Lessons Learned and Laborings Lost

Media Bias & The Corporate Concentration

2009-10-05T15:39:00.007-04:00

"There are 1,500 conservative radio talk-show hosts. You have Fox News. You have the Internet, where all the successful sites are conservative. The ability to reach people with our point of view is like nothing we have ever seen before."

- The late Republican activist Paul Weyrich speaking to advisers of former President Bush on the capabilities of the American media.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

In 1949 the Federal Communications Commission adopted what was known as the "Fairness Doctrine." Under the guidelines set forth in the doctrine broadcasters were viewed as "public trustees" with the responsibility of providing the equal exchange of ideas on particularly controversial topics of importance. Stations would be required to allow ample discussion for contrasting points of view, in such manner that the FCC could refuse a license renewal to stations found unbalanced.

A 1969 Supreme Court ruling upheld the importance of the Fairness Doctrine stating that without the doctrine, "station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed." In 1974 the FCC issued a report stating the Fairness Doctrine neither detracted from nor prevented the coverage of important public issues, but rather was "the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest - the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license."

During Ronald Reagan's first year in office industry deregulation became the status quo. As a result media corporations were no longer limited to an ownership max of only seven stations. Under Reagan's newly appointed FCC chairman Mark Fowler, entities could now own up to twelve stations while guidelines surrounding the number of advertisements per hour were effectively eliminated. Fowler, an outspoken opponent of the Fairness Doctrine stated "the perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants." In other words, allow the dollar have its day and truth be conveyed in other ways.

By a 2-1 verdict in 1986 (with Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia voting in favor), an appeals court stated the Fairness Doctrine to be "...FCC policy which the FCC can eliminate," and in 1987 the FCC thus determined in a unanimous decision the Fairness Doctrine was "contrary to the public interest" and was thereby eliminated.

In reaction to this ruling, Congress by as much as 3 to 1 in a measure of bipartisan support passed a bill to make the Fairness Doctrine law, thereby ensuring equal representation in reporting and broadcasting. Votes in favor of this bill Congressmen included Rep. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), Rep. Newt Gingrich, and Sen. Jesse Helms, . Ronald Reagan vetoed the bill.

Shortly after the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, Rush Limbaugh began syndicating his 3-year old show and within a matter of weeks 56 stations had picked up the show syndicating to over 600 stations in four years. Limbaugh's program was the fastest spreading of any talk show in history. In light of Limbaugh's success others imitated his format effectively creating upward of 900 programs by 1993.

And in a further measure of deregulation, Bill Clinton in 1996 signed the Telecommunications Act allowing larger companies to own, once again, larger and larger portions of the airwaves. Though where the deregulation of the 80's applied primarily to radio, this act applied more specifically to television.

With larger corporations legally allowed to purchase and own an increasing number of stations, and the common knowledge that big business sides with Republicans/conservatives, it should come as no surprise that an overwhelming number of these newly created programs were of a right-leaning nature. Chief among them include Rush, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, Armstrong Williams, The Black Panther, and Dr. Laura Schlesinger.

I contend that Eric Alterman was correct when he stated "You're only as liberal as the guy who owns you." And the most brilliant maneuver the media owners have pulled is convincing the rest of us that the media is overtly liberal.

Answering Questions on Health Care Reform

2009-08-15T07:06:00.009-04:00

So a buddy of mine from the Salem Gathering wrote a damn fine piece on the pending health care reform bill along with the numerous questions that have surfaced in its wake. Paul writes with clarity and reason, and thus I'm listing it below. Hope you enjoy.

"We all know that no legislation is perfect, but with all of the furor surrounding the current health reform bill, you’d think it will be the destroyer of worlds. As a Republican friend of mine commented, opponents of reform are “playing on people's fear of uncertainty." So, to stay grounded, let’s keep the facts in view as we walk through some objections together.

Here are the topics in order. I’ve tried to be brief, so if you don’t see your question or wish to chase a question further, just let me know.

-Cost?
-Abortion & Euthanasia?
-Public Plan = crappy/government-run HMO?
-Won’t I be forced off my insurance and onto government insurance?
-Is the public option really necessary?

(Or, if you’d rather just skip all this and have a good laugh, here’s a Daily Show clip.)

Cost: can we afford it?

The House bill costs just over $1 trillion over ten years, but pays for all its reforms. (So, it would NOT add $1 trillion to the deficit, a claim already debunked). This is the strongest reform bill under consideration, so it’s proof that we can pay for real reform. The only question is: is it important enough for us to make it a budgetary priority?

Abortion & euthenasia: government death panels?

The House bill does NOT allow federal funds to be used for abortions. The plans on the exchange may cover an abortion but must use funds from the beneficiary, not government subsidies, to do so. Pro-life lawmakers intend to try and restrict this even further as discussions continue.

Many conservatives themselves have already repudiated talk of euthanasia or death panels as bogus “scare tactics.” So has AARP. The coverage for end-of-life planning is in most private plans and was introduced into the bill by a pro-life Republican from Georgia! In his own words, it “empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.”

Will the public option essentially be a barebones HMO run by a government health commissioner?

No, for three key reasons:

Page 27 of the House bill clearly states the benefits level in the exchange is to be “equivalent to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage," not to be determined by the health commissioner. All the commissioner does is make sure that insurers in the exchange are offering basic benefits and adhering to the regulations (similar to how the government already does so with employer-based insurance).

What the bill actually specifies for the public option are “medical homes," which are recommended because they provide coordinated care (something shown to enhance care). But they are optional anyways. Choice retained.

Unlike HMOs, there would be protection against receiving poor care from the lump sum per patient payment method. As Tim Foley points out, "[t]he practice that’s using the medical home model has to prove that it’s offering coordinated care through establishing clear guidelines and backing that up with hard data, preferably through electronic medical records.”

Won’t we all be forced off our private insurance and onto government insurance?

This is the lynchpin in the fears of many, so let’s take a good look:

First and foremost, there is no provision in the legislation that calls for this. If an employer is small enough to be allowed on the exchange, they may choose to switch to a plan there, but that would be a business decision made by the employer, not the government. The only changes that could be made to an existing insurance plan would be to upgrade it to meet a standard level of benefits. So the only possible way to get to the doomsday scenario is to assume it would follow as a necessary side effect: businesses dropping insurance in droves to the point of total collapse.

Ah, but an important safeguard in the bill is the employer mandate that requires businesses to provide insurance to their employees. So not only does the legislation not call for a forcible removal of employer-based insurance, there is a mechanism that guards against it!

Plus, the single precedent we have shows mandates are effective: in Massachusetts, which has a similar exchange but a weaker employer mandate, employer-based coverage still grew rather than declined.

But don’t take my word for it. The CBO’s official estimates rebuff the notion that there would be a collapse of employer-based insurance. Instead, they show a net increase of persons insured by their employers by 3 million! In fact, they predict only about 10 million would even be on the public option (since, again, there would be private plans in the exchange as well). And remember, when it comes to legislative numbers, the CBO = umpire.

By contrast, the wilder numbers used by critics come from clearly biased sources. The main example is the "120 million" number from Mark Shields & the Lewin Group, which is owned by a major health insurance company: UnitedHealth! (This has been exposed many times, but even Business Week is calling attention to this, and they are “not exactly a bastion of anti-capitalist sentiment” (to use Al Pacino’s words from The Insider).

Thus, as even many reform critics point out, the notion that this reform will somehow cause an inexorable slide into government insurance for all seems quite unfounded. This means even if the public option ends up being the worst insurance plan ever to be crapped out, it’s NOT YOUR PROBLEM if you or your small business don’t sign up for it. It’ll be the “problem” of persons who would otherwise not have any insurance. (So, really it would be the solution to their problem).

Yes, but why must there be a public option at all? Couldn’t regulations have the same effect?

Well, this question may deserve fuller treatment, but the short answer is: not likely. The single example in the US of a regulated health insurance exchange is again, Massachusetts, where there is no public option and unsurprisingly, insurance costs fluctuate greatly between plans. As pointed out by a retired World Bank employee I know, some industries like utilities (and to a lesser degree the financial industry) are more easily regulated than health insurance because they are much more centralized. The public option would organically induce competitive practices by its mere presence in the exchange, but even if it fails to do so for some reason, it would itself be an affordable option, available everywhere. Thus, it is the best way to ensure price control, given the health insurance industry’s muscle and lack of scruples.

