Derick Dickens tagged me. Normally I don’t do tags but a) this one is different, b) I like and respect Derick and c) I’ve never done one before. I’m supposed to tag five others but I can’t think of five blogs I read that would respond. I have to admit, I’d love to tag the Luther At The Movies blog just to get some interesting historical facts on the Great Reformer (I’m reading Bainton’s Here I Stand for a history class right now), but I’ll refrain. On with the taggage.

Five things about me:

1. I took my first undergraduate class in 1981 and completed my BS in 1997. Hey, I’m a slow reader, alright? Ned Beatty was at my graduation. He had a relative graduating.
2. My wife and I saw the play I’m Not Rappaport in London in 1986 or so and Gene Hackman was sitting about five rows in front of us.
3. A friend of mine in high school was the brother of James O’Barr the creator of The Crow. My wife’s good friend in high school was the sister of Mike Judge, creator of Bevis and Butthead, Office Space, and King of the Hill.
4. When I was in junior high school I spent the summers at my grandparents’ farm. My grandmother took me to church with her and her pastor, Pastor Tucker took a liking to me for some reason. He once told her that I would be a preacher when I grew up. She disagreed but said that I would be a good man.
5. I am mentioned in a footnote in Richard Barcellos’ book In Defense of the Decalogue.

I took my wife to see Casino Royal, the newest edition in the James Bond franchise. We found this theater that is kind of buried behind a layer of retail standards. It was once a really nice theater and now it is past its prime. That means, in the case, that the price was reasonable, attendance slight, the theater was nice and clean and it had the best popcorn I’ve had at a theater in a long time. But what of Bond? Well, James Bond has been reimagined, contemporized. For me, the last James Bond was Sean Connery but the new Bond, Daniel Craig is very good also. All he lacks is that touch of humor that Connery was so good at.

What is so markedly different in this outing is that Bond is more human. Sure, he does some impossible stunts but that is no more than any other action movie out today. What was lacking in this Bond was the bigger than life. No Goldfinger, no Dr. No, the villain in this movie is fairly normal. He is evil, but believable. He even comments, “I never understood why some people use elaborate torture techniques.” I thought it was an obvious comment on past Bond villains. Also, James falls in love. He exposes himself and throws Queen and Country aside for the love of a woman. Temporarily, but we knew that going in didn’t we?

In this Bond adventure, we’ve departed from the Bond we knew and instead we got Jason Bourne. Notice that even their initials are the same. The same superspy, the same reformed killer. Essentially, the same basic film. The violence was strong and pervasive, the woman was strong and worth leaving it all for, the danger lingered. We went to see James Bond and instead saw Jason Bourne. Or Ethan Hunt in MI:III I suppose. They all seem to be the same man. As a matter of fact, Bond and Hunt both require a defribulator to revive them, both operated by the love interest. Go figure.

Have Hollywood action movies all melted down into one archetype? I’m not sure, but there does seem to be some repeat business. Maybe it would have been nice to have Bond the way we knew him. Up against a maniacal, larger than life type. There were gadgets but not the over the top gadgets of past Bond films. Maybe it would have been nice to have those back too, huh? Overall, not a bad film, just not a Bond film.

Today we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, who lived and died around 2,000 years ago. The promise of his coming is as old as mankind’s need of him. “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (Gen 3:15) Thousands of years later God repeated that promise but clarified it and narrowed it to one family wandering in modern day Syria, Lebanon and Israel. “and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ.” (Gen 22:18 & Gal 3:15). The promise echoed again 1500 years before his birth when Moses promised that a prophet like him would come from Abraham’s family (Deut 18:15). Once again, after Israel was established in the land the promise of the Coming One was heard once more, this time in the royal line who would rule and build, “I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” (2S 7:12-14)

We’re not sure what time of year Jesus was born, possibly in the spring, but that isn’t important or God would have included it in his word. What is important is that the long promised savior came, exactly as God had promised. The gift of Christmas is Immanuel, God is With Us, in the form of a son born of a virgin, an Israelite of the royal line of David.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him (Col 1:15-21)

This is what we celebrate at Christmas. Merry Christmas, our Savior has come.

The above screen shot is from my new aggregate at Google News. The small image does not necessarily go with the story to the left of it, however, it does highlight an important issue with the clumsiness of our news media. Notice that the story says “civil unions” and the image says “same-sex marriage.” They are not the same thing though the talking heads in network and local news may confuse them. A civil union, according to Wikipedia ¹I don’t recommend Wikipedia without checking other sources, I was just too lazy to do that this time. Take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. You have been warned., is “a legally recognized partnership between two persons.” Since a civil union is a legal definition, it can be defined as a legally recognized partnership between two people of the same or different sex or even between more than two. It is as elastic as the society will tolerate.

