I remember seeing this on the original air date of February 20, 2007; but had forgotten about it until a conversation yesterday about Craig Ferguson prompted me to look it up on YouTube. I am still astounded at what is a very impressive monologue–he says a lot of counter-intuitive stuff there, not the least about how “not right” it is that we find so much enjoyment in ridiculing the weak, broken, and vulnerable. While I presume Ferguson is not a Christian believer (though he is certainly aware of something beyond himself–if only that great ultimate reality called ‘friends’ or ‘community’), I found myself renewedly aware of the deep, self-saturated sinfulness of my own sense of humor. Embarrassing.

As one of the candidates with lower poll numbers, Richardson’s best hope for doing well in the caucuses may be winning over people like Tony Ross. [...] Ross tells Richardson he’s worried about Hillary Clinton getting the nomination because he thinks she may lose to a Republican.

“So my biggest fear going to caucus for Richardson is that I would drain support from someone else,” Ross says.

Richardson has no easy answer. He says that if he gets the nomination, he could beat a Republican.

Afterwards, when asked if he plans to caucus for Richardson, Ross says he is unsure. Richardson is hands down his favorite, he says. Still, Ross does not know if Richardson will have the resources to stay in the race in the long term.

“I’m afraid if I throw my support to him and he does not get enough bounce out of Iowa, it drains support from Edwards and Obama, and Mrs. Clinton comes out as the eventual nominee. That just worries me,” Ross says.

This just kills me. Seriously. You should have seen heard me screaming in the shower. This mindset would be easier to stomach were it not for the fact that I have listened to this same “wasted vote myth” be repeated over and over again this election season. If ever there were a time to cast a vote for the person you really wanted to support, would it not be now when the major parties have yet to select their candidate? Wake up America! Stop listening to the pundits, the pollsters and playing into the self-fulfilling prophecies and simply vote your conscience!

Don’t Waste Your Life

In his book The Problem of Wine Skins: Church Structure in a Technological Age (IVP, 1975), Howard Snyder writes:

In the Old Testament, God’s concern with the poor consistently appears within the context of the justice of God and the working of justice among God’s people. Thus, biblically, words such as “the poor,” “the needy,” “the oppressed,” “the sojourner,” typically have moral content, relating to God’s requirements for justice. This is not easily comprehended in today’s world because “the poor” does not have such a moral content for us. It has a purely descriptive sense; one might say that for us it is a purely secular word. But what we must see is that poverty itself is of ethical significance – the poor is a moral category. In God’s world there is no human condition which escapes moral significance; and the poor, and the treatment they receive, are strong indicators of the faithfulness of God’s people.
(quoted by Waldron Scott in Bring Forth Justice [Paternoster, 1980, 1997])

The above is a helpful observation — namely, that “poverty itself is of ethical significance … the poor, and the treatment they receive, are strong indicators of the faithfulness of God’s people.” — especially when you consider some of the observations and comments from a recent Barna survey (okay, so Barna will win no prizes for careful sociological research, but his surveys do provide helpful, if informal, snapshots of the state of the evangelical heart.):

Interestingly, evangelical Christians were only half as likely (11%) as the rest of the adult population to deem poverty to be the nation’s most vexing social challenge. Asian Americans (11%) were similarly less likely to see the issue in this way.

Only HALF AS LIKELY? Admittedly, most evangelicals would deem “salvation” as the nation’s most vexing social challenge, but still: “half as likely”? What about the (coincidental?) correlation between “evangelical Christians” and “Asian Americans”? Of course, there is no necessary (explicit or implicit) link between the two pieces of data, but the juxtaposition in a recent Barna report raises the question: what is it about “evangelical Christianity” that would produce a similar attitude toward poverty as that among “Asian Americans”? Might it be that our informal comparison between “Japanese Buddhism” and “Bible-belt Christianity” is a bit more substantive than we have been willing to allow? Is this attitude toward poverty among Asian Americans related to that body of worldview ideas/values that hinders (through willful blindness, ignorance, and stubbornness; cf Ephesians 4:17ff) Asian Americans from truly hearing the gospel of God in Jesus Christ? And do “evangelical Christians” share the same worldview structures? That is, are “evangelical Christians” similarly hindered from hearing the gospel of God in Jesus Christ?

In this light, the following paragraph from later in the same Barna report is rather interesting:

In like manner, people groups that are more affluent provided the smallest estimates of poverty. On average, people from households earning more than $60,000 as well as those who have a college degree estimated the poverty rate to be 20% – substantially below the typical estimate offered by adults, but still significantly higher than the actual rate published by the Census Bureau.

Statistically, it appears that our material “well-being” [in itself a loaded use of a loaded-term ...] and consequent lifestyle actually blinds us to the needs of those around us: think about it — we travel well-maintained roads from white-collar business districts to well manicured subdivisions: our daily commute, by design, does not take us through the most needy parts of our community; we shop at the cleanest stores in the most pristinely and carefully developed areas, often unaware of the people displaced by the development. On occasion — only about 20% of the time, to use the above statistic — we stumble uncomfortably across the “poverty” [by which WE mean those "less fortunate" {whatever that slippery term means} than us] around us and so are forced to acknowledge that “yes, it’s there” — and someone should do something about it.

The Barna article concludes:

Barna expressed surprise that devout Christians were not more engaged with the issue. “Given the extensive comments in the Bible regarding the importance of taking care of the poor, we expected to see a larger distinction between the responses of Christians and non-Christians. As churches seek social causes through which to engage people and their faith, facilitating hands-on responses to poverty would probably activate a lot of latent faith and resources.”

