Virginity Bounty is Underpriced

Ashley Madison is not the name of Tim Tebow's girlfriend.

Ashley Madison is the name of the website whose owner will pay anybody $1 million to prove that they've been able to take Tebow's virginity.

So does that mean that if he's been secretly dating somebody for months, he can get engaged to her now, get married in a few months, and be $1 million richer on the day after their wedding?

Not likely, is it?  After all, Noel Biderman, owner of AshleyMadison.com, doesn't want Tebow to be virtuous about his intimate behavior.  He wants Tebow to fall for the same fornication Kool-Aid he and all of his website's fans - all 13 million registered users - have done.

"Confession is Selfish"

How perverse are Biderman and Ashley Madison?  Consider these excerpts from an entry entitled "How to Deal With the Guilt of an Affair" on company's blog:

"So you set up a profile on Ashley Madison, you met someone, and you started an affair. Now you feel guilty. What do you do about that? ...The first thing you need to know is, this is normal, and you’re not the only one who goes through it... Here’s the best piece of advice I can give you about all of this. Are you ready?

  "Don’t confess.  That’s right. I said don’t be honest. Lie. Never tell. You know why? Because while suspecting something’s going on may not feel great for your partner, knowing it for sure can be devastating. It can end your relationship. It can make your husband or wife feel horrible, and deeply damage their self-esteem.

  "Think about the reason you’d consider telling your significant other about your affair... It’s because you feel like YOU can’t live with the guilt, right?  ...So you think if you tell and get it off your chest, YOU won’t feel bad anymore.  That’s all probably true. But this isn’t only about YOU. As you begin to feel better for having cast off that burden, your spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, whoever, feels like crap. How is that fair?

  "...Confessing is selfish. If you can’t handle the guilt, end the affair and move on. If you absolutely have to get it off your chest, tell someone other than the person you cheated on. Talk to your best friend, your sibling, your pastor, a bartender, or a taxi driver you’ll never see again..."


Words to live by, eh, Biderman?  Confession of guilt is all about the offender, not the victim?  Ignorance is bliss?

And, "tell your pastor"?!  You're kidding, right?  If their pastor is worth anything, what he'll tell them should contradict all of your "advice" and everything your company stands for.

Saying "confession is selfish" is one of the stupidest twists of logic and denials of reality I've ever heard.  Confession is liberating for both the offender and the offendee, even if you don't believe all of the Biblical reasons for why it's so.  Sure, confessing wrongs is rarely easy or fun, but it's the first step towards reconciliation and healing.  Denying the opportunity for reconciliation is what's selfish.

Virginity Bounty Elevates Tebow at Biderman's Expense

And what if, in a worst-case scenario, some slut does take your challenge seriously and manages to crush Tebow's faithful resistance against fornication to smithereens; what will you have proved?  That evil feels good?  We all know that.  That fidelity is passe?  We all know lots of people already believe that.  That cheating can leave emotional scars?  That some idiots will do anything for money?

That Tebow isn't as virtuous as some of his admirers assume him to be?  We believers already know that, too.

As a born-again Christian, whenever he sins - and like the rest of us, he sins all the time - Tebow benefits from God's grace.  And infidelity, before God's eyes, is equal to any sin other than denying His Son.  Sure, it would be a public relations blunder on his part, but in terms of his faith, it will be a sin that - just like all the rest of his sins - he'll need to confess before God and whomever else he's hurt.  Sexual morality is indeed a big deal to most evangelical Christians, but God's forgiveness is greater than your taunts.

And what if Tebow remains faithful to his vow of chastity?  He won't even be able to claim he did it all by himself.  He'll have relied on strength and integrity that God gives all of His people to withstand attacks from people like you.  He'll have demonstrated that he values the price that Christ paid on the cross for a relationship with him far, far more than your $1 million pittance.

After all, as you probably have already learned with your website, you can't put a pricetag on love.

So be prepared, Mr. Biderman.  Either way - whether you get to pay out your $1 million, or not - God wins.  If you'd ever bother to stop and listen to Tebow, you'll learn that his life and skills aren't about Him, but about His Savior.  He confesses Christ as his Lord.  And he confesses his sins to his Lord.

I realize you won't understand any of this unless - or even, until - the Holy Spirit reveals these truths and how they work to your own heart and mind.  I pray that He does, especially since you're the one who has far stronger misconceptions about sex and fidelity than you think Tebow does.

In the meantime, you'd better be careful about which state you'll be in if you pay out that $1 million.  Being a pimp is only legal in Nevada, you know.
_____

Details Challenge Martin Catharsis

Catharsis.

Is that the right word?  I'm trying to reconcile the things I see in this Trayvon Martin tragedy with the things respectable, evangelical Blacks are seeing, while at the same time, coming to terms with whatever latent racism I myself may be holding.

And I'm writing it all out for you, my gracious readers, to consider.

Maybe "catharsis" is just a more intriguing word for "rant."  Since this will be my fourth essay on the Martin killing, am I ranting, or being cathartic?  You can read my first essay here, in which I assume (apparently naively) that as additional facts reveal themselves, the focus of this tragedy should shift from George Zimmerman's probable guilt to a well-guarded "don't know."

In my second essay, I expressed my dismay at learning how differently some fellow evangelicals who are black have been interpreting this case.  And in my third essay yesterday, I explored what has become perhaps the key sticking point so far in this case:  the issue of racial profiling.

Today will serve as a sort of mop-up day for straggling details in this sad story of mistrust, over-zealousness, and death.  But will I get it all out of my system and feel better for it all?

I doubt it.

Are You Racist or Racial?

First, I'd like to return to the vociferous yet cogent Rev. Dwight McKissic, a prominent black Baptist minister from right here in Arlington, Texas, and his helpful definitions of some terminology we whites may have never heard before.

According to McKissic, in an April 23rd entry on his blog, there is a difference between being "racist" and being "racial:"

"A racist is intentionally, unashamedly, and foundationally comfortable viewing persons of other races as being fundamentally and inherently flawed or 'less-than.' A racist prejudges or relates to other persons based on their foundational outlook. A person who is racial in their outlook—and most of us are—are simply products of the fact that we were born into a racial construct and society, and we observed or were taught certain things about race that shapes or form our world view."

In other words, if I'm understanding McKissic correctly, being racist means that no matter what, you consider yourself better than somebody else based on a subjective opinion of their race.

Being racial, on the other hand, is far more benign than literal racism, and happens when we acknowledge differences between races without pegging negative stereotypes on those differences and making issues out of them.

It may seem to you, as it does to me, that McKissic is splitting hairs here, because it all still boils down to taking sides based on race.  It's just that the racial people pretend as though any racism they may have doesn't really exist, while the racists just let their hatred consume them.

Personally, I'd like to think there is some point at which I can meet and interact with people based purely on our respective individual characteristics and merits.  Maybe McKissic is saying that's not going to be possible in this life.  I'm not claiming to have risen above race; I think I have a little bit of both racism and racialism in me.  Racism tends to rear its ugly head when I'm confronted with a dangerous or uncomfortable situation, and racialism tends to dominate most of the rest of the time.

If, as some people say, how one acts in a crisis betrays their true character, then I'll bluntly - if ashamedly - admit that there's a racist element in me that needs to be eradicated.  But I'd also frankly offer to McKissic that the way he's pushing the issues with the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land isn't helping in that regard.  Why?  Because I don't see why waiting for all the facts to emerge in the Martin death isn't Biblical.  How is that a "white" approach to this tragedy, as McKissic has suggested, and not the "fair" approach?

Let's Go To the Audiotape

The second issue I think needs airing involves the audiotape of Zimmerman's call to the Sanford, Florida 911 operator.  If you haven't listened to it yet in its entirety, please click here, because you will learn that what's actually said doesn't completely sync with what you've heard in the media.

For example, Zimmerman tells the operator that it's raining, and the suspect is "just walkin' around, lookin' about."  If the Sanford police department is anything like the police department here in Arlington Texas, they'll have told neighborhood crime watch volunteers to report anything to 911 that looks suspicious.  If you saw a hooded figure "just walkin' around, lookin' about" in the rain, wouldn't that strike you as suspicious?

Zimmerman also tells the operator that suspect "looks" black.  His voice is calm and hardly hateful.  He seems to be simply answering the operator's question.  Did Zimmerman include that qualifier on purpose, to disguise his racial profiling?  We'll have to wait until his trial to know for sure.

"Now he's just staring at the houses."  Zimmerman is giving a play-by-play to the operator, and considering how all of those townhouses in the gated community look alike, and that Martin was visiting the home of his father's fiance, and might not have been too familiar with which one it was, it would be logical for him to be "just walkin' around, lookin' about."  He was trying to remember where his father's fiance lived.  Had this been the case, however, how would Zimmerman know it?  And if I was in Martin's shoes, after I saw Zimmerman slow down and look me over, I'd have asked him if he knew where Ms. So-and-So lived, so I could get in out of the rain faster.  Might Martin have racially-profiled the light-skinned Zimmerman and figured he wasn't trustworthy?  Of course, at this point, Zimmerman could have called out, "Can I help you?"  But he didn't.  In my mind, that was Zimmerman's first mistake.

