3/21/2005 11:24:00 AM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|I love history and I love studying the stories of great leaders in the early days of our country’s history. Among the many interesting characters that impacted a fledgling union of States, none is more intriguing than Jonathan Edwards who lived during the 1700’s and was a fiery fundamentalist preacher who was part of the Great Awakening on the North American continent.
Historians have recorded the scene at church services where he preached his classic sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” The chilling descriptions match a rather dully-delivered sermon, which was mostly read by a mono-toned bespectacled Edwards to gut-wrenching responses by those who heard the powerful words that sometimes resulted in people crying out publicly for salvation, clutching at the pillars of the church for support and even fainting in the intensity of Holy Spirit conviction.
I have known for years that another great early American, Ben Franklin, had penned a list of character traits that he hoped to master and reviewed them regularly as a way of building his character and self-discipline. It was only recently that I stumbled onto a similar list made by Jonathan Edwards. He called them his “resolutions” and a review of some of them shed a great deal of light into the heart and character of a man God used to shake a continent with the Gospel and Truth.
Each resolution was written like a legal declaration beginning with the word, “Resolved.” Let me share a few of the seventy-some I’ve been able to unearth.
Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God’s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriad’s of ages hence.
Resolved, never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God; nor be, nor suffer it, if I can avoid it.
Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can.
Resolved, to live with all my might, while I do live.
Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life.
Resolved, if I take delight in it as a gratification of pride, or vanity, or on any such account, immediately to throw it by.
Resolved, to be endeavoring to find out fit objects of charity and liberality.
Resolved, never to do anything out of revenge.
Resolved, never to suffer the least motions of anger to irrational beings.
Resolved, never to speak evil of anyone, so that it shall tend to his dishonor, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.
Resolved, that I will so as I shall wish I had done when I come to die.
Resolved to study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive myself to grow in the knowledge of the same.
Resolved, to ask myself at the end of every day, week, month and year, wherein I could possibly in any respect have done better.
Resolved, to maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.
I have scores more that I could share with you, but I’ll stop for now. My question for myself and those reading this blog is "Do we have any guiding principles whereby we strive to live?"a A great philosopher once said that the unexamined life isn’t worth living. Truly, the Christian has a responsibility to examine his life regularly in light of eternity. How sad that so many of us live life with such a haphazard lack of forethought and goals that we will miss many of the accomplishments and successes that God has designed for us. Worse than that, we might miss the opportunity to leave a mark in our world and on lives that will point others to Christ.|W|P|111142230676233089|W|P|Jonathan Edward's Resolutions|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com3/11/2005 02:37:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|Frankly, I get sick of people who like to make a buck off of Christians and Christianity. Sometimes it begins with a noble message or motivation as in the What Would Jesus Do (WWJD?) movement that swept pop culture a few years ago. Other times it is just exploitive from the get go.
Last week, I saw something that literally made me roll my eyes. It was the Jesus "Bobblehead" figurine. Most of you know that bobbleheads are today's collectible equivalent (for some) of Beanie Babies that were so popular a few years ago. Athletes, politicians, pop starts and other so called icons have been turned into these little shelf warmers. But some scam artist now took it to a new level with the Jesus Bobblehead. What next? Bobblehead nativity scenes? (If they show up on shelves next year, I'm sueing someone for stealing the idea, btw.)
Another example would be PETA. I’ve always believed that PETA – the group called “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” is a fringe group of extremists that has a pattern of childish, if not criminal behavior, which is used to attract attention to their agenda in lieu of using rational thought and rhetorical persuasion. These are the folks who throw red paint on the fur coats of people, who break into animal shelters and release feral cats back into the wild, who bomb research centers and who have been known in recent days for outrageous advertising. PETA members are generally the most extreme of animal rights activities and have indicated a willingness to do or say anything, no matter how outrageous to get attention. They believe that man is no better than animals and that we exploit them. They are against using animal products of any sort for clothing or food. Most of them are strict vegetarians even refusing to drink milk or use butter.
A few years ago, they caused a stir by featuring then-New York Mayor Guiliani in an advertisement that parodied the famous “Got Milk” ads produced by the dairy industry. They used Mayor Guiliani’s face with a milk mustache and the words, “Got Cancer?” suggesting a link between drinking milk and prostate cancer which has very little scientific credibility. After they had caused sufficient uproar, they pulled the ads, but got LOADS of free publicity from the act.
Then they took an additional step. Using an image of Christ often connected with the Shroud of Turin, they suggested that Christ “made an impression” by being a vegetarian. Of course, they are getting the residual free-press for their controversy.
