Differentiation of Self

It's somewhat common to hear those critical of organized religion level the accusation of brainwashing toward those who practice a faith - particularly Christianity - and particularly when it comes to educating children in the basic tenets of the faith.  In other words, there are some who feel that teaching and propagating the Christian faith is akin to brainwashing - people only believing what they believe because they've been told to believe it often enough that it just becomes a part of their reality, disassociated from any critical or reasonable thought.

One of the main ideas imparted to me during my seminary education was that of differentiation of self: the idea that in order to better understand reality and other people, one must be able to step outside of one's self and see how one has been formed and influenced by culture, family, relationships, religion, etc. Why is this important?  Because there are many things that you and I believe to be right and true, not necessarily because those things are right and true, but simply because that's what we've been taught or have observed our entire lives, and we've never questioned those beliefs.  In other words, we've been brainwashed in some areas of our lives and understanding, albeit unintentionally and without any kind of malicious intent.  It's just a natural product of being linear, cultural beings.  We repeatedly observe the world in a particular way, and we make conclusions about reality based on those observations, and moreover, we assume that our observations and subsequent conclusions are normative, or that they are prescriptive for all people in the world.  In a very real sense, we are all brainwashed.  And the teaching of self-differentiation states that the more we can identify this unintentional brainwashing, the more sensitivity and tolerance we will have toward those who have observed the world in different ways (because of cultural influences) and have come to different conclusions about reality (worldview).

This concept was the foundation of spiritual formation philosophy at Bethel Seminary.  The more we know ourselves in truth and why we think/believe the ways we do, the more we can grow in our knowledge of truth, understand why others envision God in the ways they do, and engage in dialogue with them through which we can all grow spiritually.  I believe there are several good elements of this philosophy, but there are also at least two very significant problems.

The obvious problem with this practice is the propensity for truth claims to be seen as a simple byproduct of cultural persuasion: in other words, you only believe Idea X to be true because it is a product of your culturally/religiously influenced observation of the world.  In this sense, no one can be absolutely sure of any truth claim, because our understanding of truth is suspect due to our heavily influenced way of seeing the world.  Nor can we condemn any ideas as being absolutely  false, since our reasons for doing so can always be called into question, due to our unseen, yet formative, persuasions.  This is one of the basic tenets of postmodernism.

A secondary problem with this practice is that it seems to me to be self-refuting.  Differentiation of self intends for us to do our thinking about life, relationships, truth, and the world with as good a grasp as possible on the propensity for our influences to color our thinking and interpretation of truth claims.  But the problem I see is that the process of self-differentiation is, itself, subject to those same influences.  In other words, if my influences color the way I see and believe truth, then those same influences change my ability to discern those influences.  Yes, I realize it's a bit of a mind bender, and it's also something of an infinite regression.  Put simply, it's akin to the reality that the claim "There is no absolute truth," is a statement of absolute truth.  The two cannot both be right.  In the same way, we can't discern our influences without have that process be influenced by external factors.

So then, we can conclude that everyone examines truth within a social, cultural, societal, religious, ethnic, etc. context, and these factors shape the way we think about truth claims and determine what is true.  In a sense, these influences "brainwash" us into seeing the world in a particular way.  But is that a good thing or a bad thing?  And what about the claim of critics of Christianity that Christians are brainwashed, and that they brainwash their children?  Are they right?

I'll try to tackle these questions in a subsequent post.  I've been thinking about these issues because of some stuff that has come up in my personal life recently, and also because of this article that was just published today on the Gospel Coalition website.  It makes some great points on some of what I've said here, but I want to comment more on it at a later time.

Cameroonian Connection

I had a fun experience today.

Since September I've been working on losing weight, and have been moderately successful in the endeavor.  This has precipitated a need for newer, smaller clothes, and has rendered my older, bigger clothes somewhat obsolete.  Since clothes for bigger (read: fat) people are, well, bigger than normal sized people clothes, they tend to be more expensive.  Significantly more expensive.  After all, there's more of us to cover, so more raw materials are needed.

Because of the expensive nature of my clothes, I figured I'd try to sell some of the ones I'm not using anymore on Craigslist, and kind of have my very own fat guy's online garage sale.  So I posted an ad with several pieces of clothes that I don't can't wear anymore.

A couple of days ago, I got a bite.  I connected with a gentleman through email and then by phone.  We made arrangements to meet together at my home today.  As I spoke with him on the phone, I noticed he had an accent, but I couldn't place it.  When he came to my door this afternoon, it was obvious that he was some sort of native African.  He was an older gentleman who walked with a cane and a limp, and had a great voice to go with his accent, and an overall very friendly disposition.

After he came in and started to look at the clothes I had for sale, and as the conversation flowed between the two of us, he shared that he was originally from Cameroon.  This tidbit led me to share with him that there were several people in my denomination who either had served as missionaries to Cameroon in the past, or were currently serving there.  We were able to talk a lot about it: why he left his native country, what he did there, his kids, his wife, his desire to some day return to his homeland, the cultural challenges he and his wife face in the U.S., and basically his whole life story.

It turns out that his reason for leaving Cameroon and his limp were related.  He was a journalist by trade in Cameroon, but got caught up in some scrapes with the current governmental regime in the country.  This led to some violence that was perpetrated against him, and in the process he injured his hip and would eventually need a replacement.  Immediately after this incident he left the country and never looked back.  His love for his homeland was evident, and he talked quite a bit about wanting to go back...someday.

As he talked some more about his native country, I relayed a bit of information that I had learned about Cameroon from some of our NAB missionaries when they have visited our church.  I told him about Dennis and Nancy Palmer, and their work at the Banso Baptist Hospital in Mbingo, Cameroon.

When I said "Mbingo" his eyes lit up, and he exclaimed, "You know Cameroon!"  It turns out that he knows all about the hospital and had a lot of positive things to say about it.  It was fun to talk about Cameroonian missions with this guy whom I've never met, who lived half a world away, but was now finding something in common with me in my living room.  It was fun.

As he left, he said, "I hope we meet again someday," and I said the same to him.  It was a fun meeting, and to think, it was brought about by nothing more than fat clothes and Craigslist!

Goliath's Head

I'm in the process of rewatching some talks by Doug Wilson that he gave at the Desiring God conference last year.  I was privileged to attend the conference in person, and it's nice to be able to re-ingest the things that were said there.  One of Wilson's ideas struck me as profound this time through.  He says:

The gospel means that you are privileged to carry the weight of your sin around the same way David carried Goliath's head.  The weight of your sin is cut off, and the only weight you ought to feel is the weight of victory.

A rather colorful way to describe victory in Christ.

God's Providence Over Circumstances

One of the great things about the Children Desiring God curriculum - at least the 6th grade curriculum I'm using for my class - is that it uses a lot of stories to teach concepts.  Quite frequently I will tell the kids a story about Charles Spurgeon or some other hero of the Christian faith.  Stories are a great way to communicate concepts, ideas, and most importantly, truth.

