creek Association, Youth Specialties, and International Bible Society have all joined hands with Hollywood to promote the "family-friendly comedy" and its inspired "ministry initiative that matches up the needs in your congregation with the talents and skills of the members of your church." In short, ArkALMIGHTY promotes church-based volunteer benevolence ministry.

Granted, I haven't seen Evan Almighty. Granted, I don't plan on spending the money for the movie ticket in the near future. And, granted, I didn't see the original Bruce Almighty (staring Jim Carrey) until it aired on cable last week (which I had mixed feelings about). If I may be granted all those grants, then (I'd be a rich man at least) let me assert that I think American evangelicals are in deep trouble if this recent development is any indication of Christian cultural engagement at large. Evan Almighty is a comedy that uses the Bible as the set-up joke for the punchline. I don't know whether or not it lampoons the Bible specifically. I'm sure that the film contains a mix of good and bad elements as regards morality and religious discussion. I don't even know whether or not the movie is any funny or not. [Believe it or not, the film's director is a professing Catholic and Augustine fan in this interview.]

But, what I do know is that making a movie about a "god" who decides to rehash "Noah & the Ark: Part 2" as a means to teach people how to better care for their environment and do good deeds for one another is a dangerous undertaking. Evan Almighty may be a decent movie with the usual mix spiritual strengths and weaknesses, but its fundamental premise about an actor playing God with dialogue written by Hollywood writers unsettles me. I feel this way when anyone (real or fictional) tries to speak words for God that we have no account of Him saying in Scriptural revelation. I am simply surprised that more evangelicals aren't exhibiting similar anxiety, but are actually standing behind the film as a triumph of evangelical-friendly values suitable for the whole family (here is at least one exception).

That said, let me acquit myself of three potential misunderstandings: (1) I really do like the environment. Green is my favorite color, for crying out loud! Although I'm not a tree-hugger, I believe personal stewardship is both biblical and ethically significant. (2) I'm all for churches getting involved with benevolent ministries, especially for needy people within our own churches. (3) I like family-friendly movies. All these things are fine and good in general.

But this present evangelical lobbying of movies that are high on family-friendly virtues (no violence, minimum intense thematic elements, mild language, no sex, etc.) but shallow on godly reverence disturbs me. Maybe I'm just being paranoid (wouldn't surprise me really, heh), but I think evangelicals' lack of second thoughts in promoting this particular movie is a symptom of a deeper problem. What's the problem? Christians have become so desperate for entertainment they can share with their families that they have thrown in the towel on the Gospel. The biblical account of Noah and the Ark is about man's sin against God, God's judgement of sin, and (most importantly) God's mercy and salvation of men. I'm pretty sure that Evan Almighty's story doesn't center around those themes.

I would appreciate reader input on this. I won't get mad if you disagree with me. I only hope I have made my point. Is "Family-Friendly" the new orthodoxy? I hope not.

"Want Forgiveness? Get Religion!"

2007-06-11T15:27:00.001-04:00

Warning: NO major spoilers. This review will NOT ruin the movie if you've yet to have seen it [, that includes you, Joseph!].

Spiderman The Third.

Oh wait, sorry, I meant Spiderman: At World's End.

No, that's not right either! Uh... Spiderman 3, maybe? I think that's right. . . [checking guess with Wikipedia] . . . Yes, Spiderman 3! (With all these new sequels out, I get confused!)

After being the last person in America who planned on seeing the new movie that still hadn't seen it (except for maybe this fellow), I have to say I enjoyed it. I find all the harsh critical reception this movie has received a little harsh, though somewhat understandable. The most justified criticism I've heard is from a NY Times writer that "the three villains [Sandman, Green Goblin II, and Venom] here don’t add up to one Doc Ock." And I have no choice but to agree. Alfred Molina's portrayal of Doctor Octopus was simply masterful in Spiderman 2. Despite the film's 2 hour 36 minute running time (that's 28 minutes longer than the last one, and you can really feel the length if you're one of those people like me who is addicted to movie theatre soda drinks), the introduction of villains like Sandman feels rushed and cliche. Thus, Spiderman 3's biggest problem is that it doesn't quite live up to its own standard of excellent, at least in my opinion.

All that negative stuff out of the way, let me proceed with the point of this essay. I am not seeking to review the quality of Spidey 3 but simply to offer a reflection on the movie's moral theme from the lens of a Christian worldview.

For context's sake, let's review the moral theme of the previous 2 movies:
Spiderman: "With great power, comes great responsibility."= Uncle Ben's motto that Peter Parker learns to appreciate as he grows from boy to man.

Spiderman 2: "Sometimes in order to do what is right, we have to give up what we want the most." = Parker learns that moral absolutes do exist in this crazy mixed up world, and they should take priority over the selfish hedonism of the 'Hakuna Matata' philosophy (ok, I made that last part up).
Honorable mention: "Intelligence is gift (not a privilege) to be used for the good of mankind."

And now, the motto of Spiderman 3:
"If you find a black alien goo that wants to bond with you, don't let it!"
Ha, just kidding! Actually, I got the sense that the central theme of this movie was that we all have to learn how to forgive one another, as we are all capable of great evil under the right circumstances. Or as director Sam Raimi stated.

"He considers himself a hero and a sinless person versus these villains that he nabs. We felt it would be a great thing for him to learn a little less black and white view of life and that's he not above these people. He's not just the hero and they're not just the villains. They were all human beings and that he himself might have some sin within him and that other human beings, the ones he calls criminals, have some humanity within them and that the best we can do in this world is to not strive for vengeance, but for forgiveness."

Forgiveness. The best thing we can strive for in this world, according to the director. I was profoundly struck by the sobriety of this third installment in the Spidey series. Yes, it had plenty of action and special effects. Yes, it had some well executed sprinklings of humor. And, yes, it had plenty of angst and frustration that were so common to the first 2 films. What sets this sequel apart from its predecessors, however, is that the hero becomes the true villain of the story. Peter Parker's obsession with power and responsibility bring trouble upon himself. No longer is he just a poor, misunderstood kid who always tries to do the right thing. Rather, he has allowed himself to become a slave to power and a glutton for fame and pleasure.

Spiderman learns that even his soul is not above that of the villains he seeks to bring to justice. In the course of the movie, he betrays the trust of his would-be fiance, gloats his power over everyone else, and nearly commits murder with a sense of vindication. All these sins lead him to a sense of brokenness and he retreats to the sanctuary of a cathedral to ponder the shambles his life has become. As Spiderman despairs of himself, he realizes that he must choose to begin making amends with those he has hurt. Thus, begins his long road back to redemption.

Not everything in this movie is compatible with the Christian worldview, of course. For instance, Aunt May tells Peter he must "forgive himself." Even though I know what she meant, I think forgiveness is something that can only take place when there are 2 or more parties involved. Forgiveness (humanly speaking) is the admission of wrongdoing on the part of one party against another. With the admission, the guilty party seeks reconciliation with the victim and promises to do whatever is necessary to make restitution for damages done. It is a lot more than saying "I'm sorry." This movie isn't so much an illustration of Christian soteriology as it is a lesson in Christian anthropology. All men have sinned (indeed all men are wicked in nature) and fall short of the glory of God, the only Holy One who alone is worthy to judge the hearts of men.