Marriage, however, is the Biblical union of a man and a woman which is an ordinance God instituted in creation (Matt 19:4-6). It may not be altered by man based on the latest whim of sensibility or political correctness. “Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of [family relationships] forbidden in the Word; nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful, by any law of man or consent of parties” (1689 BCF 25.4 emphasis mine.) In 1689 the idea of a homosexual marriage was beyond comprehension. They were aware of homosexuals but that was a recreation reserved for kings and poets. The principle in the confession can be applied to other aberrant forms of marriage. The Bible defines what a marriage is and so the phrase “same sex marriage” makes as much sense as “left-handed right-handedness.” In other words, it makes no sense.

If a state wishes to recognize homosexual relationships in some formal manner, civil unions are the way they should do that. They are not free to redefine marriage and the Church should stand for it. The issue of civil unions is, to me a different matter. I still don’t think it is wise but that is a matter that a State should decide for themselves.

So be careful out there. The air heads in the news media ²They are not all air heads but there are air heads in that position. will confuse the terms but don’t you.

Drink sugared soda? I do on a rare occasion. Here are the effects:

• In The First 10 minutes: 10 teaspoons of sugar hit your system. (100% of your recommended daily intake.) You don’t immediately vomit from the overwhelming sweetness because phosphoric acid cuts the flavor allowing you to keep it down.
• 20 minutes: Your blood sugar spikes, causing an insulin burst. Your liver responds to this by turning any sugar it can get its hands on into fat. (There’s plenty of that at this particular moment)
• 40 minutes: Caffeine absorption is complete. Your pupils dilate, your blood pressure rises, as a response your livers dumps more sugar into your bloodstream. The adenosine receptors in your brain are now blocked preventing drowsiness.
• 45 minutes: Your body ups your dopamine production stimulating the pleasure centers of your brain. This is physically the same way heroin works, by the way.
• >60 minutes: The phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and zinc in your lower intestine, providing a further boost in metabolism. This is compounded by high doses of sugar and artificial sweeteners also increasing the urinary excretion of calcium.
• >60 Minutes: The caffeine’s diuretic properties come into play. (It makes you have to pee.) It is now assured that you’ll evacuate the bonded calcium, magnesium and zinc that was headed to your bones as well as sodium, electrolyte and water.
• >60 minutes: As the rave inside of you dies down you’ll start to have a sugar crash. You may become irritable and/or sluggish. You’ve also now, literally, pissed away all the water that was in the Coke. But not before infusing it with valuable nutrients your body could have used for things like even having the ability to hydrate your system or build strong bones and teeth.

So have a Coke and a smile but just not for long. I knew a person in California who drank a six pack of Coke every day. Excessive, to be sure. He was about 30 and fell while playing basketball. Broke his hip. The soda had leached away the calcium from his body. He had the bone density of a 90 year old woman.

[Via: HealthBot]

This is exciting! I preordered Matthew Smith’s new CD All I Owe and I don’t regret it. Matthew is the lead singer of Indelible Grace, a group who take hymns and set them to new tunes, mostly without changing the words. My soul is blessed often by listening to them. Matthew’s new CD is no exception. And to make it even better, he’s streaming the entire CD for free this month. If you’re not sure if you trust my taste in music, take a listen. My favorites are The Lord Will Provide and My Lord I Did Not Choose You. Listen to the CD a few times and then when you find you can’t get these great songs out of your head or your heart, go order the CD. You can also get it on iTunes.

Two of my friends are going through rough times this Christmas season and I find that I just want to quote some of these hymns for them. While that probably isn’t the best thing to do for them, it does show how rich and sweet the theology is in the songs. There is something about singing our theology. As C. J. Mahaney puts it, “Worship songs should serve the church as take-home theology, reinforcing God-glorifying doctrine and teaching through Christ-centered lyrics and memorable melodies.” It frames how we think about life. Some of the lectures given at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary were very helpful to me in thinking through this issue. Take a look at that list and if you have some idle time in front of the computer, I recommend the talks given by Bob Kauflin, Kevin Twit and Matthew Smith. You’ll have to scroll down the list to get to them. Kevin’s was the most helpful.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard an evangelical give a better answer! Take a look at this Q&A with Jeffery Sheler, author of “Believers: A Journey Into Evangelical America.” I think I heard a bit of an interview with him a while ago and was impressed. He really did penetrate the evangelical subculture and it seems he came away with a fair view of who we really are.

