More Thoughts on Realism and "Ultraviolence" in Film

I've been thinking a little more about horror/thriller films and how we got to the sadistic ultra-realism I wrote about below. As usual, Satan introduced things little by little, so that people would be slowly deceived.

Think about it: wasn't Rock-N-Roll rebellion much the same? Bill Haley invited teens to "rock around the clock," Elvis shook his pelvis, millions of girls screamed, and a new culture was born, built around worshipping rock idols and subverting authority (okay, it's more complicated than that, but not much). The Beatles didn't venture into America with long hair, Yogis and drugs; they came in suits, pleading, "I Want to Hold Your Hand." The enemy knows better than to bust in yelling, "HEY, who wants to offend God and go to Hell?" Instead, he comes in as a handsome suitor: "You shall be as God!"

In that vein, I believe, the film industry in America has pushed boundaries sexually and psychologically. These posts haven't really addressed the sexual aspect of film history; at this point I'll stick to psychological, since we're talking about horror and thriller films (though, of course, these films often also manage to include disturbing sexual content).

I am not a film scholar; I'm just a former film buff who has worked more years in video stores than she cares to admit. I can't detail the history of filmmaking for you and definitively point to the One Movie that Started it All--but I do want to point out a couple of watershed moments that popped out for me.

1. A Clockwork Orange came out in 1971 (three years before I was born!). IMDB.com has this synopsis by Steven Pemberton:

Alex, a teenage hooligan in a near-future Britain, gets jailed by the police. There he volunteers as guinea pig for a new aversion therapy proposed by the government to make room in prisons for political prisoners. "Cured" of his hooliganism and released, he is rejected by his friends and relatives. Eventually nearly dying, he becomes a major embarrassment for the government, who arrange to cure him of his cure. A pivotal moment is when he and his gang break into an author's home: the book he is writing (called "A Clockwork Orange") is a plea against the use of aversion therapy, on the grounds that it turns people into Clockwork Oranges (Ourang is Malay for "Man"): they are not being good from choice (sentiments later echoed by the prison chaplain). The film reflects this: many bad scenes in a Clockwork Orange are accompanied by jolly music; if we are to experience them as we should, we have to do it consciously, by realising they are bad, and not because the director tells us so through the use of music and images.

A Clockwork Orange has many brutal scenes--horrible scenes I don't want to describe to you (I saw the movie as a teenager)--that are, as Steven describes, accompanied by light-hearted music and performed in a humorous way. (The word "ultraviolence" was coined in this film.) While I see the point that Steven says Kubrick is trying to make, I also think that movies like this cast the villains in a sympathetic light: audiences are inclined to laugh at the horrific rather than have the natural reaction (which would be, uh, horror). They are inclined to like the bad guy and root for him rather than reject or hate him.

This can be said for countless films where the villain is more interesting and sympathetic than the hero, or where the villain is the hero. At the extreme end--the Saws and Saw IIs of the world--the audience laughs when they see terrifying, realistic suffering.

All this makes me think of

2. Quentin Tarantino movies. I was still working at video stores when his movies first came out amidst much positive buzz and fanfare. I saw Reservoir Dogs and part of True Romance--and then swore him off forever. Tarantino has made his name writing and directing films that are ultra-hip, ultraviolent and ultra-realistic. He combined humor, slick editing, quick dialogue and gore to entice audiences and introduce a David Cronenberg-like, macabre filmmaking style.

As a moviegoer at the time, I felt deceived by him; I thought I was getting an action movie with Reservoir Dogs, and I got torture. I thought I was getting a love story with True Romance, and I got violent, sadistic beating scenes (and not much else, since I walked out). I've read enough about his other movies to know they didn't get any better. People praise his originality and flash--but I seldom read any protests or concerns.

Do people really, really think that watching movies like the above don't have any effect on them or on others?

Several of you commented on the last post, wondering aloud about desensitization and the effect of violent programming and film on audiences (particularly impressionable children). On one hand, I do think there are different "kinds" of violence, and I think some ways of presenting it are more damaging than others (e.g., Die Hard versus Saw--there's a difference). The lines being crossed, with even industry insiders labeling films "torture porn", should concern everyone. I don't know just how it might affect the children that watch this stuff for entertainment now, but I can't imagine the effect being neutral.

Psalm 18:48
He delivereth me from mine enemies: yea, thou liftest me up above those that rise up against me: thou hast delivered me from the violent man.

Prov 16:29
A man of violence entices his neighbor
and leads him in a way that is not good.

The Nation's Sick Obsession with Horror

Yesterday I read this article about the recent re-emergence of gory horror movies in America. Horror movies have been around since the invention of celluloid, but they are, if possible, getting worse.

One of my first blog posts in November 2004 was called "Current Films." I wrote:

The movie industry is one of the enemy's primary indoctrination tools for the US and for people around the world who embrace American pop culture. Movie theaters are like temples for postmodern worshipers. Inside these places of "idol" worship (isn't that what many stars are called?), audiences are exposed to everything from serial killings, rapes, incest, adultery, and much more...all in the name of entertainment, the pop culture's god.

I then quoted a review of Saw from Plugged In Online, a Christian review site affiliated with Focus on the Family:

'Touting torture as a treat becomes the heart of Saw--something that should automatically send most morally minded moviegoers running for the exits. And yet, sadly, it won’t.

In all honesty, Saw's perverse pictures weren't the most disturbing things I saw while reviewing it. It was disconcerting enough to sit in a theater full of mothers with their 8-year-old boys in tow and groups of 12-year-old girls chaperoned by solitary adults. It was nearly intolerable to witness them--kids and adults--applauding when a man onscreen got his brains bashed in. And laughing when Lawrence sobbed helplessly on the cell phone while his wife and daughter struggled at gunpoint with their kidnapper.

So in the end, Saw may say even more about the people who see it than it does about the people who created it.'

Saw II came out not long ago, distributed by Lion's Gate, the same studio that gave us the Oscar-winning Crash.

I found the new MSNBC article fascinating for a couple of reasons. As I wrote above, horror films are nothing new, but:

1. More horror films are being made (perhaps as many as in the 80s).

Lions Gate's "Saw" franchise, the genre's current kingpin, has rung up $250 million worldwide; a third film is planned for Halloween. Three more creepfests are scheduled for the next month, starting with Universal's "Slither" this Friday. Even Disney has gotten into the act with the PG-13 flick "Stay Alive," which, alas, is not about the systematic slaughter of disco fans. "In 1990, I had to pull my hair out just to find a movie to put on the cover," says Fangoria magazine editor Tony Timpone. "There were only three or four major horror releases a year. Now there's three or four a month. We're like pigs in slop."