In conclusion, I think Spiderman 3 has a great message that Christians can appreciate, even if it doesn't quite succeed in its character development. For Spidey fans, I think the movie wraps up the loose ends from the previous movies nicely. If nothing else, it is a heck of a lot better resolution to the series than X-Men: The Last Stand's blood crazy martyr-fest of iconic characters. I recommend this movie to a mature audience, but just use some discretion about buying a soda pop at the concession stand.

Women and Weeds

2007-06-09T03:41:00.000-04:00

Neil Jackson is a third-year Southern Seminary student with a bachelor's degree in Chemistry from Union University. He likes British and Scottish Church history, J. C. Ryle, Orange Crush sodas, John Wayne movies, good preaching, and a hard day's work. Most importantly, he's been my roommate for the last 2 years.

DISCLAIMER:
I did not come up with the following statement. It was repeated to me by one, Neil Jackson, who heard it from his grandfather who said he heard it from a preacher (and preacher stories are notorious for being recycled over and over). I now pass it onto to you, and beg your mercy that in the future you refrain from throwing objects in my general direction in light of the fact that I didn't say it. Still, its just too funny not to tell.

The two hardest things to do in life:

(1) Climb a fence that is leaning towards you.
(2) Kiss a girl who is leaning away from you.

Neil is such a great roommate with a mix of wisdom and wit.

But sometimes I wonder about that boy...

For instance, a couple of years back when I first started rooming with Neil, he came in one afternoon from doing yardwork with a handful of weeds. Later, he proceeded to put those weeds into a pot and boil them on the stove. The whole purpose was to preserve the weeds for tea-making purposes, which he then drank for the following week.

And, yes, it looked just as nasty as the picture suggests.

Neil tells his story as such:

"I was working for this old gentlemen, Mel Greer, and the task of the hour was pulling weeds in his flowerbeds. He wanted some varieties of flowers to be pulled up so I got to this one type and it reminded me of a minty weed that I had encountered in my youth. When you crush the weeds you can smell a minty flavor I wasn't sure if it was peppermint or spearment. I pulled a few of these weeds and when he wasn't looking I stuffed them in my left front pocket. There they remained for the rest of the afternon during my employment. When I got back to the room, I placed them on a paper towel and let them dry until the next morning. I then put them in a pot of boiling water, thus making some tea out of the organic extraction from the leaves."

"It's legal, I reckon!"

And as a bonus feature, I thought I might include this neat little undead zombie-fied version of Neil's picture above. I like it!

Boris Said at Southern Seminary?

2007-06-01T00:54:00.000-04:00

Said at Southern officially begins today

What's that? Is road racing expert and NASCAR moonlighter Boris Said answering a dramatic call to the Christian ministry? Afraid not, dear friends. Said at Southern is just the new communal blog site that hosts the blogs of various students and alumni at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

As for Boris, I guess he'll just have to keep on trying to qualify for those NASCAR races. Had he indeed put in his application for SBTS, he would have joined Brian Vickers as the second NASCAR name to be associated with both racing and theological education. Boris Said is staying put for now. Which, I expect, will keep this fellow happy.

Boris' decision to stay in racing will also be good news to his sponser, SoBe. That's the company that makes the SoBe No Fear energy drinks.

Speaking of energy drinks, I tried the new Mountain Dew amp Overdrive for the first time today. It's Pepsi Co.'s answer to Red Bull, and the can promises to provide an "intense cherry hit" so that I can "live life louder!" What did I think? Well, it tasted fine (better than Code Red Dew but not quite as good as regular Dew IMO). It actually tasted pleasant and relaxing, something I don't think the marketers of the drink are aiming for. For pete's sake, the can has a warning label on the back that says, "Not recommended for children, pregnant women or people sensitive to caffeine. THIS PRODUCT IS NOT INTENDED TO DIAGNOSIS, TREAT, CURE OR PREVENT ANY DISEASE." And make sure you note that last sentence (as if ALL CAPS weren't enough), because anytime something sooo00OOO out there in left field is printed on products you can bet that some ignoramous has already done it and sued the company over it.

Anywho, the real question is will MD amp Overdrive replace my habitual craving for original recipe Mountain Dew. Well, let's compare the stat sheet:

Mountain Dew
Price: 75 cents - $1.00 per can
Calories: 170 per serving
Carbs: 46 grams
Sugar: 46 grams
MD amp Overdrive
Price: $2.00 -$2.25+ per "Tall Boy" can
Calories: 110 per serving
Carbs: 29 grams
Sugar: 29 grams

Okay, hold the phone! Something that sells itself as an "energy drink" has no business getting out preformed by plain soda pop in the sugar count (granted Overdrive does win nearly 2-1 in the caffeine ratio). The taste seems more sour than sweet to me. Imagine putting Sour Punch Straws in your Dew and you'll get my impression.

In fact, these statistics might lead you to assume MD amp Overdrive is actually a healthy beverage alternative to soda. That is, until, you check the rest of the ingrediants on the can. For instance, the label promotes itself as containing: B vitamins (sounds good, right?), Guarana Extract (doesn't sound so good, does it?), Taurine, Ginseng (isn't that what we use to clean the sink?), and Maltodextrin (I don't even want to know). Now if you bother to read the "Supplement Facts" on the back of the can, you will see that the Food and Drug Administration has no idea how much Guarane, Maltodextrin, Taurine, etc. is needed for a daily diet value. Thus, the good people at Mountain Dew are making us into the FDA's test subjects to see what this stuff actually does to the human body. Sounds fun, right? Maybe that's what the "Intense Cherry Hit" is supposed to mean!

In the end, I found MD amp Overdrive to be a pleasant drink to accompany my turkey sandwich down my digestive track. it gets a B+ for taste. It fails, however, to deliver on its promise of allowing me to "live life loud!" Red Bull doesn't taste as good as amp, but it actually alters my sensory functions for a short time. False advertising is a major deficiency, so amp Overdrive gets a C- in its purpose. I think Pepsi Co. needs to drop the gimmicky approach and just promote amp as a Mountain Dew soda like Code Red. Amp needs a reasonable price and a new packaging to fulfill its potential. Final grade (not an average score): B.

So, in conclusion, all I'm really trying to say is visit Said at Southern to see some of the finest young minds express themselves on the internet. Saidatsouthern.com is an alternative to the oft-malfunctioning sbtsblogs.net, which essentially deletes people from the main page if they upgrade from old blogger formating to new blogger formating. Strange, isn't it?

P.S.
For more reviews of Energy drinks, check out Energy Drink Ratings blog (its the place where I got the picture of the amp Overdrive can).

Is Jack Bauer a Christian's Role-Model?

