NPM: Detroit

Despite a short stint up in the Wolverine backwoods, I've spent over 75% of my life living one block from the city of Detroit. I grew up in a house across the street from my grandparents and I now live in my grandparents old home. Funny how life can work out sometimes.

Anyone paying attention to the News is well aware of the problems with Detroit. I love the city. I love how dirty, grimey, and unpolished it appears to outsiders. I love the view you get driving north on I-75 coming over the Rouge River Bridge and the city skyline appears with the RenCen glistening and the Ambassador bridge in the foreground and the smoke and haze of manufacturing surrounding the beauty. I'm pretty unapologetic of my love for all things Detroit (even Kid Rock and Eminem, but not so much Lions and City Council)

They say New York is the city that never sleeps, well Detroit is the city that never stops working.

That was until they starting bailing out Wall St.

I won't aplogize for this video, and it's as in your face as it needs to be.

“Pardon me if I don’t shed a tear...‘Cause they’re selling make-believe and we don’t buy that here.” - John Rich

Unfortunately, no one's listening.

Extermination and War

Chilling piece from Joe Carter in Culture11 about how China and India, among other countries, are exterminating shocking numbers of baby girls in the womb. Hey, if abortion is legal and accepted, what right do any of us have to tell Indian and Chinese mothers they may not kill their baby daughters -- sorry, female fetuses -- because they'd prefer to have boys? Right, feminists?

Beyond the confluence of feticide and sexism, Carter foresees violence in the womb leading to violence elsewhere:

Even if we set aside the moral horror of a world that is killing its daughters, this oft-ignored trend of female feticide could pose a greater threat than many of the high-profile concerns that are touted by the media. For instance, the Chinese government says that by the year 2020 the men in that country will outnumber women by 300 million--roughly the entire population of the United States.

Imagine hordes of men, numbering in the hundreds of millions, who will never be able to have sexual contact with a woman, never be able to marry, and never leave a descendant to carry on their lineage. Think about the level of anger and frustration that will be generated. Now consider the fact that the number of males fit for military service (ages 18-49) in the U.S. is currently and remains steady at 54 million.

Pious Hand Wringing

Further proof that the Catholics are getting it more right all the time and why the Evangelicals flounder and spin their wheels under the banner of "conversation."

Truth hurts, truth divides, and truth is love. Truth is not judging. Truth is compassion and not tolerance. Hurt and divide are the ugly results of truth, the difference is that the glory in truth is to far outshine the ugly. Too many times, we focus on the ugly and not the glory.

The Roman Catholic arhcbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput, is someone I'd be a dummy for when it comes to the issue he writes about in this magnificent teaching document. He sets the Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi, a self-described "ardent practicing Catholic" straight about what her Church actually teaches and expects its communicants to believe on abortion. Rarely do religious leaders of any church speak so clearly and forcefully about faith and morality in public life. Here's a characteristic passage:

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

Magnificent. Of course many Catholic Democrats and Christian Democrats will continue to vote and serve the Democratic Party. Earlier he wrote:

But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a "proportionate" reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life--which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

And further

Carter lost his bid for re-election, but even with an avowedly prolife Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty, and inflexibility of the pro-choice lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.

In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be "personally opposed" to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse--exactly as it is today. In fact, I can't name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life--not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there's very little action.

"Pious hand-wringing." Exactly so.

Where's the humanity in a "Pro-Choice" stance?

An Inconvenient Conference

This weekend, my family and I (or should I just say my family?) travelled to Cedar Springs (15 miles or so North of Grand Rapids) to visit some college friends and to partake in the festivities of a first birthday party for their son Ethan. Good times for sure.

But during the festivities, I believe it was channel 8 news ended up on the TV and the weatherman proceeded to tell the viewing public that February 2008 was going to go down as the snowiest ever for Grand Rapids and only had 16% sunshine the whole month.

What a truly incovenient month it has been for Grand Rapids and really the whole left coast of Michigan. And I can tell you that Metro Detroit has not been much better at all. Probably right on the same track. And again today, 3-6 inches of snow.

It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.

But stampedes and hysteria are no joke -- and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis."

They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis.

Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.

A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.
Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?

A new and very different conference on global warming was and is currently being held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.

It is called an "International Conference on Climate Change." Its subtitle is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.

They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.

There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.

The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."

Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.

These include authors of such books as "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels.

This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story -- for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.

The subtitle of the upcoming conference -- "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" -- is also the title of a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current "global warming" hysteria.

Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.

There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications and extrapolations of these temperature readings.

The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.

The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.

Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.

The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.

So why has no one heard about this conference? Why no news or reporting or a daily update from cable news networks? Why no "panel of experts"?

Because, it's a true inconvenience for those who have a big stake in global warming hysteria to show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes much of the media.

To pass on the faith, live it...with discernment

I was emailed this link by a buddy of mine who, even though it has a Catholic slant, thought I would greatly appreciate it....I did.

It is an interview with Amy Welborn, who appears to be a pretty big deal in the Catholic blogosphere.

ANYWAY, back to the interview, here is a snippet worth repeating...

The problem is that when you look at Catholic history, the faith has never been passed on predominantly in classroom situations. The faith has been passed on in families and in parishes and in communities. You can have really nice catechetical materials in which you have kids learn about a saint each week and you introduce them to various devotions, but if all of that is absent from parish life, and if all of that is absent from the life of Catholics, which it is for the most part…It's something that any teacher of, particularly, the humanities can sympathize with. Think about the poor teacher trying to teach Shakespeare or Chaucer to kids who go home and are on the Internet for four hours and then are playing video games and doing all kinds of other things. It's not just a religious ed problem; it's a cultural problem. [Emphasis mine]What we are trying to transmit in a classroom setting isn't reinforced culturally.

In the Catholic setting, that means it's not reinforced in most parishes. There's no Catholic life that continually reinforces the Catholic faith. Our churches are bare. Kids don't have the opportunity to study murals and pictures of stained glass and they get bored.

Catholic education is getting better in the classrooms but we haven't grappled with the bigger cultural issue of a community's responsibility to transmit the faith outside the classroom setting.