2. The way the audience experiences the movie is different than ever before. Filmmakers are taking pains to make everything more realistic, and I don't just mean the dismembering.

It's not jokey violence, either. 'Filmmakers now have the ability to put viewers directly into the shoes of the victims going through these horrible things, in an almost documentary way,' says Bob Weinstein, whose Scream franchise for Dimension Films launched the last horror fad in 1996. Some critics--smart ones like New York Magazine's David Edelstein, not just nervous Nellies--argue that the trend verges on 'torture porn.' Even people within the industry are torn. 'It's not the violence that bothers me so much as the tone. A George Romero movie was so political and funny and subversive,' says Picturehouse Films president Bob Berney, who marketed The Passion of the Christ. 'To me, these newer movies are purely sadistic.'

Even the industry insiders can see clearly that these movies are sick.

Did anyone hear James Dobson's interview with Ted Bundy? Bundy was forthright about the link between porn, his fantasies, and ultimately, his actions. Studies have shown that, no matter what Hollywood wants the populace to believe, what people imbibe through their eyes and ears has an effect on their thoughts and behavior. It's pathetic that such things need studies, actually; they should be self-evident. You are what you ingest, in more ways than one.

Oh, by the way, check out the audience for these films:

Sixty-five percent of the audience for "Hostel" was younger than 25, which is par for the genre.

I watched a lot of Friday the 13th-type movies when I was a kid, and I didn't emerge unscathed. Once you put images in your mind, did you know you can never erase them?

...People passed out during previews of Hostel. 'I feel bad that some people had such an extreme reaction,' says Palen, 'but as a marketer, it was an opportunity to alert people who relish that kind of movie that we've got one for them.'

Well, that's dandy. Let's make sure we give people who relish realistic gore just what they're looking for. And never mind the consequences.

Some Announcements

We've had a lot going on lately. Why do the wonderful and exciting things seem to happen at the same time as the horrible? Yet by God's mercy we will make it through all of them without giving in to either pride or despair.

Please pray for my dear mother-in-law, Helen. She was diagnosed with Stage II cancer in/near her kidney a few days ago; she gets the CATscan results today. She undergoes surgery March 21. Helen knows the Lord, but this is certainly an opportunity for her to know Him more deeply. Please pray that she will hold on to Him, and that the unsaved members of Ryan's family will be drawn to Jesus.

Helen is a career nurse and lives up to the stereotype: you'd be hard-pressed to find a day where she's not tending to or comforting someone, or holding a baby close in her arms. And I'm talking outside of her work hours!

In the midst of this family crisis, we are also experiencing the joy (and STRESS!) of purchasing a new home. We found one in Athens that we absolutely love and that is near everywhere we want to be (close to work, downtown and our gym).

(Guys, you can tune out for a moment here... Ladies, here are some details!)

It's a four bedroom, three bath, three-sides brick with a full basement! Okay, I'll try not to end every sentence with an exclamation point. The kitchen, arguably the most important room in the house, has hardwood flooring, granite countertops, deep sinks, and stainless steel appliances. There's a tiled sunroom that opens to the deck. Upstairs, there's a generous loft area, a bedroom and a full bath. Ryan plans to finish the basement at some point into a recording studio. One of the guest rooms--a nice-sized room with a vaulted ceiling--is going to be my study.

Okay, I am a LITTLE EXCITED!

(Gentlemen, it's safe to start listening again.)

I have spoken with Joe Schimmel, the pastor of my church in California, Blessed Hope Chapel, about working with him as an editor of his articles and books. In our first upcoming project I'm supporting his work with The DaVinci Con. Joe will be exposing the lies in Dan Brown's DaVinci Code, as well as showing how neo-gnosticism pervades modern religious thought. I'll let you know when the articles are up on the site.

In case you live in the Ventura or LA area:

LIVE CONFERENCE
"THE DA VINCI CON-ference"
MAY 6, 2006
FREE ADMISSION
At CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY CHURCH
in Simi Valley, California
Join us as Pastor Joe Schimmel and Kirk Cameron host a live conference
exposing the The Da Vinci Code. This free conference will provide you with
a thorough understanding of the "Con" behind the "Code".

If You Weren't Looking for Me, You Might Find Me Anyway

This is all explained here.

Got some doozies for you guys this time. In mock honor of the Oscars, let's have the Weird Ways to Get to Kristen's Blog Awards! Winners are indicated in bold and have been determined most injudiciously by a panel of one.

*trumpets and fanfare*

First, in the "What Does That Have to Do with Anything?" category:

1. girl hug boy
2. song napoleon dynamite walking
3. flava flav's daughter
4. michael and debi pearl grinding grains (at last, someone not seeking controversy!)
5. Psalms to get a job (Hint: chanting Psalms will not land you a gig.)
6. Obey hats

In the "Offensive to Kristen Personally" (AKA, the "You'll Be Hearing from My Lawyer") category:

1. KRISTEN PUNK
2. appear to be serving (Excuse me?!)
3. walkingcircumspectly cult (Now THAT's going too far. What? That red Kool-Aid? That's simply for the refreshment of guests! Have some!)
4. Kristen was arrested for (People, that's called SLANDER. Or LIBEL. Hmpf. Well, I get them confused, but my LAWYER WON'T!)
5. Kristin mock Georgia (If you're going to accuse me of rebellion against the Motherland, at least spell my name correctly.)

In the "This Just Might Have Something to Do with Something I've Written" category:

1. it's time to talk the walk of shame
2. women walking in the newness of life (Eh, Rach?)
3. help me to love my husband (YAY! Someone sane!)

And in the "Heck Yeah!" category:

1. Kristen first
2. Kristen's Cookie Company
3. Kristen pinnacle reality (Confusing, but sounds complimentary. I'll take what I can get.)
4. relief of Kristen (We've discussed this before, but to reiterate, my relief can be achieved through the necessary quantities of dark chocolate, new books, deluxe Yahtzee games, and new shoes. Thankyou.)

Congratulations to the winners. It was a tough decision for the judge, but in every contest there must be winners and losers. Good luck to next month's competitors, and I hope you can all join me again for another glamorous evening of weird links and inane references!

Dealing with Deferred Dreams without Losing Hope

Or maybe it's Dealing with Deferred Hopes without Losing Your Dream. Something like that.

