Last year, in the month or so leading up to the presidential inauguration, we were told definitively by many (who apparently had the gift of “discernment”) that, in delivering his prayer, Rick Warren would not pray in Jesus’ name, thereby proving the fact that he is in league with the devil, incapable of doing anything good, and beyond even God’s saving power.

Then Rick went and prayed in Jesus’ name.

So what was the reaction of the “discerners”?  Did they celebrate the wide exposure to Jesus’ life-changing power?  Are you on drugs, Mr Spicoli?

Reactions included:

1. Xenophobic outrage that Warren included languages other than English
2. Emphasis on “discerning” interpretation of Warren’s motives behind other parts of the prayer, with no notice of the fact that Warren prayed in Jesus’ name (i.e. not bothering to admit that their prediction was wrong)
3. A select few who actually had the chutzpah to insist (after the fact) that Warren did not pray in Jesus’ name.

Fast-forward approximately one year.

2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, were slated to appear in a commercial during the Super Bowl broadcast, sponsored by Focus on the Family.  Despite great potential harm to herself while pregnant with Tim, Pam chose to carry the pregnancy to term rather than have an abortion.

The pro-”choice” crowd of 2010, much like the “discerners” of 2009, were up in arms that Pam Tebow would have the audacity to tell her story of what she chose to do. All media outlets (including sports radio — which I listen to in order to escape political discussion) were giving a lot of play to the alleged controversy.  If we were to believe the pro-”choice” reaction to this ad (which hadn’t aired yet), Tebow himself would be waiting in a back alley with a coat hanger by halftime.

Meanwhile, those with more than 3 brain cells recognized the lunacy of speaking definitively about what was going to occur in the future, and the gross hypocrisy of those who claim to be pro-choice being upset that someone chose not to have an abortion.  Even a self-described pro-choice sports reporter “betrayed” the movement (and her entire gender) by pointing out the stupidity.

Then the ad ran.  Here it is, in all its “controversial” glory:

Frankly, the “Dove Men plus Care” commercial was more overtly about childbirth (it portrayed/described four births, three of which were specifically required) than this ad was.

So the question now becomes, “How does the pro-’choice’ crowd (who only looked like minor idiots before the ad ran) wipe the egg (that’s apparently krazy-glued in place) off their face?”

Even though I’m staunchly pro-life, I’ll throw a bone to this crowd, and suggest a few ways they can recover, based on what we learned from the “discerners” last year.

1. Note the unfairness that Tebow is described as a Heisman Trophy winner, while poor Darren McFadden and Colt Brennan had to go home empty-handed.
2. Focus on other things wrong with the commercial — after all, it clearly endorses violence against women.
3. Like last year’s Holocaust Warren deniers, tell us that the ad was just as you feared, and that it said all sorts of things that it didn’t really say.

Anyone else have any other ideas?

Avatar
(2009 — Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver)

I’ve, admittedly, got a lot to say about this movie.  Not that anyone who knows me has ever accused me of brevity.  But hang on.  This movie has political and spiritual ramifications, but not like you might have heard.

OVERVIEW

In case you aren’t familiar with the movie already, here’s a quick overview.

The story takes place roughly 150 years in the future.  Another planet which man has discovered contains a highly valuable mineral.  It is also the home of a humanoid race known (to us) as the Na’vi.  Dr. Grace Augustine (Weaver) leads a team of scientists that is studying and trying to reach the Na’vi.  The primary means by which this is accomplished is through avatars, a Na’vi-like creature spawned of the combination of DNA from a human and a Na’vi. The human from whom the DNA comes can control the avatar as though s/he was actually in the avatar’s body, by the human going into a dream-like state. The familiarity of the Na’vi-like avatars is used to gain the trust of the Na’vi people.  While the scientists’ goal for this trust is better understanding and study, the company (who is funding all this) just wants the mineral.

Jake Sully (Worthington) is a paraplegic Marine whose scientist brother donated DNA and was to be one of the avatar controllers.  When this brother is killed, Jake takes his place (his DNA is close enough to allow him to control the avatar, and the company doesn’t want to lose the money invested in the brother’s training and the creation of the avatar).  Lacking his brother’s training and knowledge of Na’vi culture, Jack is at a distinct disadvantage, but he uses his wits and Marine training to make up for it.

A group of soldiers, headed by a gung-ho (and, admittedly, one-dimensional) Marine colonel serve initially as protection for the exploration team and the other representatives of the company.  However, as the story unfolds, it becomes apparent that the peaceful means by which the company wishes to extract the mineral are failing, and so it is decided that the mineral will be taken by force, instead.  Having become deeply immersed in the Na’vi culture, Sully’s allegiance to his fellow humans begins to waver, and then breaks down completely, especially when it becomes clear that destruction of the land and Na’vi deaths are of little consequence to the company and of no consequence to the colonel.

