Southern Baptists Side With Pharisees, Declare Jesus a Drunkard, Abandon Great Commission

That appears to be the case anyway since they passed a resolution a couple of weeks ago condemning the USE of alcohol. That's right, the resolution never mentions the abuse of alcohol (which would have been a biblical stance), but in strong language it declares "our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages," accusing those who merely use alcohol of "misinterpretation of the doctrine of “our freedom in Christ.”" Now, any reasonable Bible interpreter would have to take this as a condemnation of Christ himself (see John 2, Luke 7, the Last Supper parallels)! But before going further, here is the text of the resolution:

• WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g. Proverbs 23:29-35); and
• WHEREAS, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation’s highways; and
• WHEREAS, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and
• WHEREAS, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and
• WHEREAS, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of “our freedom in Christ”; now, therefore, be it
• RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further
• RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further
• RESOLVED, That we urge Southern Baptist to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally
• RESOLVED, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries.

That is a shameful resolution. If I were Southern Baptist I would be embarassed (although if I were really Southern Baptist I guess I would think it is great). As you can see, this is not a biblical argument. One can't get where they have with the Bible. Rather, this is essentially a cultural argument and here Rev. Rob Rayburn of Tacoma, WA interestingly explains some of the cultural reasons that grape juice replaced wine in your communion cup:

It may surprise some of you to learn that Welch's Grape Juice was invented precisely for the purpose of providing a substitute for alcoholic wine in the Lord's Supper. Dr. Thomas Welch was a New Jersey dentist and a communion steward at his local Methodist church. He was a committed advocate of temperance and wondered if the new theories of Louis Pasteur, that had already by 1869 been applied to the pasteurization of milk, might be also applied to the juice of grapes. One day, with his wife and 17 year old son, he picked about 40 pounds of concord grapes from his family's yard. They cooked the grapes for a few minutes, then squeezed the juice through cloth bags. They filtered the juice, poured it into quart bottles, sealed the bottles with cork and wax, and then lowered them into boiling water long enough to kill the yeast organisms in the juice and prevent fermentation. For weeks the family waited listening for the explosion that would signify failure, but none came. When the bottles were opened Dr. Welch found he had produced a sweet, unfermented grape juice. He convinced his pastor to try it in the Supper, began processing small amounts of the juice and providing it to other churches in Southern New Jersey, and, unbeknownst to Mr. Welch at the time the American fruit juice industry was born. In 1890 the name of the product was changed from "Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine" to "Dr. Welch's Grape Juice." Under the influence of temperance convictions, grape juice came to be widely used as a substitute for wine in the Lord's Supper practice of American churches.

It may be hard for some of you to appreciate the strength of conviction that animated the temperance movement of the 19th century, especially in its evangelical Christian form. It is interesting that this was one thing concerning which liberals and conservatives in the great Protestant churches were in general agreement. Prohibition was, largely, the fruit of the Protestant Christian temperance movement. I have a photocopy of a page from a hymnal published by David C. Cook in 1881. The gospel song is entitled "We will not Sip Wine or Beer" and ran this way:
"We will never sip, sip wine or beer,
Tempt us not, tempt us not;
We will ever fight this foe we fear,
Tempt us not, tempt us not.
Drink that hurts us, new or old,
From our lips we will withhold;
Hour by hour, and day by day,
When we work and when we play."
And two more verses like that. It was a powerful movement that gripped American Christianity.

So, why do I care about all of this since I am not Southern Baptist? Well, because I see this as no less than a failure by my brothers in Christ to be salt and light. It is a neglect of the Great Commission's discipling of the nations. It is taking alcohol, which was given by God to 'gladden the heart' and saying to the world, "Here, take this! We don't know what to do with it! God gave it to us, but it takes too much wisdom to use rightly, so you can have it!" And rather than model for the world the proper, biblical, glorious use of alcohol, too many churches (not just Baptists) have shunned it and left the world to figure it out on its own. This capitulation by the Church has resulted in the very conditions the Baptists cite as reasons for not using alcohol in the first place! But rather than realize their surrender they make a bad situation worse and declare victory by not drinking a drop of alcohol, and so they completely abandon their calling on this issue! And American Christianity is still gripped.

That's enough for now . . .

Categories: Beer and Wine, Evangelical La La Land

Chi-Rho

The Chi-Rho is the oldest known monogram of Jesus Christ. It is sometimes known as a “Christogram”. The chi and the rho are the first two letters of the word Christ (Christos) in the Greek language. The chi (X) = ch, and the rho (P) = r. The Greek word Christos translates the Hebrew word for Messiah, which means “anointed one”. Jesus was born to be the promised, anointed Priest and King.

You can follow this link to test your knowledge and learn more of early Christian symbols and art.

It is funny that Bill Gates, who is ethnically Jewish but doesn't practice Judaism, would release two major operating systems with "Christian" names: Windows NT (New Testament) and Windows XP (chi-rho). Does it mean anything?

"Christian Name"

I was introduced to the notion of a "Christian name" by the movie Jeremiah Johnson. It's one they show repeatedly on TBS. The scene is one in which an Indian named Paints-His-Shirt asks the title character, "What's your name?" "Johnson," he answers. The Indian asks further, "Your Christian name?" "Jeremiah."

Now, I've heard "Christian name" many times since then, but this is the first I've looked up anything about it. The following is from Wikipedia:

The term given name is rarely used in the United Kingdom; forename or Christian name predominate, with the former now used almost universally on official documentation.
The term first name can refer to any forename, not just the very first. In the United States, first name is the most common form, although given name is often encountered on official documents. The term Christian name, on the other hand, has mostly fallen out of favor.
Christian name may refer to the name taken by converts to Christianity upon baptism.

So, it is mostly a British expression that has fallen out of favor. Well, with a name like "Christian" I guess it was bound to wane in popularity!

Facial Hair

I just heard on Animal Planet's Most Extreme the evolutionary explanation for facial hair. It seems that women are supposed to be attracted to large-jawed men, and facial hair is a way to make the jaw appear larger. So, hairy-faced guys get all the girls. Hmmm . . . seems like a stretch to me. What do you ladies think? Are you falling for any of these guys? They were contestants in the World Beard and Moustache Championships the last time they were held in the USA in 2003. Well, they may look great, but the winner that year is below--Karl-Heinz Hille of Berlin, Germany's Berlin Beard Club:

All the winners for that year, and other years, can be seen here.

