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.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
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.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Why we REALLY left World Hope...
The number one question Rachel and I have been asked since announcing our resignation at World Hope has been, "Why are you guys REALLY leaving?" In going into the new year, we thought long and hard about this and decided to air out why we're really stepping down as Associate Pastors. After all, we want to go into 2010 with clean consciences, and wouldn't want the last thing we did in 2009 to be lying.
What we TOLD everyone was that ... well, let me just quote a portion of the letter we read to the congregation on the 27th...
"When we originally came to World Hope, it was with the belief and assumption that we would be serving long term, alongside Pastor Dave and Katrina and the rest of the pastoral staff. Over the last month, however, we have sensed that a transition was coming and that we needed to prepare for that. Through prayerful consideration, we have come to the understanding that the Lord brought us to World Hope for a very specific assignment, namely to aid with the season of transition that the church has gone through in the last few months, and to help bring a more stable environment for the body to launch from into the new year. Even though we know that Pastor Dave's vision for World Hope in the coming year is one given by the Holy Spirit, we've sensed that we weren't going to be a part of it ...Please be reassured: we aren't leaving with any ill feelings or discord toward the staff or anyone in the church. We are leaving to give place for growth in our lives and in the life of this church."
Rachel and I have tried to be transparent and ethical in leaving World Hope, because we've seen it done differently and have tried our best to be obedient to what we feel the Lord is leading us to do in a way that builds up the people around us that we care about. What makes me laugh is the tendency in certain people to need more than just what is said. Where's the drama? Where's the dirt? Where's the scandal? Why did we REALLY leave World Hope? Exactly what we've said from the beginning, to everyone we've talked to in the process. We believe, based on our life with the Holy Spirit, that our time at World Hope was meant to be temporary. Certain aspects of our lives (financial, among others) can't support us being engaged in the level of ministry that we know that World Hope is called to in 2010. So we're resigning. That's it. Sorry to disappoint. No scandal. No paparazzi. No breaking news. To quote my father-in-law, "This is the Kingdom of God, not reality TV."
I blame this cultural anomaly on the excessive saturation of sitcoms, reality TV shows and soaps on TV. You can say whatever you want about TV not making people do things; from all I've seen it can and does influence the way we think. Are we so inundated with drama on the screen that we can't separate that out from real life?
I watch TV too. I love Friends. This actually reminds me of a particular episode of friends. It's the one where Joey and Chandler's TV accidentally locks in to a porn channel, and they're too afraid that if they change the channel it'll go away forever. Don't go getting all moral on me just yet, the lesson is ahead... In that episode, Joey and Chandler watch so much porn that they start expecting that life will imitate what they've been watching, and are then disappointed and disillusioned when girls don't just throw themselves at the guys. It's ridiculous, but they wouldn't mock it if it didn't have merit in real life. It's only laughable on screen because it's plausible in reality.
I know that even after posting this, some people might still say, "Well they're just saying that because they don't want anyone else to know the truth," or "They're just trying to cover up what REALLY happened." My invitation to you, the reader, is this: If you run into or talk to one of the people who maintain that perspective, do them (and yourself) a favor and cut them off, slap them with a fly swatter, and then ask them to change the subject." And if you happen to be the poor soul who gets slapped with a fly swatter, please kindly send me a picture to remember you by.
Addendum: I know that this post may come across as sarcastic and impatient, and that isn't my intention. I am, however, deliberately exposing something that I believe happens too much in the body of Christ and needs to be brought back in line. My heart is to challenge believers not to waste time on gossip, rumors, or speculations, but to grow up in the way we us our words, because too many people's souls depend on the quality and potency of our faith to be worried about such trivial things. Let's get back to being people who are more interested in truth and love than we are in rumors and idle talk.
What we TOLD everyone was that ... well, let me just quote a portion of the letter we read to the congregation on the 27th...
