TV or Not TV, That is the Question

I get it. I've read Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. I've sat in many lectures and read many blog articles by Dr. Douglas Groothuis. I understand the reasons not to watch television. Glorified violence. Gratuitous sex. Triviality and banality. And I completely agree that many, if not most, shows on television are a complete waste of time and perhaps even sinful to watch, which is precisely why my wife and I do not watch those shows.

But what about that minority of shows that don't focus on these things? For example, I like to watch cooking shows. Why? Because I like to cook, and I learn new things by watching the professionals in action. My wife and I also like to watch documentaries like Nova or Secrets of the Dead. (Recently, e.g., we just finished watching the BBC documentary The Human Face on Netflix.) Again, these are shows in which you can learn something about science or the humanities and actually feel edified after having watched them. And, of course, I do like to do battle with the contestants on Jeopardy every now and again.

Now this isn't to say that I always watch high-quality shows like these. I do confess that sometimes, after an especially long day at work, I do crash in front of the tube and watch fairly trivial shows. But usually when this happens I am so mentally drained that I would be hard-pressed to pick up a book or have an enlightening conversation anyway. I have had to come to grips with the fact that I just can't be productive all the time.

So I pose the question, is some TV okay, if those shows are actually edifying in some way? Or is TV such a wasteland that one should avoid it at all costs?

Paul's Letter to the Roman-Americans

I just finished preaching a month-long sermon series on Romans at my church. I have to say, I was really struck by Paul's thoughts on what the gospel is and the impact is has on Christians. Romans is, in essence, Paul's grand treatise on the gospel--his sales pitch to the Roman church, as it were, whose support he was trying to obtain for a trip he had planned to spread the gospel to Spain. As one goes through the book, one sees the contrast between Paul's gospel and the gospel too many of us in the church today (including myself, far too often) live out:

Paul: Humans, left to their own devices, are under for God's wrath. (ch. 1-3)
Us: Humans aren't that bad; most people are good at heart.

Paul: Humans who try to find righteousness by adhering to a set of rules (the Jews, in Paul's case) are under God's wrath. (ch 1-3)

Us: Yes, Jesus died for our sins, but we've still got plenty of unwritten rules, don't you worry!

Paul: Salvation can only be found in Christ. (ch 3)

Us: Salvation can only be found in politics.

Paul: Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? No way! (ch 6)

Us: A little sinning here and there isn't really a sin at all, as long as it doesn't violate one of our unwritten rules (see above).

Paul: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel us to spread the gospel! (ch 9-11)

Us: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel someone else to spread the gospel!

Paul: The gospel should cause a transformation in every area of our lives: Our church life, our citizenship to the state, our interactions with family, friends and strangers, etc. (ch 12-15)

Us: What I do outside of church is my own business.

Paul: We should put aside our freedoms in nonmoral areas for the sake of unity and peace. (ch 14-15)

Us: I'm an American; I have rights and I will use them!

I wonder what Paul would tell us today. How would Romans be different if we were his original audience? Would he have to change his message? Or would it be much the same, stressing the same things, since the Romans were humans just like us, too, struggling with the same issues day in and day out? I think the latter might be more likely. Preaching through the book, one finds Paul's letter to be extremely relevant today. In it we see our sinful nature. We see our redemption in Christ alone. We see the model of Christianity to which we strive to adhere.

I wonder if Paul knew how timeless his letter was when he wrote it...

On Being a Dad

I have learned a lot about what it means to be a father in the past six months. By no means would I consider myself and expert, but I have figured out a few things:

• Changing a diaper is not as bad an experience as I thought it would be.
• Sans diaper, baby-boy poop can travel as far as baby-boy pee.
• You can understand a fair amount of what a baby is trying to tell you if you're around him long enough.
• You can eat very quickly while only using one hand.
• Not much beats coming home from a long day at work at having your son smile at you.

As I ponder this experience of fatherhood, I remember a quote from a book by one of my college professors, Dr. Rodney Reeves. In his book A Genuine Faith: How to Follow Jesus Today, he writes,

Jesus cannot teach me how to be a good father because he was never married,
and that is too bad--not just for him but also for me. If he had been married,
if he had fathered many children, then his example would provide another model
of Christian behavior.