"He's got his hand in his waistband."  I've criticized that gangsta culture before.  And in this case, it may have helped create in Zimmerman's imagination the scenario of a black gangsta teenager with a pistol in his pants, looking for trouble.  It's hard to avoid such racial profiling when there are so many music videos, movies, and other pop culture media depicting black men, guns, baggy pants, hoodies, and violence.  For blacks like McKissic to not realize that is a form of racism too, isn't it?  Willfully refusing to recognize threatening behavior because the perpetrator is black is still race-based behavior, isn't it?  Do blacks not find the sight of other blacks reaching for guns in their pants threatening behavior?

Note, too, that it's almost half-way into the telephone call before Zimmerman confirms to the operator that the suspect is a black male.

"They always get away."  This quote from Zimmerman has been used in the media to assume his use of racial profiling.  And while that may be correct, could it also be Zimmerman's way of saying that burglary suspects in general always get away?  My neighborhood here in Arlington has been hit numerous times in the past several years with brazen burglaries, and most of the time, the crooks get away.  We've had white, black, and Hispanic burglars caught in our neighborhood, so we can't stereotype the burglars who've gotten away.  Yes, if you've already decided Zimmerman was racially profiling, this quote seems to seal your assumption.  But does it really?

Then comes what sounds like Zimmerman huffing and puffing, and maybe the dinging of a chime in his vehicle.  Has he opened his door and exited his vehicle?  Is Zimmerman now himself on foot, following the suspect?  It's plausible, since he's just muttered, "they always get away," and he may have begun to lose patience waiting for the police to arrive.

After a few seconds, the operator can hear Zimmerman continuing to breathe into his mobile phone like people do when they're walking briskly.  The operator asks Zimmerman if he's following the suspect, and he replies that he is.  You'll notice that the operator does not tell Zimmerman to remain in his vehicle, as some media outlets have reported.  You'll also notice that the breathing Zimmerman had been doing into his mobile phone stops soon after being instructed by the operator to not follow the suspect any more.

Obviously, however, Zimmerman doesn't get back into his vehicle.  Or if he does, he gets out again at some point before shooting Martin.  He also asks the operator if he can tell the cops where he'll be when they arrive - he doesn't offer to stay put.  Does that mean Zimmerman had made up his mind to follow Martin, no matter the cost, even after the operator had told him to back off?  It looks that way, but we won't know for sure until his trial.

We also don't know the point at which Zimmerman encountered Martin for the second time.  How did that scenario unfold?  We simply don't know.  We can make conjectures and hypothesize, and that's all everyone seems to be doing right now.  But that's hardly the basis for a solid exegesis of this case, is it?

And that remains my point through all of this.  We don't have all the facts, but the media, in its earnestness to amass viewership and market share, wants us to listen to them, so they compete by encouraging us to begin formulating scenarios that seem to fit standard patterns of strife and hatred.  How much air time could they sell if they told everybody that so far, the evidence that has been accumulated is inconclusive?

John Piper's Take

It's a trap that none other than John Piper, one of reformed evangelicalism's most trusted preachers, appears to have fallen into.

On his blog, McKissic thanks Piper, a fellow Baptist (albeit of the reformed persuasion) for supporting the prevailing progressive view of Zimmerman as a racial profiler and Martin as an innocent victim.  But I suspect that although, like McKissic, Piper is an extremely busy man, his busyness involves criminal investigations even less than McKissic's does.  Instead, he perhaps relies too heavily on filtered feedback from his underlings and sound bites in the media.  The unfortunate result here is that Piper's comments related to the events surrounding Martin's killing seem to betray an analytical disconnect that is uncharacteristic for somebody of his educational and theological pedigree.

Indeed, the reason it's important to do a double-take on Piper's input on the Martin tragedy stems from the loyalty so many evangelicals have developed towards him and his opinions.

"Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman claims self-defense," Piper dramatically states, ignoring the fact that at the time, Zimmerman didn't know Martin was unarmed.  We don't even know the point at which Martin realized Zimmerman was armed.  Does it make a difference?  We don't know, so Piper shouldn't imply what none of us yet know to be true.

Piper mentions Zimmerman's rap sheet, but doesn't mention that Martin was on probation from high school.  How fair is that?  Piper also seems to have a problem with the Second Amendment, repeatedly referencing Zimmerman's gun, and failing to acknowledge that neither Zimmerman nor the 911 operator knew if Martin had a gun or not.

Piper makes the same mistake almost everybody has made about that fateful 911 call by assuming Zimmerman was still in his vehicle when the 911 operator told him the police didn't want him following the suspect.  As I think I've proven (above), the 911 operator didn't realize Zimmerman was following the suspect - on foot, even; not in his vehicle - until Zimmerman had already left his vehicle.  Does that make any kind of difference?  We won't know for sure until Zimmerman's trial.

Piper also wades into murky legal territory when he ascribes Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law to Zimmerman's motives.  It's the media and opponents of the law who've made that connection; we don't know for certain if Zimmerman was relying on Stand Your Ground to give him immunity in this situation.  We do know that Zimmerman somehow received two gashes to the back of his head, indicating that some sort of confrontation took place, ostensibly with Martin.  If the two were in what at least one of them considered to be a mortal struggle, then using one's gun for self-preservation is understandable.  Here again, we're bordering on the hypothetical here, so we need to wait for facts to emerge at trial.

From there, Piper begins a well-crafted homily on befriending the mistreated, towards which I have no objections.  Indeed, I don't fault Piper for speaking out against racism; I simply think his interpretation of the facts rely too much on suppositions and weak correlations that have already been parroted unconvincingly in the media.

Can't We All at Least Agree on This?

Yet even though his grasp of this case's details is disappointing, Piper manages to point out something on which every evangelical watching the Martin tragedy should surely agree:

"O what a difference it would have made if George Zimmerman had thought: 'I have a gun,'" Piper writes. "'For Christ’s sake — for the sake of love — I better not follow this young man. I might wind up using it. Law enforcement is on the way. I have done my duty. Lord, I pray that this man will be treated with respect, and that justice will be done, and that your name will be great in this place.'”

As conservative evangelicals are disproportionately represented among die-hard advocates for gun rights, it's too easy to forget that the Second Amendment is one thing, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ is another.  We are to love our enemies, and that includes the people we think may be our enemy.  All of the factors leading up to Martin's death notwithstanding, if Zimmerman had taken his responsibilities for gun ownership as gravely as we should, he would not have exacerbated a situation in which he didn't know if Martin had a gun as well.

If lacking prudence was a crime, Zimmerman would undoubtedly be guilty.  But a lack of Christ-like love for our fellow man is a sin.  Not that shooting somebody in self-defense is a sin.  However, not respecting life enough to be prudent with the situations to which one exposes one's self could be.  God will know how that relates to both Zimmerman and Martin better than anybody else.

As for Zimmerman's criminal liability here on Earth, meanwhile, nothing has yet been proven in a court of law.  Until it is, doesn't Zimmerman have the right to be considered innocent?

I'm not asking because I'm a bigoted white man.  I'm asking because I want to believe I'm not.
____

Update:  To further support everything I've said in this essay, consider this report from Reuters, which was posted an hour before my essay was yesterday evening.  And if you think I can compose an essay like this in an hour, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn!  By chance, I found the Reuters article Thursday morning.

Profiling Racial Profiling

Sometimes, stories in the media take on a life of their own.

And before you know it, a whole new reality has been constructed out of an insubstantial collection of facts and even less authoritative assumptions.

Case in point:  the Trayvon Martin shooting tragedy.  Forget all of political posturing over this case for a moment.  Last week, all you-know-what broke loose amongst Southern Baptists when one of their executives, Richard Land, made some poorly-worded and carelessly potent charges against blacks in general and supportive of racial profiling in particular.

At least one friend of mine, a black pastor from Maryland, has joined with Rev. Dwight McKissic, an evangelical black pastor here in Arlington, Texas, in demanding that the SBC denomination "repudiate" Land and his remarks.  Meanwhile, as you might expect, this debate spilled onto the sidewalks outside of the Baptist inner circle and become fodder for liberal websites and news organizations across the United States.

Having Baptists airing their dirty laundry within earshot of the media is like handing candy to a baby.

What is It, and Who Does It?

One of the most contentious flash-points in this Baptist brawl involves the issue of racial profiling.  As I understand it, racial profiling refers to the generalizations we make about somebody based on their initial appearance, and our reflexive physical and mental responses to those generalizations.  In its most politically-charged scenario, racial profiling can cast the other person in a disadvantageous light, or at least in a way that results in a negative viewpoint of them on the part of the profiler.

