Seeking the Light

Moving On ---

2010-05-14T17:17:00.000-07:00

This blog has been inactive for quite some time, but I have moved on to begin a new blog called Looking at the World Through Christian Eyes. Please follow the link for more recent posts.

Is It Smart to Send Away Customers?

2009-08-04T07:21:00.000-07:00

Trish and I tried to check into a LaQuinta motel about 1 p.m. yesterday afternoon.

"Sorry, check-in time is 3 o'clock," I was informed by the desk clerk.

I wasn't surprised, but decided to ask some questions just for fun. "Do you have any clean rooms?" I asked.

"Yes," she admitted.

"But I can't have one of them now?" I asked, already knowing the answer she would give.

"No," she said simply.

"Why not?" I persisted.

"Because the computer won't let me rent any rooms until 3 o'clock," she answered, as if that were a reasonable response.

"Aren't computers wonderful?" I laughed. She kinda laughed with me, but I could tell that she didn't get the joke. So I continued, "Doesn't it strike you as strange that you have a customer standing here wanting to rent a room for the night and you have rooms available, but your computer won't let you rent them for two more hours?"

Clearly, however, she saw nothing strange at all about the situation. Her mind has become so conditioned to the company way of doing things that she had no ability to even consider the possibility that there might be a better way of doing business.

I didn't get upset with the desk clerk because I understood that she was just doing her job and following LaQuinta's policies. However, this does tell me that there are people in LaQuinta's management who are "process" people, more concerned with following the process than with getting the desired result -- paying customers occupying hotel rooms. I don't mean to pick on LaQuinta -- it is a good chain and, overall, I have been very satisfied with staying in their hotels. Other hotel chains probably follow the same check-in policies.

However, it cannot be smart business tactics to send away customers because your system isn't flexible enough to accommodate them. Perhaps LaQuinta is a microcosm for one of the things wrong with our economy. Where are the "inventors" in today's business world? Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and lots of other bright minds in the business world a century ago were constantly looking for problems and searching creatively for ways to solve them. Doing it better was always a top priority for them. Retailing giant J. C. Penney is credited with coining the slogan, "The customer is always right." All too often today, it is the system that is always thought to be right and customers have to accommodate the system.

In our case, LaQuinta's short-sighted check-in policy didn't hurt them. Trish and I had other things to do, so we took care of those things and returned to check in at 3 p.m. However, there were numerous other hotels and motels in the vicinity of the LaQuinta where we stayed. I would guess that more often than not, when the LaQuinta desk clerk sends away customers because it isn't check-in time, they would simply go across the street and check in somewhere else where they had a more customer-friendly policy of renting clean rooms whenever they had a customer wanting to rent them. I suspect that J. C. Penney would not have given LaQuinta a second chance to show top priority to customers over process.

History and Time

2009-06-23T09:23:00.000-07:00

On the June 22 Jeopardy program, the Final Jeopardy question essentially asked who the President of the United States was in the year 1895. The qualifying tests for Jeopardy are notoriously rigid (according to all reports), which assures that anyone who makes it to one of the three contestants' podiums will be bright and knowledgeable. However, none of the contestants correctly identified the president in office 114 years ago. One intelligent young woman, who had performed very well earlier in the competition, didn't even venture a guess.

I will confess that presidential trivia is a hobby of mine and I can usually answer any Jeopardy question about presidents with little difficulty. I understand that not everyone shares that interest. Just because someone cannot rattle off the names and dates served of the 43 men who have held the office of President does not discredit their intelligence or expertise in other areas. I may know my presidents, but I'd be quickly out of my depth in the Shakespeare and opera categories.

However, there is a definite linkage between an understanding of the time sequence of historical events and one's enjoyment and appreciation of history. If you have a general idea of when things happened, you have a better understanding about what other things were going on in history at the same time. That leads to appreciating how what otherwise would seem to be random, isolated events actually relate to one another. History is not just a boring series of events and dates. Rather it is a web, a network of great numbers of intersecting causes and effects. Knowing the time lines of history makes this all much clearer, and therefore, must more interesting.

Talking about this with my wife this morning, I commented that I had never known anyone who understood the importance of time in history who found history boring, and I had never known anyone who failed to understand the important of time who found history interesting.

If this is true, it offers an obvious key about how we should be teaching history. If the Jeopardy contestants are typical (and I think they are), then we have not been very effective in getting across the importance of time in history.

By the way, if you thought President Obama was the 44th person to be President of the United States, you should revisit the history books.

Has Evolution Been Proven By New Discovery?

2009-05-20T22:11:00.000-07:00

You can't get away from news of the fantastic discovery of the "missing link." Even trying to do a Google search and you see the fossil. The word spreading like wildfire is that this discovering proves evolution to be true.

Not so fast. There is a great deal yet to be proven before these claims can be accepted. Here's a link to the Institute for Creation Research web site which gives their preliminary reaction to the news.

How Things Have Changed!

2009-05-13T13:49:00.000-07:00

Today's issue of my hometown newspaper carried on its front page a tragic story about a young woman from a neighboring town being killed earlier this week by a drunken driver. The reporter went on to tell about the young woman's high school successes and how she was being mourned by a large number of friends, including a fiance whom she had planned to marry this summer. Your heart has to be touched by such a promising life being cut short tragically and unnecessarily.

Then the reporter revealed one additional fact. The young woman was six weeks pregnant. My first reaction could be described by what I've heard called T.M.I. -- Too Much Information. I admit that I don't always understand the carefree attitude some in the younger generation seem to take about what, it seems to this old fogey, ought to be personal information best kept private. If this young woman and her husband-to-be wanted to share the news of their impending parenthood with friends and family, that was their business. But why did it need to be included in the lead paragraph of the story of her unfortunate death?

This may be nothing more than an example of gross insensitivity on the part of an incompetent reporter. Perhaps a grieving family feels the same revulsion I do at this fact being broadcast far and wide on the front page of the daily paper. If so, I trust they will make their opinions known to the newspaper's publisher. He is the one, after all, who has to take ultimate responsibility for his paper's descent into tabloid journalism.

But what if I'm the one who is so out-of-step in my thinking that I don't understand that things have changed so much that being pregnant outside of marriage no longer carries any stigma at all?

Young people in love have been transgressing the boundaries of both morality and propriety for a long, long time. With one notable exception, babies don't come into being without some activity by both father and mother. If that happens when mommy and daddy aren't married, the Bible word for that activity is fornication. The sin is the same whether or not a baby is made. This is basic biology and is almost as old as the human race itself.

What has changed is people's attitudes toward having babies without being married. Only a generation or so ago, the normal course of action in a situation like this would have been to move up the wedding date so that the appearance of propriety would be maintained as long as no one became too specific in referencing their calendars.

I don't intend to defend the hypocrisy and sometimes outright deception that characterized such attempts to cover up scandalous behavior. It is sinful to lie, just as it is sinful to fornicate. Nevertheless the sense of shame has been lost.

It is a good thing if babies born out of wedlock are no longer stigmatized for something that was in no way their fault. If anyone needed to wear a scarlet letter for sinful sexual behavior, it should have been the mother and the father, but never the child produced by that behavior.

However, it would be better for the souls of the parents and for the welfare of our culture if we still had a consensus of opinion that children should be conceived as an act of love within marriage. The now-widespread perception that procreation outside of marriage is something to be celebrated is an unhealthy development. No shadow of shame should be attached to the children, but neither should the behavior of the parents be condoned, much less congratulated.

The Almighty NCAA Needs Cutting Down to Size

2009-04-11T13:39:00.001-07:00

C'mon, all you big-name, high school basketball superstars, you need to accept a scholarship from XYZ State University and be a part of their great legacy of winning.

Oops! Apparently, I've just broken an NCAA rule and gotten dear ol' XYZ State into all kinds of trouble with the powers that regulate college recruiting. Assuming of course, that the NCAA can find XYZ State on their list of members.

Or have I just been exercising my freedom of speech?

More to the point, how can the NCAA expect XYZ State (or any real-life member institution) to regulate the free speech of people not under its control in any way?

In the real world of college athletics, North Carolina State University told one of its freshmen students, Taylor Moseley, to cease and desist from operating a Facebook group imploring the nation's number one prospect, John Wall, to choose NC State as the place to further his basketball ambitions.

The NCAA does have a tough job trying to police collegiate recruiting and prevent illicit under-the-table payoffs to highly-sought prospects. The institution's arrogance and inability to recognize that their member institutions and the fans of those institutions' athletic teams do not live in Flatland have made their task much more difficult than it needs to be.

The NCAA has a tremendous credibility problem with people who have followed its actions over a period of years. It has been highly inconsistent in the way it has enforced its rules and regulations. In cases where the actual payments of goods, services, and even cash have been admitted, little or no consequences have resulted. On the other hand, a small Division II NCAA member like Abilene Christian University can find itself in trouble because church members in the university community offered assistance the NCAA considered illegal to needy foreign athletes. According to reports, the fact that the foreign students were athletes was inconsequential to the church members giving the students assistance. Church members were concerned with doing what churches are supposed to do . . . help people in need.

It is reasonable for the NCAA to prevent university coaches, staff members, administrators, and other employees from giving money or other unauthorized financial aid to athletes. Perhaps it is reasonable to expect universities to have enough influence with their athletic boosters to prevent them from doing anything in violation of NCAA rules.

However, how can a university be expected to control the activities of a church in their community? Apparently the all-knowing NCAA has no problem expecting their rules to trump any other rules which come into conflict with them. The fact that churches have a God-given mission to feed the hungry and help the needy must take a back seat to the all-powerful NCAA.

Or in the case of the NCSU student, Mr. Moseley, the NCAA expects its precious rules to triumph over an individual's freedom of speech. In fact, an NCAA spokesperson claimed the censoring of the NC State Facebook group was not a free speech issue at all; rather it was just a recruiting issue.

However, the University ordered Moseley to take down the site even though its compliance director, Michelle Lee, admitted that the group was not causing any harm. Ms. Lee said she had to take the action she did because of NCAA regulations.

Adam Kissel, who works with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, was right on target when he said the NCAA can impose rules on its members, but those universities "can't enforce them if it means punishing students in any way for expressing an opinion."

I am sympathetic to North Carolina State's dilemma. It would have been nice if the administration at NC State had had the gumption to stand up to NCAA autocrats and defend its student's right to freely express his opinion that John Wall should come play basketball for the Wolfpack. However, the NCAA is virtually all-powerful and has shown in the past its willingness to make an example of member schools who buck the system. Thus, it should not surprise us that Ms. Lee bowed her knee before the almighty NCAA and sent out the "cease and desist" letter to Moseley even though she admits she did not agree with what it required the student to do.

What comes next might surprise anyone who knows how resistant I am to government involvement in the lives of citizens. However, the NCAA has evolved into a dictatorial autocracy over college sports in the U. S. It has no interest in disciplining its own excesses, so the only solution I see is for legislation to overhaul the NCAA and make it subject to the rule of law, rather than being a law unto itself in American collegiate athletics.

It is time to ask Congress to get involved. This NCAA disaster has gotten so out of hand that even the United States Congress couldn't mess it up worse than it already is. Why not bring the enforcement of right behavior into the justice system. Let "guidelines" be given the force of federal law with civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties imposed upon violators. Let the enforcement of those laws be equitable and those charged with violations be given full due process, including the right to face their accusers in open court. Let qualified jurists (rather than NCAA in house decision-makers who are beholden to the status-quo system in the NCAA) be charged with both enforcing the laws and protecting the rights of all associated parties.

No doubt, there are arguments to be made against this proposal. Perhaps it can be improved, but SOMETHING has to offer a better system that the sorry state of affairs governing collegiate athletics now.

Link

Something Good From High Gas Prices

2009-04-06T07:47:00.000-07:00

Maybe something good came from last year's high gas prices. The number of highway deaths in 2008 was the fewest since 1961. Preliminary statistics say that 37,000 people died in motor vehicle traffic deaths last year, down from 41,000 in 2007. This comes from an AP story reported by Fox News .

Christians know it is a blessing to die in the Lord (Revelation 14:13). But meeting your demise in a fiery crash of metal on the highway is not the way a reasonable person would prefer to be ushered into eternity. So be careful on the highways. Let's see if we can keep these numbers going in the right direction.

Gasoline prices are going up. That's normal in the springtime as consumption increases. However, the experts say we won't get anywhere close to last year's $4+ per gallon costs. That means more people will be on the highways. The danger level increases when traffic levels go up.

We can't control what other drivers do, but we can be serious about being good drivers ourselves. Every Christian should understand that he or she has a personal responsibility to perform well whenever sitting behind a steering wheel. The life you save may be your own.

Guiding Light Going Out

2009-04-03T10:22:00.001-07:00

Guiding Light, the longest-running scripted program in broadcast history, is going off the CBS network in September, after 72 years.

I'm not a soap opera fan, but the very idea of an soap opera surviving for almost three-quarters of a century astounds me. Since soap operas don't do reruns, five days a week, 52 weeks a year equals 260 epidsodes per year. Multiply that by 72 years and you will discover that they have produced more than 18,000 episodes.

By contrast, C.S.I. aired its 200th episode last night.

In fact, Guiding Light is one of the programs responsible for the term "soap opera" since it was produced by Proctor and Gamble, the detergent company. In days when companies not only sponsored, but owned and produced their own radio programs to promote their products, P&G offered a number of serial dramas first on radio, then later on television. Thus, the birth of the "soap opera."

Nothing in this world lasts forever!

33

2009-03-22T13:44:00.000-07:00

The USA Weekend Sunday newspaper supplement carries a feature each week that notes celebrity birthdays during the coming week. By coincidence, pro football quarterback Peyton Manning and actresses Reese Witherspoon and Keri Russell all turn 33 within the next two or three days.