"When we originally came to World Hope, it was with the belief and assumption that we would be serving long term, alongside Pastor Dave and Katrina and the rest of the pastoral staff. Over the last month, however, we have sensed that a transition was coming and that we needed to prepare for that. Through prayerful consideration, we have come to the understanding that the Lord brought us to World Hope for a very specific assignment, namely to aid with the season of transition that the church has gone through in the last few months, and to help bring a more stable environment for the body to launch from into the new year. Even though we know that Pastor Dave's vision for World Hope in the coming year is one given by the Holy Spirit, we've sensed that we weren't going to be a part of it ...Please be reassured: we aren't leaving with any ill feelings or discord toward the staff or anyone in the church. We are leaving to give place for growth in our lives and in the life of this church."
Rachel and I have tried to be transparent and ethical in leaving World Hope, because we've seen it done differently and have tried our best to be obedient to what we feel the Lord is leading us to do in a way that builds up the people around us that we care about. What makes me laugh is the tendency in certain people to need more than just what is said. Where's the drama? Where's the dirt? Where's the scandal? Why did we REALLY leave World Hope? Exactly what we've said from the beginning, to everyone we've talked to in the process. We believe, based on our life with the Holy Spirit, that our time at World Hope was meant to be temporary. Certain aspects of our lives (financial, among others) can't support us being engaged in the level of ministry that we know that World Hope is called to in 2010. So we're resigning. That's it. Sorry to disappoint. No scandal. No paparazzi. No breaking news. To quote my father-in-law, "This is the Kingdom of God, not reality TV."
I blame this cultural anomaly on the excessive saturation of sitcoms, reality TV shows and soaps on TV. You can say whatever you want about TV not making people do things; from all I've seen it can and does influence the way we think. Are we so inundated with drama on the screen that we can't separate that out from real life?
I watch TV too. I love Friends. This actually reminds me of a particular episode of friends. It's the one where Joey and Chandler's TV accidentally locks in to a porn channel, and they're too afraid that if they change the channel it'll go away forever. Don't go getting all moral on me just yet, the lesson is ahead... In that episode, Joey and Chandler watch so much porn that they start expecting that life will imitate what they've been watching, and are then disappointed and disillusioned when girls don't just throw themselves at the guys. It's ridiculous, but they wouldn't mock it if it didn't have merit in real life. It's only laughable on screen because it's plausible in reality.
I know that even after posting this, some people might still say, "Well they're just saying that because they don't want anyone else to know the truth," or "They're just trying to cover up what REALLY happened." My invitation to you, the reader, is this: If you run into or talk to one of the people who maintain that perspective, do them (and yourself) a favor and cut them off, slap them with a fly swatter, and then ask them to change the subject." And if you happen to be the poor soul who gets slapped with a fly swatter, please kindly send me a picture to remember you by.
Addendum: I know that this post may come across as sarcastic and impatient, and that isn't my intention. I am, however, deliberately exposing something that I believe happens too much in the body of Christ and needs to be brought back in line. My heart is to challenge believers not to waste time on gossip, rumors, or speculations, but to grow up in the way we us our words, because too many people's souls depend on the quality and potency of our faith to be worried about such trivial things. Let's get back to being people who are more interested in truth and love than we are in rumors and idle talk.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Social Media Challenge, Part 1, "The Motive"
So I just read an article. I'll give you my take on it, but first, here's the link. For the non internet savvy, click the blue word back there. It'll take you somewhere else...
Go ahead and take a minute to read it. You never know. I might just lie about what I think or what it's even about to throw you off. I'm sneaky like that...
Ok, for those that took time to read the article, here's my personal summary:
We've been told for the last 10-15 years that an ideal candidate for hire in just about any career path is the ability to multitask, and at increasingly higher levels. Juggle your responsibilities, all at the very same time, and you get more done that way, right? Wrong, according to this most recent in a slew of studies about the mental effects of multitasking.
Here is what multitasking doesn't actually do:
"They couldn't help thinking about the task they weren't doing," Ophir said. "The high multitaskers are always drawing from all the information in front of them. They can't keep things separate in their minds."
The only thing that high levels of multitasking seems to accomplish is to prevent us from relating to the world around us (which requires focus, ignoring TONS of irrelevant info, memory, and switching to doing something else). This has me remembering a commercial I saw from a cable company... The only reason that commercial was even funny was that I live with a televisaphonernetter. If you don't understand that term, it's because you didn't click the blue link back there. Just sayin'...