When I read the story scheduled for this week's Sunday School lesson, I was so blown away that I wanted to share it here.  It's often said that "God moves in mysterious ways."  While this is no doubt true, I would amend the phrase to state: "God moves moves in unfathomably mysterious ways that your puny, little finite mind can't even begin to comprehend," and this story illustrates it.  The purpose of this week's is to show the kids that God works in and through all kinds of circumstances - even things that seem to be totally unrelated, or even things that seem to be accidents.  In reality, God is sovereign over everything, and in his providence, he uses all circumstances to accomplish his plan and for his glory.

The story is below.  But first, a disclaimer: I'm not sure about the copyright status of this story.  As printed in the material, it's a re-telling of a published story, so I don't know what limitations, if any, are imposed on my reproducing it here.  You can purchase a copy of the book the story came from here.  If someone knows if I am in violation, please contact me and I will remove this post.  Now on to the story.

Richard McLellan, an Autralian missionary to Ethiopia, and three Ethiopian evangelists made a trip into the thick forests of Ethiopia to preach in an area where no missionary had ever been.  Near the village of Gifara, their destination, an old crippled man sitting by the side of the trail saw them approaching and yelled to them, "Do you have theword of life?  Do you have the word of life?

Richard McLellan waved his Bible and shouted back, "Yes, I have the word of life!"

The crippled man became excited and bounced up and down while calling to them, "Come!  Come!"  The village of Gifara welcomed them with open arms, the people running toward the evangelists and asking them to tell the good news.

In the five days of preaching in the area, not only the old crippled man, Gwobazi, was saved, but also 29 other people.

Twenty years earlier, Richard McLellan and his wife, Vida, were missionaries in a village called Bako, many miles south of Gifara.  Vida, a nurse, ran a small clinic in Bako.

One day, a very sick young man came to the clinic.  Although Vida cared for him diligently, his condition got worse until the only hope for him was to send him to a hospital in Soddo many days away over the mountains.  He was carried on a stretcher over trails for 50 miles and then placed in the back of an old truck for a two-week trip over the mountains.  The young man, Kebeda, was operated on in the hospital but his condition was so bad, that the doctors were unable to help him.  Because no one spoke Kebeda's language, no one could communicate with him or notify his people many miles away.

But the providence of God was at work and a few weeks later, a trader who only passed through the town of Soddo once a year was on his way to Gifara in the interior to buy coffee beans.  About 20 miles outside of Soddo, God in his providence gave the trader a toohtache - the word he had ever had.  He was in such agony, he thought he was going to die.  He didn't know what to do but God caused someone to suggest that he go to the hospital.  he was treated at the hospital and - providentially placed next to Kebeda.  The trader with the toothache was the only one in the hospital who could talk to Kebeda.

At the same time the two men were in the hospital, a woman from Gospel Recordings, Joy Ridderhoff, "happened" to stop in at the hospital as she was traveling throughout Ethiopia.  Two months earlier, she felt the Lord telling her to go to Ethiopia to produce recordings of the gospel.  She met the trader and persuaded him to act as interpreter to Kebeda.  Through the trader interpreter, she convinced Kebeda to record a simple gospel message in his native language.  A few days later, both the trader and Joy left the hospital.  But Kebeda never left the hospital - he died there.

The recording was made into records, but since no one could understand them, they were shoved into a cupboard where they laid for years.  Eventually, the records were put on cassette, and twenty years after the recording was made Richard McLellan took the cassette with him on his trip to Gifara.  So it was that when Gwobazi yelled, "Do you have the word of life?" Richard McLellan was able to play the tape of Kebeda's gospel recording.

Gwobazi was excited upon seeing the evangelists because years earlier, he had a dream of a man running down the train shouting, "The word of life is coming!  Believe the word of life and live forever!  Ever since he had the dream, Gwobazi would regularly pull his crippled body down to the trail to look for the man with the word of life.

Gwobazi heard the cassette tape and put his trust in Jesus.  The tape touched Gwobazi's heart because the voice ont he tape was that of Kebeda - his son who left home many years before.

What does "Tolerance" Look Like?

This is what tolerance looks like.  If you follow the link you'll find an article written by Shane L. Windmeyer, the gay man who started the brouhaha about Chik-Fil-A being a supposedly anti-gay company that funded discriminatory organizations.  In the article, Windmeyer talks about the experience of having Dan Cathy reach out to him during the scandal so they could talk to one another and understand each other's position more thoroughly.  Windmeyer accepted the invitation, and the two became fast friends.  So much so, that Windmeyer was Cathy's guest at the Peach Bowl in Atlanta earlier this month.

Windmeyer is very complimentary of Cathy, explaining how, although they disagreed, each was heard and understood by the other, while still maintaining their views.  Their minds were not changed, but they were able to come to a mutual understanding of one another which led to some real progress in the relationship between the two groups, and hopefully, between the two agendas in the larger sphere.  It's a great story of what can be accomplished between two opposing points of view if they simply respect one another and engage in thoughtful, meaningful dialogue with each other.

What's even more interesting about this article, though, is that I think it flies in the face of everything the tolerance crowd stands for.  As I've said before on this blog (here, here, here, and here), typically those who cry for tolerance actually want nothing of the sort.  In reality, they just want those who disagree with them to either shut up, or abandon their values altogether and join them.  As you can probably tell, this is not tolerance.  It's bullying.

Tolerance is not possible unless people disagree.  After all, if we didn't disagree with one another, what would there be to tolerate?  You would agree with me and I would agree with you.  We wouldn't have to tolerate one another because we'd be on the same side.  So the modern mindset that defines tolerance as an acceptance of something that goes against my beliefs and values is absolutely backwards.  It's not tolerance at all - it's forced agreement.

Tolerance only exists in circumstances where people differ.  It's an acceptance of the reality that people see the world differently than you do, and being OK with that.  It doesn't mean you stop talking, nor does it mean you abandon your convictions.  It goes even further when different people sit down for their mutual edification through a dialogue of the issues that are disagreed upon.  When we can engage in civil discourse with people whom we have significant disagreements, tolerance is in full force.

When you look at tolerance like this, it doesn't seem to be such a hot topic as many in the culture make it out to be.  That's because when they cry tolerance, they want their political or social enemies to either shut up or adopt their own beliefs.  That's not tolerance at all.  In fact, that's the definition of intolerance.  How ironic: those who label others as being intolerant are actually guilty of the very thing they claim to hate.

Can a Christian practice tolerance?  Absolutely.  Not only can a Christian practice tolerance, but a Christian should practice tolerance.  This does not mean that we give up our beliefs or worldview, mind you. In fact, if you have to compromise your beliefs you're not practicing tolerance - you're giving in.  The real question is, can a Christian practice tolerance and still call the world to repentance and the truth of scripture?  Again, I would say absolutely.  We don't stop loving people with whom we disagree just because we call them to repentance - in fact, we call them to repentance and the truth of scripture out of a spirit of love and concern.  And even if the world doesn't respond to our call, we continue to listen, try to understand, and find new ways of effectively preaching the truth to all who would hear it.