So, I guess I just don't find most of these or other objections to be terribly grounded. As such, I am running out of concrete reasons to oppose reform that, as we have seen, is sorely needed."

Harry Potter 6 - A Somewhat Brief Film Review

2009-07-26T20:24:00.002-04:00

2 of 4 Stars, or a solid C if we're grading it.

***Loaded with Spoilers***

The movie versions of the Harry Potter films have been hit and miss as they've played out on the big screen. While some have been heaps better than others (Curon's "Azkaban"), no one really expects any of these flicks to top Rowling's delightful 7-volume series. What has made some of the film adaptations utter flops is when the screenwriters try and squeeze a 7 to 800 page book into a 2 1/2 hour film. See Newell's "Goblet of Fire'). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince however, fails on an altogether different level.

For those who have seen the movies and haven't read the books I'm going to outline the major differences with HBP. And don't get me wrong here. I'm not a purist with regard to the films portraying exactly what the books dictate. But I do expect the characterizations and plot and subtexts to hold up under scrutiny. Let's move on to the tower sequence at the end of the film.

It's important to understand that in the book, during Harry and Dumbledore's departure and return from the Cave, Dumbledore asks Harry to wear his invisibility cloak. They actually don't disapparate from the Hogwart's grounds as the film suggests, but they travel to Madam Rosmerta's where they are magically whisked away. This difference makes sense from a filming perspective if you're trying to shave off some time. When they return to Madam Rosmerta's following the incident at the cave, they see the dark mark cast over Hogwarts and hurry back on their brooms, with Harry again under the invisibility cloak. Arriving on top the tower set in under the greenish light of the dark mark, Dumbledore, severely weakened, instructs Harry to go and get Snape. As Harry leaves to do so, still under the invisibility cloak, Draco Malfoy bursts through the door on the other end of the tower. Harry draws his wand but is immediately immobilized by Dumbledore just before Malfoy disarms Dumbledore with the "Expelliarmus" defense. Harry is left frozen under the invisibility cloak, yet with his wand drawn, this shows was certainly prepared to fight.

In the film, heaven only knows why they chose not to put Harry under the invisibility cloak, and neither to freeze him during the encounter with the Snape and the Death Eaters. What we get instead is a rather pained-looking Snape who utters "Avada Kedavra," killing Dumbledore, and Harry...wait for it....wait for it....does nothing. We see a shot of him just staring ga-ga and doing jack shit while Dumbledore falls off the side of the tower.

Now, if you enjoyed the book series, you certainly understand that Dumbledore immobilizes Harry because he knows that Harry would jump to the ready at the opportunity to fight. Had Dumbledore not done so in this particular instance Harry would more than likely have gotten himself killed. Honestly, what was so difficult from a filming perspective that they couldn't have included the immobilization part? It changes LOADS about Harry's character! Essentially, if Harry has the ability to fight on top the tower, and chooses NOT to, then he's a freakin' wuss.

And what was with the inclusion of that brief scene straight out of book 7? Remember where Snape tells Dumbledore that he doesn't "want to do this"? and Dumlbledore is asking too much of him? It becomes immediately obvious to the non-book readers once the film concludes that Snape really is a good guy but is begrudgingly going along with the killing of Dumbledore because Dumbledore trusted him to do this. With this of course, we lose the is-he-good or is-he-bad guessing game readers of the series were guessing right up until Chapter 33 of book 7. No need to wait for movie 7 now.

To add, Harry's distrust of Snape is something that grows sharply throughout book 6 as he learns more of Tom Riddle's backstory. This is contrasted by his growing care for and relationship with Dumbledore as a parental figure. Both of these themes culminate in the final sequence at the top of the tower - Harry seriously distrusting Snape, and Dumbledore with Severus' complete confidence. Avada Kedavra!

Oh, and we can't forget horcruxes either. Dumbledore has his hand withered at the opening of the film from destroying one of them, but still has very little clue what they are about. He and Harry seem to discover their significance together with the recovery of the Slughorn memory. This is somewhat of a tension killer in the film. And how the hell is Harry supposed to remember the horcrux in the unknowable room in movie 7 when it is Ginny who ends up hiding the half-blood prince's potions book? I suppose they could write that into Ginny's storyline but she doesn't show up much in Book 7.

The ending of the film as well...no funeral for the greatest wizard of all time? Not even a snippet? Nope. All we get is lighted wands lifted like it was a nokia commercial and, "Hey Harry, Ron's not mad at you for liking Ginny" "Oh, i'm not coming back next year." "See you next year!"

Mediocre at best. I hope someone else gets the rights to this series in 40 years and can do it some justice.

Ever "Kiss Dating Goodbye" and Regret It?

2009-06-10T18:54:00.003-04:00

Quote from the article: "Looking back on my decision not to date until I was “ready for marriage,” it is evident that this course has led me to become a bit of a cripple when it comes to approaching women. While putting the brakes on dating was good wisdom for some of my more sexed-up peers, I could really have used a good kick in the pants to throw me into gear."

Article Here

One would think the author of this short piece certainly regretted ever committing to Joshua Harris' book of the same name . . . that is until you read the last few sentences. Which, of course, then leads one to wonder, why the hell this guy even penned a piece about the problems of giving up dating altogether, when he suggests that dating was never his biggest problem to begin with?

That's Relevant Magazine for you. Great topics, great potential, weak punch.

To be honest, I found everything but the last few sentences of this article quite fascinating and probably because it was heading towards something that needs to be address in Christian circles. Namely, that the church (moreso the evangelical church) does a pretty rotten job at preparing Christians to properly handle their sexuality both before, apart from and within marriage. (For the record, I'm pretty much speaking about the evangelical church here because that is my background. While I am an Orthodox Christian I can't speak much to how sexuality is taught in this tradition as I'm too new to the program)

I can't tell you the numerous sexual ideologies i encountered growing up as an evangelical adolescent. "True Love Waits," "Second Virginity" "I Kissed Dating Goodbye," I even had someone tell me at a study session once that the most biblical marriages are "arranged marriages". As it turns out, "True Love Waits," where teens sign a pledge to save their virginity for their marriage partner, really only delayed sexual start-up times by about 18 months. I Kissed Dating Goodbye, as noted from the article above, does a great job at not preparing you to meet and interact with the opposite sex on a relational/marriage level, and arranged marriages....gimmie me a freakin' break!

Now I'm with Scot McKnight when he states that the Bible doesn't teach "no sex before marriage," so much as the Bible teaches that sex IS marriage. So why, for something that is espoused so highly, does the church approach so incompletely? I'll never forget the day I was closing up the ropes course out in Santa Cruz California at my favorite youth camp, when an old friend walked over to converse. He was married only 2 weeks prior and had just arrived back from his honeymoon. We started chatting about how things went over the past week when he told me, "Dude...don't expect everything to work on your first night." No one had ever told me anything like this previously. No one in the church...just no one. Apparently, no one told him either. And what was supposed to be this magnificent, romantic night, as many evangelicals holding out for their wedding night expect that it will be, really just wasn't.

Obviously, i don't need to go into extravagant detail here as I hope what i've written above makes stand alone sense. But seriously, why can't churches of all traditions who espouse and glorify (in a good sense) abstinence until marriage . . . why, WHY, can't they speak more realistically toward the subject? Why not speak to what married couples, singles and divorced individuals can and will encounter and to what singles wonder about what happens in the marriage bed; to what is permissible and what isn't?

Who was it who once said that growing up they were taught that 'sex is a very bad thing that you should save only for someone you love?' I guess we really shouldn't be surprised when those outside of the church see Christianity as just another irrelevant, prudish and repressed religion.

A Heavenly Slice of Joy

2009-04-06T16:58:00.003-04:00

I've come to believe that God's Kingdom is much larger than my evangelical upbringing once lead me to believe. More tangibly, I am rightly no longer comfortable attempting to officiate who's in and who's out. All I can truly focus upon is myself.

And I sure can't help but wonder if a little slice of Heaven isn't contained in this four and half minute clip, because i weep like a baby thinking on the Gospel every time I watch this.

Lord, grant me the strength to be an instrument in bringing a slice of Heaven here to Earth, and grant me the courage to do the work of the Gospel where it needs to be done. Amen.

The Bra Exam

2009-02-28T12:10:00.004-05:00

Don't let the title fool you. Here's a little web commercial I had the opportunity to partake in courtesy of my one of my old camp friends, Fenway! Thanks Glen! (And thanks for pimping the video, sir gentry!)

