Dave Barry, cupcakes, and a new acronym (because the world just doesn’t have enough yet).

King of Fools notes that Life Imitates Art. This is a must-read for Hitchhiker’s fans.

About 6 weeks ago, I sent my mom a link to a picture on Yahoo’s news site. It was a funny-looking political picture that I figured she’d like. She saw it, enjoyed it, but didn’t toss the note.

More recently, she was going back through her Inbox and saw that note again. As I hadn’t really given any info beyond “funny pic” in the subject line, it slipped her mind what the link was, so she clicked on it again. Although it was a very specific link, it was not the same picture.

Instead, it was a red-carpet picture of an actress arriving at a movie premiere. The picture was a profile angle of this actress in her backless and sideless gown, with more than half of her breast exposed.

Thankfully, mom did remember that this was not the picture I originally linked to, but warned me about it, in case I had sent the link to anyone else.

So be warned — if you link anything from Yahoo — they obviously don’t know anything about content management.

When I was a kid (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth), US Olympic stars were often people to be proud of, to root for, and (often) to emulate. Names like Bruce Jenner, Eric Heiden, the “miracle” hockey team, Dorothy Hamill, Mary Lou Retton. Heck, I even got my hair cut like the guys on the 1984 gymnastic team.

But the bad-boy image that permeates the NBA and NFL greatly (and is trying to make in-roads in MLB and the NHL) has taken over US Olympics. Yes, your son could grow up to be the next Bode “Spicoli” Miller or the next Shani “there is no team in I” Davis. Or your daughter could grow up to be the next Lindsey “showboat for the silver” Jacobellis, or the next “princess-y” Johnny Weir.

The success of the 2004 movie, Miracle, has been attributed to the impact that the story had in the societal and political climate of the Cold War in 1980. I’m starting to think that that issue is secondary to the fact that it’s about US Olympic athletes that are worth giving a rip about.

The Second Chance, a great movie directed by Steve Taylor, and starring Michael W Smith and jeff obafemi carr was recently reviewed here and pre-viewed here. It is in limited release right now (note: this does not mean NY and LA, like “limited” usually does — check the movie website for where it is showing).

Whether it opens wider (in more cities) depends on how well it does where it is now. I got an email yesterday from the movie website stating:

The turn out for the opening week of The Second Chance was not as strong as we needed for new theatres in other cities to be able to play the movie.

So, if you’re thinking of seeing the movie, get thee to a theater — preferably this weekend!

Over on the Together for the Gospel blog, C J Mahaney recently noted the final score of a Duke/Maryland basketball game, and then Ligon Duncan referenced Mahaney’s post. I particularly enjoyed the part where Duncan referred to the game as:

that most undeniable proof of the Fall - another Duke basketball victory

While I am not yet familiar enough with these men to classify them as theological giants, I know that they’re at least as tall as Yao Ming. And these guys care about ACC basketball ! (For the record, my pastor is a Duke fan, but he’ll probably go to heaven, anyway.)

But this whole thing got me to thinking. Which, of course, leads a blogger to blog. So, it’s time once again for an analysis of the “legalistic circles in which I used to spin”. Tonight’s topic: “over-honor”

(By the way, don’t skip over this post just because you’ve never spun in those circles. The majority of my experiences are from there, but I’ve seen this problem elsewhere, too.)

1 Timothy 5:17 teaches us:

Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

While good arguments can be made that this “honor” refers to physical support and/or monetary remuneration, the more straightforward meaning of the word is just as, if not more, applicable. We are to honor, to respect, those who rule/lead the body. God has called them to a specific purpose, they have responded, and they are helping us in our Christian walks.

However, this is not license to bestow upon them (or others) more honor than they are properly due. Yet, this is exactly what is often done. In the afore-mentioned circles, church leaders were held up as near gods who were almost infallible. And those mentioned in the Bible were granted even higher status than that.

Perhaps in your experiences, you have not viewed anything that drastic, but examine your heart as to the proper placement of others.

I see several dangers in “over honor”:

1. Such action is often referred to as “placing the person on a pedastal”. Why would we want to place our brother in a precarious position? He might fall, and the fall from a pedastal would be more drastic for him (and possibly, for you).
2. If a person who is over-honored “lets you down”, that inherently implies that he was “holding/propping you up” in the first place. Since when are we to rely on the support of man rather than God?
3. If someone is held up to an impossibly high standard, even if he doesn’t fall (e.g. those in Scripture who are dead), there is absolutely no point in the “common man” trying to attain that standard.
4. Most importantly, such a view absolutely denies the power and work of God. Mahaney, Duncan, Paul, John — these are men. Anything good that comes out of their lives is because of God, not them. The point here is not that “you, too, can be a theological giant” but that God can use “you, too”.