By any reasonable reckoning, age thirty-three is not old. However, there must also be the realization that it isn't exactly young either. Thirty-three was the age where I realized that even if I lived to be 100, I had moved into the middle third of that lifespan. As unpleasant as the thought seemed at the time, I had to deal with the fact that I was getting awfully close to middle age.

It's all a matter of perspective, of course. Currently, from the standpoint of one in his mid-fifties, thirty-three seems ridiculoulsy young. A 33-year old has another thirty, forty, maybe even fifty years of productive living ahead. By no stretch of the imagination could that be considered anything other than the bloom of youth.

Reality insists on intruding, though. Even barring serious injury, Peyton Manning most likely has only 1/3 of his NFL career ahead of him. Most actresses (excluding the indomitable Meryl Streep) see their careers begin to decline once they pass 40. So, Reese and Keri better make the most of the next few years.

The secret is to stay ready . . . make preparations for each coming stage in our lives. Being 33 is different from being 22, but it's also different from being 44, 55, or 66. The person who puts God first always, and lives each stage of life to the fullest is the one who gets the most satisfaction out of each day along the journey from youth to old age.

Comments, anybody?

What I've Learned on Facebook

2009-03-06T13:43:00.000-08:00

Facebook has been around for quite a while. It started with college students, but gradually spread upwards through the Generation Xers and Baby Buster generations. Now, it is finally reaching into the big, now kinda old Baby Boomer generation. That includes me, so finally I've gotten caught up in the craze. I've had a basically inactive Facebook account for some time, but last Saturday I logged in and found a bunch of friends requests waiting for me. That got me going on a crusade to see who I could locate among friends, acquaintances, and first cousins of people I used to know in elementary school. My "Friends List" tells me that I have added 72 new friends in the past two weeks. In truth, I have added 72 friends in the last six days . . . and at this moment have a total of 86 friends. Since I do know a few old fogies who have not yet succumbed to the Facebook craze, that gives me hope that I might have even more than 86 real life friends.

However, let me tell you a few things I have learned about Facebook these last six days.

It's lots of fun to re-establish contact with people I've known from long ago. I've exchanged notes and in some cases used the online chat feature with quite a few old friends, many of whom I haven't seen or heard from in 30+ years.

There are some fantastic features to Facebook. It's great to be able to see pictures of people you haven't seen in a long time. However, it can also be a little shocking because we don't look exactly like we used to. One lady I remembered from college as a sweet, shapely brunette has now become a not-quite-so-svelte, white-haired grandmother-type (who is still just as sweet, I'm sure). Some of the guys have for some strange reason lost a considerable portion of their hair; others, like myself, still have our hair, but it has gotten quite a bit lighter in color for some puzzling cause. Most of us have grown somewhat broader, although not any taller. Hey, I know that's called aging, but it can still be shocking to be reminded of how we have changed over a few decades. Facebook also offers some fun apps (applications) which can be a fun way to spend some spare time.

There are some silly, next-to-useless features to Facebook, too. I won't identify any of these by name since one person's "useless" might be somebody else's "greatest thing ever." However, some of the quizzes and games don't exactly float my boat. But to each his own.

Facebook can take up lots of time. Everybody needs to be a good time manager. That has always been one of my challenges and Facebook doesn't necessarily help my struggle. Probably, the fascination will wear off in time, though, so this may become less of a problem for me.

Facebook friendships (like those in real life) will require some effort to maintain. Real friendships aren't static things, they are either growing or dying (like most other living things in life). I suspect some of the old friends I've discovered will fade away into obscurity once again because either I won't put forth the effort to keep up with them, or they won't have any interest in staying in touch with me. However, that doesn't mean we don't have good memories of shared experiences in the past or that we do not still think of ourselves as friends.

Re-connecting with old friends can bring on some unpleasant news. It is always possible that we might learn that someone we once felt closeness with has passed on into eternity. That hasn't happened to me yet through Facebook, but inevitably it will at some point. It's also possible to learn about friends' marriages breaking up. Several of the couples who met and married while attending the same college at the same time I did are now divorced. In many cases, those marriages failed because one partner or the other committed infidelity. It is always a sad thing to learn about that kind of sin and the consequences it has in the lives of people whom you care about. It has also brought some sadness to me this past week to learn of three or four people who were once faithful members of the Lord's church, but who have made spiritual changes which (at least according to my understanding) have taken them in the wrong direction away from the Lord's will. On the other hand, knowing this gives me the opportunity to pray for them, and I would not have known of that need had I not renewed some connections on Facebook.

Who knows where this is all going? Inevitably, Facebook has to lose some of its "cool" factor because so many of us not-so-youngs are getting involved with it. Several of my new Facebook friends are sons and daughters of my contemporaries, whose own parents have not yet jumped on this bandwagon. I last knew some of these twenty- and thirty-somethings when they were children in churches where I used to preach. So, maybe, our joint participation in something like Facebook helps bridge some generations -- and thus surely is a good thing.

Rating the Presidents

2009-02-16T10:51:00.000-08:00

C-SPAN has presented a compilation of a group of historians' ranking of our 42 former presidents. This updates a list C-SPAN offered in 2000.

The top ten are:
1) Lincoln
2) Washington
3) FDR
4) TR
5) Truman
6) JFK
7) Jefferson
8) Eisenhower
9) Wilson
10) Reagan

Rated the worst of all the presidents: James Buchanan, who was president just before Lincoln.

Other recent presidents are LBJ (11), Clinton (15), George HW Bush (18), Ford (22), Carter (25), Nixon (27), and George W Bush (36).

My comments:

Most over-rated: Kennedy -- perhaps historians who have a living memory of Camelot will have to die out before JFK's 1000 days in power can be objectively evaluated. JFK belongs in the top 20 of all presidents, but nearer the bottom of that range than the top.

Also over-rated: Clinton -- up to 15th from 21st in the 2000 survey. 21st is about right. Also Grant up to 23rd from 33rd in the 2000 survey. The earlier ranking was charitable; the huge jump in the latest survey is unexplainable. In reality, U. S. Grant was a bottom five president.

Slightly over-rated in the top 10: Truman, Eisenhower, Wilson -- no quibbles with Truman and Wilson being in the top 10 but not quite as high as they are. The General is 6-8 spots too high.

Underrated: Reagan (ought to compete with TR and TJ for the middle spaces in the top 10); Andrew Jackson (ranked 13th; a stronger case can be made for Old Hickory being in the Top 10 than Kennedy, Eisenhower, and possibly Wilson); Andrew Johnson (the historians ought to have gone back and read JFK's Profiles in Courage before ranking AJ next-to-worst; he deserves better than that. If being impeached by a hostile Congress doesn't count against Clinton, then it should not be a black mark against A. Johnson either); Lyndon Johnson (if not for the Vietnam War, he might be a Top 5 President because of his social and civil rights programs, but Vietnam destroyed his presidency).

It is early for any real historical analysis of the Bush 43 presidency. In time, his ranking might improve, but he most likely will always be considered in the bottom half of the presidents.

Obviously, there is some subjectivity involved in anyone's ratings of presidents. That is true for me as well as for the historians who participated in the C-SPAN survey. In some cases, the subjective judgment is obvious. In other cases, it is much more subtle.

My personal top ten:

1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. FDR
4. Jefferson
5. Reagan
6. TR
7. Andrew Jackson
8. Truman
9. LBJ
10.Wilson

Link to C-SPAN material: http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx

Blogging the Inauguration

2009-01-20T09:28:00.000-08:00

As most everyone familiar with his skill as an orator would have expected, President Barack Obama gave an inspiring, uplifting speech where he recalled the greatness of America past and challenged the nation to reclaim that greatness.

This writer did not vote for the new president and admits a degree of trepidation about what the Obama administration holds for our country. However, he is the President of all Americans and every citizen should hope and pray that he will live up to the brightest expectations of his ardent army of supporters. In a time of troubles, all of us should be working together for our common good. May the Lord bless our new President with wisdom and judgment to carry us forward in the direction we need to go.

Without meaning to dampen in any way the spirit of the day, we should note that things can only get better than the beginning of the inaugural ceremony. Several minutes behind schedule, the new president did not take the oath of office until several minutes after noon, eastern standard time. The 20th amendment states that presidential and vice-presidential terms end at noon on January 20th. Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution states that a new president must take the oath of office before he shall "enter on the Execution of his Office." Since Vice-President Biden had already been sworn into office, presumably he was actually the acting president for those few minutes when we listened to the musical performance. It doesn't matter in retrospect, but had some great emergency taken place, it could have made for some awkward moments (or worse) as they stood around trying to figure out who the president actually was.

Then the bungling of the presidential oath was embarrassing. I haven't heard a replay and don't know for sure if the Chief Justice or the new President is responsible for the mistake.

Finally, President Obama made a historical faux pas when he claimed to be the 44th person to take the presidential oath of office. Somebody ought to have caught that Grover Cleveland is counted as both the 22nd and 24th presidents since he served non-consecutive terms. In reality, Barack Obama is the 43rd man to be president even though he will be called the 44th president.

None of these things is significant. But as the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. The Obama administration did not get off to a good start in taking care of details.

Thoughts on a White Christmas

2008-12-25T20:49:00.000-08:00

I am 55 years old and today was the first time in my life I have seen a White Christmas at my house. I say it that way because on Christmas 2007 (my first in the Northwest), we drove partway up to Mount Baker because we knew it was snowing on the mountain. We got far enough to see snow coming down and beautiful snow-covered scenery. In many ways, it was more exciting than this year because, quite frankly, we have had more than our fill of snow over the last 12 days. A week ago today, I measured 13" of snow in our yard and the church parking lot next door. Since then, it has snowed more, but the accumulated snow has also melted a considerable amount when the temperature got a couple of degrees above freezing. I'm going to guess that the total snowfall here on the east side of Burlington amounted to at least 20" -- which is a lot of snow for this Southern boy.

Most of these posts have some kind of spiritual application and this will be no different. Before moving to Washington, I lived 16 years on the Gulf Coast in Northwest Florida. Snow was not totally unknown there, but it was rare. So much so that a random snowflake flurrying down (which might happen once every 2-3 years) got everybody all excited. The one time in 16 years that we had any accumulation at all (about 2-3" which was all melted by mid-morning), we actually had church members calling us in the wee hours of the morning telling us to get up and look at the snow because it might be gone by daybreak. For those people, snow was something to be anticipated with excitement and rejoiced over on the rare occasions when it actually happened.

Snow, though, is one of those things best enjoyed in small measures. Undisturbed blankets of white snow with the white stuff clumping the the branches of spruce and fir trees makes for a beautiful, living Christmas card. But once it has been driven through and trod over by heavy snow boots, it begins to look somewhat less enchanting. After a few days, everywhere you go, you're met with the sight of dirty piles of the stuff piled up along the streets where snowplows have cleared it out of the roadways. We can be excused for thinking, "Enough, already!" Please, let's get on with our normal damp, drizzly 38 degree Northwest weather.

Perhaps the bountiful blessings bestowed upon us by the Lord might be a little like that. We appreciate those blessings and are grateful for them -- at first. Then, in time, we simply take them for granted. Then, as things go on, we get tired of them and want Him to give us something new and different. Think about the Israelites in the wilderness. They needed food so God gave them manna every day (except the Sabbath). They didn't have to work for it; all they needed do was go out and collect it and their hunger was satisfied. It wasn't too long before they started missing the variety of foods that made up their diets in Egypt. They actually wanted to go back. For some reason, they remembered the food they now craved, but seemed to forget all about the slavery and mistreatment they experienced in Egypt. It's practically impossible for present-day reality to compete with the way our memories recall the 'good ole days,' even when those past times were not very good at all.

Let's try to be grateful for every good and perfect gift from the Father of lights. Whether it is the beauty and excitement of falling snow, or manna to fill our stomachs, or the riches of God's spiritual blessings, let us acknowledge that God loves us and cares for our needs without fail. Let that never be an insignificant thing in our thinking!

Sign that the Econony Is Not as Bad as We Think

2008-12-19T12:10:00.001-08:00

Actress Scarlett Johansson had a cold when she appeared on the Tonight Show earlier this week. Jay Leno had her sneeze into a tissue, then he put the used tissue in a baggie, had her autograph the bag, then announced that the "prize" would be listed on E-bay, with the proceeds going to charity. As I write, the bid for Ms. Johansson's used tissue is more than $3,200.

I'd like to think that some wealthy people are simply using this as an excuse to make a donation to her designated charity. Otherwise, it really makes you wonder, doesn't it?

On my list of things I'd like Santa to bring, a pre-owned tissue is way down the list, no matter whose bodily fluids are decorating it. Perhaps this is just further proof that even in a bad economy, there are still numbers of people with more money than sense.

Firing MSNBC Anchor

2008-11-13T07:24:00.000-08:00

If I suddenly found myself boss at MSNBC, the left-leaning cable news channel, I would probably clean house of all the on-air personalities.

I'd take great pleasure in giving the axe to the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. In my totally "unbiased" opinion, these fellows are disgraces to journalism. The world would be a better place if their faces never disgraced another television screen. Now, do you want me to tell you how I really feel?

However, I would find no pleasure in giving a pink slip to "Morning Joe" Scarborough. I have been an admirer of Joe's since 1994 when he first ran for Congress in the 1st Congressional District in Northwest Florida. Scarborough resigned his seat in the House of Representatives several years ago. Like a number of other rising young stars in the "Republican Revolution" of '94, he chose to get out of Congress and go for the big bucks available in other places. First, he associated himself with a high-powered West Florida law firm headed by noted litigator Fred Levin (the law school at the University of Florida is named for him). Scarborough's talent before the camera soon led him to host programs on MSNBC, first in the evening, then after the Don Imus fiasco, taking over the early morning slot.