Jesus wasn't a father, he was a son. He can't teach me (at least not by example) how to be a dad, only how to be a son to my own dad. But God the Father knows exactly what it means to be a dad; after all, it's in his job title! Through his loving patience with the nation of Israel, I learn how to be patient with my own son. The sacrifice he made for me by sending his son to his death shows me the radical nature of sacrifice I am to provide for my own family as a father. God the Father instructs, exhorts, disciplines and provides for his children out of perfect love, giving me an example to follow as one whose task is the same--being a dad.

May I ever learn from his example!

Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction?

Belief in Bigfoot is logical.

I know what you are thinking right now—I am crazy. Look at the crazy guy who thinks it’s perfectly sane to believe in Bigfoot! Let’s all laugh and point! All right, all right, get it out of your system. Better now? Good.

Seriously, though, I believe that Bigfoot exists. Let me explain why. First, the discovery of animals once thought mythical is not unprecedented. At one time gorillas were considered mythical creatures. The kraken was thought to be a figment of frightened sailors’ collective imagination until someone brought in a colossal squid. Similarly, the coelacanth was thought to have been extinct for millions of years until a fisherman caught one in 1938. And of course previously unknown fauna are being discovered all of the time.

Second, there is possible physical evidence to corroborate the existence of Bigfoot. Hair and fecal samples of unknown origin have been collected near alleged sightings. Piled rock, stacked wood and damaged trees—all seemingly intentionally done—have been reported in those areas, as well. Of special evidential import, however, are films, pictures and footprints. The famous Patterson-Gimlin film has been subject to intense scrutiny, but it has never been proved to be a hoax. (Indeed, if it is a hoax, it is one of the best ever done.) Various pictures, including the recent “Jacobs creature” photos, show something very primate-looking. (The Pennsylvania Game Commission said that the picture was of a mangy bear. Decide for yourself.) There have been many footprints discovered over the years. Some have proven to be hoaxes. Some, however, seem to be genuine, to the point of having possible dermal ridges.

Third, there are thousands of reported sightings of a large, hairy primate in North America. All throughout the continental United States and Canada, people claim to have seen such a creature. One can even find reports dating back nearly 400 years to the native peoples of the Northwest. In many cases, the eyewitnesses are of reputable character (not mentally ill, not known to be habitual liars, not seeking fame, etc) have no reason to lie, are experienced woodsmen[1] (many sightings occur deep in the woods where few urbanites would venture), do not know and therefore cannot collaborate with other persons who report sightings, and simply cannot come to any other explanation of what they saw. Furthermore, the details of the sightings are very often extremely similar. The object of the sighting always has a human-like face, very broad shoulders, hair of roughly six inches in length, a height of 7-9 feet, arms that extend down close to the knees, and so on.

The logic of my belief in Bigfoot (meaning an undiscovered large, bipedal, North American primate), then, can be represented by the following inductive argument:

1. Animals not thought/known to exist are often discovered.
2. Physical evidence exists that may corroborate the existence of Bigfoot.
3. Therefore, the existence of Bigfoot cannot be rejected a priori.
4. Many sightings by reliable people of reputable character occur, most of which contain extremely similar details describing a large, bipedal primate.
5. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are lies or fictional accounts.
6. Many sightings are reported by experienced woodsmen.
7. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are misidentification of known animals.
8. Some sightings have been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
9. Some sightings have not been shown to be as a result of hoaxing.
10. Sightings have been reported over a vast amount of North America for hundreds of years.
11. It is not likely that a vast network of Bigfoot hoaxing has been in existence for hundreds of years.
12. Therefore, it is not likely that all sightings are the result of hoaxing.
13. Not all sightings have been identified as lies or fictional accounts, misidentification of known animals, or hoaxes.
14. Therefore, it is likely that some sightings are real and reliable accounts, the object of which is a large, bipedal, North American primate.
14. Therefore, it is likely that a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
15. Therefore, a large, bipedal, North American primate exists.
16. Therefore, Bigfoot exists.

In the end, I suppose, belief or disbelief in Bigfoot is trivial. In fact, I prefer that most people disbelieve in its existence; that means fewer people are out there trying to bag one. But one day, when you take your kids or grandkids to the zoo to see the gorillas and the sasquatches in the primate enclosure, remember me. I’ll be the guy in the corner thinking to himself, “I told you so!”

