The Mourdock Controversy

In a debate for a seat representing Indiana in the U.S. Senate, Richard Mourdock made some comments that have caused the entire political world to erupt like Indiana is Pompeii.  The candidates were asked what their view regarding abortion was.  Richard Mourdock, the first to answer, said that he believed that life is a gift from God and should be protected, although he does make an exception when the mother’s life is in danger.  Well, there’s nothing new there, right?  The controversy came in what he said next.  “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”  This has been met with no end of criticism from Democrat and Republican alike.  Even Governor Romney (who has vowed to fight abortion when in office, mind you) criticized Mourdock’s comments, and President Obama said “I don’t think any male politicians should be making health care decisions for women.”

Now, there’s a lot to consider about all of this.  First, I want you to have an appreciation for the political climate regarding abortion.  Abortion has been legal on a federal level since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 1973.  The specifics are up to the states, but it is completely legal on a federal level due to that landmark case.  That has not kept more conservative politicians from fighting it.  There are several politicians that believe abortion is wrong.  However, until recently, I did not know of any politician (besides Rick Santorum, the man who really should be our president) who did not make the infamous three exceptions: rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger.  Governor Romney himself makes these exceptions.  Roe v Wade could possibly be overturned again (making abortion illegal unless individual states make it legal), but that depends on which Supreme Court Justices are selected, which will be done by the winner of the November election.  So the main point is this: abortion is legal on the federal level, those against abortion generally make exception for rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger, so those who don’t make these exceptions are seen as radical.

Now, back to Richard Mourdock’s comments.  These are his words that are being broadcasted all over the national news: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”  Now, that sounds like he’s saying that God intended for rape to happen right?  That’s what I thought too.  Then I saw what the nation news isn’t telling you he said: “God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.”  That pretty much clears up the controversy, doesn’t it? 

Here’s the point I want to make: Governor Romney and the other members of the pro-life crew would agree that a fetus is life right?  Even if they don’t believe that life is created by God, they admittedly believe that a fetus qualifies as life, so killing that life is wrong.  Why then does it matter how the life originated?  Joe Donnely, an opponent of Richard Mourdock’s, was quoted saying that rape is “is a heinous and violent crime in every instance.”  I agree.  Here’s the logic of most politicians: “as long as we’re at it, let’s tack another violent act onto it.  Kill two birds with one stone.”  I for one find it refreshing to see life being defended, regardless of how it began.  Life is life and murder is murder.  I do, however, want to go one step further than Richard Mourdock: why is the life of the mother more important than the life of the child?  When we make that distinction, are we not trying to play God?

Ultimately, we can take this as an example of a refreshing fact: the battle for undefended human life is not as lost as it may have seemed.

                                                

The Pharisee Denomination

It’s Wednesday.  Why do I mention that?  Because it’s the day after Tuesday. 

Truth is, I needed to start with something random and lighthearted because what I’m going to talk about is a serious matter.  Our salvation as Christians could very well depend on how well we grasp this important fact: how do we define a strong spiritual life? 

I realize that is an extremely broad question.  We could talk about any number of specific aspects of this, but I’m not going to do that.  Instead, I’m going to talk about the general philosophy and hey emphasize exclusively on knowing the scripture and praying to God.  Don’t get me wrong, I think that reading and knowing the scripture is a vital part to being a Christian.  I believe that praying is a vital part to being a Christian (hopefully you pray on a daily basis), but that’s not the ultimate goal.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven.”  The goal is not to know things for the sake of knowing things and feeling justified because we went through our checklist for the week, but the point is knowing things so that we can know what it is that God wants us to do.  Being a Christian is not an intellectual feat (as though we were to be living in monasteries), but it is a lifestyle that is full of action.  So my ultimate question is this: when someone asks you how you are doing spiritually, do you base your answer only on how much you’ve read the Bible and prayed?  Or do you also base it on what you’ve done for God?  Make it your goal to do things for God, not just know things about God.

