Last October, a family got in the news for trying to get in the news. They claimed that their son was trapped in a home-made flying-saucer balloon that was flying through the air, only to find out later he had been hiding in the attic. In the media frenzy that followed, it came out that this family had staged the whole thing as a publicity stunt. It’s amazing to me what people will do for a few minutes of fame. On television, people will embarrass and humiliate themselves in unbelievable ways. The TV show “American Idol” is full of people trying to get fame any way that they can. A few years ago there was a young man that couldn’t sing,(William Hung) but because watching him try so hard was funny, he got national attention and even recorded three albums made a video and appeared on various talk shows. That he didn’t seem to be in on the joke was the saddest part. He didn’t seem to understand that people were laughing at him. (And now there's General Larry Platt who similarly doesn't seem to understand that he's the joke, or maybe he just doesn't care.)

We all crave love. We were designed for it. However the love we were designed for comes from God, family, our church and real friends. But the love of the public is as lasting as the snow we got in South Texas this week. Public attention is not real love, and people who pay attention to you because you are famous are not real friends.

The crowd demands entertainment, but they have short attention spans. Christian group Barlow Girl has some good things to say about this. Whether it's fame, popularity or just peer pressure, the love of the crowd isn't worth it. In the fantastic song "5 Minutes of Fame" they sing,

“I always said the thing that meant the most to me was my very integrity. Who would have thought I'd ever trade it all for popularity? 'Cause the truth is though I've made it to the top, I'm anything but satisfied. I gave up the only thing that mattered for this empty life.”

Popularity and fame, whether it is in your school, your neighborhood, or the whole country is fleeting and empty.

Paul warned the Christians in Rome about those who are trying to mislead them. “Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people” (Romans 16:17b-18). Not everyone who sings your praises has your best interest at heart. Be careful who you listen to. “A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps” (Proverbs 14:15). Do what's right, not what brings the most applause.

“A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Proverbs 18:24). Look around. Who are your true friends? One person has said that a true friend is someone who comes in when the rest of the world is going out. True happiness cannot be found in the fleeting praise of the crowd. “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:33).



Thoughts? Stories? What other Bible verses apply?

Temple Grandin, Ph.D., is the most accomplished and well-known adult with autism in the world. Now her fascinating life, with all its challenges and successes is being brought to the screen. HBO has produced the full-length film Temple Grandin, which premieres on Saturday, February 6th on HBO. She has been featured on NPR (National Public Radio), major television programs, such as the BBC special "The Woman Who Thinks Like a Cow", ABC's Primetime Live, The Today Show, Larry King Live, 48 Hours and 20/20, and has been written about in many national publications, such as Time magazine, People magazine, Forbes, U.S. News and World Report, and New York Times. Among numerous other recognitions by media, Bravo Cable did a half-hour show on her life, and she was featured in the best-selling book, Anthropologist from Mars.

Dr. Grandin didn't talk until she was three and a half years old, communicating her frustration instead by screaming, peeping, and humming. In 1950, she was diagnosed with autism and her parents were told she should be institutionalized. She tells her story of "groping her way from the far side of darkness" in her book Emergence: Labeled Autistic, a book which stunned the world because, until its publication, most professionals and parents assumed that an autism diagnosis was virtually a death sentence to achievement or productivity in life.

Dr. Grandin has become a prominent author and speaker on the subject of autism because "I have read enough to know that there are still many parents, and yes, professionals too, who believe that 'once autistic, always autistic.' This dictum has meant sad and sorry lives for many children diagnosed, as I was in early life, as autistic. To these people, it is incomprehensible that the characteristics of autism can be modified and controlled. However, I feel strongly that I am living proof that they can" (from Emergence: Labeled Autistic).

Even though she was considered "weird" in her young school years, she eventually found a mentor, who recognized her interests and abilities. Dr. Grandin later developed her talents into a successful career as a livestock-handling equipment designer, one of very few in the world. She has now designed the facilities in which half the cattle are handled in the United States, consulting for firms such as Burger King, McDonald's, Swift, and others.

Dr. Grandin presently works as a Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University. She also speaks around the world on both autism and cattle handling. At every Future Horizons conference on autism, the audience rates her presentation as 10+.

I watched a bit of the film Temple Grandin, starring Claire Danes, tonight. Fascinating and moving stuff. I've never thought much of Danes as an actress, but that changed tonight.

