Christians Behaving Badly

Progress - CBB Moving!

2006-08-04T08:46:00.000-07:00

Find new updates of CBB at www.christiansbehaving.wordpress.com
Thank you for your interest in this blog, and enjoy the new features including timed posting (which will mean more regular posts) and categorized postings!

Power Over vs. Power Under

2006-08-02T12:36:00.000-07:00

Just read Randy Bohlender's blog - his commentary hits it on the head concerning the wave of uber-sensitive over-reaction to an often insensitive and arrogant church history. Randy is a prayer missionary now and has done a lot of servant-evangelism-type work in Cincinati and at the Burning Man pagan festival. I really like his perspectives.

Read on here.

Minimum Wage

2006-07-28T10:08:00.000-07:00

Just got this from the Sojourner's listserv. The logic struck me kind of weird though, from the perspective of someone who once earned minimum wage after receiving a Bachelor's degree, read on...

"As a person of faith, I believe that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be living in poverty.I ask that you vote in favor of legislation to raise the minimum wage to at least $7.25 an hour, and to oppose any "poison pill" provisions that would weaken existing minimum wage eligibility, overtime protections, or other labor laws. A job should keep you out of poverty, not in it! A raise in the minimum wage rewards work, and will lift countless families out of poverty.Thank you for your time."

Uh... $7.25 / hour still sounds like poverty to me! It gets you about $14,500/year, vs. about $10,300/year.

While this is a very significant raise, you need to earn perhaps closer to the upper $20K range to be out of "poverty", but that doesn't mean you can ever hope to buy a home apart from Habitat or a subsidy program.

My point is that this raise of nearly 50% won't take anyone out of poverty, but the argument from the other side of the table is that it will handcuff employers from being able to hire more people, since people will cost at least 50% more money to hire.

I think it's a great thing to try to eliminate poverty but the Sojourner's haven't gone far enough! We should lobby for a $18/hr minimum wage if we are serious about ending poverty...

Dear N,
Call representative your today at (202) 224-3121...

Demand an increase in the minimum wage to at least $7.25/hour
Last month when more than 600 Christians passionate about social justice came to Washington to demand an increase in the minimum wage as part of A Covenant for a New America, we knew good things were starting to happen.

So far this year, 192 House members have asked for a vote to raise the minimum wage to $7.25, and just two weeks after the Covenant launch, 28 Republicans urged their leadership to hold a vote to increase the minimum wage this month. We and countless others have put on so much pressure to demand fair wages that later today, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on an increase to the minimum wage.

After you call, forward this message to 10 friends who share your values.The vote could happen in the next several hours, so time is of the essence!

The latest New York Times/CBS poll finds that more than 85 percent of respondents supported raising the minimum wage over the next two years to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 an hour...

Peace and Blessings,
The Sojourners/Call to Renewal Policy and Organizing Team

Another Sojourners Retort

2006-07-27T13:44:00.000-07:00

Saw this letter to the editor from one Greg Turner. There may not be too much hope in his tone, but he puts the finger on the humanistic optimism that seems to characterize the rising Religious Left.

Anyone who thinks the middle east conflicts can be solved by talk doesn't understand the nature of the conflicting ideologies of fundamentalist Islam and orthodox Judeo-Christianity.

I will add in my opinion that moderate / compromized persons of both stripes can get along just peachy, since they have learned the "higher virtues" of tolerance/apathy. I'm not naive enough to think that fundamentalists of either stripe can solve their problems on paper. I wish it could be, but I'm not that naive.

Anyway, here is Greg's letter:

***
Greg Turner writes from Denver, Colorado:

Jim Rice toes the usual Sojourners line with his idealistic dream of praying for more understanding leadership in the Middle East war. Jim - do you not understand that the fundamentalist Shiite Muslims seek to destroy Christian culture? We can pray until Armageddon and these people are NOT going to change. Benjamin Netanyahu noted that Shiite fundamentalists do not want money nor territory, but the total destruction of the West. Israel is indeed surrounded by many who seek to destroy them, and are thus justified in doing whatever necessary to keep the enemies at bay.

I believe in the Sojourners view on many social issues regarding poverty, immigration, etc. But this endless turn-the-other-cheek stance regarding the proper response to military and terrorist threats is completely self-defeating. Read your Old Testament, Mr. Rice. There is much there to illustrate the proper way to deal with unrepentant enemies.

----------

Introducing Church-O-Rama

2006-07-14T09:46:00.000-07:00

Church-O-Rama

A couple months ago I wrote:

I am detecting moderate "vision drift" for this blog. Originally intended as a place to discuss relating to persons outside the faith from a concilliatory viewpoint, recent discussions have centered around my mild angst with a certain magazine publisher.

The solution is to spawn other blogs with differing foci, thus enabling a self-indulgent ability to rant about things while doing it in the proper category. Look for more at some point in the future.

Viewer, that point in the future is NOW!

CHURCH-O-RAMA

the ChurchOrama blog is where I now impose all opinions and prognostications regarding current church issues based on some of my experiences. That means that CBB blog will be relatively free of that category. COR is the place to go for ministry-related opinions from yours truly.

Stay tuned for other potential future blogs...

Bono Fatigue

2006-07-12T16:32:00.000-07:00

I caught this the other day:

http://www.bonofatigue.com

This site is really quite funny. I still don't believe it's not trumped up - the comments are just too much! Really put its finger on the Bono phenominon and its effect musically, politically, religiously, and socially.

Bono... I went to such a church that celebrated Bono during his G8 summit days, especially before this when he first went on a church tour to promote such admirable and needed causes as 3rd world debt forgiveness and helping the poor.

I have been thinking about posting about Bono for awhile and here it goes...

Pro-Bono

- God can indeed use unlikely people to say unexpected things
- Genuine social concern is godly, ever hear of the beatitudes?
- Rock stars usually are not concerned with social welfare
- God seems to enjoy using rock stars and others who are offensive to religious types
- It takes a rock star to make many materialistic Americans concerned about poverty
- The guy can write darn good rock & roll, much of it from an agreeable worldview

Anti-Bono

- God can indeed use unlikely donkeys to say unexpected things
- Suffers from acute potty-mouth during live performances
- You never get bad press when you talk about helping the poor
- Buys into a philosophy which equates societal disapproval of "alternative" sexual behavior with historical oppression based on poverty, race, and creed.
- Occasionally propogates such beliefs from cultural bully pulpit to an adoring media
- Who wouldn't want to have a rock star's influence and use it for the common good?
- Enjoys immunity from a sympathetic press corps while Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham & others are demonized due to a less politically correct message despite good works for the poor.
- Money given in sincerity can alas be hoarded, misspent, or used by corrupt groups for their own purposes or for objectionable agendas that "help" via abortion, etc...

My conclusion:

It is pretty obvious to me that many of my anti-Bono rationales are laced with various degrees of jealousy and perhaps religious pride (gasp!). He seems to have been granted free license by his circumstance and by the press, while more right-wing type figureheads are vilified.

For now, I'm going to pray for his potty-mouth and thank God that he's trying to help people. I am stoked that he is trying to make a difference other than writing songs glorifying lust, greed, and violence, and step back for awhile, wait, and see.

As for judgments concerning the character and motives of Bono, I'm officially neutral. How about you?

Vote Pro-Bono or Anti-Bono in comments.

Call to Renewal

2006-07-07T19:18:00.000-07:00

I found an enjoyable page today off the recent Sojourners' Call to Renewal conference. Jim Wallis and his associates put together this conference on helping the poor and other things. What is impressive to me is that besides the usual left leaning speakers such as Obama, Clinton, etc, they also allowed right leaning senators to come also. This scores a point with me.

I'll go on record as stating my substantial reluctance to this particular group. Wallis' tv appearances have been conciliatory and even likable at times. Batstone is a different matter... I dislike most (unfortunately just about everything) of what I read of his.

I have no idea what sort of doctrinal statement the Sojourners have. I doubt they have one since many of their readers' comments seem to have no holistic understanding of scripture beyond the old testament prophets' writings. I can't explain how one can stand up for the poor while ignoring and perpetuating Margaret Sanger's systematic genocide of "undesired" racial groups via "family planning" and pregnancy termination. I cannot fathom how they could champion the rights of the poor without acknowledging those who don't own their own life, and then chide the rest of us on opposing various forms of infanticide as well as the issue of children doing best within a heterosexual family with a mother and a father. I want to believe the best for this group and their leaders and not be some sort of accuser, but it can be very difficult and you may think I crossed that line already.

