Father's Day inspired me to think of Jesus' definition of family. But I'll get back to that.
My father lives about five hours away, so I called him and we had a pretty long and very pleasant conversation. My mother answered the phone so I also talked to her for a few minutes before I chatted with Dad. My parents are great persons, outstanding parents, not to mention exemplary followers of Christ. I love them both dearly.
My youngest daughter, Amanda, who just graduated from high school last Saturday, had a card for me and she also gave me one of my favorite desserts for Father's Day. My stepson, Daniel, sent me a message wishing me a "happy Dad's Day." My other stepson, Patrick, is in Iraq right now so communication is a bit tougher in his case. Terri gave me a book that I wanted and prepared a special Father's Day meal for me on Saturday evening. My oldest daughter, Erica, lives 40 miles away and she sent me a sweet Father's Day message.
The gift I received from my 20-year old daughter, Alison, underscored a transition in our relationship. She got married to Heath Dosher on April 20 of this year. They invited me over for supper yesterday evening.
Terri and Amanda along with other members of our youth group left for a youth camp held at Wingate University right after church services yesterday and they will be gone all week. So Alison called as the youth were leaving and asked me to join she and Heath for an evening meal and I accepted.
These newlyweds live only six miles away. They grilled London broil, corn on the cob and potatoes. They also fried some chicken wings using a special batter recipe they had discovered. The food was great, but the fellowship was even better.
This was the first time Alison and Heath have invited me over for a meal in their home. It was most enjoyable but also a little strange. Oh, they made me feel right at home but Alison being married and preparing supper for me with her husband is new and different.
When I arrived Heath was at the grill and I went inside to find Alison busy in the kitchen. After greeting me she pointed out a gift bag saying that it was for me. Inside was a very sweet card and a wonderful gift.
A Styrofoam package in the bag contained a mug with eight photos of various family members made into its surface. The pictures were all taken at the wedding. Around the bottom of the mug was this message: "You're the Best Dad! I love you!"
I was touched.
A loving family is a glorious blessing and I hope I never take it lightly. But I never pass a Mother's Day or Father's day without remembering Jesus' definition of family that is far different than our typical understanding of the term.
While teaching in a very crowded house Jesus was told that his mother and brothers were outside. The Lord responded, "'Who are my mother and my brothers? ... Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.'" (Mark 3:33-34, TNIV).
I really appreciate the family expressions of love that were directed my way in connection with Father's Day. But the day left me wondering, as it always does, what our world would look like if we applied Jesus-style family values.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Source of inspiration
I am a graduate of Virginia Tech, a school that prides itself on its college football program. Some of you football fans may know that Lane Stadium, the Virginia Tech Hokie’s home field, was voted the number one home field advantage in college football in Rivals.com and the second scariest place to play for opponents at espn.com.
One of the most impressive features of a home game at Lane Stadium is the entrance onto the field of the Hokie team. Just before the team enters, they play the introduction to the song “Enter Sandman” by a group called Metallica. When the Hokie fans hear that song begin, they go crazy. Sixty-some thousand of them jump up and down and scream to the top of their lungs. And when the song reaches a particular fever pitch the team runs onto the field with huge flags spelling out “Hokies.” The whole thing is a trademark, deafening display of football frenzy that gets everybody’s adrenaline pumping, fans and players alike.
After all of that you might think that I am going to tell you a story about the Virginia Tech football team, but I’m not. I am going to tell you a story about the Virginia Tech lady’s softball team instead. Actually, it is THE Virginia Tech softball team, because there is no men’s softball team. About three weeks ago my brother sent me an article about an interesting occurrence at one of their games.
The Hokie’s softball team was playing in the regional finals of the NCAA Softball Tournament against the Tennessee Volunteers. Tennessee was the number one seed in the Hokie’s bracket. They have played in the Softball World Series for the last three years. The Hokies have never been in the World Series.
But the ladies from Virginia Tech managed to win the first game of the best of three regional series. The next night there was a double-header that would decide the regional winner of the tournament. In the first game Tennessee crushed the Hokies 7-1 and the Hokies were losing in the second game in the fourth inning when there was a rain delay of about an hour.