Dan Cathy showed us a remarkable way that Christians can practice tolerance (engaging those with whom we disagree) while still standing up for biblical truth.  Kudos to him.  And Kudos to Shane Windmeyer for practicing tolerance as well.

Bad Church Signs

I have a particular fascination with church signs.  By "church signs" I mean those changeable backlit signs that can be manipulated to emblazon anything from service times to catch phrases.  I like to see what a church puts on their sign, no doubt because our church has one of these signs, and also because in my early twenties, as the janitor at Riverview, it was my job to change the lettering on our sign.

It has become commonplace for churches to use these signs nowadays as a way of plastering what they think is some kind of memorable or cute phrase that is usually a play on words.  Most of the time, however, these phrases are over-the-top cornball, and probably serve to turn more people off to the church than bring in prospective attenders.

It wasn't until the past 10 years or so that churches used these signs for cutesy catch phrases.  Before that, most church signs were simply used to broadcast service times or special announcements.  When I was in the ecclesial janitorial business, church signs were a booming business.  Our church was constantly getting solicited by church sign companies, wanting to come and redo our church sign (it's kinda old).  I've watched several marketing videos (VHS tapes, that is) on the effectiveness of having a church sign in my days.

There is a church in Mendota Heights that was probably the first church in the area to put something on their sign that was somewhat cutesy or thought-provoking.  Except most of what they put on their sign wasn't cutesy or cornball - it was actually pretty good.  This church was located across the highway from my high school, and once in a while, my fellow students would comment on what was plastered on that church's sign.  And not in a mocking way, but in contemplation.

The trend these days, however, is to plaster some cutesy phrase that a preschooler wouldn't find amusing on your church's sign, presumably with the hopes of bringing people who enjoy the phrase into the church so they'll meet Jesus.  (Hey!  Maybe we can fulfill the Great Commission with our church sign and not have to talk to people!  Wouldn't that be great?)

I've posted about some of these goofy signs before, both from local churches in my area.  You can read about those signs here.  But today I drove by two other churches, and they likewise had goofy signs, one of which is just stupid, and the other this seminary-trained pastor doesn't even understand.  Judge for yourself:

Sign at Church A: "Google can't satisfy all your searches."

Sign at Church B: "Is the Son in your eyes?"

The sign at "Church A" is very similar to an internet meme seen at left (actually, Church A has posted the meme at left on their sign before, believe it or not).  The sign at "Church B" is something I don't even understand.  I realize that they're playing on words here, but what am I supposed to get out of "Is the Son in your eyes?"  Are they asking me if I'm a Christian?  Are they asking me if I've "seen the light?"  What the heck is going on there?  And better question: how is that supposed to make me want to go to your church?

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all churches who have such a sign to please, stop it with the cutesy phrases.  Nobody likes it.  It's not cute.  It's not catchy.  And I would be willing to bet that most people who see these signs drive past them thinking less of the church the sign belonged to than more of it.  In essence, I think the cutesy phrases on church signs are having the opposite effect of what is intended.

Then why do churches continue to put goofy stuff on their signs?  I figure they come at it from one of two ways: 1) they actually believe that the cutesy phrases are cute and creative, and that people like them;  2) they realize that the phrases are actually stupid, and that people don't like them, but they figure that any advertising is good advertising.  That is, even though people don't like the phrases, they will remember them, and therefore remember the church, which - perhaps according to the church - is a good thing.

As I mentioned earlier, Riverview has such a sign with removable lettering.  I'm not even sure what's on it right now, but we usually just use the lettering to post the times of our services and Wednesday Night activities.  That's good enough for me.  Nothing cutesy there.  Just the facts, Ma'am.  Otherwise, I know we've used the sign in the past to say "God's word is truth."  I like that too.  It's not trying to be cutesy or catchy.  It's presenting your with a truth claim that you need to weigh in your mind.  If you want to do that corporately, you can come and join us ever Sunday morning at 9:00 and 10:30.  That'll do.

Machine Gun Preacher: A Lesson In Pragmatism

I recently heard about this movie called "Machine Gun Preacher."  What caught my attention immediately was the provocative title, and I was even more curious when I heard that the movie was based on a true story about a lay-minister named Sam Childers who went to Africa to start an orphanage for endangered Sudanese children under threat from the now infamous Joseph Kony.  What can I say, my curiosity was piqued.  I put the movie in my Blockbuster online queue (which is empty most of the time), and waited for it to arrive.  Turns out the seemingly oxymoronic title gives the viewer a good clue about what he is about to see.

The movie, and the story that it is inspired by, while interesting, provide little to no redeeming qualities to be admired.  Childers starts out life as a convicted felon and continuing criminal.  While away in prison, his wife reveals that she "found Jesus," and has subsequently quit her job as a topless dancer.  Childers' life continues to spiral downward until he finally asks his wife for help, for which she points him to the church.  The film shows him attending church with his family until one day he undergoes the waters of baptism.  This process is portrayed incredibly poorly in the film.  Whether or not it accurately portrays Childers' actual alleged conversion experience is unknown to me, but if it does portray it accurately, it would certainly explain his lapse of faith later in life - more on that in a minute.  Childers' professed conversion leads him to clean his life up, love his family, and begin attending church regularly.

After some time, a missionary from Sudan visits the church and talks about the ministry happening there.  Childers is inspired and commits to a short term missions trip to the area.  While there he witnesses several of the brutal realities of life in Sudan, especially those atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army, led by Joseph Kony, against children and their families.  Childers returns from his trip, inspired to return to Sudan and build an orphanage, and the film documents this process.

As time goes on, however, Childers is increasingly obsessed with the orphanage and pours every waking moment of his life into it, and every penny he owns, most times at the expense of his wife and child.  He berates his friends, family members, and fellow church members with guilt trips and even vitriol for their supposed lack of dedication to the cause of Christ, mostly because they don't share his ever increasing devotion to the cause of the children of Sudan.

While in Sudan, he becomes increasingly militant and even goes on offensive strikes against LRA soldiers in order to rescue children from their grasp.  By the end of the movie, he has renounced his faith, parted ways with his family, and dedicated himself to the militant task of saving children in Sudan.

Being that movies are never absolutely true to actual stories, I'm not sure how much of Childers' story as portrayed in this film to believe as fact and how much to acknowledge as being included for entertainment purposes.  The movie is replete with over top profanity and blasphemy, even from the "regenerated" Childers, and quite a bit of sensuality, which is presumably why the movie received an "R" rating.  The conveying of the story in the film would not have suffered without all the bad language and sensuality.  Although, if that's how Childers really speaks and acts, there's no point in painting him in a better light.  Childers has released an autobiography.  No doubt that would be a better place to get firm facts regarding his story.  

