Saturday, November 26, 2005

What A Great World!

Reuters reports a 105 pound woman ate a 10 pound turkey the day before Thanksgiving in less than 12 minutes. The whole thing!
Venerated in competitive eating circles as "The Black Widow," the Alexandria, Virginia woman said she trained for the event, held at a delicatessen in New York, by chewing gum to get her jaw in top form.

She said she plans to eat turkey again on Thursday, but much more slowly so that she can taste every bite.

Her victory was no surprise. She is ranked as the No. 2 competitive eater in the world, behind Japan's Takeru Kobayashi, according to the International Federation of Competitive Eating, which sponsored the turkey-eating event.

Thomas, who collected $2,500 in prize money, has also dominated her opponents in egg, cheesecake, baked bean, crab-cake, meatball, and fruit-cake eating contests.

Excuse me? The International Federation of Competitive Eating? Someone must be joking! Only they are not, as here is the website.

What a great idea! Sponsored gluttony! What's next, the International Federation of Competitive Hoarding? See how much you can hoard in a year! If the National Association of Competitive Swearing? Inconceivable!

Well, What Was It?

I don't do the politics thing well. I confess that I am somewhat naive about political things. I never liked the process of sausage-making.

And yet, I have become sensitive, though not overly so, of media bias. I am not really sure who to trust anymore for news, as all news seems slanted by the Left and the Right. Even if it is only a word of phrase, the meaning of a story can change.

A recent story by the AP, here, expresses concern for the upcoming Iraqi elections by UN official. This official is reported as saying "there were still obstacles to overcome to ensure that the violence did not turn people away from ballot boxes, as it had done at elections for an interim assembly in January." (Not an actual quote from the official, just a quote from the article.)

I was not aware that in the first Iraqi election last January people were turned away from the ballot boxes, in spite of the violence. A CNN story indicates just the opposite, here.
Initial reports indicated voter turnout appeared to be higher than expected, even in Sunni-majority areas where insurgent attacks have occurred on a near daily basis.

Many voters proudly displayed their ink-stained fingers in defiance of the insurgency. Each person who voted dipped his or her finger in ink to prevent people from voting twice.

The IECI clarified an earlier estimate of a 72 percent turnout, saying that the "figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field."

"What is certainly the case is that turnout has exceeded expectations throughout the country," the statement said.

Of course, increased violence can hamper voter turnout, but it did not seem to affect the last election. Why would the AP writer and the UN official make such a claim now?

It is, I think, thoroughly disgusting and immoral for recent suicide bombing attacks on children, here, or at a wedding of fellow Muslims. The acts of evil, or the acts of desperation, or the acts of "insurgents"? If this is what the "insurgents" are made of, perhaps that bodes well for freedom in the Middle East. Good people may disagree on the US involvement in Iraq, but no decent person should be able to defend the bombing of children receiving candy, or a wedding.

Anyway, my original impetus for this was the reporting of voter turnout in January, and then the contrasted fears that voter turnout would be hampered next month, when it wasn't in the first place. Seems an odd inclusion in the article to me, and may express the genuine views of the UN official, or the writer adding "spin" to his story.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

The Seven Deadly Sins in Narnia

I am leading a Sunday evening discussion for four weeks at Arcadia Presbyterian Church on the Chronicles. It has been great so far to discuss the genesis of the Chronicles, and then delve into some of Lewis' spiritual insights in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe the first week, and then The Horse and His Boy this past Sunday.

My good friend and colleague, Bob Ramsey, asked me if I had seen anything new this time round in the Chronicles. I have paid attention to Lewis's descriptions of Aslan. Aslan is described as terrible and beautiful (Chapter 7). In chapter 8, there is the great response of Mr. Beaver to Susan's question, "Is he--quite safe?":
"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver. "Don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe?'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

In chapter 12, when the children finally meet Aslan face to face, Lewis writes:
People who have not been in Narnia sometimes think a thingcannot be good and terrible at the same time. If the children had ever thought so, they were cured of it now. For when they tried to look at Aslan's face they just caught a glimpse of the golden mane and the great, royal, solemn, overwhelming eyes; and then they found they couldn't look at him and went all trembly.

In chapter 15, after the romp that Susan and Lucy have with Aslan after his coming back to life, Lewis writes:
It was such a romp as no one has ever had except in Narnia; and whether it was more like playing with a thunderstorm or playing with a kitten Lucy could never make up her mind.

This goes further in The Horse and His Boy, where Aslan appears as a fierce lion, and as a rather large cat.