On Mike Murrow Photography

2009-02-24T16:48:00.005-05:00

While visiting California over the Thanksgiving holiday I had the opportunity of not only crashing with my buddy Mike, but sitting in for session of new headshots for my theater work. Seriously man, Mike did some fantastic work with these images. The session was easy, he had a full range of ideas with which to experiment and he's flexible enough to listen and work with the mood you are trying to capture. If you're in the Santa Cruz area or wish to fly him out for an event, Mr. Murrow has what it takes to get the job done. Check out his website to see weddings, photo sessions and other memorable events.

And if anyone out there is short an actor for an upcoming film, theater production or staged reading, this dude is just a shot away! mikemurrowphotography.com!

How Can I Be Sure In Religion?

2009-01-28T19:20:00.007-05:00

"Some time ago, a bright young man came to the study with his girl to talk about being married. He’d been raised Roman Catholic. “I can’t believe in it any more,” he said. Neither did he have any other religion. He didn’t know how he could decide between religions. Each one claiming to have The Truth. Each one possessing fine specimens for members. He wanted me to convince him the “Protestant” religion, or even the “Methodist” religion is truest and best. He was ready and willing to be overwhelmed by my arguments, if possible. This, I confess, I was unable to do.

When our class entered Cornell College, we were treated to a tremendous English course with a huge, two-volume textbook. One of the chapters was “A World Without Authority.” The old illusion that the Bible had been written by God was gone. That it represented flawless truth, nobody could believe anymore. Its authority was shattered. As for the authority of the Church—well, the Roman Catholic Church had too often been wrong on such things as the Galileo case and the Inquisition; and there were so many Protestant Churches, all a little different, that one could give little credence to 250 separate claims to The Truth. And science, so wonderful in finding facts about things, had no tools for digging in the spiritual realm. But maybe Jesus remained an authority? As a matter of fact, Jesus’ authority never was overwhelming. When Jesus preached, the people marveled, says Matthew, because He spoke “as one having authority.” Yet not everyone who heard Him followed Him. Not nearly everyone. Some, far from being convinced by Him, sought to have Him killed. When the chief priests asked Him by whose authority He had driven the money-changers out of the temple, He implied that it was by God’s authority. But the priests responded with contempt. When Jesus stood before Pilate, He claimed to bear witness to The Truth, and that everyone on the side of Truth would heed His voice. But Pilate was not convinced, either. Pilate doubted that Jesus, or anybody, really knew what The Truth is. “What is Truth?” he shrugged.

The issue here for us is the matter of religious certainty. I don’t know how deeply concerned you are about it. Perhaps there are some here who never struggle at all with doubt. But there must be some here who are deeply concerned about the truth of our faith, about why the Church thinks it’s true, or about their own, or a loved one’s lack of certainty in it. To you and your problem I would speak this morning.

We had better begin by acknowledging that for many people, at least, the English textbook was right. There is no religious authority to which we can turn today for all the answers.

I
So what kind of evidence is available in the religious arena which we can trust? We can trust the evidence of our senses. Seeing is believing. I don’t mean that one can know God by sight or hear His voice by ear. Yet, if someone says he’s been redeemed by Jesus Christ, and there is no visible evidence of change in his life, one would have every right to doubt it.

Science builds on evidence the senses garner, and science can be trusted. The immense accomplishment of science in the last 200 years is profound evidence of the trustworthiness of our senses to know what is. I suppose it will sound shocking in a Church; but to make the point crystal clear I’ll say it: if a statement in the Bible and a statement of science conflict in an area where science is clearly competent, I would believe science, because its method of knowing is the most objective and sure that we have.

For instance, Bible chronology puts the creation of the earth at 4004 B.C. But radioactive carbon tests of old bones indicate there has been life on this planet for millions of years. I go with science on such an issue. On the other hand, if someone tries to tell me that science supports atheism, I tell him he’s out of his skull. For science has no tools with which to investigate spiritual reality.

What I am saying is that in choosing a faith, or in working out what one may rightly believe in religion, we were wise to find one, or allow for one, that does not go against plain facts that can be observed.

The infallible holy book of the Mormon people teaches that the Indians of this continent are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. It’s probably not an important point in the devotional life of the average citizen of Salt Lake City; but it’s a matter that is open to scientific investigation. And the conclusion of such studies is that the so-called “10 Lost Tribes of Israel” were simply scattered abroad in Western Asia over the vast empire of the conquering Assyrians and assimilated there, along with a dozen other conquered peoples. So if I were choosing a faith to live by, it would be difficult for me to accept it that the Book of Mormon is infallible truth. If the parts you can check out are not true, the parts you can’t become suspect, too.

Again, a part of the creed of Roman Catholics and Anglicans and some Lutherans is that their Churches are part of what they call the “Apostolic Succession.” Their theologians say that Christ laid His hands on the Apostle Peter, ordaining him head of the Church, the first Bishop of Rome, passing on to him divine powers that in turn were passed down through the hands of the chain of bishops that followed in an unbroken succession to their clergy today. This is why, in their view, their clergy can make real sacraments and why other clergy can’t. The only trouble is that this dandy little theory is open to investigation and runs into some observable facts to the contrary. One is that Peter was never in his lifetime recognized as Head of the Church. Another is that there is a missing link or two in the chain (or supposed succession of Popes) and, therefore, presumably those special divine powers would be lost. When any religion bids us believe something like that which goes against observable facts, investigable by our senses, we ought to question its truth. And if that is resisted by those who lead the religion, we’d best look for one that is more interested in The Truth!

II
Another kind of evidence we can surely trust in the struggle to find a faith for life is plain logic. I don’t mean that the human mind can comprehend God. But it can catch contradictions and fallacies. H. L. Mencken used to plague believers with such jibes as: “Faith … is an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.” Our faith had better not be illogical. If it is, we had best correct it or exchange it for another! The human mind may very well be prejudiced so as not to be a perfect judge of truth. But it can still ferret out fallacies and contradictions that ought not be believed on pain of disillusionment. Benjamin Franklin was a wise old man in the ways of the world, but he could hardly have been more foolish when he said, “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Somebody has suggested that “Faith is the quality that enables you to eat blackberry jam on a picnic without looking to see if the seeds move.” Faith ought not be mere credulity! The negative test of logic and reason cannot create for us a faith; but it can save us from embracing a faith that doesn’t “hold water”.

Just one “for instance” here: Calvinism among Protestants and Jansenism among Catholics hold that God predestines all people either to Heaven or Hell. They also hold that people are responsible for their sins. This is impossible! If you have to do what you do, if you are “pre-programmed,” whoever pre-programmed you is responsible for your actions, not you yourself. Our father, John Wesley, fought this nonsense all his mature life. You can’t have it both ways. Logic, reason alone, should deliver a person from such absurdity of belief.

III
Besides squaring with observable fact and avoiding the illogical and contradictory, the faith one chooses or develops should surely help make sense of the mysteries of human existence. I remember how the lights came on for me when I learned that part of the Christian faith is believing that the purpose of human life is “to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” Before that, I had thought God created us to help one another. Now I saw that until He created humanity, there was no one to help. So that couldn’t be God’s purpose in creating us. But to glorify, to serve, to honor, to show forth the greatness of God—I could see that as a reason for God’s creating us. And anyone in any station of life could do it. You could do it sick or well, young or old, rich or poor, smart or slow. It was a purpose everyone could live out that hooks us up to the greatness of God and lends meaning to our little fleeting life. And in glorifying God, you yourself tended to become like the one you looked up to. Also you’d generally do God’s will in glorifying Him—like helping others—but without feeling self-righteous about it and spoiling it, as when do-gooders go to work.

I’ve been drawn to the Christian faith because in so many ways like this, it makes sense of the mysteries of human existence. Time fails to recount light the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection cast upon the hardest problems and deepest mysteries of our human lot.

IV
There is still another kind of evidence in religion, in some ways the most important and positive of all. Besides the evidence of observable fact, the test of logic, and the way a belief helps make sense of things, there is also the evidence that comes through unqualified commitment.

