Something dawned on me today when I heard that celebrity musicians will be covering "We Are The World" to benefit relief in Haiti. When the original song was performed, I was 4 years old, and I remember singing the song, but I had no idea what it was for. I didn't know that it was meant to raise funds for famine in Africa. I also only vaguely remember the Challenger disaster, because I was only 5. My parents, on the other hand, can tell you exactly where they were, and when they talk about it, still get tears in their eyes.
Where were you when JFK died?
Where were you when you heard that the Challenger exploded?
Where were you when the Towers Fell?
Where were you when you heard about the earthquake in Haiti?
When I talk about the JFK assasination, I only speak with facts. I only know basic information. I don't know what it's like for my president to be killed and not know who to blame.
On the other hand, I can tell you exactly what I felt at the moment when the Twin Towers were attacked, who I called, who I tried to console, and how many times I cried for no reason and too many reasons all at the same time.
Do you realize that the children being born today will have no emotional connection to or rememberance of the World Trade Center? In the world they live in, the Twin Towers never existed. To them, it's just history. This realization gives me a greater appreciation for the Hebrew culture found in the Bible. They didn't have CNN. They didn't have YouTube. They didn't have social media, Newspapers or any other way to preserve the past. They had scribes that would reproduce letters and books BY HAND. The main way they remembered was to tell stories. They told stories over and over and over again, with as much vivid language as they could muster to reproduce the sights, sounds, smells and emotions of their past in the hope that the future generations would remember, learn and pass it on.
When I have children, I hope that I have the courage not just to teach them how to live in the present, but also to teach them about the events that created the world they live in in the hopes that they can take that information and remember, learn and pass it on.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Why Pat Robertson Was Wrong...
For those that haven't heard, Pat Robertson recently made a pair of statements regarding the destruction in Haiti resulting from the 7.0 earthquake and it's tremendous aftershocks. Rather than paraphrase, please click the link below to be redirected to the most unbiased YouTube clip I was able to find showing what was said...
Pat Robertson's Two Cents...
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
In voicing my repulsion of Mr. Robertson's words to friends, on two separate occasions I was told that he was right to say what he said. While I value the relationships I have with these friends, I have to stand in strong opposition to their conclusion, because I believe that it reflects poorly on the heart and mind of those who belong to Jesus' church.
Pat Robertson is one of the loudest voices on the globe maintaining a Christian paradigm, and the strength of my response is directly proportionate to his elevated status and the representation he is of all Christians. My goal is to make sure that people know that not everyone maintains his over-simplified view of this catastrophy.
I won't lie. I'm stirred up about this, and I believe rightfully so. And if I'm wrong, I'm wide open to divine guidance and correction. Until then, I'll rant away. Rather than spend more time crafting another response, I'm simply going to use one I already released to a dear friend:
I vehemently disagree with the belief that "We should defend the truth of his words." Historical facts are far from the fullness of the truth. It's not that his words were ill timed ... it's that they were deplorably inappropriate coming from a man redeemed by grace. To be wholly forceful, his words were unbiblical. I stand on Luke 13. Please take the time to read it.
Also, it is worthy to note that I stand behind the words of Charles Spurgeon, a voice certainly more prominent than my obscure opinion. Here's a link for his commentary on Luke 13. Also a worthy read.
Jesus was asked what He thought about Galileans who were murdered and whose blood was then mixed with sacrificial blood as a warning to the Jews by Pilate. The common belief of the day was that bad things happen to bad and deserving people, and that the worse the punishment, the worse the sinner. "Those dirty Galileans deserved it." Racism mixed with legalism. How despicable.
Jesus doesn't tolerate that belief for one moment. He cut through their cultural bigotry and did what He did best ... show God to a people desperate to hear from Him. He sited 2 different recent events to dismantle their belief...
"Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? I tell you no..."
"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you no..."
Do you suppose that those who were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina were greater sinners than anyone else? Do you suppose that the souls who were lost to the earthquake in Haiti were more vile offenders than anyone else who walks the planet? I tell you no.