2007-05-21T23:35:00.000-04:00

24... also known as "Jack Bauer: The Series." It has become a national hit, but is it something Christians can justify watching? For the last six years, its been one of the most popular shows on television. Even though its ratings have dropped this season due largely to the show's creative team hitting the inevitable writer's block, it is still a weekly primetime hot spot. And I'll admit, it is one of my favorite shows, a list that includes such gritty hard-nosed dramas such as Family Matters, Ducktales, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. (Can you guess the odd-man out?)

24 just wrapped up its latest season in the ongoing efforts of Jack Bauer to save America from the dastardly deeds of terrorists and government conspiracies. In order for Jack to save the world this year (as has been the case every year), he had to resort to making split-second, life-threatening decisions that often included deceiving his adversaries and even the ever controversial interrogation/torture of suspects and perpetrators. The show's depiction of torture has drawn national criticism in light of such real-life controversies over American G.I.'s torturing their prisoners. The logic goes: Why should Jack Bauer get a free pass when a handful of America's finest are facing demerit and criminal charges for doing essentially the same thing? Does a Christian have the right to condone the idea that morally-dubious means (torturing prisoners) are justifiable to achieve clearly moral ends (saving millions of lives from acts of terrorism)? Furthermore, are the show's writers guilty of crafting a show that glorifies gore and violence that sells itself to man's barbaric lusts?

I have to concede the point that 24 at times seems to cross the line between entertainment and duty when it comes to torture. This is a legitimate moral strike against the show, as is its use of profanity, and its occasional moral indifference to unmarried characters who are engaged in sexual relationships. There, I said it. (On the other hand, I don't think the show is responsible for depicting Muslims in a stereotypical light, seeing as how Jihad is a reality and that the show's villains come from very diverse backgrounds.)

24 is not a perfect show when it comes to morality. I contend, however, that it is a show that forces its viewers to consider what is the right thing to do, even if it is the unpopular decision. Take this season's finale, for example. A young boy's life is held for ransom as a terrorist demands his life in exchange for a military component that will prevent America from engaging in an unnecessary war with Russia. The acting president, in cooperation with most of his cabinet, decide that one innocent boy's life is worth the price of sending off thousands of innocent young U.S. soldiers to their death in a war. This decision can be likened to the decision of Winston Churchill to sacrifice the British city of Coventry to the Nazis in order to prevent them from getting wise to the fact that Britain had cracked their communication codes. The ruins of the city's cathedral stand as a reminder that the blood of Coventry was on Churchill's hands. Was Churchill right? The citizens of Coventry probably didn't think so, but in hindsight most of us would agree that he chose the lesser of two evils. In the course of war, a few must be sacrificed for the lives of many.

But what if Churchill had decided that he should bear the sacrifice with his British brothers? What if he had waited until the last minute before the attack to enter the city to suffer with his people and (assuming he survived) would be in position to help lead the recovery mission? Perhaps, this is a ridiculous suggestion, but this is the kind of decision that Jack Bauer makes on an hourly basis. It is exactly this sort of decision that Bauer made in order to save the life of this particular innocent boy after the government had abandoned him as an unfortunate yet inconsequential sacrifice.

Bauer proves again and again that he is not willing to sacrifice the lives of the innocent if he can do something about it. His decisions are not always popular with his over-seers, but it is his conviction that often the right thing must take priority even over blind submission to authority. It is Bauer's recurring unselfishness that makes him the ultimate fictional patriot, in spite of his other character flaws.

Is Jack Bauer a Christian's Role-Model? Of course not. He is not a man of faith, so he can't be considered on the same level as the flawed heroes of Hebrews 11 such as Abraham, Samson, and Jephthah. But Jack Bauer does exhibit a moral sense that a Christian can appreciate. Jack acts upon his convictions, not what is politically correct. He makes the hard choices, not the ones that will give him the most comfort.

Every Christian has the responsibility to determine what is appropriate moral stewardship of his/her time. There are many factors that must be taken into account in such a decision, such as setting an example for the family for instance. Not every Christian will come to the same conclusions on these decisions. It has been my purpose to articulate one possible interpretation of the show's moral conscience. I hope that it has been well-articulated and hope that it will serve as a defense of a show that (while not perfect) has many characteristics that a Christian may find worthy of appreciation.

Fight on, Jack Bauer. Your country needs you.

The First Seeker-Sensitive Church?!?

2007-02-07T23:52:00.000-05:00

If you think consumerism and market-driven church growth strategies are bad now, wait till you see what our 20th century forefathers had to deal with:

From George Marsden's Fundamentalism and American Culture (p.157):
"A sense of doom was created . . . and heightened by growing dismay about the moral condition of the nation. . . . Young men and even women were openly smoking . . . It was particularly galling that churches accepted such changes. Methodist church choirs, for instance, allowed young women to display 'brazen bared knees.' . . . Dancing, once an abomination to the Methodists, was now allowed even in their churches."

The King's Business was a publication which attacked the growing trends of secularism and liberalism in Christianity and culture at large. The reprinted image above represents their disillusionment with the "New Theology" of religious academics and their higher critical dissection of the Bible and the degeneration of the churches into an entertainment hall with "dancing lessons every Friday night" complete with bowling alleys and pool halls. At the root of it all, this entertainment-driven church is held together by the conviction that Man is sovereign.

Perhaps the write-up was a bit fundamentalist in tone, but it would seem that these evangelistic right-wingers had some foresight into the ramifications the consumer-driven culture would have on our places of worship. Now, make sure to cover up your knees.

(Thanks for the inspiration, Tim. And check out this sadly accurate parody of the modern understanding of a seeker's church.)

Southern Gospel Music & Why I Like It

2007-01-21T22:35:00.000-05:00

Following up on the problem of prejudice, I want to take a pot-shot at my generation of Christians. If there is one thing young Christians are prejudiced against, its gotta be Southern Gospel Music.

For many of the contemporary Praise & Worship crowd, Southern Gospel is just too old to be relevant. Its the music of your parents and grandparents. Its the music that you play at Billy Graham crusades, not for people who talk theology at Starbucks.

For many conservative Reformed thinkers, Southern Gospel is too akin to the revivalistic Pentecostalism and the Arminian worldview from which it sprang. It is too performance-driven and performer-centered to be spiritually edifying. Or perhaps, it's just too southern to be taken seriously.

There is, perhaps, some merit to each of these suggestions. One has to consider whether a song about the birth of Christ is best celebrated by mass foot stomping and clapping. Furthermore, Southern Gospel can easily fall into a similar trap as most modern praise & worship music as being primarily taste-driven with watershed theological depth.

However, in spite of the potential for abuses of the genre, I have to believe that much of the modern distaste for Southern Gospel comes from an a priori, fundamental prejudice against music that is associated with the traditional South. Both the Contemporary Praise & Worship movement and the Reformed tradition typically have more success in the climate of intellectualism than for the backwoods of Tennessee.

Southern Gospel Music is recorded in Nashville (a city which still suffers from the hick-town stigma despite its current metropolitan status) and appreciated by people in small towns. That doesn't mean that every church will have special music with untalented people trying to sound like Gospel singers (though it happens). Neither does it mean everybody who likes Southern Gospel has big hair, excessive jewelry, and bad suits.