There is a kind of certainty in religion that comes only by getting involved personally. Like being in love, being “in Christ” gives a person some inside information that can never be known by an outside, dispassionate observer. When first I fell in love, it was at Church camp, and of course it had to be with a girl who lived 90 miles away. I clearly remember one of the effects was that I would come to the table, and instead of eating, I’d gaze off into the distance soulfully and silently, remembering the delicious hours we’d had together. I rather ignored the food before me. Now an outside observer might conclude from this that being in love is a kind of stomach trouble. Indeed, I remember my father shattering my reverie with, “Wilbur, are you sick?”

It’s just different on the inside from the way it looks outside. In the hymn, “Jesus, The Very Thought of Thee,” St. Bernard of Clairvaux claims an inward experience, a love affair, between the Christ and himself that he feels, he knows about, but there’s no way he can tell it:

While this evidence can’t be communicated to non-lovers, it is nevertheless real experience that is most effective in building up certainty in the faith, once you’ve jumped in and found the reality there.

Now at this point, someone may want to protest. You’d like to say, “Preacher, here I am trying to find out about religion before I jump in. You seem to be saying I have to jump in before I can really find out.” You will remember I did put in something about testing it out for facts and logic and for how well it helps make sense of life. But yes, to really know, beyond possibility and probability, you have to make the leap of faith beyond proof. You have to jump. It does all seem backwards. It doesn’t seem fair. But don’t blame me. I’m just reporting. I didn’t set it up this way.

On the other hand, is it so strange that in order to know what love is, you have to have been or be in love? Or that in order to know God you first have to believe God exists?

Once you make the leap, there are some authorities that return to your world. There are the ones that have “leaped and found” long before you did. Like Paul and John and Augustine and Luther and Wesley. Or coming up close, like your best Sunday School teacher, or your special uncle, or the preacher of your youth. Here lies the true authority of the Bible and of the Church—not an infallible authority that knows everything about everything, but simply that authority of long experience “on the inside” with Christ and God.

Does someone ask, “But what if I jump into Hinduism or Communism or Islam?” Frankly, I don’t know. I jumped another way. All I know is that along with the Roman and Mormon and Calvinist versions of Christianity, these other religions didn’t get by those first three hurdles with me: the tests of logic and observable fact, and how well do they make sense of things?

Now just a word about our doubts. Much of our so-called honest doubt may not be very honest at all. One of the great spiritual doctors of Christendom, Bishop Fenelon, once said something that strikes the heart: “Many exaggerate their doubts to excuse themselves from action.” In our time, Aldous Huxley, analyzing his own long period of unbelief, concluded that his desire to continue in sexual sins is what kept him from the Christian faith for many years. Of course there is such a thing as honest doubt; but often our convictions or lack of them are due to the unresisted bias of our interest. Too often our doubts are simply an obstinate refusal to see what we do not wish to see.

Our subject is too vast to cover this morning, but there is time to sum up with a little parable. Finding or fashioning a faith to live by is a lot like entering this Church building. You won’t want to come here if it somehow looks stupid to do so. And you might hold back because you want to continue in your sins. But finally, you decide to come. You climb the steps. You enter the narthex. You cross the threshold. Suddenly, things are different. Outside, the building looked cold. The windows were dull. Inside, it’s beautiful and warm. Inside, the windows light up. How different it is inside looking out, than outside looking in. And through the years, as we cross the threshold again and again, experiences pile up. Understanding deepens. This place becomes the home of the soul. And the time of doubting is past. Instead, only a hunger for more and more, and the spirit singing:

--Psalm 84The House of Faith!

- Rev. Wilbur Wilcox
January 14, 1962
Collegiate Methodist Church
Ames, Iowa

On Metallica, The Sword and Machinehead

2009-01-24T16:32:00.004-05:00

And speaking of my top 5 in music, my buddy Peter and I had club seats to see Metallica at the Banknorth Garden last Sunday with The Sword and Machinehead opening. What follows is a short review.

The Sword - A very solid, no frills, just music type performance. If you enjoyed their most recent "Gods of the Earth" you'd have no trouble enjoying their live performance as it sounds very similar to the LP. What I liked most about their stage run was that they just came out and rocked. They engaged the crowd a little in stating who they were, but spent little time with any long-winded speeches. They kept it fun, rockin' and lively.

Machinehead - Let me state this plainly. These guys are good on the technical side. Beyond this they were FREAKIN' AWFUL! I hesitate to call their particular style of musicianship "metal" as i'm in favor of more accurately labeling it "poser metal." The vocalist was continually calling everyone to stand up and clap their hands over their heads which ultimately has little place at any metal show. Their songs always fast and loud with no nuance whatsoever or any significant craftsmanship for that matter. The members all looked identical with the same smelly-looking torn-sleeved black t-shirts, black pants, and all physically resembling burnt out professional wrestlers long after their prime. In everything stereotypical of metal music, the vocalist had a fond affection for the f-word. "Hey effin' Boston, we're Machine-effin'-head and we're here the effin' rock your effin' world! Now I want you see all you mother effer's pump your mother effin' fists in the effin' air and effin' headbang this muther effin' song with us. Ef yeah!" He also asked all of us to sing along with their songs if we knew the words. Strike two for being a true metal show. Metal vocalists should never ask the crowd to "sing with us."

Metallica - This was my first time seeing Hetfield and crew, and while I really wish i had seen these guys 20 years ago, the show did not disappoint. I've never had a better seat at a concert than i did at this show, sitting center stage and only 25 rows back, in the front of the Club Seating section. To put it more tangibly, I was physically able to see the strings on each of their guitars. One of the more impressive aspects of the show was knowing that these guys are all in their mid-40's and can still play almost as good as they did in their prime. Equally impressive is the number of songs they chose to play from their back catalog. Three songs from the Black Album, six off Death Magnetic and the rest were the classics everybody loved. For those keeping track at home, that's three songs from anything that Bob Rock produced, the rest was the Metallica we once knew (or close to it). The only complaint I have came during the first encore when the band immediately started into "Frayed Ends of Sanity," one of my favorites off of Justice, only to have Lars screw something up sending the band subsequently into a Queen cover of "Stone Cold Crazy." Overall, a solid and fun show.

Set list:

"That Was Just your Life" (Death Magnetic)
"End of the Line" (DM)
"Harvester of Sorrow" (...And Justice for All)
"For Whom the Bell Tolls" (Ride the Lightning)
"One" (JFA)
"Broken, Beaten & Scarred" (DM)
"Sad But True" (Black Album)
"And Justice for All" (JFA)
"All Nightmare Long" (DM)
"The Day That Never Comes" (DM)
"Master of Puppets" (Master of Puppets)
"Battery" (MP)
"The Unforgiven" (BA)
"Enter Sandman" (BA)

ENCORE:
"Stone Cold Crazy" (Queen Cover)
"Hit the Lights" (Kill 'Em All)

Encore II:
"Seek and Destroy" (KEA)

Goodnight Mr. Bush

2009-01-18T09:10:00.005-05:00

After eight painfully long years George W. Bush will leave office with a dismal 22% approval rating. 490 of his 2,920 days on the job were spent on vacation. That's a year and 4 months for those keeping track at home. And yes that is a Presidential record (previously held by Reagan). I guess there is little to wonder when we reflect upon just how awful his presidency was. Mr. Bush...

You took little action when warned "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" and extended an unjust and illegal retaliatory action to a country who had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11. You lied about the Uranium in Niger and are responsible for the outing of a covert CIA agent who disagreed with you in Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Iraq . . . in its wake, no WMD, Abu Ghraib, Walter Reed, veterans denied health care, habeus corpus denied, Gitmo . . . and no Bin Laden.

You tried to stalemate our school systems in an attempt to move them into the private sector with "No Child Left Behind."

You succeeded (just like your predecessors) in giving a generous tax cut to those who already have plenty of money.

You have failed our environment, (Clean skies act, Healthy Forest Initiative, etc) and could care less about Global Warming.

You failed to prepare for, and rebuild after, hurricane Katrina, where many are still without adequate care.

You failed in being a fiscal conservative, inheriting a $200+ billion surplus and turning it into a $10 trillion deficit. This of course helped you to preside over our nation's largest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Glad to see that your compassionate conservatism and commitment to Christian values did us so well.

Goodnight Mr. Bush. May Dallas be as good to you as you were to us.