What's the broader message for people of faith? That passing on the faith to our children is not something we can or should rely entirely on the institutional church (sermons, Sunday school, Christian schools) to do. We have to do it in our homes and in our cultural lives -- and not in the sense of, "Tonight, children, we are going to discuss the doctrine of the Incarnation." The Christian faith has to be woven into the fabric of everyday life, has to be experienced not as an interesting add-on to normal life, but as normal life itself. This is particularly challenging in a culture like ours, where increasingly the only normative belief is that there is no normative belief. But what choice do serious religious believers have?

This is why I'm attracted to the idea of living in some sort of community with other families who share our faith. My kids need to see that it's not just our family that believes and lives by these things -- and they need to see that every day of the week, not just on Sunday.

But there can be problems to that and it was why I am VERY selective on who I include in that community in terms of leadership and influence in my life and that of my family. I'll talk to anyone and let anyone "in" but when it comes to who I am going to listen to and take direction from, who I want to be a role model and someone to follow, sorry but I am judicious and selective.

And ironically, while purusing more of the Catholic website where Amy's interview came from I came across this "essay." It furthered cured the cement work I have laid down for my foundation on life, faith, and community. The author's summation with a number of statistical facts is fascinating and all too revealing, most of them showing that despite the Catholic Church's growing numbers on paper, the content of the Catholic faith in the hearts and minds of its adherents is rapidly changing to something that's Catholic in name only:

A survey in 2005 found that 76 percent of the Catholics of the United States thought someone could be a good Catholic without going to church every Sunday. Other elements of Catholic belief and practice also fared poorly. Three out of four said good Catholics needn't observe the teaching on contraception; two-thirds said the same of having their marriages blessed by the Church and accepting the teaching on divorce and remarriage; 58 percent took the same view of giving time or money to the parish and also of following Church teaching on abortion. These numbers have gone up dramatically since Davidson and his colleagues began collecting them in 1987. And, by 2005, nearly one in four held that a good Catholic needn't believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.

In 2003, the researchers tested American Catholics' views on the Catholic Church and other religions. Some results: 86 percent agreed with the statement "If you believe in God, it doesn't really matter which religion you belong to"; 74 percent said yes to "The major world religions are equally good ways of finding ultimate truth"; and 52 percent accepted the proposition, "The Catholic religion has no more spiritual truth than other major religions."

Apparently not all of those highly educated and loyal Catholic Americans measure up too well by the standards of Catholic orthodoxy. I am reminded of the 25-year-old chap, a baptized Catholic with six years of religious education who claimed he went to Mass twice a month. Upon leaving a showing of the movie The Da Vinci Code, he told The New York Times: "The Catholic Church has hidden a lot of things—proof about the actual life of Jesus, about who wrote the Bible. All these people—the famous Luke, Mark, and John—how did they know so much about Jesus' life? If there was a Bible, who created it and how many times has it been changed?"

People who talk as the happy-talkers do about the glories of contemporary American Catholicism aren't crazy. They know what’s going on. But they pass it over lightly because that suits the project of replacing a form of Catholicism they consider moribund with an endlessly evolving religion without norms. In their estimate, a Church like that would better suit the exigencies of post-modern times. Call it Anglicanism with a figurehead pope. (In general, I think, bishops who take the same line don't share that objective—they simply think blarney is good for morale.)

The author concludes by saying that anybody who believes there's a simple solution to this very deep and broad problem is either a liar or a lunatic. But he says any attempt to turn it around must begin with telling the truth:

Jesus tells us, "The truth will make you free" (John 8:32), but today illusion—the illusion that we aren't doing so bad—is choking the life out of the Catholic Church in the United States.

Shaw's critique concerns the US Catholic Church, but it's not hard to read it as a broad indictment of the American way of being Christian. What he's talking about is the evolution of the Christian faith to fit American cultural norms: whether we realize it or not, most contemporary Christians are Moralistic Therapeutic Deists now.

See, this is why I'm not impressed when I read news reports saying that America, unlike godless secular humanist Europe, is still a land of vibrant faith. I suppose it is, in a way, but what is the content of that faith, anyway? What does it mean to tell a pollster that you are a Catholic, or an Evangelical, but in practice do not mean by those terms what they historically mean? What does it mean to report that Christianity is doing well in terms of the numbers of people who call themselves Christians, but to ignore or downplay the qualitative aspect of their belief?

I'm not trying to read anybody out of Christianity, but what I am saying is that as a theological matter, to claim you are a Christian -- a Catholic Christian or a Protestant Christian -- means and has always meant that there are a certain number of irreducable foundational doctrines that one must believe -- doctrines that teach who Jesus is, what He did on the Cross, what Scripture is, what the Church is, what man is, and so forth. See, even a trampoline has a sturdy frame that everything else is attached to. To reject them is to reject the faith itself, in any meaningful sense. Over the course of the past 2,000 years, the churches argued over aspects of those foundational beliefs, which is why the church, sadly, is no longer united. Christians have argued over what it means to be a true Christian, but have not argued over the idea that there was an objective standard by which to define Christianity. What you wouldn't have seen, until the present day, is the widely accepted belief that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you believe you're Christian. That Christianity has no objective definition, and is primarily defined by subjective emotion.

Why does this matter? For one thing, some of us have this quaint idea, as did every Christian until practically yesterday, that the point of religion is to save souls, and Jesus taught us how to do that. To be crude, humankind was lost, but God intervened in history to send us a guide. Scripture (and, for most Christians throughout history, the Church) is our map out of the wilderness. If we lose the map, we could lose our souls, and the souls of our descendants, whose salvation depends on our passing the map to them in good condition. So much American Christianity has become a matter of forgetting, or denying, that there is any such thing as a map.




Why does it seem the Catholics are getting "it" more and more often?

This sounds familiar...

Not sure if you'll ever hear me quote Rush Limbaugh ever again in my life but I read this in a news article and it sounded oddly familiar.

If the Republican Party expands because we have a candidate who's going out trying to attract liberals by being like them, then the party's going to be around but you won't recognize it.

How does Limbuagh pontificating and fire breathing anti-McCain rhetoric sound familiar you ask?

Like this:

If the Church expands because we have Christians going out trying to
attract non-believers by being like them, then the Church's going to be around
but you won't recognize it.

Already pre-ordered it....