Some Southern Gospel songs bring a tear to my eye for the piercing nature of the truth it teaches, other songs make me cringe on account of the shallowness of the doctrine (or lack-thereof). But there are at least two good examples that I want to showcase that should resonate on some level with most believers in Christ.

The first is a fairly recent song by Steve & Annie Chapman entitled, "Don't Unpack Your Bags." It is, essentially, a story about a young preacher coming to a new church and dutifully trying to introduce himself to every town-member he could before beginning his pastorate. One woman, having been a former member of his church, warned him against the power-hungry, back-stabbing nature of that very congregation notorious for demolishing the spirit of their pastors. Her recommendation for the pastor is laced with a bittered, sarcastic truth:
"Touch a feather to their ear
Tell them what they want to hear
Give ’em milk, don’t give ’em meat
Make it short, make it sweet
If you wanna stay around
That’s what you’ll have to do
But don’t unpack your bags, young man
If you plan to preach the truth”

The second song, "Excuses" is by the Kingsmen Quartet (I absolutely love men's quartets!). It lampoons the motives of everyone who thinks of ways to criticize their church and spend their Sundays at home:
"Well, the preacher he's too young. And, maybe he's too old.
The sermons they're not hard enough. And, maybe they're too bold.
His voice is much too quiet-like. Sometimes he gets too loud.
He needs to have more dignity. Or, else he's way too proud.

Well, the sermons they're too long. And, maybe they're too short.
He ought to preach the word with dignity instead of 'stomp and snort.'
Well, that preacher we've got must be 'the world's most stuck up man.'
Well, one of the lady's told me the other day, 'Well, he didn't even shake my hand!'"

My point is: many Southern Gospel songs have excellent content presented in a harmoniously balanced musical style. Yes, it is Southern. Yes, it is primarily listened to by people in their 50s and up. Yes, it is not respected by mainstream intellectuals. But is it worth listening to? I answer that question with a hearty, "Amen!"

Martin Luther King Day 2007

2007-01-15T15:41:00.000-05:00

As a nation, America has come a long way since the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. Racial street riots are no longer common, de-segregation has been enacted nationwide, and despite the fact that hate crimes still occur; they are heavily persecuted. In that sense, I am sure that King would be very pleased if he were alive today.

King lived in a time when his very life was at risk the moment he stepped out of his own house. He witnessed the horrible hypocrisy in both the Church and America in general. He was ordained as a Baptist minister and devoted his life to living out Jesus’ call for all men to love each other as brothers. The Sermon on the Mount was King’s source of inspiration and gave birth to his mission to help in the fight to bring justice to the oppressed. As he wrote to Southern pastors in a letter from a prison cell in Birmingham, Ala.:

For years now I have heard the word, “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

King understood his Christian conviction was to fight the very law itself, and, if at all possible, to fight it with an attitude of nonviolence. Though he understood the meaning of turning the other cheek, he did not simply allow injustice to take place unrestrained. At the cost of his earthly life, he fought for what he believed was a great truth of the Bible. Though many personal injustices were committed against him and his family, he kept his focus upon Washington, where rules are created and revised. How would King have responded to a profanity ushered at him? Would he have tied up the judicial system just to win financial compensation and vengeance for emotional stress? I think not, King had witnessed too much evil in his life to be phased by mere racial slur issued from the mouth of a fool. In the 21st century world, no insult goes without retaliation. No attack on dignity is ignored. And hardly any sin is forgiven. Can’t take a dumb joke? Sue 'em.

Perhaps the opportunism promoted by pseudo-Kings are the reason Americans feel that the world owes them special treatment. When a civil-rights leader leads a march on a high school crying "racism" when a kid gets suspended for being involved in a brawl at a football game, the example of King becomes all the more refreshing. When an athlete calls NFL owners "slave-masters" for paying him millions of dollars and expecting him to play by the rules, King must role over in his grave. King pushed for equal rights, not special treatment

Am I the Person of the Year?

2007-01-02T00:18:00.000-05:00

Looks like I've just won Time magazine's Person of the Year award for 2006. Have to confess I didn't expect it, but I'll welcome the honor all the same.

http://www.henryinstitute.org/commentary_read.php?cid=358

Only problem is that if you read it you'll probably contest that you won the award too.

Luther and Erasmus: Together for the Gospel!

2006-11-11T14:17:00.000-05:00

I know it's a little late, but I really like this picture of my pastor and I as Luther and Erasmus... Together for the Gospel!

http://thecroftfam.blogspot.com/2006/11/reformation-party-at-church.html#links

Dr. York on the Heartbreak of Sin

2006-10-03T19:21:00.000-04:00

"You can debate theology all you want, but you better remember that you are preaching to idiots like me and you need to say it so we can understand it."
-a Baptist layman speaking to Southern Seminary students.

Dr. York doesn't have time to blog a lot (for the reason why click here!) But when he does, it's usually worth your time to read it. Dr. York has certainly made headlines among SBTS students in the last year, as he was one of the first to publically defend the IMB baptism policy. Despite what anyone's opinion may be on that matter, Dr. York is certainly a man of God who deserves the respect commanded in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 as he labors over both his church and seminary students. He has posted a very convicting post on the heartbreaking effects of sin. His final two paragraphs really cut to the heart of the Christian ministry. Check it out, it's worth a read:
The Heartbreak of Sin

Teenage Mutant Christian Turtles?!?

2006-09-30T01:56:00.000-04:00

What if Master Splinter had instructed the Turtles in the Bible instead of martial arts and the Renaissance masters?

By Andyc140

Now I think I've seen everything...
Personally, I think Splinter should have started teaching hermeneutics way earlier in the lesson plans. At least he takes a hard stance against a man-centered gospel.

"Mother Never Told Me Not to Pee in the Neighbor's Yard"

2006-09-18T00:07:00.000-04:00

Most students I know hate being required to do anything, especially things that require the use of their time. Even in Christian schools and seminaries, it is becoming increasingly rarer to find students who enjoy going to required chapel services. Yet, when the chapels are made voluntary, human nature takes over to persuade us that our time would be better spent in pursuits other than the worship of God in the community of our fellow peers and professors. My friend, Shane Walker, was one such student until recently.

Shane is a seminary student who will be graduating this May. He is one of the most careful and thorough thinkers I have ever met. Though possessing a benevolent demeanor, Shane will often hit you over the head with his intellectual hammer, forcing you to think seriously about issues you may not have given much thought to before. But more importantly, Shane can also hit you where it really counts... with thoughtful words that convict the heart. By his request, I have decided to post this moving confession which he felt compelled to create and share with others.

In Defense of Chapel and Good Manners
By Shane Walker

I once found a man relieving himself on my lawn. He did not appear to be mad or drunk. I was so shocked that my first comment was idiotic and unintelligible. He smiled and continued. My wife and daughters might come outside at any moment, another woman might pass. This affront had to stop. So, I yelled a clear, precise command and started advancing toward him. Frightened he ran away.