At the end of the rain delay as play was just about to resume, the announcer played a song. You need to know that this game was being played in Tennessee, not Virginia. Guess what song the Tennessee announcer played over the loud speaker just as play was about to resume? “Enter Sandman,” the Metallica song that is famous to all Virginia Tech fans as the one that is played when the football team enters the field. Well, the softball players for Virginia Tech went nuts. They jumped up and down and screamed just like the fans and players do when that song is played at a football game. Many of the fans in Tennessee along with that announcer who played the song must have wondered what in the world was going on with them.
The Hokies were at bat and they scored four runs in that half of the inning after that song was played. Those were the only runs they scored in the entire game. Before the rain delay the Hokies had one runner on base. Misty Hall came up to bat, the first batter after the rain delay, and she smacked a 2-run homer that put the Hokies up 2-1. She said, “When we heard 'Enter ... Sandman,' we all pretty much got our adrenaline going. My adrenaline was at the peak when I was up to bat …”
The Hokies went on to win the game 4-2 to advance to the Super-Regionals for the first time in the history of the program, and the team said it was because the announcer played “Enter Sandman.” Angela Tincher, the picher, said that song “Got us pumped up—it was awesome.”
By the way, the Hokies wound up making it to the World Series for the first time ever too.
What is your source of inspiration in the game of life? What gets you pumped up to accomplish what God has called you to do. The apostle Paul seemed to be inspired by the source of his strength: "We proclaim [Christ], admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ. To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me" (Col. 1:28-29, TNIV).
Do you think Christ provides energy to us all for accomplishing his mission? I think so and that seems like a pretty good reason to get pumped up.
One of the most impressive features of a home game at Lane Stadium is the entrance onto the field of the Hokie team. Just before the team enters, they play the introduction to the song “Enter Sandman” by a group called Metallica. When the Hokie fans hear that song begin, they go crazy. Sixty-some thousand of them jump up and down and scream to the top of their lungs. And when the song reaches a particular fever pitch the team runs onto the field with huge flags spelling out “Hokies.” The whole thing is a trademark, deafening display of football frenzy that gets everybody’s adrenaline pumping, fans and players alike.
After all of that you might think that I am going to tell you a story about the Virginia Tech football team, but I’m not. I am going to tell you a story about the Virginia Tech lady’s softball team instead. Actually, it is THE Virginia Tech softball team, because there is no men’s softball team. About three weeks ago my brother sent me an article about an interesting occurrence at one of their games.
The Hokie’s softball team was playing in the regional finals of the NCAA Softball Tournament against the Tennessee Volunteers. Tennessee was the number one seed in the Hokie’s bracket. They have played in the Softball World Series for the last three years. The Hokies have never been in the World Series.
But the ladies from Virginia Tech managed to win the first game of the best of three regional series. The next night there was a double-header that would decide the regional winner of the tournament. In the first game Tennessee crushed the Hokies 7-1 and the Hokies were losing in the second game in the fourth inning when there was a rain delay of about an hour.
At the end of the rain delay as play was just about to resume, the announcer played a song. You need to know that this game was being played in Tennessee, not Virginia. Guess what song the Tennessee announcer played over the loud speaker just as play was about to resume? “Enter Sandman,” the Metallica song that is famous to all Virginia Tech fans as the one that is played when the football team enters the field. Well, the softball players for Virginia Tech went nuts. They jumped up and down and screamed just like the fans and players do when that song is played at a football game. Many of the fans in Tennessee along with that announcer who played the song must have wondered what in the world was going on with them.
The Hokies were at bat and they scored four runs in that half of the inning after that song was played. Those were the only runs they scored in the entire game. Before the rain delay the Hokies had one runner on base. Misty Hall came up to bat, the first batter after the rain delay, and she smacked a 2-run homer that put the Hokies up 2-1. She said, “When we heard 'Enter ... Sandman,' we all pretty much got our adrenaline going. My adrenaline was at the peak when I was up to bat …”
The Hokies went on to win the game 4-2 to advance to the Super-Regionals for the first time in the history of the program, and the team said it was because the announcer played “Enter Sandman.” Angela Tincher, the picher, said that song “Got us pumped up—it was awesome.”