The point Lewis seems to be making is that Aslan (Jesus) is both beautiful and terrible, powerful and gentle, loving and harsh, majestic and humble. Isn't it Paul who writes that in Him (Jesus) all things hold together? Too often we humans polarize these extremes. We say that Jesus "is my best buddy", expressing the beautiful theological truth of being God's friend. But this also runs the risk of trivializing the Lord of the universe to being merely personal.

On the other hand, we can worship the transcendent one who is the ground of our being, expressing the theological truth of his majesty and holiness. But this also runs the risk of keeping the intimate Lord far away from us.

I think Lewis brilliantly balances what could be the extremes in the nature of Aslan (Jesus), and allows them to coexist in tension with each other if need be. He does not define nor explain, just describe.

Well, I originally started this post with the intention of sharing an interesting article about the seven deadly sins in The Chronicles of Narnia, here. I found it thought provoking.

I am very much enjoying the Narnia series at church, and am hoping and praying that people will read the books for themselves, and discover what millions around the world have discovered in and through these books.

Turkey Talk

With Thanksgiving Day coming up tomorrow, here are some miscellaneous items about Turkey Day.

True stories from the Butterball Turkey Hotline, where people call to get advice on how to cook a Turkey from the experts:
  • Tofu turkey? No matter how you slice it, Thanksgiving just isn't Thanksgiving without turkey. A restaurant owner in California wanted to know how to roast a turkey for a vegetarian menu.

  • Thanksgiving Dinner on the run. A woman called to find out how long it would take to roast her turkey. To answer the question, the Talk-Line home economist asked how much the bird weighed. The woman responded, "I don't know, it's still running around outside."

  • Then there's the time a lady was picking through the frozen turkeys at the grocery store, but couldn't find one big enough for her family. She asked a stock boy, "Do these turkeys get any bigger?" The stock boy replied, "No ma'am, they're dead."
  • Snopes.com has the scoop on the "urban legends" surrounding the Butterball Holiday Hotline, here.

    And finally, as a public service, here is a link for turkey hotlines around the country.

    Tuesday, November 22, 2005

    Some Strange Stuff Going On Out There

    Links to some strange news items.
  • The end of civilized society is at hand. Golden Gate Bridge toll collectors get body armor.

  • Frozen turkey used to break windows of burning car.

  • World's Ugliest Dog Dies

  • Sometimes you just have a really bad day...

  • Japanese Man Repeats As Hamburger Champ

  • Pastor camps on church roof for turkeys You go, pastor!

  • Not now, honey, I have a headache. Check out the picture with this article. Ouch!
  • Enjoy!

    New Furniture

    Well, we finally went out and did it. Three years after moving into our house, we finally bought some furniture.

    We bought a dining room table, with four side chairs and 2 end chairs, like the one pictured to the left. We have been using an old faux butcher block table we bought in San Jose, when we were first married, almost 25 years ago! It has served us well, but it's chairs wore out long ago. And it really does not fit the decor of our dining room, which has dark wood, while our old table is honey colored.

    And while we were at it, we bought some living room furniture, like the set at left. Since moving in three years ago, our front room has been more of a staging area than anything else. And it has not been livable, except when we clear it out for a Christmas tree. Still, we have only bookshelves, a small desk, and a piano in the room. Now we will finally have some couches. I am looking forward to sitting with guests and talk without having to compete with the TV.

    Our social gathering space in the house is the back room, a converted patio, which is neither level nor square. And it leaks when it rains. It has two couches and a TV, a rather large TV, which is great for DVD's, and even greater for XBox and Nintendo. But it is not a great place for a conversation. And when the kids' friends come over for a marathon XBox session, there is really nowhere in the house to hide, except for the upstairs bedrooms. Now, with furniture, there will be!

    You'd think we'd be all moved in and settled after three years. Well, when the furniture arrives in about ten days, we will be. Then it will be time for some demolition and reconstruction!

    Monday, November 21, 2005

    Core Callings

    I read with great interest the recent article, "Seven core callings for Reformed churches."

    PCUSA Stated Clerk, Clifton Kirkpatrick, writes,

    "The core callings that we are proposing for your consideration for WARC are:

  • To covenant for justice in the economy and the earth.
  • To search for spiritual renewal and renewal of Reformed worship.
  • To foster communion within the Reformed family and unity within the church ecumenical.
  • To interpret and re-interpret the Reformed tradition and theology for contemporary witness.
  • To foster mission in unity, mission renewal and mission empowerment.
  • To build churches that are truly inclusive of all the people of God.
  • To enable Reformed churches to witness for justice and peace.
  • …We believe these core callings are not only the basis on which we should organize the Alliance but also are the core callings that should be at the heart of every Reformed Church so that WARC becomes a corporate expression of our shared values and our common movement to transform the world to the purposes of God."