As that network has trended further and further left in openly advocating candidates and positions, Scarborough has become MSNBC's version of Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the token conservative on ABC's daytime gabfest, The View. Ms. Hasselbeck ventures bravely into the lion's den Monday-Friday mornings when she confronts Barbara Walters, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and seemingly a cast of thousands. Scarborough isn't quite as alone as Hasselbeck because he routinely staffs his show with some cohosts and guests who are either conservative or genuine moderates. However, Joe has been the most outspoken conservative voice on his network.

It's obvious I've continued to be a Scarborough fan as he moved from politics into television. Since I now live on the west coast where Morning Joe airs from 3-6 AM, I have a "season pass" on my TIVO to record his show every day. So why would I want to fire Joe?

Because one day last week, he showed that he has neither the self-control or respect for himself and his audience to control his tongue. On live television, he became so agitated that he dropped an "f-bomb." His network has instituted a seven-second delay to prevent such a thing happening in the future [article from New York Times ].

That's not good enough. This isn't radio shock jerks trying to shock and offend. A national news program (even on MSNBC) needs to have hosts who can live up to higher standards than Scarborough has exhibited. This kind of thing ought to be a ONE-strike-and-you're-out proposition. Sorry, Joe, you don't deserve a second chance.

I'm not the boss at MSNBC. But I can treat Scarborough just like I treat Olbermann and Matthews -- by not watching him. So I'm deleting my season pass to Morning Joe and I'm surely not going to get up at 3 AM to watch a potty mouth like Scarborough.

How a Bull-headed Doctor Saved the Newsman's Life

2008-10-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

David Brinkley was one of the best known and most highly respected newsmen of the 20^th century. From NBC’s Huntley-Brinkley Report to ABC’s This Week With David Brinkley, he was a regular face on television news for nearly 50 years. However, if it had not been for bureaucratic stubbornness, Brinkley probably would not have been around to experience that successful career.

In the fall of 1940, Brinkley was set to start his studies in journalism at the University of North Carolina. The clouds of war were hanging heavily on the horizon, though. He was well-informed enough to understand that the United States would eventually get involved in the war already raging in Europe. Rather than wait to be drafted, Brinkley joined the army. America was not yet involved in the fighting, so he spent a dull year in the stateside army waiting for the inevitable. However, before his unit was sent overseas, army medics decided that Brinkley had a kidney ailment. He did not believe anything was wrong with his kidneys and he never had a problem afterwards. Nevertheless, the doctors insisted and sent through the paperwork for him to be medically discharged. Brinkley went back to his home town of Wilmington, NC and got a job as a reporter with the local newspaper.

His unit was part of the D-Day invasion at Normandy and continued to fight the Germans as they advanced into France. A few weeks later, a fleet of American bombers flew out of England to bomb German positions. Due to the weather, they were unable to drop their bombs on their targets. They had to unload the bombs anyway and it just happened that the place where the bombs fell was right on top of the 120^th Infantry’s Thirtieth Infantry Division – the unit with which Brinkley had served. 245 of 250 men in that group were killed by that tragic friendly fire mistake. The probability is high that David Brinkley would have been among the fatalities if the army medics had not insisted that he had a phantom kidney ailment.

Sometimes seemingly stupid and bullheaded notions thwart our ambitions and leave us frustrated. However, those apparently random detours to the courses we have planned for our lives can lead us to a far better place than where we would have originally ended up. Instead of filling a body bag in France, Brinkley went on to a distinguished and influential career. Who knows where our disappointments may lead us?

Christians naturally see the finger of God in many of these apparently chance events. Such divine intervention is impossible to prove, but we do know that God loves us and that He wants things to work out for good in our lives.

Presidential Mamas

2008-10-08T09:10:00.001-07:00

If John McCain is elected as our 44th president, he presumably will continue a trend of having his mother alive on his Inauguration Day. Presidents Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all had living mothers when they first took office. George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton lost their mothers during their presidencies. We pray that former first lady Barbara Bush will survive long past the end of her son's presidency in January.

If Barack Obama is elected, the string will end. Senator Obama mentioned in the debate last night that his mother had died of cancer.

Debates

2008-10-07T20:26:00.000-07:00

It is frustrating watching the Presidential Debates, isn't it? Each candidate has his talking points and certain lines of attack he is determined to follow. Charges are made, but not documented with evidence. Charges are denied, but not refuted with evidence. It becomes little more than, "he says/he says" and viewers have no way of know who is telling the truth.

Debates seem to encourage voters to make choices based on how glib the candidates are with quips or how polished they are as speakers. All things being equal, I'd prefer to have a good communicator in the Oval Office, but a polished public speaking style is hardly the number one qualification for an effective president.

A couple of off-the-cuff observations based on tonight's debate:

1) McCain seemed focused and direct talking about foreign policy, but fuzzy on other matters.

2) McCain's idea about the government bailing out all homeowners who have lost value in their homes because of the fall of housing prices is scary on several levels.

3) I really wish someone would teach Obama how to pronounce the name of Pakistan. If he's not from Boston, he ought not be saying "Pockistahn."

Foreign Policy Experience

2008-09-03T01:00:00.000-07:00

A lot of attention is being given to the fact that presumptive GOP vice-presidential nominee lacks any foreign policy experience. I thought it might be useful to list recent presidents who lacked any significant foreign policy experience before being elected President:

George W. Bush (2001-2009)
Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)

In other words, four of the last five presidents were (or had been) state governors who never held federal office until their election as President.

This post is not an endorsement of Sarah Palin for I am not convinced that she is ready to be President. However, this is a call for honesty. Before Ms. Palin's opponents dismiss her as unqualified because she lacks foreign policy experience, they ought to explain how being governor of Georgia or governor of Arkansas qualifies one to be president, but being governor of Alaska does not. If they can't make the case with reason and logic that Governors Carter and Clinton were qualified to be President, but Governor Palin is not qualified to be Vice-President, then their complaints are nothing more than political hypocrisy.

Governor Palin's Daughter and Teen Pregnancy

2008-09-01T16:45:00.000-07:00

Alaska governor and presumptive GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin released information on Labor Day that her 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. The young woman plans to marry the baby's father.

I don't expect this news to have much effect on the presidential campaign. Senator Obama responded quickly by stating that criticism of the Governor's family was off limits. He threatened to fire any of his staffers who were found to be spreading accusations against Palin's daughter. Obama's statement has not kept some partisan voices from heaping criticism on Governor Palin and her stand in favor of abstinence-only sex education. CNN, in particular, has been guilty of some low blows in their handling of this story. Former education secretary Bill Bennett was incensed at CNN reporting by a female staffer who admitted that she had gone to Alaska looking for dirt on Palin. If anything, vicious comments by far-left zealots might provoke a favorable backlash toward the Alaska governor's campaign.

On this one, I agree with Senator Obama. Bristol Palin needs to be accountable to the Lord for her actions, but she does not deserve to have her private life opened up to the prying eyes of the media. That is especially true when shameless partisans are eager to use those details for political advantage.

Leaving young Ms. Palin aside, this issue does raise important considerations about how Christians should deal with the unpleasant reality that a certain percentage of young people from even the most moral of families do have sex with pregnancy being the result. Here are some thoughts to keep in mind.

1. Getting pregnant is not a sin. The sin comes with having sex and the wrong committed is the same whether or not pregnancy results.

2. When pregnancy does occur, young women who choose life for their babies ought to be commended. Not commended for having sex, but commended for dealing responsibly and morally with the consequence of the sinful behavior.

3. The goal should always be restoration (to the extent it is possible). Teenagers who fornicate (to use the old-fashioned biblical word) cannot have their virginity restored to them. Many aspects of their lives inevitably change after teens become sexually active. When pregnancy ensues, the complications are multiplied. While clocks cannot be turned back, the souls of the young people can be rescued. Repentance and forgiveness are always possible and that should always be the goal of anyone who has an opportunity to influence the thinking of teens who have slipped from the moral standards they have been taught.

4. Marriage is not necessarily wise when teenagers conceive a child. "Shotgun" marriages should not take place because a couple of kids got caught misbehaving. Marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment. Thus, those entering marriage need to be mature enough to make that kind of lifelong decision. All things being equal, it is better for a child to grow up in a family with mom and dad living together in harmony. However, when teenaged parents aren't ready to marry, it is better to let a child be born out of "wedlock" than to wed prematurely.

A Little Good News on the Ethics Front

2008-08-22T11:22:00.000-07:00

The Josephson Institute of Ethics does a survey of American middle school and high school students every two years. They ask questions about ethical behaviors and, for a decade, the results kept getting more and more depressing. From 1992 to 2002, the Ethics of American Youth surveys found high schoolers getting worse about cheating, stealing, and lying. In the 2004 survey, however, there was a marked turnaround. Confirming that the 2004 results were not a fluke, the 2006 survey showed the trend to better behavior continuing. In 2002, 74% of high schoolers admitted cheating on a test within the last year. By 2006, the percentage of cheaters was down to 60%. 38% admitted having shoplifted at least once in the past year in 2002. In 2006, only 28% had shoplifted. 93% had lied to their parents in 2002; in 2006 that number dropped to 81%. 2008 results are not available yet; it will be interesting to see if these positive trends continue.

No one should celebrate that more than 80% of high school kids admit lying to their parents or that 6 out of 10 cheated and almost 3 out of 10 shoplifted. These stats are a case of being better, but not yet good.

Christian teens have to understand that they are called by the Lord to rise above the moral standards of the world around them. It is not enough to behave as well as everybody else. Your job is to let your light shine to the people around you who are living in the world of darkness. Leading others in the right way begins by doing right yourselves.

For more information about the survey, go to http://tinyurl.com/teenethics

Note:
The above article was written for my church bulletin this week. It isn't the article I started out to write, but I like to report stories that offer a glimpse of optimism that things are getting better. I was reading last night in Bill O'Reilly's 2003 book, Who's Looking Out for You? He cited the 2002 Josephson statistics as evidence for the decline in values in American culture. Just before introducing the Josephson statistics, O'Reilly commented, "But America is paying a heavy price for letting the good times roll, a price seen most vividly in the behavior of children and especially public high school students."

Before writing the article I had planned, I thought to check the Josephson Institute's web site to see if updated statistics were available. It was a pleasant surprise to see that 2004 and 2006 results from the biennial surveys showed a definite improvement in several character markers among U. S. high schoolers.

I think Mr. O'Reilly's basic point is still valid. Our culture does continue in moral decline, and that decline is evident in the behavior of high schoolers as well as just about every other element of society. However, it is delightful to find an occasional ray of sunshine amidst all the doom and gloom. Hopefully, the Josephson survey results from 2004 and 2006 are not an aberration, but instead are the beginning of a trend toward better character in America's youth. Historically, things like this tend to run in cycles and it is high time the cycle started turning around toward an increase of morality and virtue in the lives of the American people.

If It Ain't Broke . . . .

2008-08-11T10:10:00.000-07:00

I bought some deodorant at Costco a few days ago. At wholesale clubs like Costco and Sam's Club, you don't buy just one of anything. Most things are quality in those stores, but everything is quantity. In the particular package of five Gillette deodorant sticks that I purchased, I got a free Fusion razor. I'd seen advertising for this new razor product, but had not paid much attention. Yesterday morning, I needed the new deodorant so opened the package. I decided to shave with the new razor and was surprised to find it had no fewer than five shaving edges on the razor head. I had heard another company advertise a razor with four blades, but had never tried that either. It really amazed me that somebody thinks a man needs five blades at one time to get his face shaved.

My shaving connection with Gillette goes back a long time. I bought an Atra razor, if I remember correctly, back in the 1970s. It had two blades and a swivel head. In my opinion, it was definitely a change for the better over the single stationary blade common before that time. Then maybe ten or twelve years ago, I changed to a Gillette Sensor razor . . . still two blades, swivel head, but it was an improvement because the shave was smoother and the blades lasted longer.

Two or three years ago, I made a startling discovery. I have a fairly heavy beard and had been troubled by the having beard particles clog the spaces around the blade edges. In time this made me have to throw away the blades before they had become dull. It occurred to me that leaving the razor head soaking in water might dissolve the buildup. Not only did that work, but I discovered that blades kept in water last much longer than otherwise. I'm probably revealing a secret that Gillette doesn't want men to know . . . but it really does work. I've gone as long as three months getting good shaves daily from one Sensor Excel razor head.

I have given all this history to demonstrate that I'm not one of those guys who has his set routines from which he will never vary. Invent a better mousetrap and I'll join the crowd beating a path to your door.

However, in this case, I'm not ready to jump on the Fusion bandwagon, if there is such a thing. The wider five-blade head forces you to shave at a different angle and makes some parts of your face difficult to reach. Plus the overall shave was nowhere near as good as what I was used to getting with the Sensor Excel blades. Gillette, you already have a great product. We don't need five blades to shave our faces. Leave well enough alone. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you've read this blog before, you know that we are not geared toward reviewing consumer products. Most of the time there is a "lesson" to be learned from the bytes of everyday life experiences that I usually share here. Today's entry is no different:

In Acts 17, the apostle Paul traveled alone to the Greek capital, Athens. After he encountered various people in the city, he concluded that both the Athenians and foreigners who lived there "spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing" (Acts 17:21, KJV). If it was new, they were interested in it.

That view has not gone away over the centuries. We still have people who are infatuated with change for change's sake. I visited a church once and got to talking to the minister. He told me that they "made a deliberate effort" to do things completely differently in their worship assembly from one Sunday to the next.