By the way, the Hokies wound up making it to the World Series for the first time ever too.
What is your source of inspiration in the game of life? What gets you pumped up to accomplish what God has called you to do. The apostle Paul seemed to be inspired by the source of his strength: "We proclaim [Christ], admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ. To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me" (Col. 1:28-29, TNIV).
Do you think Christ provides energy to us all for accomplishing his mission? I think so and that seems like a pretty good reason to get pumped up.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
No more beach to mountains exchange?
I am sitting on a deck at a place about seven miles north of Boone, North Carolina and I am looking at a gorgeous view of the mountains. Terri and I are on vacation this week and, for at least the first part of the week, we are enjoying the mountains thanks to some friends who very kindly allowed us to use their mountain getaway. Included in this entry are several photos from a short journey along the Blue Ridge Parkway to Grandfather Mountain, Linville Caverns and Linville Falls.
Strange how beach folks like us go to the mountains to take a break and mountain folks often go to the beach to take a break. Living on the coast I regularly meet people from here who vacation there and I know quite a few people who live at the coast who enjoy trips to the mountains. I suppose the mixture of relaxation with the adventure of a change of scenery inspires mountaineers to periodically trade places with beach bums and vise versa.
I wonder if gas prices will put a significant damper on this unofficial exchange program. If so, that's a shame. Not too many years ago it would have taken several days of difficult travel for people to take a journey that took Terri and me only six hours. One of the advantages of being such a mobile society is that we can experience a part of God's creation with which we are unaccustomed with relative ease. But with gas at about $4 a gallon such trips will be tougher for everyone and impossible for many. Were it not for free lodging Terri and I would not have made the trip this time.
So it has taken me longer than it should have to write this short entry because I have been glancing at the view of the mountains frequently. It may be a good while before I see such a view again. 
Friday, May 2, 2008
Government sponsored spiritual decline
I used to watch The West Wing, a TV show about presidential politics starring Martin Sheen as President Jed Bartlett. In one episode I vaguely remember a conversation Bartlett was having with a young assistant about a report indicating that Americans were saving a little more and spending a little less. Bartlett was concerned about the report and the young staffer was confused thinking that savings was a good thing. Bartlett explained that he needed for the people to wait for the next administration to start saving because a healthy economy depends on Americans spending more.
I thought about that episode when I heard the news and commentary about the funds from a government stimulus package beginning to arrive this week. The plan is supposed to stimulate the economy by putting some money in the pockets of Americans--$300 to $1,200 or more depending on family size and circumstances. Many reports of recent days say, like one I read, "Proponents of the stimulus package hope people will use the money for purchases that will give the American economy a boost "
In the days leading up to the release of the stimulus funds I heard numerous government officials and economic experts express the concern that many Americans, worried about the economic outlook, might save that money or use it only for groceries or gas. If we do that rather than blowing that government money on HDTV's or iPods or video games or eating out or other non-essential purchases then the stimulus package will not do much to stimulate the economy.
I have a degree in economics and I know that it is true that our economy depends on our spending. But here my economic knowledge and my theology collide. I heard Brian McLaren say that, spiritually speaking, "consumerism is more dangerous than terrorism," and he is right. Jesus said, "You cannot serve both God and Money" (Mat. 6:24, TNIV). For years I have preached against the obvious spiritual perils of consumerism even as I have struggled to escape those perils myself.
Now, with this stimulus package, we have blatant government sponsored consumerism, complete with worries that Americans will save rather than spend. What does this say about the whole structure of our society? Who do we really serve? Our currency pardoxically proclaims "in God we trust," but I'm not so sure.
I thought about that episode when I heard the news and commentary about the funds from a government stimulus package beginning to arrive this week. The plan is supposed to stimulate the economy by putting some money in the pockets of Americans--$300 to $1,200 or more depending on family size and circumstances. Many reports of recent days say, like one I read, "Proponents of the stimulus package hope people will use the money for purchases that will give the American economy a boost "
In the days leading up to the release of the stimulus funds I heard numerous government officials and economic experts express the concern that many Americans, worried about the economic outlook, might save that money or use it only for groceries or gas. If we do that rather than blowing that government money on HDTV's or iPods or video games or eating out or other non-essential purchases then the stimulus package will not do much to stimulate the economy.