Content advisory, then back to the article.  The main reason for the PG-13 rating is a lot of action and violence.  However, there is also a fair amount of language and one scene of a somewhat sexual nature.  It’s not as explicit as, say, Leo and Kate in the back seat in Cameron’s Titanic — but it is worth mentioning. One other reason that the MPAA gives is some smoking.  It’s fairly laughable that the nanny state would still permit anyone to smoke in 2154, but there we are.

SIDE NOTE

If you choose to see this movie, see it in 3-D, if possible (sorry, Steve G).  To say that the world created in this movie is visually stunning would be an embarrassing understatement, and the immersion of 3-D will only enhance that effect.  Please keep in mind, too, that this recommendation is coming from someone whose eyes don’t get the full 3-D impact, so you’ll be wow-ed even more than I was.

POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS

Initially, I was not going to see this movie.  The over-blown hype surrounding the movie and writer/director James Cameron’s megalomania (uh, no Jimmy, this won’t “change the movie-going experience forever”) had really turned me off. I was fairly certain that I’d be the only person in the known universe that didn’t see the movie, but I didn’t care.

Then I started hearing some of the reactions, and they further cemented my decision. I was hearing conservatives saying that it was a 2.5-hour commercial for environmentalism, and was anti-capitalist and anti-military. I figured that I get enough of that crap from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — I didn’t need to plunk down my own money to have baloney preached at me.

Then I got an email the other day from a buddy of mine telling me to “run, don’t walk” to the theater to see this movie, followed by a chastisement for delaying by continuing to read his email.  The buddy is a Marine and a bit more politically conservative than I. It occurred to me that if the alleged left-wing messages in the film didn’t bother my friend, they probably wouldn’t bother me.  Although I didn’t run to the theater, I did see the movie within 72 hours of his recommendation.

Now, granted, many of the charges of left-wing messages were fueled by Cameron’s own statements about the movie.  However, given the fact that he created the story 12 years ago, a lot of the claims that he made (and that conservatives pointed to as proof-text) regarding events that occurred much more recently fall flat.  Yes, a couple of standard left-wing talking points were clumsily (almost laughably) crow-barred into dialogue.  And the Na’vi do believe in a hybrid of pantheism and panentheism, concepts to which many tree-huggers subscribe. But the overall message of the movie is a lot less partisan than Cameron (or his detractors) would lead you to believe.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Americans were encouraged to return to their normal routines, and it was proposed that if we did not do so, then “the terrorists have already won”.  The rationale was that, if we did not return to normal routine, this was evidence that we were terrified, and the terrorists had accomplished not only a short-term goal, but also a long-term goal.

I would argue that, by listening to his grandiose claims, the conservatives who are bashing this movie (sight unseen) have set it up such that James Cameron wins.  Cameron is a liberal — big surprise.  Liberal celebrities almost always have an over-blown sense of self-importance and think that John Q Public actually cares about their opinions on political issues.  They also try to ascribe political weight to their art, rather than just do what we asked — “shut up and sing” (to borrow from Laura Ingraham).  Combine all this with Cameron’s natural narcissism, and it’s a wonder that he doesn’t claim that the entire movie was simply a personal reaction to the Bush administration.

And conservatives are buying into this stuff?  Are you people on drugs?

SPIRITUAL RAMIFICATIONS

Perhaps the spiritual ramifications are obvious by now.  But you’ve read this far, so I’ll keep babbling.

One of the great tragedies for Christian art in the 1980s was the death of the Meadowlark recording label.  For those not familiar with the label, it consisted of releases of (mostly mellow) instrumental music.  The label’s demise was brought about largely because the genre of music was very similar to the popular “New Age” music being released in the secular world.  Too many professing Christians were (at the time) looking for New Age threats wherever they could find them (or more often, imagine them).  And so the music of such well-known devil-worshipers as Richard Souther, Phil Keaggy, and John Michael Talbot was dismissed as unworthy of Christian consumption.

Today, the names have changed, but the “battle” remains the same.  I could go into specifics, but this post is already too long.

French poet Charles Baudelaire said that “[t]he greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.”  Perhaps so.  But the second greatest trick may very well be convincing many Christians that he is more powerful than he really is.  Scripture tells us that “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”  Yet often we run around in fear (which “perfect love casts out” — same chapter, no less) that the sky is falling.

Should we be wary?  Certainly.  But our recognition of falsehood should stem from our immersion in the truth, not some paranoia that we try to pass off as “discernment”.  When we buy into this garbage, the devil “has already won”.

Somehow, I don’t think we want that.