I've been thinking lately about how different my life is from what I expected it to be even five years ago. Ryan and I married and within just a few months were convicted about using the Pill. That's another post, but although we would have told you at the time that we didn't know what God was going to do, we did expect that we'd have children fairly soon after that. Every month my heart became more sad and broken when it became evident that this month, too, my womb was empty. I think it was then that my heart began to harden a little bit. Didn't God know His own Word?

Proverbs 13:12
Hope deferred makes the heart sick,
but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life.

and

Psalm 37:4-5
Delight yourself in the LORD,
and he will give you the desires of your heart.
Commit your way to the LORD;
trust in him, and he will act.

Of course, that's not all there is to it. So many people (including myself, I think, at times) emphasize the "desires of your heart" part without qualifying it with the first part of the sentence in the latter scripture. Delight yourself in the LORD, and He will give you the desires of your heart.

When you truly delight yourself in God--meditating on His Word, coming to know what He's like--what were the desires of your heart change from what they were before you knew Him. You become more like Him, loving what He loves and desiring what He desires.

But I was different. My desire (to have children and be home with them) was (is) a godly one. Wasn't it put there by God? Won't He grant it?

It's still the desire of my heart, and yes, I believe it's a godly one. And honestly, I do think He will grant it. But it may not be--it has not been--in my timing. My life has not turned out as I thought and hoped it would so far...but I must remember that GOD is the lifter of my head; He orders my steps; He's the one with a plan. Not me. I don't know anything; I can't even make a hair on my head white or black. I am not in charge. I don't weave the tapestry.

The solution to a dream deferred--the way out of a disappointed heart--is to look to God and not to myself. My own godly dreams can either be simple hopes, or they can become idols. Sometimes we don't get what we want, even if what we want is okay, even glorious and God-designed.

It's not either/or; it's not crushed dreams or fulfilled ones. It's finding my dreams in what God reveals for me day by day.

As I said, I do think God will make me a mother, somehow, someday. But if He doesn't, my trust and hope is in Him, and I know He knows what He's doing with my life. I am not falling through the cracks, and I have a responsibility to live every day to the fullest in Him, looking for what He's doing TODAY, and not living and feeling as though my life "won't really start" until there's a new life growing in me.

Romans 6:17-18
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Truth and Opposition...and a Timely Warning

One of my best friends wrote a comment yesterday that I wanted you guys to see. I met Amy several years ago, and I've been constantly amazed by how much she desires to please God and to know Him more. It was really painful to leave her when Ryan and I moved.

Amy works with Middle School-aged kids at a large church. She is such a wonderful teacher and influence over those preteen kids; they may never encounter another person in their lives who loves them and the Lord as much. Recently, Amy and her fiance decided to get rid of all TV programming, largely because of the discussion at this blog.

"My fiance and I decided to get rid of our TV yesterday after reading many of the comments on the TV-bashing post. I was reading what many of the married couples said about how great it has been for their relationship and woke him up so I could make him read them too. (For clarification: He fell asleep on the couch while I was reading...he DOES NOT spend the night...at least not for 8 more months!)

I am so blessed becuase I have the opportunity to call Kristen one of my bestest friends and she has done more to help me grow spiritually than anyone else...ever. She is amazing and I learn so much from her. I just LOVE to sit and listen to her wisdom. She is such a good (and witty) writer it is easy to keep up with her blog. Anyways, I gave up cable a while ago (wow, it has been like 2 years) after several conversations with Kristen on the subject. I just couldn't justify what I found myself watching. I am a lot like Kristen when it comes to this struggle.

At work today (I work at a church) I asked the staff to be praying for us about our decision. Almost everyone was very supportive, but my pastor/boss made it very clear that he thinks it is not only a bad decision, but a stupid one. I was shocked and mad at some of the ridiculous (in my opinion) things he said about the idea. I literally sat there praying that God would help me not be angry. He boldly stated that people who give up TV are out of touch with reality and went on to say people who have made this decision have obviously not given it much thought. In his opinion anyone who has really thought it through would realize it was a foolish thing to do. Whatever. So, I couldn't wait to get back on here and read the thoughts of people who were more like-minded.

The bottom line is I couldn't agree more that it is open for debate and a decision each person/family needs to make on their own. For us, it is too much of a temptation. I am glad to know there are people that are supportive of the decision.

I appreciate you, Kristen, for all that you've done for me, and for all your friends who I don't know but are an encouragement as well!"

Get the setting here, people: a large (5000-member) church. A pastor with plenty o' power (and, at the time, an audience). A youth worker trying to learn and do the will of God.

He told her that what the Spirit had been convicting her about for years was stupid.

He told her that people who give up TV are out of touch with reality and have not thought through their decision.

He even told her of one couple he knew who "got a divorce after getting rid of their TV...they found out they had nothing in common!"

So, of course, upon hearing this I immediately recanted everything I said about TV and told Amy she'd better keep hers, or she and David could break up! Boy howdy, I am glad I found this all out now, while there is still time for TV to save my marriage!

Seriously, I believe that those who choose to listen to and obey the Spirit will face just this kind of opposition. Before the pastor spewed his vitriol over Amy, he told her he was playing "Devil's Advocate." Interesting choice of words, eh?

The Purpose of the Church Meeting

I've been busy lately--Ryan and I are house-hunting. More news on that to come.

For now, I wanted to bring up a subject close to my heart: the church gathering pattern established in the New Testament. Dave Black pointed out an article by Brent Davis about the idea of cultural relevance and the church. It's a hot topic, and depending on what we're talking about. I think Brent may be oversimplifying some of the problems when it comes to "worship styles", but his thoughts are well worth considering. My favorite excerpt, with which I heartily agree:

[T]he early church did not gather together in an effort to "appeal" to anyone outside the family of God. They gathered to benefit one another. They still accomplished their evangelistic mandate within their communities, but they did so primarily through personal, discipling relationships. They did not depend on culturally relevant institutional structures, music styles, programs or money. They didn't need to! After all, what could be more culturally relevant than a genuine relationship? When Christians authentically live out the implications of their priesthood in Christ they do not need artifical, insitutional structures to prop-up a passive faith.

The authenticity of their transformed lives validated their message. As their little families of believers grew, they started new ones all over their towns and cities. They did not just get bigger and bigger in one location.

Squabbles about music styles and "what constitutes worship" aside, this is a point that, for me, points up what may be the number one difference between the first-century church mindset and that of modern Churchianity.

Something's broke, and it needs fixin'. Is there room in Scripture for Church as Business? Really?