And here, if you do not have a PDF reader.

Amen!

"The ultimate measure of man is not where he stands in moments of comfort
and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." -
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

My Perception 101 - It's All About Him, Me, You

It is with a heavy heart I go back into the annals of My Perception to bring a post written, what now seems to be, a very short 8 months ago.

Many of us know by now of the ghastly events that took place in a Nebraska mall yesterday afternoon. And as the details unfold and the news media outlets search for connections and string together a framework to answer "why?" I still believe the problem is all of us.

And it isn't just mass shootings at malls or from clock towers, it is most of our "problems." We fail to get over ourselves. It just takes something as schocking as a high-school shooting to put the spotlight on something as personal as say a lack of commitment or communication barriers.

Read: - It's All About Him, Me, You

The Test....

What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists. Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 68% Reformed Evangelical 68% Emergent/Postmodern 64% Fundamentalist 64% Neo orthodox 50% Modern Liberal 43% Charismatic/Pentecostal 43% Classical Liberal 43% Roman Catholic 25%

I think I am down with the above explanation.

At the crux is the sufficiency of Christ and Salvation through Justification. But also, I'm more Arminian than Calvinist just as the Methodist.

In regards to the church, I am more about relationships and community than only being in the church. But, just as the Methodist, I hold the church in high esteem and believe it is the institution to lead the social action and justice that Jesus preaches and teaches in the gospel.

The Bible is the Word of God. And I am all about life values and the use of reason with the Bible as context.

The Methodist church carries a traditional position that any disciplined theological work calls for the careful use of reason. By reason, it is said, one reads and interprets Scripture. By reason one determines whether one's Christian witness is clear. By reason one asks questions of faith and seeks to understand God's action and will.

This church insists that personal salvation always involves Christian mission and service to the world. Scriptural holiness entails more than personal piety; love of God is always linked with love of neighbour, a passion for justice and renewal in the life of the world. Amen!

But I am not big on tradition and liturgy (Methodist are like Catholics in this regard with the Anglican liturgy) and within the community of believers I rely on dialogue. I'm also not a big fan of a church "hierarchy" if you will. I know I'm in a SBC church now, but if we changed Pastors, the congregation votes on the next it isn't assigned to us.

Seeing what other choices there were, I'd have to agree with the assessment given here.

Surprising

Drawing the Line

Where do Christians draw the line?

Should we even draw the line?

Everyone knows by now about the Kathy Griffin comment, so no need to re-hash it here.

But why are most Christians doing more than just turning the other cheek? They're giving her a free pass. Her comment is detestable and disgusting in every way imagineable. It should be ok, that I or anyone else, find it offensive and state it so. Regardless of whether or not you are a devout follower of Jesus Christ.

I'm not advocating "condemning her" (by the way, if anyone wants to define what "condemning her means", I'm open to it). I'm not advocating a Clint Eastwood reaction to everything that rubs Christianity the wrong way. Not only is that response unbiblical, but to some very drastic results, it has been tried in the past by the whole of Christianity.

But as a Christian, it is perfectly ok and reasonable, and should be expected that you draw the line...somewhere. And a comment like this, should be one of those instances.

The missional, emergeing, let's talk about it, never argue about it type always point to the love, peace, and compassion taught and lived out by Jesus and then continued by the apostles in the beginning of the early church. They point to the fact that Jesus nor the apostles got mixed up in the politics of it all. They lived for an audience of one. I'm down with all of that, and in the last couple of years I have changed a lot in that area myself. Sure, I still talk and write about politics, but I have realized to mix that with religion isn't the way it should be. But it goes more than just abortion and gay rights, but universal healthcare and the death penalty too. But that's for a different day and time. I've grown up, not afraid to say it.

But this comment goes to the heart of the matter of the whole human race. Deliberate, willful rebellion against God and his word.

Jesus drew the line at this in his own life. Remember the incident at the temple? He literally beat out all the people, kicked over the tables, and started yelling. *Gasp* Jesus got pissed and got physical with those who were using the temple to make a financial gain (hey, I wonder if Jesus cares about the church at all...I know, different day and time). He does all this by quoting scripture. *Gasp* using the scriptures to promote a physical (violent) reaction to someone disobeying God's word.

"That's not the Jesus way"

Well maybe it is.

Look, I'm not saying I am going to go get a lead pipe and beat her over the head with it. I'm not saying it would be nice to see Rob Bell, Max Lucado, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Brian McLaren, et al. actually take a stance on something and voice an opinion. I'm not advocating boycotting her show, or the network, or the sponsors, or the co-stars, or the picture company, or the director, or any other direct or indirect connection to Kathy, or yes, to even alter my investment choices. I'm not saying a vigilante group of Christians should get together and go up-turn the tables and break the cameras on the set of Kathy's TV show.

I'm not saying any of that. But, for me to be offended and renounce her comment as not funny and not acceptable anywhere, ever should not get me the label of close-minded, uncompassionate, and/or I am condeming her.

But I will cop to being close-minded if you tell me the comment didn't offend you, and my response to you is I'm grieved for you.

Jesus accepted everyone and anyone, but he drew the line when it came to slandering his Father's name.

Here for Kathy's inaccuracy from the Catholic perspective and here for more Catholic repsonse and why they maybe have it right sometimes.

6 years

Grief has always been our most well-policed emotion. Mourning is painful, so we make it the stuff of pageantry -- of muffled drums and riderless horses and black draped catafalques. To suffer collectively is, if nothing else, to suffer prettily.

What's harder to know is, When is enough enough? A lot of Americans are quietly, and guiltily, asking themselves that question today. Today is the sixth September 11 since 2001. A sixth anniversary is an awkward thing, without raw feeling of a first or the numerical tidiness of a fifth or 10th. The families of the 2,973 people murdered that day need no calendrical gimmick to feel their loss, but a nation of 300 million -- rightly or wrongly -- is another matter.

Some have suggested that we discontinue the moments of silence and solemn speeches and all the other ceremonies that have marked our recent Sept. 11s. While many argue that would leave the day bereft of meaning, it's possible that there are deeper kinds of meaning to be had.