If the movie has accurately portrayed Childers' story (and I can only assume that it has, at least in large measure, considering that Childers promotes it on his website and even went on a North American tour promoting the movie), there is absolutely nothing biblical or Christian about Childers and his violently obsessive war against the LRA.  While the man's own insistence that he is "done with the Lord," should be enough of a clue that he never was a genuine believer, there were several other clues that screamed out the reality that Childers has never truly understood the gospel.  He cannot forgive, he continues in wanton sin, he manipulates and coerces people to get his way, he resorts to violence at the drop of a hat, and so on and so forth.

At the end of the movie, however, during the credits, there is a clip of Childers - the real Childers - speaking to the camera, and he offers this scenario: "If your child or brother or sister were abducted, and I told you I could get them back, would it matter how I did it?"

The resounding answer to this question is "Yes.  Yes it does matter how you do it."  And the answer resounds so loudly and is seemingly so obvious, that it's a wonder that Childers hasn't thought through it for half a second to realize the error in his thinking.

What Childers offers is pragmatism, plain and simple.  In other words, he is asserting that the ends justify the means - that it doesn't matter what must be done in order to achieve X result, as long as X result is indeed achieved.  Or, put another way, it is right that it doesn't matter what must be done to get an abducted child back as long as the child is indeed brought back.  You don't need to run this type of thinking through too many hypothetical scenarios before you see how this logic is fallacious.  For example, Childers' scenario suggests that it doesn't matter how he rescues a child as long as the child is rescued.  But, what if, in order to rescue a child, Childers must kill 10 other children.  Does it matter then?  Of course it does, and even he should be able to see the error in this thinking.

This pragmatic way of thinking shows how Childers erred in his faith and in the rest of his dealings with people and in life in general.  If, for him, the ends justified the means, then he is perfectly justified for mistreating his family in order to "save children."  According to his thinking, being abusive to and abandoning his family is worth it, as long as it saves a child (to be fair, Childers has reconciled with his wife and daughter).

This way of thinking also reveals the error in Childers' dealings with faith and scripture.  In a sense, Childers' professed faith was the means by which he achieved his end: saving children.  As the film portrays it, however, there are significant times in Childers' life when his faith doesn't "work;" in other words, his faith doesn't achieve the ends he wants.  In the pragmatic way of thinking, if a certain means doesn't achieve the desired goal, then it needs to be abandoned and a more effective means of achieving the goal needs to be discovered.  It's no wonder, then, that Childers' abandons his faith as a means of achieving his end, and seeks out another, supposedly more effective means.  For Childers, this means is violence.  He takes up violence as a means of achieving his desired results.  I have no idea what Childers' current spiritual status is.  His website is devoid of any spiritual content, save for a small link in the upper right hand corner that leads you to this frustratingly difficult to navigate website.

To top it all off, a quick Google search reveals that there are many (including several Sudanese Christian and military groups) who believe that Childers is doing significantly more harm than good in Sudan and other parts of Africa where children are being abducted and murdered (see here and here for just a couple examples).

Much more could be said about Childers and the movie, but in the end, I think it's at least safe to say that the words "machine gun" and "preacher" should never go together.

Olympic Debauchery

I really enjoy the olympics.  I could watch it all day, even if a lot of the events I like aren't televised, and even if it's the monotony of gymnastics.  It's still fun when it's the Olympics.  Plus, now in the age of the internet you can see almost all of the events online if you so desire.  I love competition; I love sport; I love seeing our athletes represent our country on the world stage.

That being said, my love for the Olympics died a bit today.

One of my Facebook friends posted this article on his page this evening, explaining how the Olympic Village quarters in London will be stocked with an ample supply of condoms.  The article goes on to talk about how the two plus weeks the athletes stay in the village are usually packed with raucous parties and casual sex, even casual sex out in the open, according to Hope Solo.  Great.  That's great.  Now when I watch the olympics this year, I'll be thinking about who our athletes have shacked up with the past night before they stick that landing, run that race, or swim, or whatever.  Not what I need to be thinking about.

And this information is in addition to the rash of recent pictures I've seen of virtually ever American Olympic team from this year posing nude in some goofy picture of them covering their goods with their hands, arms, or appropriate sporting equipment (I won't link to those pictures, for obvious reasons).  Why?  Why do Olympic athletes need to pose nude?  And what kind of moral compass do these athletes have that tells them posing nude is a good (let alone necessary) thing to do?  Why?  WHY?  What does this add to the sport?  To the competition?  To my experience as a spectator?  Not to mention the fact that I'd like to watch the games with my kids.  Thankfully they're too young to read articles on the internet and peruse sports news sites where they might see a nude picture of our once-proud American athletes.  But some day they won't be too young.

I was really bummed when I read that article about the athletes' propensity for casual sex during the game, and have been increasingly disappointed with every nude picture that has been released of our athletes.  But maybe I shouldn't be bummed.  After all, the pagans are acting like pagans, as Todd Friel says.  Why are we surprised?  Isn't this exactly what Romans 1 tells us is going to happen?  Yes, it definitely is, but I guess I'm bummed that it's so much in the public eye.  Part of me wishes that if these people were are going to be so debauched to sleep around every chance they get and pose nude for whoever'd like to see their naked bodies, that they'd at least have the decency to do it behind closed doors and not expose it to the news media so that I can enjoy the purity of the Olympics, even if it's just a pipe-dream.  After all, ignorance is bliss, as they say.  But another part of me wonders if that's just catering to my own idealistic way I want the world to be, with complete disregard for the way things actually are.  If Olympic athletes are sleeping around but not exposing their actions to the public, it doesn't make it any less sinful and debauched.  But do we need to know about it?  I don't think so.  I mean, really: are we really that debased as human beings?  Are we really that uncontrollable that we have to have sex with anything/one that moves?  Really?  You people can't control yourselves for two weeks?

All things considered, I wouldn't be surprised if the tales of casual sex that are reported on in the media are actually the exception rather than the rule.  That is, for every debased athlete that wants to get busy, there are probably a dozen that are satisfied to simply compete and enjoy their time on the international stage.  It's a shame that the actions of some have brought a bit of a black cloud on the games.  I still plan to watch the games (at least as much as I am able), although I have to admit that my attitude toward them will be different this year.  And I'm struggling with this: is that right?  Am I right to be bugged by this, or is it just the way of the world, and I need to reform my overly idealistic view of the world's morality?

I'll have to ponder this.

Staying Classy

This was me today, staying classy during the heat of the afternoon.

At least I had kids with me, though.

My Thoughts on bin Laden's Death

Lots of posts on Facebook about the death of Osama bin Laden yesterday and today. Last night when the news broke, I don't think there was even one status update on my wall that didn't address the bin Laden situation. Most people expressed joy and elation when they heard that bin Laden had been killed. There was a lot of talk about how it had been a long time coming.

My own reaction was initially one of surprise. When I saw the flasher at the bottom of the TV screen (interrupting Celebrity Apprentice!) indicating that a special announcement from the president was coming up, I had no idea what it was. When I learned that bin Laden had been killed, I was initially really surprised. I didn't expect that to be the announcement.