I bring this up to vividly illustrate manners. They are a group of mostly unwritten rules that help us function together as a group by smoothing communication and increasing civility. Without them there is increasing complexity and confusion in social relationships. My mother never told me not to pee in the neighbor's yard or not to type the words I yelled. These things are imbued in us by our culture, affinity groups, families, and so on. We don't generally talk about them, and all groups, small and large, have them.

The case can be made that God gave us manners as part of his common grace. They exist as law without legislation and order without tyranny. Manners are the actions by which we love each other socially. In Japan they bow, in Russia they kiss, and in America we shake hands, but in every case the manners serve to communicate social acceptance or love.

And with this all said, I now have a confession. I have only attended chapel three times since coming to seminary two years ago. This was rude. It was bad manners. It was a sin (and I don't use the word lightly) of omission.

Let me explain why this is so in a very individual case. I have a coworker who lives overseas. His father-in-law is a brilliant scholar who visited campus and gave a chapel address. In his sermon he attempted to demonstrate how it is that we can love our Savior through using the book of Psalms in worship. Afterwards, he stood at the back of the chapel with Dr. Mohler and shook peoples' hands. If I had attended chapel, I could have stood in line, thanked him briefly for showing me how to worship our mutual Lord, and told him how much I appreciated his son-in-law. He might have been encouraged in the Lord. Here he was away from his everyday life, and his son-in-law's friend had stood in line and said hello and talked about the things that he loved. It would not only have been good manners, it would have been the godly thing to do.

But I didn't go to chapel. No, instead I came out of the gym wearing my exercise clothes, recognized him in the hallway, forgot his name, bungled shifting my gym bag to shake hands, and attempted to introduce myself. It was rude, I shamed myself, my friend, and confused a kind Christian scholar away from home.

If I had been in chapel, I would have been dressed appropriately, his name would have been clearly printed in the bulletin, and he would have been ready to be introduced to new people. But in my selfishness, I rejected all of the structures presented to me for the purpose of allowing one Christian to get to know another in a large group. I decided to not love the visiting professor, my friend, or Southern Seminary, but I did love my smallest, least attractive self.

When this behavior that I exhibited is repeated hundreds of times in the same community, something happens, there is a decline in civility and manners within the community. We don't think about manners until they begin to break down. And I suspect within our seminary we are beginning to experience such a tottering.

Every community is defined by what they love. At Southern chapel serves as a time to adore the person we most love, Jesus Christ, as a community. On Sunday mornings we go our separate ways and worship Christ as congregations, but at chapel we worship Christ as a seminary. Further, Christ taught us in the parable of the good Samaritan that it is proximity that creates a neighbor. And we find that chapel is the only time when we can consider as a full community how it is that we should love each other.

Because one cannot preach from the Word without addressing these issues-love of God and love of neighbor-chapel serves as time to consider how to love Christ, our seminary neighbor, and those who are not members of our community. Each speaker, regardless of his denominational commitments or theological loyalties, opens a Bible that can only be applied to teaching us the manners of heaven.

When a speaker comes and is greeted by a half empty chapel, he is not being loved. When we refuse to meet with each other to worship, we are saying not only something about our love for each other, but about our corporate love for Christ. The issue then is that when I didn't attend chapel for any excuse but necessity, I was not loving you my neighbor or Dr. Mohler or Southern Seminary or other Southern Baptists or a visiting professor with a burden to share from the Lord, but I was loving myself. I wasn't quite up to the obvious rudeness of my opening illustration, but it was close, and it was certainly bad manners.

And how did I discover this? Well, the administration is making me go to chapel as a requirement for a class. You see, when manners break down, law becomes necessary. The unspoken understanding must be written down, enforcement mechanisms must be created, and I was proven more uncouth and immature than I had ever understood.

You Might Be a Theological Liberal If...

2006-05-03T23:37:00.000-04:00

1) If you haven't brought your Bible to teach Sunday School in 15 years...

2) If you don't think a loving God would really send anyone to Hell for doing something wrong...

3) If you think you understand the Old Testament better than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John...

4) If you think what Jesus really wanted to hear when He asked the disciples to identify the Son of Man was something like, "You're the demythologized essence of kerygmatic truth!"

5) If you cringe whenever someone prays, "Our Father who art in Heaven..."

6) If you think that Jesus went to the Cross merely to show us a good example of obedience and self-discipline...

7) If you believe Jesus was the first socialist...

8) If you refer to Christians who believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ as "ultra-conservative fundamentalists"...

9) If you think that 19th-20th century German theology was the bastion of orthodoxy...

10) If you fear that confessions of faith may lead to a general doctrinal consensus...

Then you might be a Theological Liberal.

You Might Be an Old-School Christian Fundamentalist If...

2006-04-22T00:39:00.000-04:00

1. If you refer to the NIV translation of the Bible as "the Not Inspired Version"...

2. If you refuse to allow people to stamp your hand at amusement parks for fear it might be the Mark of the Beast...

3. If your school cheerleaders wore ankle-skirts hemmed with lead weights...

4. If you believe merely donating money to send Jews back to Israel qualifies as missionary work...

5. If you ever found yourself alone in the house as a child and feared you had missed the Rapture...

6. If you both know who Patch the Pirate is and like him (and I'm actually not ashamed to admit to this one)...

7. If you boycott Disney theme parks and movies but still watch ABC or ESPN...

8. If you consider Christians who don't believe in a 7-year Tribulation to be liberals...

9. If you consider John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey, and C. I. Scofield the top three theologians of the 20th century...

10. If you fear that mixed bathing may lead to dancing...

Then you might be an old-school Christian Fundamentalist.

Want a "Greater Read"? Check out God's Greater Glory

2006-03-12T23:50:00.000-05:00

Ware, Bruce A. God's Greater Glory. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004. 256 pp. $17.99.

This is by far one of the best books I've ever read.

In many ways, it helps bring a great degree of resolution to one of my theological struggles. For years, I struggled to make sense of the apparently paradoxical concepts of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, the glory of God and the problem of evil, and the relation of God's love for man to God's love for Himself. I was enthralled for a time with a pseudo-Erasmianism, then I shifted and hesitantly entertained Luther's strong determinism. I finally came to appreciate the subtleties of Jonathan Edwards' concept of "free will," namely that our will is free as long as it is able to act on its strongest inclination. Consequently, a fallen human nature of an unsaved person will never desire the glory of God and will never be able to seek God's grace apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit. But Dr. Ware has taken all the best of Edwards' massive theology and contemporized it into an easily readable book.

He is fundamentally concerned with advocating a biblical doctrine of God, not with defending a certain tradition or rebuking an opponent. Ware, a proud Reformed Calvinist (4 points, at least), is all about the exhaustive sovereignty of God. But he is not insensitive to concerns about how to explain the problem of evil or human responsibility. Ware actually believes in free will, but he defines it carefully and biblically as "freedom of inclination" and shows how human beings make decisions based on what they most want to do in a given situation. The sovereign God of Scripture knows what every person will desire in a given set of circumstances, and is able to structure His sovereign, perfect plan through meticulously ordaining the specific circumstances that result in a human agent choosing "freely" given his or her strongest inclination at the time of decision.