On Sept. 5, German authorities announced the arrest of a group planning a series of terrorists attacks described as "massive" and "imminent." The day before, Denmark pulled off a similar coup, raiding 11 locations in Copenhagen and arresting eight people who had been storing "unstable explosives" in preperation for their own terrorist strike. Both groups are said to have links to al-Qaeda.

Meanwhile, at ground zero in New York City, the steel and concrete of the building that will replace the lost towers have at last risen to street level -- not much compared with what was once there but plenty compared with the smoking hole the site had been. And in a briefly scary preamble to the week -- one in which no one was hurt -- New Yorkers jumped and then rolled their eyes as a criminal fool set off an inept built pipe bomb on a quiet street downtown. The locals, who now know a thing or two about what real danger is, made a few jokes and then went about their day.

There are many ways to remember the dead. It's hard to argue that learning how to defeat real evil, slap aside pretenders and rebuild in the face of abiding sorrow aren't three very good ones.

Things That Crack Me Up

Heading into the Labor Day weekend, I started thinking about some things and was wondering why some things are the way they are. And then I started thinking about the fact that many of these things just crack me up.



So, Things That Crack Me Up.....



The fact that we park on driveways and drive on parkways. Drive and Park are 2 totally different things!

Being Anti-Death Penalty and Pro-Choice. Isn't there a vastly huge fundamental difference between the 2?

Being a vegetarian but eating animal crackers. At least when I have a steak I am not biting the heads off, they're already chopped off and gone!!

Being Anti-Patriot Act but Pro-Gun Control. "My rights are being infringed, My rights are being infringed! Take away all the guns, take away all the guns!"

The Office. "QUESTION?! What is the funniest show on TV? FACT?! The Office"

Protestors that only protest in nice, warm weather. Nothing shows conviction and dedication more than being a fair weather fan.

Saturday Night Live. Yes the pickings of been slim, but they still do awesome parodies of pop culture.

Rules to blogging. I've already ranted on that here. But it has got to be one of the stupidest things I've heard of.

Watching Sports Bloopers. True poetic justice.

Being Anti-Church but Pro-Jesus. Didn't he command to go make disciples of all peoples? So where are the disciples to go from there? Oh that's right, he also said, "Upon this rock, I will build my church." Whew...clears that all up.

Deal or No Deal. Those people are idiots who get lucky. But I cannot stop looking at their train wreck. I love it when they turn down $90,000 and $125,000 and then have to take $1,000 because they chose their "lucky" number and it was disasterous. HAHA

Being Anti-Racist and listening to rap music. A huge, very huge double standard.

People who discredit country music, but you better listen to their crappy indy rock crap because it is true emotion and not selling out, even though all commercially liscensed art is selling out and these crappy artists are crappy narcissists wallowing in their own crap. ("But I resonate it with it!!". yeah and I resonate with the Redneck Yacht Club and I really resonate with Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy).


The fact you can be born with genes that make you prone to alochol and drugs and can decide to not want to be an alcoholic or drug addict, but if you are born with the genes that make you prone to homosexuality...you had no choice, you were born that way.



*Editor's note - The views expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of My Perception, it's authors, it's editors, or any of it's sponsors.

Ethics, Morality and this whole terrible mess

Corey's recent posts (one, two, and so far just 3. I am sure there will be more so pay attention) and subsequent discussion with Gary (who can be very confusing) on ethics and morality has had me thinking all day yesterday and today. Most of us are aware of the problem in Darfur. My purpose on all this isn't political, it is philosophical. Please remember that if you choose to leave any comments. But I am going to try and tie them together. Because a discussion about ethics and morality and using sex, adultery, and dogs as the visuals (not all in one act...gross) doesn't cut it when our souls are in the balance.

You can read most of what is below in italics at the following link if you want to, but I have chose to have it here to keep you here.

******************************************

Sudan is the largest country in Africa, located just south of Egypt on the eastern edge of the Sahara desert. The country's major economic resource is oil. But, as in other developing countries with oil, this resource is not being developed for the benefit of the Sudanese people, but instead, for an elite few in the government and society. As much as 70 percent of Sudan's oil export revenues are used to finance the country's military.

Darfur, an area about the size of Texas, lies in western Sudan and borders Libya, Chad and the Central African Republic. It has only the most basic infrastructure or development. The approximately 6 million inhabitants of Darfur are among the poorest in Africa. They exist largely on either subsistence farming or nomadic herding. Even in good times, the Darfuri people face a very harsh and difficult life; these are not good times in Darfur.

The current crisis in Darfur began in 2003. After decades of neglect, drought, oppression and small-scale conflicts in Darfur, two rebel groups - the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) - mounted a challenge to Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir. These groups represent agrarian farmers who are mostly non-Arab black African Muslims from a number of different tribes. President al-Bashir's response was brutal. In seeking to defeat the rebel movements, the Government of Sudan increased arms and support to local tribal and other militias, which have come to be known as the Janjaweed.[1] Their members are composed mostly of Arab black African Muslims[2] who herd cattle, camels, and other livestock. They have wiped out entire villages, destroyed food and water supplies, and
systematically murdered, tortured, and raped hundreds of thousands of Darfurians. These attacks occur with the direct support of the Government of Sudan's armed forces.

No portion of Darfur's civilian population has been spared violence, murder, rape and torture. As one illustration of how Khartoum has waged its war, the Sudanese military paints many of its attack aircraft white - the same color as UN humanitarian aircraft - a violation of international humanitarian law. When a plane approaches, villagers do not know whether it is on a mission to help them, or to bomb them. Often, it has been the latter.

This scorched earth campaign by the Sudanese government against Darfur's sedentary farming population has, by direct violence, disease and starvation, already claimed as many as 400,000 lives. It has crossed over into neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic. In all, about 2.3million Darfuris have fled their homes and communities and now reside in a network of internally displaced persons (IDP) camps in Darfur, with at least 200,000 more living in refugee camps in Chad. These refugees and IDPs are completely dependent on the United Nations and other humanitarian organizations for their very livelihood - food, water, shelter, and health care.