My Christian Faith & The Science of Evolution

2009-01-15T19:46:00.009-05:00

I am a committed Christian. I believe in the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I confess the Nicene creed and Lord's Prayer each Sunday and I believe when I take the Eucharist each week that Christ is present. On the other end of it, and contrary to the beliefs of many of my Christians friends, I do not believe that Intelligent Design is science. It cannot by its nature be science, because science cannot test the faith claims made in the ID camp. My buddy Marc and I have been discussing the Ben Stein documentary (can we actually call this a documentary?) Expelled. If you're at all interested in the conversation, please jump over to Marc's blog and offer your thoughts. I would like to offer a well worded sum up however which reflects how I feel on the topic.

My thanks to whomever runs the blog Acid Test where the following post was excerpted from.

You Can't Believe In Evolution
"Evolution is said to be one dogma among many, nothing more than part of the orthodoxy known as science. Other beliefs are just as valid, and they deserve equal time because anything less is unfair.

There is only one thing wrong with this viewpoint. Evolution is not a belief. Even though nobody is ever going to see birds evolving from dinosaurs, evolution does not rest on the same sort of faith as, say, belief in an afterlife. You might as well say you believe in stars or electrons because you, personally, have never seen great flaming balls of gas or infinitesimal blips zipping by. Switching on a lamp or a computer doesn’t feel like an act of faith. (Well, maybe just a little bit, in the case of computers.) The physical world isn’t something to believe in. It’s just there. Likewise, believing in science would be like believing in a yardstick. It’s just a way of studying that world.

Science is defined by a method, and that method explicitly involves only measurable objects and testable predictions whose results can be independently verified. That means science doesn’t work on anything that can’t be measured and verified. It does *not* mean that everything immeasurable is unimportant. Quite the contrary, since love, joy, hate, hope, beauty, and God are all beyond measurement. Science doesn’t have the tools to tell us anything about them.

What science can tell us about is the physical world, and it is so effective in its own limited range that it’s given us vast power. This has a whole slew of unscientific consequences. Humans, as a matter of observable fact, adore power, so science has acquired a mantle of god-like authority that doesn’t remotely fit. Scientists, who are human beings in their spare time, tend to like the authority and all the perks that go with it, and they’ve certainly come up with their own share of stupid orthodoxies. But that has nothing to do with science itself. Science is not, and by its nature cannot be, a belief system any more than carpentry could be.

So where does that leave evolution? It’s called the Theory of Evolution, and in order to understand what that means one has to understand how scientists use language. Truth is immeasurable, so science can’t find truth. It doesn’t try to. It talks only about the likelihood that a given result will be observed again.

All scientific conclusions are probability statements: an observation is repeated a number of times and, say, nine times out of ten the results confirm a given idea, so . . . the idea is thrown out. A ninety percent chance of being right is not good enough. The probability of being right has to be nineteen out of twenty in the biological sciences. It has to approach ninety nine out of a hundred in the physical sciences. Imagine applying those standards in your personal life.

In science, that’s just the beginning. The hypothesis, which is an expensive word for educated guess, is merely said to be confirmed once it passes that bar. These guesses are dignified with the name of “theory” when they have been confirmed so many times there is no real chance they won’t continue being confirmed. They are called “laws” when that certainty becomes crushing, but even laws are probability statements. The law of gravity is a probability statement with an extraordinarily low chance of not working.

Against that backdrop, evolution is called a theory because there are so many facts in its favor. It’s a parallel case to our understanding of stars and electrons. We have no personal experience of any of them, but scientists who have studied the facts have come up with coherent explanations that pan out. Evolution can explain practical things, such as how bacteria develop antibiotic resistance and why measles epidemics run in cycles, and it can provide mind-altering insights such as that insects and mammals have the same basic body plan, except the plan is back to front.

None of the other ideas for explaining the patterns of life rests on any facts that contradict evolution. The theory of intelligent design (and “theory” is used here in its common meaning) has not been able to show the existence of intelligence in the design, using scientific methods. Creationists can’t show that creation occurred. If the scientific method is not used, the result is not science.

People who argue against evolution can, and do, fit some of the facts into their theories, but they have to ignore all the facts that disagree, which is about as far from the scientific method as you can get. They have no measurable observations and no testable, independently verifiable predictions.

Intelligent design and creationism, by those or any other names, are not competing scientific theories. They are simply theories. They may deserve equal time, but only with their equals in the realm of ideas. Discussing intelligent design in a class on evolution is like considering theories on good government when building a rocket ship.

At the heart of the problem lies confusion about science and religion. Both may have authority and try to explain the world, but the worlds they’re trying to explain are different, the way they explain things is different, and their authority rests on different foundations. Science is not, *and cannot be*, in conflict with religion because they address fundamentally different questions. Facts can certainly contradict specific scriptures, because God’s stenographers do suffer the occasional hiccup, but that doesn’t mean science can suddenly answer cosmic questions about the reason for our existence, or that religion becomes a good way to cure AIDS.

Using religion, or anything else for that matter, to argue against facts is a hopeless endeavor. You can’t argue with facts any more than you can believe in them. And evolution is as close to a fact as biology gets. In Bill Bryson’s inimitable words, denying evolution proves conclusively that the danger for those who try it is not that they may be descended from apes but that they may be overtaken by them."

And to close, a little apropos comic humor:

Top 5 Albums of 2008

2009-01-11T21:28:00.010-05:00

So, for most of you this will be my most worthless top 5 list for the year. First off, I purchase a negligible number of albums each year compared to most, and neither do I get a fair listen to the bulk of them when they release. (I only just purchased The National's Boxer about 3 months ago if that's any indication). As a result, I've heard nothing of the new releases from Beck, Sheryl Crow, etc and have heard only a tease from Vampire Weekend and the new Coldplay release (which doesn't sound all that great). Second, most of the purchases I did make this year were in the metal genre. So bear with me as I post these as i will try to keep it short. Third, if you are looking for a better Top 5 in music for 2008 check out my buddy Rick's blog right here.

The disappointments first. All That Remains' Overcome. With the exception of one song this album sucks. By contrast their previous release The Fall of Ideals was off the charts. Fans of metalcore were hooked into this one within minutes and the album offered a solid balance between two distinct vocal styles from vocalist Phil Labonte. Unfortunately Overcome is the result of what happens when underground bands seek to reach "a broader audience," otherwise seen as an attempt to make an assload of money. The listener in this case is left with a bunch of songs that all sound alike, softened vocals and piles of gang choruses. Imagine Guns N' Roses going from Appetite for Destruction straight into Chinese Democracy. It's that disappointing.

Without further adieu:

#5 - Gods of the Earth
from The Sword

Most easily recognized as a kind of Black Sabbath throwback, The Sword blends a nice fusion of modern metal techniques with the best sounds of 70's hard rock. This second release, while similar to their debut Age of Winters, shows a bit more depth than its predecessor and has a more polished sound. The sci-fi imagery throughout makes the listening experience that much more enjoyable all around, considering songs titles such as "Fire Lances of the Ancient Hyperzephyrians" and "Maiden, Mother & Crone." The Sword has plenty of potential for the future though a lot of their definition as a band will derive from what they can churn out on a third release. A very solid second album.

#4 - Slumdog Millionaire Soundtrack
from AR Rahman and MIA

A wonderful film with an engaging soundtrack that fans of world beats and hip-hop will find enjoyable for its rhythms and useful for mixing. I can't speak much to either of these two genres of music as I'm relatively inexperienced in both. I can say however that I love this soundtrack. I can also add that the two DJ's in my office who are both experienced in mixing and spinning liked it an awful lot. Favorite tracks include "Mausam & Escape," and "Paper Planes remix." Now go see the movie. Get the soundtrack.

#3 - Death Magnetic
from Metallica

So much of me wanted to slot this one in at #2 but to do so would be a bit short-sighted for this reason; the success of Death Magnetic will ultimately be defined both by the direction Metallica moves hereafter and by what kind of follow-up they release subsequently. Death Magnetic will be looked upon more favorably if their next album can top this one. Yes, Metallica has finally, and indeed, begun to redefine themselves. The best thing about this album was the dumping of Bob Rock as Metallica's producer and signing Rick Rubin for the task (Johnny Cash, Beastie Boys, The Chili Peppers, System of a Down). Rubin, knowing that fans were hungry for the pre-Black album, Load and Reload days would try to instill in the boys a similar hunger and feeling from when they were writing for Master of Puppets and Justice for All. And if he didn't like what they had, he made them do it over. The result is almost certainly a step in the right direction. Death Magnetic has a few throw away tunes, but overall it carries what Metallica fans have been waiting for; churning riffs, less melodic and ballad-like material, impressive solos and an overall return-to-metal feel. In addition, the shortest song on the album is 5 minutes. All the rest are over six making this reminiscent of their earlier works even in form. Standout tracks include "The End of the Line", "Broken, Beaten & Scarred" and "All Nightmare Long".