In our materialistic choice-driven, hedonistic culture, Ware is able to demonstrate that for all our assumptions about freedom, we will always be bound to our own greatest inclination. Ultimately, Ware stakes his doctrinal case upon a rock-solid biblical foundation. His analysis of Joseph’s rise to power in Egypt is a convincing argument for compatibilist freedom, as are his references to God’s employment of the military conquests of nations such as Assyria in Isaiah 10 in order to accomplish His sovereign will.

In my opinion, Ware’s explanation of how God uses evil men’s free will to accomplish His own purpose is a considerably more helpful articulation of man’s total depravity and God’s divine sovereignty than even Martin Luther’s infamous horse and rider analogy, which implied that human agents are unthinking puppets in the service of greater powers. While Ware is clearly convinced that nothing escapes the knowledge of God and nothing can frustrate the purposes of God, he is comfortable enough to affirm that the choices humans make are indeed real choices. Human beings are certainly responsible for their own choices because they always relent to their greatest inclination, and God cannot be blamed for permitting anyone to choose as they most desire. Yet, in the spirit of John Piper’s Christian hedonism, Ware also makes it clear that only God can transform our depraved minds so that His glory becomes our greatest delight.

God’s Greater Glory succeeds partly because it presents logical and biblical answers to age old questions of predestination and free will. Because of Ware’s sensitivity to the problem of evil and human moral responsibility, this book should even be appreciated by non-Calvinists with a high view of God and Scripture. He explains and defends the Reformed tradition well but is not afraid to employ new terminology to describe old ideas. Yet, in spite of all Ware’s sensitivity to human arguments, this book is primarily concerned with promoting an exalted view of the God of the Bible and the historic Christian faith. This book is more than simply a response to evangelicalism’s problem of Open Theism. It is a product of a man whose faith is founded upon a glorious and sovereign God. Ware speaks prophetically to our generation by calling Christians back to a God-centered theology and promises that our joy will be well-founded once our vision of God is conformed in accordance with Scripture.
Buy it. Read it. Praise the Lord God. And thank me later.

Who Do You Say That I Am?

2006-03-03T01:10:00.000-05:00

Here's a preacher's story that I absolutely loved.
Some of you will be rolling over in your chair when you hear this.Others (maybe most of you) will probably sympathize with the punch line:

When Jesus heard that Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, and Paul Tillich (the 3 most influential German theologians of the 20th century) had died, He decided to hold an audience with them. Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"

Karl Barth replied, "You are the unreachable, unknowable, impenetrable Holy Other!"

Rudolf Bultmann said, "You're the unaculturated, demythologized essence of kerygmatic truth!"

And Paul Tillich said, "You're the unverbalized, the unfathomable, the untraceable ground of our being!"

And Jesus replied:"Huh?"

Good day to you all. And my hope and prayer is that you can say with Peter in Matthew 16:16 that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Oh, the goodness of God our Father who illuminates our dark, dull minds to behold the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ and to be transformed into His image from glory to glory. Amen!

Jesus apart from Scripture isn't Jesus

2006-01-10T15:53:00.000-05:00

Last Friday night, I tuned into NBC’s premiere of its new drama, “The Book of Daniel.” This show had nothing to do with the Old Testament book between the Major and Minor Prophets, but instead chronicles the life of an Episcopalian priest with a seriously dysfunctional family and who only gets by with a little help from his friend, Jesus. Now, I don’t usually watch much network TV, but I felt that it might be an educational experience to become acquainted with pop-culture’s preference of what Jesus should be.

In case you don’t know the show’s plot, I’ll summarize:A New England Episcopalian priest named Daniel must maintain his responsibilities to minister to his congregation while also trying to protect his family from falling apart. He has two sons and a daughter who’s arrested from selling Marijuana to finance her internet fascination with creating Japanese manga comics. One son is an adopted teen of oriental ethnicity (more on that later) who becomes sexually active with the mayor’s daughter. The other son is openly gay, but the family hasn’t yet broken the news to his grandfather (the elder bishop of the diocese who is having an affair with a female bishop who oversees Daniel’s sermons). Daniel himself is developing an addiction to prescription painkillers, and his wife turns to alcohol as a diversion from the tension in the home. Daniel’s brother-in-law is suspected of embezzling the church’s building fund money, so Daniel makes a deal with a Roman Catholic priest with Mafia connections to recover the fund. But it soon becomes apparent that his wife’s sister may have murdered and framed her husband because of a lesbian affair with his secretary. When everything seems to be falling apart, Jesus appears to Daniel in private in order to give him some advice and offer the obligatory quirky comic relief, ala “Wilson” from “Home Improvement.”

Positives from a Christian’s Perspective (in all fairness):
There is just enough of morality and spirituality presented in this drama to deceive us into sympathizing with its agenda. The show succeeds in portraying all characters as flawed, sinful, and rebellious. Some people believe ministers are perfect people, but this show makes it clear that the oversight of souls is not an easy job, nor is leading a family. It also attempts to promote the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus (but it fails horribly as will be seen in the next section). The “Jesus” character utters a couple of profound lines in dialogue with Daniel:
Jesus (when asked by Daniel why he talks to him):“I talk to everybody. Few hear me. Some hear what they want. Most don’t listen.”

Daniel (feeling guilty about cursing his brother-in-law):
“I really cared about Charlie. I would never damn anybody. I couldn’t. I’m sorry.
Jesus: “Don’t worry; you don’t have that much power.”

Problems from a Christian’s Perspective (and, yes, they are legion):
Some have considered this show an irreverent satirical attack on the Christian faith. While the show cannot be considered amoral, it does presents a perverted view of Christianity. Unlike the blasphemous mockeries of devout religious people found on a show like “Family Guy,” this show takes itself seriously. But the perversion of the truth are evident in the show’s opening scene, where Daniel gives this sermon the morning after picking up his drug dealing daughter from the police and popping some painkillers in private:
“Temptation. Is it really a bad thing? I don’t think so. What I mean is that if there were no temptation, how could there be redemption? If we never did anything bad, how could we repent and be stronger for our weakness? Doesn’t good need evil in order to be good? If temptation corners us, maybe we shouldn’t beat ourselves up for giving in to it. Maybe we shouldn’t ask forgiveness from a church, or from God, or from Jesus, or from anyone until we can first learn to forgive ourselves.
Let us rise for the profession of faith. ‘We believe in one God’…”

In this short paragraph, the show reveals its value code. Where does Daniel get the authority for this sermon? Certainly, not the Bible (though in defending it to the bishop he tries to cite 1 Cor. 10:13 out of context). No, the center of this sermon is that the final authority we must answer to is ourselves; we redeem ourselves, and we get stronger by forgiving ourselves. It doesn’t matter so much that we sin against God or repent to Him, but that we learn to live with ourselves. But notice the irony that this self-centered value-code still pays lip service to historic Christianity. It claims to profess faith and to believe in one God, but in doing so it proves hypocritical.