It is appropriate, at times, to vocally oppose the voice of those prominent in the Church. Paul the Apostle did it without apology. Martin Luther did it at the cost of his own life. We have a responsibility to confront anti-biblical Christian ramblings, regardless of the mouth that those words proceed out of.
Did Haiti have a Vodou blessing pronounced upon their independence? I can't find it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Regardless, it's a historical fact that wouldn't affect my theology for the following reasons:
In Haiti, 80% of it's people profess Roman Catholic Christianity as their religion, and another 16% profess a Protestant Christian denomination. 50% of the population is said to practice Vodou (voodoo). Using those numbers, and the current projected death-toll of as many as 200,000 souls, here's how the simple math of the "God's Judgment" statement plays out...
80,000 Roman Catholics with no affiliation to Vodou perished
80,000 Roman Catholics who practice Vodou also perished
16,000 Protestants with no affiliation to Vodou perished
16,000 Protestants who practice Vodou also perished
8,000 people who did not profess or practice any religion also perished.
Normally in my posts I come across as smug and sarcastic, but I'm crying as I write this, because the numbers are sobering to me that I am overwhelmed. You see, I believe in a God that was willing to spare a city from destruction because of 10 righteous people. And I believe He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Me personally? I would rather do what the Apostle Paul did on Mars Hill concerning the nameless God, only in reference to Bondye the great but unknown and removed Vodou deity and try to instill hope in a place of desparation, eternal life in a place of so much death, and love to try to mend the grief they are facing. Have you seen any of the live broadcasts from Haiti? Have you heard the wailing in the background from those in mourning?
But what do I know, I'm just a man who once had a contract with Satan and who now stands forgiven as a child of God because of Jesus Christ.
Bad form Pat, bad form. Your "optimism" isn't welcome.
Pat Robertson's Two Cents...
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
In voicing my repulsion of Mr. Robertson's words to friends, on two separate occasions I was told that he was right to say what he said. While I value the relationships I have with these friends, I have to stand in strong opposition to their conclusion, because I believe that it reflects poorly on the heart and mind of those who belong to Jesus' church.
Pat Robertson is one of the loudest voices on the globe maintaining a Christian paradigm, and the strength of my response is directly proportionate to his elevated status and the representation he is of all Christians. My goal is to make sure that people know that not everyone maintains his over-simplified view of this catastrophy.
I won't lie. I'm stirred up about this, and I believe rightfully so. And if I'm wrong, I'm wide open to divine guidance and correction. Until then, I'll rant away. Rather than spend more time crafting another response, I'm simply going to use one I already released to a dear friend:
I vehemently disagree with the belief that "We should defend the truth of his words." Historical facts are far from the fullness of the truth. It's not that his words were ill timed ... it's that they were deplorably inappropriate coming from a man redeemed by grace. To be wholly forceful, his words were unbiblical. I stand on Luke 13. Please take the time to read it.
Also, it is worthy to note that I stand behind the words of Charles Spurgeon, a voice certainly more prominent than my obscure opinion. Here's a link for his commentary on Luke 13. Also a worthy read.
Jesus was asked what He thought about Galileans who were murdered and whose blood was then mixed with sacrificial blood as a warning to the Jews by Pilate. The common belief of the day was that bad things happen to bad and deserving people, and that the worse the punishment, the worse the sinner. "Those dirty Galileans deserved it." Racism mixed with legalism. How despicable.
Jesus doesn't tolerate that belief for one moment. He cut through their cultural bigotry and did what He did best ... show God to a people desperate to hear from Him. He sited 2 different recent events to dismantle their belief...
"Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? I tell you no..."
"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you no..."
Do you suppose that those who were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina were greater sinners than anyone else? Do you suppose that the souls who were lost to the earthquake in Haiti were more vile offenders than anyone else who walks the planet? I tell you no.
It is appropriate, at times, to vocally oppose the voice of those prominent in the Church. Paul the Apostle did it without apology. Martin Luther did it at the cost of his own life. We have a responsibility to confront anti-biblical Christian ramblings, regardless of the mouth that those words proceed out of.