Anyhow, 2 rather brave senators actually showed up and gave admirable speeches to the crowd, even drawing some applause. Kudos to senators Santorum & Brownback... that takes some bravery. Politics TV taped their 15 minute speeches and you may access them here. If you would prefer to listen to senators Clinton and Obama you can access them there as well.

The English-Only Philly Cheesesteak

2006-06-28T17:30:00.000-07:00

Well I just went to Geno's, which has gained notoriety for its policy of only serving customers that order in the English language. Although I'm in favor of the government staying out of the matter, I have less sympathy for the proprietor after noticing that they are playing up the whole matter in grand fashion.

Joe is the owner, pictured here.

For the record, Geno's is the home of the HOTTEST cherry peppers I have ever had. I ate a particularly large one and it was really hot... like eating a whole jalapeno. Had nothing to drink, but realized my mouth was no longer tingling after 20 minutes.

Personal Update: Church Shopping Again

2006-06-16T18:17:00.000-07:00

Well things are going better than expected here in Philly. When I left here a year ago there wasn't too much that I was aware of...

Since then I moved back to center state for a year and now am back. I found out about a few things happening here, namely a Morningstar church affiliate and a Harvest Rock affiliate. Both are 20 miles away and very small but are doing some good things. I also bumped into a 24 hour worship organization and visited a Healing Room yesterday. More is happening around here than I gave the region credit for! I'm happy to be so mistaken.

Faith Healer Becomes New American Idol

2006-05-24T19:49:00.000-07:00

Faith Healer Hailed as American Idol!
Wednesday May 24, 2006

Controversial Faith Healer Benny Hinn has defeated Katherine to become the new American Idol.

During his winning duet, "I've Had (the Time of my Life)" from the movie, "Dirty Dancing", several dozen fans unexpectedly collapsed onto the floor and had to be removed by paramedics for safety reasons.

Approximately half of those fans reported feeling a jolt resulting in improved physical characteristics, from unclogged nostrils to being able to jump up and down to being able to touch their toes.

Head Judge, Simon Cowell, said of the incident, "I think he is a counterfeit performer, and these strange phenomina are obviously fake, a result of group hypnosis by our new American Idol."

Reason #2 Why I Changed My Profile

2006-05-21T14:28:00.000-07:00

Just a short post here. After a google search of my full name yielded stuff from this CBB blog, I opted to get rid of my last name from the profile! I'm getting geared up for job searches and don't want to chop my foot off unnecessarily. I don't expect an interviewer or HR department lackey to have the time to appreciate my elaborate reasonings before tossing my app in the can. All you people with myspace accounts and other social network sites up that want decent jobs in the future, heed my words!!!

New Mascot - Cute but Controversial

2006-05-19T05:47:00.000-07:00

Fellow CBB bloggers -

I found out about the South Park character generator (www.sp-studio.de) from a most unlikely source, Hugh Sung. Hugh is in charge of collaborative piano at Curtis and has a killer blog merging music with technology. On top of this he is a fairly straight-laced guy with amazing social skills so that he does not come off that way. So I was a bit surprised when he wrote this up on his blog.

So I have created my own icon for CBB. I personally have not been smitten with admiration for the show, lately I heard about how Isaac Hayes (Shaft), the voice of "Chef" quit after the directors finally decided to mock his religion, the Church of Scientology. Christianity apparently is a common mock-worthy subject, but I haven't watched the show enough to find out if they are mocking Christ, or just offensive right-wingers. I see plenty of commercials for it and promos and they unfortunately haven't made a favorable impression on me. But ranting about the show, or any show, only tends to make you look bad so I'm not condemning it here... yet!

"The Simpsons" on the other hand is often a rather enjoyable show because it is often able to make this distinction in a way I find more palatable and frankly enjoyable. I saw a clip recently where the Creation vs. Evolution in schools debate was addressed in an extremely tongue-in-cheek manner. I thought it was quite funny.

I think that the South Park-type figure is appropriate for this blog for the time being because it accentuates what this blog is all about and will function as a cheap eyegrabber for roving bloggers and a more culture-friendly persona. Of course I put a cross necklace in there to sort of symbolize the "Christian". The cigarette symbolizes the evils of teenage rebellion. The sword symbolizes the Bible, and the lightsaber symbolizes Using the Force... aka post-modernistic techniques and language.

So what do you think of this little guy?

Double Standards for Christians: Myke's Commentary

2006-05-17T18:48:00.000-07:00

A couple text-based shoutouts to new visitors, especially other Eckel family members linked in from the new family website! Welcome to my conflicted blog and brace yourself for some controversy!

Myke's Post
My longtime friend Myke has responded to my last post in which I described the local youth response to the Day of Silence at my old high school. I appreciate all comments (but not spam) and Myke's have really brought up an opportunity to discuss issues especially relevant to the CBB blog, namely, "how are followers of Christ to present ourselves and relate to a broken world with an unpopular message?"

Here's My Response
So Myke, here's my .02. I've condensed your comments and hopefully summarized them effectively. Feel free to counter-respond! (His original comment is under the previous post)

***Most people think that it means that a christian can never say anything that is not somewhat on the harsh side of conveying ideas.

Good point, Myke. If you've been keeping up with the emerging "Religious Left" or certain politicians, this sort of thing is often thrown out there. Doubtless, we could all probably work on our tact and sensitivity but at the end of the day we should be allowed to have our own opinions and "free speech", no matter how people will react. This goes both ways unfortunately in our culture with both extreme left (such as perhaps Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore) and uber-extreme right (such as Fred Phelps, the guy who hates homosexuals and protests military funerals with his followers) have a right to their often insensitive and intolerable views.

When I first transferred out of private religious school in the 10th grade I was dumbfounded by the statement "people can't legislate their morality". I didn't know how to respond! Of course now it is clear as day that you either legislate morality or immorality, and you vote your values, and whatever group wants it more will win.

It is rare to have a role model in the church who can speak uncompromising truth in a non-confrontational way. I did see a few very good examples of this - how rare it is!

***Many times Jesus "very harshly" rebuked his critics calling them "Brood of vipers" or "Your father is the devil". These words came from the Lord of love...

Good point here as well. From my study on this, I notice that Jesus reserved this severe rebuking-type of thing for other religious people such as the Pharisees. When he was with the prostitute, the tax collector, or even the rich guy he found much more sensitive ways of allowing the truth to convict on its own. Sometimes the truth brought a repentance and sometimes it didn't. Strangely enough, I don't recall too many non-religious critics of Jesus.

***If I'm offensive that's one thing, but if truth offends that's something entirely different. We are to speak the truth in love, but if a person's view on love is accept my behavior as ok and not sin, then they leave no room for love because love corrects error.

Again, well stated. Many people seem to think that a sharply delivered truth is somehow invalidated by its difficult delivery. I think that a good strategy is to discern whether someone is interested in the truth at all before engaging any further. I also do not accept responsibility or religious pressure to engage someone who might not be receptive. But I have seen too many people further antagonized by excessive zeal and a quicker-witted Christian. But I'll pray a whole lot for them and ask God to make truth clear. As for the false dichotomy of love = acceptance of a behavior, or tolerance = acceptance of behavior, I would possibly gently address that and later pray off the blinders, or just not bother to explain and go straight to prayer later!

I remember during a previous presidential scandal a similar blinder for people was forgiveness = dismissal of consequences, or forgiveness = amnesty. Not quite, as God will forgive even a child molester who repents, but the person will nonetheless be held accountable. I'm not going to expound about the female teacher scandals of late that question the former statement.

***At times we must engage in heated debates or you and I will suddenly [lose] our 1st amendment right of freedom of religion and the "exercise thereof" by it being redefined as hate speech...

Here I would agree more with the second part than the first. If people who value free speech and freedom of religion neglect their responsibility to vote, there is a substantial possibility/probability that our freedoms will be curtailed. Actually we have an even greater need to pray also! Debates will also be probable for many of us especially in grassroots places such as the school board meeting, local council meetings, etc... My current policy is to try to be a bridge-builder one-on-one with people while voting my values and politely pestering my elected officials concerning how I would like them to represent me. But there in the end will be conflict, especially one-on-one, but hopefully I can remain civil rather than heated. Easier said than done, definitely.

***The flesh will never ever listen to reason, logic, love, kindness etc... that is why God says it must be crucified.

Yep, the flesh is a nasty bugger. The flesh is a constant thing to deal with, but only followers of Christ have access to the supernatural flesh-crucifying power. Those outside of this commitment tragically have few resources beyond Tony Robbins self-help tapes, motivational seminars, and the Franklin-Covey store. Unfortunately I submit that the flesh is a more relevant issue/argument for followers of Christ than for society at large.