But that brings me to the offensiveness of wrapping one’s self (or product) in some form of “image” of Christ for the purpose of gain or self-promotion. From Al Gore’s constant reminder from the campaign stump about being “born again” (show me thy works and I’ll know thy faith, Mr. Gore), to Broadway plays from “Jesus Christ Superstar” and other blasphemous productions, to some of the “Jesus-Wear” fashions so in vogue these days, I have to wonder if we’re not cheapening, if not down-right blaspheming the reputation of Christ.
In our consumer-driven society, nothing has remained sacred and sometimes we Christians don’t act much better than the world in how we show reverence to the reputation of Christ. Jesus wasn’t a Republican, nor was He a Democrat. Notice to PETA --- He wasn’t a vegetarian either – there’s a lot of Scripture that shows otherwise. But even if He was, that WASN’T His message – so back off. I don’t think He was interested in marketing campaigns and public relations. He and His father were very specific that we weren’t to attempt to make any graven images of Him and I think that includes paintings, photography and statuary.
PETA is a petty little group of malcontents who need to grow up and get a life. Theirs is a message of pantheism that worships the creation rather than the Creator which we are specifically warned to avoid in Romans chapter one. But most of all, it is just offensive for them and for anyone else to use Jesus as some sort of endorser of political positions or products. His name is above all other names and to use it in such a way demeans it.
All of us could use a reminder to treat His image with more respect, to avoid the temptation to reduce His reputation by making Him “one of us.” Yes, God is Awesome, but I just wonder if it wants us to use T-Shirts and Bumper Stickers to announce that.
Somehow, I have to think that reading His Word and testifying to His grace from person to person is exactly how He wants us to learn of Him and His ways and how to share it with others.
Jesus never required a press agent or an advertising executive. He let His walk, works and words communicate His message and when someone saw or heard Him, He ALWAYS made an impression.|W|P|111057032948566797|W|P|"Marketing Jesus"|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com3/12/2005 04:10:00 PM|W|P| |W|P|Dan,
I always was under the impression PETA stood for People Eating Tasty Anamils??? :)
Gene Z3/17/2005 10:28:00 AM|W|P| |W|P|Nor did Jesus come to promote tax cuts, a balanced budget, or a war in Iraq. But Republican politicians, with the help of pastors, wrap those decisions in "God" every day.3/09/2005 10:01:00 AM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|I've had several rather interesting "debates" with my brother-in-law, a Missouri State Trooper, about Seat-Belt Laws. I'm against them. I always wear my seatbelt, but I resent the fact that if I don't, some mommy-cop might give me a ticket. I feel the same way about helmet laws for motorcyles and bicycles. I believe I have the right to be stupid if I want to be. Is it any less stupid to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or eat at McDonalds regularly than it is to forego the seatbelt or bike helmet? At what point did the government become my parent?
My brother-in-law (who is for the laws) reminds me that if I had to scrape the remains off a highway of some hapless fool who hadn't been wearing a seatbelt, I'd feel differently and he might be right (though I doubt it.) He mentions that injuries caused by unbelted accidents raise the cost of healthcare, etc..., but I refer back to argument A then and ask where we are going to draw that line.
A few years ago, I experienced a new intrusion by the "nanny-state" mentality creeping into our culture. I took my son, who at the time was around 12, to receive a physical for athletics at a new pediatrician. It was to be a routine appointment and there were no major issues that needed to be discussed. Because we were new patients of this particular pediatric group, we had to fill out the customary “first-time-patient” forms and paperwork.
After a while, the doctor came in and started asking the standard questions of “Why are you here?” and “Is there anything I need to know?” But then, the doctor started a line of questioning, that as it progressed, became more intrusive. Among the questions I was asked was, “Do you have smoke detectors?” “How often do you check the batteries?” “Do you own a gun?” “Where do you keep it?” “Do you require your children to wear seatbelts?” “Do you require them to wear seatbelts every time they get in the car?” “Do you require your kids to wear helmets when bicycling?”
I later fumed with myself for having divulged information that was, quite frankly, none of the doctor’s business. I did not go to him for safety counseling. He is not my pastor or priest. To whom would he or could he share this information? As I shared my experience with one of my friends, he told me that they too had been grilled by this same pediatric group, but they took it a step further with his son. After asking all the questions I mentioned before, the doctor turned to his son and asked “Does your dad ever spank you?”