Did Haiti have a Vodou blessing pronounced upon their independence? I can't find it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Regardless, it's a historical fact that wouldn't affect my theology for the following reasons:
In Haiti, 80% of it's people profess Roman Catholic Christianity as their religion, and another 16% profess a Protestant Christian denomination. 50% of the population is said to practice Vodou (voodoo). Using those numbers, and the current projected death-toll of as many as 200,000 souls, here's how the simple math of the "God's Judgment" statement plays out...
80,000 Roman Catholics with no affiliation to Vodou perished
80,000 Roman Catholics who practice Vodou also perished
16,000 Protestants with no affiliation to Vodou perished
16,000 Protestants who practice Vodou also perished
8,000 people who did not profess or practice any religion also perished.
Normally in my posts I come across as smug and sarcastic, but I'm crying as I write this, because the numbers are sobering to me that I am overwhelmed. You see, I believe in a God that was willing to spare a city from destruction because of 10 righteous people. And I believe He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Me personally? I would rather do what the Apostle Paul did on Mars Hill concerning the nameless God, only in reference to Bondye the great but unknown and removed Vodou deity and try to instill hope in a place of desparation, eternal life in a place of so much death, and love to try to mend the grief they are facing. Have you seen any of the live broadcasts from Haiti? Have you heard the wailing in the background from those in mourning?
But what do I know, I'm just a man who once had a contract with Satan and who now stands forgiven as a child of God because of Jesus Christ.
Bad form Pat, bad form. Your "optimism" isn't welcome.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
A Christian Perspective of Disney's "Up"
I'm just warning you, this one is going to be long...
Ok folks, it's 2010. If you haven't yet come to the realization that cartoon movies are made to be a diatribe on cultural absurdities, you clearly haven't seen enough of them. For instance:
In Wall-E, the humans have become so fat and lazy that they forfeited their planet to waste, and have to get off their robotic recliners to do something about it.
In "Over the Hedge", RJ gives a tutorial about how much of human life is centered around food, from a Raccoon's point of view, and pokes a jab about how we're "slowly losing the ability to walk." Ask my wife; every time I see a kid in heelys, I remember and quote aloud that line.
Well today I saw a movie that follows in that great tradition; the tradition of exposing and ridiculing adult culture to our children in cartoon form so that maybe, just maybe, they won't repeat our foolish ways. That movie? Disney's "Up". If you haven't seen it, I'll try not to spoil the ending, but you may just want to go out, rent it, pop some popcorn, watch it and then come back to me. Don't worry ... the blog will still be here.
There are almost too many lessons to take away from the movie to catalog, but I'll do my best. The main purpose of the movie that jumps out to me is answering the question: "What's really important in life." I'll lay the lessons out by character...
Carl Fredrickson is an elderly widower that lived a full life with his wife Ellie, and who wants to fulfill their adventure by flying his house to the place they always dreamed of; Paradise Falls. His valued possessions are a lifetime's worth of pictures of he and his wife Ellie, and most importantly their Adventure book. And while he is the classic depiction of a bitter old man, the viewer is given a glimpse as to why: he is a quiet man who has lived life, including car troubles, house repairs, a miscarriage (or the inability to have chilren) and the death of his wife. The lesson? Don't judge people too quickly, because you don't know their back-story. Well he gets his house to Paradise Falls and then realizes that life isn't about getting your dreams done, it's "What I'm going to do" when I get there. Life isn't exclusively about fulfilling your dreams, it's about coming together to dream about new adventures for the next generation to embark on.
Charles Muntz turns out to be the villian of this movie. He is an adventurer of old that was the inspiration for both Carl and Ellie as children. He makes a discovery which is contested by the scientific community, so he sets out to Paradise Falls to find and capture the bird that will clear his name, and commits that he will not return until he captures that bird. Charles and Carl's paths cross in the wilds of South America, and while he initially seems to be an ingenious pioneer of a man, he quickly flips to show his true character: a man driven by the need to show the world that he's not crazy, who will do anything to see that happen, no matter what the cost or how many people he has to hurt. His valued posessions are the bones of his past exploits. He just wants to complete his set of skeletons. He teaches us that people driven by the need to be recognized have an unlimited capacity to be terrible, because irregardless of their talents and abilities, they are incapable of putting people above their accomplishments.