Chapter Three Incoming

I get excited for new Owl City records because I feel like Adam Young is writing the soundtrack to my life, so each new album is a sneak peek at the next chapter of my life.  So, needless to say, I was pretty excited when I got The Midsummer Station.  I have a lot to say about it, and if you don’t like Owl City, then GET. OUT. NOW.  For your own good.  A major geek explosion is upcoming.

Owl City songs are normally oozing blood from Adam Young’s broken heart.  From The Saltwater Room to The Bird and the Worm, Adam Young never gets the girl.  Things are different this time around.  As I’m writing this, I’m listening to “The Speed of Love.”  First of all, this is one of the catchiest tunes since the invention of electronica.  Secondly, the lyrics are beautiful and optimistic.  “You were so hard to find with oh, so many clouds across my summer sky.  You, my constellation prize, yeah, every single star is sparkling in your eyes.”  Dude.  Adam Young finally got the girl.  Cue crowds of millions screaming “YES!!!” The train of thought is continued is “Embers,” where he promises “It gets better, just don’t let the fire die.” Granted, he hints at breakup in “Take It All Away,” but let’s not forget the rose for the thorns.

So, love is pretty awesome.  We can all agree on that.  It doesn’t end there, though.  In “Good Time,” where Adam Young is joined by overnight pop sensation Carly Rae Jepsen (Yes, I do sing “Call Me Maybe” in the bathroom many mornings).  As they sing together, “Woke up on the right side of the bed, what’s up with this Prince song stuck in my head?  Hands up if you’re gonna get down tonight, ‘Cause it’s always a good time.”  Okay, there’s not too much to analyze there, but let’s be honest: it’s fun.  We like fun; both the nonspecific noun and the awesome band. 

In the process of all of this, I can’t overlook “Dreams and Disasters.”  The first verse is nostalgia at its finest: “We were alone on the road, driving faster, So far from home, we were chasing disaster.  Pour on the gas ‘till the gas caught on fire, we had to laugh as the smoke billowed higher.”  Hey, we may have had a few close scrapes, but they make for great stories, right?

Last but not least we reach “Bombshell Blonde.”  Now, I have to admit, I didn’t like the idea of this song at first.  Adam Young writing a stereotypical “hot girl” song seemed really out of place.  The fact is though, it’s really not a “hot girl” song.  It’s about Adam learning to make a move, even when he feels in way over his head.   Plus, the song is addicting and you really have to work not to love it.

To recap, this is what I can expect for my life this year: crazy escapades with friends that result in great stories, and some heartbreak, but ultimately love will triumph.  Hopefully I too will find the courage and backbone to make the moves I need to make, in whatever context they be.  All in all, I’m pretty excited for the next chapter of my life.

Lowering the Bar

Deep breaths.  Take several of them.  You’re on national television.  You can feel your palms getting sweaty as your heart starts to race, threatening to beat its way out of your chest.  Sweat trickles down the back of your neck as well as your forehead. You’ve prepared yourself for the Olympics ever since you knew how to walk.  You’re ready to do the pole vault.  You take one last deep breath and run towards the bar, press your pole down into the mat and launch yourself forward.  You realize that you made it as you plop on the mat on the other side.  It turns out that three feet is a manageable goal in pole vaulting.

Standards are constantly changing.  In America during the 1950s it was not acceptable for women to wear pants in public.  The 1939 film “Gone with the Wind” was controversial because of one curse word.  Now women wear pants all the time and modern movies spit out curse words like a baby spitting up puke.  Some changes are good.  Some are bad.

Here’s the question: since we know that not all changes in standards are good, how do we know which ones to accept and which ones to accept and which ones to reject?  My solution is this: do neither.

Allow me to explain: see the problem with both accepting the culture’s change in standards and rejecting the culture’s change in standards is that either way we are allowing culture to determine what our standards are.  Critical thinking dictates something better.  Instead of depending on society, culture, and the media to tell us not only what our standards should be but even what our options in standards are, we should examine things for ourselves to see what those standards should be. 