Let me lay my cards on the table:

1) If you put overturning Roe v. Wade to a popular vote, I'm in line early ready to vote in favor of protecting the near half a million unborn babies killed each year, and if you're a politician, the best way to lose my vote is to align with the pro-choice agenda.
2) Nevertheless, I don't believe laws -- or the protests and petitions and politicking that seek to achieve them -- are how we are going to eradicate abortion.

The emancipation of the slaves was necessary. But it didn't end racism.

I am not proposing an either/or. What I'm proposing is that evangelicals take the harder route, adopt the harder cause, that we aim for Spiritual change of hearts more than we aim for legal stay of hands.

Here are some thoughts on how we may do this:

1. Gospel-centered preaching. You knew I was going to go there. :-) Here's the thing: Pastors who preach culture war receive Amens from the already convinced and almost nothing from everybody else. At its worst a steady dose of this creates an unhealthy "us vs. them" mentality that has us thinking of our enemies in ways the Sermon on the Mount strictly forbids. But pastors who proclaim the freedom from sin and abundant life in Christ lay groundwork for zeal for life, not just for winning political battles. A gospel-driven pro-life agenda means hating abortion because we love women and we love the unborn. That sounds like a no-brainer but so many of our evangelical countrymen just sound like they hate abortion. And preaching isn't just for pastors. In general, more evangelicals need to talk Jesus more than they talk politics, or else we unintentionally communicate that our greatest treasure is "getting our country back" and that our chief message is political. We are great with the good news of the kingdom of the founding fathers. Let's return to the good news of the kingdom of God.

2. Reframing the abortion discussion. Lots of others have said this better than I can, but I think we've dropped the ball on how we frame the abortion issue. It is a matter of human rights, which is a perspective I first heard from my deeply pro-life friend who voted for Barack Obama. (I know, figure that one out.) But this is how we will best win in the political arena, I think. In many cases, this involves merely shifting from arguing against selfish moms (or whatever) and arguing for an appropriate definition of when life begins and becoming advocates for the voiceless unborn, exploited and commoditized. We can steer the discussion into the same rhetoric of the abolitionist and civil rights movements and end up stirring more hearts, I think.

3. Creating cultures of adoption and rescue. Human trafficking is the emerging danger. It's been going for a long time, but the Church is recently (and awesomely) stepping up efforts to combat it, even here in America. My friend Justin Holcomb and his wife lead efforts of Mars Hill Church in Seattle to rescue sex workers, sex abuse victims, and runaways in their city. Others are working hard to rescue young girls from the sex trade. On the other front, the Church is exponentially embracing the beauty of adoption. It has become a bona fide movement, thank God. The reactive culture of rhetoric and protests must give way to these proactive missionary movements. We will begin changing hearts and minds on these matters of life and death as we create cultures of adoption and rescue. But only communities can create cultures, so churches have to buy in corporately. More families adopting, more families serving and taking in pregnant teens, more churches helping families do those things, more churches loving families and kids, more churches finding ways to minister to the exploited and marginalized and to support missions and organizations that already are . . . these are the pro-active, missional steps to creating truly pro-life cultures.

4. Prophets, not pundits. I don't know how else to put this. We need an MLK for the pro-life movement, a unifying and prophetic voice. We need intellectually strong but charming, powerful, winsome statesmen. We need people who aren't just jockeying for time on FoxNews. I don't even know if this is possible today, given the nature of media exposure and the divide between political parties -- whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans marched with King; I wonder if we haven't so aligned the pro-life cause with conservative Republicanism that that kind of unity would be impossible for our cause -- but we need a peacemaker with a powerful voice. The only guy I can think of who has access to black, white, right, left, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, Christian and non, U.S., European, and everywhere else -- and has the respect and listening ear of them all -- is Bono. And I think he's probably pro-choice.

5. Technology, technology, technology. Do you know why the abortion rate is going down? I think it's the increasing advances in technology, particularly ultrasound technology. Women are seeing their babies. Technology is catching up with abortion. Smart churches will support their local crisis pregnancy centers, which are often frontlines on the struggle for the unborn, and help them get ultrasound equipment. No, they're not cheap. But life isn't either.

6. Love. I'm coming full circle, here, but if we were to outlaw abortion tomorrow, we'd still have 500,000 women a year who didn't want their babies. You have probably already had unwed teenage girls get pregnant in your church, and if you haven't you probably will at some point, and besides all that, there are plenty in your community and city. Before and in addition to removing abortion as a legal option for them, we have to love them, welcome them, teach them, serve them. Only the love of God can change hearts. Let that be the ammunition of our war.