The Bored-Again Christian

I stumbled upon this site while browsing around. Their motto is "Where Christian music gets saved." They also describe it as "Christian music for people who are tired of Christian music." I've been a bit out of touch with this "scene" for a few years, but this is a great place to hear some of the more quality "popular" music out there of a Christian stripe that artistically goes way beyond "The Fish." You can subscribe to their podcast which is top notch. Check it out!

Lie vs. Lay

I was called upon recently to help settle a grammar dispute regarding "lie" and "lay." It's fairly simple as long as you remember the present, past, and participial forms of the verbs are as follows:

• "to recline"--lie, lay, lain
• "to put or place"--lay, laid, laid
• there is also "to tell a falsehood"--lie, lied, lied (but I don't find this one confusing at all)
  

Now, if you're ready for a challenge you can go here to take a quiz and impress yourself with your mastery of Lie vs. Lay!

Godless

I got my copy of Godless by Ann Coulter today. I have just begun to look at it, but this is a great book. I couldn't read it quietly: I was laughing, cringing, yelling "Honey, come hear this!" just in the first chapter alone. Here's just one little bit:

• "Liberal doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah's ark, but their belief system is taught as a fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't reproduce? (For that we need a theory of "survival of the most fabulous.") And if gays can't change, why do liberals think child-molesters can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference! If they're born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up? And why must children be taught that recycling is the only answer? Why aren't we teaching children "safe littering"?

Now, that's some good stuff there, I don't care who you are. Those are in fact articles of faith on the part of liberals, and what Ann Coulter is so good at is pointing out the contradictions in funny, ironic, and sometimes outrageous ways. She does that masterfully above, and the whole stink over the "Jersey Girls" makes Ann's point exactly. In the estimation of the Left and media they are unassailable, precisely as she says in the book! They apparently don't know that they're making her point because they're having so much fun piling on, but they are.

The reason I say it's a great book is that she attacks this myth of neutrality that surrounds public discourse in this country. This is the idea that Christianity, or any other belief system (but especially Christianity) is clouded by faith commitments, and scoffs at reason, and is inherently contradictory, etc. Therefore, it is impossible to be a Christian and be fair-minded about things because of all the baggage the Christian's beliefs bring with him. But the elephant in the room, which Ann focuses a big spotlight on, is that the liberal (Darwinists, secularists, etc.) brings just as much baggage to the debate as does someone like Billy Graham or the Pope. The notion that only the "non-religious" are somehow "neutral" is laughable because the so-called non-religious are in fact religious themselves. The statement, "There is no God" is just as religious as the statement "There is a God." The statement "Man is an animal" is just as religious as the statement "Man is made in the image of God." Everyone does theology. No one is "neutral." And that needs to be pointed out again and again.

Week in Review Quotes

• "For the three fans of ABC’s maltreated Commander in Chief, the finale will air at 10 p.m. Wednesday. Let’s hope that when a woman does run for president, her campaign is managed better than this series."--Molly Willow in the Columbus (OH) Dispatch

• "You are safer in a uniform in Iraq than as a baby in the womb of an American woman at a Planned Parenthood office."--Rush Limbaugh in response to Democrat hysteria over the 2,500th death of U.S. military in three years in Iraq. Where is their hysteria while 3,700 American children are aborted each day (and worldwide a staggering 126,000 are aborted each day)??? Oh, there is no hysteria over abortion because it's in their platform! In a heart-warming concluding section called "A Strong American Community," the 2004 Democratic Party Platform says : "We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." Once again they only "believe in the privacy and equality of women" and "defend the dignity of all Americans" who manage to be born despite their abortion policies! And of course don't we want all of our "rights" to be "safe, legal, and rare"?!?! (3,700 abortions a day is rare?) I wonder if they will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it if it turns out to be themselves?

• "On the morning the sheriff showed up, I spotted them (fellow protestors) and called out. She was on the rope and up the tree in about three minutes. It was an amazing athletic feat."--John Quigley on Daryl Hannah's tree climbing ability.

• "The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country, I don't see why people care about patriotism."-- Natalie Maines, lead singer of The Dixie Chicks. This "Chick" really doesn't get it, does she? How much longer are they going to hang onto that "Dixie" part of their name; it's now a definite misnomer.
  

Gore Using "Junk Science"

Well, it's a sad day when one has to turn his ear to Canada to find a reasonable voice in any matter, but such are the times we live in! I strongly encourage all sane people (I understand that discriminates against some of you!) to read Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe by Tom Harris at Candadafreepress.com. For those who can't wait for another page to load, here are some juicy morsels:

• Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

• Patterson [a paleoclimatologist at Carleton Universtiy] concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun.


• Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

One might think that the main issue in this debate is whether there is in fact any global warming taking place (Did it stop in 1998?). However, the really big question in the global warming debate is the question of human responsibility (and as it turns out, this primarily means the U.S. and western countries) in causing it. That is why the conclusion of the paleoclimatologist Patterson above about the correlation between Earth's temperature and changes in the Sun is so significant. The forces 99.99% responsible for controlling the Earth's temperature are beyond our control. Yet, the environmentalist wacko set, who have clearly "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator," want to take vast financial resources and couple them with a corresponding wealth of government regulation to effect what even they concede will be minute change in global temperatures and ocean levels. I am particularly troubled by the recent duping of evangelicals (including modern day evangelical saint, "Mr. Purpose-Driven" himself, Rick Warren) with the "Evangelical Climate Initiative," which is well-intentioned, but very misguided.
A much more responsible, and biblical, response to these issues is embodied in the Cornwall Declaration put out by the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. I encourage you especially to read points 1, 2, and 3 under the heading "Our Concerns." 3 is so good that I give it to you here:

• 3. While some environmental concerns are well founded and serious, others are without foundation or greatly exaggerated. Some well-founded concerns focus on human health problems in the developing world arising from inadequate sanitation, widespread use of primitive biomass fuels like wood and dung, and primitive agricultural, industrial, and commercial practices; distorted resource consumption patterns driven by perverse economic incentives; and improper disposal of nuclear and other hazardous wastes in nations lacking adequate regulatory and legal safeguards. Some unfounded or undue concerns include fears of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation, and rampant species loss.