It's a good thing to avoid getting oneself into a rut . . . either in our personal lives or in the life of the church. We need to be open to different ideas and methods as long as those ideas and methods are in harmony with God's will. However, just because something is new and different does not mean it is better.

We don't need to be afraid of change. Neither do we need to be enamored with change. Let everything be scrutinized carefully. If what we are doing now is better, don't change it just to be different. If a new way offers advantages over the old, then by all means, let's be willing to give it a try.

I think that is good strategy . . . whether we're talking about which razor to use . . . or how to carry out the work of the church.

Friday Groaner

2008-08-08T18:13:00.001-07:00

I am a lover of puns . . . some of them pretty atrocious.

For example, did you hear about the training being given to physicians so they will be better able to prescribe pain pills for tourists and others en route from one place to another? Yeah, the program is designed to aid transit dental medication.

On that note, happy a good weekend!

First Opinions

2008-08-06T08:09:00.000-07:00

Sharing a few opinions on this and that today --

I've talked about comics in this space before. Today I think I'm through with reading Lyn Johnston's For Better or For Worse. It is a dying strip with Johnston running out of steam and she nears her planned retirement. I read comics for the humor, or at least for some kind of thought that brightens my day. Those moments have been rare in FBOFW lately. Today's blatant endorsement of homosexual marriage is a final straw for me. If I want liberal politics in my comics, I'll read Doonesbury. (If the link leads to the a different FBOFW comic, look for the August 6 strip).

Last week, we had out-of-state family visiting. It was their first time in the Northwest and we wanted to show them around the area. One day we drove as far as the highway goes up Mount Baker. We saw fantastic mountain scenery and lots of snow -- even on the first day of August. You can see some of our pictures here.

It was a little past noon as we drove back down the mountain so we began looking for some place to eat lunch. In the small town of Glacier, we found a roadside restaurant which looked promising. The food was acceptable and the prices were not too far from being reasonable. However, the menu made me wonder about the owner's marketing savvy. Like McDonald's or Burger King, it was self-serve as far as water and soft drinks. No problem there, except that apparently large tips were still expected since the menu noted that a 20% gratuity would be added for parties of six or more. Luckily, we had only five in our little group. Then the menu noted that in order to provide speedy delivery of food, no changes in the food order were permitted. Burger King might let you 'have it your way,' but this place wasn't buying into that idea. "You eat it the way we serve it, or you don't eat it at all" was the message I was getting from their menu. Finally, the menu declared that only one check would be presented at each table and the patrons would have to make their own arrangements about sharing costs since the cashier was so busy she could not take time to separate orders at the cash register.

In other words, this particular restaurant seemed to be going out of its way to be customer-unfriendly. Unless the owner is a grump by natural disposition, it makes me wonder. Does this place have so much business that it needed to discourage customers in order to provide good service? There are places where that might be necessary, but it didn't seem to be so in this little rural restaurant. There were several other patrons for lunch that day, but the place was not exceedingly busy. There was no wait for a table and several other tables were available. And this is the height of western Washington's very short summer season. It is doubtful they are much busier at any other time.

After thinking about it for a while, I think I have figured out what was going on. The management of that restaurant apparently is made up of people with the kind of personalities that value following a system more than they do pleasing people. It's efficient to serve the same dishes to all customers regardless of what they want. It's efficient to have customers get their own drinks. It's efficient (for the cashier and server) to make customers split the tab on their own. Clearly this place was run by people who were more concerned about making things easier for themselves than they were about pleasing their patrons.

Now what application does this have to leadership in the church? I think I see some lessons.

1. Unlike this restaurant, some churches are too intent on pleasing the "customer." We might forget that it is Christ's church, not ours. Likewise, it does not belong to those who visit and who might be prospects for membership if we can just do the right things to attract them. Church leaders should want to be sensitive to the needs and desires of both members and visitors, but things need to be kept in perspective. The most important thing is pleasing the Lord. His will is revealed to us in the Bible and our top priority must be to do what He wants us to do.

2. However, while recognizing what I have just said about pleasing God ahead of pleasing people, we need to be careful that we don't fall into the same trap that the management of that little roadside restaurant. If we start valuing our own systems and structures more than we value people, we are in trouble. Responding to what people want may make extra work for us. Changing incidental things to accommodate others requires change, and some people just don't like to change things.

We need to be careful about the unspoken message we send out to those who come our way. That restaurant conveyed a message to me that I was not as important as their system of doing things in the way that pleased them. The result of getting that message is that if I'm ever traveling that way again at mealtime, I'm likely to try the restaurant across the highway instead of stopping there again.

If people visit our church services and go away with the same message -- people here don't really care about me -- they are probably going to look for somewhere else to worship next time.

The old "JOY bus" slogan expresses my point very well. Put Jesus first -- always. But put Others second. Finally, put Yourself last.

New "Truth for Today" Commentary

2008-07-26T10:54:00.000-07:00

For several years, I have subscribed to the Truth For Today commentary series so that I automatically receive each new volume in this series as it is published. In the last two or three years, they have come off the press slowly, but a note from editor Eddie Cloer indicates that is changing. He says that four new volumes will be published in the next twelve months. The latest is 1 & 2 Thessalonians by Earl Edwards. Brother Edwards is the recently retired head of the Graduate program in Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. I've not spent any time with this commentary yet, but I am confident that it will live up to the standards set by earlier volumes in this outstanding commentary series.

If you are interested in the subscription plan, go to the Resource Publications website at http://www.resourcepublications.net . You may need to call or email them for details about the plan. Books cost $26.00 plus postage and handling.

Just a Little Mistake

2008-07-25T05:00:00.000-07:00

I usually have several books in the process of being read at the same time. My office is always messy with books strewn about. Come over to the house and, at any given time, you're likely to see maybe a half-dozen books here and there which I am in the process of reading. Some I finish; some I lose interest and return unread to the library or to my shelves.

Yesterday, I received an order from Amazon which included a book I had known about for quite a while, but never read: Dr. Tom Olbricht's Hearing God's Voice: My Life with Scripture in the Churches of Christ. I've never met Dr. Olbricht personally, but I am familiar with him from years of lurking on the Stone-Campbell restoration history discussion list where he is an active participant. I've read only the first hundred pages of this 450-page book so I'll wait to offer any kind of evaluation until I've read the whole thing. At this point, I can say only that Dr. Tom is a most capable writer who has the ability to make his memories of the church of his youth about as interesting as some of the whodunits I like to read.

However, early on in the book I caught him in a factual mistake. He said that the person who claimed that God does not hear the prayers of sinners was a Pharisee who opposed Jesus (p. 30). If he had gone back and reviewed John 9 before writing that paragraph, he would have remembered that it was the blind man healed by Jesus who spoke the words recorded in John 9:31.

I do not mention this factual error to criticize or embarrass Dr. Olbricht. Everybody--even talented writers --makes mistakes, especially so if they are not careful to do their homework. Ann Rule is a well-known true crime writer whose recent book Smoke, Mirrors, and Murder includes a section on the Matthew and Mary Winkler case. According to Wayne Jackson, she included some inaccurate information about the Church of Christ in her discussion of the Winklers. Brother Jackson emailed Ms. Rule and offered her some gentle correction. He reported that she replied with a gracious note apologizing for the error and stating that she had based her comments "upon a fuzzy childhood memory, rather than current research." [Jackson's article on Christian Courier web site]. In that case, Ann Rule failed to do her homework and she 'fessed up to it. That was the honorable thing to do and it, in no way, detracts from her reputation as a star writer in her field.

The same is true of Dr. Tom. I haven't called his error about the blind man to his attention because there is no need to do so. He would obviously admit the mistake because he was clearly incorrect in what he wrote. That just means that he slipped up on a detail that he should have caught, but it does not detract from the book or his ability as a writer or teacher.

All of us who preach are occasionally going to make those kind of errors. We shouldn't. In an ideal world, we would always have our facts straight and say everything exactly right. However, it does not happen that way. We trust our memories when we shouldn't, either as we are writing sermons or we depart from our prepared material and go rabbit-chasing. Almost all preachers do that from time to time, and that impromptu speaking time is when we are most likely to say something wrong.

So, correct us gently when we misspeak. It is never right to be wrong, so I don't advise anybody to just let it slide if you catch a speaker in an error. However, it is not necessary to make a big deal out of the error unless you have substantial reason to think the speaker or writer is teaching intentionally something the Bible shows to be false. People who willfully go against the Bible deserve to be rebuked and condemned. Those who err because of tongue slips or faulty memories need to be corrected much more gently and carefully.

Satanic Soap Forces (But Not from Procter & Gamble)

2008-07-23T09:44:00.000-07:00

I'm not the most perceptive of people when it comes to noticing small changes in my everyday environment. My wife can change her hair style and it might take me days to notice if she doesn't get impatient and call it to my attention. I think I've heard her use the word "oblivious" to describe me, and I couldn't object too strongly.

I've been showering every day with Irish Spring soap for a long time. It suddenly dawned on me a week or two ago that the soap bars seemed to be getting small more quickly than they used to. After considering and discounting other possibilities like me taking longer showers, I got a box of soap out of the storage pantry and read the small print. Aha! The bar is now 4 ounces, when it used to be 5 ounces. Discounting the cost of packaging, that is like a 20% price increase! In inflationary times, that is an old marketing trick. Don't raise prices; instead cut down on the size of the product. I remember back in the 1970s when we went through a previous round of rampant inflation that candy bars suddenly got considerably smaller than they had been before.

My reaction?

First, as a believer in a free market economy, I recognize that soap manufacturers have the right to market their products in whatever sizes they wish. Supply and demand is at work. If people quit buying four-ounce Irish Spring bars and start buying more five-ounce bars marketed by a competitor, then the Colgate-Palmolive company will likely go back to selling five-ounce boxes of Irish Spring. That's the way it should be.

Second, there is something a bit deceptive in the practice. It would be more straightforward -- more honest -- to raise prices if necessary rather than subtly reduce the amount of product the consumer gets for her money.

So that leads me to the analogy that, in this case, the soap company is acting a lot like Satan does. (Hey, Irish Spring is not a Procter & Gamble product so that mysterious "Satanic" trademark of theirs doesn't even figure into this at all).

However, the devil is tricky and deceptive. He tries to work subtly to lead people away from Christ and his truth. 2 Corinthians 11.3 says, "But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." Like the soap company, he tries to pull switcheroos when we aren't paying attention. "This 'new and improved' gospel message is a lot better than the old one," he would have you believe. "It doesn't make such hard demands on you." "This new gospel makes people like you; it's guaranteed to reduce persecution by 50%." Maybe he doesn't whisper those exact words in your ears, but you get the idea. He is all about compromise and getting people to take the easy way instead of following Christ with determination and dedication. On superficial examination, people might think it's the same ol' religion, but Satan's subtle changes have taken away much more than 20% of it's value.

When salt loses it's saltiness, it is good for nothing [Matthew 5:13]. When true disciples of Jesus lose the essence of what makes them Christians, everything worthwhile has been abandoned.

Having to buy a new bar of soap more often is only a minor inconvenience. Losing your Christianity because of Satan's wiles is a much more serious matter.

Saints

2008-07-15T08:54:00.000-07:00

I didn't go to church much when I was a young kid. However, I had at least a normal curiosity about the world around me and remember being confused about the idea of saints. My introduction to the idea came from TV and books where I learned about people with names like Saint Xavier and Saint Dominic. Now in north Alabama in the 1960s, you didn't run into a lot of folks with names like Xavier and Dominic. So the strange names just reinforced the idea that "saints" were remote, other-worldly people.

When I was 13, I started attending church regularly and was soon baptized into Christ. I became acquainted with some godly people and eventually learned that these people are the real saints -- the ones who fit the description you find in the Bible. I think of the elders' wives in the church I attended as a teenager. They had names like Nadine, Opalene, Flostine (beginning to see a pattern here?) , as well as Alice, Gladys, and the like. I haven't checked, but I doubt you would find a single Opalene or Flostine on the Catholic list of saints.

On the other hand, these women fit very well into what the New Testament says about saints. "Saint" is simply a noun form of sanctified. Saints have been cleansed by the blood of Christ. They have been made holy as their sins were washed away in baptism. As I've grown in my understanding of the Bible, I've come to understand that all this is much simpler and plainer than many church people would have you believe.

You hear the gospel message, believe that it is true (which means you believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God), repent -- turn away from your sins, confess your faith, and are baptized to wash away your sins. There are scriptures to back up each of the items in that list, but it means more if you find them for yourself.

When you follow that simple plan, you become a Christian, a son or daughter of God in His spiritual family. In other words, you are a saint.

And you don't even have to wait until years after you're dead!

Getting Ready

2008-07-11T16:39:00.000-07:00

I haven't been on an overseas mission trip in a while, but I have made quite of few of those journeys in the past. I've been to Africa six times and to different countries in South America a total of five times. Getting ready for such a trip takes a lot of preparation. Back in 1999, I spent a month in Tanzania working with Cy Stafford in the early days of the work he has done very successfully in the Arusha area. While getting ready for that trip, I experienced one of my "organized periods" which seem to come-and-go in my life. So I made a detailed checklist of things to take with me. Some of the items were recommendations from Cy; some from my own experience as a past missionary in West Africa. Anyway, I had it down to a science and both my pieces of luggage were crammed full with items I thought would come in helpful during a month in Africa. My attention to detail paid off as I ended up with several items that we needed (and which none of the other campaigners had thought to bring) such as plastic clothes line and clothes pins. I'll admit though that I brought quite a few things that were readily available at the grocery store down the street from where we were staying. It's always that way going to Africa because it's so hard to know what will be available and what won't. Even if you have been to a place before, you can get tricked because availability varies from time to time with many items.