My second reaction was one of gladness. I was glad that he was dead. I was glad that his reign of terror, so to speak, was over (although it will no doubt be carried on by countless thousands), and that lives will no doubt be spared as a result of his demise.

Some of my friends on Facebook posted scripture. I saw Proverbs 24.17-18 quoted a few times: "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles, lest the LORD see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from him." My pastor quoted Matthew 26.52: "...all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

All this got me thinking about how a Christian should respond to the death of a wicked person, such as Osama bin Laden. Should we rejoice? Should we be sorrowful? Should we say, "It's about time"? I don't think it's as simple as Proverbs 24.17-18. We need more theology than just what those verses offer in order to formulate a right response to the death of a wicked man like Osama bin Laden.

Then I stumbled on these two excellent pieces, one by John Piper, and one by Justin Holcomb of Mars Hill, Seattle. Both pieces masterfully bring out excellent biblical points on how God views the death of the wicked and how Christians should view the death of the wicked. I highly recommend them.

So how should a Christian respond to the death of Osama bin Laden? Here's what I think:

1) We should praise God that we haven't suffered the same fate. I mean this both in the physical and spiritual senses. I am every bit just as evil as Osama bin Laden. My heart was just as rotten, I had the same potential for unspeakable evil, and I deserved the same fate. But by God's grace, I did not fall into such wickedness, and, also by God's grace, I have been forgiven of my sin. Christ took for me the punishment that Osama bin Laden is experiencing at this very moment. So let's praise God that he extends grace to those who will receive it, and that he extends mercy.

2) We should long for the salvation of those who do not believe. The thought of anyone entering the eternal torment of hell should scare us. I don't want anyone to go to hell - not even Osama bin Laden. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance and faith, and that includes bin Laden. But all those who do not come to faith will be judged. That alone should fuel our preaching endeavors.

3) We should be glad that God's justice and righteousness have been served. In sovereignly ordaining the death and judgment of bin Laden, God exercises his justice and righteousness. He punishes evil where it is found. He shows no favoritism. He remains faithful and true to who he is. This is good news.

4) We should be glad that God has removed such evil from the world. The Bible is full of examples of how God removes (or kills) people who are exceedingly wicked from their position, or even their life. Such removal can allow peace and justice to flourish. Let's pray that's the case with bin Laden's death.

5) We should not be glad that bin Laden is in hell (see #2).

6) We should not feel that bin Laden is getting what he deserves without remembering why we have not gotten what we deserved (see #1). Such thinking would be, I believe, judgmental and sinful.

7) We should not think that God vindictively killed bin Laden (see #3). God works within his justice and righteousness, not out of spite or vindictiveness.

One Step Closer

A while ago I posted about how PETA wants an animal-gender-inclusive translation of the Bible. They would prefer that animals mentioned in scripture be referred to as "he" or "she" rather than "it." They feel that animals aren't "its," and personal pronouns communicate their individuality and personhood, I guess.

I also said that Phil Johnson predicted (somewhat tongue in cheek) that such a translation of the Bible would, in fact, come down the pike at some point in time in the future. Today we are one step closer to such a translation, or at least the kind of thinking that would bring about such a translation has moved from being held just amongst the PETA folks. It's now moved to the academy, and specifically, to the theological academy.

Professor Andrew Linsey believes that calling animals "pets" is insulting to the animal, and that even referring to animals as "wildlife" is demeaning. Instead, pets should be known as "companion animals," and wild animals should be referred to as "free-living" animals. And those people who own animals shall henceforth be known as "human carers."

Ugh. Here it comes.

Read the whole article here. It's embarrassing. How does this guy have a job?

I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church

My dad alerted me today to a half-page advertisement in Thursday's Pioneer Press for the "I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church." Yes, that's what it's called. I'm not sure why. It's definitely one of the more interesting church names I've ever heard.

The advertisement is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, not to mention several items which point to the shaky theology of the leadership of the I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church. The wording and phrasing of the ad is so bad, in fact, that it makes me think it was translated from another language into English for the purposes of the ad. Since these folks probably paid upwards of $5,000 for this ad, I hope for their sake that's the case. Here's the content of the ad (note: all of the bad grammar and spelling belong to the ad, not to me):

Dear Friend in Christ,

A new church is about to open in the Whittier neighborhood. Its success mainly depends on the hearts of those who want to make something really positive and powerfully wonderful happen.

The "I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church" is refreshingly different in its approach to what is the heart of our many fine Christian churches scattered around the Twin Cities and surrounding areas.

Although preaching is a valuable means of communicating the word of God, we prefer to focus on acting "hands on" by the means of serving that of which we have already learned. We want to take what we know and apply in our lives - starting in the community. We have seen how the joy of serving is contagious. When onlookers see how we live the word, they will witness honest faith.

Our building which houses our church (members) will mainly be used for these purposes.

1. Bible study occurring anytime 2 or more care to gather.

2. Discussing the different projects of service we are currently doing and their progress. Determining what other needs our community demands that we will have to address, and plan how to effectively handle them. Then addressing the impact these actions may have. We will be vigilantly aware to keep refining our means of service to be the most utmost efficient.

3. Addressing problematic concerns of members and guests by means of relating our own true life experiences and their resulting outcomes. No advice, speculation, or guessing given. Members will follow these and other ground rules as best they can.

4. Events and activities - of course, there will always be a time to have soe fun. We will play and socialize as well.

At the bottom, on either side of the ad, there are two ornate crosses and the words "Generous givers change our emotions." Below this it says "You may become a donor who: makes us satisfied - any amount; makes us happy - $100; makes us excited - $500; makes us most joyful - $1,000; makes us extremely grateful - $10,000; makes us cry - $100,000 or more."

A few comments for the folks at the I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church, based on this ad:

1. Your church's "success" (whatever that means) does not "mainly depend on the hearts of those who want to make something really positive and powerfully wonderful happen." Your church's "success" depends on God.

2. You say your church is "refreshingly different" in that it is at the heart of what other churches in the area are doing. How's that different?

3. Preaching is, in my opinion, the most effective way the word of God is communicated to the world. Serving is good and noble, but don't serve the community at the expense of the preaching of the word.

4. Never (NEVER!) quantify your level of satisfaction based on the amount of a monetary gift. This runs the almost certain danger of alienating someone who can only give $5.00. According to your scale, that person can only make you satisfied - not even happy, let alone "most joyful"! Ever heard of the widow's mite?

5. This ad really looks atrocious. At the very least, make sure that words are spelled correctly and your grammar is accurate. People are watching.

The more I think about it, I think this might be a scam just to get people to send whoever placed this ad some money. Either way, it's definitely unique.

Suggestions for Professors

I'm rounding out the third year of my seminary education. Tonight marked the beginning of my spring quarter classes. After my class tonight (and the last three years of seminary) I was motivated to come up with a list of suggestions for seminary professors as to how they should think and act regarding graduate level teaching. If you've been through some sort of higher education, you can probably identify with some of these. These suggestions come as a result of working with professors from both Sioux Falls Seminary and Bethel Seminary the last three years.