***No matter how much kindness you display, it just simply will not work with some who is hellbent on living in the flesh.

Also true. Even though Jesus paid for everybody, most of us won't take Him up on the offer. It is frustrating to think about. Lately though, my favorite verses deal with the topic, especially the phrase, "while we were sinners, Christ died for us" and "Don't you know that God's kindness leads us to repentance?" Romans 5 is a great chapter, and the prodigal father is a relevant figure here, thank God. Dwelling on these passages restores my perspecive.

With my religious background, I easily can assume responsibility to somehow make sure that people are 100% sure of their condition so they can do something about it. While not abdicating all degree of responsibility to that end, a less confrontional but biblical mandate for repentance is ultimately woven into the message of God's love for us. One of the most important things I learned in Cleveland was the so-called relational evangelism, and I don't even want to use the "e" word. But that's what it is. "Helping people belong before they believe" was how Gerald Coates described it at a conference. The trite moniker, "people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care" is also apt.

***...after all other forms of presenting the Gospel (Love, kindness, friendship evangelism, so on) have been exhausted, I do support the "hellfire and brimstone" message, even with a pointed finger and a scowl look. Don't ask me about my experiences with that one (ha ha)

Hellfire & Brimstone definitely gets the job done for some people, at least outwardly. It had a significant role in America's big revivals of the 18th century from what I studied. The imagery and associations to "H&B" certainly stick in people's minds as the de facto stereotype of preachers today.

Religious people are supposed to be somewhat stern, Bible-thumping moralists proclaiming the God of "thou shalt not". "Bible-basher", "holier-than-thou", "goody two-shoes", and other unflattering names often describe how well people get the wrong message that is hopefully unintentionally conveyed.

I think perhaps a lot of people since the revivals have adopted this simple message and have effectively used it without also cultivating a deep sensitivity to the endless compassion that prompted Jesus to the cross. It certainly is a common starting point, and it worked for me back in '79 when my grandmother cornered me. I was one scared little dude! But it wasn't all bad since I get to claim that I was part of the Jesus movement. One Way, dude! Hey, dude is that Freedom Rock? ...Then turn it up, man!!! (pardon the 80's time/life music ad reference)

Thanks Myke for the commentary, and I'm going to open this up for your possible rebuttal and other perspectives, this is a blog after all. How about you theologians out there? One caveat: please read my responses in the spirit with which they are offered if you have a nit to pick! Thanks again Myke for the word.

Been in Trouble with Da' Law...

2006-04-27T07:56:00.000-07:00

Since the Day I Wuz Born

(From a comment I made recently to the Mont-ster Report blog)

Happy day of Silence! Yes, today or tomorrow is the day of silence for the still-out-of-mainstream GLBTA activists and possibly sympathizers.

I would have to identify myself as formerly in the group of sympathizers, starting in the late 80's and ending about 10 years ago or so, and really really ending after prayer-walking an equality forum in Philadelphia last year.

However I still support gay and straight people, but am no longer very susceptible to emotional or logical arguments that equate a identity with behavior. I support people's dignity while not necessarily supporting their behavior. I am against mocking gay people on sit-coms, but I do not support or ignore the political agendas of such groups. I certainly don't support heterosexual immorality either in society or my own life.

Having said all that, and possibly disqualifying myself from public office, the local youth groups had a "Day of Truth" today at school in response to the "Day of Silence".

Times have changed since I graduated from Danville High School in '93. Mainly Columbine & 911. I left home about 630 this morning to prayer walk the cemetary adjoining the school to back them up.

For some reason that cemetary is a great place to prayer walk and I go there 2 or 3 times a week. Anyhow towards the end of the event the cops evicted me from the premises.

There was a rumor of a school threat and I did have my binoculars out to check out the action (probably a bad fashion accessory per the cops).

But perhaps I can't blame the cop for ending my stated "prayer-walk". You see, the local paper has been sensationalizing the "Day of Silence" with letters to the editor, about 3-2 from evangelical people with largely horrible writing skills, SOME OF WHOM WROTE IN SHOUT-TEXT TO REALLY GET THEIR POINT ACROSS. In contrast, yesterday's paper had a well-reasoned, civil letter published. Unfortunately the author was the head of the school's Spectrum club.

After reading all those letters to the editor, I would have evicted me too. How could you be sure someone involved wasn't involved in some scheme when there are so many angry-sounding Christians around. The good intentions of these people - a few of whom I know as generally caring, Bible-believing folk - are completely obscured by a lack of tact at best or obvious fear and anger at worst. Fortunately there were a couple model letters but unfortunately they were probably lost in the overall fray.

I plan to contact the Episcopal church in town to secure permission to continue praying on their land as long as there isn't some sort of restriction on this.

God Help Me... I'm a Socially Conservative Republican!!!

2006-04-27T07:37:00.000-07:00

You scored as Socially Conservative Republican. Social conservatives share a belief in traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society, often through civil law or regulation. The government should use its influence in the public square to support traditional family values.

Socially Conservative Republican

100%

Foreign Policy Hawk

80%

New Democrat

60%

Old School Democrat

55%

Pro Business Republican

55%

Libertarian

55%

Green

45%

Well ain't this a kick in the head. My favorite part is the picture of Dubya in front of a cross with a purple hue. Ha Ha Ha.

Well hopefully this blog is an example of a reluctant conservative that communicates in an effective manner with others. I guess being raised in a small town sticks with you... The argument that the government should take care of me just doesn't hold water after you live in the big city and observe real life for awhile. Just doesn't fit in my grid.

Thanks Chris @ http://chrisridgeway.blogspot.com for the quiz link.

Rev. Coffin - A True Prophet?

2006-04-27T06:41:00.000-07:00

I read this post on the Sojourners email today. It articulates many of my thoughts regarding the merits of Rev. Coffin who passed away last week.

*********************************************************

Rev. Charles writes from Fort Collins, Colorado:

While it is great to remember these fine things about Bill Sloane Coffin, something tears at my heart. As a hero in the liberal church where I first learned about Jesus, I can't but wonder if all Rev. Coffin's actions will really impress our Lord. My liberal pastors lowered the person of Christ to a mere prophet and kept my fellow churchgoers from experiencing the uniqueness and power of God found in Christ. The social activism of our church seemed impressive but their was no undergirding of the Holy Spirit and we were left with a liberal activist legalism - energised more by the newspaper than God's word and strength. Legalism is hardly motivating and thus while there was big talk about engaging the world, there was little money to pay either the mortgage or the pastor. Hostilitity to my powerful conversion experience eventially forced me out of my home church. Sadly most of the kids in my youth group ended up turning their back on Christ entirely.

******************************************************************

Ouch! Rev. Charles has hit rather close to home here. What a poignant indictment of the religious left from the inside. I listened to his obit on NPR and the news last week and he sounded like a great guy. And I'm sure he certainly was. But I got a red flag when they started mentioning Riverside Church in NYC, since that is usually a tip-off. Bill Moyers' affiliation with the organization hurt his standing with me after I googled the connection down.

Lord? Lord?

Here is some more info.
*************
n 1979, he was one of four prominent clergymen allowed by the new fundamentalist regime in Iran to visit Americans taken hostage from the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. He visited the hostages in December, singing carols and praying, and then returned to the United States to criticize the nation's "past sins" in Iran. This brought him much vilification for being soft on Iran's mullahs.
*****************

Singing Carols? Christian Carols? That's pretty tolerant and civil of the Iranians!

******************

A handful at Riverside Church believed his globe-trotting and social-advocacy commitments distracted from his pastoral and administrative duties, but the Rev. Coffin saw no conflict.

"Every minister is given two roles: the priestly and the prophetic," he said. "The prophetic role is the disturber of the peace, to bring the minister himself, the congregation and entire social order under some judgment. If one plays a prophetic role, it's going to mitigate against his priestly role. There are going to be those who will hate him."
*****************

What happened to the "testimony of Jesus" as the spirit of prophecy?

Now for something really bizarre!

***************
He studied piano with French composer and teacher Nadia Boulanger and briefly attended Yale's music school before serving in the Army during World War II. Because of his proficiency with languages, he was a liaison officer with the French and Soviet armies.

The Rev. Coffin previously was married to Eva Rubinstein, daughter of pianist Arthur Rubinstein, and to Harriet Gibney. Both marriages ended in divorce.
*******************

What is it about us concert pianists? I guess he's alright! He certainly would have been a formidable pianist as a Boulanger student & having Rubenstein as his dad!

Go figure

PodCasting is Fun.