Here are two of my favorite questions:

Q What must one believe to be an evangelical?

A The Bible is God’s word, completely reliable, without error. Jesus is the only savior, and one has to have a personal relationship with him. And because Jesus is the only way, evangelicals feel very strongly that they are commissioned by Christ to share their faith with others — to evangelize.

Q If evangelicals are just like you and me, why do some people fear them?

A Because they hear and read the accounts of evangelicals in the media. I’m not faulting the media. You have a handful of evangelicals who are intemperate in their remarks. They have tremendous access to the airwaves. Reporters like to quote them because they’re very quotable.

When people hear Pat Robertson say some of the things he says, or D. James Kennedy talk about “taking back America for Christ,” that sounds threatening.

This would be a good one to point someone to who is not really sure what evangelicals believe and what they want.

FreeDerekWebb ends today. If you don’t have Mockingbird, today is your last chance to get it for free. I recommend it.

NPR recently featured Derek Webb. One of the things they said about him was “Chris Tomlin whose been at the number one spot on the Christian charts for eleven weeks running. On the other end of the spectrum is Derek Webb.” There’s a link to the story at Derek’s website and I think it is worth the 5 minutes to listen to it.

In Derek’s song “A King and A Kingdom” he sings

There are two great lies that I have heard,
The day you eat of the fruit of that tree,
You will not surely die.
And that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class Republican
And if you want to be save, you have to learn to be like him.

You can see that this isn’t the kind of stuff that wins many friends in the suburban evangelical largely-Republican market. But Derek explains, “I rerecorded that song recently for an acoustic record and I thought about changing that line to ‘And that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class Democrat’ because the answer I’m saying is not to be a liberal. I’m saying you need to be a moving target.”

I think Derek is right on this. If we ally ourselves with any one political party we are not free in the public eye to be Christians, they see us as Republican Christians or something like that. That means accepting that party’s platform as a public mantle even if we don’t agree with it. We are opposed to abortion and so we ally with the Republicans because they are too. Whether we agree or with it or not, support of big business and a reticence to support social programs are part of that party’s platform. In the public arena, we are then perceived to agree with those issues. I don’t think Derek is saying that we need to constantly flip sides in order to be a “moving target”, I think his point is that we must take consistently Christian stands on issues and that will place us in different camps on different issues.

Anyway, get Mockingbird today if you can. You have to enter the email addresses of five friends to get it. They don’t spam or retain them, they just send them an email so they know about the deal. You can use timonmac at yahoo dot com as one of them if you’d like. That’s my spam magnet address.

I simply don’t get it. Some people are so offended by Christianity that they think it is Christianity that is a threat to their freedom. I saw this OpEd piece a while ago and resisted the urge to respond to it then, but I can’t hold out any longer. You needn’t read the entire piece to get a flavor of what is being said, here’s the introductory paragraph:

While traveling recently in my home “Red State” of Virginia, I was confronted by yet another sign of rising religious extremism in America. It was the “Jesus Fish”, those stick-on symbols of sectarianism signifying ardent devotion to Christianity. It struck me that they are reproducing at an alarming rate.

I hate those fish symbols too but for a very different reason. They are by no stretch of the imagination “symbols of sectarianism signifying ardent devotion to Christianity.” Any bozo can buy one at a Christian book/trinket store and I’ve even seen them at truck stops. They mean exactly nothing. I remember hearing of people putting them on their cars because they thought that if the cop was a Christian it might get them out of a ticket. I’ll explain my disdain for the fish symbols in a minute.

So what triggered me to write about this now? I saw a couple of videos that Doc Misterio linked to that tried to draw a contrast between being a Christian (the kind that has the fish on the back of the car) and being a “Christ Follower” which is supposed to be better. Each video ends with “Christian No More.” I went to the church’s website to investigate and found more of the same “that was then and it wasn’t good” kind of approach. The really, really ironic thing is the church is called “Community Christian Church”! Ha. Guess they’re due for a name change, right? Read On…

I’m not sure who should be more insulted, meteorologists or Pat Robertson.

ROBERTSON NAMED METEOROLOGIST OF THE YEAR

No, I’ve decided: the meteorologists should be more insulted.

What really ticks me off about this is that I have jabbed fun at Robertson before and was actually going to do this same bit. Sacred Sandwich beat me to it!!