Another 1 million Darfuris still live in their villages, under the constant threat of bombings, raids, murder, rape and torture. Their safety depends on the presence of the underfunded and undermanned African Union (AU) peacekeeping force, numbering just 7,400 troops and personnel. However, the so-called "AMIS" force, in Darfur since October 2004, lacks a civilian protection mandate as well as adequate means to do stop the violence; its sole mandate is to monitor and report ceasefire violations and it has done little more, due to its limited mandate but also because of its anemic capacity.

******************************************

It can be difficult to understand the fact that some place like this exists in the same world as Lincoln Park, MI. This situation and current state of affairs is absolutely terrible. Terrible, horrible, macbre, etc. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions dead. Whole familes gone, wiped out. Whole villages of women being raped, repeatedly. Maybe I misspoke myself, it isn't difficult to understand, it's impossible to process and comprehend that these actions are happening...probably right now! *Cold Shivers*

So how do you get your mind around that?

It's at that point that you begin to wonder to yourself about yourself. You can't comprehend it because you cannot find it within you to do something like that.

Can you?

In your thought process you ask yourself, "Am I capable of rape or murder or any of the other stuff going on over there?"

"No way! Nothing in me is capable of that. " Is most of us would repsond.

So what makes me/us different than them? After all, they are human and I am human. Why such the difference? Why am I better than them?

But, honestly, who is better?

See, if I say I am not better than them, then that makes me capable of those atrocities and would make me evil, but if I answer no, it would suggest I believe I am better evolved than some of them men in the Sudan. And then I would have some explaining to do.

So am I capable of those things? Are we all capable of those things?

How do you answer that?

How should we answer that and how we want to answer that are probably at opposite ends of the spectrum.

What it does is give credence to the ole fundamentalist Christian saying of a "sin nature." We're all born flawed and something inside of us is broken. It's easier to do bad things than good things. And there is something in that basic fact, some little clue to the meaning of the universe. But yet we all know people who do great things and appear to be actual living saints.

Regardless of our own "living saints", the flawed nature of our existence is everywhere.

Why do we have to train a child to not lie about cleaning up his toys or admitting when they break something? We have to be taught to be good, it doesn't come natural. But it doesn't stop at childhood. We get to adulthood and we have bosses and cops and judges. Without them there'd be anarchy. Complete anarchy.

Don't think so? Go back to the beginning of this post and read the intro again.

However, I was taught right from wrong as a child, and I am fairly confident I would be just fine without cops. But know this, I drive completely different when a cop is behind me than when there isn't.

And this sad fact is true. It is hard for us to admit we have a sin nature because we live in this system of checks and balances. If we get caught, we'll be punished. But that doesn't make us good people, it makes us subdued. Just think about the Congress and the Senate and the President (present leader probably excluded). The genius of the American system is not freedom; it is checks and balances. Nobody gets all the power. Everybody is watching everybody else.

It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched is perverse. I wonder where they got the idea to begin with?

Lady in the Water or The Story of Our Lives

"Mr. Heep, it is time we showed people that some stories are real." - Young-Soon Choi

I am a very, very, very huge fan of M. Night Shyamalan. His stories are absolutely transcendent and earth shaking. But I wasn't always this big of a fan. We all know 'The Sixth Sense' and to most of us and everyone as a whole the movie is in the pantheon of all-time greats. It is a great movie but it becomes a member of the pantheon because of the ending. With 'The Sixth Sense', we were all blown away and then with 'Unbreakable' we all took a step back and were wondering if he reached his zenith with a little kid telling Bruce Willis he sees dead people. In all honesty it was unfair to expect Unbreakable to match The Sixth Sense in all components, especially in a mind-blowing ending that left the whole theatre gasping. None the less, Unbreakable is a good movie (the 2nd time around). So it was with much skeptisism we approached 'Signs' and then at the end we were ABSOLUTELY BLOWN AWAY!!! It was at that point I understood a Shyamalan movie needed to be watched from a spiritual view/angle. Not from a basic human need for entertainment. Not the basic, ok you need to suspend reality to get the movie. There's spirituality in all of his movies. An underground current of something greater is going on and we all have our part in it. There's a story being played, that is greater than ourselves, and we have our role. And it is a very specific role.

Up until 'Lady in the Water', all of his movies had that "twist" ending. The ending that you never saw coming that blew everything away. It's the reason you sat through 2 hours of crazy, supernatural, goofy, "where in the heck is this going" story telling. To be blown away at the end and leave the theatre enjoying the fact that your mind was twisted and turned and you walked out discussing all the scenes with your wife and wondering why you never noticed it before.

An element of that all changed with 'Lady in the Water'. The whole movie is the twist; the whole thing is crazy and blows your mind. This may be his most underrated movie. I thought the same thing of 'The Village' as well but Lady in the Water was lambasted and I think I know why. But before I get to that a little disclaimer....

This isn't a post to describe the movie to you or rehash the chronology of the movie. It is assumed you've seen the movie and know what has already happened. Obviously there are SPOILER ALERTS, but if you've never seen the movie, none of this will make sense to you and may actually make you more confused than ever.

All the characters in this movie are very real, very down to earth. They provide the comical element but the bigger fact is that almost all of them remind you of someone in your life. Paul Giamatti plays the lead character, Cleveland Heep, the apartment complex repair man. Not a great name for someone to grow up with, but in the context of a book or movie, a great name. Paul does a phenomenal job pulling off the character. It's a difficult character to portray. Playing someone who has a speech impediment and someone who is understated so much in his role but yet is the central character within the context of this story which is really the part of a much, MUCH larger story. Cleveland discovers that beyond the veil of his supposed mundane, dreary life is something much bigger behind that veil. A spiritual context that goes beyond the hum-drum routine of this life and world.

He is opened up to this world of Narfs and Scrunts and a whole vocabulary (The Blue World e.g.) that is odd and just plain sounds absurd to say them. Yet within the context of the movie you just roll with it. The fact that these everyday, comical, sometimes odd people in this one ordinary looking apartment all play a part in this cosmic narrative that's going on seems odd as well. To further put this story in our faces, the actual "Lady in the Water" is named 'Story' (a minor stoke of genius if I do say so). This Story is the revelation of the meta-narrative.