While the drug-dealing and painkiller abuse are not promoted by the show, there are hardly any ethics concerning sexual immorality. The most obvious example is the openly gay son whom the parents actually encourage him that he’ll find “that special guy” someday. Love is defined as the family’s willingness to accept his homosexual lifestyle and to encourage him in his search for a partner. The other son (remember the adopted boy of oriental ethnicity?) leads a pretty lewd lifestyle with the mayor’s daughter. After he gets busted in her room, the girl’s parents decide the teens shouldn’t spend any time together. Makes sense right? Not to the boy or his mother, and it is revealed that the people the audience should despise is not the boy or girl but the girl’s parents because “they don’t want oriental grandkids running around the house.” Once again, the show spins the real issue (a sexually dangerous lifestyle among two teens) by making it into an issue of racism.

But the coup de gra must be the show’s portrayal of Jesus, the real reason I watched this show in the first place. This Jesus doesn’t so much reflect the Messianic Son of God as much as he embodies a talk-show host on Comedy Central. He tells Daniel not to worry too much about his children but just to let them grow up because “they’re good kids.” Jesus doesn’t approve of Daniel’s painkiller abuse, but offers him life lifesavers instead. He also makes the statement that “Life is hard for everyone. That’s why there is such a nice reward at the end of it.” It sounds comforting, but is it? The real Lord Jesus made clear that there is only a “nice reward” at the end of life for those who labor in faith for His name. This concept of obedience under Christ’s lordship is absent from the show. Instead, Jesus is a kooky but wise sage who offers words of wisdom but who certainly doesn’t demand worship.

And that watered-down version of Jesus makes sense when you consider the show’s creator, Jack Kenny. He considers himself a “Christian” but lives an openly gay lifestyle and prefers to think of Jesus as laid-back and benevolent. Through his show, he has created a god according to his own preference, wholly divorced from Scripture. To quote the late Bible scholar, F. F. Bruce: “To sit loose on Scripture is thus to sit loose to the Christ whom it bears witness, and to sit loose to Him is to relax our Christian faith and life.” And this is exactly what this drama demonstrates.

I believe that this line from the show itself provided a sufficient summary of itself when the “Jesus” character said:
“I talk to everybody. Few hear me. Some hear what they want. Most don’t listen.”
This is sadly true of this show’s creator. He needs our prayers, as does everyone who watches this show and believes that Jesus can be our friend without being our lord. It is only acceptable to believe in Jesus as our friend as long as He is first our lord and savior (John 15:14-17).

Santa Claus and the Christmas Myth

2005-12-12T15:03:00.004-05:00

When I was about 13-years-old, I realized that Santa Claus wasn’t real. Imagine my surprise when about 3 years ago, I realized that he was.

Upon becoming a teenager, I first became conscious that things which have basis solely in tradition were foolish and not worth believing in or preserving. Mythological stories like a man named Santa Claus who leaves presents for children every Christmas Eve were not “real” because my definition of reality was dependent only upon things that have physical matter. I trust my mental prowess must have common to most young philosophers my age. Because we realized the impossibility of one man to fly around the world in a sleigh pulled by 8 tiny reindeer (and Rudolph on the foggy nights), we philosophers concluded that Santa Claus or any other fantastic idea of Christmas magic or myths is not a tradition worth believing in.

I grant that the evidence accumulated against Santa Claus’ existence cannot be ignored. There are confirmed accounts of houses that lack presents on Christmas morning (not even a lump of coal). There are eyewitness reports that the job of Mr. Claus has been filled by some well-meaning parents who don’t even bother wearing a red suit or cap whilst practicing their deception. Most parents will probably admit that Santa not only leaves presents under the tree, but also sales receipts in their wallets. But I believe it is folly to conclude that Santa Claus does not exist based upon the fact that he is not acknowledged in some homes.

In 1897, a little girl named Virginia wrote to the editor of the New York Sun asking if it was reasonable to believe in Santa Claus when all her friends told her it was foolish to do so. The editor responded by writing that indeed it was not only tolerable to believe in Santa Claus but encouraged her to do so. He explained that her friends had been “affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age.” The same words could have easily come out of the mouth of C. S. Lewis, who was fond of mythology even before he ever came to faith in Christ or wrote his Narnia books. But as a young man, Lewis had once renounced any notions of faith or mythology in favor of atheism, skepticism, and materialism. Many years later, in Surprised by Joy, he reflected upon this time of his life and remarked: “Nearly all that I loved [poetry, beauty, mythology] I believed to be imaginary; nearly all that I wanted to be real, I thought grim and meaningless.”

C. S. Lewis the atheist wanted to believe in myth and meaning, but he couldn’t because he thought that reality must be defined in terms of the physical or material alone. Myth is imaginary and is therefore not “real” as he then understood it. Lewis sought for meaning and beauty, but his struggle was only resolved when he was persuaded that Christianity was the one true myth. Indeed, it was “the true myth to which all the others were pointing,” and it alone “was a faith grounded in history.”

As I read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and then watched the new movie, I was struck by the scene where the professor rebukes the skepticism of the older children who disbelieve their little sister’s claim that she visited Narnia. Alas, Peter and Susan had unconsciously bought into the secular ideas of skepticism which the editor of The New York Sun warned young Virginia about. I think most children fall prey to this skepticism around the teenage years due to the secular rationalism that says that whatever forces or beings that cannot be seen must not be real or worthy of admiration. I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who do not believe in the myth of St. Nicholas; some even accuse it of being the root of the greed and materialism that might be considered a 21st century version of Turkish delight. Some say that Santa Claus, Christmas lights, and Christmas presents distract from Jesus’ glory, and I doubt if anything will alter their thinking.

But the myth of Christmas tradition and the true meaning behind Christmas need not be in opposition to each other. I recognize that difference between the Incarnation of the Son of God and the myth of St. Nicholas. The gospel of the Christian faith has its basis in fact (making it the true myth), while the contemporary myth of Santa Claus has its basis primarily in tradition. The myth of Christmas can be traced to the charity of a real bishop who gave money to young women to aid them in marriage. His example reminds us of God the Father’s gracious gift of His invaluable Son to us when we did not deserve Him. As we celebrate the spirit of Christmas by continuing the example of St. Nicholas, we remember that any gifts we receive are but reflections of the Greatest Gift we mercifully received from the Great Giver. Christmas presents given to us in the name of Santa Claus are valuable only so long as they help us in our gratitude to the Father and our joy in the Son. If they become the chief end of the holiday, then the Christmas myth becomes meaningless and idolatrous. But when the Christmas myth points us to the True Myth, then we can rejoice in the truth while being appreciative of the traditions that supplement but never supersede it.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

The Body of Christ is the Hope for Homosexuals

2005-11-28T00:31:00.001-05:00

What would you do if a friend told you they struggled with homosexuality? Would you recoil in disgust? Would you look for an opportunity to change the subject and then speak of it no more? Would you leave your friend to resolve the matter on their own, making every effort to distance yourself from such an awkward relationship?