Now for today’s tangent: why do we think that a movie with ten curse words and one “mild” sexual scene is “not that bad?”  Who determined that?  Did we sit down and look at what we know to be objectionable content and decide that was an acceptable amount?  Or instead have we allowed society’s standards of what’s bad and “not that bad” to determine what we think is “not that bad?”  Even better, why do we think a movie with no sexual scenes and no curse words with a completely anti-Christian message is ok? 

Now here comes the kicker: this concept is very applicable to entertainment, but is even more applicable in our everyday lives.  What are your standards for your behavior?  Are you settling for the three-foot high bar?  You may hit it every time, but remember this: “if you aim for nothing, you will hit it every time.” – Zig Zigler.

Voting for Christian Values

Religion and politics.  Yeah, that’s what I said.  Religion and politics.  I know, it’s dangerous for me to use the two in the same sentence (especially right next to each other), but hopefully it got your attention.  Most people despise the mixing of the two like it’s the combining gasoline with a flamethrower.  Still, I think it’s valid to consider the relation of the two.

First, I admit that I don’t like defining Christianity as a religion, because that makes it sound like a legalistic worship system. That’s not what I’m talking about, so I will try and stay away from that word.  What I’m talking about is Christianity as a relationship.  When we look at it that way, it changes everything.  Everything.  I’m not married, but I can imagine some things about being married that I can assume to be true.  If I am married, I assume that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to spend a lot of time talking to other women.  I think that’s valid.  Being married would also affect how I spend my money, the plans I make, and the activities I’m involved in.  I wouldn’t want to do anything or involve myself in anything that would offend my wife.  It’s pretty simple logic.

I’m not going to get into how the Bible and Christian beliefs fit into economic policy.  I have my opinion on all of those things and I may even write on them at some point, but right now, I want to focus on moral issues that are relevant to the election.  There are always two biggies: abortion and same-sex marriage.  Abortion is pretty simple: don’t kill.  A baby is life, and if you don’t agree with that or want more elaboration, you can see my previous post about that.  Secondly, same-sex marriage.  That’s also a pretty simple one.  Marriage is defined in Genesis 3:24 as one man and one woman.  In addition, homosexuality is directly condemned in Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9.  Those are two issues that the Bible is very clear on.

We have a very unique opportunity in America because we have the ability to directly influence who our country’s next leader is going to be.  Now as a Christian, being in a relationship with Christ, how can I vote for a candidate who supports abortion and/or same-sex marriage?  Ultimately, that is saying that economics are more importantly than morality.  Economics are more important than what God has said about our behavior.  Where are your priorities? 

Being relevant to this election, President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012.  Asked shortly thereafter about his position on the issue, Mitt Romney firmly said that he opposed it.  Barack Obama has long been a pro-choice candidate.  Mitt Romney is pro-life and has recently announced that he will fight to get abortion illegal.  In addition, Mitt Romney is also promising to fight a branch of immorality that has become particularly bad but is rarely mentioned: pornography.  In today’s world, the average pornography user begins at age 12.  The revenue from pornography is more than all professional American sports combined.  Here is a direct quote from Mitt Romney: “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation's obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.” 

I may not agree with everything that Mitt Romney says, and I never will agree with everything that any candidate says.  But I will say this: I want morality to make a comeback.  I want to live to see a world that again begins to see sexuality as God sees it: as reserved for marriage and not to be indulged in at will.  Under Mitt Romney, we may stop sliding backward and start inching forward.  

Exception to Protecting Life?

What constitutes murder?  That used to be a pretty simple question with a pretty simple answer: if you kill somebody, it’s murder.  Somewhere along the line somebody started blurring the definition of who a “somebody” is.  Eventually we got to the point of Roe v. Wade in 1970 that the Supreme Court deemed abortion legal on a federal level.  It’s been an uphill battle ever since in the protection of life for the vulnerable and helpless unborn children.  Because of that, we tend to celebrate every small victory that we get.

If you’ve been reading what I’ve written recently, you’ll know that I have been following the Presidential race lately.  I watched the Vice Presidential debate last night.  While I had many issues with what Joe Biden said, I had very few issues with what Paul Ryan said.  I’m going to make an issue out of one of those things, though. 