Bob Pritchard wrote a bulletin article a few days ago comparing getting ready for an upcoming mission trip he was taking to the preparations Christians should be making for our journey into eternity. Jesus told the apostles that He was going to prepare a place for them (John 14:1-4). When He comes again, that place will be absolutely ready for its intended occupants. It will be in turn key condition. When I read the descriptions of the heavenly city in Revelation 21, I don't know how much of that to take literally and how much is figurative. I do know, however, that heaven is going to be perfect. There won't be any musty carpet or spotted windows in that heavenly abode. It will all be just what we need so that we have no disappointment, no yearnings, no frustrations. The plumbing won't ever get stopped up. The electricity won't ever go off. Everything will be just exactly right.

Here in this life, traveling can be frustrating. If you're driving, you have to contend with heavy traffic. Even a minor fender-bender can back up interstate traffic for miles. Traveling by air offers a whole plethora of possible aggravations from being hassled by airport security to late departures and missed flights to lost luggage. No one could blame you if you decided to just stay home and avoid all the fuss.

That heavenly journey, though, will go just right. Christ isn't our co-pilot; He is the pilot. His flights always arrive on time and without incident. Whenever the time is right, Jesus will come again. All that are in the grave will hear His voice and come forth (John 5:28-29). Those living on the earth will be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor. 15:50-52). Believe me, this is a journey we don't want to miss.

However, we have to be ready. If you're flying on a plane trip, chances are you have bought your ticket weeks in advance. You know exactly when the plane is scheduled to take off and you know that you have to be there at the gate ready to board the plane when the call goes out. They wait only a few minutes for you. On today's crowded flights, there is usually somebody waiting standby ready to grab your seat if the airline releases it.

We don't know when Jesus is coming to take us to Judgment Day. No timetables have been published. There are only two possible destinations on the itinerary. But we must be ready. Heaven is a prepared place for prepared people. If Jesus comes and we have not made the necessary preparations for the journey, we're in a hopeless state. There will be no more time and no more opportunities to get ourselves ready for eternity.

Wisdom says simply that every human being ought to get ready and stay ready to meet the Lord for eternity. Are you listening?

Interesting Links

2008-06-20T15:09:00.000-07:00

Lifeway.com offers some interesting research as to how prospective attenders view a church based on its teachings about whether homosexual behavior is sinful. As might be expected, the religious background of the individuals has a large impact on whether they view opposition to the practice of homosexuality as a positive or negative for a church. Read more at http://tinyurl.com/6fbhn4 Lifeway.com is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

Catholics are more likely than Protestants to say that homosexual behavior is not sinful. Overall, teaching the sinfulness of homosexual conduct is a negative to 32% while 29% said such teaching would be a positive influence in helping them decide to visit a particular church. Among those who identified themselves as evangelical, born-again, or fundamentalist, 50% said they would be more likely to attend a church who saw homosexual behavior as sinful while only 21% said such teaching would be a negative. Of course, the bottom line is that we should be seeking to please God instead of man, so poll results like this are interesting statistics, but they count for nothing in the thinking of faithful Christians about what is right or wrong.

Also, surf on over to the Apologetics Press website (www.apologeticspress.org) and click on the E-books link in the left column. You'll find a variety of book-length material available for free download in .pdf (Adobe Acrobat) format. These books have been available for sale in printed book format in the past (some still are). Apologetics Press is located in Montgomery, Alabama. It operates under the oversight of an eldership of a Church of Christ in South Florida.

Catching Up Monday

2008-06-16T11:19:00.000-07:00

Odds and Ends as another week gets underway --

1) I've been dealing with clogged up ears for weeks now . . . and it is getting worse. It has begun affecting my inner ears and giving me trouble with balance and dizziness. Two weeks ago, I was teaching a Bible class when I was suddenly struck with a severe case of vertigo. It was by far the worst I've ever experienced. I began "listing" -- if I'd been a ship, I would have definitely started taking on water. The small lectern I was standing behind was not stable enough to support me and I started to fall. A couple of agile guys in the class jumped up and caught me before I did any damage but it was scary. I have not had it that bad any more, but the dizziness and congestion has made my life miserable. I finally have an appointment with an ENT doctor this Thursday. Perhaps he can do something to make me better.

That partially explains why the blog posting has been light the last several days.

2) I was shocked Friday evening to hear of the death of newsman Tim Russert. By now, I'm becoming sympathetic of the feeling of "enough, already!" that I know many people are having about the excessive amount of TV coverage given to Mr. Russert's death. However, he appears to have been genuinely beloved by a great many people and his death happened in such a sudden, shocking way. Seeing someone who was apparently full of life and energy lose his life so quickly ought to once again impress us with the uncertainty of life. As James said, life is a vapor that appears for a little time, then vanishes way. Maybe at least a few people somewhere will think about their need to get their lives right with the Lord after hearing about Tim's untimely passing.

3) One of the young ladies in the church here graduated from high school recently. Her family held a reception for her at their home Saturday afternoon. Trish and I drove from Burlington down to their house in Granite Falls, Washington . . . 45 miles (and about an hour's driving time) away. They started worshiping with us a few months ago, but we had not visited in their home before. I'm impressed with the dedication of people who are willing to drive that far to be a part of the congregation here. It takes a lot of time and and gas money for them to make that trip. Of course, others who live much closer have a hard time fitting the church into their schedules. A preacher's life is filled with the good and the bad . . . and we struggle to keep everything in proper perspective. It is encouraging to see people go an extra mile (or 45) to serve the Lord.

From the Sports Page

2008-06-08T12:53:00.000-07:00

When I think of the sports announcers I grew up watching on TV, my mind goes to men like Curt Gowdy, Keith Jackson, Chris Schenkel, and of course Jim McKay. Maybe it is a trick of time and a youthful perspective, but it seems that in that era when many fewer sporting events were televised, the announcers were more competent and more professional. While Chris and Curt might have had occasional lapses of foot-in-mouth disease, I don't ever recall an instance when Jim McKay failed to get it right, and to say what needed to be said with calm assurance and a total sense that he knew what he was talking about. Whether it was covering a lumberjack competition for Wide World of Sports or the terrible tragedy of the 1972 Munich Olympics, McKay was always the right man with the right words in the right place at the right time. McKay died Saturday at age 86. Though Wide World of Sports and the Olympics on ABC are distant memories, it will be a long time before another sportscaster lives up to the mark McKay set.

University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban received a lot of unfavorable press coverage when he became the highest paid college coach in history in January, 2007. Many of those media sources probably won't bother to cover the news that he and his wife have donated a million dollars to fund scholarships for first-in-their-family-to-go-to-college students at the university. It is nice to see someone who makes very well in his profession give back a generous portion for a worthy cause. I was the first in my family to go to college, but I had been brought up with an appreciation for the value of education. There was always an automatic assumption that I would continue my education after high school. Unfortunately that family encouragement is not given to all young people who would benefit throughout the rest of their lives from a college education. Having scholarship money available to make the cost of that education more affordable is a definite hand up -- instead of a hand-out -- to lots of young men and women in my home state of Alabama.

Here in the Northwest, the Seattle Mariners are having a terrific year -- if the aim is to lose more games than anyone else. The M's now enjoy a two-game lead over the Colorado Rockies as Major League Baseball's best losers. They are on pace for a record-setting year in the losers' standings . . . and can expect to be rewarded by being able to go home at the end of September as they get a head start on the off-season while those teams like the Angels, Red Sox, and Cubs (who fare much more poorly as losers) have to continue playing in October playoffs. It's no secret that people here in the Northwest think differently than folks in the rest of the country -- so the Mariners are just showing how well they fit in.

Interesting Preacher Names

2008-06-06T12:35:00.000-07:00

One of the email discussion lists has a thread going about distinguished (or at least distinctive) names some well-known preachers, educators, and editors in churches of Christ have worn. Here is a sampling:

Batsell Barrett Baxter (Jr. and Sr.)
Vanderbilt Pierpont Black
Eulie R. Brannan
Grover Cleveland Brewer
Hall Laurie Calhoun
Arvy Glenn Freed
Elmer Claude Gardner
Benton Cordell Goodpasture
Furman Kearley
Theophilus Brown Larimore
Reuel Lemmons
Austin McGary
Athens Clay Pullias
Rubel Shelly
Filo Bunyan Syrgley
Fanning Yater Tant
Foy Esco Wallace, Jr.
Gervais Knox Wallace
Guy Napoleon Woods
Flavil Yeakley
M. Norvel Young

No doubt this is just a start. Preachers not only live interesting lives, but some of us have interesting names. Others of us have names like John, Joe, Bill, Tom, Dick, and Harry!

Full Content Sermon Outlines

2008-06-06T09:10:00.000-07:00

When I moved from Florida to Washington last summer, I left behind on the old church's website a great many sermon outlines. (I have the original files, of course). Finally I have gotten a new website featuring full-content outlines of sermons I have preached thus far in 2008. In time, I will try to add some 2007 sermons which have never been posted online before. These sermons are in PDF format so readers will need an Acrobat reader or other software to read those files. Almost all modern computers have PDF reading software. If not, it's a free download.

I also reached deep into my pockets to pay the 99 cents required to register a .info domain name -- which in addition to free web hosting at googlepages.com makes the cost of maintaining this website about $0.08 per month. Obviously, this demonstrates my willingness to spare no expense to satisfy the public's demand for my sermons!

Seems like I'm forgetting something. Hmm, let's see. Oh yes, if you've read this far, you might just like a link to the sermons website: www.johnfgaines.info

A Preacher's Library

2008-06-02T21:28:00.000-07:00

I've been busy lately getting the books in my library properly categorized. I had started classifying my books several years ago using the Dewey Decimal system, but did not get the job finished. It is easy when the book has the Dewey number printed with other publication information on the copyright page, but many publishers neglect to offer that helpful assist to home librarians.

I have discovered, however, that Abilene Christian University and Harding Graduate School of Religion classify their books using the Dewey system (most college and university libraries use the Library of Congress classification system). Public libraries tend to use the Dewey system but many of them are pretty lacking in theological volumes in their stacks. However, the ACU and HUGSR "card catalogs" are online -- ACU is part of a consortium of libaries in the Abilene area -- and they list most books a preacher is likely to have in his library. Apparently there is some discretionary judgment involved because they don't always agree on the Dewey numbers for a particular volume. Still this is a good way to find an informed librarian's judgment about how a book should be numbered. It is certainly easier than trying to figure it all out by yourself.

However, I have learned that going into too much detail with the Dewey system is counterproductive with libraries the size that an average preacher might have -- say 1,000 - 2,000 volumes. For example, commentaries are best arranged on the shelves in biblical order so the Dewey system is not really needed for them. But to have everything done properly with each book having a Dewey number, just give OT law and history 222, poety and wisdom lit, 223, prophecy 224, Matthew-Acts 226, epistles 227, and Revelation 228. 221 (OT) and 225 (NT) serve general works such as surveys and introductions.

Don't Go to Sleep While Sunbathing on a Railroad Track

2008-05-29T13:13:00.000-07:00

Two young teen girls each lost a foot when they were hit by a train while sunbathing on a railroad track in Maine. At the time of the story I read, both girls were in critical condition and had not yet been interviewed by police. Authorities speculate that either they had fallen asleep while sunbathing on the tracks or were listening to music on their Ipods and did not hear the train coming. One witness reported seeing the girls trying to scramble out of the train's way at the last moment, but they did not quite make it.

This is a tragedy and I certainly do not want to make light of what happened to these two youngsters. Yet one cannot help but wonder, "What were they thinking?" Why would anyone lie out sunning on a railroad track, much less allow herself to drift off to sleep in such a position?

News reports indicate that this appears to be a genuine accident. There is no suggestion that these young girls were attempting to harm themselves. Suicide by lying on a track is a fairly common means for troubled young people to take their lives, but that does not seem to be a possibility in this case.

The story said that this track was used by only one train a day. If the girls were local, they probably knew that and had some idea of what time the train ran. Maybe they lost track of time. If they were sound asleep, perhaps lots of time passed as they slumbered. In any event, they were not thinking clearly. They did not show proper respect for the dangerous situation into which they had put themselves and, unfortunately for them, they will have to pay a heavy price for that error in judgment.

The spiritual lessons from this story are clear . . . a lot of people are not paying attention to the danger of leaving God out of their lives. They are, if you will, asleep on the tracks. Blithely they pass through their lives without thinking seriously about the universal truth that everyone must appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Pray that the girls (whose names are Rachel and Destiny) will survive and be able to make the adjustments necessary to have happy and successful lives. However, once our lives here are over, it will be too late to make adjustments to prepare ourselves for Judgment Day. So wisdom says don't go to sleep on railroad tracks. A greater wisdom says we need to think soberly and prepare ourselves to meet the Lord in judgment.

Satan’s Summer Success Season

2008-05-24T12:28:00.000-07:00

Blue skies and warmer temperatures are finally making more regular appearances here in the Pacific Northwest. Just about every good thing, though, has some way for Satan to make something bad out of it. In order that we will not be ignorant of Satan’s schemes [2 Corinthians 2:11], let us think about some of the obstacles he throws in our paths during the summer season.

1. The way we dress: The Lord wants his people to dress in a way which honors their bodies and shows respect to the ideals of holiness and Christian morality. Satan, on the other hand, wants people to wear as little as possible because he knows that lust is sinful thinking [Matthew 5:27-28]. He also knows that dressing in a way that provokes lustful thoughts in others makes you a participant in that sin. At the first sign of sunny weather, some people begin appearing in public in skimpy attire. Satan scores a success whenever he entices a Christian to join in and follow the trend to show as much skin as possible.