I have a degree in economics and I know that it is true that our economy depends on our spending. But here my economic knowledge and my theology collide. I heard Brian McLaren say that, spiritually speaking, "consumerism is more dangerous than terrorism," and he is right. Jesus said, "You cannot serve both God and Money" (Mat. 6:24, TNIV). For years I have preached against the obvious spiritual perils of consumerism even as I have struggled to escape those perils myself.
Now, with this stimulus package, we have blatant government sponsored consumerism, complete with worries that Americans will save rather than spend. What does this say about the whole structure of our society? Who do we really serve? Our currency pardoxically proclaims "in God we trust," but I'm not so sure.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Too risky for dogs but not for humans
I was surprised by something that Justice Stevens wrote in his opinion in the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold the lethal injection execution procedure of the state of Kentucky. By way of background, you need to know that the ruling relates, again, to the state of Kentucky and that pancuronium bromide is one of the drugs used in executions there. Stevens wrote:
"Because it masks any outward sign of distress, pancuronium bromide creates a risk that the inmate will suffer excruciating pain before deathA friend of mine asked a great question: "What happens if a pit bull gets put on death row?"
occurs. There is a general understanding among veterinarians that the risk of pain is sufficiently serious that the use of the drug should be proscribed when
an animal’s life is being terminated. As a result of this understanding among knowledgeable professionals, several States—including Kentucky—have enacted legislation prohibiting use of the drug in animal euthanasia. It is unseemly—to say the least—that Kentucky may well kill petitioners using a drug that it would not permit to be used on their pets."
Friday, April 25, 2008
"Substantial risk of severe pain" not cruel?
I'm on vacation, so I am reading a long Supreme Court decision. Doesn't that sound relaxing?
Last week the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's method of lethal injection used to execute death row inmates. I am reading the 97-page decision in Baze v. Rees. Of course I am reading it as a pastor and a citizen--not as a legal scholar. I did not start reading at the beginning of the decision and I may not read the whole thing. But my guess is there may be more than one blog entry in my musings over the high court's judgment.
For the time being I confess to experiencing some shock over the conclusions of Justice Clarence Thomas with Antonin Scalia concurring. Thomas agreed with the final judgment but disagreed with a particular legal standard that it set. Follow his logic with me.
Last week the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's method of lethal injection used to execute death row inmates. I am reading the 97-page decision in Baze v. Rees. Of course I am reading it as a pastor and a citizen--not as a legal scholar. I did not start reading at the beginning of the decision and I may not read the whole thing. But my guess is there may be more than one blog entry in my musings over the high court's judgment.
For the time being I confess to experiencing some shock over the conclusions of Justice Clarence Thomas with Antonin Scalia concurring. Thomas agreed with the final judgment but disagreed with a particular legal standard that it set. Follow his logic with me.
Thomas is concerned that the "governing standard" of the decision holds that a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment "if it poses a substantial risk of severe pain that could be significantly reduced by adopting readily available alternative procedures." Justice Thomas rejects this standard as finding "no support in the original understanding of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause." He is convinced that "a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain" (emphasis mine).
Did you follow that? If we think a method of execution "poses a substantial risk of severe pain" and we are aware of an alternative that is readily available that could greatly reduce that risk of pain and yet we choose not to adopt that alternative we are not being cruel. Indeed, for Thomas and Scalia, an execution mode is cruel only "if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain."
Again, I am no legal scholar. Yet the formulation of Thomas and Scalia seems to completely dismiss the cruelty of neglect by defining a punishment as "cruel" only if it "is deliberately designed to inflict pain." It seems to me that the neglect of any procedure that could significantly reduce "the risk of severe pain" is inherently cruel.