The moderator asked Joe Bide and Paul Ryan what part their faith played in their views on abortion.  Ironically both are Catholic and they gave two completely different answers, but that’s not the point right now.  Paul Ryan identified himself as pro-life.  I was happy at that point.  He said himself and Mitt Romney will fight abortion.  I was very happy at that point.  Then he said they make exception for rape, incest, and cases that endanger the mother’s life.  What. 

I’ve heard this kind of thing said before by people who identify themselves a pro-life, but it never ceases to amaze me.  Allow me to take you through some logical conversation for a moment.  Defining life can be a very difficult task, especially when getting technical, but it’s not as difficult as it seems.  So you have this thing inside the mother’s uterus.  If left alone it is born a human being, which we accept as being life.  Is a toddler any less alive than a teenager?  No.  So it does not matter how far along they are in the process.  Does location make a difference in whether something is life or not?  No.  So why does it matter whether a child is inside or outside of the mother?  It doesn’t.  That is the logic behind being pro-life.  It’s a simple answer to a simple question: a baby is a somebody.  Therefore killing babies is killing someone, that is, murder.  It’s as simple as that.

Now, back to the issue: Paul Ryan says that life should be protected, except in cases of rape, incest, or situations in which the mother’s life is in danger.  In the above paragraph, when did the definition of life ever include how the life came to be?  It didn’t.  And it never will.  Normally I try to celebrate the small victories, and normally I am excited to see someone standing for pro-life values.  Not this time.  Because it is our duty to protect life no matter how the life came to be.  It is awful that incest happens.  It is horrible that women get raped.  But guess what?  That’s no excuse to murder a child.  Take an unapologetic stand for life.  Below is a video of Rick Santorum on Piers Morgan doing an excellent job of showing how we should respond to this.  

The Gloves Are Off

The lions can smell raw meat hanging out to dry.  To answer your question, yes, I did just finish watching the Vice Presidential debate.  Biden versus Ryan and the gloves have come off.  The question is whose jaw got broken?

First of all, appreciate the context that this debate came into.  This comes from a first debate that spawned a mockery Obama-sponsored big bird commercial (without Sesame Street approval), a fabricated 5 trillion dollar tax cut accusation against Mitt Romney, and, quite frankly, a debate in which Romney came out ahead, the Obama-Biden administration needed a win.  Enter the snarling and starving lion.  Problem is, Ryan wasn’t about to be Biden’s dinner. 

To start with, the facts are not on Vice President Biden’s side.  Unemployment is up, the deficit continues rising, foreclosures continue, and the stimulus money hasn’t worked.  That being said, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Romney and Paul know what they’re doing either.  I came into this sure I wasn’t voting for Obama-Biden, but unsure what I thought of Romney-Paul. 

There’s a lot of political mumbo-jumbo that went on, but here’s the big points: Paul Ryan brought up the fact that Iran has enough materials to make four atomic bombs (ya know, those things that can blow up huge cities and send up mushroom clouds?  Yeah, those things).  Biden responded by saying they have no weapon.  Biden said that Romney and Paul don’t care about social security, yet Paul Ryan says that they want to give the younger adults which will have social security control over how it happens.  Obama and Biden want to pull troops completely out of the Middle East in 2014.  If I’m looking at this from a political point of view, Paul Ryan looks pretty good.  But that’s not my ultimate conclusion.

The first thing I noticed in the debate, all political conversation aside, was Biden sporting a Joker-esque smile during every minute of Paul Ryan’s speech, attempted to make him look like a moron.  It soon escalated.  Joe Biden began interrupting him.  Constantly. 82 times in 40 minutes, as a matter of fact. At this point, I am really wishing I was there with a cattle-prod to remind Biden that it isn’t his turn.  So you can understand how truly incredible it is that Paul Ryan kept his cool the entire time.  Biden showed Ryan no respect at all.  Zero respect. And yet Ryan keeps his cool and doesn’t interrupt Biden, even with the moderator (hint, hint) allows Biden to constantly cut him off and interrupt him without comment.  The closest Paul Ryan ever came to responding to that was saying he thinks it would be “better if we stopped interrupting each other.”  A.k.a., “Biden, please shut up and let me talk.”  Needless to say, his self-control and composure was impressive.  Still, I did particularly enjoy Paul Ryan's jab, "The vice president well knows, things don’t always come out of your mouth the right way."  He's gotcha there, kitty.