But before I get into the suggestions (which are mostly formed from negative experiences I've had in seminary) I have to say that I've had just as many outstanding professors as I have poor ones (see here and here). Unfortunately, however, it always seems the poor ones have the most influence. So kudos to you who teach fairly and honestly. Jeers to those of you who treat your position as trivial, and don't realize the monumental impact you have on the hearts and minds of the students you teach. So without further ado, here are my suggestions to seminary professors.

1. Don't ridicule someone (or a group of people) who doesn't hold your position. You probably don't realize it, but any student who finds themselves holding the position contrary to the one you espouse feels silently ridiculed by their association to those whom you find to be ignorant and uneducated. You can certainly think what you want, but to teach in such a way that undercuts the opposing viewpoint without providing a reasoned argument for your position is intellectually dishonest, arrogant, and logically fallacious. Point out strengths and weaknesses of the positions of those with whom you disagree, as well as your own position and let the student decide. And do so in a way that is respectful and edifying.

2. Don't act as though obvious things are significant revelations that only you have discovered. Most of the time, you do this in order to undercut those who disagree with you and to further your own agenda and ideas. It's not intellectually honest.

3. Don't cite yourself in your lectures. It sounds incredibly arrogant (because it is, most of the time) when you talk about how you've "explained all this in detail in my book." No one cares. Yeah, you're smart; yeah, you've written a book. Get over it. The rest of us have. Also, don't try to validate your position by citing yourself. It's fallacious.

4. Don't use your position as a professor simply to further your academic career. Teach because you want to teach. Don't teach so you can write a paper and get a promotion. Students pay good, hard-earned money to receive an education from you. Hold yourself accountable and do your job without always looking for the next step. This makes you a bad teacher, because you're more invested in your own interests than those of your students.

5. Do use class time wisely, and use all of it. When you break down the numbers, students pay an astronomical amount for each minute of class time. So make sure to use the available class time well. Don't let your classes out early. Don't slough off class time by assigning "small group time." I have a suspicion that you sometimes don't make the most of class time because you don't have enough material to fill the whole time. If this is the case, redesign the class, charge less, and hold yourself accountable. Again, students pay a lot for this time, so use it wisely.

6. Do value the level of your students' learning more than you value the idea of yourself holding a position within the academy. I have found that there are a lot of professors who love the idea of themselves as being a professor. Like number 4 above, this makes you a bad teacher, and for the same reasons.

7. Do realize that a lot of the students under your care will take everything you say as gospel truth. True, you are not responsible for students who do not discern the truth for themselves, but you are responsible for their intellectual growth at least to some extent. In their eyes, you are a very educated person who knows what he or she is talking about (and for the most part, you do). But many of the students in seminary are young and impressionable, and are more than willing to sacrifice what they've believed for the newest and trendiest academic opinion. Be careful.

8. Do realize that as trendy as your current position might be, someday it will be dated and out of fashion. Someday you will be the one that young seminary professors are taking shots and, and it will be your views and ideas that will be ridiculed and treated as uniformed and anti-intellectual. Be humble, because someday you're going to be the guy whose views everyone looks at and asks, "What was he thinking?"

Thoughts On My First Wedding

This post's title needs a bit of explaining. I've only been married once, and I plan to keep it that way. The first wedding that I'm referring to is one that I officiated. Ken Marz and Sarah Heckathorn tied the knot today and I was privileged to be the one to be a part of it. Truth be told, I only did the vows, ring ceremony, and pronouncement (the easy stuff). Another minister did the message. I just basically had to find some vows to use and a traditional ring ceremony. No problem. The biggest concern I had was just not messing it up during the ceremony. All in all, it was a pretty cool experience, and I'm glad to have been a part of it. Thanks to Ken and Sarah for having me be a part of their wedding.

After the wedding I stopped at a local gas station to get some stuff I needed for my Sunday School class. The clerk noticed that I was dressed up, and actually asked if I was going to a wedding. I told him that I already had been. He asked if I was then on my way to the reception (it was about 5:30 PM). I told him that was already over too. He was in disbelief. He couldn't believe that the reception was already over at such an early time. But I guess that's what happens when you have a pretty "tame" ceremony. One without booze or dancing (not that there's anything wrong with those things; I just think it was a neat testament to the convictions of the couple - so kudos to Ken and Sarah for that).

My systematic theology prof at Sioux Falls told a neat story about a minister he knew who began each wedding ceremony he conducted by having the bride and groom sign the marriage certificate, hand it to him, and then he threw it on the floor and said, "Now that we've rendered unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, we will render unto God that which is God's." He did this to underscore the fact that a marriage is first and foremost a covenantal relationship that finds its meaning in the eyes of God, and not in the eyes of the state. His point was, yes, the state says you are married, but what does God say? The spiritual significance of marriage is much more important than the legal significance.

That little story stuck with me, and I've thought about it quite a bit. I really like it. I told Ken and Sarah that I was going to make a similar distinction when I did their vows. I wasn't as dramatic as to throw the marriage certificate on the floor, but I did make sure to mention that the important business was about to take place (making a covenant with and before God), and that the unimportant business (signing the marriage certificate) was just that - unimportant. I don't think the significance can be overstated.

All in all, it was a good experience, and I'm looking forward to repeating it many times in the future.

Creepy

My Greek prof used the following example as a way to open up our class tonight. He started by telling us about the death of Jim Morrison. Morrison moved to Paris, France in March of 1971 and died not too long after of a supposed drug overdose. The overdose was never confirmed by French medical authorities, so there has been some controversy surrounding the exact details of Morrison's death.

What does Jim Morrison have to do with Greek?

Morrison was buried in a borrowed grave (literally - it was leased for 30 years, which begs the question, what did they do after the 30 years was up? Re-up the lease on the plot or move the body?). At the time of his burial his grave had no marker, but the French government placed a "shield" around it which identified it as his final resting place. The shield was soon stolen, however. A bust of Morrison was crafted and placed at his grave in 1981 to mark the 10 year anniversary of his death, but that was defaced and eventually stolen as well. At some point in the 90's, Morrison's father made a flat stone to mark his son's grave, seen here:

As you can see, the marker bears Morrison's full name, the date of his birth and death, and a Greek inscription, transliterated as: "Kata ton daimona autou." After a little research about how this inscription came to be, I learned that his father had it put on the marker, and that he believes it to say "According to his own destiny," or as it is very loosely interpreted, "True to his own spirit."

I don't know who told Morrison's father that the inscription means "According to his own destiny," but that is certainly not what it says in Koine Greek, the type of Greek that the New Testament is written in. In New Testament Greek, the inscription literally reads, "According to the demon of him," or "According to his demon."