(Cross-posted at Gospel-Driven Church)

Pat Robertson says the earthquake in Haiti is just one more link on a chain begun when Haiti signed a pact with the devil to be free of the French. And he didn't mean "the devil" figuratively. He meant they literally signed a pact with Satan himself.
Not only is this untrue, it's silly.

But most of us have tuned Robertson out and did so long ago.

But I bet we still have plenty of Rush Limbaugh listeners. I don't mean to knock political radio or talk shows or what-have-you. But I do mean to knock Rush Limbaugh.

On his radio show yesterday Limbaugh said the earthquake in Haiti will play right into Obama's hands by allowing him to play up his "compassionate" and "humanitarian" credentials, and that the President will use this crisis to "boost his credibility with the black community."

As if that weren't enough, Limbaugh also pivoted off a caller who complained about Obama directing the public to the White House website to find charitable organizations operating in Haiti to promote a conspiracy theory that finding these charities via the White House website puts your money at risk of not reaching Haitians.

Limbaugh also seems to feel we've done enough already for Haiti: "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax."

In terms of our attention, can we throw this guy under the bus yet?

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
-- Romans 8:15

I hadn't realized this, really, until a couple of years ago, but the church traditions I grew up in dealt heavily in dispensing spirits of fear. I felt an aversion to a lot of what I experienced -- although not to the core doctrine I was taught, which was all solid -- all through my adolescence, but it took me into my thirties to put a label on it: the spirit of fear.

The revivalistic invitationalism reduced the gospel to a bet-hedging spin on Pascal's Wager, hinging on the weekly intonation of "If you were to die on your way home tonight, would you go to heaven?"

It's a great question. It's a valid question. But in the context of the spirit of fear, it didn't just create a tremble at the thought of hell, but a tenuousness in our thinking of salvation. (Was I ever really sure? Maybe I should say the prayer again or rededicate.)

The list of things to be afraid of began when I was young and did not relent.

- The inherent witchcraft in the practice of trick-or-treating or any other recognition of Halloween.

- The New Age infiltration of everything from He-Man action figures to rainbow stickers.

- Nuclear war, which Gog (or Magog -- I can't remember which) was going to wage on us, according to prophecy.

- Catholics.

- Calvinists.

- Basically any non-Baptists.

- People who drink beer.

- Demon stories told by youth leaders at camp.

- Skits about car crashes.

- Youth camp games like Underground Church, which involved "pretend torture," and Sheep and Goats, which involved simulating a mass disaster and sending certain church youth groups to "hell."

- Satanism.

- Backmasking in rock and roll music.

- People and places and works to boycott and/or protest.

- The rapture.

That last one really did me in. The original "left behind" movies (A Thief in the Night and those other classics of 70's Christian cinema) had me so in fear of being left behind, I had ongoing nightmares. I was twelve years old and had to sleep on the floor of my parents' bedroom. I ended up getting saved and baptized again.

I'm a neurotic guy anyway and was plagued with a natural lack of self-confidence. This stuff really messed me up.

Yet I'm not mad about it. I get angry sometimes about the stuff itself, and the spirit that gives rise to it. But I know when pastors and churches deal in this kind of stuff, they basically mean well. There are subtle issues of control and power going on in there, but I know a lot of this stuff was meant to move people to Jesus. And yet the damage it does along the way can leave scars that remain long past salvation. This is not the sort of confidence gospel wakefulness is meant to create in the born again.

I know all my pastors and Sunday School teachers and church leaders loved me. They cared about my soul. But they made me a very frightened, timid, powerless believer. And I was ill equipped for real life, because I had been given the spirit of fear.

Thankfully evangelicalism seems pretty much "over" a lot of this stuff. But we peddle in new fears, and it grieves me. What are we afraid of now?

- That liberals will take God out of America. (As if that was possible.)

- That Democrats will pass bad laws.

- That stores will say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

There's a lot more, and most of them are of the culture war variety. Politics and social concerns. You may think these are all valid issues, and some of them are, but the way they grip the evangelical's attention and the way they drive him and her into anxiety, preoccupation, anger, obsession are all evidences of the spirit of fear.

The difference maker is this: Is God sovereign or not? Is Jesus risen and now sitting on the throne or not? If so: Relax.