I kicked myself for having answered even one of the personal questions I was asked. But for the record, Yes, I have smoke detectors. I check the batteries regularly. Yes, I own guns. Yes, I keep them out of reach of my children. Yes, we wear seatbelts --- every time. And no, keeping bicycle helmets on my four kids just doesn’t happen. And I’m sure some might be horrified to realize that my kids also jump on a trampoline, climb trees, eat red meat and don’t always finish their vegetables. Do I need a lecture on that also?
I had intended to change doctors, but didn't get around to it and low and behold it was physical time once again. So I again escorted my now pubescent son to the doctor where I was met by a nurse who told me that the doctor would like for me to wait in the waiting room during the examination. I smirked at the nurse and told her THAT wouldn't be happening. She pressed the point and I pressed back. I won.
The doctor came in and took out his clipboard once again and started his general health related questions. I steeled myself because I knew what was coming next and he didn't let me down. He started asking ever more intrusive questions about my son's personal life, his relationship with his friends and then asked how he got along with me. I stepped in then. "He's not going to answer that question," I stated. "Why not?" the doctor shot back. "Because it's none of your business."
Then I launched on him. I said, "You also aren't going to ask me about anything else that isn't medical. You aren't going to ask me about whether or not I own guns and where I keep them." He denied that he was going to ask me about guns and I reminded him that he had asked me about it at our last visit and that I had been ticked off about it ever since. He denied strongly that he had asked me "gun questions". I assured him he had and my son piped up and confirmed that he had indeed done so.
He was obviously miffed and I'm sure he pegged me as some sort of fundamentalist, home-schooling, right-wing, Republican nutjob, but frankly, Scarlett, I couldn't care less. I wish the altercation had ended there, but it didn't.
He announced that he wanted to give my 13-year old son a shot to prevent a form of Hepatitus cause by sexual contact. I told him that we wouldn't be needing the shot because he wasn't having sex and wouldn't be having sex until marriage. Of course, he wanted to argue this as well. He rolled his eyes at me and snorted under his breath and said, "You can't control that." I looked him dead in the eyes and said, "I'm going to give it a pretty good shot." He pressed the point further reminding me that I couldn't be with him all the time. I wanted to pretty well come unpasted on him by this time, but ended up with simply saying, "I'll be clear. He's not getting the shot." I went on to inform him that the interrogation was now over and that he could proceed with the physical which he did only after writing some more notes on his "intimidating" little clipboard. (It's going to take more than a clipboard to intimidate me. I'm a former school principal and I've wielded the awesome "Permanent Record" file quite efficiently myself and know that it's more bark than bite.)
Since that date, I take my son to my own personal doctor who is a believer and understands exactly my concerns. (If you live in Charlotte, NC, his name is Dr. Scott Moss and he's an OUTSTANDING physician.) I have, to this point, continued to go with him to the doctor, but now that he's 16, I'm cutting him loose. ;-)
So where does the whole loss of privacy and the interest of the government and other "over-seers" end? Am I a bad parent if I don't read to my kids at night? If I don't cover all the plug-ins? If I don't have a radon detector? If I drive over the speed-limit? If I let them have carbonated drinks? If I force them to go to church? If I don't check to see if they flossed? If I require them to attend a Christian school?
Once we decide that others have a right to control our decisions as a parent or to intrude on the privacy of our home, where does the line begin and end? Who gets to draw the line? How will it be enforced?
Here's the bottom line -- parents need to protect and fight for their rights to worship God, earn their living and raise their kids according to the dictates of their conscience. Yes...some people probably shouldn't breed -- but that's not the business of a government or a physician or a bureaucrat.
What will we do when some over-educated zealot tells us that spanking should be a criminal offense? What if they say that requiring a child to attend church with you after the age of 12 is emotional abuse? What if the government decided that you must have a license to procreate? (Don't laugh -- several academics have called for this already.) Where will it end?
Bit by bit, we are seeing further intrusiveness on the part of the government into our private lives, our associations, our family and our decisions. If we don't push back, we will run the risk of losing control of the big decisions.
I'm not trying to start a revolution. I am suggesting that we parents need to be vigilant about glibly handing over our responsibilities and rights to someone else because they have a few degrees behind their name or are wearing a white coat or say "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Smile politely, speak firmly and say, "Thanks....but NO thanks."
Be a good parent. Be a safe parent. But be a proactive parent -- you are still the boss for now.|W|P|111038272983508831|W|P|How Much Control Are We Willing to Lose?|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com3/09/2005 09:26:00 PM|W|P| |W|P|Dan,
Just wanted to let you know that your right on with this artical. I think I will join your grass roots movement to allow us to be stupid if we want too!
