8/28/2005 09:51:00 AM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|Fred Phelps and his low-life church of family members and social misfits is at it again with their hate-filled demonstrations against homosexuals at funerals. He's not even worth a rant from me. Just suffice it to say that this guy shows as much evidence of being a genuine follower of Jesus Christ as Larry Flynt.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/
|W|P|112523716351609231|W|P|Not Even Worth A Rant|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com8/26/2005 11:38:00 AM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|Last summer, I stayed uncharacteristically silent during the Terri Schiavo sideshow in Florida and to this point, I've stayed quiet about Cindy Sheehan, but I'm choosing today to break my silence.
So what do Terri Schiavo and Cindy Sheehan have in common? They were/are media created icons of agenda-driven activists -- and poor ones at that. Please allow me to explain.
I'm pro-life to the bone and that means anti-abortion AND anti-euthenasia. But to only but the most ardent prolifers, the Terri Schiavo case was a disasterous test battle for the anti-euthenasia argument. First, there's the significant family schism that was at the heart of all of this. Certainly, Michael Schiavo came across as a cold, unsympathetic -- at times, monstrous -- husband who could have ended this whole thing by simply signing off on a divorce or putting Terri under her parent's care. Instead, he took up with another woman and started having kids by her, he appeared to have some sort of financial motivation due to a malpractice suit settlement, he was cranky and surly after years of feuding with his in-laws and he came across, quite frankly as a boar. Terri's parents came across as shrill, hysterical, demanding and more-than-a-little out of touch with reality. Is it possible that Michael really did know that his vegetative wife would not have wanted to exist as she was? Perhaps. Were her grieving parents genuinely heartbroken at the state of their daughter and willing to pay whatever cost to keep even a shadow of her former beauty in their lives -- without a doubt.
Then enters the attorneys and the activists and the politicians and a bad situation just got worse.
First, the attorneys. Let me state, for the record, I know David Gibbs III who represented the Schiavos and I consider him a friend. I haven't spoken to him since Terri died and I don't know his side of the story. But attorneys do what attorneys do and as distateful as it sometimes is as a spectator sport, the rule of law is to give recourse and direction to a civilization and once the conflict became both personal and involved life and death issues, litigation was inevitable. But to reduce a once vibrant, beautiful young lady to being a pawn in a culture war, seemed to me -- well, sad (and a lot more.)
Next come the activists -- folks on both sides. There were the "Operation Rescue" extremists, the religious Catholics equipped with rosaries and placards, the curious, the sympathetic and the genuinely sincere. Less visible, but consistently vocal were those who empathized less with Michael than Terri, but assumed that no person in their right mind would want to "exist" (because anyone who is intellectually honest wouldn't call what she was doing "living") as Terri was. (I would count myself in the "if-that-was-me-pull-the-plug" crowd.) To some extent, some of them were probably put off by the shrillness of those keeping vigil outside of the hospice and thus just naturally took the other side. Either way, it turned into a really pathetic public circus that was about as disrespectful as one could imagine and then they started sending in little kids with loaves of bread and cups of water to get arrested. (Picture me rolling my eyes here.)
Finally, we have the politicians. I think some were honestly driven by principle. I think Governor Bush did the right thing by both seeking to protect life in general and by testing the issue in court. I also think he did the right thing when he finally said, the courts of spoken and ended his participation in it. People have verbally eviscerated the judges who ruled against the politicians, but the law is the law and for once, these judges and justices refused to legislate from the bench which is a good thing. (I KNOW some people would like to argue this point with me and feel free -- that's what comment sections are for.) But once people started trying to make political hay out of this, the public turned on them like month-old cottage cheese.
In the end, euthenasia is a dangerous and unbiblical option which needs to be thoroughly argued and debated and dealt with apart from some individualized and sensationalized case. While our proclivity is to punch emotional buttons by attaching a "human face" to the issue -- this is a principle issue and should be approached as such. I contend that Terri Schiavo was a horrible "face" to attach to this debate and in the end, I think it backfired on prolifers (with whom I would generally and otherwise usually be in agreement.)
Now, let's move to Cindy Sheehan. It seems almost obligatory to express one's sympathies for her loss of a son and the corresponding grief (which at times in many people can reach the level of irrational) that comes with such a horrific tragedy. Consider my sympathies extended and consider it genuine.
I also want to note for the record, if I'd known then what I know now, I'd have been ardently opposed to the war in Iraq and today am against it. I think we should bring our troops home as soon as we can. I also believe that when you make a mess, you should clean up your mess and with that in mind, we need to stay there until the Iraqi government, people or both ask that we leave or when it becomes obvious that there is nothing more that we can do have to a positive outcome in the country.