    These seem to be fine, as far as they go, though I remain skeptical how a top-down organization will help make these into reality at a local level. However, my real complaint is about the order or these core callings.

    Kirkpatrick writes: The first priority on our list, by intention and not by accident, is for WARC “to covenant for justice in the economy and the earth.” This is the fundamental calling for the Alliance and for our churches coming out of Accra and the distinct contribution that WARC has to offer to the church ecumenical and to the world. We must do this one well!

    Silly me, I had always assumed that the "fundamental calling" and the "distinct contribution" of the church was true worship.

    As a first core calling, economic justice seems to me to be close to idolatry. It is as if the church exists to promote economic justice. While I agree that the promotion of economic justice should be a priority for Reformed churches, I cannot see how this is a higher calling, or a more essential core than worship.

    C. S. Lewis writes in the Screwtape Letters about just this condition. Screwtape tells Wormwood, "What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity And.' You know--Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New Psychology, Christianity and the New Order,...Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians, let them at least be Christians with a difference."

    When I read Kirkpatrick proposal that "the renewal of Reformed worship" be the second core calling, I cringed. He writes:

    It was clear to all of us that in covenanting for justice in the economy and the earth, we were taking on the “principalities and powers” of the present age. That will only be possible in the power of the Holy Spirit, which the churches must find through spiritual renewal and the renewal of worship.

    Certainly, no Christian mission is possible without the power of the Holy Spirit. With that I totally agree. But what makes me cringe is the implication here that the "power of the Holy Spirit" is a means to an end, that the worship of God is simply a means to an end. And even if worship is a means to and end, doesn't it make sense to make it the first priority?

    And then this: This focus on spiritual and worship renewal is in many ways a new venture for WARC.

    The renewal of worship as a NEW venture? Excuse my naivete, but what has WARC been doing? Worship in the church is like breathing for people. If people stop breathing, we die. If a church places worship anywhere other than the center of its activities, it, too, shall die.

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I believe in "Creation and Fall", makes the same point. In reflecting on Paul's Damascus Road experience, Bonhoeffer points out the questions Paul asks. The first is, "Who are you, Lord?" The second is, "What am I to do?" Bonhoeffer then reflects that this is the biblical order for each Christian, for each church. He says that the church always goes wrong when it asks the questions in the wrong order, what before who. Because what we are called to do is based on who is doing the calling. Without an adequate grasp of the Caller, the call is doomed to frustration and failure. Putting "justice in the economy and the earth" before the renewal of Reformed worship seems to be placing the "What?" question before the "Who" question.

    Perhaps I am being too harsh or too critical. But the renewal of our worship, the inflammation of our devotion to Jesus Christ, the transforming and empowering work of the Holy Spirit, the adoration of the beauty and holiness of the Lord, seems to be a more essential core calling than "justice in the economy and in the earth."

    Yes, Clifton, "where there is no vision, the people perish." But a vision of what? Of Who?

    Saturday, November 19, 2005

    The Axe Stays in Berkeley

    Cal 27, Stanford 3. Cal quarterback Steve Levy holds the Axe after leading the Bears to a 27-3 victory over Stanford. Four in a row. Sweeeeeeet!

    When Is Failure Not Failure?

    Why, when it is "deferred success", of course! An article by Arthur Spielgelman describes the top ten new euphemisms at use on our politically correct age.
    LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - In 2005, some people wanted the word "brainstorming" replaced by "thought shower" so as not to offend people with brain disorders, and they also wanted "deferred success" to replace "failure" so as not to embarrass those who don't succeed.

    Both phrases appear on a tongue-in-cheek list released on Thursday of the year's most politically correct words and phrases issued by Global Language Monitor, a nonprofit group that monitors language use.

    The phrase that topped this year's list was "misguided criminals," one of several terms the British Broadcasting Corporation used so as not to use the word "terrorist" in describing those who carried out train and bus bombings in London that killed 52 people in July, according to Paul JJ Payack, the head of Global Language Monitor.

    He added, "The BBC attempts to strip away all emotion by using what it considers 'neutral' descriptions when describing those who carried out the bombings in the London Tubes."

    According to the article, here are the top eight entries on the list:

    1) misguided criminals
    2) Intrinsic aptitude
    3) thought shower (instead of brainstorm)
    4) la racaille
    5) Out of the mainstrem
    6) Deferred success
    7) Womyn
    8) Common Era (instead of Anno Domini, A.D.)

    George Orwell would be proud.

    Friday, November 18, 2005

    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

    My wife and I just returned from watching a matinee showing of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. We really, really, really liked it.