Although I don't post many comments regarding your blogs I enjoy reading them.3/07/2005 03:49:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|Last night in church, one of our finest young men lead the worship time in our church. He's a college student at a local college and I don't think he's quite 20 years old. He did a wonderful job leading us in several choruses using his accoustic guitar and a back up "band" of several of our orchestra members.
In all honesty, I know that some of the folks in our church were trying to smile in spite of the fact that they just don't "like" some of the newer praise and worship songs and the instruments that accompany them. In fact, even in this young man's family, there is a variety of musical preferences present and you won't find a finer family this side of heaven.
It just served to remind me once again of what I hope to see accomplished in our church. As I watched the passion of this young man as he sang and lead us in songs that were sung to the Lord and not simply about Him, as I heard the emotion in his voice and felt the intensity of his music, I was challenged and moved. Here was a sharp, young man who wasn't ashamed of his faith or his savior singing songs that lifted up Christ. The selections were slightly outside of my own personal comfort zone, but that was irrelevant. To be part of this man's worship ministered to me in ways that were fresh and powerful.
I am incredibly burdened to be part of a bridge that links the generation that preceded me to the generation that follows me through our local churches. I grew up in a militantly fundamentalist home --- I’m happy to have done so. Based on what Scripture teaches, we eschewed pornography and alcohol, we faithfully attended church, we attended church everytime the doors were open, we prayed over our meals, and we tried to live with integrity and decency. Sometimes, we extrapolated practices out of principles that were less-than-inarguably-supportable by scripture, but which were sincerely held and ardently defended. Those included not participating in activities such as movie-going, dancing, tobacco usage in any form, mixed swimming and pants-wearing for our women folk. I had friends who were raised with even more conservative standards than ours wherein they didn’t play ball on Sundays, own TV’s, didn’t support restaurants or grocery stores that sold alcohol and their women folk didn’t even wear make-up. These folks consider our folks “liberals” and sometimes looked down their rather pious noses at us.
Those were simpler days and in all honesty, I miss some aspects of them. Today, we understand more things about grace and legalism and Biblical separation than we did in those somewhat less sophisticated days. I still don’t do some of the things I listed above, but its for different and hopefully, more Biblical, reasons than I held then. I’ve also learned that I alone am accountable to God for the decisions I personally make and I don’t have to worry quite so much about where others come down on those particular issues and I can still love them and have fellowship with them.
However, I do worry that sometimes we get so “set in our own ways” that we don’t give others the liberty that is rightfully theirs in Christian grace and in doing so we turn our churches into museums and morgues rather than the vibrant life-changing centers they should be.
Too often, I’ve watched church-going folk turn on each other over various preferences and practices in a way that is in all honesty, unbiblical. I’ve seen churches split, heard believers fuss and have observed friendships end over issues that quite frankly, aren’t even mentioned in Scripture. And I’ve noticed some churches can’t or won’t change or grow as our culture does and as a result, the next generation of worshippers leaves the congregation for another place of worship --- one that hopefully understands how they think. Now don’t misunderstand me, I believe doctrine and clearly stated Biblical principles should never be compromised. But I wonder if we aren’t missing the joy of worshipping together from generation to generation in the same church because too many of us have become so set in our ways that we have tried to codify our personal preferences and biases like they are doctrine.
Some like choruses, others like hymns. Some like the Old King James, others like the New King James. Some like Sunday morning worship, others like Saturday night worship. Some like live accompaniment, others like taped accompaniment. Some like long sermons, others like shorter ones. Some like organ music, some like band music. Some like robes, others like khakis. But when all is said and done, aren’t we too often focusing on our differences and our preferences rather than our eternals?
Quite honestly, I’m rather old-fashioned for someone who is only 43 years old. But I want to have a church where my kids and grandkids can come and feel like they’ve worshipped too. If that means they won’t wear a tie, then I say --- “come on in without your tie, but please sit by me.” Quite honestly, I really enjoy some of the newer choruses preferred by our current generation. But if we need to sing “In the Garden” every few weeks so that the older folks are blessed, I’m happy to sing it with them.