#2 - The Way of All Flesh
from Gojira

Where All That Remains went wrong with Overcome, Gojira does outstandingly right with their third LP release. The Way of All Flesh shows depth, experimentation and musical growth without compromising the signature technicality Gojira has become respected for among their fanbase. While vocalist Joe Duplantier doesn't branch out in the numerous vocal styles as he did on From Mars to Sirius (which assisted in making the previous album so brilliant), Gojira does make a bold and interesting move by inserting some electronic elements onto the record. "A Sight to Behold" will throw few of the faithful fans as it is undergirded entirely by the rhythmic pounding of bass-like synthesizer. But fans unhappy with this track can quickly skip to the remainder of the album, which is in many respects terrifically brutal. The heaviest of which is "Adoration for None", where Duplantier is joined by Lamb of God's Randall Blythe. The best tracks on the album however are "Toxic Garbage Island" which is brilliant for its sheer technicality, and Esoteric Surgery which combines seemingly impossible double bass kicks with classic headpounding gallops on the lead an rhythm guitars. "The Way of All Flesh" is nothing short of an audible feast.

#1 - Watershed
from Opeth

Sheer and utter brilliance. Where many metal bands are simply unable to incorporate musical styles outside the metal genre, Opeth can deliver this element almost flawlessly. The opening track "Coil" is melodic, soothing and haunting yet uses zero distortion or percussion and is accompanied by a beautiful female vocalist. The song is a brilliant segue into the second track "Heir Apparent", which drives in with the full force Opeth is known for. As not only leaders, but innovators in the metal industry, Opeth creates songs such as "The Lotus Eater" which opens in the ruminations of a folk tale, then erupts into to an artillery-like percussion line, followed by clean choruses alternating opposite of Mikael Åkerfeldt's deep growls. Then five minutes into the song Opeth descends into a keyboard-driven pop-funk before emerging out and back into the chorus and Åkerfeldt's deepening vocals. It should also be noted that Åkerfeldt has arguably one of the best suited voices for the genre of death/prog metal. Watershed is outstanding and altogether magnificent in its composition. It is graced with a variety of acoustic accompaniments and eerie solo piano segments to complement their heavier elements. Other standout tracks include Hessian Peel and Porcelain Heart. A great place to start of you are interested in what makes metal so intriguing to so many, as it is not fast and heavy throughout.

The Strong Weakness of God

2008-12-26T12:29:00.007-05:00

"If you were God and you had this world on your hands, what would you do about it? Luther said, “I’d kick it to pieces.” George Bernard Shaw thought God made a great mistake at the time of Noah and the Flood: “I’d have let ’em all drown,” he growled. C. S. Lewis, surveying the injustice and cruelty rampant in the world, asks of God, “Why doesn’t He land in force?”

Alas, God isn’t that smart. God is, to be frank, a little soft in the head. His ideals are fine. Nobody wants to fault them. It’s His methods! How ridiculous can you get? When He sets out to save the world, He lays aside His power and gets Himself born into the world as a baby! Is there anything weaker than a baby? Of course, if He’d been born into Caesar’s household, that might have been okay. But no! God chooses a couple of nobodies from Podunk to serve as father and mother. And the birth! What a great job of planning that was! Having a baby in the back of a taxicab is bad enough. Mary almost had hers on the back of a mule. Poor dear God! Mary and Joseph end up in a cattle stall and the Baby in a manger,

“… because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7). What a great running start toward saving the world!

I. The Weakness of Strength
And yet, I must admit that sometimes God’s silly ways give me pause. Sometimes, especially at Christmas, I wonder if God is trying to tell us something. Sometimes under the spell of that fantastic story of the Savior’s birth, I even begin to question the forcefulness of force. Could God be right about renouncing force?

You must forgive me, but in those silly moods I remember reading things. Like President Butler of Columbia’s estimate of World War I. It cost 30 million lives and 400 billion dollars. In those days when a dollar was worth something, Butler figured that with such money one could place a modest furnished home on 5 acres of land for every family in the United States, Canada, Australia, England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, France, Belgium, Germany and Russia, with enough left over to give every city of 20,000 inhabitants or more in all those countries a 5 million dollar library and a 10 million dollar college (from Fosdick, A Great Time To Be Alive, p. 17). Of course, it was a war to make the world safe for democracy, and also a war to end all war. If it had done either of those things, maybe it would have been worth it. But it didn’t. And maybe force is not so forceful!

Sometimes as Christmas rolls around and I get in that silly Christmas mood, I ponder Vietnam. Why didn’t those little fellows give up over there? We dropped more bombs on them than we did on all of Europe during World War II. Why didn’t they come around? What was the matter with the forcefulness of our force?

Under the spell of Christmas, silly poems flash across my memory—verses that question the effectiveness of force. Like the one about the two cats of Kilkenney:

"Each thought there was one cat too many;
So they fought and they spit
And they scratched and they bit,
Till, excepting their nails,
And the tips of their tails,
Instead of two cats, there weren’t any."

In such a brainless mood, one even remembers some generals who have doubted the forcefulness of force. Douglas MacArthur didn’t help our sanity much when he said, “With present weapons there is no longer any advantage to winning a war.” General Hap Arnold even allowed himself to be quoted as saying, “One nation cannot defeat another nation today. That concept died with Hiroshima. War is like fire; you can prevent a fire or you can try to put it out, but you can’t win a fire ….” Maybe if the generals talk like that, some poor silly layman under the spell of God’s foolishness at Christmas can be forgiven for doubting the forcefulness of force.

II. The Strength of Weakness
In this Christmas madness if one gets started thinking about the weakness of strength, he may also go on to wonder about the strength of weakness. Where will it all end?

On the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, John McCutcheon drew a cartoon. He showed two Kentucky pioneers standing at the edge of the woods in the snow. One says, “Anything new?” The other man replies, “Nothing much. Oh, there’s a new baby over at Tom Lincoln’s …. Nothing ever happens around here.” But that baby changed the course of history.

Once Oliver Cromwell and his “Ironsides” stood astride England, beheaded the king and forced representative government in. Not long after, Cromwell died, the monarchy was restored, Cromwell’s body was dug up, and his head stuck on a pike at Whitehall. Everything was as it had been, except for a gigantic bloodletting. But one day a young boy named John Locke entered Oxford and began exploding the theory of the divine right of kings in his thinking and writing. Presently, representative government took root in England and America, never to be dislodged again. Power can crush men, defeat men, subdue men; but power cannot build up! Yet such a weak thing as thought can.

When the Nazis held sway in Europe, Dr. Goebbels was often considered second only to Hitler in the hierarchy of power. In Dr. Goebbels’ published diary, there are two or three references to Gandhi of India. In each case, he referred to him as a fool. Goebbels said that if Gandhi would only use his leadership to organize a military force, he might indeed win India’s freedom from England. In the end, however, the sensible Nazi lost his battle, and Gandhi, the fool, won his! It makes one wonder: what is weakness, and what is strength?

President Eisenhower sat down with his Cabinet one morning, and someone wanted him to “crack down” on something. As Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, Eisenhower certainly had plenty of experience with “cracking down”. This particular morning, the president took a piece of string and laid it on the desk. “Look,” he said. “If I try to push this string, it won’t go. But if I pull it, I can take it anywhere.” As between the strength of coercion and the weakness of persuasion, Ike chose the latter.

J. H. Jowett once said that if he saw a tiny Church alongside a mammoth armaments factory with its forest of chimneys belching smoke and its roar of machinery like a prelude to the din of battle, he’d be quite sure in which of the two real power dwelt. Would you? Would I?

The strength of weakness has never been demonstrated more convincingly than in the life of Jesus; and that story has never been better told than by a few paragraphs often attributed to Phillips Brooks called “One Solitary Life.” Listen to it again:

“Born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman, he grew up in another obscure village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty, and then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never owned a house. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never set foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place where he was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompanies greatness. He had no credentials but Himself.

“While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against Him. His friends ran away. One of them betrayed Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed tomb through the pity of a friend.

“Nineteen wide centuries have come and gone, and today He is the central figure of the human race and the leader of mankind’s progress.