An example of the need for this distinction is the Kyoto Protocol. Implementation of Kyoto-type energy use limits would have an estimated impact of $1 trillion/year on global economic production. All this in an effort to help millions, perhaps billions of people--many of them among the world's poorest--from rising ocean levels that will wipe out the areas in which they live, by reducing temperatures .14 degrees! That's the wacko scenario. In contrast, it would take only a fraction of that same trillion dollars to provide clean drinking water and sanitation to all the remaining areas of the world presently without them! Which is a better use of the resources God has given us? Of course, this is the kind of thinking that Al Gore and his cronies think is wacko!

"Pastor, why do we worship like Gnostics?"

Have you ever heard something like this? "God isn't concerned with the posture of our bodies, just with the attitude of our hearts." If you haven't, try going to your pastor or elders and suggesting that your church install kneelers (similar to those pictured to the right) so the congregation can more faithfully worship according to the Bible. After giving you a strange look, and muttering something about "catholic," the answer in the typical evangelical church will probably be close to the "posture" statement above. If you get such an answer, it would then be appropriate to ask, "Why do we worship like Gnostics?" If you make it this far in the conversation, I would love to know what happens next!
I would guess questions like this never occur in most congregations. Oh, occasionally the "young folks" who want to hold up their hands to some choruses will cite something like Psalm 134:2, "Lift up your hands in the sanctuary and praise the LORD," but in general, in church after church, we continue more and more to divorce the posture of our bodies from the attitude of our hearts. Why do we do this? Well, I would say it is because we are too Gnostic. . . . It's certainly not because we get the idea to divorce posture from attitude by reading the Bible.
The very Hebrew and Greek words that we translate as worship mean "to bow down." In each of these examples try substituting "bow down" for the word "worship":

• Abraham told his two young servants, "Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I are going over there to worship; then we'll come back to you." [Genesis 22:5]
• All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. [Psalms 22:27]
• "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him." [Matthew 2:2]
• Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." [John 4:20-24]
  

The Bible makes clear that worship is not some disembodied activity that takes place solely in the "head" or "heart." In addition to "lifting hands" and "bowing down," the Bible speaks of worship that involves singing and music, responsive prayers and recitations of Scripture that actively involve the congregation, and other "active" and "physical" worship. In fact, the only posture that the Bible does not speak of in regard to prayer is sitting! It does describe prayer offered face down, kneeling, or standing.
So, what does any of this matter? It matters because God is concerned (even if we aren't) with what we do with our bodies, not simply what we don't do with them("Thou shalt not . . ."). When God says in Isaiah that He has "had enough of burnt offerings," it is not because He wanted the offerings to stop, but that He wanted the attitude accompanying the offerings to be out of a sincere, faithful heart. God wants both--our heart and hands. This is because God is not Gnostic.

Caption Contest

I've been waiting for something really inspirational for the caption contest, and here it is!



(If you don't know the story behind Daryl Hannah sitting in a tree with Julia Butterfly, click here to listen to her talking about it.)

Poll Discussion

For those who would like to clarify and extend their responses to the poll about alcohol, you may use this post. Simply leave a provocative comment below!

God Endorses Candidate in PA Governor's Race!

Well, it seems that God has weighed in on the Pennsylvania governor's race! For those who don't know, the race is between the incumbent, pro-abortion Democrat Ed Rendell, and his Republican challenger Lynn Swann (yes, that Lynn Swann). Whom has God picked? Here's a bit from the story in the Scranton, PA Times-Tribune:

During a voter awareness event in the Capitol Rotunda on Tuesday, the incumbent Democrat received word via a Lycoming County minister — a registered Republican, no less — that God has “decreed” he will be re-elected to a second term.

“I was a little stunned, to be honest,” a smiling governor said afterward.

The campaign bombshell was dropped by the Rev. Carl Vining, pastor of the nondenominational House of Judah Ministries in Montgomery and a chaplain-on-call for the state Senate.

As the reverend introduced Mr. Rendell to a packed Rotunda, he told those gathered that “the God of Israel” recently sent word through him on the outcome of this year’s gubernatorial election.

“The God of Israel said, ‘One more term,’” the Rev. Vining told Mr. Rendell.

The announcement sparked applause from some in attendance and chuckles from others. The Rev. Vining later insisted it’s no joke.

“God spoke to me to tell Governor Ed Rendell that he was anointed by the God of Israel for another term,” he told a reporter. “That means he’s going to win the election.”

Did God give a reason?

“God has his own reasoning. It’s the will of our father in Heaven,” the Rev. Vining said.

A Sad Day for Michael Moore?

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Poor Michael Moore has lost a great ally in his fight against President Bush. Too bad. Maybe he can make a movie about how Zarqawi was "misunderstood" and "wrongly labeled" or some such gobbledygook.

The best news is that al-Zarqawi may have been turned in by some of his own guys. If true, that is a great thing that should be well noted. But should we give the $25 million to a terrrorist?

From CNSNews.com:
Got Him: 'Zarqawi is Dead'
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 08, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, has been killed, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki announced at a press conference on Iraqi state television shortly before 4 a.m. Thursday Washington time.

"Today we have managed to put at end to al-Zarqawi," Maliki said in Arabic, to thunderous applause.

The accomplishment stemmed from the type of cooperation the government had been asking of Iraqi citizens, the prime minister said, suggesting that an intelligence tip-off had led forces to track down Zarqawi.

His death was a message to all those who are pursuing violence, Maliki said, pledging to kill "all the terrorists."
............

General Casey said "tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders" from Zarqawi's own network led coalition forces to Zarqawi as he met with his associates in Baquba, north of Baghdad.
............

That same year, the State Department announced an increase in the reward it was offering for information leading to Zarqawi's capture, of up to $25 million -- the same amount offered for bin Laden.