    I liked it primarily because it is my favorite book in the series so far. I liked it because there was a wonderful mix of humor, pathos, and action. The "asking someone to the dance" sequence, though a bit long, is precious.

    I also liked the essential message of the book/movie. Each of the Harry Potter books seems to have a central message, which is geared towards character development. For example, in the second book/movie, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, there is the line from Dumbledore to Harry, "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." (page 333) No matter how gifted we are, (or are not), what defines us, shows us who we really are, are our choices.

    In this movie/book, there is another wise saying from Dumbledore, this time at a memorial service to Cedric: "Remember Cedric. Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy..." Several times in the book/movie, Harry faces a choice. Does he press forward to win fame and recognition, or does he slow down, and do the right thing, and thereby almost certainly forfeiting fame and glory? Tough choices for a fourteen year old. Tough choices for any of us!

    See the movie. You will like it.

    Thursday, November 17, 2005

    Belonging and Value

    I came across this quote from William Barclay this morning, as I was searching through my email. For some reason, it really struck me.
    It frequently happens that the value of a thing lies in the fact that someone has possessed it. A very ordinary thing acquires a new value, if it has been possessed by some famous person. In any museum we will find quite ordinary things-clothes, a walking-stick, a pen, pieces of furniture-which are only of value because they were possessed and used by some great person. It is the ownership which gives them worth. It is so with the Christian. The Christian may be a very ordinary person, but he acquires a new value and dignity and greatness because he belongs to God. The greatness of the Christian lies in the fact that he is God's.

    This quote from Barclay reminds me of the majestic opening question of the Heidelberg Catechism from 1563.
    Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?
    A. That I am not my own, but belong body and soul, in life and in death to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

    I am feeling more and more this fall the weight of belonging to no one. Both my parents have passed away in the last 18 months, and even though my wife and kids are a great source of comfort and affection, I still have this feeling of being alone. And yet, these words from Barclay and Heidelberg, written four centuries apart, bring me some comfort, in that I belong to God.

    Wednesday, November 16, 2005

    God on the Internet

    Jonathan Last has published an interesting article on "God on the Internet". It is published in the journal, "First Things."

    From church and ministry web sites, to God Blogs, the internet has exploded with religious content. Of course, there is an upside and a downside to everything. Check out the article though.

    Sunday, November 13, 2005

    Just Whom is This Divorce 'Good' For?

    A good article in Wapo on divorce.

    In it, the recent movie, The Squid and the Whale, is discussed. Also see here. The movie is reviewed here in the Los Angeles Times.

    This is one I plan on seeing, though the "R" rating makes me pause.

    Saturday, November 12, 2005

    Rohirrim!

    To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
    brought to you by Quizilla

    I guess I am a Rohirrim. But I do not like horses!

    Rohirrim
    Rohirrim
    HT: Hugh Hewitt

    Friday, November 11, 2005

    The IRS versus All Saints

    Much has been made recently about the IRS attempting to deny tax-exempt status for a local Pasadena congregation, All Saint Episcopal Church. Mark D. Roberts, pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church, has weighed in on this at his fine blog, here. Mark is performing a great service, carefully investigating and analyzing both sides of the issue. The original story in the Los Angeles Times is here.

    The IRS charges that former All Saints pastor, George Regas, preached a sermon just before the election in 2004 which was in favor of John Kerry, and against George Bush. The attempt to "influence" an election from the pulpit is forbidden by the IRS tax code.

    The question of whether Regas violated the IRS code is one question. Another would be whether the tax code is correct, or ought to be overturned. Another question is about the application of this archaic code.

    Several web sites from the political left seem to suggest, imply, accuse the IRS of going after "liberal" churches who oppose the war in Iraq, see here, here, and here.

    But something interesting is happening. Before this turns into a partisan ink-blot test, the Los Angeles Times reports that some conservative church leaders have been critical of this case.

    Indeed, in 1998, according to one report, eight churches were reported to the IRS for this infraction, all of them conservative. So let's stop the hand wringing about this administration attempting to silence churches. This is one case, a very public case. And the IRS has gone after conservative churches before.

    In a 1997 article in Christianity Today, (subscription required), conservative lawyer and defender of religious liberty, Jay Sekulow, defended a church for doing almost exactly what George Regas did at All Saints.

    At the Church at Pierce Creek, the pastor in 1992 told his congregation they could vote for anyone, but that anyone who voted for Bill Clinton would be committing a sin! The church took out a full-page ad in the Washington Times and in USA Today severely criticizing Bill Clinton for being pro-abortion and pro-gay rights.