Continuing the Conversation

Thanks for all the great comments about TV. I find it really interesting that many of you have cut TV totally or partially out of your lives--and that some of you are not tempted by the same things I am when it comes to TV. I think that is indicative of an area where we should encourage one another in holiness, but not play judge and jury over another family's decisions ("THEY have TV. What SINNERS."). In other words, it's an area we have some freedom to decide what's right for our family, keeping a clear conscience before God.

Muley commented,

I'm curious, Kristen, and not from a negative point of view. Does your no-TV lifestyle allow for the viewing of DVDs, or is that considered TV as well?

I mean, when you need a Pride and Prejudice fix with Colin Firth, what do you do?

Ryan and I do watch some movies and documentaries, and we rented the first season of Lost and watched that. It's not that all film/TV is the spawn of the devil...it's about what we CHOOSE to put before our eyes, and how we use our time. Sure, we pop in Napoleon Dynamite now and then. But with television programming, you don't know what you're getting (e.g., Todd's point about commercials), you're tempted to watch things you shouldn't, and you're tempted to waste a LOT of time, in general.

The time-wasting thing is true for me; it may not be for someone else. Some people are apparently not as tempted to watch E! as I am. But I am, and I have to know that about myself and take measures to make sure that I keep myself from sin in that area. Basically, I know myself well enough to be fairly certain that I don't have the discipline to watch Rachael Ray for a half hour and then turn off the tube. Ain't gonna happen.

Let's Have a TV-Bashing Party

Okay, so the title is a little facetious. But a TV-bashing party sounds kinda fun to me!

I really should have brought this series to your attention before. Blest with Sons, a new find for me, has just concluded an amazing and introspective series that is positively brimming with Scripture and fun convicting thoughts. (Don't you love conviction? Hurts so good, if that's not too glib.)

Her subject? What she terms the great "American Idol": television.

The last post in the series is here. (BLEST, sistah, you need to link all of the posts on your sidebar for easy access, please! Not telling you what to do or anything, but methinks lots of people will want to read and re-read those over time. I know I will.)

Maybe I am getting senile at 31, but I can't remember how much I've posted specifically about TV. Ryan and I ditched all TV programming in the first few months of our marriage, five years ago now. It's one of the best decisions we've ever made. I told Blest that people stare at us incredulously and ask (totally seriously), "Well, if you don't have TV, what do you DO? Stare at the walls?"

Um, yep. That's what I do. I just can't think of anything else to do, since we don't have TV. Can someone help me out?

Really (and this is what I reply to the poor souls who can't fathom what we do without a brain drain TV), we read books, we write, we pray, we hike, we work out, we play music, we play games...need I go on?

My question is, how does anyone WITH TV get anything done? We did have TV for a brief (and recent) period, and I will go on record: it wreaked havoc in our lives, and I don't think I am exaggerating. Against our better judgment, against our own prior decisions, we let it in our house, and suddenly we were tolerant of things we KNOW the Lord doesn't approve of, we allowed our time to be frittered and sucked away, and we allowed evil to be put before our eyes in the name of entertainment.

Is it an understatement to say it was a mistake?

But there's good stuff on there! people say.

I like food and home and garden shows, too. I know everything on TV isn't the spawn of the devil. But you know what? I didn't stick to just those "good" shows. (Confession ahead!) I inevitably started flipping channels and watching Punk'd or E! for far too long. And even the innocent shows can have commercials that aren't.

I know that for some families Tivo-esque technologies have helped TV become an option. I do see how that could help you be disciplined and accountable about what you watch, and maybe about how long you spend watching. But I just don't think that discipline, TV, and me can co-exist peacefully.

Like Blest, I am not out to tell everyone they MUST get rid of their TVs and all programming. But boy, she makes a air-tight case for thinking really hard about what we watch and why. And I am all about that.

My Dad Will Be So Proud!

Get your position here

If You Weren't Looking for Me...

...you still might find me.

My buddy Ed has a hilarious series that he calls "How to Get Here." As I am a fan of shamelessly stealing other people's ideas smart memes (I know, right?), and as I get a lot of bizarre search strings when I check my stats, I thought it might be a fun tradition to start here.

Beware: before you look at Ed's blog--particularly this series, latest edition 8 Feb--just know that his wit is razor sharp. You might be left gasping for air and desperately clutching your sides. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I'll preface this by telling you the articles that get the most hits from this blog. Here's the short list:

1. Created to Be His Help Meet series. The whole series is linked at right.
2. Is All Sin Equal?. Obviously, this is an issue about which many people are confused and curious. Maybe it's because you hear the pithy saying so often, but it defies logic. Everyone knows Hitler's sin and the local teen klepto's sin are not quite the same, but Bibically speaking, I think people have a hard time articulating why.
3. Heads and Hair. For the first two, people are actually looking for something related to the content of my post. Unfortunately, many people who get Heads and Hair are looking for, like, wigs. (A recent string that tugged at my heart: "Is wearing hats to church ok". If you're a woman, YES IT IS.)

And now we come to the other list. In the spirit of Ed, here are a few ways to get here, however haphazardly:

1. Jessica Simpson these boots are made for walking video. Soooo sorry to disappoint! I get these quite a lot, actually. Those strings usually wind up here. Heh heh.
2. Blouses from the 1980s. Because this is the place to find those. Clearly.
3. Mohamed big picture. I have no explanation. And I have never spelled his name that way.
4. What koran thinks about abortion. Haven't a clue!
5. Michael Pearl satanist. What? You know, even the people who vehemently disagreed with my reviews didn't go that far...
6. Wives who henpeck husbands. I've seen a bunch of these over the months. I'm moved every time. Behind every "string" is a person. Is it a hurting or indignant husband? A repentant wife?

Seven Sevens Meme

Donna tagged me a long time ago, and since my day has been CRAZY (C-R-A-Z-Y), I think I need a leetle game.

Seven Things to Do Before I Die:

1. Learn to sew. Hey, I've only had my machine for three years now.
2. Learn to Knit, or Embroider, or something. Kinda like number one. Can you tell I have a longing for the feminine domestic arts? I just...stink at them. Except for cooking. I can do that.
3. Read the Bible as many times as possible.
4. Learn not to freak out, worry, be anxious, or fret.
5. Learn when to shuddup.
6. Travel. I'd put a specific place, but there are so many I want to see.
7. ADDED ESPECIALLY FOR MULEY: Learn to complete a simple task. Like making a list of seven things.

Seven Things I Cannot Do:

Besides sew, embroider, and knit?