In other words, with racial profiling, we look at somebody and deduce basic stereotypes based on assumptions about a group, not the person's individual character.  When whites racially profile blacks, this usually means we denigrate blacks because of preconceived notions about them that are mostly negative.

Yet I would propose that not only do many whites engage - however subconsciously - in racial profiling, but so does everybody else.  Black, Hispanic, Asian:  everybody engages in racial profiling.  For better or worse, it's part of how we navigate our cross-cultural world.

When you make a call to a law firm, and a principle at the firm answers his phone, "Ira Silverstein here," what immediately pops into your head?  "A Jewish lawyer," right?  And you immediately assume that, at least if he's going to work for you, you'll probably win your case.

When you hear that an accomplished musician with an Asian-sounding name is going to perform at your local concert hall, what immediately pops into your head?  "That will probably be some exquisite music," since we've come to assume all Asian musicians are impeccable masters at their craft.

When an elderly, black woman is walking down a dark block during the evening, and she sees a tall, young, white man walking towards her, is her first instinct to grip even tighter on her purse, because he might mug her?

When many Hispanics encounter whites here in north Texas, they avert their eyes and step out of the way, hoping to avoid any type of interaction.  This is likely because they either don't speak much English, and are intimidated by the language barrier, or they don't want to draw unnecessary attention to themselves because they're in this country illegally.  Yes, those are two racial profiles I've just drawn, but aren't these Hispanics racially profiling us whites?  Assuming we don't speak Spanish, or that we'll turn them in to immigration authorities?

Indeed, racial profiling is far more complex a scenario than many people like to believe.  Our profiling doesn't even have to be racial.  Why do you think ex-prisoners have such a hard time finding a job?  Why do many car salesmen and mechanics treat their female customers differently than their male customers?  Why do retail chains stock different items based on the geographic locations of their stores?

Why have our airport screening measures become so intolerable these days?  Because the Transportation Security Administration is bending over backwards to avoid being accused of profiling.

Why do your insurance rates vary from your next-door neighbor's?  Because insurance companies and actuaries have developed lifestyle patterns that affect your rates, and they profile you according to those patterns

From Profiling to Perspective

Of course, none of this is intended to excuse racism.  Or even profiling.  This is an explanation of profiling, not a justification for it.  Profiling itself does not justify racism, either.  Racism exists whether profiling exists or not.  Some people will just hate people who are different from them regardless of whether they have any data to support a negative profile.  Indeed, the reason profiling exists is because data has been collected to lend a certain level of support to the profile.  Profiles don't just create themselves, like racism does.  True, profiles may still be horribly inaccurate, out of date, or simply incorrect, but racism can exist even when a particular profile doesn't.

Admittedly, the more I consider the comments from the SBC's Land, the more I can hear him talking out of both sides of his mouth.  He both theorizes that George Zimmerman initially profiled Trayvon Martin as a thug teenager, and then calls for restraint in making judgments until all the facts are known.  But we don't really know what Zimmerman thought of Martin when he first saw him, except that the hooded figure looked out of place in their gated community.  And the shooting apparently didn't take place until a few moments later, when Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin in the darkness.  Anything else is pure speculation at this point.

It may very well be that Zimmerman utilized racial profiling as that evening's scenario with Martin developed, and if Zimmerman deduced from his racial profiling of Martin that the teen posed a mortal threat simply because he was black, then we'll have a case of unmitigated racism of the ugliest order.  And we'll need to address that accordingly.

But right now, we simply don't know for sure.

Personally, I think if Zimmerman, upon seeing Martin, considered the hooded figure to be a threat, he wouldn't have abandoned the relative safety of his car, and go against the 911 operator's orders to stay in his vehicle.  It makes more sense that it wasn't until Zimmerman continued to insert himself into a confrontational posture with Martin that the fears of mortal danger flooded his mind.  At that point, if Martin displayed aggression first, it likely wouldn't have mattered to Zimmerman if he was black or white or purple.  And what if Martin racially profiled the light-skinned Zimmerman?  Might there have been dueling racial profilers?  Here again, at this point, I can only speculate.

As can anyone else.  And that's perhaps almost as bad as Martin losing his life that fateful night in Sanford, Florida.  Because people are name-calling, ranting, and becoming bitterly divisive on hearsay and speculation.  We don't know if Martin lost his life because Zimmerman profiled him as a person who needed to be killed simply because he was an unknown black teenager.  Would Zimmerman have shot Martin if the teen was white?  It all comes down to why Zimmerman pulled the trigger, and we won't know that for sure until his trial.

As for the racial profiling component, I could take offense that some black people might be profiling me because I'm a white guy in suburban Texas, so how could I possibly have anything relevant to bring to this discussion.  Instead, I'll take the high road and wait for Zimmerman's day in court.

Not because racial profiling caused the death of Trayvon Martin.  But because we don't know whether it did or didn't.

In the meantime, all of this bitter acrimony only makes the path to justice for Martin's family - and indeed, for race relations in the United States - that much more elusive.
_____

Time for Our Lives

Can you make your life longer?

It's a familiar passage of Scripture, the Sermon on the Mount.  And parts of the Sermon on the Mount are more famous than others.  You'll likely recall the part about not being anxious about life, what you'll eat, or what you'll wear.  Lilies of the field, and birds of the air, right?

But how often have you stopped, cold still, at Matthew 6:27?  I don't know that I ever have.  Yesterday, however, when in his sermon, my pastor pointed out that none of us can add a second of life to our time here on this planet, I sat bold upright:

"And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?"  (ESV)

Because it's true, isn't it?  God ordained when we were born.  And before we were born, God knew when, in His sovereignty, He would call us home to be with Him.

...Or not - which is really the only scary part about this.  If you don't have a personal relationship with God's Son, Jesus Christ, knowing there's a celestial clock somewhere in Heaven clicking down the seconds of your heretofore unrepentant life should send chills up your spine.  As a reformed believer, I believe God doesn't lose any of His own, which means that if that celestial clock's alarm goes off on your life, and you're not saved, God's sovereignty still works.  But that doesn't mean the moment of salvation can't come after too much of one's life has been wasted on selfish pursuits.  Even if God draws you to Himself in the final days of your life on this planet, that doesn't mean He'll give you more time to do something else for Him while you're here.  Suffice it to say that it's in your best interests to surrender your life to Him sooner, rather than later.  Waiting won't lengthen your life.

It's so profound, it bears repeating:  nobody can lengthen their life.  According to Psalm 139:6, all the days God ordained for us were known by Him before one of them came to be.  So once we arrive, pop out of the womb, work our way up through high school, and on into college - if we even live that long - there's nothing we can do, no education we can pursue, no life choices to make, that will add one second to the time God, in His sovereignty, has ordained for you and me.

And don't think because I say it so bluntly means that I appreciate the gravity of such truth.  Frankly, it strikes me as bizarre.  How counter-cultural to believe that all the good things we do to our bodies won't lengthen our life, and all the bad things won't shorten it.

Think about it:  Jim Fixx, the jogging guru, died of a heart attack immediately after finishing his daily run in 1984.  In 2010, a woman in Britain died at age 102 after smoking since she was 17.

Does this mean, then, we can treat our bodies as though our physical self doesn't matter?  Can we eat, drink, and sit our way through life since our health means nothing to our longevity?  Of course not!

Laziness is a sin.  So are gluttony and being drunk.  Keep in mind:  our body is still the temple of the Holy Spirit for as long as we're here.  Good health habits may not extend our lives past God's original expiry date, but they can certainly make the days we have more productive.  Treating our bodies right makes us feel better, gives us more energy, and keeps us more healthy, all so we can glorify Him more effectively with the talents and abilities He's given us. 

Does this mean we shouldn't take death-defying risks?  Should we bungee-jump every day, skydive every other day, play Russian Roulette every weekend, or attend the Democratic National Convention this year with one of those "Miss Me Yet?" t-shirts with that goofy shot of a smirking George W. waving his hand?  (OK, that last one is a complete joke).

Wisdom, maturity, self-control, a healthy respect for death, and common sense are all Biblical qualities.  Leading a risk-averse life might not lengthen your days, but might your personal testimony of faith be stronger by abiding in God's purposes for satisfaction instead of ruthlessly pushing the daredevil envelope?  How much of a testimony do you set by taking too many foolhardy risks?  If you jump off of a bridge with nothing but a glorified rubber band keeping you from plummeting to certain death, whether you survive or die says little about your own ability to cheat death, and more about God's sovereignty.  So what's the use?  Some personal thrills?  If that's what it takes to get your juices going, you may not sinning, but I would question whether you're putting your thirst for adventure to good use.