2006-04-25T10:41:00.000-07:00

Thank you, PodOMatic.com! for making podcasting super easy and fun.

I designed the website for the church I have attended while completing my MSIT degree this past year. You can look at www.brooksideministries.com. It is basic, but gives me experience integrating media into a church site.

The BrookPod site was easily created in current form in about 90 minutes. A great way to feature input from people in church who are normally stuck behind a computer or soundboard.

http://brookpod.podOmatic.com

More to come.

No More Checking for Updates!!!

2006-04-09T20:40:00.000-07:00

Beginning today, all CBB blog addicts can SUBSCRIBE to the blog using the easy and attractive Orange Button on the panel to your right. This is an RSS feed (really simple syndication) that will eliminate the tedious typing "www.christiansbehavingbadly2005@blogspot.com" that you used to have to do. Now you just click the button and you will be able to get easy updates without having to check back all the time. Just do it and you'll see how it works if you don't already know.

2. Also I am detecting moderate "vision drift" for this blog. Originally intended as a place to discuss relating to persons outside the faith from a concilliatory viewpoint, recent discussions have centered around my mild angst with a certain magazine publisher.

3. The solution is to spawn other blogs with differing foci, thus enabling a self-indulgent ability to rant about things while doing it in the proper category. Look for more at some point in the future.

Bat-Man 1; Nathan 0

2006-03-21T15:46:00.000-08:00

Well folks, Bat-Man of Sojourners has published my note which many of you commented upon before in a less than enthusiastic manner, thus taking the power out of my argument againts them. Bummer. I think the main point of my note should have been geared against their choice of subject matter to print rather than the actual position. O well, this will teach me to use my time more wisely.

Look for some audio clips here on the site in the future. I spent some time recording a few impromptu thoughts about all sorts of things.

Health Update #2 - I'm Switching to Netscape

2006-03-07T07:03:00.000-08:00

Well if you haven't already read the comments from the BatMan article, it seems that there is a "diversity" of opinions on this issue. It certainly garnered a lot of interest & feedback from the readership.

I just downloaded Netscape since I'm tired of my Opera web browser not functioning on a lot of things. Would you believe they published on their front page a Focus on the Family 20 year study which found:

*******************************
Virgin at 18? Here's a Big Payoff!

http://channels.netscape.com/love/package.jsp?name=fte/virginat18/virginat18&floc=wn-ns

Teens who remain virgins throughout high school may think they're missing out on some of the fun, but the reality is their sexually active peers are the ones missing out.

The study: A new study from the Christian group Focus on the Family analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth that was conducted in waves from 1979 to 2000 with 3,750 men and 3,620 women. It controlled for ethnicity and previous educational or economic disadvantage. About half the students were virgins at 18 and half were not. Students were surveyed at age 18 and again at age 38.

The results: When the two groups were evaluated 20 years after their high school graduation, the data showed that both the male and female high school students who remained virgins at least until age 18 enjoyed huge advantages as adults, compared to those who had had sex in high school:
They completed an average of one year more of higher education.
Their incomes were 20 percent higher.
They had about half the risk of divorce.
"It is very much as we suspected--that adolescent virginity has a significant impact on well-being in middle adulthood," said lead study author Reginald Finger, M.D. "We found, as well, that these better outcomes were not merely the result of avoiding teenage pregnancy or fatherhood. The outcomes are inherent to remaining abstinent. In addition, we found that female virgins were more likely than their non-virgin counterparts to have a positive financial net worth and were almost half as likely as non-virgins to use welfare benefits."

The research findings were published in the journal Adolescent and Family Health.

********************
ANOTHER ARTICLE exposes how you can get meningitis from kissing too many people. Summary -

These are the risk factors for meningitis:

Intimate kissing with multiple partners
A history of preceding illness
Premature birth
Being a student, especially when living in a crowded dormitory

These are the protective factors for meningitis:

Meningitis vaccination
*Recent attendance at a religious event*(!!!)

About one in 10 teenagers carries the meningococcal bacteria in their throats. While the bacteria do not survive outside the body, they can be passed easily in the saliva from one person to the next. That is why intimately kissing multiple partners is such a high risk factor for meningitis.

The researchers are realistic. Encouraging teenagers to change their behavior to reduce their risk of disease probably won't have a major impact. What will have an impact is vaccinations, and that should become a key public health priority.

[Oh jeez, here goes BatMan again!]

The study findings were published in the British Medical Journal.

****************

How 'bout them Brits? I'm really surprised by this - that these leftist browser news homepages actually published it. Cool.

Will Bat-man Publish my Letter This Time?

2006-03-02T15:00:00.000-08:00

A few months ago I attempted to voice my perspective on that most open-minded of Christian magazines, the moderate to left-leaning Sojourners Magazine. Unfortunately my careful efforts to craft a tolerant, yet thoughtful comment were not published in their journal. I choose to believe that this was an oversight rather than any other reason. Still, I spent more time than I'd like to admit on the note, since a contrarian letter from a more reluctantly conservative vantage point requires great effort to achieve a sufficiently compassionate tone. And I fear without such a gentle tone the logic of one's argument may be tragically overlooked or even dismissed by the reader. Or worse, you could look unintelligent or even intolerant!

So I sent them another note in response to their latest editorial which critized Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council which supports medicines that treat STD's but don't like the idea of state-imposed STD innoculations for their children who the FRC believes can abstain from sex just as effectively as cigarettes, for example.

Here is his somewhat confusing article, which seems to laud the high parental standards while standing up for those wayward children that don't quite stick to the straight & narrow. While I can relate to this, I suggest it sends out the wrong message and will alienate many others besides myself.

******************************************
The Religious Right's vaccination vexation
by David Batstone

When it comes to teen sex, all parents hope and pray that their children make wise choices. Children as young as 12 or 13 weigh decisions with consequences that could impact the rest of their lives in a dramatic way. At this point in the conversation our teenage children roll their eyes, but parents know the risks to be real.

Parental anxiety therefore is unavoidable, all the more so because they realize that the ultimate choices their teens make about sex are beyond their control. That begs a question: If a child violates the moral code that parents set, are those parents willing to put their child's life in mortal danger? Tragically, some Christians are willing to answer, "Yes."

A little-known debate is smoldering at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that may burst soon into a major fire. Two pharmaceutical companies - Merck and GlaxoSmithKline - have designed a cervical cancer vaccine. In clinical trials the Merck drug, Gardasil, is proving to be up to 100% effective in fighting the dominant strain of the virus causing cervical cancer. The pharmaceutical companies and a growing movement of public health advocates want all girls to be inoculated with the vaccine as they presently are for other high-risk viruses.

The Family Research Council is leading a charge of Religious Right groups to halt any such national inoculation program. Their resistance is driven by fear more than common sense. The human papilloma virus (HPV) that generates cervical cancer is most typically passed along through genital contact with others. So as long as an individual does not engage in sexual intercourse, he or she should be shielded from the virus. The Religious Right bloc concludes that offering a vaccine for HPV would undercut their promotion of sexual abstinence for adolescents.

In that spirit, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fortune magazine that he would not allow his 13-year-old daughter to be inoculated. "It sends the wrong message," Perkins said. "Our concern is that this vaccine will be marketed to a segment of the population that should be getting a message about abstinence."

Globally, cervical cancer kills more than 270,000 women each year - roughly 80% of them in developing countries. The Centers for Disease Control reports that as many as 3,700 women in the U.S. died of cervical cancer last year, and tens of thousands more had their lives completely transformed by a radical treatment regimen for the disease. The majority of those women are African-American or Hispanic, and poor.

Religious Right groups are not seeking to ban the drug. They simply do not want the vaccine to be slotted as an inoculation that every child receives as they presently do for polio and smallpox.

Because these groups link cervical cancer so intimately with illicit sexual activity, a mandated vaccination feels to them like a family values choice would be imposed upon them by the state.

We abide by public health standards for the sake of the common good, of course. In the U.S., we require motorists to wear seat belts and children to be inoculated. It would be equally shortsighted to oppose a vaccine for HIV if one existed. So the question here is whether the transmission of HPV is a universal public health risk. The question of state imposition is a straw man argument.

But more importantly, the Religious Right is wrong to so closely tie cervical cancer to promiscuity. A woman might be chaste her entire life, then marry and pick up the virus from her husband. It also is more than a bit naïve to believe that a child will abandon abstinence once they have received a vaccine. If a teen's only deterrent for engaging in sexual activity is a fear of communicable diseases, they are likely to turn to sex with protective devices.