1. Speak Spanish. I took French. Maybe it'll come in handy if the Lord does allow us to travel to Cameroon, but man, Spanish looks pretty useful here in America, with our rising Hispanic population. French just seemed much more romantic at the time.
2. Tell time. Well, actually I CAN, but it might take a second. Let's just say I prefer digital watches.
3. Keep a poker face. I stink at any game or situation that requires you not to show your emotions. Oops. Balderdash, anyone?
4. Figure out technical things. I can't fix anything or figure out how anything works. Remember those tests in 8th grade that required you to fold up the box in your head? WORST TEST EVER for me.
5. Stand licorice. That stuff is jus' nasty.
6. Deal with commercials. I have always hated, hated, hated them. Good thing we don't have TV anymore. But I hate them on the radio, too. And don't get me started on the music they play at the gym...
7. Curl 50 lbs. But I will. Right now my high weight is 40.

Seven Things that I Admire in My Husband:

1. His gentle nature.
2. His generous heart.
3. His willingness to stand for truth, no matter how unpopular it is.
4. His faithfulness and loyalty.
5. His smarts.
6. His discernment.
7. His choice of me. HA! HA! I crack me up!

Seven Things I Say Most Often:

I can already tell I am going to be embarrassed. Really, a lot of the things I say are inside jokes with Ryan. And these aren't in any particular order of how often they're uttered.

1. Dude!
2. Why, the windows are FULL WEST.
3. Clearly. (Said with mock-sarcasm, often at the end of a sentence)
4. I know, right? (This is a Californiaism I picked up last year. Look, I did practically live in the Valley, okay? Sometimes it's abbreviated to "Right?" pronounced "Raeyyyyt?")
5. Yesssss.
6. "Sweetie, could you...?"
7. "Army ROTC, this is Kristen..."

Seven Books I Love:

OH BOY!

1. The Bible
2. Pride and Prejudice By Jane Austen
3. The Unschooling Handbook by Mary Griffith
4. The Way Home by Mary Pride
5. A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit
6. Bleak House by Charles Dickens
7. Body for Life by Bill Phillips

Seven Movies I Would (or Do!) Watch Over and Over Again

1. Pride and Prejudice. (1995, A&E/BBC) Duh.
2. Napoleon Dynamite. "Tina, come get some HAM!"
3. Megiddo: March to Armageddon.
4. Megiddo II: The New Age.
5. Body of Work.
6. Rock N Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution.
7. Winged Migration.

Yeah, like anyone will READ all of this!

Psalm 4

I'm going to piecemeal this psalm. It's so wonderful--a great psalm on which to meditate (not that any of them are too shabby!).

I love how so many of the psalms are encouraging, comforting, convicting and instructive, all at the same time. God is like that.

Psalm 4
For the director of music. With stringed instruments. A psalm of David.

1 Answer me when I call to you,
O my righteous God.
Give me relief from my distress;
be merciful to me and hear my prayer.

Right off the bat, I identify with David's desire for God to hear and answer. Look how he characterizes God: righteous. Merciful. Has the power to calm and comfort.

2 How long, O men, will you turn my glory into shame?
How long will you love delusions and seek false gods?
Selah

I have to think this isn't David. Literally, 'sons of men' are addressed here. I take it as the Lord asking these questions. How long will we allow deception to penetrate our hearts? How long before we will cast aside lies and delusion, and follow the Lord's commands to love, obey, and serve?

That challenges my heart.

3 Know that the LORD has set apart the godly for himself;
the LORD will hear when I call to him.

David again. I love his confidence that God WILL HEAR and, by implication, protect and deliver.

4 In your anger do not sin;
when you are on your beds,
search your hearts and be silent.

Selah

5 Offer right sacrifices
and trust in the LORD.

Verse four is an important verse in my eyes, because it's one of the places in Scripture where we can begin to understand how God views anger. Many people think that anger in itself is wrong--it's not. Jesus was quite angry as he drove the moneychangers from the Temple (unless you think he 'mildly' mentioned to them that they'd made His Father's house a den of robbers [Matt 21]!).

Without going into a word study on anger right now (because the Bible does have a good bit to say about it), we can know that the bottom line for those who love God is this: "In your anger, do not sin." Anger is like a fire. It can be extremely dangerous, or it can be harnessed and controlled.

6 Many are asking, "Who can show us any good?"
Let the light of your face shine upon us, O LORD.
7 You have filled my heart with greater joy
than when their grain and new wine abound.

I see here a contrast between the godly and the wicked. Those who do not have the Lord may become despondent and jaded, but the lover of God looks to Him for sustenance and joy. In Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5).

It also calls to mind Jesus' assertion that He is the bread of life (John 6:35). Others' god may be their stomachs, but ours ensures we will never hunger and thirst again.

Phil 3:18-20
For I have told you often before, and I say it again with tears in my eyes, that there are many whose conduct shows they are really enemies of the cross of Christ. Their future is eternal destruction. Their god is their appetite, they brag about shameful things, and all they think about is this life here on earth. But we are citizens of heaven, where the Lord Jesus Christ lives. And we are eagerly waiting for him to return as our Savior.

And finally,

8 I will lie down and sleep in peace,
for you alone, O LORD,
make me dwell in safety.

I love to think about how much David trusted God. I think about the nights David faced, watching as dusk fell, knowing that Saul was pursuing him to take his life. David chose to remember that God is sovereign. He trusted the God he knew.

And Now for Something Completely...Embarrassing

I can't believe I am doing this.

MY PIG PICTURE. Such as it is.

(It's all Michelle's fault.)



Pathetic! Looks like some kind of devil pig!

Is there an artist in the house?

Draw your own pig! Show me up! (Not that it would be hard.)

Margaret Sanger: Enemy of the Family

Amy provides an eloquent primer on the anti-family beliefs of Margaret Sanger, American birth control activist from the early 1900s. According to Wikipedia:

"In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, a newspaper advocating birth control. She also separated from William Sanger. In 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States. It was raided by the police and Sanger was arrested for violating the post office's obscenity laws by sending birth control information by mail. Sanger fled to Europe to escape prosecution. There, she had an affair with the famous science-fiction author, H. G. Wells. The following year, she returned to the U.S. and resumed her activities, launching the periodical The Birth Control Review and Birth Control News."

This part was a little funny, especially in light of what many Democrats said before GWB's election:

"During the 1960 presidential elections, Sanger was dismayed by candidate John F. Kennedy's position on birth control (though a Catholic, Kennedy did not believe birth control should be a matter of government policy). She threatened to leave the country if Kennedy were elected, but evidently reconsidered after Kennedy won the election."