But let's be honest, Cindy Sheehan is a horrible icon for the anti-Iraq war movement. Once again, let's look at the players.
Cindy comes across as extremely unstable -- if not disturbed. Her rhetoric is all over the place. Everytime she goes to lay flowers at the cross that supposedly represents her son with all the cameras whirring around her, I get disgusted. When I was a kid, I told my mom if she ever saw me get hurt on the basketball court, that even if I was laying in an expanding pool of blood, she was to stay in the stands and say, "Oh, he'll be all right! It's just a little scratch." I can't imagine that the proud soldier who was her son would have wanted her to use his fallen body as a platform on which to launch this spectacle. It's just pathetic. And to label George Bush as the biggest "terrorist" in the world...well, draw your own conclusion.
Oh and now we've got every kook, nut and flake in the country making pilgramages to Crawford, TX. From Michael Moore to smelly beatniks left over from the 60's they are setting up camp, giving interviews, singing "We Shall Overcome" and trading brownie recipes. Can we say "exploitation?"
The media, who has every right to cover whatever they want for as long as they want however they want, has determined that she's 2005's August Celebrity as they search for stories to somehow fill their timeslots while the city of Washington looks like a ghosttown save for the tourists. In some way, I'm kind of thankful for the distraction, otherwise, we'd be getting more stories from Aruba -- but that's another rant.
Bless Cindy's heart, she's a mess. Grief makes people do strange things. Someone needs to give her a valium and help her get through the remaining stages of her loss. Should the war be debated...oh, yes! Should someone be held accountable for the lies that sent our troops into the hell-hole of Iraq? I think so. Does Cindy Sheehan really have a clue about what is at state if we pull out immediately, the nuances of the instability in the Middle East and the consequences to our reputation if we leave before the job is done? I'm pretty confident that the thoughts haven't flitted through her bemuddled mind. She may be a nice person and obviously she loved her son, but trying to turn her into the Iraqi war's Rosa Parks -- well, it's just senseless.
There's no question that using individuals to stir people emotionally produces results...sometimes tsunamis of actions. But is that the way to establish public policy? I think not.
Terri Schiavo was quickly forgotten when the Pope died. I suspect that it will only take another bomb in a London Subway or some story breaking that Supreme Court Nominee Roberts once said "Amen" in church and Cindy will also be forgotten in the dust-cloud left by the spinning tires of satellite trucks rushing to meet deadline. And that won't be a bad thing. As long as we don't forget to finally sit down and ask (and answer) the tough questions that still need to be resolved.|W|P|112507484692182768|W|P|Terri Schiavo and Cindy Sheehan -- More in Common Than You'd Think|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com8/26/2005 01:21:00 PM|W|P| Robert|W|P|I'm really interested that you say you now oppose the war in Iraq. What information now available makes you think in hindsight that it was a mistake to invade the country? What alternative course of action do you think we should have taken instead?8/27/2005 02:43:00 PM|W|P| Dan Burrell|W|P|Namely, the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Minus the WMD, what Iraq was was just another Iraq, North Korea, China, Cuba or Syria. The validation point for many (in terms of the justification for the war) was the WMD's. (And I'm not buying that Hussein himself was a WMD -- that could be applied to upwards of 30 tinhorn dictators around the globe.) Whether it was the CIA, the administration or whoever -- somebody blew it. Is the world better off without Hussein? Without a doubt. Was he of sufficient danger to the USA to warrant a 200+ billion dollar war with 2,000 dead soldiers...well, I'm going to say "no" based on what we now know.
As for alternatives, I don't know. Which is probably why I'm simply a commentator and not a politician or general.
But hey, that's just my opinion. ;-)8/27/2005 06:26:00 PM|W|P| Robert|W|P|Well I don't disagree with you often, but...
We do know Saddam had WMDs at one point, because he used them on his own people (and the Iranians). I still suspect a lot stuff went over the border to Syria during the long delay before the war started. But that was hardly the only reason for the war.
If you read the Congressional Authorization (that even Kerry voted for), WMD are only one item on a long list. The terrorist ties that have come to light following the invasion are a compelling case for war. The Able Danger info is even giving new credibility to the meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague.
I think there's a much better argument to be made against the way the war is being executed--not enough force--than against the war itself. And that opinion and 50 cents will buy you a paper (but not on Sunday).8/31/2005 03:18:00 PM|W|P| |W|P|Dan,
I am glad that Terri and her life came into the spot light. It shows Christians what perilous times we are in. Food and water are not extraordinary means in order to sustain life. Just because the brain is not as functional as it one was does not give the right to anyone to take these important elements away from a human being. Apparently, her brain worked well enough to sustain breathing.