I know all the fear-spirit peddlers usually mean well. But an imperfect love, even though love, is not the perfect love of Christ which drives out fear. If God is for me in Christ, who can be against me? What shall I fear?

Nobody. Nothing.

(And by the way, it really confuses (and sometimes concerns) people if you don't give a crud if the Ten Commandments get taken out of the courthouse or if "In God We Trust" gets taken off the money. They can't take Christ out of my heart or God out of his heaven, can they? No? Well, I'm all set then.)

The love of Christ is perfect, securing salvation eternally, fostering assurance and confidence in him.

Let the world toil and tumble. My Redeemer lives.

In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
-- 1 John 4:17-18

The late Larry Norman being brilliant accompanied by the great Mike Roe (of classic Christian rockers The 77's).

At the new Evangel blog, Russell Moore posts:

An evangelical is a fundamentalist whose kids dress up for Halloween.

A conservative evangelical is a fundamentalist whose kids dress up for the church’s “Fall Festival.”

A confessional evangelical is a fundamentalist whose kids dress up for “Reformation Day.”

An emerging evangelical is a fundamentalist who has no kids, but who dresses up for Halloween anyway.

A revivalist evangelical is a fundamentalist whose kids dress up as demons for the church’s “Judgment House” community evangelism outreach.

A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist whose kids hand out gospel tracts to all those mentioned above.

Inspired by the Twitter meme #firstworldproblems, here are some frustrations that only make sense here.

The grocery store is out of the brand of bread you like.

Gasoline is up 5 cents a gallon from last week.

So hungry but "nothing sounds good."

The water coming out of the faucet tastes "funny."

The cable guy won't give me a specific appointment time.

My kid didn't collect enough box tops to earn an ice cream party.

If I don't water my lawn every other day, the grass browns.

The wait at the bank is, like, ten minutes long.

It's hard to get up for church because the bed feels so good.

The pizza delivery is late.

She only refilled my drink once. Do I tip 15%?

The bathtub drains slowly.

I don't feel "fulfilled" in my job.

Church camp is at Daytona Beach so you might have to tell your kid he has to sell candy bars or mow lawns to pay for half.

Kanye West aggravates you by interrupting an acceptance speech on MTV.

Feel free to contribute your own in the comments . . .
---

Btw, one two-thirds world problem is "death by mosquito bite." Foreign concept to us. But a measly $4 buys a mosquito net.
I buy mine via Mosaic, an awesome missions org run by my friend Justin Holcomb and his wife Lindsey who recently left Virginia for Seattle, WA and now work for Mars Hill's educational and social justice efforts.
100% of your contributions to Mosaic go directly to the projects you want them to benefit. All overhead costs are paid for by a single benefactor so that every penny contributed by everybody else goes to help those in need. Can't beat that.

Deliberating whether to spend $4 on a mosquito net that helps save a life or on a cup of coffee? That's a first world problem for sure.

Michael Moore has made a movie that argues that capitalism is evil.

He is charging people to buy, distribute, and attend this movie.

This is weird.

A 10-year-old homeschool
girl described as "well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising and intellectually at or superior to grade level" has been told by a New Hampshire court official to attend a government school because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith.

The decision from Marital Master Michael Garner reasoned that the girl's "vigorous defense of her religious beliefs to [her] counselor suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view."

The recommendation was approved by Judge Lucinda V. Sadler, but it is being challenged by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, who said it was "a step too far" for any court.

The ADF confirmed today it has filed motions with the court seeking reconsideration of the order and a stay of the decision sending the 10-year-old student in government-run schools in Meredith, N.H.

...

In addition to homeschooling, the girl attends supplemental public school classes and has also been involved in a variety of extra-curricular sports activities, the ADF reported.

But during the process of negotiating the terms of the plan, a guardian ad litem appointed to participate concluded the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting" and "different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief ... in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs."

I hope this isn't a trend. I can remember a friend of mine being rejected from a PALs (Peer Assistance and Leadership) program in high school because in his interview they found him to be too dogmatic in his religious beliefs. They especially didn't like that it was important to him to convert others to Christianity. (I learned from that, and managed to shape my answers better to avoid that same rejection...I got in.)

Someone who believes they are right in matters of religion seems to be a threat to the multi-cultural secular establishment.

The state is poking its finger to far over the wall of separation.

I think she'll ultimately win this battle though. The free exercise clause of the constitution is just too strong to be overshadowed by the state's interest in a child having a "tolerant" worldview.