Bwaaahaaa! But I digress.

I call her an enemy of the family because she was. Here's an excerpt from Amy's piece (emphasis mostly mine):

I wanted to preface her quote with the case that Sanger makes autonomous statements, and that as Christians, we do not have the right to do as such, though it may seem a proper and logical thing to do in a post-modern world. In the chapter which the quote appears, The Wickedness of Creating Large Families, Sanger begins by saying this, "The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children."

And I’m making sweeping statements, broad judgments?! By her statement, this cookie baking stay-at-home mom with a minivan is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and some guy making video tapes in Afghanistan (or is it Pakistan?).

Sanger argues that large families are a burden on mothers, fathers, and society at large. The context in which the quote is found–-The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it–-is among a paragraph discussing the morality and mortality rate of children in large families.

[Amy quotes Sanger, below]

"Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality [Amy wrote: notice the word here is 'immorality,' not 'mortality!'] of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it….The probability of a child handicapped by a weak constitution, an overcrowded home, inadequate food and care, and possibly a deficient mental equipment, winding up in prison or an almshouse, is too evident for comment. Every jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feebleminded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wage-workers."

Sanger's words, particularly "The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children," struck me as very similar to something Aleister Crowley, the most prominent and prolific satanist of the last century, once wrote. He said that the family was "public enemy number one." "Curse them! They are always in the way," he said. Sounds like he and Sanger were of like minds to me. here's the Wikipedia's version of his life, but I would argue with conviction that he never stopped being a satanist.

I've only partially quoted Amy here, so certainly check the whole post out for yourself. More than worth the read.

If you want to know more about Crowley's role as the human architect for the New Age, get a copy of Rock N Roll Sorcerers of the New Age Revolution. One of the best tapes EVER.

Bono Revisited

I've got to tell you, I probably received the most hateful comments and e-mails to date for writing a post that didn't sing the praises of Bono. But when I saw this incredible article linked from Ambra Nykol's blog, which I love, I really wanted to share it with you. Ambra wrote:

A recent editorial on Bono's message of "co-existence" (i.e. that Christians, Muslims, etc. can all live together in harmony hogwash) is kicking up some dust with Christian-folk and I love it. I personally, have never quite "gotten" this world's obsession with Bono the humanitarian or U2. Sorry, but they weren't big around my "neighborhood," not even when Bono did a song with Kirk Franklin. Good conversation fodder.

She's referring to an editorial from Relevant Magazine, whose audience probably didn't appreciate the comments by one Tara Leigh Cobble. Check out what happened at a recent U2 concert:

I’m pretty sure I won’t get much opposition if I say that U2 is the greatest rock band of all time. When I scored two great seats to one of the shows at Madison Square Garden last month, I thought my life had reached its pinnacle.

It was a euphoric experience. During the first few songs, I stood, along with the rest of the stadium, as we pumped our fists into the air and sang along with every word. The energy in the air was emotionally overwhelming. And if you’ve never been to a U2 show, let me tell you that it was everything you’d ever expect it to be.

But it was also much, much more.

About five songs into their set, Bono stopped the show and strapped on a headband with writing on it. I stared up at the JumboTron to see that the handwritten lettering said: COEXIST.

Coexisting sounds like a great idea. I fully support the peaceful philanthropy that Bono has encouraged, and this seemed like another way that he was trying to spread the message.

Except, it started to feel like more than a political message. The “C” in “coexist” was the Islamic crescent moon, the “X” was the Star of David, and the “T” was the cross of Christ. Bono pointed at the symbols on his headband—first to the cross, then to the star, then to the crescent moon—and he began to repeat:

'Jesus, Jew, Mohammed—all true. Jesus, Jew, Mohammed—all true.'

He repeated the words like a mantra, and some people even began to repeat it with him. I suddenly wanted to crawl out of my skin. Was Bono, my supposed brother in Christ, preaching some kind of universalism? In just a few seconds, I went from agreeing with him about Christ-like “coexistence” to being creeped out by the ungodly, untrue thing he was saying. What’s going on here? What if he believes that all ways are the same, and he just thinks of Christianity as his particular way? Aren’t universalism and true Christianity mutually exclusive?

I’ve heard the urban legends of amazing things Bono has said about his faith, I’ve read the books, and I’ve peered deep into everything he’s said hoping to find something that makes his beliefs clear. For years, I’ve adored him and clung to the notion that he is believer, too. After all, he identifies himself with Christianity, doesn’t he?

When he stated that lie so boldly, it devastated me. It was, without question, the most disturbing experience of my life; I felt like I’d been covered in bile. As I looked around, I saw all the people standing and chanting with him—it was disgusting and beautiful all at once. Unity can be so enticing. It made me think of the one world religion and how that will probably look benign and beautiful from the outside, too. I even started to wonder if universalism just might be poised to be that religion. All these things were running through my head.

After the show, I ran into a friend who had been sitting in the back row of farthest. 'What did you think of that headband thing?' I asked. 'Well, I couldn’t hear what he was saying because it was bouncing off the wall behind me, and I couldn’t read the headband, because I wasn’t near a JumboTron. But honestly, I felt like I was witnessing an antichrist.' I stood frozen as she spoke. I’d had the same feeling.

Let me be clear: I’m not saying that Bono is the Antichrist. Perhaps he’s just guilty of being overzealous about his politics. But I hope that if he is a believer, the Holy Spirit will convict him that equating Christianity with other religions is false prophecy. II Timothy 3 tells us to avoid people who have a form of godliness but deny the true power of God. And I believe that the most deceptive thing of all is to identify yourself with the truth and preach a lie.

For a long time after the show, I couldn’t talk about it. And I still don’t know what to think because I don’t know Bono’s heart. All I know is what he said from that stage and how it shook my footing. God used that to show me something ugly in myself that needed to be fixed. It felt like He was saying, “If you’re looking to Bono, you’re looking to the wrong place.”

The reality is that Bono held too high a place in my heart. And I don’t think I’m alone there. I’ve wrongly held him up as the heroic ideal—the cool representative for Christianity; he may have been my “Christian idol,” but he was my idol nonetheless. And that’s not okay. Yes, it should bother me to think that Bono might not be a believer; but it should not bother me any more than if a random guy on the street does not believe.

I think Miss Cobble is extremely brave for being so honest about her experience. I know--also from experience--that it won't win her many friends. Perhaps afraid of the vitriol she is about to incur, she ends the article with the typical "I don't know his heart," and "If Bono has a saving faith in the one true God, I can only hope that he would speak the Truth without ambiguity." Um, there was NOTHING ambiguous about having people chant "Jesus, Jew, Mohammed--all true. Jesus, Jew, Mohammed--all true." Unbelievable.