So, while the story is about the apartment complex and its renters, the real story is not about them. That is to say it's not about "man" it's much much larger than that. It isn't man against his environment as say in the movie 'Crash' or 'Babel' - which ends with no resolution to the problems and ills of the world. But a movie like this peels back a layer and exposes that there is something transcendent and cosmic going on that intersects with our ho-hum world and shows a lot of meaning and purpose to our ho-hum life.

And it all starts with a fairy tale. The world use to be this way and man went his own way and there's been a disconnect. And now things have been set in motion to get man back, to get it back to how it use to be. But the film doesn't end the story, what it does is provide a promise that things are set in motion and a savior is coming and the reconciliation of humanity. That's the story that we see. Not the actual salvation but the story up to. Even at the end, we see the eagle soaring above, but only from the reflection of the pool with the rain hitting it, so you do not actually see it. A stark reminder of the human perception, even in the Christian experience (1 Cor. 13, "Now we see but a poor reflection...until our reconciliation with God").

But this fantastic, mythical story/fairy tale becomes very real to Cleveland and the others. It becomes reality. At one point Cleveland comes face-to-face with a Scrunt. It is very traumatic as he comes face to face with something that can kill him. An actual being from this story. His eyes have been opened and all the cards are on the table. 2 Kings 6 gives a similar story. Elisha's servant is traumatized by the fact that the enemy has surrounded them. He assumes they are doomed. Elisha prays for God to peel back the veil and show him what is really going on. God opens his eyes and the servant sees the hillsides covered in angelic warriors on horses and chariots of fire ready to do battle on their side. There's more to this life this servant was living than what he could see.

And that is what this movie inspires. Is their a meta-narrative to our own life? Is their more than the mundane and does it have a deeper transcendent meaning? Is there a spiritual purpose? And a big part of the movie is that they have to swallow this story they are a part of. It's all real. They know there is more to this than just their life. So what logically follows this fact is, "What's my role?" in this meta-narrative? Do we have a cosmic meaning? And where the comedy comes into play is when the characters try to figure what their role actually is? Are they happy with the role they've been given or do they want to be something else?

We'd all like to be the hero, the protector, the guardian. Maybe we want to be Vic. Write something that changes the world. Maybe more than that, be the person who comes and speaks it, says it all. Changes the world. But that is the problem. We accept the story, we accept we have a part, but we want to be the center, not the sidekick, not the comedic relief. Or maybe we want to pick the part. And we see this played out in the film. They all try and fulfill what they think their roles are the first time, to an almost fatal conclusion. But if the narrative is to play out and happen, all parts have been determined and are equally needed and as important. And this we chafe at. We do not want to accept that things are already figured out. That the role we are to play has been determined. Even so far that's it been pre-determined when our death will happen. Most of us do not want our life defined for us. But when we submit and humble ourselves to that it actually gives us an empowering sense of purpose, duty, relationship, and love. Even Cleveland has to accept that his original thoughts of his role are wrong.

And all of these roles work together. They aren't for each themselves. These roles work together in a spirit of family. It isn't compartmentalized. They all need to work with each other and you can see the wonder within the characters as they realize their role and work together helping each other out. Who is the healer, who stares down the Scrunt, etc. As they figure these things out and realize their role, you see them become empowered, together. This is the tension in the second half of the movie. Who has what role? Are they going to figure it out in time? Will they all accept their roles?

So when we boil this all down, it is a very far-out, silly story. With silly names, silly characters, and a far-out plotline. Almost foolish.

Similar to the story of the gospel. God is the story teller and we've been given the Story. The Story of the gospel. We're stewards of this Story and all have our roles to be played to bring about the redemption and salvation of man. The Story provides the job description, what is needed to be done. We must recognize our role and accept what it is. And it all seems foolish. But when we realize the truth, when our eyes are opened, and we accept that truth, the empowerment that follows can take us out of the ho-hum and into the transcendent. Life holds no more vagaries. But only in the essence of the story of our life. The great big story will become clear when we behold God face to face.

M. Night Shyamlan definitely plays to the fact that their is a hand of providence over life. I am not sure of his religion or spirituality within himself. But I think that his constant element of meta-narrative, life has purpose and meaning and that our role is very specific to all of this is unsettling to most people. His stories and allegory are so far out there (dead people, comic books, aliens, narfs, etc.) that it becomes near foolishness to us. People dismiss his overtones and "message" because of how almost comedic his story-telling is. But it has to be, because it almost is.

It's all for Me

We all blog for one reason...Me. I blog for myself. You blog for yourself. I read your blog for me. "What kind of crazy ass shit is Gary going to write about this time?" We just determine how transparent we want to be in our blogging and our commenting with others. No one blogs for others. Sure we may ellicit advice, ask questions, and engage each other over a blog. But it's still because we felt it was important enough to "blog it."

It cracks me up that people believe there are rules and guideposts to blogging. Are there rules and guideposts to keep your own journal or diary? Why should there be to blogging? Actually there are rules to blogging. What you, the author of the blog, set up as the rules. Everyone blogs differently. Some bore us with everyday tidbits and munitia of their trivial lives. Others wow us with their creativity and immerse us in awesome stories and charcacters. Some of us piss each other off and rant and rave. And all of us are "real smart" and post what we believe and why we believe it. Our blogs become our very own dogma and propaganda machine. It's why I also crack up when people cry afoul about dogma, authority, and propaganda on their blogs. All they are doing is spreading their own version of it.

And you know what.....FAN-FREAKIN-TASTIC GREAT FOR YOU!!!! I am happy for you.

I do it to and I love it. I like upsetting people and taking them out of their comfort zones. I like reading the frustrating comments my posts ellicict. It is creating the purpose I want it to. Drop the gloves, drop the borders, drop the walls and be honest. You hate church? Well I think you are being a baby because of that. You disagree? Good, let's argue over it (the word "conversation" jumped the shark a week ago...time you catch up). You hate the fact that I like George W. Bush as my and your president? (see how I bolded "you" to piss you off, I did it on purpose knowing full well it would irk you). Congratulations on forming your own opinion. You are human, you have the right. It doesn't mean I think any less of you. It doesn't mean I am not going to stick up for my opinions sometimes. And I expect the same from you. Tell me on my blog. If you make a good point and piss me off, I'm going to say "Damn It Toby, you got me", good for you. If I piss you off good for me. Listen, it's ok to have your feelings hurt because we bring up good points and argue over these things. If I make a comment to every response, deal with it. The blog is called:

MY PERCEPTION

I called it that for a reason, any guesses to what it means?