Russell is a wilderness scout trying to get his last badge so that he can become a Senior wilderness scout. He isn't even doing it to be a senior scout ... he just wants his dad to come to his ceremony and be active in his life again. You learn that his dad is in at least his second marriage (or is dating after his first marriage), and Russell calls his new mom by her first name, saying "She's not my mom." Russell's prized possession is his wilderness scout sash with all of his pins. He, in a protest, lays his sash down at Carl's feet to go off and do what is needed, what is right. He characterizes what is truly courageous: to lay down our lives and interests for the welfare of others.
Alpha and Doug are two dogs, both of which need to be mentioned. Alpha is a condescendingly formal attack Doberman Pincer that Charles Muntz trains to track the giant bird of his obsession. He is the first of a pack of wild dogs trained to do this. Even before I saw Charles Muntz, I thougt to myself, "I wonder what kind of a man trains a dog to be so brutally cruel." Alpha teaches us that you can easily determine the quality of a person by examining the people closest to them, especially those that follow them. Doug on the other hand is a very typical golden retriever; playful, loyal, trusting and even gullible, with a notable distraction by and hatred of squirrels. He is the only member of "the pack" maintained by Muntz who doesn't have a greek letter for a name. He doesn't fit the attack dog mold. My wife made the observation that, "He is the only dog that doesn't have any position with the pack." He gets sent out on "special missions" intended to keep him from getting in the way. The most important thing you'll notice about Doug is that he voluntarily changes masters, from Muntz to Carl, and ends up becoming the "Alpha" of the pack by outsmarting Alpha to help Carl and Russell. His loyalty is based on what we Christians call righteousness: Doing right which is rooted in the expressed heart of God. We do what is right because He did, does, and will continue to do what is right, because He is good.
As they used to say (and need to start saying again), the moral of the story is that people are all the same in that we all dream and have goals. But that isn't nearly as important as what we are willing to do with them. This movie was deeply challenging to me. It left me asking questions of myself, and I pose the same to you. Will we see our dreams fulfilled no matter what, even at the cost of the people around us? Are we willing to lay down our dreams to help those that need it most? Is the end result the most important thing to us, or is it the continued journey that we value above anything else? Is our loyalty based on position and authority or on just kindness (acts of kindness springing from a just heart). Will our lives be rated by our own achievements or by our sacrificial inspiration of others?
The greatest moment in the movie comes at the end, when Carl attends Russell's wilderness scout ceremony. Russell is the only child standing without his father present, and Carl stands to be with him, but then presents him with the pin that Ellie gave Carl as a child, bringing him in to the adventurer club. It's been said that we are a part of a fatherless generation. What Carl does is what is necessary for us to do, if we're willing. It's time to mentor the fatherless to be driven by a need for adventurous community, in place of the success society that abandoned them in the first place.
If you are a person professing the Christian faith, ask yourself this: If our Savior offered to us an abundant and full life, why aren't we taking advantage of it in the same way He did, by laying down our lives for others? Why would we expect fullness of life to look different for us than it did for Him?
Ok folks, it's 2010. If you haven't yet come to the realization that cartoon movies are made to be a diatribe on cultural absurdities, you clearly haven't seen enough of them. For instance:
In Wall-E, the humans have become so fat and lazy that they forfeited their planet to waste, and have to get off their robotic recliners to do something about it.
In "Over the Hedge", RJ gives a tutorial about how much of human life is centered around food, from a Raccoon's point of view, and pokes a jab about how we're "slowly losing the ability to walk." Ask my wife; every time I see a kid in heelys, I remember and quote aloud that line.