    George Regas, in his sermon, criticized both Bush and Kerry, but not evenly. Bush's policies were severely criticized by Regas. There was no doubt, even though Regas never said so in so many words, that while not exactly favoring John Kerry, he was adamantly opposed to George Bush. And by implication, Jesus was also opposed to George Bush.

    In the Pierce Creek case, ACLJ attorney Sekulow maintains that the church did not violate the IRS code, in part because no political campaign benefited financially. Sekulow points out that the ads did not tell people whom to vote for, only that voting for Clinton would be a sin.

    Here is a section from the Pierce Creek article in CT.
    "I don't think any church should be regulated by the IRS with regard to what pastors say from the pulpit or in their writings," says Sekulow. "The IRS has gone way overboard and way outside its authority in this whole area, and they need to get out of it."

    Beyond the facts of any particular case is a debate over whether the IRS code is constitutional. Sekulow believes it is not, and he is not alone.

    "The practice of churches and clergy engaging in political rhetoric and activity is something that predates the Constitution," Hammar says. "The Church at Pierce Creek may have crossed over the line, but it's a highly questionable line to begin with from a legal perspective."

    While some consider church-state separation the pinnacle of a free society, others hold that unfettered speech is paramount.

    "The church should not be muzzled," Sekulow says. "If a black pastor in Louisiana wants to say, 'Don't vote for David Duke,' I think he has the right to say that and not to worry about tax-exempt status being revoked."

    In addition, to the whining and moaning of the Bush administration "targeting" anti-war pastors or churches through using the IRS, it should be known that a well-known case of a conservative church losing its tax-exempt status during the Clinton years, here. The parallels are eerily similar. And the Church at Pierce Creek actually did lost its 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.

    Personally, I think for Regas to suggest that he was fair in his sermon to both candidates did that he dis not violate the letter of the IRS tax law, is foolish. I understand the fear Regas and All Saints have in issuing an apology. It might appear that they were being "silenced" for their views. Again, I do not think so. It was the forum in which those views were expressed that seems to be at issue.

    However, I think it more foolish for the IRS to be going after churches in this manner. The gospel has political implications, and for pastors not to be able to address those implications from the pulpit is just not right. Of course, the question is, I suppose, how pastors and/or churches address those issues. Instead of a one-sided diatribe, open and honest debate with both sides seems to be the more reasonable way to approach it.

    Religious conservatives have every right to decry abortion, they see it as a moral issue. Religious liberals have every right to dissent and protest the current WOT, they see it as a moral issue. If not allowed the ability to dissent and protest, the gospel becomes trivialized, and faith is compartmentalized to only what "affects me."

    I will be interested to see how this story plays out in the weeks and months ahead.

    Thursday, November 10, 2005

    A Record Flight

    This morning, a Boeing 777-200 landed in London, after having taken off from Hong Kong yesterday. The 22 hour and 43 minute flight covered 11,664 miles, a new world record. Amazing!

    Of course, who would want to spent almost an entire day on a plane? Even with comfortable seats? Still, this is an amazing record.

    As a child, one of the joys I recall was going to the Minneapolis airport, Wold-Chamberlain field, with my dad and brother to just watch planes take-off and land. There was a free observation platform where people would gather to watch. Later, this platform came with a fee, and later still, it was closed to the public.

    I remember what a sense of awe I had in watching these huge planes, small by today's standards, take off and land. I loved the DC-7's and the Boeing 707's. My favorite was the wild Boeing 727, with its three rear mounted engines. Watching a plane taxi to the end of the runway, turn into the wind, wait, wait, wait, gun the engines, and then slowly begin to rumble down the runway. And then watching these planes glide in, lower, lower, lower, lower, until their tires screeched as they touched the cement runway, and the engines roared in reverse thrust to slow the plane to a halt. All very exciting stuff for a kid. And I still find it fascinating today.

    Anyway, quite an impressive record set today.

    Wednesday, November 09, 2005

    Yancey- Exploring a Parallel Universe

    Phillip Yancey is one of my favorite authors. He writes with wit, wisdom, fairness, insight, and humanity. A recent article is titled, Exploring a Parallel Universe.

    In it, he describes how people he encounters think of evangelicals. In each instance, there are sure proclamations that evangelicals "hate us". Yancey then asks if the one who made this statement actually knew any evangelicals. The response is usually, "no".

    I have run into this same phenomena at church and at my university class. Many of the church members and university students grew up in the church, and really do not know anyone who is not already a Christian. So when discussing what "they" think, one hears a whole lot of generalizations not grounded in reality nor experience.

