Brutally Honest

"The villain is humanity itself."

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

I finally took the plunge and plunked down the ten bucks (twenty actually, since I took my wife) to enter the 3D world of James Cameron’s movie,Avatar. Most everything that could be written about Avatar has already been written. I had read reviews that said it’s plot was weak and it’s political message was offensive to the military. I think those reviews were half right. More on that later. It has about run it’s course in the theaters. There was only one other couple with us at our viewing. Still, here are my late and disjointed thoughts on Avatar. 

First, my 3D glasses were smudged and my wife complained about reflections in her glasses which she found distracting. I thought the early scenes of CGI (computer generated imagery) looked just a tad cartoonish. When the action moved to the exotic planet Pandora, that cartoonish look may have continued but perhaps that is appropriate on such a strange world.

The 3D effect took a little getting used to. Thankfully, Mr. Cameron avoided assaulting  the audience by throwing things out of the screen. Instead, he tried to draw us into the action. Often, the characters moved deeper into the screen as we were invited to enter into this imaginary world. I thought the brilliant colors of the lush, tropical planet Pandora were almost too much. It was as if the Amazon were cross-pollinated with neon lights from Las Vegas. 

Someone described the plot as a cross between the movies Fern Gully and Dances with Wolves. That about sums it up. The plot is not very original and certainly quite predictable. So, the reviews I mentioned earlier are half right. But despite the use of phrases like “shock and awe”, “daisy cutter”, and “fight terror with terror”, military folks need not take offense at the depiction of the mercenary soldiers in the movie. The villain in the movie transcends mere trigger happy soldiers or greedy corporations. The villain is humanity itself. None of the acts portrayed in the movie are worse that what has been done by humans throughout history. The evil you see in the movie is probably the evil you see in yourself. Consider that the Communists of China curtailed the movie for fear of its inciting citizens to revolt against their policies of forced relocation. I think the best movie analog for Avatar is Independence Day, but this time we humans are the invading aliens from outer space.

Yet, the primary idea of the movie is a spiritual one. Call it “the ghost in the machine.” Ten foot, blue avatars are controlled by a reality (human) outside themselves. Robots are also controlled by humans inside. Even the planet is controlled by something beyond, yet also within. If it weren’t for the native’s worship of that planetary intelligence (as if a planet could be God) one might applaud the message of a spiritual reality animating matter. I can’t say it’s Christian, but it’s definitely not secular.

It's hard, but it's good

I have a saying I use with my kids whenever they complain about something like schoolwork or doing their chores. They will say, “It’s too hard!” To which I reply, “It’s hard, but it’s good.” It is a simple statement of a difficult truth. Athletes know it. You’ll hear them say, “No pain, No gain.” Without hard work the body doesn’t improve. What is true of the body is true of the soul as well.

The author of Hebrews says it this way: “No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.” That’s why I tell the kids, “It’s hard, but it’s good.”

Now we are in the Lenten season. It’s a period of self-denial; a period of self-sacrifice to remind one of the supreme sacrifice made by Christ. You might wonder how something as simple as giving up say, coffee, for forty days has anything to do that horrible death. Well, it doesn’t, directly.

But imagine if you really love your first cup of Java in the morning, what it’s like to give that up. Every morning you head to the coffee pot and then remember your promise to give it up for Lent. If you are serious about that promise, then you have an opportunity to reflect on the Love that reaches out to you from the cross. Every morning that reminder comes again.

Someone will say, “But I give thanks for that cup of coffee and remember that God provides it for me. Isn’t that just as good for my soul?” Well, it is good and true to remember God’s provision and give thanks for such blessing. Still, it isn’t the same. Jesus didn’t want the cup He drank. Our goal is to be like Jesus.

I know self-denial is counter-cultural. In a land of great prosperity, where even poor people are fat, we don’t want to hear it suggested that we can be happy, even happier, by giving up something we want. We think, “Why if everyone gave up stuff, there would be less stuff sold and that would wreck the economy!” Saint Paul has some sobering words for people who think like that: “Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.”

But even while we are pulled toward self-indulgence, there is something in us that is attracted to self-sacrifice as well. So, Lent is a time when we can allow ourselves to be carried away by those better impulses toward discipline rather than the desires of the flesh.

I’m not saying it’s easy. Of course not. It’s hard. But it is good to be self-disciplined. When one can forgo desire, then they are truly free. When they are no longer bound by the physical demands of their body, then they can follow the Spirit. Yeah, it’s hard, but it’s good.

"What is wrong with these people?"