Granted, in the specific context of Matthew 6:27, it's anxiety that doesn't add any more days to our lives.  In fact, science tells us that anxiety is bad for the heart.  Although the irony of this is that anxiety won't cost us days of life in penalties, either, will it?  We'll just be that much more miserable in life, and display that much less faith in God's sovereignty.

After all, anxiety poses one of the strongest suppressive agents to our faith, doesn't it?  From worrying about how things will look to other people, to whether or not we'll experience rejection, to even fearing for our lives.  Not that prudence and discernment aren't also Biblical qualities, but sometimes, don't we forget that we're supposed to be "anxious for nothing?"  As we contemplate ways to serve God, how often do we relish the reality that there's nothing we can do that will cost us our life prematurely?  Or give us a few bonus years?

None of us can add any time to our lives.  They're ready.  Their timeframe is set.  So why don't we go and live them?

For His glory, and through His sovereignty, we've been given all the time we need.
_____

Right of Way

Two of my nephews are learning how to drive.

No, they're not learning how to drive their parents crazy - they've already mastered that skill!  They're learning how to drive a car.  And in a way, that's driving their parents crazy, too.

I feel sorry for the good citizens of suburban Detroit.  Not only do they have to endure the foul weather, rutted freeways, and corrosive politics of southeastern Michigan, but they've got to share the same roads as my fine young nephews.  I wonder if my brother and sister-in-law's insurance agent has already changed his phone number? 

Unfortunately, one of my nephews, in particular, is having an extraordinarily difficult time adjusting to the rules of the road.

Earlier this week, he and my brother were driving down a major suburban boulevard, and another vehicle further on ahead of them came to a stop in their lane.  But my nephew, behind the wheel, wasn't slowing down.

My brother does not panic easily, but he grew quite concerned, as they were rapidly losing time and space to take evasive action.

"Why aren't you slowing down?" my brother finally yelled.

"Well, I was already in this lane, so I have the right-of-way," my nephew calmly, yet illogically, reasoned.  It was as if the entire world knew that my nephew was navigating this lane of roadway and would acquiesce to his prerogatives.  My nephew, who currently holds a 4.0 GPA in high school, didn't understand that driving is far more complex than knowing who has the right-of-way.

Having the right-of-way is one thing, but you also have to be constantly accommodating the actions of other drivers.  Even if it means that you have to cede your right-of-way to avoid an accident.  Which, fortunately, they did.

It's going to be a long spring up there in my brother's household!

Even though a driver cedes his right-of-way to avoid an accident, that doesn't mean the other driver has "won," does it?  It just means that, particularly when other drivers do stupid things you have to avoid, you're the better driver for better recognizing the urgency of the situation.  Your reward may not seem glamorous - sparing yourself an accident - and indeed, you might get quite aggravated, especially when it seems you're always having to accommodate the bad moves other drivers make.  But you get to your destination in one piece, and life goes on.

Sometimes I think life itself is like that.  Especially the part of life that involves politics and public policy.

How many times do you feel as though you have the right-of-way in a course of action or policy decision, but you find yourself being confronted with a head-on collision if somebody doesn't maneuver out of the way?  People who get in our lanes of life may be there for no good reason, but don't we often find ourselves being the ones being forced to take evasive action, even when we're in the right?

Yes, the other driver who's obstructing the traffic flow in our lane may be stupid.  They may be belligerent.  They may feel a sense of entitlement, and then criticize us for feeling entitled to exercise our right-of-way, trying to accuse us of being at fault.

But what does the better driver do?  In such cases, they take the evasive action necessary.  As soon as they can, they maneuver back into their original lane, and continue on their journey as best they can.  Of course, the hope is that you can proceed far enough down the boulevard of life so that at the next red light, the wacko driver who pulled out in front of you doesn't catch up with you.

Then too, sometimes the lane the wacko driver forces you to switch into turns out to be not so bad after all.  Hey, look:  it even gets you closer to the turn lane you need up ahead!  Indeed, sometimes it takes a scare before we appreciate the little things in life.

Hopefully, it won't take an accident to learn how to important it is to navigate around the wacko drivers in our lives.  Both on real streets as we're really driving, and the bigger picture of our life experiences.  And our country's politics, too.

Not to say that once in a while, we'll be left with no other option except slamming into the obstacle blocking our right-of-way.

But at least we still need to slam on our own brakes.  You never know how much the impact might impact yourself.  Even if you it, you will want to be able to sort out the situation based on the facts.

Drive on, gracious road warrior!
_____

Plea for Patience in the Martin Tragedy

Now I'm confused.

Confused, and discouraged.

The growing outcry among Southern Baptists over Dr. Richard Land and his comments - and then apology - regarding the Trayvon Martin death in Florida has gone from talk radio pontificating to borderline scandal.  And now, someone I highly regard has joined in the grievances against Land, saying that Land's initial comments and apology are "repugnant."

And I'm confused.  And dismayed.

The Controversy

Frankly, I didn't pay attention when Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, first talked about his reaction to the Martin killing.  Just another person pointing out that nothing has gone to trial, and that the court of public opinion needs to wait until our justice system vets the facts in this case.  That's my position, too.  Of all the things Americans do well, waiting isn't one of them.  But justice doesn't always accommodate itself to our schedules.  Until George Zimmerman, the man who himself has admitted to shooting Martin, gets to tell his side of the story, we all need to calm down.  Personally, I was relieved that the special prosecutor appointed in this case decided to charge Zimmerman, because at this point, a courtroom trial is in his best interests.  And the best interests of Martin's family.

The media picked up the story about Land's remarks when some black Baptists expressed alarm and began to challenge them as racist.  Land, apparently caught off-guard, released an apology in which he attempted to clarify his remarks.  Although that has not satisfied everyone, I figured the people who were still angry at Land were the agitators and malcontents who always have other axes to grind against the frequently-maligned SBC.

People, yes, like Rev. Dwight McKissic, pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church here in Arlington, Texas, and a prominent social activist in our area.  He has a history of publicly wrangling with the SBC and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary nearby in Fort Worth, but he's also taken the lead on addressing serious gang problems in the sector of Arlington where his sprawling megachurch is located.  I don't agree with McKissic on everything I hear him say, but I've no reason to doubt that he loves Jesus Christ and His Gospel, so I'm willing to consider his perspectives, and believe he deserves my respect.

Yet sometimes it seems as though black pastors hold a certain entitlement to command the inter-racial dialog, as if they're the only victims of bigotry.  If racism is indeed a struggle between races, doesn't it stand to reason that more than one race needs to participate in our national conversation on the topic?

That makes it frustrating when people of any color other than white perceive our battle for civil rights to be something to which people sharing my skin color need to reflexively capitulate.

Civil rights are based on the truth of equality.  And equality demands civility, logic, and yes, integrity.  From and to all of us.

To learn that McKissic is uncomfortable with the wording in Land's remarks would be understandable.  I'm not crazy myself about some of the terminology Land used.  Nor does it help that Land apparently quoted extensively - and without attribution - from material written by a columnist for the right-wing and journalistically dubious Washington Times.  I'm not a high-profile executive at a global organization, but I'm smart enough to know that I can't rely on the Washington Times for unbiased content.  As it is, Land is now being investigated by the SBC for both the content of his comments and his questionable attribution of them (apparently, his website did give credit to the Washington Times).

But in his letter to the SBC, McKissic doesn't mention the claims of plagiarism others have pegged on Lamb.  Instead, McKissic's scathing condemnation of Land, and indeed of his own denomination, consists entirely of bitter accusations of racism that appear to ignore our lack of facts in this case and the lack of credibility in other activists whom McKissic appears to affirm.

Indeed, I'm quite confused.  And I'm not saying that sarcastically.

My Confusion

What's even more confusing is the endorsement McKissic's opinions have received from somebody I know far better than McKissic, and with whom I used to work.  Rev. Eric Redmond, who now pastors Reformation Alive Baptist Church in Temple Hills, Maryland, was a pastoral intern at Pantego Bible Church when I worked in its accounting office.  Witty, smart, and engaging, Redmond carried himself with a rare combination of confidence and humility.  Today, he's a Facebook friend of mine, and more importantly, a council member of Tim Keller's popular Gospel Coalition.

Last night, on Facebook, Redmond posted a link to McKissic's official letter to the SBC, along with his  personal endorsement of McKissic's call for the SBC to "repudiate" Land's remarks.  And I was dumbfounded.  Indeed, much of this blog essay I wrote last night, unable to go to sleep for a while, struggling with how to reconcile my perspective of the Martin tragedy with my friend Redmond's.

Deploying his trademark style, McKissic doesn't pull any punches.  He takes personal offense at Land's attempts to clarify his comments, calling Land "unrepentant."  McKissic makes the same erroneous assumptions as the media by attributing factual status to reports of Zimmerman using racial profiling without acknowledging that all of the evidence has not yet been validated.  McKissic also appears to condone the actions of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan, three people who consistently incite bigotry and spite without full knowledge of facts in practically all of the cases they claim to champion for blacks (remember the Tawana Brawley fiasco?).