Thomas recites his version of the historical context of the adoption of the Eighth Amendment along with applicable case law to show that the clause related to cruel and unusual punishment should be applied only to "purposely tortuous punishments." He is concerned that getting into the business of comparing one mode of execution to another threatens to "transform courts into boards of inquiry charged with determining ‘best practices’ for executions.'" Thomas and Scalia think that going down this road will "require courts to resolve medical and scientific controversies that are largely beyond judicial ken."
It seems to me that a connection between medicine, science and law is unavoidable when taking up a discussion on whether or not injections into human bodies of certain chemicals are cruel behavior. The same would apply if we are discussing the effects of other modes of execution including inhaling poisonous gas or high voltage electricity pulsing through the body. How can the possibility of cruelty in such actions be pondered apart from some consideration of science and medicine?
Beyond this, Thomas' analysis of history and case law notwithstanding, it is difficult to view the failure to adopt a readily available procedure that could reduce the risk of severe pain as anything but cruel. I do not claim to know the law but this logic seems cruel by any reasonable standard.
Did you follow that? If we think a method of execution "poses a substantial risk of severe pain" and we are aware of an alternative that is readily available that could greatly reduce that risk of pain and yet we choose not to adopt that alternative we are not being cruel. Indeed, for Thomas and Scalia, an execution mode is cruel only "if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain."
Again, I am no legal scholar. Yet the formulation of Thomas and Scalia seems to completely dismiss the cruelty of neglect by defining a punishment as "cruel" only if it "is deliberately designed to inflict pain." It seems to me that the neglect of any procedure that could significantly reduce "the risk of severe pain" is inherently cruel.
Thomas recites his version of the historical context of the adoption of the Eighth Amendment along with applicable case law to show that the clause related to cruel and unusual punishment should be applied only to "purposely tortuous punishments." He is concerned that getting into the business of comparing one mode of execution to another threatens to "transform courts into boards of inquiry charged with determining ‘best practices’ for executions.'" Thomas and Scalia think that going down this road will "require courts to resolve medical and scientific controversies that are largely beyond judicial ken."
It seems to me that a connection between medicine, science and law is unavoidable when taking up a discussion on whether or not injections into human bodies of certain chemicals are cruel behavior. The same would apply if we are discussing the effects of other modes of execution including inhaling poisonous gas or high voltage electricity pulsing through the body. How can the possibility of cruelty in such actions be pondered apart from some consideration of science and medicine?
Beyond this, Thomas' analysis of history and case law notwithstanding, it is difficult to view the failure to adopt a readily available procedure that could reduce the risk of severe pain as anything but cruel. I do not claim to know the law but this logic seems cruel by any reasonable standard.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Death Sentence
I saw a preview of Death Sentence, starring Kevin Bacon, months ago and I was intrigued. Not only did I end up missing this movie in the theater, but it has been out on DVD long enough for me to find a copy at a discount price on the "previously viewed" rack in a local movie rental store. I'm on vacation, so I decided to watch the DVD this evening.
Death Sentence got lousy reviews and maybe it deserved them. Based on the preview I watched the movie expecting a sort of reverse commentary on one of the teachings of the apostle Paul. I was not disappointed.
This is definitely not a film for the kids. It is violent and foul language flows freely. But, for all the ugliness, Death Sentence does illustrate the possible consequences of failing to heed the teaching of Romans 12:17-21.
Nick Hume (Kevin Bacon) is a good father and an executive for Starfish Capital. Tragically he and his oldest son were in the wrong gas station at the wrong time and Nick watched helplessly as the apple of his eye was slain in a gang initiation rite. When the courts failed to mete out justice to his liking, the grieving and angry father took matters into his own hands. What follows is an escalating cycle of revenge.
At the beginning of the movie a gang member/murderer was twice called an animal, once by a detective and once by Nick's wife. By the end of the movie Nick looked like an animal himself. At one point well into the cycle of revenge the gang leader told Nick: "You look like one of us. Look what I made you."
I won't spoil the story any more than that. However, I will tell you that the preview and the movie itself made me think of these words of the apostle Paul: "Do not repay anyone evil for evil ... Do not take revenge ... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17; 19; 21, TNIV). Death Sentence exposes the wisdom of this biblical teaching by showing the repulsiveness of ignoring it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