    This pains me. And I think it pains Jesus. Jesus came to be with sinners, with people with different moral values, with people who had no interest in God. Actually, the people Jesus seemed to spend time with in the gospels were people who had no interest in the God popularly portrayed by the Pharisees, not the God and Father of Jesus.

    My friend and colleague, Scott Farmer, used to say, "There is no impact without contact." This is absolutely true! We cannot affect people with the love of God without being in a vital relationship with them.

    I loved this little section of Yancey's article:
    Only one person in the reading group has expressed interest in matters of faith. One evening Josh told us about his sister, now a conservative evangelical. She had been a drug addict, unable to hold a job or keep a marriage together. "Then one day she found Jesus," Josh said. "There's no other explanation. She changed from night to day."

    Josh asked me to recommend some books by C. S. Lewis or someone else who could explain the faith in a way that he could understand. "My sister sends me Christian books, but they're totally unconvincing," he said. "They seem written for people who already believe them." I happily complied.

    Reflecting on our conversation, I remembered a remark by Lewis, who drew a distinction between communicating with a society that hears the gospel for the first time and one that has embraced and then largely rejected it. A person must court a virgin differently than a divorcée, said Lewis. One welcomes the charming words; the other needs a demonstration of love to overcome inbuilt skepticism.

    One more reason to like C. S. Lewis! What an apt metaphor!

    Monday, November 07, 2005

    Glad to Help

    I had a great day today. After taking the kids to school, I drove east to Claremont, where I helped my friend, Tom Rennard, clear some tree branches. It was a good time to visit and chat about our own lives, and a good excuse to bring out the Gorilla Ladder and the Sue Norton Chain Saw.

    Tom is between positions, as I am. Our lives seem to model George Ladd's depiction of the Kingdom of God in the gospels. Our lives are currently between the "no longer" and the "not yet". We are no longer employed in our old positions, and we are not yet in our new positions, whatever and wherever they might be.

    And, of course, we talked most passionately about preaching, and communicating the good news of the gospel.

    Then, after a brief stop at Claremont Presbyterian Church to sign some loan documents, I was off to Azusa Pacific University. My former college roommate and ministry colleague, Tom Johnston, had brought his daughter, Kelsey, to APU for a visit. She is a senior in high school, and is interested in drama and education.

    It just so happens that I know the director of drama at APU (Brian Mercer), and one of the education coordinators at APU (Wendy Ramsey). So after lunch, we walked to see Wendy, and then walked over to see Brian. It struck me that Tom and Kelsey might think I knew everybody at APU. So I assured them that Wendy and Brian were just two people I knew well, and were about the only two people I do know well at APU. It was just a happy coincidence that Kelsey was interested in drama and education, and I knew those two people!

    I enjoyed making the connection. It gives me a thrill being able to connect someone who has a need with someone or something that can help meet that need.

    And it was nice to see an old friend.

    Disturbing News from France

    For the 11th straight night, French youths have burned buildings, burned cars, and shot at police. Last night, ten police officers were shot. These riots have spread from the suburbs of Paris to other French cities like Nice and Cannes. This is disturbing.

    What is equally as disturbing are some of the comments coming from French youths. In the NYTimes article linked above comes this comment:
    While everyone seems to agree that the latest violence was touched off by the deaths of the teenagers last week, the unrest no longer has much to do with the incident. "It was a good excuse, but it's fun to set cars on fire," said Mohamed Hammouti, a 15-year-old boy in Clichy-sous-Bois, sitting Sunday outside the gutted remnants of a gymnasium near his home. Like many people interviewed, he denied having participated in the violence.

    Excuse me? It was "fun" to set cars on fire? Nice.

    Evidently an informal bomb making factory was discovered the other day.
    Police also found a gasoline bomb-making factory in a derelict building in Evry south of Paris, with more than 100 bottles ready to turned into bombs, another 50 already prepared, as well as fuel stocks and hoods for hiding rioters' faces, senior Justice Ministry official Jean-Marie Huet told The Associated Press. Police arrested six people, all under 18.

    The discovery Saturday night, he said, shows that gasoline bombs "are not being improvised by kids in their bathrooms."

    Opinions in the US seem to be varied over what is happening in France. Given the general anti-French feelings of some in the US, they see this as France getting what it deserves. Some have seen in these events all sorts of ominous things concerning not only French politics but also immigration policy and welfare. I do not know enough about French politics or policies to know.

    And yet, I am not sure there are any conclusions to be gleaned from these events, yet. I remember well the riots (uprising?) here in Los Angeles following the first Rodney King trial. Burning and shooting and killing happened for days. It dominated the news. My dad, who never called me for any occasion, was so concerned by the images on the TV, he called to find out if we were all right. In fact, even though these horrible things were happening less than ten miles from our home, we were quite safe. But we did not feel safe at the time.