Is the black/white divide, despite what many Americans consider to have been years of racial reconciliation, as wide as McKissic seems to be claiming?  Is it still so wide that I'm stunned when somebody with as much integrity as I know Redmond has agrees with him?

How much of all this stuff have I been getting wrong?

I'm aware that in many communities across the United States, law-abiding parents of color fear for their teenaged sons when they're out with their friends.  I understand that racial profiling takes place, but don't we all do it?  We profile everybody, regardless of their color.

Did Zimmerman racially profile Martin with the intent to harm him?  Did Martin assault Zimmerman?  We don't know for a fact, do we?

When we do know, the answers might be truly upsetting to many of us who make valid attempts at defeating racism in our mentalities and behaviors.  But by wasting energy on combating a racist enemy we don't yet know exists, don't we weaken whatever efforts will need to be mounted after a jury trial determines that racism played an ugly role in Martin's death?

Although I haven't worded my opinions on the Martin killing as strongly as Land has, I agree with Land that President Obama used prejudicially nuanced language when saying that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin.  I realize that Obama's predecessor had a bad habit of injecting his opinions where they weren't helpful (such as the Terri Schiavo case, also in Florida), but Obama doesn't understand that presidential interventions in local police matters rarely solve anything (recall his inconclusive "beer summit" between a Harvard professor and a Massachusetts cop).  Yes, Land was wrong in claiming Obama made the Martin killing a national news story, but is that heinous enough of an inaccuracy for McKissic to rake Land over the coals?

And despite his barbed terminology, isn't Land correct in pointing out that the Sharptons, Jacksons, and Farrakhans who, with their vitriol and anti-white bigotry, make a spectacle out of tragedies like the Martin killing, actually tarnishing whatever legitimacy may have originally existed in their crusades?  Personally, I was initially feeling sorry for the Martin family before those three men got involved.  When I learned that Martin's parents actually asked Sharpton and Jackson for help, it was easier for me to conclude they weren't so much interested in accurate justice in this case, but their proverbial fifteen minutes of fame.

McKissic seems to be wanting us to believe that Sharpton and Jackson are pastors sharing the same level of Biblical integrity as himself.  But with all due respect to McKissic, it's his own reputation that he's denigrating by such attempts.  Just yesterday, word began to spread that Sharpton still owes nearly $1 million from his defunct 2004 presidential bid.  Jackson has himself used racist language against Obama - of all people - and Jews, as well as fathered an illegitimate daughter.  His former lover claimed recently that Jackson had fallen behind in his child support payments.

Sharpton and Jackson do not meet the social standards necessary for public reverence, no matter what color they are.  Or am I the one who's completely off-base here?

Reason Together

Still, this isn't about Sharpton, Jackson, or even Martin and Zimmerman.  It's about why evangelicals like McKissic and Redmond are so angry about the viewpoints of SBC's Land.

While an executive administrator for such a prominent religious organization should have used less potent language in his remarks, am I as bad a white man as Land apparently is for thinking he was pretty accurate in his overall assessment?  Basically, wasn't Land asking for the court of public opinion to back off and let a court of law sort through the Martin case?  Wouldn't most prudent people consider that a rational plan of action?  Why is that considered racist?

I'm not asking because I want to downplay my own bigotry, or make it appear as though McKissic and Redmond haven't thought this through, or because I'm trying to be impudent or snarky.  I'm asking because this case is causing serious divisions based on heresay, bad media reporting, rhetoric, and assumptions.

America is supposed to be about truth and justice.  And even moreso, we evangelicals should be about truth and grace.

Sometimes, yes, the truth will hurt.  But we've gotta get to the truth first.  We're not there yet in the Trayvon Martin case.

Come.  Let.  Us.  Reason.  Together.
___

Raw Truth About Our Nanny State

If you think life on this planet can't possibly get much worse, consider this:

You have a 90% chance of eating mislabeled sushi in Los Angeles, California.

Oh, the horror!  A recent study published today on LATimes.com warns that "species substitution" may be taking place in 55% of the city's supermarkets, and almost all of its celebrated raw fish emporiums.  In other words, that fish for which Angelinos are paying a premium may not be the fish they think they're eating.

By way of full disclosure, I have never in my life had sushi, as the very idea of eating raw seafood makes me gag.  I like chilled shrimp and lobster, but they have to have been cooked first.

According to the non-profit watchdog group, Oceana, the most common fish subject to species substitution are red snapper, Dover sole, and white tuna.  In fact, red snapper was mislabeled 100% of the time in their testing.  Apparently, Oceana ran tests in various cities across the country, but found the most flagrant violations in the City of Angels.

Democratic state Senator Ted Lieu didn't need Oceana's report for him to file a bill in February legislating how restaurants are to label fish in California.  Lieu justifies his proposed law by reasoning that food poisoning is a major problem in the United States, and uncooked seafood can contribute to that problem.  But can you get sick from mislabeled seafood?  Species substitution usually involves simple deceit, using a cheaper fish in place of its more expensive cousin, so the consumer gets ripped off and the restaurant makes more money.  It's not like restaurants and seafood stores are swapping talapia for the exotic - and toxic - blowfish.

On the one hand, who really cares if  Los Angeles sushi lovers are being swindled after willingly paying for fish that isn't even cooked.  After all, would it be cheaper if it was properly cooked?  So what if restaurants are taking further advantage of their patrons' ignorance about fish by pulling a switcheroo in the kitchen?  Seems to me if you're already going to pay a restaurant NOT to cook your food, what difference does it make if they continue the charade and NOT serve what you ordered?

I didn't like sushi before learning of this study, and there's nothing here that changes my mind about it now.

Having said all of that, however, and pontificated about the vanity of sushi, let me redeem myself to all of you raw fish lovers out there, and point out why this is an important story.

It's the whole nanny-state thing.

If fishmongers weren't mislabeling fish, which is what Oceana suspects is part of the problem, and restaurants weren't greedily willing to substitute cheaper fish in place of the more expensive fish for which their customers are paying, then Senator Lieu wouldn't be parading another bill through the California legislature, adding to the plethora of laws by which small businesses will need to abide.  Because let's face it:  there aren't many major corporations selling sushi who can absorb additional regulations in their already-massive overhead.  Not that we should assume major corporations should have to absorb higher overhead costs any more than vulnerable Mom and Pop shops?

And if sushi lovers already think the price of their uncooked seafood is high, who do they think will be paying down the road for the extra work Lieu's legislation may kickstart?

Incidental mistakes in labeling fish are to be expected, but mislabeling red snapper 100% of the time isn't a mistake.  It's fraud.

And yes, like sharks drawn to blood, lawmakers consider any level of fraud a perfect excuse for another law.  Add up this example with all of the other little examples of fraud-fed laws, and pretty soon, you can see how much the lack of ethics costs us.

Raw fish.  Now we know something else smelly about it.
_____

Views of Skyscraper News

It was supposed to open yesterday.

April 15, 2012.  Tax day in the United States.  The Ides of April.

Except it was supposed to open in Pyongyang, North Korea, as part of this past weekend's 100th anniversary celebrations of the birth of Kim Il Sung, father of that country's despotic Communist dynasty.

What is it?  Well, that depends on whom you ask.  Several years ago, Esquire dubbed it the "Hotel of Doom," an unfinished luxury hotel of a "brutalist" aesthetic (to use a slang architectural vernacular) in one of brutal Communism's final wastelands.  Derided for decades while its hulking, 105-story concrete shell decayed, unfinished, an Egyptian conglomerate has apparently slathered some sleek glass panels across its tetrahedronical form and come close to polishing it off.

Close, yet apparently still not in time for this weekend's pageantry, which included, among other bizarre flops, North Korea's self-destructing rocket.  As of today, there's still no word that the hotel managed to open on what would have been the latest deadline for a project doomed from the start.

Ryugyong Hotel, as it sat for years: just an enormous concrete shell.

Back in the 1980's, Ryugyong Hotel would have been the world's tallest hotel, had it been completed on its first official timetable.  But its construction stalled, after two years of heady - and hefty - concrete sculpting couldn't keep pace with dwindling financial and materiel infusions from the crumbling Soviet Union.  By the mid-1990's, after being abandoned for several years, experts were dubious that it could be salvaged.  Rumor had it that elevator shafts were crooked, concrete had been mixed inaccurately, and that being left open to the elements during North Korea's extreme temperatures for so long would make any reasonable attempts at finishing the project unlikely.

And they were right - at least when it comes to "reasonable."  A term which, of course, had already been stretched to the limits of its legitimacy, since this was a frivolous hotel being built in one of the world's most impoverished countries.  Skyscraper technology - like rocket technology - is not North Korea's strong suit.  Instead, oppression, deprivation, and severe order are North Korea's strong suit, even as the Ryugyong's new, glassy facade beams ever still lifelessly over the hapless residents of Pyongyang.