Hypocrisy

I forget where I heard this definition of hypocrisy--"the application of a double standard in favor of (surprise!) one's very own self."
(Clicking the picture will help you to read it better)

G-N-O-S-T-I-C-I-S-M

Okay, boys and girls. It's time for another "four dollar word." Gnosticism. The "g" is silent, the "o" is like the "o" in "pot," and the "c" is an "s" like in "exorcism." So, try it again. Gnosticism. I have several posts coming up on various topics like food, worship, beer, Baptists, death, etc. All of these will tie in (believe it or not) with "Gnosticism." So, what is Gnosticism? The term comes from the Greek word gnosis, which means "knowledge." An "ism" is a system or doctrine of belief. Gnosticism, therefore, is a system of belief that regards the attainment of certain hidden, or secret, knowledge as the means of escape from the physical and material world (which is inherently evil) to the spiritual and immaterial world (which is inherently good).
The New Testament suggests that even then a germ of Gnosticism was making inroads into the church. John appears to be addressing this heresy directly in the verses below:

• John 1:14: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
  
• 1 John 4:2-3: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
  
• 2 John 1:7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Now, this all stands in stark contrast to the so-called "Gnostic gospels," like Thomas, Mary, and the recently hyped Judas. For example, the latter has Jesus saying to Judas, “But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." The idea here is that Jesus' crucifixion is something which will liberate him from the (corrupt) flesh that masks the true, spiritual him. This is a biblically absurd notion! If Jesus was to be liberated from the flesh, then why did he appear to his disciples again, after the resurrection, with a fleshly body and not as an immaterial spirit? To be fair, it was a remarkably transformed (i.e., glorified) body. But it was still a "flesh and bone" body that bore the scars of the crucifixion, that could be touched, and that ate food. Jesus' own words about this body confirm that he was not simply a spirit: "And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).
The resurrection is the final repudiation of Gnosticism. It is impossible to be Gnostic and to also believe in the Christ of the Bible. The Christ of the Bible shows Gnosticicsm to be a lie. And yet in many ways we are modern day Gnostics--even us church folks. We have learned it from the Gnosticism of popular culture (things like the Star Wars and Matrix movies) and from frankly bad Bible interpretation. I hope to explore some of these things over the coming days. Stay tuned!

Pagan is as pagan does . . .

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion--Proverbs 18:2

• Ian McKellen said recently, in response to criticism of some of the historical claims of the DaVinci Code, that he thinks the Bible itself should have a disclaimer at the beginning declaring that it is fiction because "walking on water, I mean, takes an act of faith." Ian, I loved you as Gandalf and all, but just shut up and act! You can see or hear the clip here or here.
• The Student Insurgent, a student-operated newspaper at the University of Oregon, ran some cartoons lampooning Christianity in general, and Jesus in particular, in its March 2005 issue. The "paper" issued a statement saying that Christianity "needs to be lampooned." The cartoons and commentary were especially viscious. Here's a sample: "I believe that Christianity is a destructive institution in America, and the world for that matter. It functions as a stagnant force that prevents growth and development in society. It perpetuates inequality and serves as a means of control. . . . It is [a] way of thinking that leads some people to feel morally superior. It forces people to define morals in a way that may not be up to date with the times and more importantly may happen to really f*** over certain groups of people, like women. In addition, heaven and hell is like the lure, it freaks people out because they don't want to fry in hell for eternity. Heaven is the bribe for worshiping god. The term god-fearing anyone? Fear is not what should drive a belief system. The belief system is flawed because in my opinion, god is an a**hole. . . . It is funny that extremely evil things are always disguised as good. Christianity uses concepts like virtue, purity, and piety to promote the idea that is is morally superior to other belief systems. But again they define morality as if it is something to be defined in a blanketing sort of way. Even to say murder is always immoral is difficult to do. So how can one say that it is immoral to be a lesbian? Why does that apply to everyone? Who decides this? It doesn't make any sense to me. In my opinion this 'purity' is a disguise as something good, but really it is an ideology that serves to repress people from doing what they want.”. . . . Good stuff, huh? I refer again to the verse at the top of this post. As if that weren't enough, here are two of the cartoons with the sensitive portions blocked out:
  

Wise Words

"Then, moreover, what a swelling of arrogance it is, what oblivion of humility and gentleness, what a boasting of his own arrogance, that any one should either dare, or think that he is able to do what the Lord did not even grant to the apostles; that he should think that he can discern the tares from the wheat, or, as if it were granted him to bear the fan and to purge the threshing-floor." --Cyprian, martyred in the 3rd century

"Advancing the science of pet nutrition . . ."

Purina cares for all God's creatures, furry and otherwise. I stumbled across Purina Worm Chow while looking at some snake stuff! Who knew? Maybe some of you hardcore fishermen or gardeners might have, but I didn't. What's funny is that I went to Purina.com to see what they had to say about their worm chow, but there is literally nothing. I searched the site for "worm chow" and it only turns up things about worming your dog or cat!

Vacation Photos

Well, vacation was three weeks ago, but I finally have up some photos. Here's Matthew's first trek across the beach:

Here are a couple of cool dudes named Jacob and Drew ready to surf some waves:

And these are a couple of James Oglethorpe's men we ran into at Ft. Frederica:

NT Wright on Da Vinci Code's Myth of Christian Origins

NT Wright, one of the world's preeminent New Testament scholars, offers here a good summary of the tired version of "history" recounted in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code:

The myth that I am about to describe and critique is well known and widespread. I have met it at Harvard; I have met it in Baptist churches in the South; I have seen bits of it all over the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, which is the more ironic since those societies used to be devoted, in theory at least, to the supposedly scientific historical study of religions and ancient texts, and this myth is anything but scientific or historical. There are five elements in the myth, and The Da Vinci Code offers a sketchy but clear enough account of all of them.

This is the myth: First, there were dozens if not hundreds of other documents about Jesus. Some of these have now come to light, not least in the books discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt 60 years ago. These focus on Jesus more as a human being, a great religious teacher, than as a divine being. And it is these books which give us the real truth about Jesus.

Second, the four Gospels in the New Testament were later products aimed at divinizing Jesus and claiming power and prestige for the church. They were selected, for these reasons, at the time of Constantine in the fourth century, and the multiple alternative voices were ruthlessly suppressed.

Third, therefore, Jesus himself wasn’t at all like the four canonical Gospels describe him. He didn’t think he was God’s son, or that he would die for the sins of the world; he didn’t come to found a new religion. He was a human being pure and simple, who gave some wonderful moral and spiritual teaching, that’s all. Oh, and he may well have been married, perhaps even with a child on the way, when his career was cut short by death.