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

Did you catch the Super Bowl? Did you see the ad with Tim Tebow and his mom? There was quite a bit of publicity before the ad ran. Pro-choice groups wanted CBS to pull it from the Super Bowl. They felt it would be too controversial to present a point of view different from theirs. Amazing! What is wrong with these people?

Some facts: in 1987 Pam Tebow was pregnant. But there were difficulties and doctors recommended that she abort the child. She refused. Twenty years later her little Timmy wins the Heisman Trophy as a sophomore quarterback for the University of Florida.

The ad features Mrs. Tebow expressing how hard it was back then. But, of course, it also expresses great joy in what is now. It never mentions the trophy, just the relationship of mother and son.

The consternation over this feel-good ad reminds me of an old sketch from Saturday Night Live. Gilda Radner played a TV personality who interviews another woman (Jane Curtin) whose choices were for home and family rather than career. The Radner character tries to expose some hidden sickness in the family but the answers of Curtin’s character continue to reveal a wholesome joy and fulfillment. Finally, in frustration, realizing her own life choices cannot measure up, Radner’s character resorts to twisted defamation of her lovely guest.

The criticism of the Tebow ad was leveled before any of the critics had even seen the ad. This baseless, knee-jerk attack by those who still support abortion, reveals a deep bitterness and envy in their hearts . They call themselves Pro-choice. But if that were the case, then wouldn’t they support this choice of carrying the child through adversity? No, they are NOT pro-choice. They are hopeless.

These attacks also remind me of another ad. This one never made it to the public. It was a magazine ad for Volvos. The Swedish car maker prides itself on the safety of its vehicles. They created an ad which would remind people of that. It showed a black and white, very grainy image which was the best ultrasound technology had a few years back. But the image was clearly a fetus in the womb. The caption was simply, “Is something inside you telling you to buy a Volvo?”

How sweet! Of course a young growing family is concerned about safety. But the hopeless pro-abortion forces pressured Volvo to can the ad. So, they did.

What is wrong with these people? It’s a rhetorical question. We know what‘s wrong. They support the unsupportable. They defend the indefensible. In order to do so, they have literally twisted their consciences nearly to the breaking point. To them a wholesome message about love and sacrifice which leads to joy, is sinister and wicked. Good is bad. Light is dark to them.

Thank you Mrs. Tebow for your example twenty years ago and your continuing courage today. Shine the Light and may the twisted ones open their eyes.

Critical thinking for dummies

Posted by guest blogger BroKen.

Years ago I saw a Doonesbury cartoon in which a college professor, concerned about the gullibility of his students, proclaimed loudly during his lecture, “BLACK IS WHITE! GOOD IS BAD!” attempting to shock them into thinking for themselves. The students are furiously taking notes. One whispers to another, “Did you get that?” “Yeah, I didn’t know any of this stuff!” comes the reply. The last frame has the professor pounding his head on the podium lamenting, “Teaching is dead!”

I was reminded of that after a conversation with my son, Karl, as I was taking him to his college level zoology class. He was struggling with some of the pontification in the class surrounding the theory of evolution. Personally, I don’t share all his frustration with evolutionary theory, but I am proud of his unwillingness to accept such pontification of the party line without more evidence.

I vividly remember hearing Stephen Jay Gould on a Nova program in the 1980s describe how his undergraduate classes told him that the fossil record demonstrated a gradual change from one species to another. But when he got access to that record in graduate school, he found that gradual change was not demonstrated. The fossil record does NOT show gradual change. On a geological time scale, the changes in living things occur almost instantaneously. Gould was no creationist, but as a good scientist he was willing to follow the evidence regardless of what he had been told.

What really struck me was when Karl told me the title of a chapter in his textbook. “Birds, Reptiles by Another Name.” Of course, taxonomy is not my strong suit. I am vaguely aware of theories that birds descended from dinosaurs which have been classified as reptiles. But that title seems as illogical as Gary Trudeau’s Doonesbury professor.

To be fair, I suppose what they mean is that the definition of “reptile” has been stretched out like the firmament so that warm-blooded birds can fly around within it. I’m not so committed to what I learned in school that I can’t accept new findings. If there are good reasons for cold-blooded “reptiles” to swallow up the birds, fine. (But I’m still gonna call Pluto a planet ‘til the day I die!)

Could it be that part of the power of the theory of evolution stems, not just from it’s giving a plausible natural explanation for the origin of life (not really plausible, but if you need a natural explanation, it’s best you’ve got) but also from it’s tendency to blur distinctions? That makes it fit well with post-modern rejections of reason, logic and even truth. I’m told those rejections are quite popular in colleges and universities.