It was discovered recently that a publisher (whose name I won’t grace by citing) is releasing a book critical of Sarah Palin with a cover that is very similar to that of her forth-coming autobiography. Here are the covers of her book and the critical book, side-by-side.

This is some pretty amazing bait-and-switch, and should offend anyone of any intelligence, regardless of their thoughts on Palin or their political affiliation.  The cover (of the critical book) says “My message is so lame and weak that it can’t stand on its own.”

OK, good and riled?

Now tell me, how is this any different?

Other than, you know, the implication that God’s message it too lame and weak to stand on its own?

The Obama Golf Czar has announced there will be rule changes to the game of golf. These will be effective March 1, 2010.

This is only a preview as the complete rule book is being rewritten now.

Here are a few basic changes:

Golfers with handicaps:
- below 10 will have their green fees increased by 35%.
- between 11 and 18 will see no increase in green fees.
- above 18 will get a check each time they play.

The dollar amount placed in bets will be as follows:
- for handicaps below 10, an additional $10.
- between 11 and 18, no additional amount.
- above 18, you will receive the total amount in the pot even if you do not play.

The term “gimme” will be changed to “entitlement” and will be used as follows:
- handicaps below 10, no entitlements.
- handicaps from 11 to 17, entitlements for putter length putts.
- handicaps above 18, if your ball is on green, no need to putt, just pick it up.

These entitlements are intended to bring about fairness and, most importantly, equality in scoring.

In addition, a Player will be limited to a maximum of one birdie or six pars in any given round. Any excess must be given to those fellow players who have not yet scored a birdie or par. Only after all players have received a birdie or par from the player actually making the birdie or par, can that player begin to count his pars and birdies again.

The current USGA handicap system will be used for the above purposes but the term ‘net score’ will be available only for scoring those players with handicaps of 18 and above.

This is intended to ‘redistribute’ the success of winning by making sure that in every competition, the above 18 handicap players will post only ‘net score’ against every other player’s gross score.

These new Rules are intended to CHANGE the game of golf. Golf must be about Fairness. It should have nothing to do with Ability.

(or I assume that, at some point, you’ll get to an actual point — in the meantime, I’ll be over here, holding my breath )

There has been a lot of hand-wringing over the President’s speech to school children tomorrow. And there’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the hand-wringing.  Not only are liberals jumping on the case of those conservatives that are concerned about the speech, but many of my fellow conservatives have gotten in on the act — and they’re using some of the same one-size-straitjacket-fits-all mentality.

Case in point:  If I point out the fact that American education is far behind the majority of the world and that maybe students’ time would be better spent on the three R’s, well then, I must be afraid that one speech by the President is going to make socialist drones out of all our children.  And that was from a conservative.

I must say, though, that I think it’s funny hilarious that days before the content of the speech was made public, those who were defending the speech (regardless of which side of the aisle they usually fall on) were speaking as though they knew the exact content, because of what was stated by the administration.  So many people are taking at face-value what is said by a man who tells Rick Warren that he wants to reduce abortions and Planned Parenthood that his first act in office will be to sign FoCA.  P T Barnum was clearly low-balling.

But here’s the kicker.

Even if you factor out those that have figured out a way to blame George W Bush for conspiring with Cain to murder Abel, there are many — on both sides of the aisle this time — who are absolutely certain that those who disagree with Obama wouldn’t disagree with a conservative president if he did the same thing.

With apologies to Colonel Potter:

MULE MUFFINS !!!

(And, no, Brent — in case you read this — this is not about you.  You were gracious enough to ask, not to definitively state.  You asked a fair question. But it’s asinine when someone else tells me what I think.)

The issues surrounding the speech, of course, aren’t the only instance.  It’s just the first time (to my knowledge) that conservatives have played that card on each other.

I’ve got two objections to this silliness.  First, it assumes that five times a day, I roll out my prayer carpet, face Crawford, and pray, closing with “in Rush’s name, Amen”.

More importantly, though, it strikes me as a bit odd that those who name the name of Christ (regardless of their political stance) would play this card.  The entire faith is wrapped around the idea that there is one standard (to which none of us measure up), and there are several warnings in Scripture against men comparing themselves with each other. So, unless I foolishly start compartmentalizing my life, why would I want to abandon a single standard in other aspects too?

And why the [censored] are you telling me that I am?

I despise the “r” word.  It is the most mis-used word in the English vernacular.  Having said that, there’s no denying it.

Sonia Sotomayor is a racist.

Look at her statement from 2002:

Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

The term “racism” has been devolved by many people to the level of any type of disagreement with any person of a different race than you. What it actually is, according to Merriam-Webster is:

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

That is exactly (uncannily, even) what Sotomayor is expressing.