Fourth, therefore: Christianity as we know it is based on a mistake. Mainstream Christianity is sexist, especially anti-women and anti-sex itself. It has aimed at, and in some places achieved, considerable social power and prestige, enabling it to be politically quietist and conformist. This, I find, goes down especially well with those who are escaping from either fundamentalism or certain types of Roman Catholicism.

Fifth, the real pay-off: It is time to give up, as historically unwarranted, theologically unjustified, and spiritually and socially damaging, the picture of Jesus and Christian origins which the church has put about for so long, and to return to the supposedly original vision of Jesus himself, not least in terms of getting in touch with a different form of spirituality based on metaphor rather than literal truth, of feeling rather than structure, of discovering whatever faith you find you can believe in. This will revive the truth for which Jesus lived, and perhaps for which he died.

Dan Brown adds his own touches to this fivefold myth; for instance, in line with some other recent writers, the suggestion that this genuine spirituality, which Jesus would have taught us had his message not been hushed up, may well involve reconnecting with the sacred feminine. (How that actually works out in terms of his own plot isn’t clear, and the ending of the book is a major anticlimax. Is the Holy Grail itself after all just another metaphor for boy-meets-girl romantic love?)

As I say, I had met this myth in various forms all over the place, long before Dan Brown wrote his book. Brown has, however, given it wings, and I fear that it is now flying all over the place and confusing many people as to what they can and can’t believe. The deepest irony about it is that it portrays itself as historically rooted, when it is a tissue of fantasy; as going back to Jesus himself, when he would not have recognized anything like it; as embodying the really creative new voice of Jesus, when it is simply offering a variation on a well-known pattern of postmodern spirituality.

The lecture can be read in its entirety here.

Apocalypse Not

Movie star Al Gore's new film, An Inconvenient Truth, is upon us. As the movie's website says: "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb. If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe [see the countdown in the right column] that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced."


The evidence, however, does not indicate the "apocalypse now" that big Al wants you to think is happening. For starters, the following are from the Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators 2006:

• The number of exceedences of the 8-hour ozone standard in Los Angeles over the last 30 years has dropped significantly, from 201 in 1975 to 75 in 2005. In fact, there are large scale areas of the LA air basin where there have been no exceedences of the ozone standard for the last several years, meaning millions of residents have no exposure to high levels of ozone.

• In the Washington, D.C. area, not a single Code Red day for poor air quality was declared over the summer of 2005, despite the hot temperatures. Ozone levels are falling in 19 Eastern states where smog was a recurring problem in the summer.

• Automobile tailpipe emissions from carbon monoxide has been reduced by 96 percent since the 1950s. These emissions rates per mile are not an average for the whole auto fleet, but apply to all makes and models uniformly. In other words, the frequently-heard claim that large SUVs “pollute more” is a myth.

• In 2005, the Center for Disease Control reports declining amounts of chemicals in human blood and urine almost across the board.

• The Catalogue of Life Program, begun in 2001, has passed the half-million mark in the number of species listed in its database.

• Grizzly bears may be coming off the endangered species list. The largest population in the continental U.S. outside of Alaska lives in and near Yellowstone National Park, where the grizzly population has grown from about 200 in the early 1980s to about 600 today.

• The EPA found significant declines in high acidity in every region except New England, where there was no change from 1990 levels.

• The biggest back-from-extinction story of the year was the reappearance of the ivory-billed woodpecker, thought to have gone extinct in the 1940s. Several independent observer teams confirmed the return of the bird to the Big Woods region of Arkansas.

• U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000.

• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at mid-century, they have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years.

And here are a few things from the National Center for Policy:

• The polar icecaps, while diminishing in certain areas, are expanding in others (this is because temperatures in the polar interiors are falling, not rising). NASA's 2005 data for overall melting of the polar icecaps indicates a .05 millimeter increase in sea levels per year. Assuming no change in climatological factors, that equals 5 centimeters in 1,000 years, or 1 meter in 20,000 years!

• Polar bear populations have risen from 9,000 to 22,000 in the last 100 years. Of the 20 distinct polar bear populations in the world, 2 are declining in numbers, 2 are increasing, and the remaining 16 populations are stable. Incidentally, the places where polar bear populations are decreasing are places where tempuratures are falling, not rising! Likewise, they are thriving in the moderating polar regions!

If you'd like to read more, try Pete Du Pont's piece at opinionjournal.com. My bottom line? It's apocalypse not!

Anybody out there remember Larry Norman?

I ended up listening to some Larry Norman stuff this evening. It was amazing how relevant the song "Six O'Clock News" still seems to be. Some of the particulars have changed, but the media's pretentiousness and detachment from reality hasn't! And I really liked "Reader's Digest." It kind of reads like a top notch blog post! Clicking on the song title above will open an mp3 of the song. Clicking here will take you to a page of mp3s for 1972's Only Visiting This Planet (the album I am most familiar with, though I didn't hear it until 1990) and two others that form a sort of "triology" (that's "trilogy" if you're not from the mountains!). I've included the lyrics below for the above two songs if you'd like to follow along.

Six O'Clock News

I've got a ticket for southeast Asia,
I packed my camera and press card badge.
They only pay me to stay the weekend;
What if I never come back?

The flight was pretty rough
I got a room, took a sauna,
The bellboy gook put my bags on the bed,
He left without his tip.

Then I loaded up my Hasselblad full of film
And I stepped outside, I stepped outside.

I'm taking pictures of burning houses
Color movies of misery.
I see the flash of guns, how red the mud becomes,
I've got a close-up view.

I'm the six o'clock news - what can I do?
All those kids without shoes - what can I do?
Military coups - what can I do?
I'm just the six o'clock news.

I got a suite at the Saigon Hilton
Cocktail parties with Premiere Ky
We talk about how the war is going
And watch his color TV.

I'm the six o'clock news - what can I do?
Drinkin' black market booze - what can I do?
I'm red, white and true blue - what can I do?
I am, I am, I am, I am, I am... the six o'clock news.