Admittedly, there are more types of Greek than just Koine Greek, so maybe "daimona" means something else, like "destiny," in some other form of Greek. But if you were to come across "daimona" (from "daimonion") in the New Testament (or in any other document written in Koine), it would mean one thing, and one thing only: demon.

It's kind of creepy to think about: the man's name, followed by the years of his life, and then the statement that it (his life) was "according to his demon."

Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Night

Last night I was the sickest I can ever remember being in my entire life. I threw up five times over six hours. It was awful.

At around 10:00 PM I remember feeling some minor stomach twinges. By about 10:15 I was at home and resting comfortably in my leather chair, and the twinges seemed to be getting worse. I went and changed into my pajamas and laid down on the couch and watched some TV to try and pass the time, and hopefully pass the stomach twinges. It didn't happen.

Around 1:00 AM I was feeling sick enough to maintain a vigil in the bathroom. I wanted to be ready if and when I ralphed, so I sat on the edge of the tub and read a catalogue. When I finally stood up, I felt the barf coming and got rid of it into the toilet. Little did I know that was just the beginning of my night.

I usually feel better when I throw up, like most people. After this time I felt better too, but only for about two minutes. As soon as I was done in the bathroom my stomach started to cramp up again, and I went into the bedroom and told Beetz what happened, and that I'd be sleeping on the couch. She brought me a blanket and a puke pail (no, not one of the kids). I tried to sleep, but it wasn't happening. My stomach was hurting and bloating like nobody's business, and around 2:30 AM came round two. After this round I waited for the usual feeling that things were improving after throwing up. Again, it was not to be.

Round three came at about 3:45, and round four around 5:00. I just could not seem to get whatever it was making my stomach so upset actually out of my stomach. By 7:00 AM, my mom had arrived to watch over my kids. Right when she walked in the door I told her that things were about to get ugly, and she might want to go into Ferg's room, which she did, and round five commenced. At approximately 7:30 I moved my nest down to the basement, so my mom and the kids could get going. By this time, things were finally starting to improve a bit.

I can't recall ever being this sick in my entire life. I do remember one time as a kid when I barfed a few times in a row, but never on an almost hourly schedule. I've heard that things are going around, but no one I've heard of who has been sick recently has had it this bad.

Perhaps the worst part of the night was that I couldn't sleep for more than 20 minute intervals. After each time I ralphed I would go and lay down quick and try to sleep, but the ralphing had gotten my system so worked up that it didn't want to sleep. By the time I actually fell asleep, my stomach was in such discomfort that it would wake me up so I could go empty out. I didn't really sleep at all until about 7:30 this morning. Blech. What a terrible night. Combine that with the fact that we had a terrible night at our house the night before this little adventure, and it's no wonder I'm sick!

So now it's 11:45 AM and my stomach seems to have calmed down a bit, although I don't plan on testing it. I think I'll fast today and just drink some water. No doubt I lost enough fluid with all the puking. I'm just glad the night is over.

Touch 'Em All, Gordo

It seems as though every day I get some new reminder that I am not a kid anymore. Today's reminder comes in the form of John Gordon's announcement that this will be his last year with the Twins radio broadcasting team. 2011 marks Gordo's 70th year of life, and 25th and last season as the play-by-play announcer for the Twins. He shared the job with Herb Carneal for some time, but when Herb died, Gordo took over the main spot, and Dan Gladden became his partner. For my money, the Gordon-Gladden broadcasting combo is about as good as it gets.

What made/makes Gordon great is that he was/is a legitimate baseball fan (let alone a Twins fan). And his broadcasts were so effective precisely because he was a fan, communicating his excitement and love for baseball and the local nine. If nothing else (even if he weren't broadcasting for my local team), he and I could identify with each other on the basis of our love for the game.

My childhood memories are filled with a variety of life-experiences, but there is a common thread that flows through a lot of them. No matter what I was doing, there was usually a Twins game on in the background. There weren't many Twins games on TV back then (as there aren't now - I'm talking about broadcast television), so my family was automatically relegated to listening to the Twins on the radio. As I grew older and listened to more and more Twins games, I came to realize that listening to the games broadcast on the radio was the more desirable way to experience the game, and a lot of that is due to John Gordon.

It was through Carneal and Gordon that I came to know the game of baseball and the Twins players. Yes, the players were the ones who were playing the game, but it was Gordon who made them larger than life in my estimation. Part of this was accomplished just by the way Gordon called the games. His overly dramatic "Swiiiiing, and a miss!" is fantastic, bringing the potential for excitement to each pitch of the game. And of course, the signature "Touch 'em all!" is the stuff of goosebumps. Gordon's call of Kirby Puckett's game 6, 10th inning home run to force a game 7 of the 1991 World Series is absolutely classic. I recently discovered that this call was the only time he has ever repeated the "Touch 'em all" phrase in a single use. I can't listen to that call without almost getting choked up.

When Kirby Puckett died, I was actually pretty torn up. He was my childhood hero. And, like Gordon, a lot of my childhood memories involve Kirby, so for him to die was kind of a shock. John Gordon is the last remaining link to the baseball days of my childhood. Yes, Dan Gladden was a player then and is a broadcaster now, but it's different. Gladden wasn't a broadcaster when I was a kid. He was a player. Gordon has been there throughout my entire love affair with baseball. It's going to be strange to continue my relationship with baseball without Gordon mediating between the two of us.

Now that I'm a dad, one of my favorite things to do is play out in the yard with the kids. This past spring, summer, and fall, almost every evening was spent in the yard, with the Twins game on in the background, and John Gordon's voice bringing us every play. There's just something about baseball on the radio. It's like comfort food. It brings to mind pleasant memories of family and playing with my kids. And in some weird way, John Gordon has been a part of that throughout my life.

Tuesday Happenings

Today seemed to be a weird day. But as I look back on it, it doesn't seem that weird. It seemed weird as it was happening, though. Here's some of what happened.

1. I had a crazy, pounding headache for most of the day. I don't get headaches that often, so when I do, it's something to take notice of. This one started around 11:00 AM and just kept getting worse and worse as the day went on. It made working difficult, and it didn't help that there was all kinds of demolition going on at the church today. Lots of loud noises plus headache don't usually go together too well. When I left the church around lunch time to go to the post office, the sun reflecting off the snow almost made me puke. I took some Advil around lunch, which I rarely do when I have a headache, and it didn't even make a dent. Around 3:00 PM I went up into one of the loft rooms and tried to lay down and shut my eyes for a while. It didn't really help. I bought some more Advil at around 4:30 and pounded a few more. Still not much relief. And by then I was heading to class.

2. One of my Greek midterms was tonight (I say "one of" because there are actually two midterms for this class, which is kind of weird). Needless to say, the headache didn't help with taking the test. Learning Greek has been a lot easier this time around than it was in college. I seem to be getting the concepts a lot easier this time, and recognizing the patterns of the language also seems to be coming easier. All that being said, I don't think I did too well on the exam. It's interesting, because the teacher lets us use whatever tools, cheats, or helps we want to on the exam (except for an English translation), but it's still very possible (even likely, to some extent) to do poorly. Part of this is, I think, just because the teacher makes the tests harder than the rest of the work (which I think is not the best way to conduct an exam). The test is also timed. All of our other translation work isn't timed, but when it comes to the tests, we find ourselves under the gun, which makes it quite difficult. Oh well. There's still another midterm and a final exam coming.