    Still, if someone overseas was watching, they could have assumed, "Well, this is what the US is really like. Riots. Mayhem. Shooting. Racism. What a country!"

    They would, of course, have been wrong. There were no riots in 99% of Los Angeles, and no riots in 99.999% of the US. And yet, the media images were omnipresent.

    I guess I am wondering, this morning, as I read about this and pray for the French government and people to come to grips with these events, I am wondering how much of our views of the world are distorted by what we see on TV, hear on the radio, read in the newspaper, and link to on the internet.

    I am also wondering about why these things happen. I wonder at the root causes championed by the NY Times, such as poverty and unemployment. It strikes me that during the Depression in the US, that in places like Akron, Ohio where the unemployment rate was 80%, there were no riots like this.

    People burning down their own buildings, their own cars, their own stores, their own neighborhoods seems to be insane to me. And yet, this was what evil is like. There is no rationale to evil. And there is a spiritual force within the human heart that needs to be tamed, or it results in this sort of behavior. In what moral universe is it "fun" to burn cars? What short-sighted vision of the world would lead to that conclusion?

    So I will pray for the French goverment. But I will also pray for a spiritual awakening in France. That people will see the folly of their behavior and repent. I was very glad this morning to see that leading French Muslims had condemned the violence.
    In an effort to stop the attacks and distance them from Islam, France's most influential Islamic group issued a religious edict, or fatwa, condemning the violence. "It is formally forbidden for any Muslim seeking divine grace and satisfaction to participate in any action that blindly hits private or public property or could constitute an attack on someone's life," the fatwa said, citing the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad.

    It's a start.

    Sunday, November 06, 2005

    Strange Thinking

    Yesterday, the following letter to the editor appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
    Hey, Glenn Sacks and Judge Alito: Let me know the next time you guys ovulate. For it is only then that you will be qualified to make any type of decision regarding abortion. For yourselves only, of course.

    DONNA TRIMINGHAM
    Redondo Beach

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/
    November 5, 2005

    While I respect Donna's right to her opinion, I disagree with her conclusion. More, I disagree with the basis of her conclusion.

    I find the writer's reasoning bizarre to say the least. Her rationale seems to be that of judges do not ovulate, they cannot rule on any abortion case, nor the constitutionality of abortion. In other words, it is not enough to determine what the law means through reason, one must interpret the law through their own experience.

    In this universe, a judge may not rule on a case involving corporations unless they had been a CEO? Or one may not rule on any church-state issue unless they were a religious person? (I guess this would be the exception, as a religious judge should probably NOT rule on a church-state issue?) A judge may not rule on anything concerning children unless they were a parent? A judge may not rule on anything concerning marriage unless they were married?

    Judges, it seems to me, are to be guided by reason and the law. They are to interpret the law, not from their own biases, but on the basis of precedent and reason, with a good dose of common sense.

    I encouunter similar reasoning patterns with my biblical studies students at Azusa Pacific University. For many of them, a disciplined approach to studying the Bible contrasts strongly with their devotional reading of the Bible. I believe the dichotomoy to be a false one. The closer one gets to what the Bible is actually saying, rather than what we wish it said, the more our devotion to Jesus Christ is fueled. But I digress.

    Many of my students through the years simply cannot read the Bible except through the lens of their own personal experience. Everything in the Bible, for them, relates to their own experience. Their reading is like this: Me---->My Experience---->The Bible.

    This allows only for a rather narrow view of the Bible, as any person's experience is limited. Still, this way of reading the Bible makes sense, to a certain degree. When my son, Mark, was born, my reading of the Bible changed in a fundamental way. Why? Because I was reading it, for the first time, as a parent. And so passages about the fatherly character of God took on a whole new meaning. Up until then, I had read those passages of God's fatherliness out of my experience as a son. Now, as a parent, I was able to read those passages as a son, but also as a father. And it opened up whole new vistas of meaning. Still, reading the Bible solely through our own experience is limiting, and perhaps dangerous.

    I think there is another way to read the Bible. Me---->The Bible---->My Experience. THat is, the Bible provides for a critique of my experience. For my experience, though real, can be interpreted in various ways.

    For example: one day I am confronted by my boss about something I failed to do. So in order to save face, I lie. I blame my failure on some external circumstances. My boss buys it, cuts me some slack, and encourages me to keep at it. I feel rather good about this. What could have been unpleasant, has turned out rather well. But then I go to the Bible and discover there are warnings about lying. "Aw, it's not as bad as all that", I think. "My experience proves that this is not the case." Instead of the Bible evaluating my actions, my actions wind up actually judging the truth and validity of the Bible.