2. The way we act: Summer is a time when it is more pleasant to travel on vacations and other trips to faraway places. Some people leave their convictions about moral behavior behind when they get out of town. After all, “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,” right? Wrong! The Lord knows everything we do wherever we are. Everything needs to be done in the name of Christ [Colossians 3:17]. It is never right to do wrong, no matter where you are or what people around you are doing.

3. Obligations to God are neglected because we want to take advantage of good weather to participate in all the summer sports, recreation, and cultural activities. Most of these activities are fine within themselves. There is nothing wrong with camping, fishing, going to ball games and the like. They become wrong only when we do these things instead of doing what we ought to be doing in service to God. It is wrong for us to miss worship assemblies of the church because we have chosen to do something else. It is wrong to neglect prayer, Bible study, and helping other people because we are so busy with the fun activities of summer. Whenever we let that happen, Satan wins!

Hidden Costs

2008-05-22T07:20:00.000-07:00

American Airlines will start charging $15 to check a bag on any AA flight.

First it started with charging for meals and snacks served in flight. Then some airlines started charging for checking a second bag. Imagine the endless possibilites: they could charge $10 for use of the ramp to board the plane, $5 to turn on the light above your seat, $12 to turn on the air conditioning, $25 per pillow or blanket, $8 to use the restroom. Maybe they will even start charging $100 or so for a seat itself. Otherwise, you could pretend you're riding a busy subway and stand while holding to a strap hanging from the ceiling.

The kind of thinking which brought about this latest American Airlines move makes it easier to understand why airlines are having such economic troubles in the first place. Common sense seems to be in short supply in modern life and nowhere is that more evident than in the airline industry. Everyone understands that airlines use fuel when they fly. That fuel comes from oil and the cost of oil is exorbitant. We don't like it, but we understand that the cost of flying has to go up. Airlines can't cope with a doubling of fuel prices without passing the cost along to their customers.

So the complaint here isn't that it will cost an extra fifteen bucks to fly from Point A to Point B. What I don't like is the nickel-and-diming. It isn't straightforward and above board.

However, it does illustrate a lesson about hidden costs. Throughout life, there are hidden costs. That's why they always tell us to be sure to read the fine print. The major life decisions we make all come with some costs.

That is certainly true with the moral compromises that a great many people have bought into in the last generation. When the "sexual revolution" came along in the 1960s and 1970s, people were told they at last had the freedom to enjoy themselves without guilt or consequences. But "free love" had a lot of hidden costs, from sexually transmitted diseases to failed birth control measures (and unwanted pregnancies) to the destructive havoc this reworking of the moral order wrought in modern family life.

The Supreme Court offered a solution to the unwanted pregnancy problem in 1973 when it rendered its Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortions. Abortion has always been billed in high-sounding terms as the free exercise of a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body. The truth, however, is that the great majority of abortions take place because women got pregnant when they didn't want to be pregnant. In other words, abortions serve as after-the-fact birth control. The hidden costs here are enormous. First (and not so hidden) is the fact that some forty million or more lives have been taken in atrocious acts that make the mass slaughters of past history pale into relative insignificance. Add to that the guilt now being felt by millions of women who have come to understand the role they played in having their own babies killed. Indeed the cost of sin is high.

However, it is also true that godly Christian people face some hidden costs in the decisions they make to follow Christ. Jesus never promised us lives free from trouble and adversity. In fact, we can count on the fact that we will suffer in one way or another because of our Christianity. Is the suffering worth it? Of course it is. Heaven is worth it all . . . whatever we have to go through as we strive to remain "faithful unto death" is not to be compared with the greatness of the inheritance we'll receive in heaven. However, there is a price to be paid in living lives of faithful Christian service and we have to be prepared for it.

So whether from our good choices or our bad choices, there are consequences. As my children were growing up, I tried very hard to drill into their thinking the reality that choices have consequences. That is always true, even if we don't always see the costs right away when we make the decisions we make.

In Defense of the Electoral College

2008-05-17T08:50:00.000-07:00

I was critical in my last post of the venerable American institution known as the Electoral College. But I'm being nice today. Did you notice the adjective venerable I used? Other, more apt, adjectives came to mind -- words like outmoded, antiquated, unjust . . . you get the drift, I'm sure.
However, in an effort to be 'fair and balanced' I want to give honest consideration to any merits the Electoral College system might possess.

Since I am not adept at thinking of what those merits might be, I turned to Google and searched for "advantage of the electoral college" which turned up a wonderful discussion from 2001 at the site of the University of Virginia Center for Governmental Studies. They offer the following points in defense of the EC:

The Electoral College is a stabilizing factor by limiting the emergence of multiple parties. The U. S. has always been a two-party country with the Federalists giving way to the Whigs and the Whigs giving way to the Republicans. Since 1860, the Democrats and Republicans have battled for control. FYI, the GOP has occupied the White House for 92 years while the Democrats have lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for only 56 years. The Electoral College does contribute strongly to this hegemony because in all but Maine and Nebraska, it is a winner-take-all system so third party candidates must actually win a majority of popular votes or get no electoral votes. Ross Perot won about 20% of the popular vote nationally in 1992, but received no electoral votes. If we identify preserving the two-party system as a good thing for the nation, it must be admitted that the Electoral College does assist in preserving the status quo.
The Electoral College keeps candidates from running campaigns focused entirely on population centers. The idea is that candidates would spend all their time campaigning in California and New York and avoid the 'heartland' like the plague. That's not necessarily true, and if it were true, it's not necessarily bad. More about that in a minute.
The Electoral College reinforces the role of the states in our federal system. This is unquestionably true since it makes the presidential election fifty separate state elections rather than one national election where all people get to cast equal votes for our leader. That this is a good outcome is assuming facts not in evidence.
(Not on the website, but often cited) The Electoral College protects small states from a 'tyranny of the majority' from the more heavily-populated states. The Electoral College does involve a slight tilting of the playing field in the favor of smaller states. This comes about because the number of electoral votes each state gets is the sum of that state's representatives in both houses of Congress. The House of Representatives is proportioned according to each state's population, but the Senate offers two senators to each state regardless of population. Therefore, small states get slightly more representation in the Electoral College than their population merits, while large states get slightly less representation than they deserve.

Response to the Arguments:

Frankly, the two-party system has not been working too well. The Democrats and Republicans have shown that multiple parties aren't needed for legislative gridlock. However, most countries which operate as parliamentary democracies function with three or more political parties holding seats in Parliament. Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany, and Israel are just a few of the nations which seem to manage their governments under this system. Israel does have a multitude of small parties, but leaders there manage to build the coalitions necessary to govern. In point of fact, smaller parties would join in such coalitions whenever their common interests indicated it was prudent for them to do so. Currently the U. S. Senate has two members who identify themselves as neither Democrat or Republican. Senators Sanders (VT) and Leiberman (CT) vote with the Democratic caucus, but they were not elected as Democrats. If the concern is that a President would be elected with less than a majority of the votes cast, consider that some of our more successful presidents -- Bill Clinton and JFK to name two -- were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote.
If presidential election contests continue to be as tight as they have been in recent elections, candidates will go wherever voters are to solicit support. However, the great majority of voters in the current system never see a candidate in person. Today candidates do not travel very much to states that are considered "safe." Some estimates show that only 14 states are considered "in play" in this year's election. Don't you imagine that Ohio and Florida are likely to get a great deal more attention from Senator McCain and Senator Obama than Idaho and Mississippi under the current system? Nothing really changes whether there is an Electoral College or not.
The problem with fifty separate elections is that voters on the losing side in any given state have no voice at all in selecting the president. If I am a supporter of Candidate X, but the polls show that Candidate Y is a heavy favorite in my state, why should I even bother to vote? It's a good civic exercise and all that, but realistically I know my vote is meaningless. However, in a system where every popular vote counts, I always have the chance to participate. Except for landslide years (1964, 1984, etc.), the national vote is normally pretty close. Thus wherever they live, voters would have a real say in choosing who the next president will be.
The small states are more likely than not colored red on those red-and-blue maps showing party preference in presidential elections. So the unspoken fact is that the Electoral College offers a small degree of favoritism for GOP candidates. That could change, of course, if party allegiances change and those smaller states become blue states. It is understandable that some politicians favor the status quo for partisan reasons. However, whether it benefits the GOP or the Democratic Party, is isn't fair for some of the states to have a built-in advantage in the Electoral College. Let every vote count and there is no inherent advantage one way or the other. It is as simple as can be -- the candidate who gets the most votes becomes the next President of the United States.

Imagine This Scenario

2008-05-12T18:55:00.000-07:00

Pretend it's the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November . . . in other words, Wednesday morning after Election Day. You pick up the morning paper (or since you're a blog reader, more likely you sit down before your computer) and read the final vote tallies from a very close presidential election. As we found out in 2000, the total popular vote doesn't really matter. Presidents are elected by the electoral college. Senator McCain has won the following states: Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire -- for a total of 269 electoral votes.

Senator Obama has won the following states: California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, D.C., Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine -- for a total of 269 electoral votes.

A few of those states are not likely to go that way (Mississippi and Idaho have not voted Democratic in a presidential election in quite a while). But on the whole, the scenario is within the realm of possibility. Fewer than 540 Florida voters in 2000 determined who would be the next president. (I voted for Bush in 2000 and I lived in Florida. . . if I and 268 of my fellow citizens had flipped and voted for Gore, the outcome of the election would have changed.) That really impresses me with how important each vote can be out of more than one hundred million cast.

This would be a good place to make a nice civic appeal for everyone to get out and vote this fall and be prepared to make a difference in determining our President. All of that is true, but it isn't my point today.

What concerns me now is the realization that in a very close election, millions of American voters are effectively disenfranchised by the structure of the electoral college system. Sometimes it is true that every vote counts. I've already mentioned Florida in 2000, but how many people realize the election in Florida wasn't the closest in the country that year? In New Mexico, Vice-President Gore won that state's five electoral votes by 366 popular votes. In an election where the electoral vote is close, every vote is crucial in hotly-contested states where the outcome is in doubt until the last minute. However, in many states one party or the other predominates. In my birth state of Alabama, the Democratic candidate has one won time since 1960. In my present home state of Washington, the last GOP presidential candidate to carry the state was Ronald Reagan in 1984. Neither of those states is likely to switch sides this year . . . so Democrats in Alabama and Republicans in Washington basically have no voice in choosing a new president. The same thing could be true for one party or the other in more than half the states in 2008. That does not matter too much when the candidate who wins the electoral vote also wins the popular vote, but on the rare occasions when the popular vote goes one way and the electoral vote goes another way, it is a travesty when votes that ought to matter are effectively discarded by the electoral college system. It is tyranny of the majority at its worst when up to 49.9% of the votes cast go for naught.
The obvious solution is to abolish the electoral college. With direct popular vote, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. I would not have been happy about that because, in my opinion, he was not the best candidate. However, in another way, I would have been satisfied that the will of the majority had prevailed. More people went to the polls and cast votes for Gore than did for Bush. Therefore, Gore should have been elected president. That is the only fair way.

The electoral college may have made some kind of sense when it was put in the Constitution back in the 18th century. Just like having state legislatures elect U. S. Senators might have made sense then, but almost a century ago people were wise enough to know that it was a better idea to let the voters choose their senators by direct election. We might not always like who gets elected but we acknowledge that it is a fairer system to let the people decide for themselves. The same thing is true when choosing the next President of the United States.

(Part II of this discussion will consider the traditional arguments in favor of the electoral college system; Part III will present ideas for revamping the primary/caucus process for nominating presidential candidates so voters across the country have a more equal voice in selecting their party's standard-bearers.)

"Gay" Acceptance

2008-05-10T06:00:00.000-07:00

Just doing a little Internet surfing, I came across a piece on the Entertainment Weekly magazine web site talking about how the featuring of homosexuals on TV reality shows has promoted acceptance of the gay lifestyle in American culture. The author of this article seems to think this is all great and wonderful; I disagree of course. However, I think the author is probably right about the cumulative effect a flood of pro-gay propaganda has on minds a lot more impressionable than mine. I haven't watched any of the programs he mentions other than The Amazing Race, but I do know much the producers of that program have gone out of their way to show homosexuality in the most positive light possible.

I know a number of people who have turned off their televisions (except for carefully screened movies). I haven't ever been willing to go that far because I do enjoy news, sports, and other "decent" programs. My wife and I now have an "empty nest" so we don't have the concern people with young children have about exposing them to ungodly values. If I did have children at home, I would have to give much more serious consideration to the idea of a TV free home.

I'm reading a book which makes some points which would fit in well right here in this discussion. I want to finish the book before writing about it . . . but maybe I'll resume this conversation in a few days.

Happy Mother's Day, everyone!

Following the 'Golden Rule' on the Softball Diamond

2008-05-09T12:33:00.001-07:00

A few days ago Alan Smith told a heart-touching story in his Thought For the Day email devotional. It had to do with a softball game between Central Washington University and Western Oregon. The game, which was for the championship of the Great Northwest Conference, was played on Central Washington's home field in Ellensburg, 110 miles east of Seattle on I-90. The young women on the CWU team showed great character by following the Golden Rule, as Alan describes it, when their conference championship was on the line. Their action resulted directly in one additional run scoring for Western Oregon which went on to win the game by two runs.

Central may not have won their conference this year, but its softball team definitely has some "winners in life" playing.

You might have already heard the story since it has been all over the Internet. If not, here's one of many links, this one from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . Also here's a video of the act of courtesy and "sportswomanship" which has brought Central Washington's team all this attention.

