I was just reviewing some of my Prepare-Enrich training materials and came across this quote I fancied:
You can’t stop the waves, but you can learn to surf.
—Jon Kabat-Zinn
This is not an endorsement of Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s work, mind you, like Paul’s quotations were no endorsement of Epimenides or Aratus. I simply like a good turn of phrase. 
Just time for a quick hit: I’ve discussed Climategate before (for instance: here and here). Much of the media machinery has rolled out to explain how the revelations present in the East Anglia e-mails don’t really change anything, but that simply isn’t true. Regardless of whether one believes that global warming is man-caused, not man-caused, or nonexistant, one would have to agree that the e-mails are a disheartening look at how unscientific the practice of science can be. If referred journals are the “Bibles” of the science community, then the Climategate e-mails paint a picture of the science community — climate science, in particular — akin to how Dan Brown paints the Catholic Church.
I only bring this up again because Patrick J. Michaels in today’s WSJ explains this so much better and more concisely than I have. (Go figure.) And as one of the victims in all of this, he has regrettable cause to have intimate knowledge. I link to his article here for those so interested: “How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus.”
The title above is taken from what I think is the choicest quote from Peggy Noon’s WSJ opinion piece today, “The Adam Lambert Problem.”
I agree with her — and most of you likely would, too — that something deeper than the economy or health care is at the heart of what’s currently wrong with America. However, I don’t know if I agree that the majority of Americans are truly aware of it or not. I hope she’s right.
Her article is worth a read, though I should warn that she does describe in brief specifics some of the vulgarities present in Mr. Lambert’s recent television performance, though in doing so she is only quoting news sources that covered the perversion the next day.
As for Mr. Lambert’s complaint about the complaints, his “idiot’s logic that was nonetheless logic” (as she terms it) is worth pondering for those who seem to somehow feel as though the only problem with the perversion on display in his performance was that it wasn’t within the realm of publically acceptible perversion.
Her final comment (my emphasis): “But maybe as 2010 begins and the 00s recede, we should think more about the noneconomic issues that leave us uneasy, and that need our attention. Not everything in America comes down to money. Not everything ever did.”
Sister, you ain’t just whistling Dixie. In fact, we have a television program and a free magazine devoted to that very idea.
For now, I will add to her commentary only this short comment: “It doesn’t stay in New York. It never does.”
Super quick post: Since more and more of those who read this blog seem to do so on Facebook, I thought that this post on the Hannibal Blog might be of interest concerning Facebook’s recent changes: “Facebook flashes your trench coat open.” Thankfully, the post is not as prurient as the title might suggest to some.
I’d love to pursue the comments he has concerning what Facebook reveals concerning the difference in men and women on social networks, but I’ve gotta run!
[Before I begin typing about the topic at hand, let me use this space to apologize to the many of you who have e-mailed me using my AT&T address over the last week-or-so. I now use Gmail (same address, otherwise), and I keep forgetting to check my AT&T Inbox. If you've e-mailed me there, I will try to respond soon!]
A new (new to me, that is) Bible translation I ordered came in earlier today, and I thought I might post about it to see if any of you have feelings one way or another about it. It is the Williams New Testament, a private translation by Dr. Charles Bray Williams first published back in 1937.
[Of course, being a New Testament only, it is only a "semi-Bible" in that sense. ]
It caught my eye for Dr. Brey’s careful attention to the translation of Greek verbs, for which it has been praised by some. I referred to it in my recently taped telecast “Seven Signs of the Antichrist” and, having looked into it, decided it was worth getting, especially since it was available for such a reasonable price at www.sprawls.org/williams.
Having checked it out a bit, it is clear that Dr. Williams’ theology has affected his translation in places, but this is ever going to be the case, and it doesn’t mean that the translation is not without its merits. I don’t anticipate its replacing my usual references to the NKJV, NASB, et al. any time soon, but as another resource to help me rightly divide the word of truth (cf. 2 Tim 2:15), I hope it can be a worthwhile tool in that regard.
So, let me open the comments up to you. First, are any of you familiar with the Williams New Testament? If so, let me know your opinion of its merits or weaknesses. Secondly — a more general question — other than the “major” or popular translations (KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, ESV, NIV, Douay Rheims, etc.), are there any lesser known translations out there that anyone can comment on in terms of usefulness? (As examples of what I am talking about, some of you might be familiar with the Moffatt, Cassirer, or Fenton translations.)