Let’s not get so set in our ways that we end up isolating ourselves from each other. It’s not really about compromising Bible --- it may just be about showing some Bible compassion.|W|P|111022915647240566|W|P|Set In Our Ways|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com3/08/2005 10:53:00 AM|W|P| Cindy Swanson|W|P|Dan, this post is a great example of wise balance. I appreciate and agree with your approach!3/08/2005 11:56:00 AM|W|P| |W|P|I attended a church that switched solely to modern worship. Folks who invested heavily in the church, left feeling jilted. They only wanted a little balance. Any style is bad if offered lazily. I’ve offered Jesus my “sick and diseased animals” by not focusing on Him during worship and I’m trying to not do it again. Don H3/01/2005 01:48:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|I'm a lifetime teetotaler. I've never had a sip of anything stronger than Vernor's Ginger Ale. It has always mystified me as to why some folks don’t feel like they’ve had a good time the night before unless they can’t remember it the next morning. As a committed non-drinker, I never have thoughts that maybe I’ve “missed something” by committing many years ago that alcohol would never be a part of my life. I find tremendous joy in a life of no regrets, reduced risk and a healthy liver that has not required chemical enhancement to achieve pleasure.
I’m also mystified, and at times irritated, by the politically-correct war which has been waged on the tobacco industry in recent years while nary a word has been directed toward the devastating consequences of the alcohol trade. It is illogical to me to rant and rave about the questionable health risks of second-hand smoke while totally ignoring the number of innocent and not-so-innocent lives that are lost to driving while intoxicated. How many people are unable to care for their children, hold a job or conduct the routine business of life due to tobacco addiction? Now ask that same question due to alcohol addiction?
Don’t get me wrong, I have little time or respect for the tobacco trade. It is addictive, repulsive, wasteful and deadly. I don’t understand the motivation that inspires people to suck on a dried plant that they know has a high likelihood of killing them. I can’t understand it when I watch people who probably haven’t put a single penny aside for retirement, don’t give to charitable causes or can’t even take a decent vacation each year plunk down $5-$10 bucks a day for those little cylinders of death.
But the alcohol industry is responsible for far more horrific acts of crime, accident, negligence and violence than tobacco. The vicious cost of drunk driving has broken more lives, hearts and homes than we can count. Yet, in a stunning case of irony, who now is accepting the advertising bucks of major hard liquor distillers but NASCAR. We will see stock cars whizzing around tracks emblazoned with ads that promote Jack Daniels and Jim Beam driven by men who understand the consequences of even a minor destruction can have on their ability to safely navigate their road course. How many stupid fans will get plastered on the sponsor's product only to end up in a mass of crumpled metal? How many innocent people will be slaughtered because of those who will drink then drive?
Previously, hard liquor adds were rarely seen on television and certainly not on networs that had a modicum of promoted integrity and standards of propiety. That is until now, when no less an institution than CNN – has decided that they’ll enrich their corporate profits by promoting the stuff through paid advertising and become the first network to break the long-respected taboo against accepting hard liquor advertising. NBC hatched a similarly ill-conceived plan a few years ago but backed off after public pressure.
Now, already stressed parents, will have to work to counter the most seductive and attractive presentations of Jack Daniels, Kentucky Bourbon and Seagram’s products that Madison Avenue can produce.
So the media moguls, the godfathers of America's fastest growing sport and the barons of booze are going to make the job of every parent even MORE difficult in a culture saturated with dangerous messages and unsound values. They don’t care that people will be encouraged to drink more, that kids will have their perspective of alcohol glamorized and that more families will be disrupted by the presence of an alcoholic parent. They don’t care that more funerals will be conducted, that people will lose loved ones to drunk drivers, that homes will go into foreclosure and that health care will be impacted as they push their evil brew. No, as long as they can rake in a few more bucks, increase the profit margin and keep Wall Street happy --- that’s what really matters in their world. How sadly pathetic.
Congress needs to act quickly and decisively to put into place the same restrictions on alcohol advertising that puts limits on where and when the tobacco industry can advertise as well. I’m old enough to remember the slick TV ads given in such a way that every time I see a pack of Virginia Slims, I think of someone getting their long cigarette caught in an elevator door. Marlboro’s became synonymous with rugged cowboys and Lucky Strikes announced that their smokers would rather “fight than switch.” Who says that advertising doesn’t create lasting impressions….it’s been over thirty years and I still recall them in color.
CNN and NASCAR have become poster companies for corporate greed and social irresponsibility. Congress needs to act NOW.
Cut and Paste into your web browswer for the NY Times story on CNN's decision to advertise liquor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/business/media/01adco.html?ex=1110258000&en=d019344d5b4b12b1&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY|W|P|110970392000724662|W|P|Bottom's Up as CNN and NASCAR Bottom Out|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com
|W|P|Dan,
Cindy Swanson|W|P|Dan, this post is a great example of wise balance. I appreciate and agree with your approach!