If birds are really reptiles and reptiles are really fish and humans are really apes, then perhaps life really is just dead matter and bad really can be good.

If that is the case and that’s what’s being taught, then if teaching isn’t dead, maybe someone should kill it.

Not a good mix

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

I had a bad idea about marriage. I thought it would be cool if Karen and I eloped a week or so before we got married in church. We would sneak away to a Justice of the Peace and be together but keep it just to ourselves. I thought it would give an air of danger and secrecy to our intimacy. I imagined in the years to come we would keep our own secret anniversary a few days before our public one. 

We didn’t do it that way and I’m glad we didn’t. One little incident helped me see why it was a bad idea. Karen and I were married on December 28th. At her family Christmas celebration three days before, her Mom and Dad were working out the sleeping arrangements at their house. Dad suggested putting Karen and I in the same bedroom. He was quite embarrassed when it was pointed out that we were not married, yet. Even I raised my eyebrows at that one. 

I have come to realize that my bad idea of elopement was an attempt to take a relationship that was being given to me. I wanted the relationship on my terms, or our terms, without the consideration of others. But, of course, a marriage is not just between two people, but between families. You might say for that week we would have been married in the eyes of the state, but not in the eyes of church and family. The elopement would have made the church wedding a mere formality. It would have cheated my family who came for a celebration, not an afterthought. Even though they would have thought it was a wedding, it would have been just a reenactment. The danger and secrecy I sought would have come basically from a lie. For years afterward we would have kept up the lie with a real anniversary and a faux anniversary. Fact is, dishonesty and intimacy are not a good mix.

Nowadays there are a lot of people who want to have it the other way. Because of well-intentioned, but ultimately crazy rules about social security and other pension payments, many people would like to be married in the eyes of God and family, but not in the eyes of the state. If they get married, they lose those pension payments.

These crazy rules have been an enormous pressure against marriage in this country. Oh, how I wish the rules would be rewritten to free the survivor from financial ties to their deceased spouse. Why couldn’t an annuity payment go with the survivor whether they remarry or not?

But rules are rules. So, a lot of people who would get married, don’t because it would cost them. Some people live together without marriage because in the eyes of the state marriage would cost them their pension. It is kind of like living a lie. As I said before, dishonesty and intimacy are not a good mix.

Pro-Life means hope

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen

(This first appeared on Brutally Honest two years ago. It's still true.)

The debate over abortion in this country is divided into two camps. One is called “Pro-Life.” The other is called “Pro-Choice.” It is interesting that each side doesn’t like the name of other camp. Pro-Choice people say that the other side should be called “Anti-Abortion” because they are defined more by what they are against than what they are for. Some Pro-Life advocates will tell you that “Pro-Choice” is really “Pro-Death” because their position has resulted in the destruction of millions of unborn children.

I have my own suggestion for the names of the two camps, though I am quite sure that my suggestion will never catch on. The names of the two camps as chosen for themselves have become firmly entrenched in the minds of the public and they have been accepted by the media. Those names really do a pretty good job of marking the lines in the debate. So, my names won’t ever be popular but they do bring in a concept that is lacking in most of the debate over whether unborn children should be granted human rights.

The concept is not my own but comes from a paper by Stanley Hauerwas. Hauerwas is a professor of Theology at Duke University and he was called the country’s best theologian by Time magazine in 2001. In a paper called “Abortion Theologically Understood" he points out that no one knows when human life begins. But he says that when a Christian is asked if those cells growing in the womb are human, the Christian should respond., “I hope so.” His position is not grounded in a scientific certainty that life begins at conception (although, personally, I see growing evidence for that certainty.) He grounds his position in a Christian charity that produces hope.

When a woman finds herself considering abortion to eliminate a problem, she feels hopeless. We Christians would point out that although the situation certainly looks bleak and troubled, there can be a bright future of joy and blessing if she embraces rather than rejects this life growing within. If she truly cannot raise the child herself, she can pass that blessing on to another family and in giving, be blessed herself. But if she rejects the child because she cannot see any hope, then the promise of blessing will never be realized.

I am told that public opinion on these questions is shifting in the “Pro-Life” direction. Women who have aborted children are becoming more open about the guilt and grief they feel. Young people are beginning to see the tragedy of lost life. Even Hollywood, once a bastion of the Pro-Choice position, with recent movies like “Juno” and “Knocked Up,” is expressing the view that life is precious and should be given a chance.