Well today I saw a movie that follows in that great tradition; the tradition of exposing and ridiculing adult culture to our children in cartoon form so that maybe, just maybe, they won't repeat our foolish ways. That movie? Disney's "Up". If you haven't seen it, I'll try not to spoil the ending, but you may just want to go out, rent it, pop some popcorn, watch it and then come back to me. Don't worry ... the blog will still be here.
There are almost too many lessons to take away from the movie to catalog, but I'll do my best. The main purpose of the movie that jumps out to me is answering the question: "What's really important in life." I'll lay the lessons out by character...
Carl Fredrickson is an elderly widower that lived a full life with his wife Ellie, and who wants to fulfill their adventure by flying his house to the place they always dreamed of; Paradise Falls. His valued possessions are a lifetime's worth of pictures of he and his wife Ellie, and most importantly their Adventure book. And while he is the classic depiction of a bitter old man, the viewer is given a glimpse as to why: he is a quiet man who has lived life, including car troubles, house repairs, a miscarriage (or the inability to have chilren) and the death of his wife. The lesson? Don't judge people too quickly, because you don't know their back-story. Well he gets his house to Paradise Falls and then realizes that life isn't about getting your dreams done, it's "What I'm going to do" when I get there. Life isn't exclusively about fulfilling your dreams, it's about coming together to dream about new adventures for the next generation to embark on.
Charles Muntz turns out to be the villian of this movie. He is an adventurer of old that was the inspiration for both Carl and Ellie as children. He makes a discovery which is contested by the scientific community, so he sets out to Paradise Falls to find and capture the bird that will clear his name, and commits that he will not return until he captures that bird. Charles and Carl's paths cross in the wilds of South America, and while he initially seems to be an ingenious pioneer of a man, he quickly flips to show his true character: a man driven by the need to show the world that he's not crazy, who will do anything to see that happen, no matter what the cost or how many people he has to hurt. His valued posessions are the bones of his past exploits. He just wants to complete his set of skeletons. He teaches us that people driven by the need to be recognized have an unlimited capacity to be terrible, because irregardless of their talents and abilities, they are incapable of putting people above their accomplishments.
Russell is a wilderness scout trying to get his last badge so that he can become a Senior wilderness scout. He isn't even doing it to be a senior scout ... he just wants his dad to come to his ceremony and be active in his life again. You learn that his dad is in at least his second marriage (or is dating after his first marriage), and Russell calls his new mom by her first name, saying "She's not my mom." Russell's prized possession is his wilderness scout sash with all of his pins. He, in a protest, lays his sash down at Carl's feet to go off and do what is needed, what is right. He characterizes what is truly courageous: to lay down our lives and interests for the welfare of others.
Alpha and Doug are two dogs, both of which need to be mentioned. Alpha is a condescendingly formal attack Doberman Pincer that Charles Muntz trains to track the giant bird of his obsession. He is the first of a pack of wild dogs trained to do this. Even before I saw Charles Muntz, I thougt to myself, "I wonder what kind of a man trains a dog to be so brutally cruel." Alpha teaches us that you can easily determine the quality of a person by examining the people closest to them, especially those that follow them. Doug on the other hand is a very typical golden retriever; playful, loyal, trusting and even gullible, with a notable distraction by and hatred of squirrels. He is the only member of "the pack" maintained by Muntz who doesn't have a greek letter for a name. He doesn't fit the attack dog mold. My wife made the observation that, "He is the only dog that doesn't have any position with the pack." He gets sent out on "special missions" intended to keep him from getting in the way. The most important thing you'll notice about Doug is that he voluntarily changes masters, from Muntz to Carl, and ends up becoming the "Alpha" of the pack by outsmarting Alpha to help Carl and Russell. His loyalty is based on what we Christians call righteousness: Doing right which is rooted in the expressed heart of God. We do what is right because He did, does, and will continue to do what is right, because He is good.
As they used to say (and need to start saying again), the moral of the story is that people are all the same in that we all dream and have goals. But that isn't nearly as important as what we are willing to do with them. This movie was deeply challenging to me. It left me asking questions of myself, and I pose the same to you. Will we see our dreams fulfilled no matter what, even at the cost of the people around us? Are we willing to lay down our dreams to help those that need it most? Is the end result the most important thing to us, or is it the continued journey that we value above anything else? Is our loyalty based on position and authority or on just kindness (acts of kindness springing from a just heart). Will our lives be rated by our own achievements or by our sacrificial inspiration of others?