Also,

Get over the fact I don't blog everyday. I am not a "bore you with my trivial life" kind of guy.

I have a job that takes roughly 10 hours of my day bewteen normal work hours, commuting, and lunch time. I am married with a 3-month old child and I own my home. So when I get home from work, the work isn't done. And I have a life outside of blogs. I actually get together with my friends and family face-to-face and talk and argue over many, if not all, of the exact same things I write about here. There are 4 or 5 of us that are near legendary status at McCaffery's bar here in Lincoln Park for the lively debate and discussions we hold together. Sometimes bringing in "the townies" as well. What's more fun and way more cool? Going to an old Irish Pub and debating politics, arguing the narcissism level of Hemingway, how true is Global Warming, should you home-school your children, is hell real, how do you raise your boy to not be a sissy, guns, sex, rock and roll. Or typing on a blog, by yourself (maybe bitching to your wife about what Corey said this time, as she rolls her eyes at you) and then just sitting back and letting the "conversation" unfold?

What?

Typing thoughts..oops, I mean propaganda out on a keyboard only gets me so far. Human interaction and intimcy is what is needed. Sorry, I can't spend hours in front of a computer pounding out a manifesto everytime something strikes my fancy. Sometimes I find a few spare moments at work to do this. Very rarely I find time at home to do it as well. Friday nights and Saturday mornings about narrows it down for me.

I read a lot of good stuff by all the friends, people, and blogs I have listed to the right sidebar. For as much as I fire off comments there are more times I want to but just don't have the time. Scot McKnight, Steve McCoy, Michael Spencer, et. al have the time and profession to post all day long and think out loud on a blog and monitor their own comments and reply to comments and on and on. I do not. Actually, I don't want that.

Do not get me wrong. I want regular readers to my blog. I want to raise hell and argue over our life views. But it does me no good to hold back myself just to keep "readership." My goal is not to avoid hurting your feelings. But I do not want anyone to never want to read what I have to say. I'm too narcissistic for that, as are all bloggers. Let me say this too, being exasperated over your dogma and propaganda doesn't give me or anyone else the right to call names, but insuating you are being a child is not being done to offend you.

This blog is about me, your blog is about you. There's nothing wrong with that and it's ok. Outside of accosting me or my wife and family, anything you have to say is welcome here, but expect me to respond to it, and you may not like the response.

Get over it!

It’s All About Him, Me, You….

Ted Bundy
Columbine High-School
Virginia Tech University

We’re looking in all the wrong places for why.

The cracks, chips, holes and broken places in the lives of men like Cho Seung-Hui are getting old, fast – very fast. The pain, grievances and self-pity of mass killers are only symptoms of the real explanation. Those who do these things share one common trait. They are raging narcissists. “I died – like Jesus Christ,” Cho said in a video sent to NBC.

Guns, games, lyrics, pornography – they are just trees in the forest of extreme self-centeredness. To list the traits of the narcissist is enough to prove the point: grandiosity, numbness to the needs and pain of others, emotional isolation, resentment and envy.

In interviews with Ted Bundy 25 years ago, the essence of homicidal narcissism can be found. For hours and hour and hours, a man who killed 30 or more women and girls preened for his audience. He spoke of himself as an actor, of life as a series of roles and of other people as props and scenery. His desires were simple: “control” and “mastery.” He took whatever he wanted. From shoplifted tube socks to human life. For the simple fact that nothing mattered beyond his desires. He even went so far as to being surprised that people noticed his victims were missing. “There are so many people,” he explained. The only death he regretted was his own.

Only a narcissist could decide that his alienation should be underlined in the blood of strangers. The flamboyant nature of these crimes is like a neon sign pointing to the truth. Charles Whitman playing God in his Texas clock tower, Harris and Klebold in their theatrical trench coats, and Cho’s Messianic comparisons – they’re all stars in the cinema of their self-absorbed minds.

Freud (everyone’s favorite, you knew he was going to show up somehow, somewhere) explained narcissism as a failure to grow up. All infants are narcissists, he pointed out, but as we grow, we ought to learn that other people have lives independent of our own. It’s not their job to please us, applaud for us or even notice us – let alone die because we’re unhappy.

Narcissism is the signal disorder of America culture. The cult of celebrity, the marketing of instant gratification, skepticism toward moral codes and the ever so, so, so, so popular politics of victimhood were signs of a society regressing back to infancy. Maybe Freud was right. And that is where the immediate danger lies in how we examine mass killers. Everyone (not just the way over-board media) tries and digs up apparent clues and weave them into a sort of explanation. Remember Columbine? Harris and Klebold emerged as alienated misfits in the jock culture of their suburban high school. We learned about their morbid taste in music and their violent video games. Largely missing, though, was the proper frame around the picture: the extreme narcissism that licensed these boys, in their minds, to murder their teachers and classmates.

And with Cho it is the same. Elaborate writings and over the top videos were an almanac of gripes. “I’m so lonely,” he moped, but failed to mention that he often refused to answer even when people said hello. Of course he was lonely.

We need, no must, stop explaining killers in their terms. Minus the clear context of narcissism, the biographical details of these men can begin to look like a plausible chain of cause and effect – especially to other narcissists. And they do not need anymore encouragement.

Then there’s the telling moment in Bowling for Columbine (yes I am mentioning Michael Moore). Marilyn Manson dismisses the idea that listening to his lyrics contributed to the disintegration of the Columbine killers. What they needed, Manson suggested, was for someone to listen to them. This is the narcissist’s view of narcissism: everything would be fine if only he received more attention. The real problem can be found in the killer’s mirror.

My Perception - Confessing myself

I posted this about 11 months ago "Devils Advocate"

Go back and read and come back here...NOW!!!

Ok that was too forceful too authoritative (sorry Corey).

So, if you do not want to read it I'll give you a quick run down.

Back in the 1600s Newton figured this whole gravity thing out. Edmund Halley worked with Newton to iron out the hard parts and basically gave Newton hell as he tore apart his work and discovery. Always questioning him and driving Newton nuts. But Newton kept Halley around.