[1] Many such people, in fact, have often seen bears in the wild and are adamant that what they saw was not a bear. Thus the misidentification of known animals cannot account for all reported sightings.

Gratuitous Lesbianism

This post isn't about homosexuality.  I promise.  This post is about a trend I have noticed in the land of Television.  Over the past several months, I have thrice had the occasion to be watching network television when, out of nowhere, for no reason, one of the characters is announced to be gay.  Each time it has been the same.  A female character's love life is brought into the show, and lo and behold, she's in a relationship with another woman, and there's always a man who thinks he can bring her back.  The women, of course, are portrayed as beautiful, happy and smart, and the guy is always of the "handsome but full of himself" variety.  

Now I can understand that some might think of this as a good plot twist or sub-story (indeed, Seinfeld had a quite funny episode devoted to the topic), but the problem is, each time I have seen this idea used, it is completely out of step with the rest of the show.  There is simply no need to make one of the characters a lesbian.  It does nothing to further the story line; indeed, it's not related at all.  It's like someone down at the station inadvertently stuck a scene from some other program into the one I was watching.

Of course, I know what's going on here.  It's the land of Television's way of saying, "Hey, everybody, look how cool and sexy and smart these lesbians are!  Isn't being gay great?"  Fair enough, I guess it's their show.  But it seems to me that they are sacrificing their show's quality by inserting random pro-gay commercials into the plot.  

At least when I preach, it's in context.

Bound to Burn?

I like the earth--it's where all my stuff is. I'd like to keep it lookin' good for my children and grandchildren. So I recycle. I also try not to waste energy or throw litter out my car window. I even like that plasticware is now designed with a certain amount of negative space to reduce the amount of material required per utensil. What I don't like is much of the current fad of "saving the earth." Ever since it started, I get the distinct feeling that I'm being had, that there's something someone isn't telling me about here. You know, like when Hollywood's elite tell me not to air condition my house or to take the bus to work instead of drive, or else life on earth will cease to exist, even though they have mansions to cool and private jets to fly.

One particular area in which things just don't feel right to me is the idea of a "carbon footprint." We're all supposed to reduce our carbon footprint, but I have to ask, who is "we?" This is precisely the point in Peter W. Huber's article that recently appeared in City Journal, entitled "Bound to Burn." Huber argues that for us rich Westerners to lower our carbon usage and output is just fine and dandy--until one looks at things globally (isn't that what we are supposed to be doing anyway?). His main point?

We rich people can’t stop the world’s 5 billion poor people from burning the
couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We
can’t even make any durable dent in global emissions—because emissions from the
developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity
desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same
global economy.

He goes on to say that even though we rich-types out there burn more carbon per capita, there are a lot more "capitas" in the world's poorest countries. Thus, "the 5 billion poor...emit 20 percent more greenhouse gas than we do." To make matters worse, as the richer countries reduce their demand for carbon-based fuel, the price for said fuel goes down as well. This, of course, means that for countries like China, who burn massive amounts of coal, they can burn it even more cheaply than they already were. These countries are also increasing their rate of fuel usage at a much faster rate than can be offset by our carbon-reduction efforts.

Huber makes many other thought-provoking points in his article--too many to mention here--but in the end, he takes a realistic look at the situation and realizes that on a global scale, humanity is not going to stop using carbon-based fuels anytime soon, regardless of the amount of reductions in Western countries. Therefore, he reckons, we ought to focus our efforts on getting that carbon out of the atmosphere once it has been released. And what is the best way to do that? Things no one disagrees with. Planting trees, which beautifies our cities and keeps them cooler to boot. Using land wisely and improving agricultural tactics, which can result in greater prosperity. Ideas that benefit both humans qua humans and nature, instead of ideas that villify human use of resources and deify Mother Nature.

So why are these ideas not at the forefront of the environmentalist movement, but riding the bus to work is? I think the leaders of the movement don't really care about the environment, at least not as much as they care about having power. Think about it: How much power do you exert over people when they plant a tree? Not much. How much power do you exert over people when you fundamentally alter the manner in which they travel? Quite a bit more. I think this also explains a lot about the misinformation we receive. For example, in his famous documentary, Al Gore showed an ice berg losing massive chunks of ice into the ocean. He neglected to mention it was computer-generated. To take another example, we are told we need to "save the earth." Since when did it need saving to begin with? Is it misguided hubris to suppose that we can destroy a planet billions of years old by driving to work? Or is it intentional misinformation: If the earth is to be saved, then there must be a savior--a savior with enough political power to make the necessary changes.