The greatest moment in the movie comes at the end, when Carl attends Russell's wilderness scout ceremony. Russell is the only child standing without his father present, and Carl stands to be with him, but then presents him with the pin that Ellie gave Carl as a child, bringing him in to the adventurer club. It's been said that we are a part of a fatherless generation. What Carl does is what is necessary for us to do, if we're willing. It's time to mentor the fatherless to be driven by a need for adventurous community, in place of the success society that abandoned them in the first place.
If you are a person professing the Christian faith, ask yourself this: If our Savior offered to us an abundant and full life, why aren't we taking advantage of it in the same way He did, by laying down our lives for others? Why would we expect fullness of life to look different for us than it did for Him?
Friday, January 1, 2010
Top Ten Rumors Worth Repeating...
Over the course of the last few days, Rachel and I have talked extensively about rumors and gossip an everything that wasn't supposed to happen when we stepped down at World Hope. One of the best ideas we had was to create a list of 10 things that we'd prefer people to say if the issue of us leaving comes up in a speculative way. Two things: please feel free to use these when asked about our REAL reason for leaving, and please feel free to post a comment with your own fantastic rumor for us to use the next time we're asked. Ok, here they are, in no particular order...
1) We discovered that the entire staff at World Hope were KGB operatives, and Ryan has an intense irrational fear of Russians. (I really am afraid of Russians, but have no idea why)
2) Rachel is pregnant with octuplets, and we're gearing up to give Octomom a run for her money in the reality TV business.
3) We discovered that our dog Ginger can talk, but she only speaks Gaelic, so we're moving to Ireland.
4) We feel a call to take a family vow of poverty, silence and ... nudity, and that just doesn't fit in with the values of World Hope ... yet.
5) Rachel got hired by National Geographic to photograph pigmy wedding rituals in the Amazon Rainforest.
6) Pastor Mike cracked one too many fat jokes, and actually made Ryan cry.
7) We were simultaneously cast for reality TV shows ... Ryan for "So You Think You Can Dance" and Rachel for "Survivor". (And yes, I heard you think "Ryan for The Biggest Loser", Pr Mike, and I'm hurt all over again)
8) Feskos + Powerball winning ticket = Super Early Retirement
9) Ryan and Rachel are team Edward, while Pastor Dave and Katrina are team Jacob.
And this last one we actually heard from other people...
10) We didn't have any other way out of the Daniel Fast. "What do you mean you don't eat no meat?"
Feel free to comment and share your absurd rumor that we can use in the future.
1) We discovered that the entire staff at World Hope were KGB operatives, and Ryan has an intense irrational fear of Russians. (I really am afraid of Russians, but have no idea why)
2) Rachel is pregnant with octuplets, and we're gearing up to give Octomom a run for her money in the reality TV business.
3) We discovered that our dog Ginger can talk, but she only speaks Gaelic, so we're moving to Ireland.
4) We feel a call to take a family vow of poverty, silence and ... nudity, and that just doesn't fit in with the values of World Hope ... yet.
5) Rachel got hired by National Geographic to photograph pigmy wedding rituals in the Amazon Rainforest.
6) Pastor Mike cracked one too many fat jokes, and actually made Ryan cry.
7) We were simultaneously cast for reality TV shows ... Ryan for "So You Think You Can Dance" and Rachel for "Survivor". (And yes, I heard you think "Ryan for The Biggest Loser", Pr Mike, and I'm hurt all over again)
8) Feskos + Powerball winning ticket = Super Early Retirement
9) Ryan and Rachel are team Edward, while Pastor Dave and Katrina are team Jacob.
And this last one we actually heard from other people...
10) We didn't have any other way out of the Daniel Fast. "What do you mean you don't eat no meat?"
Feel free to comment and share your absurd rumor that we can use in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)