Another note: I have known that Mitt Romney was and still is a successful businessman for a while now.  I have known virtually nothing about Mitt Romney in regards to how he spends his money.  I have still heard absolutely nothing from the man himself.  But Paul Ryan brings up a case when Mitt Romney paid for a neighbor’s children to go to college because they had fallen on hard times.  He also mentioned that Mitt Romney gave 30% of his income to charity (which he mentions is more than himself and Joe Biden combined).  Notably, this is the one statement the entire night that Joe Biden did not challenge.  Instead he said, “I don’t doubt his generosity.” 

Given the testaments to Mitt Romney’s generosity, the polite and respectful composure of Paul Ryan, and the stand not only on the political issues but the pro-life and pro-traditional marriage stands of the Romney-Ryan campaign, I’d say its safe to say that Romney has my vote right now.  We finally have a shot at an administration of integrity.  Let’s not throw this opportunity out the window.

The Voice I've Been Waiting For

So, I’ve been a bit of a sour patch lately.  I decided it was time for something to lift my spirits a little bit.  So I came back to a video that I saw a while back. I encourage you to watch this, even if you manage to read my entire post.  Kirk Cameron was brought on Piers Morgan to talk about his documentary, “Monumental.”  However, it didn’t take long for the wolf to rip off his sheep’s clothing.  It soon became an attack on Kirk Cameron’s moral beliefs, especially his views on homosexuality.  Kirk remained calm and collected and simply said that he believed it was destructive and unnatural behavior.  Now, what was especially low was that Piers Morgan, having made a few comments during that conversation with Kirk Cameron, waited until Kirk Cameron was gone and brought another “expert” on stage, and there they crucified Kirk Cameron, making a mockery of his archaic ideas.  Piers Morgan specifically said he had no idea “how he could say he hates people that are born that way.”  Hold the phone.  Kirk said homosexuality is destructive and unnatural.  He never said anything about hating anybody (and we’ll overlook the fact that the “gay gene” was scientifically proven to be false years ago). 

I’m doing it again.  Negativity aside, there’s a side of this that is really cool. Even though Kirk Cameron has received a mountain of criticism for this, he has never, not once, backed down on his stand nor apologized for his comments.  In a society that is broadening the definitions of hate speech every day, it is refreshing to see someone who is willing to stand for the truth, no matter what the consequences.  Let’s take this and use to help us to see that we are not alone.  I have been crying in the abandoned streets, hoping someone will yell back.  Someone has, and on national television at that.  Take a stand.  Now.

Breaking News: Crime-Lord Mitt Romney Places Bounty on Angelic Big Bird

A while back, I heard one of my favorite jokes that I think I may ever have heard: “Look at the word ‘politics’.  ‘Poly’ means many and ‘ticks’ are blood-sucking creatures.  Coincidence?  I think not.”  I chuckled quite a bit.  Although I do care about the influence that government has not just on the economy but on society and culture (a.k.a. what influences our freedoms and values) as a whole, I am not a fan of the politics game.  But something has happened recently that I simply do not have the patience to overlook. 