Age-Fudging

2008-05-08T08:58:00.000-07:00

When people get to a "certain age," they sometimes are reluctant to admit how old they are. I've never met any sixteen year olds who weren't eager to let the world know they had reached that milestone. They are old enough to drive! In some cases, they are old enough to date. That's a birthday people want to let the world know about.

Add a half-century to their age, and that attitude might be different. I know some sixty-six year olds who are proud of their age, but I suspect I know more who had just as soon keep it quiet. I've known some "golden agers" who refused absolutely to let anyone know exactly how golden they were. I admire that kind of gumption. If they don't want to tell their age, why should they? What business is it of anyone else anyway? Let them stick by their guns and leave us wondering.

Others "fudge" their ages a little. That is a delicate way of saying they have become revisionist historians -- you know, like revising their birth dates forward a few years. In reality, they are lying . . . and as is the case with all lies, the tangled web can sometimes turn around and catch the liar. It can be little things . . . like a "forty" year-old woman getting her invitation in the mail to join AARP or the "fifty-something" person who is found to be a Social Security recipient. Sooner or later, those deceptions do find us out.

Human beings aren't the only things that play with ages. Institutions do that, too, but they usually try to make themselves older than they are. Take my alma mater, for instance. I graduated from Freed-Hardeman College (as it was then called) in 1976. I have framed on my office wall my bachelor's degree from Freed-Hardeman. I'm proud of it; it is part of the first set of bachelor degrees that venerable institution awarded in modern times. However, the college seal printed in gold on the paper proudly proclaims that the school was established in 1908. Look at Freed-Hardeman University's literature today and you will notice that the school was established in 1869! Thirty-nine years -- that's some pretty impressive age-fudging.

If the powers-that-were at Freed-Hardeman had left well enough alone, they would be celebrating their centennial this year. Obviously, they didn't have a hundred-year celebration in 1969, because back then their founding date was 1908. Since somewhere along the way over the last thirty-two years, they decided to dabble in revisionist history, my alma mater doesn't get to mark this milestone anniversary. There is always a price to pay when we start manipulating history.

For What It's Worth: Freed-Hardeman traces its lineage back through a series of 'predecessor institutions to 1869. At one point, the line was dated to 1884 (Bicentennial Medal issued by FHC in 1976). It is a tenuous link. The present institution was established by A. G. Freed and N. B. Hardeman in 1908 and was called National Teachers Normal and Business College. The college's name was changed to Freed-Hardeman College in 1919 andthen to Freed-Hardeman University in 1990.

Looking Ahead to Mother's Day

2008-05-07T10:03:00.000-07:00

The Bible teaches us to give honor to those who deserve it [Romans 13:7]. The idea of having a special occasion to honor mothers goes back to ancient Greece and Rome, but the celebration of Mother’s Day in the United States began 100 years ago this year, in Grafton, WV. Four years later, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a national celebration of Mother’s Day. The idea has spread around the world. Mother’s Day is celebrated at different times during the year in different places, but more than 60 countries have followed America’s lead and celebrate Mother’s Day today – the second Sunday in May.

In the Bible, motherhood is central in the lives of most women. The first mother, of course, is Eve. In fact, she received her name, Eve, "because she was the mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20). We don't know how many children Eve gave birth to. We know about Cain, Abel, and Seth, but she also had other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4).

Apparently Eve did not have any fertility issues, but numerous other women in the Bible did. Several notable Bible women had deep yearnings to be mothers, but were deprived of that blessing for a long time. You might think of Sarah who was 90 years old, well past the age of childbearing, when God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her." 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" (Genesis 17:15-17). When Sarah later questioned the idea, God replied, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” and promised that a year later Sarah would have a son (Genesis 18:14).

Rebekah, Hannah, and Elizabeth were other women in the Bible who were barren until the Lord blessed them and allowed them to become mothers.

Some women do not ever become mothers. In some cases, it is because they are not able to conceive children. In other cases, women never marry and although they might like to be mothers, they understand that procreation of children is something meant to take place within marriage. Some women make a conscious choice not to have children. In some cases, that is no doubt a wise decision, but something very important is missing from the life of a woman who does not become a mother.

Most mothers (and fathers) readily acknowledge the truth of the 127th Psalm that children are a gift from the Lord. Verses 3-5 read, "Behold, children are a heritage [gift, NASB] from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. 5 Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate" (ESV).

Honesty compels us to admit that children are also a challenge. The Lord gives us a whole series of responsibilities to go along with the blessings of being parents. One of the characteristics of the older women to be honored in 1 Timothy 5 is that she be one who has "brought up children." There is quite a lot involved in successfully competing the task of bringing up children. Proverbs 22:6 ESV says, "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." Ephesians 6:4 ESV says, "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." These parental responsibility passages in the Bible seem to be directed more to fathers than to mothers, but neither gender has exclusive responsibilities.

Think about Timothy's home life as he was growing up. His father was not a Christian, so his faith was taught and nourished by his grandmother and mother (2 Timothy 1:5 ESV I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. ) A part of Timothy's upbringing was being taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15 ESV and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.) In this case (as in many others down through time), the task of teaching God's truth to children fell to the women in the family.

Our common sense tells us that there are things in child raising that dads do better, and there are things that moms do better. In 2003 (latest figures available), 68% of children in America lived with both parents. 23% lived with moms but not dads in the home. 5% lived with dads, but not moms in the home. So whether it’s a traditional two-parent nuclear family or one of the growing number of one-parent families, chances are that women are going to continue to have an important role in bringing up children.

Modern women have to juggle a lot of responsibilities. I Timothy 5 does not say anything about a mother having a career and bringing home a paycheck . . . a fact of life for a lot of mothers today. It is increasingly hard for one-income families to survive economically. The families who discipline and sacrifice material things so mothers can stay home and be a full-time moms deserve honor and commendation. At the same time, we have to recognize that is not always possible.

It is nothing new for women to be hard workers. Look back at the “worthy woman” passage in Proverbs 31. The woman pictured here is often presented as an ideal woman, but she was certainly a “working mom” in every sense of the word. We find her rising early, providing food for her family, then buying fields and planting vineyards. She makes and sells linen garments. If you think of an adjective to describe this woman, it might very well be “busy.”

Yet, read Proverbs 31:28 ESV “Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her:” Her children rise up and call her blessed – maybe that’s the first Mother’s Day because they were certainly honoring her for her success.

Shelf Life

2008-05-03T09:14:00.000-07:00

On a Saturday morning with nothing profound to write about, I started thinking . . .

I love bananas, but they don't last very long after you buy them. Costco always has good prices on bananas, but you have to buy four pounds, and it is hard to eat four pounds of bananas before they begin to get too ripe. Look carefully at the bananas pictured. You can see the little spots appearing on the peeling which indicates that the banana is fully ripe. In another day, they will still be OK for making banana bread, but they won't taste their best.

On the other hand, as far as I've been able to tell, Sweet 'n Low pretty much lasts forever. I was making myself a cup of hot tea last night and noticed that the little dish we keep on the countertop stocked with Sweet 'n Low packets was empty. I went to the pantry to restock the dish from the big "club size" box and noticed that finally the box is getting low. Sometime in the next few months, it will be empty. I say "finally" because I have moved that box from one kitchen to another in three different moves over a period of about fourteen years. That's right. We bought that Sweet n' Low from Sam's Club in, as near as I can figure, 1994. I can't tell that the taste has deteriorated at all. Whatever you think of the taste of Sweet n' Low, you have to admit that it has a fantastic shelf life!

As always, I'm looking for some kind of spiritual analogy and I think I've found a good one. The nature of God is like the Sweet n' Low . . . it stays the same year after year. God is eternal and unchanging. His love for his people is constant and steady. He always wants what is best for us. No matter how often we sin, he is always ready and willing to forgive us if we will only repent and seek his forgiveness. The same is true for his Son. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

On the other hand, the opportunities God gives us may be more like the bananas. Sweet n' Low might last fourteen years; sometimes bananas do well to stay in the best condition for fourteen hours after you purchase them. Opportunities to help people and influence the direction of their lives may be here today and gone tomorrow. The old saying "Strike while the iron is hot" could not be more true. Whenever we find a teachable moment when someone is open to hearing the gospel message, we should be prepared to walk through that open door. Human nature is very different from God's nature. We humans are unstable and constantly wavering. Today someone might be willing to sit with you and talk earnestly about his soul. Tomorrow, his interests may have changed and he no longer has time for such things. Like a spoiled banana, a lost opportunity is something that once lost can never be regained.

So, eat your bananas while they are still good and don't put off until tomorrow any opportunity you're given to influence someone in the direction of heaven.

Everything's Great

2008-05-01T08:32:00.000-07:00

Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford says everything is great with the Bowl Championship Series arrangement for determining a champion in college football. Swofford is current head of the BCS governing group which is made up of major conference commissioners plus the Notre Dame athletic director. He reported that the BCS was enjoying "an unprecedented state of health" as they rejected further consideration of any plans for a "plus one" national championship game after the round of BCS bowl games in early January. Only Swofford and SEC commissioner Mike Slive were willing to even talk about the plan any more. All the other conference leaders apparently think everything is hunky-dory and there is no need to even think about doing anything to help the BCS do a better job determining a true national champion.

Disclosure: I have never been in favor of doing anything which substantially alters the unique quality of college football where every game during the regular season is exceptionally important. In Major League Baseball, a team which loses only 1/3 of its games is thought to have done exceptionally well. Several times in recent years teams which did not win their own divisions in the regular season have gone on into the playoffs as wild card teams and ended up winning the World Series. In the current NBA playoffs, several teams with losing records made the playoffs. In the last NFL season, the Giants won the Super Bowl after going 10-6 in the regular season. In college football, they would not have been in contention at all with that kind of record. LSU became the first team in almost 50 years to win the championship with two losses! I am strongly opposed to any playoff system which takes that characteristic away from the college football game -- every game must count for something!!!

However, the plus-one system does no harm to that essential quality of college football. In a normal year (which 2007 was not because of an inordinate number of upsets among top teams), the top four teams would either be undefeated or have only one loss. So every game still counts for something and we would have a true national champion. I know teams 5, 6, 7, etc. would argue that they ought to have made the top four -- but, hey, if there are four slots available to compete for the championship, they had their chance. At the very least, no big conference team is going to go undefeated as Auburn did in 2004 and be frozen out of any possibility of winning the championship.

The BCS leaders may think their system is enjoying robust health, but that opinion is not shared by the public or the sports media. I don't know if any polling has been done since Swofford's statement, but I am confident that if the public is surveyed, there will be strong disagreement with Mr. Swofford's optimistic assessment. Perhaps those commissioners need to take off their rose-colored glasses and look at reality.

This isn't a sports blog, so you might rightly expect some kind of application to spiritual matters. It's not unusual for complacent church leaders to approach the situations that exist in congregations much as these football commissioners look at their BCS system. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is an appropriate idea sometimes. It's even kind of biblical (see Hebrews 8:7), but taken to extreme, it become a rationale to excuse complacency and self-satisfaction. Maybe I'm not taking the statement out of context too much if I quote this phrase from 1 Corinthians 14:12, ". . . strive to excel in building up the church." It's quite easy to get to liking the way things are so much that we are not interested in doing better. Our aim in the way we do the Lord's work should be to excel -- do our very best. Mediocrity is never good enough because the Lord Jesus Christ deserves everything we can possibly give to His service. The BCS should not be satisfied with a mediocre product when they can provide something better. The same thing is true for you and me as we work for the Lord. He deserves the very best!

The Church in Sardis and "Once Saved, Always Saved"

2008-04-30T08:21:00.000-07:00

Part of Jesus' message to the church in Sardis says, "Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels." [Revelation 3:4-5, ESV]

On the surface this appears about as straightforward as any passage in the book of Revelation can be. However, to those who hold to the doctrine of "once saved, always saved," it is troublesome. This is a message to the church -- saved people who have been added to the body by the Lord. Yet Jesus says Sardis has "a few . . . who have not soiled their garments." He promises the one who conquers (or overcomes) that He will never blot his name out of the book of life.

But what about those who have been saved, but who do not overcome? Their garments are soiled. Will they walk with the Lord in white? Are they worthy?

I've been reading John Walvoord's The Revelation of Jesus Christ to get a better understanding of the premillennialist perspective on the whole book of Revelation. Revelation 3:4-5 gives difficulties to Walvoord and others who share his views. He at least admits the issue by writing, "This verse has troubled expositors in view of other promises of the Scripture which seem to indicate that a person who has once received Jesus Christ as Saviour is forever secure in his salvation. How then can his name be blotted out of the book of life?" (82). Dr. Walvoord (1910-2002) was a respected scholar and long-time president of Dallas Theological Seminary. However, he had obvious doctrinal biases and interpreted the Bible through those lens.

Listen to the way he handled Revelation 3:4-5: "To make the continuance of our salvation depend upon works . . . is gross failure to comprehend that salvation is by grace alone. If it depended upon the believer's perseverance, the name would not have been written there in the first place. . . . [S]ome have considered the book of life not as the roll of those who are saved but rather a list of those for whom Christ died, that is, all humanity who have possessed physical life. As they come to maturity and are faced with the responsibility of accepting or rejecting Christ, their names are blotted out if they fail to receive Jesus Christ as Saviour; whereas those who do accept Christ as Saviour are confirmed in their position in the book of life, and their names are confessed before the Father and the heavenly angels" (82).

I don't know if this writer was so thoroughly blinded to the truth that he really did not know how he was treating the text or if he was being intellectually dishonest by refusing to admit that this text teaches something which contradicts one of his pet doctrines.