Catch my plane flight back to the mainland,
I fall asleep to the engines' drone.
I see the flash of guns, how red the mud becomes,
I've got a close-up view. I am, I am, I am, I am, I am

The six o'clock news - what can I do?
Guerilla Rendezvous - what can I do?
All those kids without shoes - what can I do?
Napalm tattoos - what can I do?

I'm just the six o'clock news - what can I do?
I am, I am, I am, I am, I am
CBS, ABC, NBC....



Reader's Digest

Alice is a drag queen, Bowie's somewhere in between
Other bands are looking mean, me?, I'm trying to stay clean.
I don't dig the radio, I hate what the charts pick
Rock and roll may not be dead, but it's getting sick.
All over the world disc jockeys talk the same
And every town I play is like the one from where I came.

The Rolling Stones are millionaires, flower children pallbearers,
Beatles said "All you need is love," and then they broke up.
Jimi took an overdose, Janis followed so close,
The whole music scene and all the bands are pretty comatose.
This time last year, people didn't wanna hear.
They looked at Jesus from afar, this year he's a Superstar.

Dear John, who's more popular now?
I've been listening to Paul's records.
I think he really is dead.

It's 1973, I wonder who we're gonna see
Who's in power now? Think I'll turn on the TV,
The man on the news said China's gonna beat us,
We shot all our dreamers, there's no one left to lead us.
We need a solution, we need salvation,
Let's send some people to the moon and gather information.

They brought back a big bag of rocks.
Only cost thirteen billion. Must be nice rocks.

You think it's such a sad thing when you see a fallen king
Then you find out they're only princes to begin with.
And everybody has to choose whether they will win or lose
Follow God or sing the blues, and who they're gonna sin with.
What a mess the world is in, I wonder who began it?
Don't ask me, I'm only visiting this planet.

This world is not my home; I'm just passing through.

Caption Contest

WINNER: lech walesa..."polish tornado drill"

Late Week in Review

• News ticker: Added above. Tell me what you think.
• Caption winner: Larry the cable guy.
  
• Commencement addresses of note, Part 1: The controversy over Condoleeza Rice's speaking at Boston College (hated ACC rival) was interesting. I have to say, I have some sympathy for the protest as long as it is sincerely rooted in what the following indicates: ''On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work," the letter said. It pointed out Pope John Paul II's opposition to the war in Iraq. The response? "This is the only time these people have cited Pope John Paul II on anything," said the Rev. Paul McNellis, who is an adjunct professor in the philosophy department. Hmmmm. A matter of conscience, or politics?
• Commencement addresses of note, Part 2: General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed the graduating class of The Citadel. It is worth a read or listen.
  

Lettuce get married!

Concerning the proposed federal marriage amendment that has floated around congress for awhile now, the New York Daily News reported this on Monday:

• Arizona Sen. John McCain said Sunday the controversial proposal to amend the Constitution would step on states' rights."The states regulate the conditions of marriage, and unless there's some decisive overruling by the federal courts, then I will continue to believe that the states should decide," McCain said on Fox News Sunday. "We in Arizona should make our decisions about the status of marriage in our state just as the people in Massachusetts and other states should make their decisions," he said.

The naivete with which Sen. McCain has spoken of late is amazing. If the citizens of the states were making decisions about marriage that were not subject to policy assaults from the judiciary at the state and federal levels, McCain would be right. But it is exactly the case that, through the wonder of judicial review, the people of Massachusettes can end up deciding for the people of Arizona what the "conditions of marriage" ought to be!
The purpose of a federal constitutional amendment is to prevent the obvious and growing judicial encroachment on a state legislative function. Indeed, McCain and his colleagues are simply being asked to vote for an amendment to really allow the states to determine if they need federal protection to make these decisions by either a) defining marriage outright or b) excluding judicial review. McCain knows this (I think--unless he really did believe people wouldn't pick lettuce for $50/hr!), but he apparently thinks we are stupid. If his position prevails, then perhaps we are!

DaVinci Interview

I'll post more on this soon, but here is a good place to start. This is an interview with RC Sproul about the DaVinci Code stuff. A good introduction if you're interested.

Think you know Alice Cooper?

This is from the Alice Cooper interview in Doug Van Pelt's "Rock Stars On God."

QUESTION: Doug asks, "Well, you have seemingly avoided the Christian celebrity, "Let's get him on the 700 Club mentality." And my question is: Where did you acquire the wisdom to make that astute decision?"

ANSWER: "I have been surrounded by guys that are strong Christian guys. A youth pastor, my pastor, and all of them have protected me. They've all said, 'You know, it's great who you are. Be careful of celebrity Christianity.' because it's really easy to use somebody. It's really easy to focus on Alice Cooper and not on Christ. It's so embarrassing in the very beginning, when somebody would say, 'We want you to speak at our youth thing.' And you get there and it says, 'ALICE COOPER' in huge letters, 'speaking about Christ' in small letters. And I'm sitting there going. 'That is blasphemy’ That tells me something right there that something’s wrong. I'm a rock singer. I'm nothing more than that. I'm not a politician; I'm not a philosopher. What I really am is a follower of Christ. My job is rock n roll; my life is dedicated to following Christ. When I go to speak to people, they think I’m going to have some answers. I go, 'I don't have any answers. Please, give me some answers. I can give you what I think. I think that the most important thing that I know is dependence on Christ. That's all I know, is that I have absolutely no answers, and I have no power. I can entertain you, but when it comes to being subject to Christ, I consider myself low on the totem pole of knowledgeable Christians."
I knew Alice Cooper was a Christian, but did not know that he's good friends and golfs with RC Sproul! Now that's as wild as anything he's ever done!

Practical God?

I was told this week by someone (names are undisclosed to protect the guilty, but you know who you are!) that "God is a practical God." I thought Yes--It seems I remember a few verses about God being practical:

• What about in Genesis when God called the 75 year old, childless Abram--"Now the LORD said to Abram, "I am a practical God. Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. " Nope, couldn't find it.
• Or maybe it was in Numbers--"And the LORD's practicality was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years." No. I was mistaken.
  
• Well, He was practical with Jesus at least. Remember "For God was so practical, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life?" Nope. I kept running into dead ends.