In Mitt Romney’s campaign, he has been advocating (in word, at least) some pretty major spending cuts. Among those he has mentioned is PBS, which he has said with the disclaimer “even though I love big bird.”  Now, if you want to talk about whether or not PBS should be cut out or not, that’s fine but that’s not what I’m getting at, because there’s another layer to this.  This week President Barack Obama released a new attack ad.  But this one didn’t have to do with the economy, homosexuality, abortion, foreign affairs, or any other relevant issue.  No, it instead said this: "Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Dennis Kozlowski. Criminals. Gluttons of greed.  And the evil genius who towered over them?  One man has the guts to speak his name.”  Enter Mitt Romney speaking Big Bird’s name.  My first reaction was that this is pretty ridiculous, and really says that Obama has nothing to criticize if he’s stooping that low.  But wait.  It gets better.  Sesame Workshop never approved the ad.  The producers of the show released a statement on Tuesday, saying they had asked the President to remove the ad. 

This is an outrageous smokescreen, guys.  Mitt Romney may not have dishonest foreign policies or errant economic plans, but he’s so purely evil that he would like to roast alive that kind yellow bird that wants to teach your children?  Am I exaggerating a bit?  Good, you get the point. 

Now I have a bit of an intellectual dilemma.  Romans 13:1 tells me that I’m supposed to be subject to the governing authorities.  Exodus 22:28 told the Hebrews that they were not to revile a leader.  I might also add that the oh-so-virtuous Nero was in power at the time that Romans was written.  So, I know that God wants me to respect the rulers of the land in which I live (America), but how can I respect a man that does something underhanded like this (there are reasons to not respect Romney also, by the way).  I don’t know a black-and-white answer that can be given.  This I do know, though: I have a very unique opportunity being an American citizen.  I have the power, along with my fellow citizens, to influence who will be running this country for the next four years.  When you step back and think about it, especially compared to the dictator-controlled nations of the Middle-East, to put it succinctly: that’s pretty cool. 

I’m not saying that Mitt Romney has earned my vote.  Time may reveal that he isn’t any better.  But this I do know: I refuse to vote for a man who stoops so low to attack his opponent for something so outrageously irrelevant.  I encourage you to see this for what it truly is: a smokescreen.  Don’t fall for it.

Catharsis

“Who I am hates who I’ve been”

Those words fascinate me.  That phrase is the main thrust in a Relient K song by the same name, and brings back a lot of memories.  Normally when I say that about a song, I mean it in a positive connotation.  The Owl City song “Cave In” reminds me of this past summer hanging out with a couple close friends of mine who share a mutual love for Owl City.   Oasis’s “Wonderwall” reminds me of a night walking along the canal in downtown Indianapolis, when he (a better guitarist than myself) sat down by the water and started playing various songs, “Wonderwall” being one of them.  Here, though, I mean something else entirely. 

There’s a man I know and look up to that I once saw wearing a shirt that said “I’m not the man I should be, but thank God I’m not the man I used to be.”  The memories that come back are not pleasant ones.  They are memories of me making some dreadful mistakes that I have regretted and will continue regretting for the rest of my life.  I remember saying things that have torn people down.  I remember having thoughts that I would be ashamed to admit and doing things that I would be ashamed to admit.  I don’t say these things to initiate a pity party, but I am confident that as you are reading this, you can probably appreciate where I’m at.  We can all say, “Yeah, I’ve been there.  I’ve done and said stuff I regret.”  That’s why I’m glad the story doesn’t end there.

We live in a culture that is obsessed with love.  We write songs about it, we make movies about it, we write books about it, we talk constantly about it, and in the times between we think about and dwell on it.  I’ve been in love and I’ve lost love.  I still admit that there’s a ton I don’t know but I can tell one thing I know for sure about love: it takes real love to love a person while they are at their lowest point.  I don’t know if any story or metaphor tells it as accurately and tenderly as the father of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 saying in regards to the son who had scorned and deserted him, “let us eat and celebrate.  For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”  That, my friends, is true love.  It is truly incredible that God loved me even at my lowest point.  Even more incredible is the fact that I don’t have to still be the person I used to be.

God offers us the power to change.  One of the most powerful scriptures is Ephesians 3:20, which refers to the power of God which works in us!  I don’t have to be who I was anymore.  I can be better, but only because God has enabled me to be.  Never let us forget that.  Whatever good we may be able to accomplish in this life, it is only because God has enabled us to be that person and did not give up on us when we were failing miserably. 

