Just thought you should know. :-)

In my previous post, (right below this one, just look down) I told you what happened to the mutineers of the H.M.S. Bounty. They took some women from Tahiti and settled on an island in the South Pacific. After all but two of the men had been murdered or killed, only one man remained. He found a Bible, turned his life over to Christ and led the women and children on Pitcairn Island to become a Christian community.

It was originally written as a column for my local paper, and I posted it here at Thinklings at about the same time I submitted it to my editor.

I told my wife the story and she thought it was so cool, that on Thursday morning at Ladies Bible Study at our church, she came to my office and asked me to come tell the ladies the story. They thought it was cool too, as it illustrated what they were studying about reforming Kings who turned their people back to God's law.

I, of course emphasized that the fact that the current residents of Pitcairn Island are still Christians is a testimony to the power of God's word.

Enter Thinklings commenter Jonathan W. In only the second comment by a reader,in which he told me that most of the island's grown men (including the mayor) had been charged with sexual crimes against children going back decades.

You can go see the drama unfold as the truth does under the original post's comment thread. (Of all the articles linked there, this is probably the best one.)

Imagine my shock and dismay to learn something like that after I had written triumphantly about it here, in my local paper and shared it excitedly with a bunch of ladies in a Bible study.

I told everyone that all of the Island’s current inhabitants are Christians. Turns out they weren’t acting like it. The girls on the island were “coming of age” sexually speaking at ages 12-14, at least that’s what the residents of Pitcairn claim. Their argument in court was that because of their inherited Tahitian culture, that it was culturally acceptable. Some of the women who had been victimized for years said differently. (And for those of you who might remind me that Mary was around 14, on Pitcairn Island they weren't necessarily getting married young, grown men were having sex with girls as soon as they hit puberty, and probably some before that.)

What are we to learn from this? Does this horrible new information mean that the point of the previous post is invalid? After all, I was trying to demonstrate how God’s word changes lives, and I pointed to the fact that the island’s current residents are still Christians as evidence of that. Does their rampant immorality disprove that premise?

I don’t think so. Instead, it teaches us another lesson: just because one generation embraces the Gospel, doesn’t mean the next one will. It also shows us that religion can be empty and meaningless if it is missing the most essential ingredient.

The most essential ingredient is knowing and trusting Jesus personally. The Gospel doesn't change your life just because you hear it on Sunday. Your children may continue your religious traditions, but that doesn’t mean that they have what matters. In fact, if religion is all they have, they have nothing.

This important truth is why Moses stood on the banks of the Jordan telling the new generation what God had done in their parents’ generation. (That’s the entire book of Deuteronomy.) He also asked them to renew the covenant with God that their parent’s had made. He knew that if the new generation didn’t deliberately choose to follow God, they wouldn’t.

Again and again we see this pattern repeated in the Bible. For example, the entire book of Judges is about how one generation turns back to God after suffering for their sin, and crying out to him, and then each succeeding generation forgets about God again and “does what is right in their own eyes.” Many generations later, King Josiah rediscovers the book of the Law of God which had been forgotten in a back room of the Temple. (Ironically, that book was probably Deuteronomy, the very book whose whole purpose was to remind the next generation to remember God and to choose him for themselves.) This discovery causes him to lead his people in repenting of their sins and dedicating themselves to the LORD.

There’s a reason that Moses (yes, in the book of Deuteronomy!) says that, you are to teach your children to Love YHWH with mind, passion and action (6:4-7).

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.

And at some point they must make the decision for themselves. Each generation has a choice: whether or not they are going to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before, for good or evil.

Of course, that lesson here isn't quite so shocking. It's as old as the very first "second generation" --- Cain and Abel.

Well, OK, maybe not all Jeopardy! champions do, but at least one does.

Our very own "The Calvinator" who has been a regular Thinkling reader and faithful commenter for years now, just finished his run as champ on Jeopardy!

(OK, maybe he doesn't read us for research. If he had he would have nailed the Scalia answer.)

I watched you today dude. I'm sorry that I missed all the other appearances. My wife watched with me and we were cheering you on.