I thank God, though, that Miss Cobble had the courage to speak out about what happened at the concert. Now if Christians who continue to cling so tightly to their love of Bono will only listen. I post this not in hate, but in love--the kind of love that tells the truth. I don't want anyone to be deceived, and that's clearly what's happening here.

Tozer on Movies

I thought this might be a good time to bring up an article by one of my favorite Christian thinkers, A.W. Tozer. The Menace of the Religious Movie is his discourse on drama in Christendom.

This is--I'm sure I don't have to tell you--even more controversial today than when Tozer wrote it. I don't quote him here to declare my total opposition to the use of any kind of drama, but I do think his words are worth considering honestly, in light of the Word of God and not our own desires and preferences. After reading it, I understood my own discomfort with films like The Passion of the Christ much better. I quote Tozer below, but please, read the whole thing. It's not long and I can't do it justice by snipping. He writes,

The temptation to introduce "new" things into the work of God has always been too strong for some people to resist. The Church has suffered untold injury at the hands of well intentioned but misguided persons who have felt that they know more about running God's work than Christ and His apostles did. A solid train of box cars would not suffice to haul away the religious rubbish which has been brought into the service of the Church with the hope of improving on the original pattern. These things have been, one and all, positive hindrances to the progress of the Truth, and have so altered the divinely-planned structure that the apostles, were they to return to earth today, would scarcely recognize the misshapen thing which has resulted....

Within the last few years a new method has been invented for imparting spiritual knowledge; or, to be more accurate, it is not new at all, but is an adaptation of a gadget of some years standing, one which by its origin and background belongs not to the Church but to the world. Some within the fold of the Church have thrown their mantle over it, have "blessed it with a text" and are now trying to show that it is the very gift of God for our day. But, however eloquent the sales talk, it is an unauthorized addition nevertheless, and was never a part of the pattern shown us on the mount.

I refer, of course, to the religious movie.

For the motion picture as such I have no irrational allergy. It is a mechanical invention merely and is in its essence amoral; that is, it is neither good nor bad, but neutral. With any physical object or any creature lacking the power of choice it could not be otherwise. Whether such an object is useful or harmful depends altogether upon who uses it and what he uses it for. No moral quality attaches where there is no free choice. Sin and righteousness lie in the will. The motion picture is in the same class as the automobile, the typewriter, or the radio: a powerful instrument for good or evil, depending upon how it is applied....

The idea that religion should be entertaining has made some radical changes in the evangelical picture within this generation. It has given us not only the "gospel" movie but a new type of religious journalism as well. It has created a new kind of magazine for church people, which can be read from cover to cover without effort, without thought---and without profit. It has also brought a veritable flood of religious fiction with plastic heroines and bloodless heroes like no one who has ever lived upon this well known terrestrial ball.

That religion and amusement are forever opposed to each other by their very essential natures is apparently not known to this new school of religious entertainers. Their effort to slip up on the reader and administer a quick shot of saving truth while his mind is on something else is not only futile, it is, in fact, not too far short of being plain dishonest.

One thing about films I'm personally uncomfortable with is the insertion of images into my mind which I can never erase. Media is so powerful, we must be so careful--but we are bombarded with harmful images as never before in human history. Even items marketed to Christians can be full of evil--but even if it's not blatantly evil, is it serving God's purposes?

Did you know that the origin of the word 'hypocrite' is Greek?

hypocrisy
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrīnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krīnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krīnein, to decide, judge.]

Kinda interesting. Again, I'm not drawing conclusions--just putting out a viewpoint to consider.

Good Conversation Alert

There's a great discussion going on over at Choosing Home Blog regarding Chad Allen's role in End of the Spear.

The controversy is this: a gay actor is playing Nate Saint in a film about an event that is very precious to many Christians--the martyrdom of several American missionaries to Ecuador in January, 1956. Many Christians are upset at the selection of an openly gay activist for the part of Saint.

Like many women who have commented on Molly's post, I see both sides of the argument. Many women there have made excellent, thoughtful posts that don't come across as snide or angry. I love when we can disagree so kindly (Molly and Spunky are historically good at that, by the way!).

Molly quotes Randy Alcorn:

Many nonbelievers know only two kinds of Christians: those who speak the truth without grace and those who are very nice but never share the truth. What they need to see is a third type of Christian — one who, in a spirit of grace, loves them enough to tell them the truth.

And really, that "third type" is the only "type" with any legitimacy. Speaking the truth without love drives people away from the Lord and exposes the speaker's hardened heart. Never speaking the truth exposes cowardice and a false love.

I like Molly's point about Christians and homosexuality; I think she and Holly together make a great point:

Molly: "Sodomy is an abomination, yes, but so is lying....[I]f we must boycott this movie because it has a gay man, let’s be consistant. We need to discover the character and morality about everyone else, not just this one movie. Movies in general, probably need to get the boot (and maybe that would be a good thing?). Grocery stores need to be investigated, the product makers searched out. Where does my toilet paper come from? Are the folks who run Google morally acceptable? Does the lady at my bank indulge in fornication or drunkeness after hours? Pensees says that the fact that Chad is an activist is where we must draw the line. Maybe he’s right. But to me, it’s more complicated than that.

We need to ask the question--it’s important--and consider the relationship the Christian should have to the world. But let’s be able to clearly explain where we draw our lines and where, instead of reacting emotionally simply because a gay activist is more repugnant to us than a heterosexual adulterer.

Holly, later, in a comment: The only thing I would like to insert here is the underlying reason evangelicals tend to be particularly annoyed by homosexual sin. It is not that it is a pet sin, or “worse.” It IS the agenda, the radical agenda, which evangelicals perceive (rightly, I think) as being shoved down their throats via public school educations and television and movies. Do you all realize how much things have changed in the last twenty years regarding this issue? When I was a kid, being “gay” was not a good thing. It has become normalized, even celebrated…it has and will continue to change the face of our world (not just the US) by manner of inclusive laws, curriculum, and directly affecting the “specialness” of marriage. By glorifying it in the media, many kids copy cat it….they declare themselves bi or gay simply because it is cool…not because they have been abused. (By the way, my sister was left to raise three young children because her husband abandoned her for the gay lifestyle. I’m not remote from this. I feel the pain of the individual who struggles with this…I just don’t think it has to be widely celebrated and lauded as an acceptable lifestyle.)