Impressive it may have always been, whether in the foreboding despair of its formerly unfinished shell, or the surprisingly modern stance with which its Egyptian contractors have managed to sheath it.  But in terms of meeting a need, when starvation is rampant across North Korea, wide boulevards are eerily devoid of life, no private corporations function north of the De-Militarized Zone, and the country is officially closed to non-Communistic tourism, does a 105-story hotel with a revolving restaurant qualify as progress?

Ryugyong Hotel with glass facade installed.

Estimations by experts in South Korea and other First World nations put the costs at salvaging the Ryugyong in the billions of dollars, a sizable chunk of what anybody can realistically identify as North Korea's economy.  Even if Orascom, the Egyptian firm which invested a minimum of $400 million to assume the project and install telecommunications equipment at its apex, manages to finish-out the interior into a lodging facility worthy of any star, will it ever achieve 100% occupancy?  On a regular, profitable basis?

Critics pan Orascom's inclusion of telecommunications equipment into the project as dubious, considering the fact that ordinary North Koreans are prohibited from owning cell phones or accessing the Internet.  Indeed, Pyongyang is not one of the world's major iPhone markets.  It's been suggested that the Ryugyong is simply an Orwellian icon for the relentless government spying and personal intrusions to which North Koreans have already become acclimated in their totalitarian regime.

If it ever gets built-out inside and furnished as a hotel, having a foreign telecommunications company helping foot the bill for its completion should make any potential customers think twice.  Who would assume that their every move inside the Ryugyong won't be watched meticulously via sophisticated cameras, sensors, and other bugging devices?  Even North Korea's own government elite, the folks Pyongyang will most likely recruit as guests for their charade at the Ryugyong, would probably prefer to spend their free time in their own apartments where they already know where the secret microphones are located.

The Shard, a glassy obelisk of sorts, in London

Oddly enough, the North Koreans, who have a variety of traditional alcoholic beverages they enjoy, may run into some stiff opposition if the executives at Egypt's Orascom impose strict Sharia standards to their towering investment.  Turns out, the latest controversial skyscraper being erected half a world away in London right now, the Shard, is owned by Qatari Muslims who have already restricted alcohol consumption in their yet-to-be-completed trophy.  It's made for some secretly difficult attempts to fill the building's lower floors with posh restaurants, since they make significant chunks of their profits from alcohol sales.

Fortunately for the Brits, the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar, which also owns England's iconic Harrod's Department Store, is obtaining a special Islamic "dispensation" so it can sell alcohol in their home country during its hosting of the 2022 World Cup in Doha.  Maybe it can still do the same for its Shard.

And maybe Egypt can piggyback on the dispensation for the Ryugyong.

Last week, the Shard, designed by celebrity architect Renzo Piano, unofficially became the tallest building in Europe when the final steel framing for its superstructure was welded into place.  While it's easy to poke fun at the Ryugyong as being completely frivolous, the Shard is being constructed in a hot commercial office district in one of the most cosmopolitan cities on Earth.

As if, from out of nowhere, the Islamic domination of the world's haughty skyscraper race increases its reach from Pyongyang to London.  For them, the sky apparently is the limit.
_____

Counting Joy with Dollar Signs?

I've told you before:  this blog is as much for me as it is for you.

In fact, many times, I'm talking more to myself than anybody else.  So you'll excuse me as I work out some cathartic therapy regarding money.

Money, my lack of it, and my frequent envy of people who have way more of it than I do.

People like the Dallas couple who are hosting an information session for a missions organization I used to support (before the missionary I supported through them transferred to a different organization).  I still get all the mailings from this prior missions agency, and I received an invitation today to attend this year's get-together with its leaders who serve overseas.

Despite already knowing I'm not going, I Google-Maps'ed the address on the invitation out of curiosity, because the last time I did attend their annual event, it was held at a posh McMansion in University Park, one of Dallas' most exclusive enclaves.

And no, this year's meeting isn't in University Park, but in an equally-exclusive neighborhood near the compound of former president George W. Bush.  This home is even grander than the manse in University Park, with an ornate wrought-iron fence along the street, a sweeping circle drive leading up to an impressive two-story entryway, and opulent urns holding flowers in each corner of the motor court in front of the front door.  It looks like a miniature French palace.

Cake was probably on the event's menu, too.

I confess that I was disgusted.  Embarrassed that I will never own such a home, and even somewhat chagrined that I don't even have the drive to push myself to earn the money it takes to own such a home.  After all, a friend once told me that the only thing keeping me from earning the big money Dallas' elite earn is the enormous ambition.  He told me a lot of the wealthy people he knows are dumber than I am; they just have that drive to excel in careers that pay big bucks.

But that's small comfort, isn't it, knowing I have the intelligence it takes, but not the thirst?  When I'm living where I'm living, tithing and giving what I think I can to cross-cultural missions, and these people are doing the same thing - at least, ostensibly - while living in a $3.4 million house.  At least, that's its appraised value for tax purposes.  It would likely sell for much more, especially with its five bedrooms, four fireplaces, and two - count 'em, two - wet bars.

Yes, I researched the property on Dallas County's tax site.  Is that really bad of me?

Hey - I was disgusted, remember?  What business did this missions organization have continuing to pester me with requests for money when at least one of their board members lives this kind of lifestyle?  Remember, $3.4 million is just the taxable value; then there's the cost of furnishing a place like this, paying the summer air conditioning bills, having a small army of landscapers grooming the grounds every week... and I'm pretty sure the lady of the house doesn't clean all of its 10,000 square feet of living space by herself.

And what did a board member at an evangelical missions agency need with two wet bars, anyway?

Maybe part of my frustration stems from the fact that I did my taxes this morning, and as a freelance writer, you can guess that the process - and its outcome - didn't exactly flood me with joy.  Isn't it odd how the IRS can actually make you feel guilty about being paid for your work?  Alas, even if I had been getting a nice, fat refund this year, it likely wouldn't have put me in a better frame of mind when I learned about the home owned by this mission agency's board member.

Let's face it:  I struggle with envy.  Sometimes, I don't "struggle" with envy, but that simply means that at those times, I've caved in completely to it.  Wallowing in a good old, green-eyed fit.

As they say in pentecostal churches, "Can I get a witness?!"  Indeed, I know this is not an experience unique to me.  And I daresay the owners of this home might even look with envy towards the homeowners at both ends of their street who each own an even more palatial mansion with exquisite English gardens and separate gated service entrances.  I saw them - on the same Google-Maps search.

Indeed:  wealth, like almost everything else, is relative.

Which reminds me of a sermon I once heard from the former pastor at my church, Park Cities Presbyterian.  Park Cities Presbyterian counts among its congregation a sizable stable of millionaires and at least one billionaire.  Yup - the guy's on several Forbes lists.  Suffice it to say that it's a wealthy church, with a budget before the Great Recession that ran over $12 million annually.

You'd think a church like Park Cities Presbyterian wouldn't have any problems with money, but you'd be surprised.  Many people in the church don't tithe at all, and that's the problem.  I used to be one of those people.  For years, even after I started attending, I'd send my tithe to my old church in New York City, figuring they needed my money more than my Dallas church with its legions of uber-wealthy congregants.

Yet Dr. Ryan, our former senior pastor, caught on to the misguided thinking of people like me at Park Cities.  One Sunday, he bluntly challenged all of us to reconsider the principle of the tithe.  First of all, it's not our money we're giving to the church; it's God's money we're returning to him.  Second of all, we're not supposed to give in relation to what we suspect other people are giving.  Proof of that is the widow's mite, where a destitute elderly woman gave all she had, while people far wealthier than she were giving a far less generous portion of their money to the temple.

And the third thing?  God looks at the heart.  He looks at why we're giving, not just what.  He wants cheerful givers, not people who give out of obligation.  He wants people to return a portion of His money back to Him so that we'll need to trust Him to provide our needs.

It's not so much the amount, or percentage, of the tithes and offerings, but our attitude.

Shucks, I'm probably guilty on all counts more often than not.

So, what is the amount we're supposed to return to him?  Many people say it's ten percent, but like one of my former pastors at another church, Randy Frazee, liked to say, "ten percent is a convenient starting point.  We're not going to stop you from giving more!"

Basically, money is something you and I use to gauge how well we're doing.  But we're comparing ourselves with each other when we do that, aren't we?  And what kind of standard are you?  What kind of standard am I?  You're pegging your worth on something as unreliable and faulty as me, and I'm reciprocating.

No offense, by the way.  That's just the way it is.  And even though you're probably wealthier than I am, do you ever give out of true joy?  I'm wealthier than some folks, and I'm rarely joyful when I tithe.  It's usually more obligation than anything else, but the funny thing is, God doesn't "need" our money.  His Kingdom work won't sputter to a stop if you and I don't return to Him a portion of what's His to begin with.  The whole point of tithes and offerings is to increase our happiness in service to Him.