I’m not yet the man I should be, but thank God I’m not the man I used to be, because who I am hates who I’ve been.

Aspiring for Greatness

Do we aspire?  That’s a question I’ve been spending some time on lately.  Like most kids, I have my five hundred dream careers and things I wanted to do when I was older.  Among them was being a CIA agent, which I think it’s safe to say I’ve given up all hope of (not that I would still want to do that anyway), and my focus has changed pretty drastically.  Unfortunately, though, it seems to me that as people get older, it isn’t just that their focus changes (as is natural and right as you gain more knowledge), but instead they lose it entirely.  They no longer have aspirations and they no longer have dreams.  For some reason people seem to be content to live out a normal life and be normal people with normal jobs.  The problem with that is that we aren’t normal.  Now before you get insulted, let me assure you that I’m not saying you’re a martian or need special education, but I am saying that we are all unique and should all strive to use our talents and gifts to the best of our ability.  Now comes the kicker.  What should our aspirations be?

Some of you might be reading this and saying “well, I should aspire for something I want to do!  Duh!”  Simmer down, Johnny Blaze.  First of all, I’m assuming that you realize it’s important to have ambitions and have a goal to be living towards.  If that’s not obvious to you, the rest of this post will be pretty boring to you.  Sorry.  Anyway, there’s a lot of things I could be striving for, but to be honest, just going after whatever I feel like pursuing on a whim sounds kind of shallow, don’t you think?  Think of the most selfish person you know.  Do you like that person?  Is he or she happy?  I suspect they probably are not (read that with a hint of sarcasm, if you may).  On that note, pursuing self-focused ambitions reminds me a lot of Alexander the Great.  That was one ambitious dude.  He wanted nothing more than to conquer all the nations that he could.  He was good at it, too.  But in the end, his ambition led to his army finally refusing to follow him and he died at the age of 32.  Not my idea of a fun time.

I could stop there.  But then all the good I would do is ruin the day of everyone who reads this and send some into day-long depression, maybe incur a couple lawsuits, and I don’t want to do that. Lawsuits aren’t fun.  So.  Consider this: who better to use my talents for than for the one whom I owe everyone to?  I remember being in a Bible class once when our teacher, namely Rich Gant, encouraged us to find a life mission statement.  I can think of no better life mission statement than what Paul says in Philippians 1.20: “as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death.”  Here’s what I’m getting at: I want to do stuff for God.  I don’t want to sit around and be comfortable, I want to get out there and do things that make a difference in the service of God.  I want to use the strengths and talents He has given me in order to do that.  I hope you will do the same.  We’ve got too many Christians sitting on the sidelines content to live reserved and private lives.  It’s time to get out there and make a difference.  Are you with me?

Should We Enjoy the Vampire Bite?

October 31^st.  It’s just around the corner.  Before long we’ll see kids in white bed sheets carrying orange pumpkin pails filled with candy going from house to house, as well as the teenagers dressed in more grotesque outfits like scream and zombie masks.  We may also see the occasional light-hearted costume like the geeky girl dressed up as Princess Leia or the countless Darth Vader costumes that invade sci-fi costume parties.  But Halloween reminds me of more than trick-or-treating and costume parties.  It reminds me of the folklore that has exploded into a sub-culture of horror-fantasy, and with it one of the most successful of all fantasy creatures: the vampire.  And with that comes the grim reminder that the last dreadful episode of the Twilight Saga hits theaters November 16^th, just a couple short weeks after Halloween.  It’s enough to make me cringe.

            Okay, so some of you are mad at me right now.  That’s fine, I can live with that.  But before you start calling me a heartless, prejudiced, and grumpy cynic, hear me out.  I’ve read the books, and I’ve seen the movies (and yes, I realize that may place my man-card in jeopardy).  So I am not one of the guys who is loudly hacking to pieces something that he knows nothing about.  But you see, there’s something very specific about all of the propaganda that disturbs me to the core. 