This is why I sit uneasy with the environmentalist movement sweeping through our nation. It has nothing to do with treating the earth well. It has everything to do with feeling underinformed, misinformed, and being extremely wary of anyone in pursuit of political power.

Who Do You Love?

Money and righteousness seem to be strange bedfellows. I've been thinking about both lately, perhaps because of a sermon I recently heard/delivered, perhaps because of the economy, perhaps for other reasons not to be named here. In any case, in Christendom money and righteousness have long been pitted against one another or seen as the best of friends, depending on the circles in which one is a member. The same was true in Paul's day, with ascetics living in the desert on the one hand and members of the social elite in the makeup of the early churches on the other. There were even televangelists (well, they would have been if there were television back then) promising God would bless His followers with good careers, nice homes and lots of money; after all, God wants you to be happy! It is interesting and eerily parallel to the present that these proto-televangelists (Paul calls them false teachers) are the subject of discourse of 1 Timothy.

In a pattern common to the letter, in 1 Timothy 6 Paul addresses a specific problem he sees with these false teachers, and then suggests a remedy. He constructs this last section of the letter as a chiasm, which when displayed greatly helps the modern reader understand the flow of the passage:

a. A description of false teachers (vv. 3-5)
b. A proper view of money for the believer (vv. 6-8)
c. The love of money (vv. 9-10)
c'. The love of God (vv. 11-16)
b'. A proper view of money for the rich believer (vv. 17-19)
a'. A description of teachers of the Truth (vv. 20-21)

Without getting into too much detail, the problem is that these false teachers are proclaiming that "godliness is a means to financial gain," which is leading to internal strife within the community of believers (or at least among the sub-category of false teachers and their followers) (vv. 4-5). Paul attempts to restore order and unity by reminding the church that while money is temporal, life is eternal. Thus, as long as a person has his or her needs met financially, that should suffice (vv. 6-8). He then commands the rich Christians to be generous. Generosity is their privilege and duty, and it comes with eternal rewards (vv. 17-19). Paul finally finishes off the chiasm with words of instruction for Timothy, who is to "guard what has been entrusted to [his] care" (v. 20).

While there is much more that could be said about the previous verses, I would like to focus on the center of the chiasm--Paul's main point. What I believe he is doing is taking Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount, "You cannot serve both God and Money" (Matt. 6:24), and applying them to the Ephesian context. Paul draws a contrast between the false teachers' love of money and the true Christ-followers' love of God. He argues, "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil...but you, man of God...pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness" (vv. 10-11, italics added).

This is where it gets weird. This is where things don't make sense. Here's what does make sense--Jesus tells a rich young ruler to give everything he has to the poor, because it's more likely that a camel will pass through the eye of a needle than that a rich person will get into heaven. The opposite of the love of money should be giving it all away and living the ascetic lifestyle. But that's not what Paul says in 1 Timothy 6. Paul says that the opposite of trying to get rich is to get righteousness. The opposite of the love of money is...just love. You might still get rich. You might instead become poor. Your financial status might not change at all. You must be content with what you have.

What is one to do with such an idea? A millionaire becomes a Christian, starts giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars, and still lives in a mansion. A homeless woman finds salvation in Christ, and lives out the rest of her days in a refrigerator box. A middle-class man tries to make ends meet and provide for his family, and yet his focus is to be on matters of faith? But I've got bills to pay and mouths to feed! he screams to himself. Paul's words again allude to the Sermon on the Mount: "Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear...But seek first [God's] kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." (Matt. 6:25, 33). But it's not fair; it doesn't make sense; it's not the American way!

But then again, it does make sense. Godliness reminds us that ultimately we are not in charge of our finances (as one of my coworkers puts it, "We're all temporary employees"). Faith teaches us that God's grace is not constrained to what is calculable. Pursuing righteousness does lead to divine provision for our physical needs, although endurance may teach us we have misjudged what our needs truly are.

Money versus righteousness. The pursuit of financial gain versus the pursuit of God. Envy and strife versus contentment in all situations. Strange bedfellows, indeed.