You mentioned that you would be in the group that would not want to live that way. To do so would mean that if you only needed food and water to survive on your own,you would want that taken away from you in those circumstances, you would be taking a life, your own. You would be a murderer. Would it be right to take away food from a newborn? They have to have someone feed them.
Human life is precious in all stages. Taking care of someone with unfortunate circumstances such as Terri's allows one to become more Christ-like. It is our Christian duty to protect people like her.9/02/2005 08:38:00 PM|W|P| Dan Burrell|W|P|Bob, you can disagree with my anytime you'd like. That's what makes blogging fun -- the give and take of opinions. I would still contend, however, that Bush SOLD the American people on the war by heavily asserting that there were WMD present and being prepared for use by the Iraqi's. I don't think Bush knew he was getting bad intelligence, but nonetheless, it WAS bad. I'm not buying that they managed to smuggle it all across the border to Syria with all the paperwork, equipment, etc... without leaving any credible debris or evidence behind.
I want to clarify for all, I'm NOT for an immediate withdrawal leaving the Iraqis in a lurch. I'm simply saying, knowing what I know now, I would have opposed us going to war.
But then, that's what makes Monday Morning Quarterbacks so irritating.8/23/2005 04:06:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|Years ago, Saturday Night Live had a recurring (as in a recurring nightmare) skit featuring an obnoxious, pudgy busy-body who was constantly getting on everyone's nerves. The curiosity point with the skit was that Pat was androgynous (of indeterminate gender) and many of the vignettes centered around whether or not Pat was male or female. Upon this, all viewers could agree -- Pat was obnoxious.
Fast forward a quarter a century and we are regularly inflicted with a different "Pat." One, while assuredly gender specific, seems to vacillate between being a "preacher" and a "political commentator." The "Pat" in question, is Pat Robertson of the 700 Club, the Family Channel, the Christian Coalition and a disastrous run for the White House fame. Is he a minister of the gospel or is he the latest incarnation of Pierre Salinger or Barry Goldwater?
Upon awakening this morning, the very first news headline on the "Today" show featured a quotation from Pat Robertson's 700 Club Show which had him calling for the United States to "take out" leftist Venezuelan President Javier Chavez. The shock and horror on the faces of the morning news hounds couldn't have been more animated, but still it failed to completely obscure their delight that this fixture of the religious right was once again offering us his cheesy grin around a firmly ensconced wing-tip.
Let me say here that I think Chavez is one scary dude. Last spring when I was in Cuba, I well recall seeing busload after busload of Venezuelan "students" being transported across Cuba as part of an "educational" exchange between Castro and Chavez. Desperate for friends of any sort in his own hemisphere, Castro has courted Chavez like a love-sick teenager and Chavez has enjoyed the flirtation. The power Venezuela has over our economy is disproportionate due to the amount of oil we import from their country. Part of the recent rise in fuel prices over the last few years is directly related to the instability that Chavez has brought to that region and its petroleum resources.
But that aside, how long must we suffer from these periodic eruptions of verbal idiocy from "Pat." The only platform that remains for him is his antiquated talk-show-cum-televangelist-bully-pulpit and the mainstream media's fascination with his proclivity for being both intemperately vocal and outrageously ignorant. In the past, he's blamed the feminist movement for a rise in lesbianism and suggest a nuclear attack would be appropriate for our defense department. His affiliations with bloodied-handed African dictators is yet another one of his less-endearing qualities and he truly has little credibility remaining except for the shadow of his once formidable television and political empires.
Now seventy-five years old, Pat reminds me of the crazy great uncle or the bigoted grandfather that most of us have somewhere in our family tree whom we would prefer to keep locked in our attic, but who keeps picking the lock and running through the neighborhood naked and cursing illegal immigration. We love them because we are supposed to, but seriously, it's time for them to shut up and watch some Lawrence Welk reruns.
Of course, within nano seconds, the "Rev." Barry Lynn (and Barry, what was the name of the church you used to be the pastor of, again?) of the Americans for Separation of Church and State nearly wets himself with outrage and horror that such a "prominent" member of the religious right would say something so disgusting. (Speaking of crazy uncles....). I'm sure it will be in the headlines at least through an entire dog-days-of-August news cycle or two.
So, I offer just a few thoughts...
First, is there a rule somewhere that says, in order to be a card-carrying leader in the conservative religious community that you must say something outrageous, obnoxious or ridiculous every so many days? Seriously, Falwell "outs" the purple Teletubby, some Focus on the Family guy thinks that Sponge-Bob is gay, yada, yada, yada, yada.... I can remember back in the 70's when somebody declared that Henry Kissinger was the Anti-Christ.