That's what I always figured I'd do if that happened to me. I grew up in a small town populated largely by good ol' boys and not so good ol' boys. Everybody knew everybody and their brother's business, and you could hardly lie about where you went on Friday night because somebody would always recognize you within a 30-mile radius. Even though it was a small town, we had our various cliques: the jocks, cheerleaders, the Goths, the Trekies, and the drugies (to name a few). There were also those who didn't really fit into any one mold for whatever reason. Often it was because their personalities and mannerisms were a bit queer (no pun intended). These type people were usually avoided and often became the butt of coarse minded jokes.

The underlying assumption was that those who couldn't fit in with a crowd should be left to fend for themselves. Silent, alone, and unloved. Although I wasn't one of the popular crowd by any stretch of the imagination, I was generally respected for morality and kindness. That kindness had limits, however, and I was reluctant to reach out to those whom others had ignored. I didn't want to get my holy hands dirty with downtrodden sinners on the side of the road.

Who would have thought that my Pharisitical outlook would be challenged by attending Union University, the private Southern Baptist college for "rich, white kids." Early on, I developed an acquaintance with a Christian peer. I didn't have much driving experience in those days, so he was always happy to give me rides to and fro, eventually inviting me to become involved in Sunday night small group meetings with a local church. He was always outgoing, and seemed to have no shortage of friends. He was, in my opinion, the model of the "happy Christian." There was just one problem I'd didn't know about: he had lived a gay lifestyle.

This came to my attention one night at our church small group meetings. At the end of the Bible study, he confessed his sin to all gathered together. He later confessed it publicly before the Church, as a testament to his ongoing resolution to flee from sin and trust in the power of Christ's righteous power. I had never prepared myself for how to respond, but that night the Holy Spirit revealed to me that God had bound my heart to do nothing else but respond in godly love. I promised him my friendship, specifically to help keep him accountable to his confession of repentance. Reflecting back on that night, I realize how much God had changed my heart since high school. My friend's confession revealed to me that the addiction of sin isn't just limited to the social outcasts who don't seem to fit in, but even to those whom we call brothers in the name of Christ.

I was really impressed with how people in the church responded to this situation, but I was even more surprised with the effect it had on the way I treated people who were "different" than myself. Before graduation, I learned that there are faithful Christians who struggle with this particular sin. It's easy for evangelicals to say homosexuality is a choice, but that's a gross oversimplification. Acting upon homosexual attraction is a sin, but homosexual attractions themselves may be simply a manifestation of our depravity. Lust is a temptation that will rear its head in many different forms. The suppression of certain impulses may only kindle the fire of other forms of lust. The human heart is deceitful above all things, of course.

The only hope for the sinner is a transformative relationship with Christ, but the Spirit will not work to its fullest ability in the sinner's life without the involvement of Christian brothers and sisters. That's why I was encouraged to read this recent article on Baptist Press (http://www.baptistpress.com/bpnews.asp?ID=21809). It makes a powerful point when it says, "testimonies of drug abuse or even sins of a heterosexual nature usually elicit sympathy and sometimes smiles of understanding. 'I’ll tell you, it’s not this way when you talk about homosexuality'." It is imperative that the Church wake up to the extent of depravity in our own hearts, for all the pop culture and political controversies are just symptoms of that root problem. And while I have great admiration for those Christian organizations that are specifically committed to homosexual outreach and ministry, there is really no substitute for a local church where sinners can come together to hear the Word of the Lord in all its convicting glory and share their praises and prayer requests. The believer who struggles with homosexual sin needs a community of faith to maintain accountability and receive encouragement from his brothers and sisters. And those who deceive themselves as being more holy than they are will surely be convicted by the honesty of their struggling brother.

The Text Means What it Means

2005-11-03T18:34:00.000-05:00

The Text means what it means, not what you want it to say...

Titus 2:11 states, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.” Today, I listened to an audio recording of a sermon on this text by Dr. Jack Graham, a former SBC president and a brother in Christ. As Dr. Graham elaborated on the centrality of salvation by God’s grace to the Christian faith, he consistently insisted that man cannot contribute anything to his own spiritual regeneration apart from God’s work by the Spirit. However, to Dr. Graham’s demerit, he then focused his attention exclusively on the adjective “all,” and concluded that this mere adjective is the trump card that supposedly debunks the doctrine of Limited Atonement (the concept that was articulated by the Puritans in the 17th century in order to counter the popular heresy that the benefits of Christ’s Atonement for our sin extended even to the unsaved [aka: non-elect] ).

Dr. Graham’s theme became: “All means all!” What he meant by “all” was that Christ’s sacrificial death for sins was not limited to the elect only. And it was at this point that Graham’s interpretation of Titus strayed away from a plain reading of the text in favor of his presuppositional conviction that Calvinist theology is an insult to the gospel. Originally, I was annoyed by the fact that such an educated preacher and godly man could appear to be so ignorant of historic Christian orthodoxy, which can be traced from Augustine to the Reformation to the Puritans to the founding fathers of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, after calming down and reading back over what Paul actually said in Titus 2:11, I see that my first response to Dr. Graham should not have been to critique him as a historical elitist, but by the plain reading of Scripture.

What does “all” mean in this verse? If we interpret “all” to mean every individual human being living, dead, and yet to come, then we must conclude that all people will receive salvation and, as a result, we fall into the old heresy of Universalism. This is a doctrine that I know Dr. Graham would never endorse under any circumstances. Yet, he appears to have been guilty of twisting the wording of the text (perhaps unconsciously) to support his polemical sermon point. When we remove the blinders of his theological agenda and read 2:1-10, we observe that Paul addresses first the older men (2;2), then older women (2:3), refers to younger women (2:4-5), addresses younger men (2:6-8), and finally slaves, the lowest of the social statuses (2:10). Thus, when Paul says, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” it seems most reasonable to assume that “all” here refers to the fact that the grace of God in the gift of salvation does not discriminate between persons in regard to age, gender, or social status. (Also note the conjunction “For” which links verse 10 to 11). This fundamental gospel truth puts all sinners on equal footing before the Cross.

Thus, “all” may be best understood as “all types of persons of various age, gender, and social standing.” This understanding summarizes the missionary conviction of the early 1st century Church that the grace of God had been made available to Gentiles as well as Jews. God’s grace extends to all sorts of people regardless of their ethnicity, economic status, or educational level. This truth was central to the gospel that Paul preached and instructed Titus to instill in the Church in Crete. This text is by no means a refutation against the historic understanding of Limited Atonement, rather it is a revelation that the salvific grace of God shows no favoritism of persons. For all Dr. Jack Graham's education and passion for preaching the Word, he completely missed God's point. I pray that Christian preachers of God’s Word will always yield to the objective meaning of Scripture and not allow their emotional or intellectual agendas to blind them from understanding what the Triune God intended His people to hear and obey.

2005-10-31T20:34:00.000-05:00

If I one day become a highly regarded commentator on faith and culture, then this site will become a daily installment of quality reflections and calls for activism. But today is not that day. My xanga shall still continue to be as eclectic as ever, so if you want to check up on me, then go to:

www.xanga.com/Slimer_and_the_Real_Erasmus

Or my more obscure online residence:
www.livejournal.com/users/slimer2erasmus

Sincerely,
Adam Winters