So here's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking I'm going to be challenging myself and, well, the rest of the world, to a Social Media Challenge. Details to follow, but it's going to involve logging out of all social media platforms for 1 entire week. Now right away, I know that causes a panic for some people. My televisaphonernetter included. Right away, when I told her what I was thinking, she responded with, "Yeah, I won't be taking that challenge." Now understand, she's a self-employed professional wedding photographer in Charlotte (with a snazzy website if I do say so myself), and social media is her primary form of communication for business. That, I understand. But for the vast majority of us, social media plays a minuscule role in our work lives. So the question is, do you still have the remaining brain capacity to relate to the world around you without social media distraction?
We'll be in touch. Keep an eye out for Part 2, the "The Method"
Go ahead and take a minute to read it. You never know. I might just lie about what I think or what it's even about to throw you off. I'm sneaky like that...
Ok, for those that took time to read the article, here's my personal summary:
We've been told for the last 10-15 years that an ideal candidate for hire in just about any career path is the ability to multitask, and at increasingly higher levels. Juggle your responsibilities, all at the very same time, and you get more done that way, right? Wrong, according to this most recent in a slew of studies about the mental effects of multitasking.
Here is what multitasking doesn't actually do:
- Doesn't help you focus
- Doesn't help you ignore irrelevant info
- Doesn't improve your memory
- Doesn't help switch between tasks more quickly
- Doesn't help switch between tasks more quickly
- Doesn't help switch between tasks more quickly (the third time shows it was intentional)
"They couldn't help thinking about the task they weren't doing," Ophir said. "The high multitaskers are always drawing from all the information in front of them. They can't keep things separate in their minds."
The only thing that high levels of multitasking seems to accomplish is to prevent us from relating to the world around us (which requires focus, ignoring TONS of irrelevant info, memory, and switching to doing something else). This has me remembering a commercial I saw from a cable company... The only reason that commercial was even funny was that I live with a televisaphonernetter. If you don't understand that term, it's because you didn't click the blue link back there. Just sayin'...
So here's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking I'm going to be challenging myself and, well, the rest of the world, to a Social Media Challenge. Details to follow, but it's going to involve logging out of all social media platforms for 1 entire week. Now right away, I know that causes a panic for some people. My televisaphonernetter included. Right away, when I told her what I was thinking, she responded with, "Yeah, I won't be taking that challenge." Now understand, she's a self-employed professional wedding photographer in Charlotte (with a snazzy website if I do say so myself), and social media is her primary form of communication for business. That, I understand. But for the vast majority of us, social media plays a minuscule role in our work lives. So the question is, do you still have the remaining brain capacity to relate to the world around you without social media distraction?
We'll be in touch. Keep an eye out for Part 2, the "The Method"
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Rob Bell Ruined My Evening...
I find myself haunted tonight. But it's not by any of the unfortunate folks at peopleofwalmart.com (beware if you click, you may end up haunted too). And it's not because I went out and rented Saw 17: Jigsaw goes to Cancun. It's because I finished reading a book, and something the author wrote caught me off guard. Almost like a sucker-punch of the soul.
The book is Velvet Elvis. The author is Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Church. Now this particular entry isn't going to be a book review. That may come later. This is about just one statement that is still rocking my world. Before I get to what he said, let me go back briefly to explain why this book even found itself on my shelf.
I serve as an assisting pastor in a church, and as such I have friends that are pastors also. One of them asked me, "What do you think about the Emerging Church Movement?" I had never heard the term. The tone of the question was negative and almost indignant, so I asked about it. They hooked me up with a few websites, and I was intrigued, because from the Evangelical mainstream voice, the Emerging Church was almost being labeled as a threat, and Rob Bell was one of their chief "heretics." I watched a few anti-videos on YouTube and was even more intrigued, so I did what anyone in my position ought to. I bought his books. Velvet Elvis was one of the books. After all, you can only learn so much from spliced text with musical backgrounds on YouTube. For a people as opinionated as the church seems to be, we should have to be the most well-read community on the face of the planet... I digress...