This means I shouldn't care if the board member at this cross-cultural missions organization lives in a multi-million dollar mansion.  I shouldn't even care if he and his wife are tithing fifty to sixty percent of their income, which means this home of theirs pales in comparison to what they could afford if they didn't tithe so much.

Dear Lord God, please help me to be satisfied and joyful and giving, and not to make any of this a competition. 

After all, it's not "he who dies with the most toys," but "he who dies with the most joy."

Which, actually, means Christ has already won, since He counted it "all joy" to be crucified for us.

The payment that matters most, amen?
_____

Feet Featured in Easter's Feat

Feet.

Or, as one of my nephews used to say when he was very young:  "foots!"

I'd never noticed it before, but have you ever realized that feet play a role in the Easter story?

My pastor mentioned it this past Resurrection Sunday in his sermon.  And since I'm a member of our Chancel Choir, which sat through all three of our Easter services in their entirety, right behind the pulpit, by noontime, my pastor's point about feet had become etched in my brain.

Which isn't a bad thing.  Repetition is usually the only way I learn.  Well - repetition, and trial-and-error.  Which, combined, helps explain some things about my personality.

Feet first come into the picture on the day before the crucifixion, which we normally celebrate on Maundy Thursday.  Now, immediately, most non-liturgical evangelicals wrinkle up their noses in scorn at the unfamiliar term, "Maundy."  So relax:  it's not all high-and-mighty as you think it sounds.

By popular tradition, scholars usually ascribe the terms "commandment" or "footwashing" to the word "Maundy," after the Latin mandatum, which is the first word of the phrase "Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos" (John 13:34)  We know this verse in English as, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

What was the command?  That we, His disciples, love one another as He loved us.  And to initiate that command, Christ washed the feet of His disciples after they came to the upper room for their Passover meal.

Christ.  Washing the feet of his inauspicious group of disciples.  Even knowing one of them would betray Him later that night.  Twelve sets of odoriferous, dusty, dirty, calloused, First Century feet.

Other experts theorize that Maundy comes from French and Latin words for begging, or from the ancient custom of royalty giving alms to the poor during Holy Week.  But it doesn't really matter, since most contemporary Maundy Thursday services these days incorporate neither footwashing or money.  Except maybe references to those heinous 30 pieces of silver.

For example, at my church on Maundy Thursday, we celebrate holy communion after a service of music, liturgy, and a homily (a shorter-than-usual sermon).  The mood is decidedly contemplative, rather than celebratory.  Our service ends with all of the lights being turned off and a lone candle being escorted down the center aisle while a pastor reads a selection of scripture, such as Peter's betrayal of Christ.  We call that part "Tenebrae," after the Latin word for "shadows."  And then we file out of the sanctuary exits in utter silence.

On the first day of the new week, back among the tombs outside Jerusalem, when Mary and the "other" Mary came to where Christ had been buried, they encountered the stone rolled away, and then our risen Christ Himself.  When they recognized Who He was, according to Matthew 28:9, they grabbed His feet and worshipped Him.

And this is the second time feet become incorporated into the Easter story.  In a decidedly more celebratory fashion, right?

Yet in our rush to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, many of us today miss the imagery of the women, crumpled at Christ's feet, in their culture's customary manner of showing devotion, love, and sheer relief.  Isn't it interesting to note that the women don't appear to have spent a lot of time gazing into His face, something you and I would likely have done.  They didn't stand back and survey Christ from top to bottom, marveling that He was all in one piece.  It seems pretty straight-forward:  the women grabbed Christ's feet and worshipped Him from a position of servitude, humility, and - dare I say it? - desperate joy.

We don't really do much of any of that today, do we?  Feet were unpleasant things back during Christ's earthly ministry, and they haven't risen too far on the aesthetic meter during the past two thousand years, have they?  Sure, today, we clover then with comfy socks and expensive shoes, but they still get pretty smelly and dirty despite our comparatively sedentary lifestyles.

No Westerner with any personal dignity falls to the ground and grabs somebody else's feet unless maybe they're trying to throw them off balance, or keep them from fleeing.

And maybe that's what the women were doing - trying to keep Christ from leaving them again.  But is that the tone of their actions being conveyed by the text?  Seeing the raw power Christ has proven by appearing to them in the flesh, after being so brutally and definitively killed before their eyes, the women knew of no other response.  Couldn't theirs have more likely been a reflex to the profound, unprecedented experience of both Christ's proven words and their own lack of faith?  My pastor didn't get this far into his comments about feet, so I'm walking on my own theological tightrope here.  Were the women visiting the tomb out of an abundance of certainty that Christ wouldn't be there?  Perhaps when they saw the empty tomb, then Christ's words that He would rise from the dead began to take on a new reality:  they didn't dare hold out too much hope before, but now, could it really be true?  Then to see Jesus literally in the flesh, alive and whole, healthy and vibrant?

I'd have probably had a short-circuit in my brain.

And I'd like to think that I would have followed the two Mary's and fallen on my knees to grasp Christ's feet in adoration.

But knowing how much a product of my current generation I am, I don't think I'd worship as much as I'd try to minimize my obvious disbelief.  I'd try to cover up my utter surprise, or even worse, pretend that I really trusted all along that Christ would rise from the dead.

But I'd know better.  And even more, Christ would know.

Yet He would love me anyway.

Indeed, He loves me anyway, even today, when I balk at the idea of falling on my knees and kissing anybody's feet.  It's so counter-cultural to the way we Americans have been taught to behave in this world, isn't it?  We're superior.  We're authoritative.  Just by virtue of us being Americans.

Yet we have no virtue in God's eyes, save for the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  It's that same sacrifice that will make it possible for me - and all of us who have been saved through it - to one day fall on our knees in Heaven and grab our Savior's feet in adoration.

Christ had no inhibitions about washing His disciples' feet.  And the Biblical account of the Marys at the tomb focuses on His own feet, not His face, or even His hands - another mundane part of our anatomy that we consider more functional than glamorous.

And maybe that's part of Christ's testimony.  Hands and feet.  The parts of our body that get stuff done outside of ourselves.

As I've been writing this essay, I've had a particular Twila Paris song running through my mind.  And maybe you've had it going through yours, too, as you've read this.  So why not play this video and contemplate the hands - and particularly, the feet - of your Savior as we continue walking away from the tomb into the daily ministries to which He's called us.



_____

Lions, Lambs, and Ed Young - Oh My

First, it was sex on the church roof.

This past Resurrection Sunday, it was a live, caged lion at morning services.

Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, is a contemporary seeker multi-campus megachurch.  Yeah - all the things I don't like about modern evangelicalism.  Their pastor, Ed Young, is a slick showman, a closet Baptist, and an aging hipster who, with his church, strives to appear "relevant" to the image-obsessed denizens of Dallas - Fort Worth.

Oh - and Miami, Florida, where one of his satellite campuses is located.

Young has done wacky stuff before, like driving a quarter-million-dollar Rolls Royce onto Fellowship Church's stage to tell his parishioners they are valuable to God. And to be fair, we don't know for certain that Young and his wife had sex on the roof of their church - they just spent a night up there with a camera crew and some thinly-veiled innuendo to promote their new book encouraging other husbands and wives to, well... you know...

Anyway... back to this weekend's stunt.  On Fellowship Church's website, a video of Sunday's sermon shows Young holding court in front of a sleeping, caged lion.  Perhaps to keep his audience from focusing too much on the lion, Young was wearing a pink sportcoat tailored tightly across his chest.  And his chest featured a shirt with several buttons undone to show off his perfect tan.  Of course, the raw video one of his parishioners says she shot at an outdoor service on Resurrection Sunday was quite different, showing a caged lion, yes, but with its trainer taunting it to react aggressively, obviously to capture the crowd's attention.

Animal-rights activists have protested Young's use of live animals at a church service.  I say "animals" in the plural, because Young also held a cute lamb in his arms, using the two animals to ostensibly depict Christ as both a lion and lamb, as described in Revelation 5:1-10.  Turns out, Fellowship Church was supposed to have a permit for having a lion within the city limits of Grapevine, but they didn't bother to get one.

All things considered, having live animals at a church service isn't exactly horrible, is it?  Episcopal and Lutheran churches have "blessing of the animals" services, and a church my parents used to attend once had a goat and a sheep as props in a Nativity play.  Indeed, several local churches have what are called "living Nativity" scenes every Christmas, and nobody makes much of a fuss.

Granted, a lion isn't the same thing as welcoming parakeets and dogs into a sanctuary, or farm animals.  You'd have thought people would be making more of a stink that the church didn't acquire the proper permits, considering all of the stories in recent years of exotic animals in urbanized areas.