Okay, enough...I'll let you read it all for yourself. :)

Ryan and I actually just watched a documentary about the missionaries and the Aucas called Beyond the Gates of Splendor, so we probably won't see this movie. I'd rather see the historical footage of the missionaries and the interviews with the living Aucas than actors any day.

Discipline: Body and Spirit

Remember Pineapple Throat? That was December 15. I'd already been sick for several days when I wrote that post; I've been to the doctor three times since then and am still on antibiotics (and believe me, I am one of those people who doesn't take them unless absolutely necessary). It's been a long time since a bug nabbed me this hard!

The illness required me to stay home from work quite a bit, and I had time to ruminate on the blessing of health, and on the connections between our physical and spiritual lives.

A little bit of background: before I got sick, and smack in the middle of my Couch to 5K running program I had been striving to complete, Ryan and I decided together to begin Bill Phillips' Body for Life (BFL) program. In a nutshell, the program consists of intense weight training, high-intensity interval aerobic training, and a (common sense) nutrition plan. I know it's cliche to say it, especially in January, but it's truly a lifestyle change for us. (And we started in November! So THERE! ;-) )

BFL is a twelve-week challenge, but it's not really meant for you to just do twelve weeks and then go back to your old way of life. It's meant to change how you look and feel so dramatically in those twelve weeks that you'll never want to go back to being a couch potato. I was extremely excited that this is something Ryan and I could do together; with C25K, I'd been running on my own. Ryan was just as committed and gung-ho as I was about weightlifting and eating right.

We were about two or three weeks into the program when I got sick. In my personal journal I wrote,

"I've been sick for two weeks now. There's nothing like an illness to make you really appreciate the health you normally enjoy. It fires up in my heart a desire to take advantage of feeling healthy: to apprehend and consistently practice and display discipline and drive to meet my goals.

I've treated my spiritual life the same way that I had treated my physical (fitness) goals before BFL: no planning, no real/concrete 'goals' set. Just wishes and vague plans--dreams. I realize now that I've got to be much more deliberate, or the enemy, who is quite willing to be calculating and deliberate, will best me, because I have not run to the Lord and hid beneath His wings."

The enemy isn't seeking to throw someone off their BFL program. He wants to turn them from God. But there are parallels between physical and spiritual discipline that I am just learning and that intrigue me. There is a connection.

1 Corinthians 9:24
Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Now, Paul isn't telling the Corinthian believers to get out to the track; he's talking about keeping the flesh under subjection to the Holy Spirit, having the Fruit of self-control. He's talking about persevering in our relationship with and obedience to Jesus Christ. But look: an athlete exercises self-control in all things. Is there something I can learn from that, something that might help my walk?

I think it's safe to say I've never been an extremely disciplined person. Academically, yes--I made A's my whole life. For me a B was an F, and a C simply unthinkable, devastating. But in pretty much every other area, I've done what pleased myself and haven't worried too much about self-control or self-denial. Jesus helped me with that a lot when we met, but I have come to realize how much I haven't listened to the Spirit in many areas where I believe it would please the Lord for me to exercise self-control, or to be more disciplined.

1 Tim 4:7b-8
...train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.

Going back to my journal--when I wrote that I want "to take advantage of feeling healthy: to apprehend and consistently practice and display discipline and drive to meet my goals," I saw a connection between what I am doing physically and what I need to do spiritually.

You can't "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" with God. It doesn't work that way; it's not all about you and your effort. It's about crying out to Him, listening for Him, watching Him. But there is something to be said for being consistent and goal-oriented in seeking to obey Him. I think we actually have to be. I'm not being a type-A yuppie. I'm just agreeing with Paul. "Run that you may obtain [the prize]" and "I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

The goal, the prize is eternal life: to know (John 17:3) and be with Jesus, whom I love and who redeemed me from death, forever. Yeah, I want to be goal-oriented.

Ephesians 5:8-10
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord.

Hebrews 10:36
You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.

Relativism's Ugly Offspring

The success of "Sex and the City" didn't astound me. Its adoring fan base wasn't surprising. But the content of the show (which, no, I haven't watched but have read enough about to know I DON'T want to see it, thanks) is another in a long list of dividing lines that increase exponentially in our country every day. It separates those with some sense of virtue and morality from those who, increasingly, don't care.

Romans 1:28-32
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

I wanted to point you guys to this article by Monique E. Stuart, Program Officer for the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute. I am more interested in what Stuart is saying than in the political aspect of the Institute's work. I thought this passage particularly incisive:

"In their moral relativist world, no one has the right to judge others. In Columbia University’s sex column, Sexplorations, Miriam Datskosky explains why the all too common 'walk of shame' shouldn’t be shameful at all. She argues that men and women should be able to go out and have sex whenever and with whoever they like, and when walking home the next morning—wearing the same clothes from the night before, their make-up smeared, and their hair a mess—they shouldn’t be judged. 'It is not up to a random stranger to make you feel ashamed,' she declares. Moral relativism and the sexual revolution had a baby, and boy is it ugly!"

The "Walk of Shame," for those of you fortunate enough not to know, is a woman's trip back to her car/apartment/dorm room after, um, having relations with someone she didn't plan on copulating with the night before. Thus the references to smeared makeup and the previous night's mussed attire.

It's so pathetic and hits so close to home that I am almost without words. My heart breaks for all those deceived women, walking back to their dorms or cars and trying desperately to feel "proud" of what they've just done, like Cosmo and Glamour said they should and would. They hope he'll call tomorrow (he won't--and if he does, it's for one thing, and sweetie, it doesn't involve a ring or going home to his mom and dad). Instead, they uncover the gritty reality the glossy magazines conveniently left out of their "Are You Normal?" sex article: anger, guilt, sorrow, and for many women, disease.

God set me free from that kind of life, through the blood of a Messiah who actually cares about women who have not lived virtuously; when the world would have thrown me out like garbage (after lying to us and telling us this life would bring happiness), He made me worth something. He gave me a totally new heart, a new way of looking at everything. He cleansed me and made a completely new person.

John 8:3-11
As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and Pharisees brought a woman they had caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd. "Teacher," they said to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?"

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, "All right, stone her. But let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!" Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to her, "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"

"No, Lord," she said. And Jesus said, "Neither do I. Go and sin no more."

I'm still working on that whole "sin no more" thing, but I sure am glad He sacrificed Himself for me...unworthy, unholy, unfit. If I am worth anything, it's because of His love for and His redemption of me.