So I did what anyone sitting on front of a computer would do next: I googled "practical God." This led me to an interesting book--Practical God by Ronny Hatchwell and Tsachi Sivan. The description began, "Practical God is a documented conversation between Tsachi Sivan, a young lawyer and business man, and SOL, a pure energy communicating from the highest level of intelligence, who can also be referred to as God." HMMMM. I was sure that this is not what the undisclosed person above meant by practical!
Now, the definition of practical that this person did seem to be using was "capable of being put into effect; feasible" which begs the question, "Practical from whose point of view--ours or God's?" None of the above is practical from a human perspective--Old men having sons, nations miraculously sustained for forty years in the wilderness, the Son of God coming as a man to die. But from God's perspective all of these things were certainly practical, i.e., "capable of being put into effect; feasible."
So, if you mean to say that God is practical from the human perspective, I must disagree. But, if by practical you mean something like "nothing is impossible with God," then yes--God is very practical!

Here's someone else's unusual pet . . .

"Kitty," once a 5-pound lion cub, is now a 400+ pound male lion in Melvin, Kentucky. My favorite line from the article is, "The Collins' also have a dozen dogs and a lizard." Read about Kitty here.

Hermie Henry Rainwater--R.I.P.

For those who do not yet know, the hermit crab who returned from vacation with us did not last long. Though not picky about their diets, hermit crabs are picky about their living conditions, and I guess Hermie's weren't up to hermit crab standards. He was out of his shell and dead in his water bowl when we returned from our Mother's Day festivities. He was buried on Monday at the edge of our backyard.

Iraq--"Ancient, Historic, Beautiful, Exotic" . . . and safer than you thought?

How 'bout those numbers?!?! Those are the figures for pre-Katrina New Orleans, and YES the Iraq numbers include war/terror related deaths. Pretty amazing, huh? Even dear ol' Atlanta is more dangerous than Iraq! Read the first part of the article at the New York Sun.

Our Mother

I have appreciated the strong response to "Some Thoughts on Mother's Day." (Though I would like to see some of it here on the blog. You don't have to wait until you see me to yell at me. There are exclamation points on your keyboards!!!!!!!!!!!!) Anyway, this is a link to a short essay by Ralph Allan Smith about mothers and our Mother--the Church--as manifested in the local body of believers. Good stuff.

Caption Contest

(Notice that this guy has tears running down his cheeks!)

WINNER: Well, I liked jeffro's reference, and weebs and dave h. were funny, but darn it--larry the cable guy really made me laugh with his"That's nothing. . . . You should see his cure for constipation!"

Some Thoughts on Mother's Day

I'm sorry if you are expecting a sentimental post about how wonderful Mother's Day is--and how we should all really honor and remember our mothers every second Sunday in May. (Do we need a special holiday in order to keep the fifth commandment?) I guess I have a problem with these especially artificial holidays like Mother's Day, Father's Day, Grandparent's Day, Secretary's Day, etc. You can read a history of Mother's Day here and find out (if you didn't already know) that Mother's Day was first recognized as a national holiday after being signed into law in 1914 by Woodrow Wilson. Anna Jarvis, the woman whose lobbying led to Mother's Day, was disgusted by the commercialism that in short order sprung up around the holiday. In 1923 she even filed a lawsuit to stop a Mother's Day festival, and further she was arrested for disturbing the peace at a convention selling carnations for a war mother's group. Before her death in 1948, Jarvis is said to have confessed that she regretted ever starting the Mother's Day tradition.
Another reason I don't care for Mother's Day (and other such Sunday observances) is that it so easily distracts the Church from what the day is really about. Every Sunday is a holiday--a holy day--the Lord's Day, and the Church ought to be focused on the worship of Him, not the honoring of mothers. Additionally (though it is not the case this year) the second Sunday of May often coincides with the Church's celebration of Pentecost. So instead of scripture readings, songs, and sermons about the coming of the promised Spirit, we get the obligatory "Proverbs 31 Woman" message and a sappy song about how great mothers are.
I want to end this by quoting the concluding two paragraphs of Peter Leithart's article from Premise some years ago, "Against Christianity: For the Church." He has since expanded the article into a book. His conclusion comments on Mother's Day and Pentecost:

The pervasiveness of our worldliness, our failure to be a distinct people, is perhaps best illustrated from fairly trivial incidents. Several years ago, I spent Pentecost weekend with my wife in Savannah, Georgia. We switched on the television early Sunday morning, hoping to hear a Pentecost sermon. Instead, the television preacher was delivering a Mother's Day message, one that contained only a handful of moralistic allusions to the Bible while celebrating at length the mothers of famous Americans. I was most annoyed, however, at the preacher's apparent indifference to what is one of the chief days of the Christian year. At least, I thought, he could have combined Pentecost and Mother's Day by mentioning that the Spirit-filled church is the mother of believers.
Given the tremendous scandals that have rocked televangelism in the recent past, failure to preach about the Spirit on Pentecost Sunday hardly qualifies even as a venial sin. On reflection, however, I have come to see this incident as a crystallizing illustration of the profound accommodation that even the best American churches have made to the world. The church no longer functions as a distinct culture, with her own heroes and villains, her own memories and stories, her own ceremonies and symbols, her own rules and government. As I noted above, the church will always manifest much of the paraphernalia of the surrounding culture but American churches are too often simply extensions of the surrounding culture: Which is more prominently displayed in American evangelical churches, the American flag or the communion cup? What holiday is likely to receive the most attention, Ash Wednesday or the Fourth of July? Who is more a hero to American Christians, George Washington or St. Patrick? It will surely be a sign of the renewal of the church as Christian culture when the behavior of Christians improves, when Christians stop seeking abortions and stop sleeping around, when heresy and unbelief are rooted from the church. But I keep coming back to that Mother's Day sermon and I cannot shake the sense that the church's identity crisis will continue until she begins to pay more attention to her own calendar than to Hallmark's.

Vacation . . . and another unusual pet!

Sorry for the lack of stuff around here. We've been at Jekyll Island this week. (I'll add pictures to this post when I have them available.) The weather cooperated for the most part. The only really bad weather was a thunderstorm late Wednesday night. Everything was gloriously uncrowded; we had the beach practically to ourselves for our morning walks and afternoons in the water. We played mini-golf, bicycled around the Historic District and the beach, saw dolphins, played in the ocean and pool, ate a nice meal at "Seajays," and unintentionally brought back a hermit crab from "Driftwood Beach." We didn't discover the crab until today. His name is Hermie. So, last week it was a garter snake (who is now called "Junior" instead of the confusing "Mac"); this week a hermit crab! I can't wait to see what animal next week brings!