I realize that the press likes to jump on these ejaculatory declarations of verbal stupidity like a duck on a Junebug, but let's admit, many folks who want to "represent" the conservative religious community would serve us better if they talked less and thought more. I nominate Super Pat for the first person to give that concept a little thought. I also fully realized that, properly edited, anyone can come across as ignorant or extreme or both. But Pat has turned the stupid-sound-byte into an art form.
Secondly, I think this brings up an issue worthy of discussion. Just how appropriate is it for a "religious" leader to comment on all things even when it is well outside of his expertise. I mean, what are Robertson qualifications to be commenting on foreign policy and the leadership in South American countries? Just because one reads the book of Revelations, does not make him or her an expert on global conflict.
I probably talk and write more than I should on a variety of topics and perhaps will sound like a bit of a hypocrite pointing my finger at Pat, but at the same time, I think as I age that I'm gradually reaching the conclusion that I don't have to have an opinion on everything and even if I do, I don't need to share it. If we were willing to admit it, we'd acknowledge that perhaps a lot of our verbal excess is the by-product of ego, pride and arrogance. Who was it that said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."?
I believe pastors and religious leaders have a responsibility to comment on issue pertaining to Biblical Worldview topics -- philosophy, ethics, morality and so forth. I certainly feel that is part of my role as the pastor of a larger-sized ministry. But do we really need to comment on everything in the news? I think not.
There are few things more pathetic to me than to have a politician come to my church and try to do the "Christian" talk. I've seen thoroughly secular political candidates make total fools of themselves trying to convince my church members that they were "one of us" by using buzzwords and Christianeeze. They ended up coming across as disingenuous, hilarious or offensive every time. I like my government leadership to share my faith, but it's not a prerequisite for my vote. Tell me how you think, where you stand and how you'll vote and don't try to placate or seduce me by using a language or terminology that is foreign to you. It's just embarrassing.
Maybe some of us religious "leaders" need to do the same thing. Our "kingdom" is not of this world. We do not labor for power or control. We should not aspire to temporal abundance nor public acclaim. Instead, we are the clarion voices that should be dedicated to preaching the Truth, keeping the lines of sound doctrine clear, warning against the violation of Universal Laws and speaking up for the sake of that which is eternal -- the Word of God and the souls of men and women.
I realize I'm ranting. I've never been a big fan of Pat Robertson. We have HUGE theological differences. I don't identify with his philosophy and I disagree with this latest pronouncement. Am I still a religious conservative? To my very core. I just don't need folks like Pat Robertson making me ashamed to be a religious conservative. It's time someone politely unplugged his mike.|W|P|112483116591203962|W|P|It's Pat! (Again)|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com9/05/2005 10:43:00 PM|W|P| |W|P|You make a good point about the religious right fighting sin in the form of contemporary icons. While both the Teletubbies and Sponge Bob get on my nerves, I seriously doubt that they can be seriously charged with corrupting the morals of young Americans. The right-wing has long adopted a Don Quixote stance – we fight windmills while the enemy subtly overtakes us in more crucial areas (note the lists in Galatians 5). We will never be able to completely clean the world of sin and violence, and furthermore, God never called us to do that. His kingdom is not of this world; we live and work for eternity. Flawed theology results in flawed values and erroneous, broad sweeping statements. Believing that this world can be turned around by redemptive political forces alone sends us forth to fight windmills while ignoring the weightier matters of the heart. After all, it is far more convenient and more comfortable to seek out the alleged sins of our culture that to do business with God about sin in our own lives. Our culture will never be transformed by the crusaders of the right-wing alone, but by God’s people reaching one soul at a time with the transforming Gospel of Christ, from lives and hearts that are pure before God.8/17/2005 03:57:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|I'm sometimes very random as to what hits my brain and wants to exit through my fingers. This week, I've found myself thinking about how the typical person "does" church...at least the part that involves going to the public worship services.
I've been going to church for 44 years. My earliest memories are of church services. My parents were "everytime-the-doors-were-open" folks which meant that if there was a service, we were there. I can recall my father getting up early, starting the tractor, driving up and down the mile-long gravel road in front of our house to break down the snow drifts so we could cram into the cab of his pick-up truck and make it to church.
I know this...you get out of a church service what you put into it. I'm not trying to understate the importance of the roles of the pastor or the musicians or the Holy Spirit, but I've been blessed in tiny Country Churches where the wasps outnumbers the congregants and I've been in fabulous worship services where I was an insignificant single member in a room filled with thousands. It's not about size or format or style or any of those things with me...it's about God's Word, my heart and what the Lord wants to do in me.
I'd like to offer some personal suggestions on how you can get more out of a church service. I often am concerned with the thought that many (if not most) people arrive at church on Sunday mornings prepared to "go through the motions", but are really not fully engaged in the church service enough to gain what God has potentially in store for them.