Shot and shared by Bill Kinnon, an excerpt from his wife's upcoming documentary on church leadership in the 21st Century.

NT Wright on Blogging/Social Media from Bill Kinnon on Vimeo.

Intellectual Property/Copyright: This video may be embedded on blog posts where this particular topic is being discussed. Permission is NOT given to re-edit this or use it in any other context other than as a standalone video with the MKPL bug, opening and closing.

Most of the men in my Lifegroup (church small group) are older guys, their average age is probably 60. A couple of weeks ago all of my Lifegroup men met for breakfast and the conversation turned to television, and the men started to talk about how they remember the first TV set in their homes.

For my kids, it'll probably be hard for them to imagine that a pre-Internet world existed before they were born. Similarly, I was born in 1976, and from my perspective television has always been around; it's an integral part of life. Not my life, necessarily, but life in the world at large.

Like the the present day Internet, the television and all that comes with it -- cable, satellite, video games, DVDs -- have achieved a technological coup in just a few decades. For better or worse, the television informs us, and, to a large extent, defines our thinking and dictates our moral convictions.

I've been recently reading a Christian book by an author who, I'm certain, is heretical in many of his opinions. As a result of my knowledge of this author I'm finding myself reading more proactively -- thinking about each paragraph, checking Scripture citations, trying to identify any exegetical fallacies. In the same way, I think, that sort of aggressive and proactive way of consuming a product is exactly the way a Christian should approach television viewing. Passive television consumption is dangerous because the box is always saying something, and most of the time it doesn't run parallel to the Book.

I don't think abstinence from television viewing is the answer for everyone, but I do think everyone -- Christians especially -- should take an inventory of exactly how much time is used every week watching television. Now compare those hours with the number of hours interacting with your fellow believers, praying, or reading the Bible. How many times this week did a television program tell you that fornication is glorious? Compare that with how many times this week God's word told you to run from immorality. How many times this week did the television show you glorified drunkenness and debauchery? Compare that with how many times you read the words of JESUS or Paul, encouraging you to walk in light and truth.

Like anything that feels good, the tube can be highly addictive. It's best to observe your behavior around it. How do you act and how do you feel when you're in the presence of your television? When you walk into your living room in the morning, do you automatically turn on the television? When you come home from work in the evening, do you reach for the remote like an addict reaches for a syringe? Does the cable programming wash over you, assuaging your anxieties, or, at the very least, allowing you to passively entertain yourself all evening? Can you imagine going a day, or a weekend, without turning it on?

My advice is to own your TV. Don't let it own you. Assume the box is lying to you until you actively confirm that it's telling you the truth, and, even then, be leery.

Nothing like a political post to get things jumpin' around here...

I first noticed it during the primaries. The comedians would slam Hillary (and Bill), and McCain, and Bush and then they would make fun of how people responded to Obama. This clip and this one of Robin Williams illustrates what I'm talking about.

Comedians have been making fun of politicians for years. (Going all the way back to Will Rogers at least.) In recent memory, they made fun of Nixon for lying, of Gerald Ford for being a stumbling, clumsy doofus, of Carter for being a hick, of Clinton for sex, G.W. Bush for being stupid.

And it's personal. They make fun of the person himself. Saturday Night Live, Late Night talkshows, and now all the comedy shows, will mock the person. They tell jokes making fun of them. Or they will have someone do an impression and make fun of that person for something.

But not Obama. Not ever. At least not that I've seen. How about you?

When you watch a typical comedian riff on politics, they'll make fun of Bush, Nixon, Clinton, McCain and whoever else...and then if they make a joke about Obama, they never make fun of Obama himself. They only joke about how people respond to Obama.

Or they'll even defend him.

But they haven't yet made fun of him personally that I'm aware of. Not once.

Since when as ANY president been off-limits to all of the comedians? I think this is a first.

I don't watch everything obviously, and I don't have cable.

I could be wrong. But I don't think so. Feel free to disprove me under comments. I welcome it.

From Alternet

"Have you guys heard the news?" Maggie (name changed) unwrapped the scarf from around her neck and patted her flat belly. "Preggers." It was around 30 degrees outside, and her cheeks were splashed pink from the Indiana wind.

. . .

My girlfriend Ali and I exchanged a surprised look. Our forks, dotted with pasta sauce, dangled identically, flaccidly, in our hands. She was quicker than me to gain her composure, and turned to address her best friend.