The statement is in the last chapter. I'll give it to you plain:
"Most of the messages we receive (as Christians) are about how to make life easier. The call of Jesus goes the other direction: it's about making our lives more difficult. It is going out of our way to be more generous and disciplined and loving and free. It is refusing to escape and become numb to and check out of this broken, fractured world." (emphasis added)
I can't get past that last statement, because it's right where I live. Even as a pastor, even having gone to Bible College, I find myself more interested in finding varied ways (TV, video games, heck even social media) to escape from the world around me because in a not-so-small way, I've lost the faith to believe that God can make a difference in that world using my life. That's hard to admit, but I knew at once I had to admit it. I have to own it. I have to throw up my hands and say, "You're right, God, that's me. I checked out." I can't tell you why. I can't even tell you what I'm going to do next. But at least I know where I am, and that's a start.
The position I'm in has the words of Debbye Graafsma , renowned worship song writer and Christian counselor, echoing in my heart. She has said that life isn't about success, it's about congruency. It's about being the same, inside and out. It's about letting what is at the core of who you were created to be set the pace for the person you appear to be, not the opposite way around.
I know where I am. But I know where I want to be, and I'm taking the first steps in that direction. I'm not writing this to try and tell anyone how to get there themselves. Rather, I'm writing to invite other people along who may find themselves on the same point of the map that I am: checked out, numb, and not even knowing how they got there, but wanting to go back.
If anyone has been down this road, I'd welcome your comments and contributions. I'm sure a lot of other people would too.
The book is Velvet Elvis. The author is Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Church. Now this particular entry isn't going to be a book review. That may come later. This is about just one statement that is still rocking my world. Before I get to what he said, let me go back briefly to explain why this book even found itself on my shelf.
I serve as an assisting pastor in a church, and as such I have friends that are pastors also. One of them asked me, "What do you think about the Emerging Church Movement?" I had never heard the term. The tone of the question was negative and almost indignant, so I asked about it. They hooked me up with a few websites, and I was intrigued, because from the Evangelical mainstream voice, the Emerging Church was almost being labeled as a threat, and Rob Bell was one of their chief "heretics." I watched a few anti-videos on YouTube and was even more intrigued, so I did what anyone in my position ought to. I bought his books. Velvet Elvis was one of the books. After all, you can only learn so much from spliced text with musical backgrounds on YouTube. For a people as opinionated as the church seems to be, we should have to be the most well-read community on the face of the planet... I digress...
The statement is in the last chapter. I'll give it to you plain:
"Most of the messages we receive (as Christians) are about how to make life easier. The call of Jesus goes the other direction: it's about making our lives more difficult. It is going out of our way to be more generous and disciplined and loving and free. It is refusing to escape and become numb to and check out of this broken, fractured world." (emphasis added)
I can't get past that last statement, because it's right where I live. Even as a pastor, even having gone to Bible College, I find myself more interested in finding varied ways (TV, video games, heck even social media) to escape from the world around me because in a not-so-small way, I've lost the faith to believe that God can make a difference in that world using my life. That's hard to admit, but I knew at once I had to admit it. I have to own it. I have to throw up my hands and say, "You're right, God, that's me. I checked out." I can't tell you why. I can't even tell you what I'm going to do next. But at least I know where I am, and that's a start.
The position I'm in has the words of Debbye Graafsma , renowned worship song writer and Christian counselor, echoing in my heart. She has said that life isn't about success, it's about congruency. It's about being the same, inside and out. It's about letting what is at the core of who you were created to be set the pace for the person you appear to be, not the opposite way around.
I know where I am. But I know where I want to be, and I'm taking the first steps in that direction. I'm not writing this to try and tell anyone how to get there themselves. Rather, I'm writing to invite other people along who may find themselves on the same point of the map that I am: checked out, numb, and not even knowing how they got there, but wanting to go back.
If anyone has been down this road, I'd welcome your comments and contributions. I'm sure a lot of other people would too.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
A Christian Perspective on S.909, The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act
I know that I'm not a consistent blogger. I also don't consider myself to be a political person. Certain topics trigger my interest more than others, but for the most part I tend to lay low and just let the politicians play their games without a whole lot of spectating or commentary.