Ultimately Newton publishes Mathematical Principle of Natural Philosophy and the field of science is never the same. But why was Halley so damn anal on Newton? No one knows, but I think it was a "Devil's Advocate" thing.

And that is me. Nothing has changed

I play that role almost to a fault way too many times. I challenge a lot of people when they make a statement or claim. Not sure why I do it. Maybe I am too skeptical. Maybe I give them no credit. Maybe I like confrontation. Maybe I like to argue for the same of arguing. Maybe I like to come off smart. Maybe I want them to truly believe what they say. Maybe I want to help them think of all the angles. Maybe I am challenging myself to learn something new. It could be for any myriad of reasons. I am not entirely sure why I am this way. But I am. I know I do not do it to discourage anyone. I never want anyone to lose heart or doubt themselves and their ability, but watch them grow and really know and understand what they are saying. And honestly, I have no plans of changing this "habit" of mine. I have gotten a lot better at recognizing when it would be the wrong time to employ this trait or when I have crossed the line and discouarged someone and I have to work real hard to fix and correct that. But overall, I am just this way.

• I challenge
• I ask
• I confirm
• I question
• I poke
• I prod
• I solidfy
• I doubt
• I confront
• I think

I thank God he made me this way.

Absolutely nothing as changed

While 99% of what I post here is what I think/believe, nearly half of what I comment on here or with others is not. I am arguing and bringing up other points because of me. Of who I am.

I know it gets frustrating and I can be hard headed, but many times I am working out my own difficulties and doubts on a subject at the same time. Taking the side on an arguement I do not agree with just to see the results.

I once took a class in college that every quiz and test was oral. We never knew when the professor would call our name and ask us a question. Nothing was scheduled. I could have my test on Tuesday when he asked me 3 questions and the guy behind me might have his 3 weeks later. It was crazy but invaluable. We'd have to answer it and be ready for the retort from the teacher. He always told us to talk through every issue from all sides and try and anticipate what the other party is going to question before you even answer.

That's one of the few things I have held on to.

This is me.

Threshold's

No poetic prose, no fancy metaphors this time around. Sometimes life just comes at you too fast. Besides, we all understand that life is full of thresholds. New born to infancy to kid to child to puberty to teenager to 16 to 18 to 20 to 21 to college graduate to first job to married to home owner to first child to 30 to 40 and over the hill to 50 to 60 to 65 and retired to 70 and eyeing down the 50th anniversary to 75 to 80 and who knows from there. So putting a cliche with a threshold of life seems....well cliched.

But today is one of those in between thresholds bewteen the big thresholds. Pretty much we all share in the big thresholds, like the ones I mentioned above. But the mini-thresholds are usually reserved for you and possibly those directly involved with you and the situation. You know, like New Year's Day of 1996 and I knew that this would be the actual year where I turn 18. Or December 1st of 2001 and I knew this would be the actual month in the actual year I would be a college graduate. These little mini thresholds that mean a lot to you but most people it is just another day on the calendar that signifies flipping their calendars over to a new month. But for you it becomes more real, more legit if you will, it's going to happen and it is coming fast.

And so today is one of those days, because today marks the actual month that Grace Luella or Seth Andrew will "officially" enter the world. The due date is the 17th and the doctor will not let Michele go past the 24th. So this is it.

A mini-threshold in direct route to a major, life changing threshold that makes life the beauty and magic that it is.

Amen!

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Why I Stick With the Church, cont...

Imagine a child coming home from school with a report card. It looks like this:

Mathematics - A+
English - B+
Reading - B+
Writing - A
Science - B
Phys Ed. - A

Wow, pretty impressive, decent grades. Lowest grade is a B and like most people it is in Science (or could be Math, but this kid can really think and problem solve with the best of them). He can write real well too and has a decent grasp of reading and talking.

Mom and Dad are happy and proud. They flip it over and read the teacher's comment. Now, they are beaming with pride and love for their child. This is exactly what they wanted to read about their child. I mean what parent wouldn't want to read these comments.

What could the comments have been? Glad you asked. We'll get to that later...

******************************************************************

Granted the first 1/3 of my life was in the Catholic church, but it could have been worse.

Granted, the second 1/3 of my life was in the Baptist church (the independent, fundamental, Bible-believing kind), but it could have been worse.

And now, I find myself in the Southern Baptist Church, so I didn't really "leave" the Baptist church, but it isn't the "crazy fundys", but it could be worse.

I could be in no church.

None at all.

And that I find to be disturbing.

See, I find it to be fact that if I cannot get along with the church, the fault lies with ME and not the church.

I know, groundbreaking and earth shattering stuff.

But that is the problem, not many people see it this way. There is this weird funk going on right now and permeating Christianity, especially professing Christians. People are teaching and being taught that the more spiritual people don't go to church, don't need church. Your spirituality is on such a plane that you are above the church. You're actually more spiritual to not go to church and get caught up in the politics and bueracracy, and hypocrisy, and the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Shut up already! Get over yourself.

How do you make it work with your family and your job and everything else you do?

Don't you realize that the message and the gospel is more important than your feelings or what you think and definitely more important than your "spirituality"?

We're humans and we screw everything up. If it is't screwed up yet, give it a second, it will be. Matter of fact, something probably just got screwed up as you were reading this. And that is life, that is why a Savior is required.

And that is the church. It is filled with humnas who aren't perfect and people who are beat down and bedraggled and a bunch of scaliwags, so what else would it become? Oh sure, there are some silver-spooners and well-to-do people, put I wouldn't say they are the norm. No matter, if I was a betting man, and I am, I would bet that they are all screwed up too. The church building is indictive of the church as well as a perfect picture of our body. Kept up so well outside and in its appearance, but inside it is filled with doubt and deep wounds with many creaks and moans that are only heard in the quiet or by those that know it all too well.

Is that why people stay away? They think they are better than that? They do not want to associate with those types of people?

Could be.

Possibily.

Probably.

Actually, it is.

******************************************************************

Remember, the kid with the report card and the comments. Here is the exact word-for-word teacher's comments:

Doesn't play well with others and refuses to interact with the rest of the class.

******************************************************************

Kids.....

Hmmmm......