For all these reasons, I would call the “Pro-Life” side of the debate, “Hopeful.” And I would call the “Pro-Choice” side, “Hopeless”.

Shine some light on healthcare reform

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

Several weeks ago while President Obama was deciding whether to grant General McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan, I wrote that while we know that the president can speak softly, I feared his big stick was made of nerf. Well, since then our president has made his decision and is sending the requested troops. It is true that the number of troops isn’t quite as high as McChrystal wanted but the general says he can do the job and that is the main thing. It is also true that announcing your plan of departure as you arrive (which the president did) emboldens the enemy. They will say to themselves, “We only have to hold out for a few more months until the Americans leave.” But I was afraid that the president would back down and he didn’t. I will continue to criticize Obama when I disagree with him but now I say, “Thank you Mister President. You made a good call.”

Like I said, I will continue to criticize the president when I disagree with him, which brings me to his healthcare reform. During the campaign he repeatedly promised that debate on this issue would be aired out in public. Now the plan is to forgo the normal conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions of reform and do the whole thing in secret. What’s up with that!?!? You know I disagree with practically everything in both bills but now the president is allowing (encouraging) congress to violate his principles. Why? What are they trying to hide? If this massive, incredibly complex legislation is so good for Americans, why cover it up? Why won’t they let it stand on its merits?

The answer is clear. It cannot stand on its own. If people knew what was going on, what these monstrous bills include, they would reject them immediately. Many of us already do.

Perhaps you’ve heard that part of the Senate version includes a provision to tax “Cadillac” insurance policies. The idea is that people who buy expensive insurance can afford to pay more to fund insurance for the rest. Rich folks pay more so poor folks don’t pay anything. They call them “Cadillac plans”  to play on class envy. “Make the rich folks drivin’ in them there fancy cars pay through the nose.”

Trouble is, they define a “Cadillac plan” as any insurance that costs more than $8000. It doesn’t matter what the plan covers, they only look at the cost. But some folks in high risk occupations (ministers for instance) pay incredibly high rates for normal coverage. My health insurance costs over $11000 for me alone. I can’t afford what it would cost to cover my family. And this “reform” would tax me (whose vehicles all have over 140,000 miles and none is a Cadillac) at least another $1200. That is their plan to lower costs.

It is insane! No wonder they are afraid to let it see the light of day.

Coming together as "People who love God"

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

(Rick suspects correctly that I was taken to the "wonderful account" mentioned below by this post of his. The account is the second link to Robin of Berkley at American Thinker. You can go directly to it here. If FRANK had followed that second link, he might have been more charitable to Robin in the comments of Rick's post.)

I graduated from Asbury College, a Christian liberal arts school in central Kentucky. To help pay my way I sloshed around on a wet, greasy floor as I washed pots and pans in the cafeteria. One day I sprained my ankle pretty badly playing basketball and was limping across campus to work. I really should have been using crutches and maybe taken time off work, but I had decided to tough it out. A Big Man On Campus saw me hobbling across the grounds in my greasy jeans and called out, “Can I help?” I replied, “No, thanks.” but I remember in my heart an angry, “Leave me alone you arrogant snob.”

Now, Asbury, like most, if not all Christian schools has many techniques which attempt to create a Christian community. Some people rebel against those techniques (pressures) as artificial, man-made rules. Others embrace the resultant community enthusiastically. While I was there, I could take it or leave it.

Years later I heard of a young student who expressed her appreciation for Asbury’s community like this; “You can be nice and people don’t think you’re weird.” I immediately remembered the vindictive poison that had been in my heart when a fellow had tried to be nice. In the church we call that kind of remembrance “conviction.” The proper response to this work of the Holy Spirit, we call “repentance.” Personally, I need lots of both.

I share that little confessional with you because of a wonderful account I read recently of a woman’s first experience with “church.” This woman describes herself as “a cultural Jew who's never been to a temple and then I practiced Buddhism for twenty years, but that left out the God part. And then I became a conservative and now I have all these beautiful Christians in my life, so I decided to attend a mass…”

Her plan was “to come early and sit inconspicuously in the back row.” Any church goer could have told her that everyone wants to sit on the back row. It’s prime property! Imagine her shock when she is given the task of passing out song sheets to the rest of the congregation. She’s promoted from visitor to usher in less than five minutes!

She writes, “Okay, I thought, don't freak out. I can do this. As a family walked in, I started to say, ‘Hello, would you like a...?’ and then paused. What were these brochures called, anyway?”