I simply can't be silent about this subject, however, because the rest of the Christian Church is voicing a seemingly noble but ultimately ignorant view on this bill and I simply can't let it be the only voice coming from our paradigm. Initially, I bought into the emails that circulated about how devastating the bill could be in the future. Then I read the bill itself. Wouldn't you know, the emails ended up being completely bogus and my perspective on the bill radically changed.
Let's start at the beginning, shall we? S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law by President Obama last week. The church is in uproar over the bill, using the following rationale, quoted from an email that circulated:
"A bill now before Congress would criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a "hate crime" punishable by a hefty fine and time in prison. This dangerous legislation would take away our freedom of speech and freedom of religion."
Let me first state that this blog is not intended to post any kind of position on homosexuality or personal or religious views of homosexuality. I am specifically targeting the above perspective on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I am not targeting any organizations or individuals specifically.
If you haven't read the bill yet, here's a link to the text version.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/text
Read it. Please. Seriously. I'll wait for you..........
Ok, now that you've read it, let's talk about the Christian Email claims about the bill, and match them up with what the bill actually says.
"Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person..." (emphasis added)
I see bodily injury, not speech as being the crime. Furthermore, to avoid confusion about speech vs bodily injury, the act has the following language (which you READ ALREADY, right?)
"(1) The term "bodily injury" has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;"
In other words, words aren't enough. Hurt feelings aren't a crime in and of themselves. Emotional or Psychological harm are not grounds for prosecution. Only bodily harm substantiates a valid use of Hate Crimes. Well, actually, that isn't completely true:
"The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence."
Oh no, maybe this is the loophole on which fellow Christians base this other claim:
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. (4) FREE EXPRESSION.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs."
Please, if you didn't catch it, read that last part again and ask yourself this question: According to the Act, are the freedoms of speech and religion restricted or reinforced?
So let's get to the skinny, Minnie. Here is a good running list of things that are prohibited through the newest rendition of the 1994 Hate Crimes Bill:
More importantly than the above list of atrocities, here's a list of what is explicitly protected based on the language of the bill that passed:
One common thing I hear in response to my position is: "Why do we have to have separate legislation protecting homosexuals or muslims, since they're already protected from bodily injury as citizens of the US?" Here's the simple answer ... the gay and lesbian communities, along with many other groups, are more prone to be targeted for violent crimes as a result of the lifestyle they maintain. Separate legislation is needed to increase consequences because the motive of hatred is more heinous than others. Different motive = different crime = different consequence. It works that way for manslaughter vs first degree murder vs second degree murder, etc. Why wouldn't it work for acts of hate motivated violence? I would encourage all believers to read Exodus and Leviticus to see how this kind of rationale was used in the Law (Torah) that our Constitution was modeled after.
Here is my simple conclusion: the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act doesn't make preaching on the subject of homosexuality wrong, it makes acts of hate motivated violence (hate crimes) illegal, and extends the definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by sexual or gender differentiation and identification.
Also, to anyone that might respond by saying that "This is the first step in a slippery slope...", please acknowledge that your logic is only valid when you can succinctly identify all of the proceeding steps of the slippery slope and then follow that with historical evidence that those steps are both plausible and probable. If you can't do that, stop using that philosophical model.
Ignorance is ugly, no matter whose mouth it proceeds out of. I'm not taking up an issue with Christians or Right-Wing Conservative GOP supporters. I am taking up an issue with the recklessness with which we as the Church of Jesus Christ circulate nonsense emails or speak publicly in an attempt to promote our political agendas or scare trusting followers into getting involved in a protest that they don't even understand.
Read legislation, not just emails. Learn first, don't just react. Speak out of understanding, not misguided fervor. Take your call as an advocate of Jesus, The Truth, seriously.
I simply can't be silent about this subject, however, because the rest of the Christian Church is voicing a seemingly noble but ultimately ignorant view on this bill and I simply can't let it be the only voice coming from our paradigm. Initially, I bought into the emails that circulated about how devastating the bill could be in the future. Then I read the bill itself. Wouldn't you know, the emails ended up being completely bogus and my perspective on the bill radically changed.