I would go a step further and challenge the Religious Right to temper their moral commitments with grace. It is the right and duty for parents to set a moral path for their children. It pains me that so many parents abdicate that responsibility. But we also offer protection and mercy for lapses in judgment.

It is a daring journey raising children. It is our role to guide, model, and protect. Parents teach values, but kids make the decisions. I would hope that love and grace await our children at each destination.

***********
...and here is my kindly worded response

Dear Sojo:

I would like to consider myself open-minded, and I subscribe to both Sojourners and Tony Perkins' Family Research Council emails. Mr Batstone's choice of subject matter regarding FRC's position on STD vaccination befuddles me. Had the FRC opposed all research and use of HPV drugs, I might see his point; however Mr. Batstone even mentioned that the FRC merely opposes forced innoculations for youth, and not the use of such medicines.

I continue to give Sojourners a chance to sway my views on contemporary issues, but it has been a long time since your journal has won out against the common sense approach of Tony Perkins and his FRC emails, which at times may be less merciful and gracious in tone.

As a celibate thirty-something, Sojourner's position fails to resonate. I have not yet received the opportunity to have my own family, but I would imagine most parents who are raising their children up according to biblical principles would not appreciate the state imposing such innoculations, but that they would use the medicine in the event of an infection. Abstinence is the more difficult choice to make, maintain, and advocate. I suggest that positions such as this one may alienate many of your readers. Why not pick a different battle?

************

Do you think they'll publish this one? Vote in the comments section!

Happy New Year

2006-01-16T15:21:00.000-08:00

Happy 2006 everyone, sorry for not writing much. Many things on the plate. Pat Robertson manages to keep himself in the news regularly since my last commentary, first in a response to the Dover, PA school board and more recently regarding the possible reasons behind Ariel Sharon's health situation.

The position of the CCB blogmaster is twofold regarding this:

1. I am tiring of newsmedia people putting this stuff in lieu of real news. Religious figureheads are very easy to roast, I'm getting weary of it. So if someone has a view that is expressed tactlessly in or out of context, then that apparently means that I need to have the contrary view or I am perhaps a bigot also. Somewhat of a manipulative stand by the media overall. Go find some real news!

2. What if Robertson's view happens to coincide with the view of the omnipotent ruler of the universe? That would be a bit uncomfortable indeed.

I really did want to be a liberal...

2005-10-13T13:23:00.000-07:00

Responding to my thoughts concerning the Pat Robertson flap and the Sojourners' criticism, The Mont-ster said...

Nathan,
Bravo on your letter to the editor. It was thoughtful, scriptural, and irenic in its tone...
Rob

www.mont-sterreport.com

Well Rob, could you call it a "letter to the editor" if it never makes it into print???

That's right, this journal, comprised of persons resentful of traditional church people "hijacking the language of faith" couldn't find room to publish a concise, civil, and evenhanded comment questioning the tone of their Robertson-bashing editorial that yours truly worked on for a few short wee hours of the night.

I grew up with a certain amount of resentment towards the politically polarizing elements of a rural church background and feel like I do understand why the Sojourners, (Wallis, Batstone, and all the rest of them) are a bit upset. In fact, I got a blast from the past this Sunday at my current church in rural PA when a lady stood up in the service with a very charged, overdrawn, and fear-inducing announcement concerning what the ACLU is trying to do in the region and other such horrors.

Little incidents like this make me relapse a bit, but I am realizing that a lot of people with strongly voiced views, whether left wing or ultra right wing simply may have an awful lot of built up pain and hurts that might not be resolved. Worse, there probably could be quite a lot of unforgiveness harbored which complicates things. Of the two extremes, the right wing is worse since we are supposed to be living according to Kingdom values, authority, and especially love.

I think that neither end of the spectrum is helpful to the Kingdom if these issues are not addressed properly. Left wing people will never achieve their utopia, and the right-wing's past legislative victories (I'm thinking of Prohibition here, an admittedly skewed example) result often in massive blowback and rebellion. I know many people who are praying as I am for a culture of life to be legalized in America, but that is not enough; if abortion became illegal next month for example, the problem would not be solved, because enough people's hearts have not been changed. That is the thing we must also pray for.

It is appropriate and necessary to become displeased and angry in a fallen world but we have to repent from flipping out in rage and sliming people, or else there will be a bunch of confused Nathans walking around a decade from now, trying to find out if the liberal faith people are more Christlike than the people in the environment they grew up in. Why not ask the congregation to pray for, even bless the ACLU, Rev. Barry Lynn (People United for Separation of Church & State) and others since the Lord told us to pray for our "enemies".

Unfortunately I don't think liberals are much better at all, since after 5 years of reading Sojourners I cant remember much about the last compassionate article I read. They get pretty angry at things too, and unfortunately I wonder who would still be around to run the military (which protects our freedom to whine about others) since every time there is a scandal, charged voices call for resignations and/or firings. Failing to publish my letter doesn't help my perception of them either, especially since Katrina has since changed the opinions of thousands of evacuees regarding Pat Robertson's anomaly in social action, Operation Blessing, which has spent millions more to help the situation than the well-meaning Sojourners. I also don't know what kind of doctrinal position if any they have, and it's probably just as well.

I continue to have a respect for the opinions and views of comparatively less vocal, and I perceive, more thoughtful moderates including the Philadelphia based trio of Ron Sider "Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger" (my uncle calls him the "Christian Communist due to his views on progressive tithing) Tony Campolo, and Jim Ball (What Would Jesus Drive campaign)*. Doesn't mean I agree entirely, but that I appreciate their controversial stands on some issues and have reason to believe their views may stem out of a spirit-led lifestyle.

From the way the Sojourners have operated, the letters from their readers (some of whom seem to be looking for the legitimacy of a religious group), and the questionable affiliations and recommendations ("join Cindy Sheehan this weekend", Riverside Church of Manhattan, closing Gitmo, abandoning Israel's land-rights, etc...) I think they are jumping the shark and cashing in on things (appearances on numerous talkshows, Jon Stewart, CNN, etc...). This is a horrible accusation to make but just look at what is happening to Michael Moore* - the guy has traded in his credibility as an underground leftist documentary filmer, cashing in on the angst of Kerry supporters with a failed blockbuster/coup to oust the junior Bush. Sojo should watch that they don't MichaelMoore themselves.

That's all for now,

Nathan

*********
1. Sider in particular is reputable in my view (remember I don't have a wife or family and would be happy to give a whole lot more money for the Kingdom purposes, as I am sure you also would be) since he lives in inner-city Philly and has taken major flak from plenty of other people besides my uncle. His book contains some very challenging and thought out ideas that succeed in offending a lot of people. One review online was scathing in tone due to the guilt (I suspected conviction) the writer felt from the book!

2. Michael Moore had a provocative string of work before Fahrenheit 911 blew it all. Bowling for Columbine was perhaps loosely (don't report this blog to the NRA) credible at voicing a couple concerns relating to guns in America, to give Moore the benefit of the doubt. Before this, his work "The Awful Truth" really contained some material of interest as well as things I wouldn't recommend you necessarily watch it for. My favorite thing he did was lead a few of Phillip Morris Inc's. most faithful customers in a few Christmas carols at Phillip Morris HQ. (Moore set aside any offense his Jewish background might have found in this activity) These customers were so well-invested in the company that they all had survived cancer treatments (at least at the time of shooting) and had received artificial voiceboxes as a result of their dedication to smoking. Obviously smoking is not smart, but Moore raised questions of whether it is right for the company and shareholders to be making money off this. I'm less enthused about most of Moore's stuff, especially the most recent.

Kudos to Larry

2005-10-13T13:04:00.000-07:00

Larry King has had a terrific lineup as of late.

First last week he had a Purpose-Driven Rick Warren with the lady that was taken hostage by the guy who killed a court official and held her hostage before turning himself in as a result of a very purpose-driven conversation. This was great stuff. Rick was talking in very plain, postmodern friendly terms about Jesus and other subjects including his AIDS charity. This guy comes off so well, what a great role model for the rest of us. Hard to accuse someone of the latest buzzwords (hate, intolerance, any -ism or -obia that you can think of) when he donates his bestselling book's income to an AIDS charity. He is also genuine and extremely likeable.

NEXT RECENT SHOW

Tracy Lindsey Melchior

This was also outstanding. You get a very attractive, well-spoken, and down to earth actress talking about her very difficult background and experiences. Obviously has been through major inner healing since she was able to talk about these things in a very transparent way.

I think Mr. King is a huge asset toward the faith community because he interviews people who are highly credible proponents of faith and Christianity as opposed to a lot of the other people that the media loves to hype, who just are not very good representatives, to put it nicely.