So I wonder (and view Piper’s chapter in new light): how far have I drifted from the gospel of God in Jesus Christ that I fail to apprehend the essential, organic — and profoundly moral — link between “a life worthy of the calling” and “my obligations to the poor”? How far have I drifted, similarly, that I fail to apprehend the essential, prime place of “suffering” as God’s good and gracious tool by which he “grows me in grace”? What gospel is it that shapes me if not the gospel of God in Jesus Christ? What spirit and mind possess me if not the Spirit and Mind of Christ who willingly laid aside his own wealth and privilege to serve a wretch like me, even paying my full debt?

My only criticisms over the way cycling handles doping cases have to do with 1) media leaks which circumvent the due process rights of the riders; and 2) casting the net so wide, or weaving the holes so small, that innocent people get caught up in what can easily become a career ending rush to judgement. Suspend or ban riders when there is clear proof of cheating, but provide the same protections that we afford common criminals. That said, here in America we seem to prefer to bury our heads in the sand (e.g., the PGA has no drug testing program whatsoever), or we just accept that doping is okay so long as the doper plays for our team (as appears to be the case in San Fransicso).

Update: On the heels of Vinokourov’s exit are Moreni (for exogenous testosterone usage) and the malloit jaune Rasmussen (for lying about his whereabouts and missing doping control tests)! While I am glad to see dopers and cheats ejected from the sport, I do have concerns about the media leaks, rush to judgement and punishment that entire teams have to endure because of the actions of an individual.

“I mean we go to church, you know. … We have family that, you know, was thinking that, that it was expensive,” Chad said. “I weighed the pros and cons of this and I couldn’t, I couldn’t pass that onto my daughter, knowingly.

“I have about an 80 to 85 percent chance of getting colon cancer. I get screened regularly. … I’m trying to combat it as best I can. I just want, like anybody does, I just wanted a healthy kid and not have to go through the worries that I go through.”

When confronted with the question of whether or not gene-shopping is ethical, many in the biotech industry respond with confindent assurance.

“I think there’s a big difference between choosing, selecting for eye color or height or athletic ability or appearance, and choosing for potentially, and in some cases, a certain lethal disease, like the genes for Huntington’s, for example,” Johnson said. “I think we’re capable, both professionally and societally, of making that distinction.”

“There’s a gray area in the middle where it’s going to be more difficult,” he continued. “But this kind of decision where you’re talking about preventing colon cancer, to me is very clear.”

I wrote a post last year (Biotechnology and the Church) in which I asserted that the church has dropped the ball on many of the bioethical issues that our society faces in the 21st century. We are no longer talking about aborting babies; we are simply talking about making better babies. There are many questions we need to ask ourselves in order to respond to the “ends justify the medical means mentality” of our culture.

The questions … raise[ed] for Christians are numerous. How does … [genetic testing of embryos] … relate to the Biblical vision of the New Heavens and New Earth and of the resurrected and glorified body? How does the biotech revolution relate to the vision of God to “restore all things to their rightful and more glorious place and function in Jesus Christ” and, derivitively, to the Commission of the Church? How does the biological/technological convergence/revolution relate to the call to “make disciples of Jesus Christ” (i.e. people whose lives conform more and more to the restored image of God’s perfections and righteousness in Jesus Christ)?

What do you think about the direction in which the biotech industry is moving, specifically with regard to gene-shopping? Are the issues black and white, or are there increasing shades of grey? How do you see your Biblical convictions shaping the debate on this and other social and cultural matters?

Police officers examine a body on the floor Monday, Feb. 12, 2007, at Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City. #

A police officer stands nearby as a body of a woman lies on the floor Monday, Feb. 12, 2007, at Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City. #

A Salt Lake City Police officer squats with his gun drawn next to a body inside the Trolley Square Mall, Monday night, Feb 12, 2007, in Salt Lake City. #

Granted, photos of dead people regularly appear in news magazines (war torn Iraq and the Indian Ocean Tsunami come immediately to mind). However, I thought that in America there was an unwritten code that said we will pay our citizens a little more respect. I do not think laws are needed, but do you think this crosses the line of common decency? If so, what has caused the change?

Turning a boy into a man is a man’s job. Since the beginning of time, it’s been up to a father to make his son responsible. Kind. Courageous. Honorable.

A young boy doesn’t come with instructions. He just comes with boundless love and an adventurous spirit. But the journey to manhood begins very early . . . the first time he looks at his dad and thinks, “I want to be like him.”

Many times have I noticed how much my son wants to be just like me. Unfortunately, it is not always his father’s “good” behavior that is replicated. If you want to find out how sinful you really are, then just have kids!

Harrison continues his intro by citing the five key foundations for raising a son.

1. Be around.
2. Be his father, not his friend. If you don’t understand the difference, imagine his confusion when you must discipline him.
3. Be a good husband. Show his mom respect at all times.
4. Be home for dinner.
5. Be his hero.

While those functions and behaviors are so necessary for fathers to fulfill, they are also counter to our sinful selves. I am more likely to pour myself into my job, hobbies and other activities than I am to sacrifice my time for my family. I can be hesitant at times to discipline (at all) out of fear of rejection or being too harsh. My wife is the one person that I criticize the most. Realizing this is all very overwhelming, but comfort comes in knowing that our heavenly Father, by his grace and working of his Spirit, is continuing to mold and shape me into the family man that I need to be, after the mind and model of Jesus Christ.

Note: Sorry for posting this so late. I ran into some technical issues with the blog.