Let's start at the beginning, shall we? S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law by President Obama last week. The church is in uproar over the bill, using the following rationale, quoted from an email that circulated:
"A bill now before Congress would criminalize negative comments concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a "hate crime" punishable by a hefty fine and time in prison. This dangerous legislation would take away our freedom of speech and freedom of religion."
Let me first state that this blog is not intended to post any kind of position on homosexuality or personal or religious views of homosexuality. I am specifically targeting the above perspective on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I am not targeting any organizations or individuals specifically.
If you haven't read the bill yet, here's a link to the text version.
http://www.opencongress.or
Read it. Please. Seriously. I'll wait for you..........
Ok, now that you've read it, let's talk about the Christian Email claims about the bill, and match them up with what the bill actually says.
- Makes speech from the pulpit concerning homosexuality as sin a hate crime...
"Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person..." (emphasis added)
I see bodily injury, not speech as being the crime. Furthermore, to avoid confusion about speech vs bodily injury, the act has the following language (which you READ ALREADY, right?)
"(1) The term "bodily injury" has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;"
In other words, words aren't enough. Hurt feelings aren't a crime in and of themselves. Emotional or Psychological harm are not grounds for prosecution. Only bodily harm substantiates a valid use of Hate Crimes. Well, actually, that isn't completely true:
"The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence."
Oh no, maybe this is the loophole on which fellow Christians base this other claim:
- "This dangerous legislation would take away our freedom of speech and freedom of religion."
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence. (4) FREE EXPRESSION.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs."
Please, if you didn't catch it, read that last part again and ask yourself this question: According to the Act, are the freedoms of speech and religion restricted or reinforced?
So let's get to the skinny, Minnie. Here is a good running list of things that are prohibited through the newest rendition of the 1994 Hate Crimes Bill:
- Punching a Norwegian in the nose because of his national origin
- Throwing a stick of dynamite at a lesbian couple because of their sexual orientation
- Ejecting a Christian from the passenger seat of your car off a bridge because they believe in Jesus as a religion
- Shooting a Muslim with a Bee-Bee gun because he prays 5 times per day as part of his religion
- Running a man over with an H2 because all men are dogs, and his gender is male
- Lighting someone with down's syndrome on fire because of their unusually pleasant disposition, because of their disability
More importantly than the above list of atrocities, here's a list of what is explicitly protected based on the language of the bill that passed:
- Speaking about the Biblical view of Homosexuality
- Belonging to any religious organization that takes a stance against same sex marriage
- Telling someone who maintains an alternative gender identification that you disagree with their view of human identity creation.
- Calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from a church pulpit.
One common thing I hear in response to my position is: "Why do we have to have separate legislation protecting homosexuals or muslims, since they're already protected from bodily injury as citizens of the US?" Here's the simple answer ... the gay and lesbian communities, along with many other groups, are more prone to be targeted for violent crimes as a result of the lifestyle they maintain. Separate legislation is needed to increase consequences because the motive of hatred is more heinous than others. Different motive = different crime = different consequence. It works that way for manslaughter vs first degree murder vs second degree murder, etc. Why wouldn't it work for acts of hate motivated violence? I would encourage all believers to read Exodus and Leviticus to see how this kind of rationale was used in the Law (Torah) that our Constitution was modeled after.
Here is my simple conclusion: the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act doesn't make preaching on the subject of homosexuality wrong, it makes acts of hate motivated violence (hate crimes) illegal, and extends the definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by sexual or gender differentiation and identification.
Also, to anyone that might respond by saying that "This is the first step in a slippery slope...", please acknowledge that your logic is only valid when you can succinctly identify all of the proceeding steps of the slippery slope and then follow that with historical evidence that those steps are both plausible and probable. If you can't do that, stop using that philosophical model.
Ignorance is ugly, no matter whose mouth it proceeds out of. I'm not taking up an issue with Christians or Right-Wing Conservative GOP supporters. I am taking up an issue with the recklessness with which we as the Church of Jesus Christ circulate nonsense emails or speak publicly in an attempt to promote our political agendas or scare trusting followers into getting involved in a protest that they don't even understand.
Read legislation, not just emails. Learn first, don't just react. Speak out of understanding, not misguided fervor. Take your call as an advocate of Jesus, The Truth, seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)