David slept with a married woman, got her pregnant, and had her husband whacked. Peter shot his mouth off so many times (including what Michael Card calls the ultimate oxymoron: “No, Lord”), he should’ve had a permit for his tongue. C J Mahaney likes Maryland (which is better than liking Duke, but still not correct). The one thing they have in common (other than imperfection) — God.

There has been talk of late of the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), in which a bunch of Christian leaders have jumped on the “human-induced global warming” bandwagon. Some of the signees of the ECI (of the few names I even recognize) give me pause in other areas (particularly theology), and reportedly the ECI receives funding from the Hewlett Foundation, a major financial supporter of pro-abortion initiatives and organizations. This makes the ECI ripe for criticism, especially among those of us who don’t believe that “human-induced global warming” even exists.

(And, no, I’m not interested in arguments of its existence or non-existence. Please don’t bother — that’s not the point of this entry, anyway.)

But what disturbs alarms me is that, in his criticism of the ECI, one major blogger (*) encourages his readers to “try the following”:

• trade in your hybrid cars (they actually cost you more $ in the long run)
• drive an SUV, if you can afford one
• build a campfire
• turn up the heat
• use air-conditioners
• use oil and oil by-products
• grill outside more often
• fill up your gas tanks
• take long trips with the family
• smoke cigars and pipes if your conscience allows
• and continue to fly jet airplanes

So, because this blogger disagrees with the ECI and the pseudo-science and funding behind it, his “natural” reaction is to do the exact opposite of what is espoused by those with whom he disagrees.

What’s next? Shall I shoot a black man, simply because the NAACP sometimes acts ridiculously? Because charges of anti-Semitism among Christians are often specious, should I become a Nazi? Shall I beat my wife, just because of the ridiculous actions and stances of NOW?

Ludicrous, no? Yet no more ludicrous than the list above.

Matthew Henry had this to say regarding the dominion over creation that God granted to man in Genesis 1:26-28:

As [man] has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, God’s representative, or viceroy, upon earth

I would tend to think that God would not simply, in knee-jerk fashion, do the opposite of what his “enemies” espoused. Why should His representatives act differently?

Henry also wrote regarding this (italics are his, as he quotes Scripture):

Though man provides for neither [fish nor fowl], he has power over both, much more over every living thing that moveth upon the earth, which are more under his care and within his reach. God designed hereby to put an honour upon man, that he might find himself the more strongly obliged to bring honour to his Maker.

Look at that list again. Many of the suggestions, while not evil in and of themselves, are indicative of rampant consumerism. This is how we bring honor to God in response to his bestowing of honor upon us?

But, wait, there’s more…

Perhaps the most disheartening thing is that immediately after this list, the author states:

(All for the glory of God of course.)

My first reaction to this was that he was being a smart aleck (with bad punctuation). Then I realized that this analysis was incomplete.

He is being nothing short of blasphemous.

Exodus 20:7 states:

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Taking the Lord’s name in vain is not limited to using the words “God” or “Jesus” as swear words, or even as common words. Henry writes that among the ways that God’s name is taken in vain is (emphases mine):

By rash swearing, mentioning the name of God, or any of his attributes, in the form of an oath, without any just occasion for it, or due application of mind to it, but as a by-word, to no purpose at all, or to no good purpose.

By appropriating the name and glory of God to his suggestions (which have no Scriptural backing), the author has just as certainly taken God’s name in vain.

As I recall, the author has claimed great appreciation for the teachings and writings of Dr John Piper (as do I). Dr Piper is all about God’s glory, speaks often of it, and lives for it. By throwing this phrase around so lightly, the author denigrates Dr Piper and his teachings. However, I don’t think there’s as much of an issue here, as it’s not certain whether Dr Piper would “hold him guiltless”.

I am fairly conservative politically, and much of that is based upon how I have analyzed issues in light of my faith. But I fear for the state of the church when the distinction between conservatism and Christianity is annihilated, as it has been by this author.

( * Note: The blogger shall remain nameless for two reasons.

1. My problem is with the thoughts and ideas, not the person. Unfortunately, such ideas are not limited to this one person.? Hence this post.
   
2. To be honest, I’m not very interested in giving his blog more traffic.

If you spin in the same circles that I do, though, and you really want to know, it shouldn’t be very hard to figure out he is.)

JT at Between Two Worlds has an article called 33 Ways to Serve, which contains a list of (surprise) 33 ways to serve, as compiled by the mission organization, Action International.? Some are simple; some are complex.? Some are suited to an individual; some to a group.? But go check it out.