With that said, I offer these thoughts for your consideration.
1. Arrive Early. I'm not talking an hour early, but I believe 10 minutesearly is reasonable. For most people, arriving at church on time or a little early is simply a matter of setting their clocks 10 minutes early in
the morning. Is 10 minutes more sleep all that important in light of eternity? Would your employer tolerate you arriving to work in the knick of time or even late on a regular basis? Should we not offer our best to the Lord? By arriving early, you can find your seat without rushing. You can take a few moments to review the bulletin. Most importantly, you can stop and meet and greet folks on your way around and those seated in your section. Smile, hug, shake hands, start your worship by encouraging others and being positive!
2. Sit Close to the Front. I'm serious about this. There is a direct
correlation between where you sit (and why you sit there) and what you will
receive from the service. There are fewer distractions, you will feel more
connected to those singing and to the pastor, you will see better and
perhaps hear better and you will communicate to the pastor and others that
you are happy to be there and you want to be "near the action." People who sit in the back so that they be nearer the exit and can beat the crowd to the restaurant or because they are "disgruntled" or "making a statement" should just stay home in my opinion.
3. Participate Enthusiastically in All Parts of the Worship Service. Sing, clap, say "Amen", pray, smile, shake hands, and get involved. Worship is not passive, it's active! We are not the audience, He is! Who would go to a sign up for a choir and refuse to sing or smile? Who goes to a ball game and doesn't shout and cheer and laugh? Why go to church and sit, soak and
sour? You'll get more out of a service in which you are a participant and
not simply an observer.
4. Take Notes. Bring a small notebook to church with your Bible and record the title, the location of the Scripture, the main points and one or two thoughts that meant something to you. Even if you never read them again
(though you might find yourself referring to them more often than you
think), you'll remember and learn more if you jot a few notes.
5. Give. I'm serious about this as well. Giving is part of worship and if you don't give.particularly tithe.then you've short-circuited your worship. Giving is an act of obedience. How arrogant it is for us to expect God to
bless us when we steal from Him. Giving is making a statement about what is
important. God or mammon? Kingdom work or Duke Energy? First place or "if
I have something left over"? While I'm on the topic of giving, people who only give in a "designated" form to fund their pet projects or who "hold the tithes" to make some sort of statement are behaving in one of the most unBiblical ways possible and I believe they will someday be held accountable for their actions. If you can't support your church, go to a church you CAN support. Quit playing games with God's money. It's only money, for Pete's Sake! It's far more important to you than it is to God and it is only serving to reveal the real condition of your heart.
6. Pray, don't just Listen to the Prayers. I often say, "I am leading in prayer", but that is only true if someone "follows" in prayer. When the pastor prays, you pray too. He isn't talking to you anyway! Pray for the service and the preaching. Pray over your offering. Pray during the
invitation. Prayer is how we communicate to God after He has communicated
to us.
7. Respond Physically. If we are too proud to bow our heads, sing out loud, clap, raise our hands in submission and praise, kneel at an altar, hug someone who is hurting, pray with someone who needs someone to care about them, walk up to someone and greet them, or go forward during the invitation, then we are going to miss out on an important aspect of worship. We are to worship with our whole being - body, soul and spirit!
Those are just some random thoughts for you to consider before you head to
church the next time. I hope you will prepare yourself for what God wants
to do in your life at worship services.|W|P|112430924809851106|W|P|Getting the Most Out of a Church Service|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com8/29/2005 04:42:00 PM|W|P| |W|P|I really appreciate this post. I am young and therefore don't fully appreciate other posts, but this one hit home. I've attended NBC my whole life save the past two years. I attend a small church here where I live. It's quite different, but I know that I can be blessed in all the same ways I was at Northside. Thank-you.8/15/2005 03:58:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|Unless you are thoroughly immersed in the academic world, a Mormon or perhaps an alumnus of Harvard University’s School of Business, you might never have heard of Kim Clark. The 56-year old Clark has been at the prestigious campus of Harvard for 34 years moving through its halls as a student, a professor and most recently – Dean of the Harvard Business School. But that is about to change.
Last May, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – more commonly known as the “Mormon Church”, 95-year-old Gordon Hinckley placed a phone call to Kim Clark and asked him to resign his post at Harvard and move west to Brigham Young University – Idaho. For Clark, the decision to abandon a career at Harvard that had only been interrupted for his 2-year mission (expected of all devout Mormon young people) and a year at Brigham Young’s main campus in Provo, Utah, was really no decision at all. Of course, he would go…the “prophet” had called.