No, I'm sorry to disappoint the animal rights activists, but the major problem with Fellowship Church and Ed Young is his insistence in our local media that he needs to do things big.  He told at least one station that he wanted to glamorize the Resurrection story a bit, as if Christ defeating sin and death wasn't a good enough story on its own.

"I think it just makes the Easter message bigger and better,” said Young, defending his use of the lion and lamb this past Sunday.

Making the Easter message "bigger and better?"  Seriously?  Is that even possible?  Hey, Ed:  it's not about bunnies and eggs, remember?  It's about the Son of God rising from the dead.

The DEAD, Ed!  You think you can top that with your live lion and lamb?

Let's face it, Rev. Young - and pardon me for using both terms loosely ("reverend," for the spiritual lethargy you consistently display; and "young," for your obsession with the youth you and I both lost a couple of decades ago):  you're in it for the publicity.  That's why I have few qualms about calling you on the carpet not only for all of these stunts you think work in Christ's favor, but your increasingly bizarre personal appearance.  I'm trying to be a considerate brother in Christ cluing you in on this stuff, and I know you can't handle subtlety:  You don't have to wear dour suits and stop blow-drying and highlighting your hair, but how much credibility do you think you earn by spending so much effort denying your fifty-plus years?  It's not even like these days, 51 is considered old.  Worshipping youth at the expense of maturity isn't even Biblical.

Not that I can spend too much time criticizing your looks.  I'm hardly in a position to throw rocks when it comes to personal appearance.  I'm just saying that with all of the Biblical admonitions to look at the heart rather than the body, it sometimes seems like your priorities are reversed.  You're all into show and sizzle and publicity, hoping they pose an attractive distraction from doctrine, theology, and Christlikeness.

The more people look at you, are you diverting their attention from God?

Oh yeah - getting back to Christ.  The Son of God.  Your Savior.  We should be able to agree that Resurrection Sunday is His day, not yours.  It's His message, not yours.

You just get the privilege of getting paid to tell people His message.  You can talk about "spirit-led swagger" and Christ getting into your "grille," which I'm assuming has something to do with one's face, but no matter how much you think you need to try to make the Gospel bigger and better, you can't.  You can't get bigger and better than Christ.

Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us!  Therefore, let us keep the feast - not with the old leaven of wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth! (1 Corinthians 5:7-8 paraphrased)

Sincere truth, Ed.  Stick to that.

It's "bigger and better" than you apparently think.
_____

Hip Hop to this Egg Beater

Today is Monday, the first day after Resurrection Sunday.

And my Facebook wall is flooded with photos taken by friends at their Easter egg hunts this past weekend.  And they're all churched friends.  None of my non-churched friends have posted Easter egg pictures.

Hmm.

Now, by way of full disclosure:  I've never particularly cared for eggs as a foodstuff.  I'm not crazy about their taste, odor, or texture, hard-boiled or otherwise.  I realize that most of my favorite dishes rely on the excellent properties eggs add to the best recipes, but then again, the best recipes don't end up tasting like, well... eggs.

So maybe I'm predisposed to thinking about eggs in a negative light.  Which would help explain why I struggle with people of faith spending so much energy on Easter eggs.  While I was growing up, my parents would get my brother and me the traditional - well, traditional for the 1970's - plastic Easter baskets with the requisite plastic colored straw, and chocolate eggs and bunnies with little candied eyes and noses.  And that was pretty much the extent of our Easter tomfoolery.  Plus the new clothes for Easter Sunday, but that's another topic for another blog essay.

Suffice it to say that although I enjoyed wearing new clothes along with everybody else at church on Easter Sunday when I was a kid, I've since learned how totally unrelated new clothes are to a heartfelt celebration of the resurrection of our Lord and Savior.  A sentiment that correlates even more strongly, despite the deep piousness with which this sounds, with my reservations about Easter eggs.  I can't avoid my suspicions that, even worse than the pretentiousness of new clothes, Easter eggs pose a genuine risk of distracting our attentions and affections from the true purpose of Easter.

Sure, I understand that as far as we know, the tradition of Easter eggs has an extensive history in Christendom, but it was started by Roman Catholics, the group that also gave us our modern Halloween, a truly Wiccan holiday.  Actually, before Catholics adopted the egg for its Easter observances, ancient Zoroastrians were believed to have used eggs five hundred years before the birth of Christ in their celebration of the Spring equinox, called Nowrooz.  And to be fair, most non-Christian cultures around the globe have celebrated the egg in various fashions for millennia with and without religious connotations.

Even though I don't personally care for them as a food, I can understand society's fascination with them:  eggs are perhaps one of the best-engineered containers God ever designed.  From their deceptively complex shape to the compressive strength of their shells, eggs both protect the potential for life inside of them, yet can easily yield their rich internal nutrients to provide a healthy sustenance to a variety of life forms in a variety of ways.

But the story of Easter is far more profound than the intrigues of the egg.  And what is it about human tradition that makes hunting Easter eggs on Resurrection Sunday that much more worthwhile than, say, traditional church worship styles - you know, that fossilized music and liturgy that contemporary believers consider irrelevant to modern culture?

If the tradition of Easter eggs is so good, what makes traditional church so bad?

All the more proof that contemporary worship is more whim than substance, in my opinion; but then, just as I get into trouble for pointing that out, I get into trouble for complaining that churches dwell too much on things like Easter eggs.

Go figure.

We evangelicals are proud of claiming that we don't believe in a "religion," we believe in a 'Person."  But then we go about cluttering our faith in a Person with goofy, trite trinkets from religion and church history.  At least Easter eggs can't be claimed as an integral component of a current religion's catechism like Halloween can, but they're not any more necessary to faith in Christ than costumes, goblins, and trick-or-treating, are they?

And if you think this is tiring, just don't get me started on the Easter bunny!  Which is, of course, the next tangent into which conversations on such topics as Easter eggs inevitably degenerate:  Easter bunnies and the weird fascination of rabbits in general held by not only early Christians, but also early Jews, and followers of other early religions around the world.  Centuries ago, female rabbits were believed to have the capacity of bearing offspring without first having sex, which made them symbols of the virgin Mary.  Which also means that as religious symbols, they're about as legitimate as Santa Claus.

So why mess around with all of this ancillary stuff?  Because they're cute and we think they're harmless?  Because we're adults and we know what we're doing when it comes to pagan religious symbols?  Because they're a good excuse for quality family time with the kiddos?

No, I can't say Easter eggs are sinful in and of themselves, especially since many evangelicals who incorporate them into their Resurrection Day festivities don't ascribe much religious significance to them.  Nor can I even remotely suggest that families who host Easter egg hunts risk indoctrinating their children with pagan belief systems.  I've simply never been offered a valid reason for why we need to sugarcoat the splendid truth of Christ's resurrection with frivolities and carnal pursuits - all in the name of "fun."

Having fun is a weak justification to do anything.  And no, having fun isn't a sin, either.  But considering what Easter represents, when you have fun on Resurrection Sunday, why can't it be more meaningful?  More substantive?  More doctrinally-valid?  More enmeshed with the purpose of the day?

Easter is victory.

Victory, y'all!

The defeat of sin, and the supremacy of Christ.  The defeat of both sin and death, y'all!  If you're gonna get jiggy with anything, 'dis be IT!

Easter is salvation, a gift we'll never be able to repay.  The guarantee of eternal life in Heaven with God.

It's His glory manifested in the redemption of His people.

Christ is risen!  He is risen indeed!

Sure:  celebrate, and have fun!  Enjoy the victory Christ won on our behalf.  You won't go to hell just because you incorporate Easter eggs into your fun celebrations of Christ's victory over death.  But are Easter eggs the best you can do?  Am I the only person who thinks Easter eggs are incredibly corny in the face of such a historic achievement on behalf of us mere mortals?  Talk about wallowing in mediocrity, right?  Christ gives us salvation; we give Him Easter eggs in appreciation.

Are Easter eggs yet more proof that even on a holiday like Resurrection Sunday, it's still all about us?

I understand that many people like infusing major observances with some sort of tangible festivity.  And maybe, since we can't repay God for His salvation of our souls, something as pagan as Easter eggs could be considered better than no celebrating at all.

Maybe, since God looks at the heart, He sees what otherwise would be a farcical pagan tradition as a family-building exercise in the form of an Easter egg hunt.  Maybe He sees parents trying to do something to mark the day in their kids' memories, and out of His abundant grace, He lathers coats of it over what would otherwise be a hollow man-made custom.  As hollow as most of the chocolate bunnies these kids will receive.

As hollow and empty, in fact, as the grave from which Christ arose.  The "big empty."

Maybe the story of Resurrection Sunday is that the same grace which saves us from our sins is the same grace that tolerates such meager ways of celebrating salvation as eggs and bunnies.

Justifying Easter eggs.  That's the real hunt, isn't it?
_____