“I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that were ever built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on this earth so powerfully as did that one solitary life.”

The strength of weakness!

III. The Strong Weakness of God
But now I must stop talking riddle and paradox and try to say exactly what I mean. The strong weakness of God is His non-violent love. When He moved to save the world, He didn’t land, guns blazing. Fire and earthquake were not His chosen methods of doing good among us. Rather, He came silently, without fanfare, or bodyguard, or army, in the weakness of a new-born baby! And in the end, He has become incomparably the most powerful influence in human history. I have been hinting around at why it should be so; now I must out with it in plain language.

In the first place, force and violence can crush, but they cannot buildup. We can’t make living things grow with a sledge hammer, no matter how hard we pound. Force can restrain a person, but it can’t create an artist, or produce a thought, or make a scientist, or move a man to be a hero. Compared to persuasion and inspiration, coercion can do very little.

This must be why Jesus, when the people would have made Him king, refused to allow it (John 6: 15 and Matt. 21: 8, 9). The essence of government is coercion—violence or threat of violence in the military and police power. Doubtless government is a high calling and a necessary institution among men; but even in a democracy, what a government can do finally depends on resources it cannot force into existence. This must be why Almighty God, when the people were looking for a political Messiah, sent a Baby instead.

In the second place, love and persuasion are more effective than force in getting good things done among men because force calls out resistance in those who are pressed, while love and persuasion seek to make of the opponent an ally. And sometimes, at least, they succeed!

In recounting the experiences that led him to take up non-violent resistance to social wrongs, Martin Luther King says his trip to India was important. There he saw a former Crown Colony of Great Britain freed and independent through the soul-force of Gandhi’s non-violent revolution. What impressed Dr. King most was that there was no aftermath of bitterness or hatred between the two powers. After freeing herself from the British Empire, it was politically possible for India to join the British Commonwealth of Nations to the benefit of both parties! A major miracle!

So when God comes to save the world, He doesn’t divide it into two camps—the good and the bad, cowboys and Indians, the Communists and the righteous—and then begin a shootout. God doesn’t even come to judge the world, but to save it. So He raises up an Ensign for the people. He gives us an attractive example of suffering love. He sets it up on a bleak hill and hangs it between two thieves where all the world can see. And what is good in the world is inspired and strengthened. What is bad in the world is shamed and sometimes changed from the heart. So God’s Savior starts out in a manger, and ends up on a Cross. No threat to rouse up antagonism and fear, no clout to raise up resistance. Just active, persuasive love that confirms what is good and tends to make its enemies into friends.

In this year of violence when America again led the nations as arms merchant of the world and also took first place in the arms race, maybe God would have us think about the strength of His weakness and the weakness of our violence.

The picture that sums it up is right there in the Christmas Story. On the one hand, there is Herod with his violent power. Herod had slain his own wife in a fit of jealousy. Across the years he had had three sons executed because he thought they were challenging his position. He’d had another rival strangled in a public bath. And now, here came these Magi from the East asking, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews” (Matt. 2: 2)? King of the Jews, indeed! He, Herod was King of the Jews! And Herod was going to stay King of the Jews! Was he not great and powerful? If he had to kill every little kid in Bethlehem, he’d do it. That’s the way you get things done in this tough old world!

But then, on the other hand, there is the Baby Jesus in an obscure manger. And a flight to the desert—utter powerlessness! And today, who would even know who Herod was, except once his path crossed the path of Jesus!"

- Rev. Wilbur Wilcox
December 26, 1982
First United Methodist Church
Iowa City, Iowa

On the Eve of Christmas

2008-12-24T09:22:00.003-05:00

"God came to us because he wanted to join us on the road, to listen to our story, and to help us realize that we are not walking in circles but moving towards the house of peace and joy. This is the great mystery of Christmas that continues to give us comfort and consolation: we are not alone on our journey. The God of love who gave us life sent his only Son to be with us at all times and in all places, so that we never have to feel lost in our struggles but always can trust that he walks with us.

The challenge is to let God be who he wants to be. A part of us clings to our aloneness and does not allow God to touch us where we are most in pain. Often we hide from him precisely those places in ourselves where we feel guilty, ashamed, confused, and lost. Thus we do not give him a chance to be with us where we feel most alone.

Christmas is the renewed invitation not to be afraid and to let him-whose love is greater than our own hearts and minds can comprehend-be our companion"

- Henri Nouwen

And the Blockhead of the Year Award Goes To...

2008-12-09T20:08:00.008-05:00

...This guy.

Trying to sell off the appointment of Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder!? Good lord . . . seriously, who plots this kind of brainless scheme so openly and thinks no one is going to catch on?

Blagojevich now joins three former Illinois Governors in being arrested on charges of corruption, including previous Republican officeholder George Ryan who was indicted on charges of bribery, money laundering and tax fraud. To quote my mother, a 30-year suburban resident of Chicago, she states, "Yes, here in Illinois our electorate is bi-partisan in the selection of its criminal Governors." May Blagojevich and fellow Democrat William Jefferson share the comfort of one another in a federal prison cell.

Keeping My Word for My Buddy Marc

2008-12-07T15:09:00.003-05:00

Prior to election day my friend Marc was trying to get out the word on a website called neverfindout.org. I took a brief gander at it but quickly wrote it off as another anti-Obama slander site, using rhetoric not unlike the McCain/Palin camp. For a while it thought Marc was trying to spam my blog as he kept adding the site's URL to posts unrelated to the topic. I stood corrected however when he informed me that he was merely attempting to get my take on the site's content. In keeping with the spirit of speaking to only one topic at a time, I told Marc i would draft a blog post to allow him to discuss what he likes about the the neverfindout.org site.

Having watched 2 videos from the site, i can earnestly say that it was just about everything i expected it to be - more McCain/Palin rhetoric. And by rhetoric I mean bill ayers, inexperienced, took campaign contributions from freddie mac, blah blah. Nothing new here. And to the last accusation, John McCain took about $15,000 from Freddie up through Aug of 2008. This site apparently never wants you to find out about this however, as they are silent on it from the video I previewed.

So Marc, the floor is yours here. Why do you like neverfindout.org? And why do you think everyone else should watch their video content?

cade hijacks the doctor's blog...

2008-11-21T09:34:00.000-05:00

...to wish everyone out there a Happy Thanksgiving!

In Honor of My Buddy Slowfo

2008-11-19T22:29:00.006-05:00

Apologies to my buddy Marc, to whom i was supposed to give this space. You get the next post.

But in honor of my friend Slowfo who gave us both a brilliant review and cautionary warning of the Kendrick Bros flop flick Facing the Giants, I give you haroldvincent2008's review of Kendrick's latest motion picture chic track, Fireproof. Harold had the courage to post his review to an otherwise positive blog space. Have to admit, the guy had me tears.

haroldvincent2008 said...

"I was unfortunate enough to see this movie at an industry preview. Think of the worst Lifetime movie you've ever seen (or seen an ad for) and scramble it with the worst idea for a Hallmark movie that ever got rejected and tossed in the garbage. What do you get? Read on:

If non-Christians are the target audience then I'm baffled as to what on earth the producers think is going to be the appeal here.

If Christians are the audience then I'm baffled as to what on earth the producers think is going to be the appeal here.

The promoters of this film are constantly sending out e-mails BEGGING people to buy hundreds (or thousands) of tickets so that the movie will have a good opening weekend. I suppose they realized that this thing ain't gonna sell itself. Churches have better things to spend money and time on than paying for otherwise empty seats just because these people made a crappy movie.

Christians need to realize that supporting a movie just because other Christians made it is really lame. Then again, I guess if you're the type of person who buys into the crock message in FACING THE GIANTS (the misguided notion that you'll get anything and everything you want if you just pray for it) then there's really no getting through to you.

And now to save you the trauma of sitting through anything longer than the trailer:

FIREPROOF is a movie about a fireman who... are you ready? NEVER FIGHTS A FIRE. The most harrowing act of bravery is right there in the trailer... they move a car off of the railroad tracks. Other than that, Kirk Cameron crawls under a house to escape a fire, but that's about it.

As for the whole marriage problem... it pretty much falls apart because Kirk is pissed that his wife didn't make dinner. I kid you not. That is what this entire movie rides on. The woman didn't cook. Sadly, this isn't played for laughs. We're supposed to take it ever so seriously.