            Unlike a lot of guys, I love a good love story.  I could very easily be accused of liking some “chick flicks” here and there.  I also love fantasy.  I even write some fantasy myself.  The problem is, we’ve not seen the Twilight Saga for what it truly is.  When you tear away the fluff and squint your eyes to see past the fog, what you find is not love and definitely isn’t fantasy…at least not any fantasy I would have.

            Let’s take a step back.  Look at the horrifically infamous statement from Bella in the first book: “About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was part of him — and I didn't know how potent that part might be — that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.”  First of all this statement even on its own merit sounds so pathetic that I think even Ghandi would feel the need to ferociously smack Bella, but that’s not the point.  The point is what she said in the last sentence: “I was unconditionally—“ Ok, I can live with that—“and irrevocably in love with him.”  Whoa, hold the phone, sister!  Irrevocably?!  So, she’s in love with a guy who just might want to rip her heart out and suck all of her blood.  Believe it or not, I can live with that (let’s not forget that Adolph Hitler was married, after all.  Some women can be pretty dense), but the fact that she believes in cannot be changed.  This is love. Unconditional and unchangeable.  Now in and of itself I don’t have a problem with that message.  My parents love me unconditionally.  They’ve gotten pretty mad at me at points, but they never stopped loving me.  But here’s the kicker: at this point in the story, Bella knows absolutely nothing about Edward.  Why does she love him?  At the end of the day, she doesn’t really know.  Here’s the thing that is so dangerous about the Twilight Saga and most every other love story that has become popular in the last decade: it presents love as out of your control.  You can’t control who you fall in love with and you don’t understand why you love them, you just know you do and you have to be around them.  Sounds suspiciously like a drug addiction to me.  When we reduce love this far, bad things will happen.

            One out of every two marriages in this country end in divorce.  People continue to speculate and give different reasons for this, but I don’t think there’s much of a question to it.  It’s because we look at love like an uncontrollable state of mind, just like a drug addiction.  And when we can’t get the same high, we go to another drug, another person.  Don’t do that to yourself or to the ones in your life.  Think about what your buying into.  As for me, I think I can afford to sit out the conclusion of the cultural monstrosity.  What will you buy into?

Our Post-Apocalyptic Present

  Imagine rubble all around you.  There is no sign of green terrain within your view.  You look around at what once was the city of Washington, D.C.  Not a single structure remains standing.  Not houses, not offices, not a single building.  Your own clothes are torn and ragged and your shoes have holes in them, evidence to the desperate nature of your current situation.  You step over the rubble and call out in the streets, hoping someone will hear you, but no one does.  Oh, they are in the city.  But they don't hear you.  They are all soundly asleep, comfortable in their current surroundings.

The situation I just described to you is bleak, alright.  In fact, we as a people are so afraid of such a situation that it has become the topic of countless books and movies, creating a sense of fear and seat-gripping thrills. Because we are afraid of being alone.  We were created with such a desire.  God Himself said it is not good for man to be alone.  But I fear that the same urge that unites us will be the very one that destroys us.

This is not simply a story, it is reality.  Too many Christians have lain down and gone to sleep, content to say that they are incapable of fighting the world.  In doing so, we have waved the white flag and surrendered to sinful modern culture to such an extent that some Christians are not content to lay down and give up the fight, but are joining the other side, and some even citing it as God's will!  Earlier this year there was an annual conference held in the United Kingdom by an organization called LGCM: Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.  Read that again.  Read it again.  Something feels wrong about that sentence, right?  How did we get so far off?

Leonard Ravenhill, an evangelist and author, once said, "The world has lost the power to blush over its vice; the Church has lost her power to weep over it."  We no longer think that sin is something to be distressed about.  If I may go a step further than Mr. Ravenhill, the world has lost the power to blush over its vice; the Church has lost its power to resist chasing after it.

The reason for this post?  It's time for an awakening.  To those who are wandering the streets, looking for fellow comrades, its time to grab some megaphones and scream as loud as we can in the streets.  It's time the dedicated Christians stopped shutting up and give us and our children a fighting chance in the raging war that is being waged against Christianity.  Christians assemble.