I do have some sad news for everyone. Calvinator got robbed today. He lost to some chick who does classical music for ice skaters or something. (I think someone must have sabotaged your buzzer.) Did you hear me yelling the answers at you through the TV? (I was yelling, "Kennedy! Kennedy! KENN-AAAH -DEEEE"! and "Appalooooooooosa!") Well, I know that TV doesn't work that way, and that it was taped, but still, I was trying to coach you dude. If only you could phone a friend....that should be a new feature on Jeopardy! I can see it now:

"Yes, Alex, I know I buzzed. But I don't actually know the question. But I'd like to use my "phone-a-blog" option. I'll be conference calling "The Thinklings". I owe those guys a lot for all of my success, and if anyone can help me, it'll be them."

Seriously though Calvinator, that's a big deal and we're proud of you. You know lots of stuff...and I can't imagine the pressure, plus timing the buzzer right... You were a worthy champ. Excellent job!

If you're game, I'd like to interview you for this blog and post it here. Will you let me know under comments if you are up for it?

Congratulations Calvinator!

(If any other Thinklings readers get on a game show, I want to know about it so we can brag on you!)

LOST started on September 22, 2004. I was there. Watched the first episode. The commercials alone had convinced me it was something special.

I just checked the thinkling archives to see if I tried to tell you people it was awesome. Turns out, I did. Here's what I wrote back on October 27, 2004. (A mere 4 episodes having been aired.) Read on in shock and wonder to see how right I was.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004
"Lost" Is A Great Show
Posted by Philip @ 8:13 am CDT | Edit | Delete | Send a Trackback
Filed under: General

Have you seen Lost on ABC? It's fantastic. It's about 48 people stranded on an island. I've always enjoyed stories about surviving a la Robinson Crusoe. This show is more realistic than Survivor ever will be. One of the things I like about it is that it's different than anything else on television. It's not yet another law/cop/medical/family drama. Each episode usually emphasizes a different character. There are flashbacks that reveal the backstory, and they are usually quite surprising. There are mysteries to be solved, about the island, about the people, about what happened. The show is well-written, and well-acted. The characters are complex, and in a way the show is kind of genre breaking.

What's great about the characters are that they are different from other shows. They don't fit into any neat stereotypes. For example,they have a long-haired overweight guy in his 20's, named "Hurley" that is just plain cool. The dude is funny, likeable and ...real. I watch him and think, he could be a friend of mine. There just aren't many shows that give realistic people good roles.

This is a show that I enjoy watching so much that it frustrates me when it's over. You feel like you are getting to know the characters and you actually enjoy spending the time with them, even though they are stranded on a deserted island and might die.

Another cool aspect of the show are the ethical dilemmas:
-What do you do when you have hundreds of bodies? Do you leave them for the wild animals? Do you bury them yourselves? Is it OK to burn them?
-Is it OK to go through dead people's luggage or take their shoes?
-If you discover that the liklihood of being rescued is very slim do you tell the others? Or let them keep hoping?
-If you are rescuing someone from drowning, and then see a second person what do you do? Do you leave one intending to go back for them?
-If someone is going to die in a few hours is it OK to speed up the process?
-If one of you is an escaped convict, do you tell the others?

And they go on and on and on... I love watching the show and asking myself, "What would I do in the same situation?"

It's awesome. If you haven't watched it yet, you should start. It's well worth it. I concur with what Jared said in another post. It's the best thing on television right now. It's on tonight. Record it or watch it. Get in now, while it's still getting started. I have a feeling it's going to be a great ride.

(Oh, and I might also be prescient. Notice I wrote that a mere two days after the first episode aired.)

So the next time I tell you to watch a show, a movie or read a particular book, you should listen to me. I'm obviously the best recommend-er in the world.

It's the one on the top of the page today.

"It is a curse to have the epic temperament in an age devoted to snappy bits."

- J.R.R. Tolkien

Seriously, what does that mean? Can anyone help me?