A couple days later Kirk gets mad because the wife ate all pizza before he got home from not fighting fires all day. Kirk erupts in a violent bout of acting, the likes of which I hope to never see again, as he spews forth anger at this woman who dared to not make him dinner or save him a slice of supreme. That's the basis of their marital troubles.

Don't worry about the fact that Kirk is a fireman and there are actually scenes showing him cooking and eating at the firehouse. He wants more food and he wants it now! Given the physical aspects of his wife I'm doubtful that she wolfed down an entire Chicago style all by her lonesome... but it's easier to write a couple of fights about food than to come up with something substantial and compelling, right? I mean, so few people actually have marital troubles that you can't exactly do a bit of research and find some real-life inspiration. It's like a bad episode of the Honeymooners... although making any sort of comparison to FIREPROOF and The Honeymooners (or ANY other movie or TV show) is rather disrespectful of the Honeymooners (or ANY other movie or TV show).

That doesn't even matter... plot holes I can handle. Unexplained story elements I can forgive. Cheesy pointless setup that is supposed to provide the basis of an entire feature length film? No thank you.

The most unforgivable offense is the introduction of the "Love Dare" book... a diary that Kirk's father gives him that basically lists 40 nice things for him to do for his wife. It's nothing interesting or earth-shattering. Simple stuff, like make her coffee or dinner or pay her a compliment. To keep the movie from ending, Kirk's wife reacts negatively to the nice gestures and proceeds to start up an affair with a co-worker. We never see them physically involved, but the signs are there. He gives her cards and flowers, etc. Don't worry though... it's totally glossed over. It would make too much sense for that to actually become an issue, right? Focus on the food! We see more evidence of her having an affair than we do of Kirk's character supposedly looking at porn on the internet. The filmmakers (dare I call them that??) don't really show the computer screen, so it takes a while to figure out that Kirk has a porn addiction. It was tossed in like an afterthought.

According to FIREPROOF:

BIG MARITAL PROBLEM = NO DINNER.

TINY MARITAL PROBLEM = HUSBAND ADDICTED TO PORN.

It makes ZERO sense why KIRK'S WIFE IS STARTING AN AFFAIR WITH A CO-WORKER doesn't even equal TINY MARITAL PROBLEM.

All that to say that by the end of the movie wifey finally forgives Kirksey, even though he's the bad guy... and she NEVER EVEN APOLOGIZES for trying to hook up with the dude at work!!! Oh sure, Kirk goes and threatens to punch the guy (oh no!!), but then he never says a word about it to the wife. The whole thing comes across as her having had every right to start looking for love elsewhere. After all, her husband yelled at her for eating all the pizza!!

Throw in a few scenes of Kirk and his dad walking around some random woods where there happens to be a cross and I guess you've got all the requirements for a truly horrible movie that makes Christians look like pansies.

As if the movie wasn't silly enough, a representative from Provident Films (the distribution arm of Sony Pictures for this movie) had the audacity to stand up at the end and announce to the audience that the filmmakers had decided to actually write this fictional "Love Dare" plot device and sell it in the form of an actual book.

If you realize nothing else, realize this: the entire sham of a film that is FIREPROOF exists solely to sell a book that did not even come into being until after someone made a movie where this book magically saves a marriage, except it really doesn't. What the filmmakers apparently want you to do is throw down ten bucks to see this movie where they prove the book works, then get you to go out and buy it to save your own marriage... which I suppose just might work... as long as your marital problems don't extend beyond the simple question of WHY DID YOU EAT ALL MY PIZZA, WOMAN?!?!"

More Reasons to Be Thankful McCain Didn't Win

2008-11-06T08:02:00.004-05:00

Probably one of the only times you'll see me linking to the O'Reilly Factor. You should feel your shorts fill with dookie right around the 1:20 mark out of sheer fright:

Keep in mind, this is from FOX News.

Holy hell . . . and this person was potentially one stroke away from the Oval Office?

Lastly, had the John McCain who gave the concession speech on election night been the John McCain who ran against Barack Obama, it would have been a much closer race. Not to mention, of course, not selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.

On Today's Historic Election

2008-11-04T15:43:00.004-05:00

Today, for the first time in my life, I voted for someone who wasn't a white male to ascend to the office of the Presidency. I voted for someone I believe will be better for America than the increasing Bush/Rove authoritarianism that has overrun our nation for the last 8 years. I voted also for a higher standard of life for all Americans and voted against corporatism and the elitist rule.

And just like in '04 . . . hot damn that felt good!

Just hope there is no stolen vote...

2008-11-03T22:22:00.004-05:00

The other day my buddy Mike added a post from a story he got from my good friend Mr. Cade. Namely that "1 in 4 Texans is a Dumbass."

Though not a Texan by birth, add to the dumbass list one Mr. Hank Williams, Jr.:

"The country-rocker, a campaign trail fixture who has penned a special song for the GOP ticket called "McCain-Palin Tradition," suggested Monday Obama doesn't like the national anthem.

“You know, I’m usually at Monday Night Football tonight, but Colorado, this is a lot more important tonight. Join me now in our national — you know, that song that, uh, Mr. Obama’s not real crazy about, we’re singing it right now," he said before performing his version of the song."

I know it's generally considered unwise to let the brush stroke paint the picture too broad. Let me be a great fool then, when I say that Williams, Jr. only heightens my disdain toward modern country music.

Give me a freakin' break . . . Hank, I think you were just added to Cade's list.

Happy Halloween!

2008-10-31T00:01:00.000-04:00

Election Accusations Hit the Fan

2008-10-24T19:25:00.005-04:00

A number of people have been calling on me as of late, noting my lack of reporting for the BS coming from the Democratic side of the election camaraderie. So let me make a couple of points in order to provide some perspective.

1 - I'm officially going on the record here as being a left-leaning independent voter. Since I'm voting with the Democrats for the second time in row, i figure it's probably logical to go ahead and call myself a leftist. That's as close as some of you will get to me self-identifying as a Democrat. I'm still a registered independent and damn proud of it but I'm also happy to admit that the Democrats have plenty of full-of-shit moments. But I will add that the neo-con Republican party is much better at the latter since the post-Bush 41 era and beyond. All to say, if you're looking for blog support on this year's Republican ticket, look elsewhere.

2 - The sheer amount of horseshit coming from the McCain/Palin ticket is far in excess of the amount of "laid cable" I ever thought the Bush/Cheney/Rove machine was capable of laying, such that the BS from the Obama/Biden camp doesn't seem to reek as strong by comparison (but still BS no less). See the truth-o-meter chart below from politifact.com.

Barack Obama's statements by ruling:

John McCain's statements by ruling:

Joe Biden's statements by ruling:

Sarah Palin's statements by ruling:

For those of you keeping track at home that's 65 false or barely true statements from McCain/Palin with 8 "Pants on Fire" rulings. Obama/Biden's false or barely true statements total 47 with 4 "Pants on Fire" rulings. By comparison, Obama & Biden total together with 91 true or mostly true statements compared to McCain & Palin at 64. Topping it off is the round after round of just utter garbage coming from the latter's ticket. Ayers, ACORN, Kenyan-born, "paling around with terroists", etc... these are all just scare tactics used in feeble attempts to control the weak-minded. In short then, there's more absurdity to point out on the McCain/Palin ticket

3 - When I do call out the crap pulled on the Democratic side (Ted Kennedy & Deval Patrick), nobody gives a shit.

So there you have it. Questions?

As an addendum, allow me to add that i have no issue or quarrel with those who have looked at the McCain plan and simply prefer his policy compared to Obama's. Same goes for those whose values are right-leaning and earnestly believe that McCain/Palin will uphold such values. I applaud you for using your intellect and voting your conscience. I'm only taking issue with those who are voting for McCain simply because they are "scared of an Arab", or think he is part of a Muslim sleeper cell or fill in the blank:___________. The good Lord gave us brains. Let's put them to good work this election cycle.

Celebrating 8 Years Today.

2008-10-14T00:01:00.001-04:00

Yeah baby! This lady is one of the best things that has ever happened to me. :)

Wilcox/Gentry '08

2008-10-04T13:39:00.004-04:00

Worried Obama is part of a radical Muslim sleeper cell? Think McCain might knock off and leave us with the Queen of pork barrel spending in the Kingdom of Dinosaurs? Vote Wilcox/Gentry '08!
Wilcox/Gentry '08! Gathering votes since 2004 and ready to rock and roll your world through the new millennium!