3. I got an interesting call from my sister this afternoon. More on that some other day.

4. As I was leaving Bethel tonight, The Mrs. called me and asked if I was in the garage. I responded that no, in fact I was just leaving the seminary. She thought that was weird, because from her vantage point in the house, she could see that the light in garage was on. I told her to just lock the doors and I'd be home soon. I couldn't find anything out of the ordinary when I got home. It's a mystery.

5. One of the books I read to my son tonight before bed was called "Diesel 10." It's a Thomas the Train book, but it is really strange. You ever heard about books that were written in English, and then translated into another language, and then translated back into English? Here's a good (and funny) example of what I'm talking about. I'm pretty sure that something like that happened with this Diesel 10 book. It makes absolutely no sense, and the story jumps around all over the place and introduces new characters without ever explaining where they came from. And apparently the Island of Sodor, as well as Thomas and his friends, are now fueled by some magical gold dust taken from the Magical Railway and is endorsed by a man named "Mr. Conductor." Some secret female train named "Lady" (who doesn't appear in the book until the second to last page) is apparently Mr. Conductor's supplier, and she brings him the secret gold dust from the Magical Railway. I'm not making any of this up. I don't think this is what Rev. Awdry had in mind when he wrote his first books.

6. I ended the day by watching a few episodes of River Monsters. This is a great show. We don't have cable, so I've had to rent the seasons. It's overly dramatic fish tales combined with some really weird and scary looking fish. And the host is pretty good, too. It's a bummer the seasons are only seven episodes long.

7. Now it's 1:00 AM, and it's bed time. Good night.

Should I Be Mad About This?

Each winter since my wife and I moved into our current location, I have always been frustrated with the city snow plows. We live on one of the "main" streets in our city, and it gets a lot of traffic, which usually means it's first on the list for having the snow plowed which is usually nice - our street is almost always clear. And like a good citizen, I always make sure my sidewalks are shoveled/snow-blown within a day of a snowfall.

Here's the problem: the sidewalk in front of my house is separated from the street by the usual 3-4 foot wide boulevard section of grass. I'm not sure if the snow plows are either going so fast, or not watching what they're doing, or whatever, but whenever a snow plow plows our street, it throws all the snow from the street onto our sidewalk. And most of the time, it's AFTER I've already been out to shovel/snow-blow. So then I have to go out and shovel/snow-blow one more time.

Why not just wait to shovel/snow-blow until after the plows have gone by, you ask? Because "street snow" is much different than "sidewalk snow." It's usually wetter and heavier (which stinks for shoveling), or it's icy and chunky (which my snowblower can't handle). I find it hard to believe that the ONLY way the snow plows can do their job is to throw street snow onto my sidewalk.

I've told my wife that if I was ever outside while a snow plow was doing this, I was going to flag him down and explain my predicament to him. That day came today. A plow was going by my house and I flagged him down. Somewhat to my surprise, he stopped and rolled down his window. I asked him if he and his compatriots could slow down while plowing so I don't have to re-shovel/blow my sidewalk every time they plow. His response was that the snow was so light that he couldn't control where it went, and that it didn't matter if he was going fast or not. I replied by saying something like, "OK. It just sucks that I always have to shovel my sidewalk twice." He tried to encourage me by saying that he was going to have to plow twice, too. Ok, but that's not the point.

Here's the point: the city of South Saint Paul requires that I clear my sidewalk of snow within 12 hours of a snow fall, or face a fine. If I comply with those standards, doesn't it seem a tad bit stinky of them to throw more snow back onto my sidewalk, forcing me to comply with them again? Would I be fined if I complied with the snow that fell on my sidewalk, but failed to clear the snow that the plows threw on my sidewalk? Most definitely. But the city is the one that put the snow there!

I have no problem with complying with the city's regulations. It just seems that sometimes the city is working against me.

What If Abortion Were Illegal?

One of my friends on Facebook posted this video (warning: there are some very brief images of aborted babies in this video):


The voice behind the camera in the video claims to be from the AtCenter Network, an online "news" agency. He's going around, asking pro-life protestors questions like, "What should the penalty be for a woman who had an illegal abortion? Should there be a punishment under the law against women who have illegal abortions?"

First of all, the LAST intention of this video is to gather "news." The video is set up to make people who are pro-life look stupid because they supposedly haven't thought about the ramifications of their stance. That's totally misleading, and I think it's purposely misleading. Why haven't abortion protestors thought this question through? Because it hasn't been relevant for the past 35 years. I have to admit that I haven't thought through this question before I saw this video, but it only took me about 1.5 seconds to come up with an answer (to that end, the pro-life people in the video do look a tad slow - how hard is it to come up with an answer?).

Before I give you my answer, it's important to make sure we're all working under the same understandings. I'm working under the assumption that, if abortion were illegal, it would be because the unborn "fetus" would be considered a human life, and the taking of said life would be seen as murder (hence the illegality of the action). If this were the reason for outlawing abortion, then anyone who took part in an abortion (mother, doctor, someone who drove the mother to the abortionist, etc.) would be viewed, legally, as an accessory to murder at the very least, if not charged for 1st degree murder. So then, the answer is, "yes." IF abortion were illegal, and IF abortion were viewed as murder, and IF a mother or doctor were convicted of having an abortion / committing murder, they obviously should be punished under the law. All murderers should be punished. What should the punishment be for murdering an unborn child, exactly? That would vary the same way that punishment for "regular" murder varies.

The guy behind the camera wants these pro-life demonstrators to say that women who have an abortion should be punished, and punished severely. His questions are framed in a context that will force the answer (that he wants) to be seen in a negative light. That way, he can trump up charges of insanity against the pro-life movement for wanting to punish innocent women who have already suffered the trauma of an abortion (but why would it be a trauma? Isn't it a simple medical procedure?) He wants them to look heartless and crazy. It's incredibly deceptive and fallacious. I wonder what pro-choice people would say if asked the same question? Do they have an automatic answer they would spit out? Of course not. Why? Because they likewise haven't considered the question for the past 35 years. Or ask the pro-choicers this: What should the punishment be for a woman who has a late term abortion (which is already illegal)? Come on, someone spit that answer out on the spot! Didn't think so.

Abortion comes down to one question: is the "blob of tissue" in the mother's womb a life? If the definitive answer is "no," than go ahead and do whatever you want to it. People have surgeries to remove tissue all the time. But if the answer is yes (not even "definitively yes," but even just "probably yes") then it should absolutely be illegal to do anything harmful to it, let alone kill it, and anyone who were to harm the unborn life in any way should face the full effects of the law.