"What are you going to do?" Unnecessary question, really -- a conversational life vest, used when you’re sputtering for something to say. We knew the answer. Maggie, a 22-year-old college senior with no intention of bringing a child into the world yet, was going to have an abortion. She told us that she had already made up her mind; she had even determined the time, date and location. A better question might have been, "How are you going to pay for it?"

She answered that one before we had a chance to ask. "We’re having a party Friday to raise money," Maggie said. "You guys are obviously invited."

An abortion party. For the price of whatever we were willing to donate, she explained, we could partake of baked goods, beer and dancing. It was going to start at 10 p.m. at Maggie’s.

I found the article to be very sad, although for different reasons than the author probably intended. It descends into a bunch of argle-bargle about the roles of men and women when it comes to abortion, feminist anger, a punting of male responsibility (the author is a guy) and stuff about how women's "voices had been excluded from relationships, dialogues and society in general" and etc.

It's hard to read. Made worse by the fact that someone brought their three-year-old to the party.

[H/T The Corner]

I don't think what I'm about to suggest is all that revolutionary. I would hope there's common ground here, regardless of whether you're a conservative or progressive, Republican or Democrat, right-wing nutcase or bed-wetting liberal.

And this has nothing specifically to do with the Cap and Trade bill the House of Reps passed yesterday, although that legislation was the inspiration behind this post (as was the TARP vote earlier this year).

So, without further ado, here are some basic parliamentary principles I'd love to see our elected representatives follow:

1. A bill presented to Congress needs to be about what it's about. In other words, every part of the bill needs to be about the main theme of the bill. For instance, if the bill is about stopping global climate change, then it can't have provisions in it that authorize the expanding of some non-climate-change related boondoggle project (a museum, airport, etc) in an on-the-fence member's district
2. As a corollary, if said member wants to use federal funds to fund the aforementioned boondoggle project, he or she should submit a bill to Congress that is specifically about funding said project.
3. Voting on any bill in Congress should not occur until the bill has been finalized and published on the internet for at least 72 hours. Most bills before Congress run hundreds or thousands of pages (though principle #1 above would put the kibosh on that). It's insane for our Congresspeople to vote on bills that they haven't read. Most of us won't spend our own money on something if we haven't done at least a little research to know what we're getting. How come Congress thinks it's OK to spend our money when they have no real way of knowing what they are spending it on?
4. As a corollary, it's insulting for our representatives to vote on bills that their own constituents have not been at least given the opportunity to read. It makes the whole business look really shady.
5. I realize that there's give and take when debating pieces of legislation, and that a bill will morph over time. So I'd relax the 72 hour time-line for additional amendments to a bill that arise in debate. But any amendment would need to adhere strictly to principle #1 above, and at least a 24 hour period should be required for amendments to be published and digested before rushing through a vote.

A note to our Congressional leadership: I understand that it seems important, sometimes, to finish a vote before a long weekend or holiday. But, trust me, the world will survive just fine, even if it has to wait a few more days for our representatives to make sure they know what they are voting on.

These principles seem fairly common-sense to me. Uncontroversial, even. Do I ask too much?

From Mona Charen over at The Corner

New York State has decided to use taxpayer funds to pay women to donate their eggs for embryonic stem cell research. That didn't take long. We warned, didn't we, that proponents of this research who claimed that they were only going to use the frozen embryos in fertility clinics slated for destruction anyway were deceiving the public. Welcome to the brave new world of creating human embryos in order to use them as commodities. This is a terrible descent.

With a nod from John Calvin, the Geneva city council in 1553 burned Michael Servetus at the stake. Servetus was a heretic who denied the Trinity of persons within the Godhead and denied paedobaptism. While Calvin preferred to give Servetus a quick death via decapitation, he had to compromise with the council who preferred to let Servetus burn to death.

On a related note, a few years earlier, Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli, and his council, persecuted Anabaptists by giving them their "third baptism": a death by drowning. Zwingli would later die by the sword, fighting Catholics in neighboring counties.

Sadly, the history of Christianity is rich with bloodshed. Thankfully, these days we don't kill guys like Joel Osteen and whoever the guy is who wrote The Shack, but I think the history of dealing with heresy should teach us that orthodoxy -- right thinking -- really matters. To be sure, I don't condone certain ways the church has dealt with heresies in the past; in fact, I find many of those ways appalling. While I'm not a pacifist, I tend to think that the Anabaptists had a lot of right ideas when it came to their aversion to violence.