We all knew that Obama was going to nominate a judicial activist, and Sotomayor’s 2005 assertion that the “court of appeals is where policy is made” (emphasis mine) confirms that in bold, flashing neon. But even the most hardened, cynical, hyper-right-wing extremist never dreamed that there’d be public lynchings at One First Street N.E.

From an AP news story today (emphases mine):

ATLANTA – The impending inauguration of the nation’s first black president is a huge step toward realizing Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of racial equality, but there is still work to be done, King’s nephew told a large crowd Monday at the church where the civil rights leader once preached.

Isaac Newton Farris, president of The King Center, told the jubilant crowd on what would have been King’s 80th birthday that the election of Barack Obama was built on a foundation laid by King and was a “gigantic leap” toward the fulfillment King’s dream. The sanctuary of Ebenezer Baptist Church was packed, with dozens of people left outside.

Martin Luther King Jr’s own words (emphasis mine):

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

In the weeks preceeding the election, many people boldly proclaimed that they were going to vote for Obama precisely because of the color of his skin.  All of these people were spitting in the face of Dr King as much as any white supremacist of the 1960s would.  So how exactly is this a fulfillment of his dream?

On a more positive note, I have a new-found respect for King’s son Martin Luther King III.  According to the AP, he did not attend his father’s memorial service in Atlanta today because he was already in Washington for the inauguration.  At least he’s honest enough to live out his belief that politics trump his father’s dreams.

Your government at work — creating a cow fart tax.

I’ve been thinking about the election.  How little it ultimately means to those who know (and really trust) Christ.  What should a Christian’s response be to it?  What can we learn from it?

While I stand behind posts I made earlier regarding the election (even all the way back to when we thought it’d be a Giuliani-Clinton race), there are a few recent points that really stood out to me.

John Piper wrote a column a couple weeks before the election, noting the priority we should put on the election relative to our faith, paralleling it with 1 Corinthians 7:29-31.

On the morning of the election, Mark Driscoll wrote a column noting that the vast majority of voters (on both sides) are seeking government or governmental leaders to fulfill a need that can only be met by Jesus.

Two pastors.  Two men that I greatly respect.  Two solid thinkers with some great specific points.

But for me, those posts were merely extra-base hits.  The ball was knocked out of the park a few days later, and I’m happy to say that I personally know the slugger.

Sandee Simpson Fricks (and her hubby, Bruce) are college friends of mine. I hate to say that, as it kinda implies that Sandee is close to my age, and that constitutes insulting a very nice person.

(I don’t mind insulting Bruce, even though he’s nice, too.)

Sandee wrote a note on Facebook on Monday, expressing some thoughts that she had based on her pastor’s message Sunday.  Since not all of my readers are on Facebook, I am reproducing her note (with her permission) here:

Was this election an indictment of the Christian Church?

This is the question going through my mind during the sermon yesterday.

In his sermon, Dr. Dave stated that, in his opinion, many Americans voted the way they did because they were taking the side of the hurting. Those who needed a hand. They voted for a president to solve their problems and the problems of those around them. They voted for Obama, though many Christian organizations had endorsed McCain. He asked the question - Do the people of America have more faith in the White House than God’s House?

This actually dovetails with a note I posted last week about conservatives donating more money to charities. And we do. Conservatives believe that the church and other private charities can help the hurting better than government can. But, is our message getting out there? Are we taking our responsibilities seriously enough?

Dr. Dave proposes that we, as the church, need to lead in our community by example. Following God.

Clearly it is not any president’s fault if a family finds themselves in foreclosure because they were living beyond their means. The church (and it’s individual members) needs to set an example by being fiscally responsible.

Clearly it is not any president’s fault if a marriage finds itself in divorce court because a spouse was unfaithful. The church (and it’s individual members) needs to set an example by strengthening marriages.

What if the Church (and its members) consistently followed God? Would our example to the community draw them in? Would there be less hurting in the world?

We know that Jesus never promised us an easy path. In fact, he guaranteed suffering. But surely we could eliminate a lot of self-inflicted pain by being obedient to Him.

Dr. Dave stated that throughout the Bible, we can see that “the condition of God’s people is never dependent on the nation they live in”. In fact, we know that nations, empires and leaders come and go. Therefore our hope must not lie in a man, nation or government but in God. Only He will stand forever.

In case you want to listen to the message — I haven’t heard it all yet, but I’ve really liked what I have heard — here is the podcast page for Sandee’s church (see the 11/9/2008 entry).  Or here’s a link directly to the MP3.

One line that really rings loudly:  While admitting that it’s not a bad thing for Christians to try to elect someone who upholds and practices their values, Dr Davis wonders if it’s time for the American Church to admit that

. . . we have allowed the banner of the Christian faith to be carried too long by those in the White House.

Ouch.  Dude, that’s a little too close to home.

Or, in other words, Dr Davis, you don’t have to wonder.