Week in Review

• Feel good story of the week--Keith Richards, who fell out of a palm tree in Fiji, apparently won't have to have surgery to relieve pressure on his brain. There is apparently no need to explain why the 62 year old pickled rocker was in a palm tree in the first place; speculation is that he was trying to pick coconuts, but the Rolling Stones are mum about what exactly happened. I just think it sounds like something that would have happened to Bernie.
  

• Line of the Week--These guys would make a great comedy duo: Kucinich playing the straight man to set up Bolton's one-liners. What a great zinger at the end:
  

KUCINICH: Have you ever heard of that report?

BOLTON: I’d never heard of the report, I never read the article, nor do I intend to.

KUCINICH: Do you have any interest as to whether or not—as the U.S. Ambassador, you don’t have any interest as to whether or not U.S. Marines are actually operating in Iran right now?

BOLTON: I said I had not heard of the report and I didn’t intend to read the article in “The New Yorker.”

KUCINICH: If I gave you this article right now, walked it over, would you look at it?

BOLTON: I don’t think so, honestly, Congressman, because I don’t have time to read much fiction.

• New Poll Is Up!--This one is about pet snakes.
• Blotter--Nothing about my people in the blotter this week. Too bad I lost Harvest Grove!
• Caption Contestants--This from Lord Shackelton is for you until the long awaited caption contest prizes are ready--"MEN WANTED FOR HAZARDOUS JOURNEY. SMALL WAGES, BITTER COLD, LONG MONTHS OF COMPLETE DARKNESS, CONSTANT DANGER, SAFE RETURN DOUBTFUL. HONOUR AND RECOGNITION IN CASE OF SUCCESS." Now that is what the caption contest is all about!
• And speaking of the caption contest--You can view last week's winner here.
  

Where I've Been

Sorry to be so delinquent with posting the last few days, but I've been busy with a creature very much like the one you see above. Here's how Drew tells it:

I opened the door and was going over to play with Brandon, and before I took a step I saw a snake curled up and yelled, "Snake!" I asked, "Is this a harmless snake, or not?" Then I went over to Brandon's house to ask if Josh and Brandon could come see a surprise. I brought them over to our house to see the snake. Josh said it was a Garter snake baby, and was harmless. When it bit Brandon, it didn't hurt! Josh got a glass cage that Brandon brought over. Josh put it in the cage. Then we let it out and Brandon and I were touching it. Then Jacob was scared to hold it, and Brandon said, "Drew's not scared." Then he put it on my shoulder, and it crawled around and tickled my neck with it's tongue! Then Mommy said we couldn't play anymore until school is over. Then Josh was going to let it go, and I asked if we could keep it. Mommy said we could keep it until Daddy got home. So we got the bug habitat and put it in there and set it on the table. When Daddy got home he said we would have to take care of it, and Mommy said we could keep it.

So, I have been researching that "take care of it" part for the last couple of days. Tentatively, his name is "Mac," but that sounds an awful lot like "Matt," so that name might not last. Marian just keeps asking, "How did this happen?"--especially in response to questions like, "Honey, where do you want to keep the snake supplies?" He's about 14 to 16 inches long (I say "He," but I have no idea if it's He or She) and he seems to really like his new habitat. (Perhaps there is symbolism in having a caged serpent.) I guess now I will have snake reports from time to time . . .

Immigration and the Bible

The Family Research Council recently hosted a panel in Washington called "Faith, Culture, and Law in the Immigration Debate." Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference participated. Speaking as a "Hispanic-American evangelical," he called for both the "rule of law" and the application of "our Judeo-Christian value system" to the immigration debate. He said:

"There is a biblical mandate on how to treat the immigrant and the alien--Deuteronomy chapter 10 (Love the alien, therefore, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. [Deuteronomy 10:19]); the Leviticus 19 principle (When an alien sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the alien who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]). Also the Good Samaritan passage in Luke. Who is your neighbor? . . . To us in the Hispanic evangelical church it is a matter of family values. We are Hispanic. We are Hispanic American evangelicals. And because of that we are concerned about the families, the possible disenfranchisement of 12 million families."

He went on to conclude that if the Sensenbrenner (R-WI) bill is passed, it will lead to a choice for these families in which most will likely be split up so that American-born children can stay and enjoy the prosperity of America, while foreign-born parents are forced to return to the drugs and squalor of Mexico. The force of the appeal was that Christians can't possibly want to break up these families. (No. We don't at all want to break up these families, and we aren't. They are breaking themselves up!)
The application of these "alien and stranger" passages to the immigration debate is a classic example of equivocation. It takes a term, alien, that is referring to a vastly different political reality in the ancient Near East and applies it directly to today's situation simply because the same word is being used. (By this logic one can argue that we should all buy Hondas because the disciples were "all in one accord." [Luke:1:14] That's an extreme example, but it makes the point.) Today's reality of autonomous nation-states with various immigration laws which are internationally recognized and (ideally) honored by other nations is itself completely alien to the biblical context. In the ancient Near East the wandering alien was at the mercy of whomever's land he found himself upon, but he had not violated the borders or sovereignty of any nation by his "immigration." People were free to travel from place to place and there were no Motel 6's to leave the light on for them. The biblical laws were designed to account for this reality and called God's people to deal kindly and fairly with those who came through the land, for they too had been aliens in Egypt.
To apply these passages directly to the problem of illegal immigration is quite a stretch. I think the situation would be different if those coming to this country were fleeing political tyranny. But at most today's illegal immigrants might claim they are fleeing "economic tyranny" (caused by their pathetic political system), but they are not under imminent threat to their lives or freedom. And so, they can follow our laws to come here. "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience" [Romans 13:1-5]. That is the "rule of law" to which Rev. Rodriguez paid lip service above. The only biblical exception to this is if the laws of the governing authorities are in violation of God's law. So the argument must be made that our immigration laws are somehow immoral. You can see an attempt at that here, and in the picture below from the Maoist Internationalist Movement, but I'm not buying it.

My kind of strip joint . . .