Heresy is serious, and an appropriate response to heresy is something the evangelical church needs to grapple with in this age of pluralism, "tolerance," and sweltering anti-Christianity. As far as an appropriate response goes, violence is not the answer.

If this is intentionally awful, it is brilliant.

I'll lay my cards on the table: I'm not a big fan of the culture war.

Here are some reasons why:

1. Its expectation is foolish.
Whether you believe America was ever a "Christian nation" or not, it is theologically naive and demonstrably false to think laws or policies make anyone a Christian. You cannot create or recapture a people for Christ by illegalizing sin. (Which, by the way, is not to say that certain sins shouldn't be illegal. It is only to say that, for instance, outlawing gay marriage or repealing Roe v. Wade won't make anybody a Christian, much less make America "a Christian nation.")

2. Its medium is moralism, not gospel.
This is similar to my point above. It makes kingdom militancy about religion, not gospel. It seeks a Christian coercion of others toward better behavior, not an incarnational sharing with others of the better Way.

3. It is theologically naive.
It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don't know Jesus to act like they do.

4. It is often hypocritical.
It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don't know Jesus to act like they do especially when we can't get our own house in order. So long as large numbers of Christians continue contributing to the divorce statistics, the porn industry, and more acceptable sins like gluttony and gossip and greed, we have zero business telling the world how to act. Judgment begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). Repent, Church!

5. It battles against flesh and blood.
We're not supposed to do that. (Eph. 6:12)

6. Its treasure is temporary.
I am not overly concerned with the culture war because it is a battle for something that doesn't last. Culture is temporary. I am far more interested in the transformation of peoples through the transformation of people than I am in the subduing of culture through the modification of behavior. Nobody ever got into heaven by acting better.

7. It makes idols of comfort and safety and propriety.
The culture war is largely driven by fear. We're afraid our public schools will ruin our children, we're afraid gay people will ruin our families. We're afraid a Democrat will ruin our country, we're afraid liberals will ruin our neighborhoods. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect our family, and safety of course is not a bad thing. But neither is it a biblical virtue. Ditto comfort. Or have you not read the New Testament? I'm just gonna put this out there, but maybe it's God's design for us as people and for Christians throughout all time to endure hardship, danger, persecution, and even death. Wanting not to suffer is human. Thinking we deserve not to is unChristian.

8. It has no root in Jesus' ministry.
Jesus knew heart change didn't come through political power, cultural pressure, or zealotry, so he was keenly disinterested in those things.

9. It mangles mission.
The culture war sets the Church above and against the world, rather than in but not of the world. It turns us into picketers and politicos. It makes us suspicious and speculative and sensationalist. It takes relationship completely out of the missional equation. It turns us from peaceful ambassadors for Christ into pontificating warriors for Christianity. It does not ask us to serve and sacrifice, which are non-negotiables for Christian mission, but to maneuver and argue.

In Romans 1:5, Paul writes:

Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

A few things:
Paul says we "call" people. This is the work of gospel proclamation, carried out in both word and deed.
Paul does mention "obedience," but this obedience is the kind that "comes from faith." Faith comes first, then obedience. It never ever ever ever works the other way.
Lastly, and most importantly:

10. The culture war is carried out for our name's sake, not Jesus'.
I am not a fan of gay marriage or Roe v. Wade, and even though I would vote to outlaw the former and repeal the latter, neither of those actions in themselves will make a single unbeliever say "How wonderful Christ is!"
The bitter truth is that the Christian culture war is not carried out for Jesus' glory and renown, but for ours. It makes "Judeo-Christian values" the end-game, the treasure of our mission. And that is idolatry. Nobody was ever legally or argumentatively or even culturally convinced to believe in Jesus. But millions have been loved and served and submitted to into believing.

Dying for somebody says a whole lot more than debating them.

I choose the gospel. Come hell or highwater, come a liberal administration in Washington for the rest of my life or actual suffering. My treasure is not Christianity, but Christ. My hope is not a Christian nation but a Christ-saturated universe. I trust not in princes but in the King of Kings. I choose war on hell and death through the liberating power of Jesus in the glorious gospel of the grace of God.
For the glory of God.

(Cross-posted at GDC)

Make it stop . . .

EVAN THOMAS: Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We're seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We're not just parochial, we're not just chauvinistic, we're not just provincial. We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God. He’s-

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

THOMAS: He's going to bring all different sides together.

Emphasis mine.


[H/T Jonah]