Thank you, Larry King.

I Really Like This Guy!

2005-09-14T14:38:00.000-07:00

I had the pleasure of watching the senators on my prayer list trying to pin down John Roberts yesterday as he repeatedly used the Ruth Ginsburg technique of refusing to comment.

Only he had a lot more style and subtlety to it than Justice Ginsburg. How many times can you graciously and congenially sidestep things? The senators on my prayer list are losing their cool, so they could probably use some prayer. I'm referring of course to the left-of-center senators who haven't found a way yet to demonize this guy or wreck his reputation.

I suppose I am getting a bit partisan here but I'm old enough to recall the fiascos of Bork, and Thomas, while Ginsburg bluntly refused to answer questions and was easily confirmed despite her questionable affiliations to center and right-of-center america.

My prediction is that unless a bunch of people pray for O'Connor's replacement, the guy or lady will be crucified unless they have an image, character, and discreet professional record equal to Roberts'.

Of course it's very possible that Roberts' could go left real quick as previous "conservative" appointees have, but I really don't think that's likely. Roberts has done one pro bono case for a gay-rights lobby, and his wife was or is a member of "feminists for life" but these things at this point seem to serve as insulation. For a "liberal" to attack such a candidate would possibly unleash major blowback from mainstream america.

Just my .02

Celebrity Fit Club Update & Johnny Fairplay

2005-09-02T22:09:00.000-07:00

Stop the presses!

Gary Busey has offered a sincere apology to the Snapple Lady, Wendy Kaufmann. This apology contained a moderate to high amount of contrition, a recounting of the mean things Busey said to her, and asking for forgiveness. This is a wonderful day for Reality TV. The Snapple Lady even forgave him!

IN OTHER NEWS

This guy Johnny Fairplay is the manifestation of the boy who cried "wolf". He attained moderate success and his 15 minutes of fame by conning his Survivor [TM] rivals into believing that his beloved grandma died. That act, the bleached dreadlock-like hairdo, and his devil-may-give-a-rip attitude congeal to make him one of TV's most beloved reality figures.

Now he is on "Kill Reality", some sort of staged horror flick that various reality stars are picked for. He basically goes around sowing his oats and playing with the women on the show who are foolish enough to risk the dangers of "safe" sex with a reality star.

Underneath it all, I think this is the kind of guy that God really would like to forgive and bring into the kingdom, just to show that He can. I'd like to see that happen. Recently I saw evangelist Luis Palau with his newer converts Stephen Baldwin, brother of Alec, and formerly incarcerated skateboarding legend Christian Hosoi, who bested Tony Hawk a few times back in the 80's. I love seeing stuff like this because it is really encouraging. As a matter of fact I think a healthy percentage of former WWF/WWE wrestlers have had encounters with the Almighty.

Roast of Robertson

2005-09-02T20:52:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, it looks from my perspective that in the Robertson aftermath, it is the other Christians that have dealt the hardest blows. This was true for the Amy Grant/Sandi Patti(y) music crossover/divorce fiasco's, the PTL/Bakker/Hahn scandal of the 80's, and various ponzi schemes under the guise of tax writeoffs. Christians still need to find the balance between shooting the wounded and turning a blind eye away from situations that require a sensitive confrontation.

Sojourners is a moderate to left wing "alternative" voice for the evangelical community. It is led by the Rev. Jim Wallis, who has been trying to raise awareness that God is not a Democrat or a Republican, and I heartily agree with him on that point. His appearances on TV talk shows have a reasonable, gracious, and balanced tone to them, which contrasts with many of his editorials. Although I appreciate many things about his activities, I am concerned at his seemingly wholehearted support of the Palestinian cause at the expense of God's real estate transactions toward Israel, and his criticism of others who believe that abortion and altering the definition of marraige might outweigh concern for the poor. I am reluctantly realizing that liberals can perhaps be just as blind and biased as the rural conservatives I grew up with. Sometimes they appear even less civil, tolerant, and inclusive than the rural Republican, which is a damning statement that I don't write lightly. Below I am posting Rev. Wallis' editorial concerning Pat Robertson's poorly chosen remarks that finally put me over the edge.

I hate writing letters to the editor because you look like a bigot or moron if it is not done well. My response to his response has taken a 3 hour chunk from my evening because I refuse to sound whiny, emotional, and illogical in my arguments. Blast. It was worse this past year in school, when I forked out 6 hours for a response to a ridiculous article in the school paper. Soon after I found myself invited on staff with the paper, an appointment which resulted in perks such as free tickets for myself and 3 siblings to the incredible, perverse, and otherwise expensive Dali exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, a $120 value!

Anyway, here's about 50% of what I promised, it's pretty long and want you to hang on for my response if you care. If you want the entire Sojourners editorial, find it at:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=050825

*************************************************

Pat Robertson: An embarrassment to the church

by Jim Wallis

Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to the church and a danger to American politics...

On Monday, Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. ...

It's clear Robertson must not have first asked himself "What would Jesus do?" But the teachings of Jesus have never been very popular with Robertson. He gets his religion elsewhere, from the twisted ideologies of an American brand of right-wing fundamentalism that has always been more nationalist than Christian.
...

Yesterday Robertson "apologized." First he denied saying what he had said, but it was on the videotape (it's tough when they record you breaking the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus). Then he said that "taking out" Chavez might not require killing him, and perhaps kidnapping a duly elected leader would do. But Robertson does now say that using the word "assassination" was wrong and that he had been frustrated by Chavez - the old "my frustration made me say that somebody should be killed" argument...

...

... To their credit, the World Evangelical Alliance and the National Association of Evangelicals have already denounced Robertson's words. When will we hear from some of the groups from the "Religious Right," such as the Family Research Council, Southern Baptists, and other leaders like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson?

...

It's time to name Robertson for what he is: an American fundamentalist whose theocratic views are not much different from the "Muslim extremists" he continually assails. It's time for conservative evangelical Christians in America, who are not like Islamic fundamentalists or Robertson, to distance themselves from his embarrassing and dangerous religion.

And it's time for Christian leaders of all stripes to call on Robertson not just to apologize, but to retire.

******************************************

Ouch! Is the Atonement sufficient to save the likes of Robertson???

MY RESPONSE submitted to boomerang@sojo.net
*********************************************

The Roast of Robertson

One of your readers [in the letters to the editor] recently acknowledged Pat Robertson's role in helping the poor through Operation Blessing. The Reader from Richmond offered a civil, balanced view of Mr. Robertson; Jim Wallis' editorial topped the backlash of articles, debunking Robertson's apologies and imploring an evangelical collaboration to oust him.

Robertson's actions had negative reactions nationally and globally. It was, is, and will be a mess. Who could imagine that in a week his organization would be working alongside many others to save Hurricane Katrina's refugees?

An organization espousing the teachings of Christ should address such comments with civil, level-headed rhetoric. Sojourners disapproves of Robertson's virulent remarks; perhaps Sojourners could set a better example. If Wallis asserts that Robertson's example is not Christlike, why not urge readers to pray for him, especially if he is considered an enemy? I encourage Sojourners to be "prophetic" - to redeem and reconcile such situations before defaulting to the Roast of Robertson.
******************
Wow. 3 hours for that.

Pat Robertson & Celebrity FitClub Update

2005-08-26T21:20:00.000-07:00

This week, people of every stripe and creed joyously pounced on Pat Robertson following his poorly thought out speculation about "taking out" the dictator of Venezuela, which was considered to be an appeal for an assasination attempt. Despite his prompt apology, many people have continued to pinwheel this over and over again. This is to be expected but I'm disappointed that some of the most vehement voicing has come from other self-proclaimed Christians. Unfortunately but predictably, it happened big time on the Sojourners' email list, headed by Jim Wallis (God's Politics: God is not a Republican or a Democrat).

Mr. Wallis in his email this week was rather vocal about Mr. Robertson's comments, and subjected me to a lengthy tirade of his own, which emphasized the hypocrisy and fundamentalist opinions of Robertson. Trouble is, vilified as he may be, Robertson and his 700 Club are surprisingly down to earth and I happen to share its viewpoint way more than the views Mr. Wallis sends me. This amazes me because I have been trying to be liberal for most of my life now, as a means of rebelling against my religious upbringing. Unfortunately, I am unable to interpret the Bible in a manner beyond what might generously be labeled moderate.

I am concerned for the Sojourners. I subscribed to it since I want to be open to 2 viewpoints on everything, and awhile back there were a few articles about being concerned for the "Burger King Moms" and a surprisingly appropriate condemnation of the Superbowl Wardrobe Malfunction". But it's been some time ago. They emphasize the biblical mandate to care for the poor and the widow, and I want to always be concerned about that.