Read the whole of the letter to Sardis [Revelation 3:1-6] and see that this was a dead church. Some were not yet dead, but were about to die. They were warned to wake up or the Lord would come like a thief against them. This sad condition described the church in general, but it did not apply to every individual. Some had not soiled their garments. They were worthy to walk with the Lord in white. Their names would not be blotted from the book of life.

It is not explicitly stated what will happen to the others in Sardis. But if those who had not soiled their garments would not have their names erased from the book, what does that imply about those who had soiled their garments? If they did not repent, their names were removed from the book of life. Couple that with Revelation 20:15, "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Dr. Walvoord did a great disservice to his readers by giving those who were not living as faithful Christians a false sense of security about the eternal condition of their souls.

How We Dress at Church

2008-04-29T09:25:00.001-07:00

My wife and I had dinner with one of our elders and his wife last night. During the conversation, he asked me what I thought about him wearing biker clothes to worship services. Once or twice a year, he attends Harley events on Sunday afternoons and since he lives about 30 minutes out in the country, he comes to worship dressed to go on to the biker rally. I'm talking about studded leather jacket, head rag, the whole deal (he does take off the headgear before worship begins). I answered his question quickly and truthfully, "It doesn't bother me a bit."

The casual style of dress here in northwest Washington is different from the way I was brought up. As a child I lived on a farm in north Alabama. Customary attire for farmers in the 1950s and 1960s was overalls. In my world, that is the way men dressed Mondays through Saturdays. On Sundays, they wore suits and ties -- at least the ones who went to church did. As a teenager, I moved to a working-class suburban neighborhood. Overalls were traded for blue or khaki Dickies' work clothes, but otherwise the same rules applied. Men wore work clothes through the week and suit and tie to church on Sunday.

Now that has all changed in many places. Churches who value the tradition of having the Lord's Supper served by men wearing ties often struggle to find enough participants. Churches which don't impose that dress requirement frequently feature people in tee shirts or shirt tails hanging out. I can't say that I've seen communion served by anyone in biker garb, but it's not out of the question.

This reflects changing attitudes about dress in our culture. Business people are clothed much less formally than a generation ago, and not just on "Casual Fridays." Even President Bush is often seen without a tie. Can anyone imagine Richard Nixon making a speech without wearing a tie? It's a different world.

Personally, I'm still a traditionalist at heart. I'm still a suit-and-tie guy, at least for Sunday morning worship. I think it looks better -- but I recognize that is just my opinion.

It is always dangerous when we start taking our opinions and making them mandatory for other Christians. I don't always agree with Ray Hawk, but I do say a hearty "Amen" to a recent post in his blog on this subject. When our emphasis on how people dress makes guests and newcomers feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, the approach quickly starts to do more harm than good. Here's the heart-of-the-matter question: If people are coming to worship services not dressed "appropriately," would you rather they come dressed "inappropriately" or not come at all?

That is not a hard question for anyone who cares about souls.

More on Miley

2008-04-28T10:17:00.000-07:00

One of my first posts in this new blog dealt with image problems faced by 15 year old superstar Miley Cyrus. Those problems have gotten worse with Vanity Fair's publication of a very salacious photograph of her. Richard Mansel describes the photo in his blog today.

I want to speak to a broader subject: the need for solid parental guidance not just for Miley but for all young women as they grow to adulthood. For the last year, news reports have unfolded the sad stories of Lindsay Lohan and Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears. Those young women all started out as wholesome personalities. Britney was a Mouseketeer in the 1990s version of The Mickey Mouse Club. Her younger sister Jamie Lynn also played the role of Zoey in the Disney Channel series Zoey 101. Lindsay Lohan came on the scene in 1998 in a remake of The Parent Trap. She played the twins role Haley Mills originated in the 1961 classic movie. Five years later, she repeated Jodie Foster's role in Freaky Friday. This all goes to say that at one time, these young women were looked upon as wholesome girls who were acting as good role models for our daughters and granddaughters. All three of these young actresses' fall from grace has been amply chronicled so I do not need to repeat the sordid details. The question now is whether Miley Cyrus is headed down the same unfortunate road. Recent evidence indicates that she may be.

The hope for Miley has been that she apparently comes from a more stable family situation and that is extremely important in the upbringing of any adolescent. If anyone understands the uncertainties of fame, it ought to be Miley's dad, Billy Ray. He seemed to come out of nowhere to instant fame as the singer of "Achy, Breaky Heart." Billy Ray Cyrus has continued a solid career as a singer and actor, but his fame has never again approached the zenith of the Achy Breaky days. He should be able to speak from experience in advising his daughter how to handle white hot fame and the inevitable cooling off that comes afterwards. Billy Ray and his wife Tish have been married since shortly after Miley's birth in 1992. They have two younger children as well as three other children from previous relationships. By all accounts, they have formed their blended family into a tight supportive unit which could be expected to give Miley direction and encouragement to make good choices about her lifestyle as she matures into adulthood.

Having acknowledged that, I'm disappointed that, according to Vanity Fair, both parents were present at the photo shoot and signed off on the picture which the magazine published of their daughter. The assumption behind the apologies being offered today seems to be that Miley is an innocent fifteen-year-old who was duped into posing for the picture because she lacked good judgment. The presence of her parents on the set when the photograph was made argues against that idea. One blogger speculates that the whole controversy is contrived to remake Miley's image into more of a grown up so she can appeal to an older demographic than the pre-teens who make up the majority of Hannah Montana fans.

It is a difficult thing to guide daughters through the transformation from girls into women. I am the father of two sons and no daughters so I cannot speak from firsthand experience. However comparing the job of parenting sons with what I have observed with others' daughters, I believe bringing up sons is easier. Girls who are brought up with a strong spiritual base and a genuine love for the Lord and desire to follow His will in their lives have a great advantage. Even then, they can face a strong pressure to fit into the expectations of the world around them.

A critical part of that upbringing is helping our young children to understand that the celebrities they like -- whether singers, actors, sports stars, whomever -- are people who are going to make mistakes and do things that are wrong. There are celebrities who genuinely try to live godly lives, but they are few and far between. Our fourteen and fifteen year old girls need to understand clearly "Just because Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant doesn't mean it's OK for me to do that" and "Just because Britney or Lindsay or Miley dresses trashy doesn't mean I should."

When I think about the challenges facing parents today, it kinda makes me glad that my sons are grown and that I don't have any thirteen year olds running around the house just itching to "grow up" with all that entails.

Final Disclosure: I am not the expert on these young women's careers that this piece makes me appear. Thanks the Internet Movie Data Base for a lot of useful information.

Update -- The New York Times website carries an interesting article on how parents are reacting to the "Miley scandal" on Tuesday, April 29.

Mixed Message From the "Musicians"

2008-04-26T11:18:00.001-07:00

My local newspaper (The Skagit Valley Herald of Mount Vernon, Washington) gives big play in its Religion section today to an AP article about Atlanta DJ Corey "CoCo Brother" Condrey who uses well-known rappers to give "gospel" testimony to their fans. His radio program has featured celebrities from the Hip-Hop world such as Ludacris, 50 Cent, Kanye West, Bone Crusher and others.

Before going any further, let me disclose the fact that this almost 55 year-old white guy is not, has never been, and never will be a fan of Hip Hop or Rap music. In fact, it's a stretch for me to use the word "music" in connection with this stuff. However, I understand that not everyone has that insight. Hard as it is for me to imagine, there are plenty of people who actually like this particular kind of vocal pollution. So I get the idea -- Mr. Condrey is trying to attract his young, hip audience to his understanding of "gospel truth" by the use of celebrity spokesmen. There is nothing new about that approach.

What's different is the apparent hypocrisy of people who make their living by "singing" such violent and filthy lyrics suddenly beginning to talk about Christ and loving one another. The article cites a minister named Orlando Bethel who says "youth shouldn't be taught about God by rappers such as [Yung] Joc who is currently facing a felony charge of carrying a concealed weapon. . . ." It seems that Mr. Bethel has the audacity to think that people ought to practice what they preach.

Not everyone agrees. Black Entertainment Television personality Dr. Bobby Jones responds, "I think it's very narrow-minded for someone to categorize another one's relationship with their spirituality. . . . Who are we to say what's right or wrong about what somebody develops? It doesn't matter if five minutes ago someone sang about the love of their life in a very intimate position, then the next five their [sic] talking about their love of Jesus Christ." Apparently this gentleman sees a total moral disconnect between how a person acts one minute and how he acts the next minute.

For a number of years, people have disputed that the lordship of Christ has anything at all to do with salvation. Get saved, then continue to act any old way you want! Apparently, Jones fits right in with that way of thinking.

However, the Bible does not take that position. There is a passage in the book of James which seems particularly appropriate to the idea of foul-mouthed rappers telling people to let God into their lives -"But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?" [James 3:8-11]

Understand, of course, that I have no objection to people telling others the truth of the Bible. In order to have credibility, though, it is necessary to get one's own house in order first. As Jesus said in Matthew 7:5, "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

Miley Cyrus, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton

2008-04-26T11:05:00.002-07:00

What do the world's most popular fifteen year old and the two Democratic presidential candidates have in common?

At least three things:

(1) You can't turn on television without seeing their faces. The never-ending Democratic primary season is almost certain now to continue on until June or later after Mrs. Clinton's Pennsylvania victory this week. Miley Cyrus is HANNAH MONTANA -- what more need I say, especially if you happen to be anywhere near a pre-teen girl.

(2) All of them are taking in a lot of money. Obama has been setting all kinds of political fundraising records. Mrs. Clinton's campaign claims to have taken in ten million dollars in new contributions in the 24 hours following her Keystone State triumph. Young Ms. Cyrus signed a lucrative book deal to write her life story. That presumes of course that a fifteen year old has lived enough life to have something to write about.

(3) All of them have some "image problems" which ought to concern them.
Obama's association with controversial Chicago preacher Jeremiah Wright coupled with his secretly-recorded San Francisco comments about bitter lower-income voters clinging to religion, guns, and biases against people different from them have given ample opportunity for his political opponents to cast him as an out-of-touch elitist. Then he went bowling and racked up -- what was it, 37? -- that didn't help his image as a "man of the people." Most of the experts seem to think he has his party nomination sewed up, but these hits to his image may come back to haunt him in the general election this fall.

Hillary Clinton has her own issues with the electorate. I doubt I'm the only voter who wasn't very impressed with her "good ole boy" stunt of drinking beer and whisky in an Indiana bar. The ability to hold her likker isn't high on my list of priorities for qualities I look for in a President. This isn't her only problem. Polls show that a majority of voters think she is untruthful and untrustworthy. Her "sniper fire in Bosnia" story didn't help her image in that department. Wouldn't it be nice to have another George Washington in the Presidency -- you know, the type of person who "never told a lie." Apparently, Hillary won't fill that bill.

Young Ms. Cyrus has another kind of image problem. It seems that several risque pictures of her in various states of immodesty have been posted to the Internet. No, I'm not going to provide you with links to them; you'll have to search them out for yourself if you want to see them. The pictures aren't pornographic. They don't involve nudity. They are, however, something different from the wholesome image Miley, her parents, and the Disney Company have been trying to project of her. Ms. Cyrus and her managers need to take into account the fact that a significant portion of her fan base are young people whose tastes in music and television can be controlled by concerned parents. If parents don't see Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana as a suitable role model for their daughters, they can "just say no" and her popularity will take quite a dive.

We aren't going to have perfect presidential candidates and we aren't going to have perfect fifteen-year-old superstars. They are all human and they will all make mistakes. It isn't too much, though, to hope for people in the limelight who care about doing right and who genuinely want to present a positive image to the American public.

Too many times in recent years, we've been let down by those who raised our hopes and expectations that they would be different and somehow better than the ordinary.

Learning from the Comics Page

2008-04-26T11:05:00.001-07:00

I always try to look at the Comics page in each morning's newspaper. More often than not, the jokes in comic strips are groaners. The soap opera strips don't interest me much so I just pass them over without reading them. Every once in a while, though, a comic has either a gag that makes me laugh out loud or one of those startlingly clear moments when I think, "How true that is!"

The long-running Family Circus often teaches some gentle but important lessons in its little circle on the page. Take the April 24 version, for instance. Dolly and one of her brothers are sitting at a table with coloring books open before them. Grandma is holding a box of crayons as she says, "Crayons can teach us a good lesson . . . they're different colors, have strange names, but all learn to live together in the same box." That doesn't need much commentary since it's point is obvious and needed because we humans have a long way to go before we learn that lesson.

On the same Comics page yesterday, I burst out laughing when I read Non Sequitur. This is a new strip to me since I moved to the Northwest. As far as I can tell it doesn't have any regular characters, but just offers a one-shot gag each day.

Yesterday's strip showed a street corner scene in front of the Metropolis Cafe. A policeman is writing a ticket to give to Superman. A nearby sign declares: "WARNING: LAWS OF PHYSICS STRICTLY ENFORCED." Who does Superman think he is anyway flying faster than a speeding bullet? Doesn't he know that is a violation of the laws of physics? Maybe you need a weird sense of humor (which I have) to enjoy that, but I thought it was hilarious.

It also teaches us an important spiritual lesson if we draw the application. The world is filled with people who, spiritually speaking, think they are Superman. That is, they don't seem to understand that God's laws apply to them. And God's laws will also be strictly enforced on Judgment Day. We will all give account of ourselves to God (Romans 14:12). We will all appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). People who deny that inevitable spiritual reality will find that on that Day their "super powers" have abandoned them. When it is too late, every knee will bow at the name of Jesus and every tongue will confess that He is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11).

The notion of Superman being ticketed for breaking the laws of physics might be funny, but meeting the Lord in judgment will be no laughing matter for those who have gone through life thinking that God's rules don't apply to them.