Said Clark, “You have to appreciate what this is like. We behold him [Hinkley] to be a prophet. Imagine yourself getting a call from Moses.” The LDS Church is one of the most rapidly growing cults in the world and it is powered by fierce loyalty among its adherents, huge financial resources which are a consequence of mandatory and monitored tithing, the inscription of young people for a 2-year missionary stint sometime between High School and College graduation and a secretive spiritual agenda that traces its roots back to a set of disappearing gold discs on which the Book of Mormon was supposedly given to God’s lost tribe living in America.
For orthodox Bible-believing Christians, it is common practice for us to reduce the LDS church to a caricature of polygamist religious zealots who have lots of kids and make nice neighbors in spite of the fact they practice a wacky religion. We are foolish to under-estimate the depth of their commitment to faith and Kim Clark’s actions only reinforce that commitment and it should also shame the typical evangelical Christian.
Can you imagine receiving a call to abandon your career, your home, your friends and your position at one of the pinnacles of the academic world to go to a backwater town to serve in relative anonymity at the whim of a 95-year old “prophet”? Even more, can you imagine going?
Many of us Christians fancy ourselves quite the committed disciple of Jesus Christ. Why if the Lord asked us to lay down our lives for Him, sure we would! Like Peter in the Upper Room, there’s no way we’d deny our Lord! If God spoke to us from the heavens and asked us personally to perform some amazing feat, why certainly we’d accept His challenge. Who wouldn’t?
At the same time, most of us are quite content to ignore His clearly detailed commandments, principles, expectations and commissions which are found in black and white in the Word of God. Simple things like tithing, refusing to gossip, telling the truth, being faithful to the gatherings of Christians (attending church), being identified with Him through Believer’s Baptism, praying, abstaining from the appearance of evil, living holy lives that are separated from worldliness, loving our spouses and so much more.
If we refuse to be faithful to those things which are so clearly requested and outlined in Scripture, what makes us think that we would be willing to do something life-altering and sacrificial for Christ?
I no more believe that Gordon Hinckley is a “prophet” than I believe I’ll be the next Pope. But I will say this, I sadly admire the level of commitment demonstrated by Kim Clark and many other Mormon’s just like him who not only state what they believe without apology, but who live it out whatever the cost.
Most of us should feel rebuked and shamed by the example of the typical Mormon. How many of our young people would be willing to check out of their self-centered world for two years in order to ride bikes to Bible studies in third world countries preaching the REAL truth? How many church members ignore the tithe, but have every cable channel available (including the filthy ones) piped into their home where they pay their monthly fee without so much as a hesitation? How many of us won’t accept the challenge of their pastor to teach a Sunday school class or be a deacon or join the choir because we’re too busy with work or family or it might keep us from going to the beach as often.
In the end, it makes me wonder who much greater the work of God’s Kingdom might be increased and magnified, if we, the Redeemed, would simply live like we claim to believe.|W|P|112413594544851300|W|P|A Matter of Commitment|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com8/17/2005 10:15:00 AM|W|P| Robert|W|P|That's a great point about the varying commitment levels between those who know the the truth, and the cultists. I couldn't help but wonder how a school founded by Puritan divines to combat "an illiterate ministry to the churches" got to the point where having a Mormon on the faculty didn't raise eyebrows. (Not that I expect anything else from Harvard these days but...) that's quite a change. If we don't guard our institutions today, we'll have the same kind of problem tomorrow.8/11/2005 04:08:00 PM|W|P|Dan Burrell|W|P|I look forward to the start of school with a sense of anticipation and a sense of dread. I’ve always loved school – as a student, as a teacher, as an administrator. With three degrees in the field of education, I guess I’d better like school. But there’s also a sensation of dread as well – mostly as a parent. It means less “free time”, more homework and practices and lessons, earlier bedtimes and a reminder that my kids are growing up faster than I could have ever imagined that they would.
Many parents are trying to decide where their kids will go to school this fall. Some will choose public school. Others will consider private schools. Those who are able will make a noble and wise choice of home educating their kids. Others still will enroll their children in a Christian school. While ceding the argument that home schooling is a good choice for those so inclined, I want to make the case today for Christian Schools.
I’m a graduate of a Christian school, I used to teach High School English in a Christian school, I was the principal of a Christian school, I served as the President of the largest state association of Christian schools in the country, I’ve founded a local organization of Christian schools in Charlotte, NC and I’m currently the President of a private Christian school. My doctorate is in educational leadership and I have four children in Christian school. I tell you all of that to tell you I kind of know my way around a Christian school classroom.
Here’s why I think you should check out your local Christian schools:
First, for the Christian Worldview it provides. There are only two real worldviews being taught – God’s Word is Truth or You Can’t Trust God’s Word. How you view the Word of God will impact every decision that you make thereafter. A Christian worldview is not a given in every school that calls itself Christian, but for those that have this worldview, they are doing a great job of preparing their students to be salt and light in the world.