    Or take this case: I have done something to hurt someone. I recognized it (after the fact), I owned it, I apologized, I asked for forgiveness from the person and from God. And while the person I hurt was gracious and said they forgave me, I still feel guilty. Of course, I continue to be ashamed for my stupid, sinful, reckless actions that hurt my friend. But why the continued guilt? The Bible clearly says that "if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9) My continued sense of guilt, then, proves the Bible wrong on this point? It does if I read the Bible solely through my own experience.

    However, if I read my experiences through the lens of Scripture, I discover that whatever feelings of guilt I have are only an indication of how I have processed this event, not an indication of whether or not God has forgiven me.

    This tendency to expand from my personal experience to universal truth is both simplistic and immature. I just hope Ms. Trimingham does not have a son, who asks her a "being male" question someday. She will, by her own logic, be unable to answer, as she never was a male. By elevating our experience to the final arbiter of life's questions, we unfortunately wind up trivializing our experiences.

    Friday, November 04, 2005

    Good News, Bad News

    According to a web headline today, the Shenango Presbytery just organized it's 69th church. That's the good news. Really good news.

    The bad news is that is the first church that presbytery has organized in 80 years! Yikes!

    Part of the church's mission is to grow, and to multiply, and to make new congregations. When working at a large Presbyterian church many years ago that prided itself on its growth, I discovered that there had only been seven new converts in the past decade who joined the church. (Of course, this does not count the converts who were influenced by the church and its members, who wound up elsewhere.) Still, I remember commenting to a friend of mine, "A church this size should have that many converts every year, by accident!" Well, I guess the same would hold for a presbytery as well-regarded as Shenango. One new church in 80 years?!? It's about time!

    My thoughts and prayers are with Rev. Angel De La Cruz and his congregation. He describes his congregation, “We are very charismatic in our worship, but very reformed in our theology.” God bless him! In many presbyteries, this sort of endeavor would be criticized into extinction. Their church name does not even have "Presbyterian" in it! After all, there is a "proper" way to be a Presbyterian. Being charismatic and being Presbyterian are to many, like oil and water. But for Word Centered Fellowship Church, oil and water DO mix! After 80 years, it's about time. May their tribe increase in Shenango, and across the PCUSA.

    Tuesday, November 01, 2005

    What About the End?

    What are we here for? This question has plagued human beings for millenia. I ran across the blog of Michael Kruse today, with a reflection on just that question.

    He also links to the faculty journal of Austin Theological Seminary, Insight. The Spring 2005 edition focuses on how many Presbyterians have avoided asking the question concerning the end of time. Kruse says that the journal has some excellent articles, and I would agree. I will be reading these articles carefully over the next few weeks.

    Many of my Presbyterian colleagues do not like thinking about eschatology, or "end imes". I am not sure why. Kruse thinks that we are too focused on the "here and now", and that may be true. There is more to the Christian life than accepting Jesus and then waiting around to go to heaven.

    Still, the popularity of the "Left Behind" series (70+ million copies sold), and of dispensationalism in Protestant churches has many Presbyterians feeling, pardon the pun, "left behind."

    My own experience in this was as a new Christian. I had given my life to Christ, surrendered, actually, in June 1976. I was given a New American Standard Bible (NASB) by my good friend, Mark Calcagno, and I read it voraciously. I also read a two volume book on the Gospel of Mark by Ray Stedman, pastor of the Peninsula Bible Church in Palo Alto. I think they were called, "The King Who Serves" and "The Servant Who is King" or something like that. It had a profound influence on my thinking about Jesus and about the Bible.

    The other book I read early on was "The Late, Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsay. It detailed Lindsay's take on the events surrounding the "end times", which were soon to occur. Millions bought the book, and took the message to heart. The church raptured. The rise of the anti-Christ. The tribulation period. The battle of Armageddon. The glorious appearing of Jesus Christ. I read it with awe and wonder.

    I also read it with a view that the man was trying to sell something. I had not read my Bible long, nor all that carefully, but it just seemed to me then that the current events Lindsay described fit too neatly with the obscure biblical prophecies he cited. I read it. I gave it back to the friend who lent it to me.

    It was only later that I studied about the classic Christian positions on the end times: amillenialism, pre-millenialism, and post-millenialism, with dispensationalism a special variant of pre-millenialism. I once heard a pastor say, "I, myself, am a pan-millenialist. I believe that it will all pan out in the end."

    Still, Kruse is right. With no clear vision of the future, the present is not as compelling, and it is easy to get lost in the day to day affairs we must deal with.