What a good sport! I can imagine people being offended if asked to do “work“ when they came to visit. But she sees the whole experience as an encounter with a playful God. Her evaluation of the service: “Beyond the music and pageantry, what moved me the most was being with hundreds of people who loved God.”

Oh, to see the church with such fresh eyes. “People who love God.” We all seek that community. May the Holy Spirit make us into such people this New Year.

A Tribute

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

I need to tell you about my friend John Steelman. You see, he died just before Christmas and I am feeling bad about it. Of course, I feel bad for his family and I share their grief. But there is a little guilt mixed with my grief. I had been told about a month before that he had pancreatic cancer and was in a hospital in Evansville. I told myself, “I’ll go up there and see John.” But, you know how it goes… I never did. I thought he would have more time. I thought I would have more time to express my admiration and love. It’s too late now.

At his funeral last week we were asked if any of us had anything to tell about John and what he meant to us. Several stood up and spoke words of how John had touched them. I sat there. I knew what I wanted to say. But I continued to edit my words until the moment passed. Now it’s too late.

Or is it?

My words for John were, “Cheerful pessimist.” If asked about a half glass of water, “Half full or half empty?” John would just chuckle. Now John was a brilliant man. If you wanted he could tell you where to find more water or how you could keep it from spilling next time. But John also realized that most people really don't want to know. Even that fact didn’t depress him. He was amused at our broken human nature.

When I told John this he laughed. “I call myself a realist,” he said. But his realization of our twisted nature made me wonder about the source of his cheerful chuckle.

A nephew said that John was his hero. John responded, “Your aspirations aren’t very high, are they?” Humility and humor were hallmarks of John’s life. Where did they come from?

John had worn glasses since he was a boy. He told of how wearing glasses changed his world. “Before I wore glasses, trees were just blobs of green.“ He explained, “After the glasses there was so much more. I could see the leaves.“ John related that revelation to the day of his baptism, also as a young boy. “When I came out of the church that day, everything was different. It was like I’d been given new glasses.” I believe that in the blob of human nature, John had been given eyes to see More. The More let him laugh at himself and the rest of us.

I was John’s pastor for five years and I gave him much to laugh about! When we left, John gave us a clock he had made. He wrote, “May this be a timeless reminder of the years of service and leadership in Sturgis. May you have the spiritual and physical strength to fulfill God’s mission in your lives.”

John, may you rest in Christ Jesus who knew you well on earth and whom you now know even More.

I'll be Home for Christmas

Posted by guest blogger, BroKen.

“I’ll be home for Christmas. You can count on me. I’ll be home for Christmas, if only in my dreams!”

A friend of mine describes it this way, “The homing instinct is strong at Christmastime.”

Several years ago, when I was single, the company I worked for decreed there would be no time off on Christmas Eve. So I stayed home at Christmas while the rest of my family gathered across the country at my sister’s place. As a joke, they stuffed a pair of pants and a shirt with newspapers, set them on a couch with a basket ball for a head and said it was me. The real me was alone that Christmas. Mine was a hollow celebration. Home is not a place, it's people and love.

My favorite homecoming Christmas story comes from my friend Homer. He tells of traveling across country with a couple of buddies and a three-day pass from the Navy, trying to get home for Christmas. Their car breaks down and they seem to be stranded, hopeless. A local mechanic is supposed to be at a party with his wife, but instead, he spends the evening taking the rear-end out of a junked car he has, and placing in it theirs. They don’t have money to pay but the mechanic just says, “Send it to me when you get where you’re going. Merry Christmas!” They made it home that Christmas and, of course, the first thing they did was to send the mechanic his money. What makes this story my favorite is that although it has been well over fifty years since this happened, when Homer tells it to you, there are tears in his eyes.

Of course, that the mechanic couldn’t run his business like that all the time. He’d be broke before the end of January. But that is the point. At Christmas we do things we wouldn’t, or couldn’t (and in this world probably shouldn’t) do all the time. And yet we know the things we do at Christmas are the things we would do and should do, if we could do them all the time.

If we could, we would stay with people we love and who love us. But in this world we can only be one place at a time. If we could, we would help others who are in need, with the hope, even expectation that others will help us when we are needy. But so many of us would take advantage of a system like that. I know I would! That’s our world.

Christmas says there is another world where love is unlimited so no one need take advantage of another. Every now and then, especially at Christmastime, that other world intersects with ours and brings tears to our eyes. Is it just a dream world; a fantasy for children? Maybe. Still, I call that other world, “home”. The homing instinct is strong at Christmas time.