I tagged this under humility because I'd like to submit this query to you all with all humility. I'm tired -- very tired -- of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism flame wars, and I'm not trying to start another brawl here.

I'd like to get your various interpretations of 1 Corinthians 9:27: "But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified."

My question is what is Paul concerned about being disqualified from?

John Wesley said this:

This single text may give us a just notion of the scriptural doctrine of election and reprobation; and clearly shows us, that particular persons are not in holy writ represented as elected absolutely and unconditionally to eternal life, or predestinated absolutely and unconditionally to eternal death; but that believers in general are elected to enjoy the Christian privileges on earth; which if they abuse, those very elect persons will become reprobate.

John Gill said this:

The apostle's concern is, lest he should do anything that might bring a reproach on the Gospel; lest some corruption of his nature or other should break out, and thereby his ministry be justly blamed, and be brought under contempt; and so he be rejected and disapproved of by men, and become useless as a preacher: not that he feared he should become a reprobate, as the word is opposed to an elect person ...

What do you say?

I admit that when I read a word, and never hear a word pronounced, I don't always get it right.

I've been reading entertainment articles for years, and I think I just realized that I've been pronouncing "biopic" wrong.

I've been pronouncing it "BYE-ah-PICK". It just dawned on me it should probably be "bye-OH-pic" as in Bio-Pic, not bi-opic. I already knew what it meant. So it's meaning should have been a clue, but not to me. No, I'm too dense.

It reminds me of when I was in the fourth grade, reading a Hardy Boys book, and it dawned on me that "idiot" was pronounce "ID-EEEE-ought". I knew that word. But I thought "idiot" was pronounced "EYE-DOT". Hey, you phonics people, how do you sound "io" anyway? I just figured the "i" was silent, and it took a while for it to occur to me that the word I heard as "idiot" and what I pronounced as "Eye-dot" were the same word! (Yes, those in my life who know this story will occasionally call me an "eye-dot". Now you can too!)

OK, that's my embarassing confession. Now it's your turn.

What words did you pronounce incorrectly in your head as you were reading them? I'm guessing this usually happens with words you often read, but no one ever says. (I've never heard ANYONE ever say "biopic" out loud. Have you?)

Confess under comments.

Related question: what words do you read often but never hear spoken aloud?

. . . or if you've ever done this to someone else. From Stuff Christians Like:

When I was in college in Birmingham, I used to attend a church called Brook Hills. One Monday in the lunch room I noticed a kid that had sung a great song at church. I approached him by the cereal and said, "That was a really good song you sang yesterday, did you write it?" He looked at me with unexpected disdain and replied, "No, God did." And then he walked away.

I felt like such a heathen. At that point in my life I felt like God had gone silent. I wasn't getting any word from him. He wasn't even sending me fortune cookie length messages and this guy was co-writing songs with him? I couldn't get God to send me a postcard with, "wish you were here" on it and he was having a Hall and Oates moment with the Alpha and Omega. I felt hopeless.

Bam!

I once wrote about this topic, ages ago. I thought I'd reprint part of that old post here (if I can be so ironic as to hawk an old post of mine on the subject of humility):

And what, then, is humility? Surely Peter is not referring to the image that many of us conjure in our minds when we hear that word - false modesty, the refusal to accept a compliment, the constant putting down of oneself. We've all been there before. For instance, have you ever had this experience? In church someone has sung a song beautifully that has inspired you to worship God. Seeking to bless and encourage them, and, frankly, to thank them for using their talents in this way, you offer a compliment:

You: "Thank you so much for that song! You sang beautifully and it really touched me and led me into worship."

Them: "Oh, please, don't praise me. Praise God."

When what would have been far more edifying (and, frankly, a whole lot simpler) would have been the following exchange:

You: "Thank you so much for that song! You sang beautifully and it really touched me and led me into worship."

Them: "Thanks."

Many of us have actually been on both sides of that exchange. I'm particularly bad about accepting compliments myself. And that isn't humility. Neither pride nor false modesty equate to humility, because they both are attitudes of the heart that have self as their first concern.