Christian schools provide a safer environment in which your child will be educated. Safer because of the kind of students that go to those schools. Safer because of the kind of teachers that teach there. Safer because of the kind of values emphasized. Safer because of the objectives and goals of their mission. Safer because of the direction a good Christian curriculum will provide. If we buckle up our kid’s body when they ride in our cars, we should also be concerned that we protect their minds and souls when we drop them off at school.
Christian schools think long-term. We’re not just trying to survive the year; we’re trying to change the future. We care about where your kids go when they die. We care about how your kids view God. We care about helping your kids become good citizens and faithful church members. We care about training your kids to stay pure and healthy. We want them to view themselves as future leaders with a life’s mission and calling. We want them to grow up to have stable homes and productive ministries. We’re not in this because it is easy; we’re doing this because we BELIEVE.
Christian schools establish patterns. A child’s character is formed at an early age. That’s why the influence of the Christian school teacher is so powerful. It’s important that they learn their vowel sounds and multiplication tables. It’s also important that they learn to obey God, tell the truth, use good English and positive language. We want them to learn that daily time with God is essential. Going to church for worship is important. Respecting authority and showing respect produces order and civilization. There’s no better time to teach these values than while they are young.
Christian schools serve as your extension. That’s right…you may not be able to there all the time, but we are an extension of the Christian home. We are in partnership with the parent and the church for the good of our students and the glory of God.
If you haven’t checked out a Christian school for your children, do it today. There’s still time before that first bell rings!
You can learn about Northside Christian Academy at .|W|P|112379114146609554|W|P|The Case for Christian Schooling|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com8/12/2005 09:48:00 PM|W|P| |W|P|As a homeschool dad for the past 14 years, and making the transition to Christian school this year, I could not agree more. It was a prayerful and heart wrenching decision to stop homeschooling, but it had become a tremendous challenge with two kids in jr. high and two in high school. (We have also graduated two from homeschooling). God has redirected our paths and we now have our children in a Christian school. Public school just wasn't an option for us. We want all the things for our kids that you talked about, the worldview, the respect for authority, the truth of Scripture, and strong academics. We believe these things can only be met by a Christian school.
We have completed our first week and it has been a blessing. It has been quite different than homeschooling, particularly in keeping the early morning schedule, but we will all adjust and God will use the experience to grow us in Him.
I would urge all parents to consider these things in making education choices for their children and do everything within their power to get their children into a good Christian school. The investment and sacrifice will be worth it.
I'm pro-life to the bone and that means anti-abortion AND anti-euthenasia. But to only but the most ardent prolifers, the Terri Schiavo case was a disasterous test battle for the anti-euthenasia argument. First, there's the significant family schism that was at the heart of all of this. Certainly, Michael Schiavo came across as a cold, unsympathetic -- at times, monstrous -- husband who could have ended this whole thing by simply signing off on a divorce or putting Terri under her parent's care. Instead, he took up with another woman and started having kids by her, he appeared to have some sort of financial motivation due to a malpractice suit settlement, he was cranky and surly after years of feuding with his in-laws and he came across, quite frankly as a boar. Terri's parents came across as shrill, hysterical, demanding and more-than-a-little out of touch with reality. Is it possible that Michael really did know that his vegetative wife would not have wanted to exist as she was? Perhaps. Were her grieving parents genuinely heartbroken at the state of their daughter and willing to pay whatever cost to keep even a shadow of her former beauty in their lives -- without a doubt.
Then enters the attorneys and the activists and the politicians and a bad situation just got worse.
First, the attorneys. Let me state, for the record, I know David Gibbs III who represented the Schiavos and I consider him a friend. I haven't spoken to him since Terri died and I don't know his side of the story. But attorneys do what attorneys do and as distateful as it sometimes is as a spectator sport, the rule of law is to give recourse and direction to a civilization and once the conflict became both personal and involved life and death issues, litigation was inevitable. But to reduce a once vibrant, beautiful young lady to being a pawn in a culture war, seemed to me -- well, sad (and a lot more.)
Next come the activists -- folks on both sides. There were the "Operation Rescue" extremists, the religious Catholics equipped with rosaries and placards, the curious, the sympathetic and the genuinely sincere. Less visible, but consistently vocal were those who empathized less with Michael than Terri, but assumed that no person in their right mind would want to "exist" (because anyone who is intellectually honest wouldn't call what she was doing "living") as Terri was. (I would count myself in the "if-that-was-me-pull-the-plug" crowd.) To some extent, some of them were probably put off by the shrillness of those keeping vigil outside of the hospice and thus just naturally took the other side. Either way, it turned into a really pathetic public circus that was about as disrespectful as one could imagine and then they started sending in little kids with loaves of bread and cups of water to get arrested. (Picture me rolling my eyes here.)