But there is a thin line between being "prophetic" as Mr. Wallis' organization strives to be, and being an accuser. A more proper response might be to ask his newsgroup members to pray for Pat Robertson and the words he uses, rather than to cast doubt, division, and accusation his way. I think a lot of Wallis' views are worth considering, particularly on social concern, but this brand of accusation is dangerous in its own way.

It is a bit easier to don a social justice cause without challenging hot buttons like abortion, defining marraige, and defending Israel's right to the land God gave them. Robertson is not afraid to do this, while Wallis hasn't taken much of a stand, other than statistics about how there are more abortions due to Bush's fiscal policies and their effect on the poor, and a host of articles that emphasize the Palestinian suffering while not defending Israel. Wallis is right that there are many other issues of faith than abortion and defining marraige, but he has not convinced me to demote them to a lower priority. Wallis is commendable for his concern for the poor, which I believe is genuine, but Robertson's ministry gives away far more funds for food and other needs both here and abroad under the "Operation Blessing" umbrella. No one talks about that.

Celebrity Fit Club Update

Nothing much to report here, except that the teams were forced to vote off one player to trade to the other team, and Mr Busey got the shaft from his teammates. Now he is no longer the captain and must obey the leadership of Jackee, whom he has had personality conflicts with in the past. He seemed to handle it in a peaceful manner. Willie Aames has missed another exercise appointment with the trainer but apologized and admitted the trainer was right about insisting that Willie keep his work schedule under control.

Jessica Simpson's Daisy Duke flap

2005-08-01T14:16:00.000-07:00

Anyone hear about this? There has been a brief chatter about this "intolerant Christian group" that is bashing Jessica Simpson for her racy Dukes of Hazzard video, "demanding" that she reshoot the video. The story is that Jessica's dad is/was a minister and now is her manager and the mastermind behind her moral decay, which is reminiscent of Brittney and other pop divas.

I am not going to list the group's name here but I immediately suspected something might be up. "Christian groups" gave up trying to reform MTV a long time ago, and "demanding" that a singer re-shoot a video seems like begging for abuse. I tracked it down, you could too but I don't recommend using your time that way. It certainly is "intolerant" and somebody might believe its claims to be "christian", but it was one of the most accusatory websites I have ever stumbled across.

The site is basically the home of all sorts of conspiracy theories and sets up its web presence with a picture of President Bush standing in front of a swastika flag. It is possible that John Connor, the author of the site and its published "manifesto" (19.95 + tax) believes in the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and maybe has prayed a prayer of repentance and allowed Jesus to be the boss. But impression that I received from his site is certainly not one of love, joy or peace.

I clicked on his audio feed an heard something akin to a super-villain, laughing about how successful his ploy was, to stir up controversy about the trivial Jessica Simpson thing so people could hear about really important stuff: his 9-11 theories. Apparently he concocted this whole protest singlehandedly to attract traffic to his site. Meanwhile media people are scooping this up, talking about "intolerant christians".

THE PROBLEM

The only reason the media can report so sloppily is that believers have a huge propensity to focus on God's judgment and the expense of His mercy. Many people associate the church with hellfire & damnation rather than unconditional acceptance and grace. People don't bat an eye at sloppy reporting since we are often argumentative and antagonistic. The next thing that has happened is that under the buzzword of "tolerance", there is huge pressure to be politically correct and to twist the Bible around so that it endorses just about anything. Those of us who don't want to either be antagonistic or of this anemic brand of "tolerance" are stuck in the middle trying to figure out what to do. The "tolerants" and the antagonistics seem exempt from this quagmire. It's easier to be a black/white thinker.

WHAT TO DO

What is the appropriate response when people who call themselves "christians" act in this manner?

Pray for them. Pray for John Connor, the webmaster and voice behind this trumped-up false controversy. Don't pray out of anger or fear of other people's reaction, just sincerely pray that God will cause truth to be apparent. Pray that John becomes overcome with God's love. Ask God to use this person's boldness and his writing and technical abilities for redemptive purposes. Also pray for Jessica Simpson and her dad.

Outside Inside Reality

2005-07-30T11:18:00.000-07:00

Outside Reality TV, Into Reality
[Disclaimer: this blog has been particularly thorny to write, and there are many caveats that may not have been cleared. Please read accordingly, leave comment if needed!]

[Regarding Mr. Busey's team prayer in "Celebrity Fit Club 2" SEE PREVIOUS BLOG]

Unfortunately America is long past the point beyond which we can expect people to join with us under Jesus' name in prayer. I am not selling out to ecumenism here, just making a point.

Erosion
Somewhere between 1990 or all the way back to the late '60's, there has been an erosion of the Judeo-Christian social culture that America was founded upon. I am thankful for this heritage and want to preserve it, but I also realize that we cannot force unwilling people back into a mold that they do not want.

I will not go so far as to settle for this situation. I just don't think laws and arguments for their own sake will convince people. Actually it's probably better to pray for genuine heart change for the public rather than just a return to what they perceive as 1950's values. There is a significant percentage of the culture that resents that term and what it represents to them.

Our Perceived Response
The normal response of the religious community in my experience to this reality is to try to 1. convince the disenfranchised objectors that America's heritage should be preserved intact. This is a noble aim, but doesn't always work since the emotions tend to overrule logic. When this doesn't work, we often 2. don't know what to do, so we 3. reinforce the us vs. them mentality and 4. forget about God's perspective and get really afraid and upset.

I stated above that I believe in preserving America's heritage. I think where the faith community misses it is by pursuing a noble desire with tainted motivations. Please allow me to qualify this - I grew up in a faith environment with disciplined, virtuous people who studied the Bible. However when they started talking about the hot buttons (politics, abortion, left-wing social activism, evolution, prayer out of the public school, etc...) people really started getting upset, which can in fact be entirely appropriate. I think that a lot of the media coverage of "Religious Right" activities in the 80's captured this perception and broadcast it to the world, making Christians look angry and mean.

In my experience, I witnessed too much of this to completely discredit people's negative reaction. When AIDS came out, I didn't see many people praying about it; instead we stated it was God's judgment against homosexuals. I don't remember praying for president Clinton much, and when he lied under oath about his "indiscretions" many of us gleefully tuned in to the radio talk-show pundits, eagerly awaiting his impeachment. I could list a lot of other stuff but I am depressed already.

It was just for Clinton to be reprimanded for lying about his conduct. No one would deny that AIDS is a consequence of having sex with an infected person (although many believe that "protected sex" will always protect them), and it may be accurate though not easy to label it a "judgment". When we stop at "God's judgment" people don't hear the redemptive side, that God wants to reconcile us vertically & horizontally.

If I had AIDS, I might well realize and regret what I did and perhaps want to repent, but hearing that this is "God's judgment" against me, I might think God hates me and won't ever forgive me. The intended communication is "we are all responsible for our sins, but Jesus has paid this penalty on our behalf, if we will allow Him to change our thinking and behavior". If we say and do things outside of a truth-in-love motivation, the enemy can take advantage of it.

As I said in an earlier blog, the media thrives on broadcasting the worst of behavior, so it is tough to win a positive spin. They rarely catch us doing the right things, unless it is in the realm of social action. I'm glad more Christians are getting caught feeding the hungry and building homes and doing Tsunami relief. I hope we will try to turn other perceptions around one-on-one, outside of the media zone.

We have a lot of ground to cover. God is after individual people and has called us to be reconcilers. He guides us by his spirit as well. Below is an additional strategy that I have found to be effective.

Try This At Home
What I propose might work better is 1. ask the disenfranchised objector to tell you why they feel the way they do, and 2. try to find out what happened in their life (divorced parents, bullying, religious hypocrisy, moral failures, and broken trust are a few) to cause their disenfranchisement. Then you [gasp] 3. express sincere sadness over these events and in qualifying cases (such as any religious issue) 4. become an agent of reconciliation ("I understand how you feel about religious people being a bunch of hypocrites. I've gotten a lot of flak from them too, but Jesus isn't like that. I go to church myself, so it really hurts to know that we [the religious community] could have hurt you in that way.")

When people experience this kind of sincere empathy they are now more aware that you might actually care about them. You might now have a choice to do several things, among them 1. keep on talking about Jesus' love (or whatever else you sense God might want you to communicate, 2. go back to talking about America's moral heritage, or 3. something else.