Finally, we have the politicians. I think some were honestly driven by principle. I think Governor Bush did the right thing by both seeking to protect life in general and by testing the issue in court. I also think he did the right thing when he finally said, the courts of spoken and ended his participation in it. People have verbally eviscerated the judges who ruled against the politicians, but the law is the law and for once, these judges and justices refused to legislate from the bench which is a good thing. (I KNOW some people would like to argue this point with me and feel free -- that's what comment sections are for.) But once people started trying to make political hay out of this, the public turned on them like month-old cottage cheese.
In the end, euthenasia is a dangerous and unbiblical option which needs to be thoroughly argued and debated and dealt with apart from some individualized and sensationalized case. While our proclivity is to punch emotional buttons by attaching a "human face" to the issue -- this is a principle issue and should be approached as such. I contend that Terri Schiavo was a horrible "face" to attach to this debate and in the end, I think it backfired on prolifers (with whom I would generally and otherwise usually be in agreement.)
Now, let's move to Cindy Sheehan. It seems almost obligatory to express one's sympathies for her loss of a son and the corresponding grief (which at times in many people can reach the level of irrational) that comes with such a horrific tragedy. Consider my sympathies extended and consider it genuine.
I also want to note for the record, if I'd known then what I know now, I'd have been ardently opposed to the war in Iraq and today am against it. I think we should bring our troops home as soon as we can. I also believe that when you make a mess, you should clean up your mess and with that in mind, we need to stay there until the Iraqi government, people or both ask that we leave or when it becomes obvious that there is nothing more that we can do have to a positive outcome in the country.
But let's be honest, Cindy Sheehan is a horrible icon for the anti-Iraq war movement. Once again, let's look at the players.
Cindy comes across as extremely unstable -- if not disturbed. Her rhetoric is all over the place. Everytime she goes to lay flowers at the cross that supposedly represents her son with all the cameras whirring around her, I get disgusted. When I was a kid, I told my mom if she ever saw me get hurt on the basketball court, that even if I was laying in an expanding pool of blood, she was to stay in the stands and say, "Oh, he'll be all right! It's just a little scratch." I can't imagine that the proud soldier who was her son would have wanted her to use his fallen body as a platform on which to launch this spectacle. It's just pathetic. And to label George Bush as the biggest "terrorist" in the world...well, draw your own conclusion.
Oh and now we've got every kook, nut and flake in the country making pilgramages to Crawford, TX. From Michael Moore to smelly beatniks left over from the 60's they are setting up camp, giving interviews, singing "We Shall Overcome" and trading brownie recipes. Can we say "exploitation?"
The media, who has every right to cover whatever they want for as long as they want however they want, has determined that she's 2005's August Celebrity as they search for stories to somehow fill their timeslots while the city of Washington looks like a ghosttown save for the tourists. In some way, I'm kind of thankful for the distraction, otherwise, we'd be getting more stories from Aruba -- but that's another rant.
Bless Cindy's heart, she's a mess. Grief makes people do strange things. Someone needs to give her a valium and help her get through the remaining stages of her loss. Should the war be debated...oh, yes! Should someone be held accountable for the lies that sent our troops into the hell-hole of Iraq? I think so. Does Cindy Sheehan really have a clue about what is at state if we pull out immediately, the nuances of the instability in the Middle East and the consequences to our reputation if we leave before the job is done? I'm pretty confident that the thoughts haven't flitted through her bemuddled mind. She may be a nice person and obviously she loved her son, but trying to turn her into the Iraqi war's Rosa Parks -- well, it's just senseless.
There's no question that using individuals to stir people emotionally produces results...sometimes tsunamis of actions. But is that the way to establish public policy? I think not.
Terri Schiavo was quickly forgotten when the Pope died. I suspect that it will only take another bomb in a London Subway or some story breaking that Supreme Court Nominee Roberts once said "Amen" in church and Cindy will also be forgotten in the dust-cloud left by the spinning tires of satellite trucks rushing to meet deadline. And that won't be a bad thing. As long as we don't forget to finally sit down and ask (and answer) the tough questions that still need to be resolved.|W|P|112507484692182768|W|P|Terri Schiavo and Cindy Sheehan -- More in Common Than You'd Think|W|P|jdpettus@gmail.com
Robert|W|P|I'm really interested that you say you now oppose the war in Iraq. What information now available makes you think in hindsight that it was a mistake to invade the country? What alternative course of action do you think we should have taken instead?
|W|P|Dan,