Or perhaps the person was so mad that he or she spat in your face or assaulted you verbally or something in the previous paragraph. If this is what happened, you have been persecuted for righteousness. Congratulations. Rejoice, etc... but make sure to forgive the person and pray for them & that God sends somebody else to love on them.

You may have objected to this notion of assuming other people's mistakes as some sort of hypocrisy in itself, or that the other person should have to first repent before experiencing reconciliation with their church issues. You may be right and that may well have been how it worked for you. I would rather risk this than to watch an opportunity to offer God's love to somebody via an apology for something an affiliated person may have done to them. Heck, their perception may have been totally wrong as well, but I want to take the opportunity to bring Jesus into the situation.

What Changes Things

2005-07-29T07:55:00.001-07:00

What Will Change People?

1. Prayers of brokenness

2. Love for lost souls

3. Fasting

Lifestyle Prayer

Thank God for bringing back the "house of David" - a restoration of king David's prayer temple which joined passionate music and fervent prayer and fasting. Best of all, people that share the vision of lifestyle prayer encounter a massive priority shift in their lives. They begin to think of themselves as followers of Christ and not primarily as American Christians. Their values are God's dream rather than the American Dream.

After Praying

After praying, they do things motivated through God's love, such as social and political action. Their actions do not resemble those portrayed in the news programs of the '80's, because their faith is not in candidates or political parties. They are supportive of a candidate or party to the extent that the candidate or party supports God's laws for the earth. Does this mean we "legislate morality"? Absolutely. I wish I realized sooner that every other belief system is trying to do this, although most other groups are not interrogated about it as much.

Those Trying to Legislate Morality Include

Groups who maintain...

Child Pornography is OK, "in the privacy of your own home"
Dad + Dad or Mom + Mom are equally beneficial for children & society as Dad + Mom.
Video Games with secret X-rated downloads shouldn't be "censored" from anyone
Underage girls should be allowed to travel to another state for medical procedures without parental knowledge or consent.

As well as...
Activist Federal Judges
Polititians
Gambling Moguls & Municipalities
People for the American Way
Move On.org
Corporations

Every other religious groups...
Every other religious sect...
Athiests...

And finally
Christians

The neat thing about America is that whoever wants it bad enough gets to make the laws. The neat thing about Jesus Christ is that he has the power to change people's hearts. The neat thing about God's kingdom is that there are tools that will change the world around us if we want it bad enough to use them.

What Won't Change America

1. Wishing for the good old days
2. Waiting for the rapture
3. Disgust, judgment, or fear-motivated petitions to God
4. Human plans, political or otherwise
5. Making sweeping judgments and lists of hostile groups such as the one I made under the previous heading. Doing this tends to cause others not to trust you (could you blame them?).

Case #1: Celebrity Fit Club

2005-07-29T07:55:00.000-07:00

Celebrity Fit Club 2

People who are called to love Jesus and love others can receive a lot of wisdom through the good and not-so-good examples of other people. Reality TV contains an abundance of examples of the latter type. This show's plot is to take pampered celebrities and subject them to basic training-type tactics to help them lose weight while amusing America and creating financial dividends for the parent conglomerates.

The Cast

For our purposes, the main cast is team#1 (I forgot their name). This team consists of captain Gary Busey (Action Movie star who is a minister), Willie Aames (Eight is Enough, more recently "BibleMan" Superhero), Victoria Jackson (SNL, now a Christian Comedian), and Wendy Kaufmann, the "Snapple Lady" who I am sure is of a Jewish background.

The Exploits

To their credit, these characters often are supportive, encouraging, polite, and genuine. However, the nature of reality TV is to celebrate the worst of human behavior so that the viewer should watch cautiously, assuming that their on screen personae are a collage of the worst behavior exhibited, under artificial conditions contrived by the producers.

Dirty Deed #1

Willie Aames has missed his target weight goal for another week and the drill sergeant pays him a surprise house call. Willie is having a bad morning and doesn't want to deal with this for whatever reason. So the episode contains a lot of rude behavior from Willie such as door slamming, yelling, and garden-hosing of the drill sergeant, culminating in a yelling match in the "boardroom" scene. To his credit, it's obvious that Willie knows he is "in the flesh" as he admits, but I cringed for him the whole time.

Deed #2

Gary Busey is the team captain and kicks butt in a boxing match, scoring points for his team. He is whupped at the end of the match so he calls for a team prayer session. With so many other professing Christians on the team this seems like a great move, but the Snapple Lady takes offense to the end of the prayer which of course invokes Jesus' name.

Gary is wiped out from the boxing and snaps back about "team unity" and that sort of thing, and it gets very uncomfortable especially when he declares "the AntiChrist is among us". Willie and Victoria in the meantime try to smooth things over but it is awkward.

Suggested Tips for Getting Along in the Real World

1. Don't expect people to want to pray, especially outside of a vague ecumenical context, unless they are visibly open to it.

2. When people cry foul in response to a religious element, don't rail back without thinking. Listen to them and be willing to suck it up.

3. On your own time, ask God for discernment and what to do next.

4. It is probably better to be meek than to be inflexible in the heat of the moment.

5. -Flip/Flop Statement: Having said this, Gary's boldness and proactive orientation is a huge asset to him. I believe that the aftermath of this experience will be positive, especially if he has learned from it. In any case, we do need bold people that occasionally offend others since the rest of us may be so timid and afraid to speak out that God can't do much through us. The biblical record is full of such outspoken and tactless characters whom God used in huge ways. (Peter, Paul, Elijah etc...)

What I'm Not Saying

2005-07-29T07:35:00.000-07:00

THE REALITY

I'm not overlooking the reality of others not accepting or tolerating our faith. Jesus said that there would be persecution and trials. However I notice that some people appear to be so focused on persecution that they have overemphasized it, and may in fact be bringing more of it on themselves. We often get what we expect.

If we expect people to be fair and honest, generally we will see more of those positive aspects in people. If we expect other people (traditional stereotypes being the dreaded college professors, evolutionary scientists, liberals, feminists, goth teens, devil-worshipping rock stars, etc...) to be hostile, we will definitely get flak from them. I think often this is partially or totally due to the way we have set our minds to expect them to act.

Personally speaking, when I do encounter "persecution" from people, I would like to have the satisfaction of knowing that I'm getting it in spite of the love and transparency with which I engaged them. Otherwise I don't have a clear conscience about it, since I can be pretty snide, abrasive, and opinionated without God's help. Or so I have been informed by others.

THE LIST

Here is a list of surefire ways to get heat from others, but I'm not sure that it counts as "persecution for righteousness":

1. Be obnoxious after people know about your beliefs
2. Stay in the church ghetto
3. Refuse to develop your social skills any further so that you might not be able to relate to real people and be comfortable in such situations.
4. Fixate yourself on martyrdom complex and unduly ponder eschatological themes (i.e. "Left Behind", end times speculations) so that you become slightly paranoid and jumpy.

And my current favorites

5. Spout off in your favorite indignant old-time country preacher voice just about anything
6. Be sure to use "Christian-ese" language and terminology normal people don't understand
7. Be partisan and out-debate the other guy. Win at all costs!

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?

I'm speaking from experience. Coming from a traditional church background, I had to practice the art of going into non-church recreational environments and hanging out, taking a genuine interest in people, and blending in. Whether it was an office party, or watching friends performing in a bar, I spent a couple years on this! I forced myself to go multiple times into an uncomfortable environment because I wanted to be like Jesus, who described himself as the "friend of sinners".

Would it be unbiblical to just learn to be more polite or aware of other people's differences when we talk with them. Is our spiritual mission to convince people that you're right? Or is it to reconcile them to God? We don't need to water anything down, or sell ourselves out, just make sure people are seeing more Jesus than ourselves. This blog will contain some good and bad examples of this concept as seen on TV and elsewhere in the culture.

Is this Blog for You?

2005-07-29T07:23:00.000-07:00

This blog is for 2 groups of people:

1. Christians who want to make friends instead of enemies

I believe that 90% of the conflict is not necessarily what we say, but how we say it. What happened to speaking the truth with love? Plenty of people are speaking truth without love, and love without truth. Why not do both? Many people try to prove things to people they barely know, not realizing those people won't have much reason to listen. When we listen to people first, they might actually feel cared for enough to choose to listen back eventually. I am currently more interested in becoming an ambassador of reconciliation than a member of the debate club.

2. People who hate Christians

Those who have been irked, offended, or wounded by someone claiming an affiliation with Jesus Christ. Join the club! I just might have been the one who ticked you off, but I'm trying to change! I hope that this impersonal blog still might inspire you to give Jesus a listen and overlook the mistakes his followers make.