[BTW: There are a few translations that I know of that I am not interested in giving Internet space to, as I believe they have blatantly deceptive content. If I see a reference to one of those and I believe that giving it potential advertising would violate my conscience, I will try to write you to let you know why your comment did not appear. Still, this should not happen often! Also, just because I don't delete a translation reference from the comments, please don't think that it means I endorse the translation.]
Enough set up… Let me know what you think!
Quote of the day:
“Trees love dying for math. They consider it one of their greatest callings in life.”
Well, I can’t assume that he is vermin. And I don’t want to insult our ferrets, whom I lovingly call our vermin (well — mostly lovingly). He might simply be a human being with advanced deterioration in his orbitofrontal cortex. But he is immoral.
About a week ago, I had received a burst of three-or-so texts with tasteless jokes that I assumed were simply the result of someone with a wrong number. I let it slide. Then, a few days later, I received a few more from the same number, one of which was horribly racist and offensive. I thought I would at least try and call to politely let the person know that he was sending these to the wrong number. Part of me was concerned that it was some sort of automated service that would now know I existed and begin targeting me even worse, but I thought I would gamble anyway.
All I got was a recording from “John” asking me to leave a message. And I did, letting him know that he may be unaware, but his texts were going to the wrong number and that I would appreciate his correcting his contact list.
A few more days go by and I figured that, just maybe, all was OK. I was sitting in the living room with my kiddos watching TV and I had six-year-old Boy #4 in my lap, requesting to play on my iPhone. I told him that I would give it to him in just a few moments, and boy am I glad that I hesitated.
I had it in my hand and was going to give it to him when I heard it chime the familiar “You’ve got a text” noise. On receiving a text message, my iPhone — even in sleep mode — will show you the text or image you’ve been sent and then go back to sleep if you don’t respond. Well, upon hearing the chime, both Boy #4 and I instinctively looked at it and right there was a pornographic picture. I covered it immediately with my hand (and honestly, freaked out a little) and apologized to Boy #4 for taking it away so quickly, saying that someone Daddy doesn’t know seems to keep sending him bad things. He understood and, thankfully, is young enough that he probably had no idea what he was looking at in the small amount of time he saw it.
I, on the other hand, was furious, and — I will admit — even as I type this I start to feel incredibly angry that someone would do such a thing when any of my kids could have been holding that phone. They play games on it often — and, as I said, were just about to — and it felt like an attack directly on my children. I know it wasn’t, but it felt that way.
Realizing that this was serious and that I could not predict what this guy might send next, I told Boy #4 and his brothers that until Dad figured out a way to block this individual, I couldn’t let them use my phone. Then, right after I said that, I received three more images from this person, and it was as if the vulgarity was getting worse with each send.
That night my Beautiful Wife and I researched options online and came to the conclusion that, generally, you cannot prevent your carrier from allowing a particular number to text you without paying for an additional service. We did have the option of blocking text messages all together, but I hated the idea of removing the convenience of an occasional text message. Also, I could assign an alias to my number, then only allow those who text to my alias address to be permitted, but I have had a few occasions where folks I wouldn’t have thought to give my alias to have texted me with information I really needed at times when texting was the best option.
So, I bit the bullet and added AT&T Smart Limits to my plan for $4.99 per month. It was odd entering information for my own phone as if it were one of my children’s, but hopefully that will do the trick. Based on some of the details I read on the Smart Limits website, I am not 100% sure that this will do the trick, and I may need to move to Plan B. Just to be sure, I am going to wait a couple of weeks before I let them use the phone again to see if Mr. Pornography strikes again.
(For what it’s worth, I asked the service rep at the AT&T store if I could there was a setting on the Smart Limits plan that would send a focused pulse of particles into the phone of the offending individual to fry it’s circuits, but he said there wasn’t. It never hurts to ask, you know.)
People do things like this for the fun of causing a hassle to someone else — the new millennium’s answer to “crank calls.” But just thinking that my boys could so easily have been exposed to such vile images makes me mad. Lawlessness abounds and the love of many does, indeed, grow cold (cf. Matt. 24:12). I know this person is getting his jollies by doing this, but I wonder if he thinks about whether or not there might be a little kid on the other end of the line. Even scarier, I wonder if he even cares.
Wow! Apparently nothing brings ‘em in quite like Twilight and talking about children in church! This blog had a record day Friday and a record Sabbath yesterday.
I won’t say much more on Twilight. Many of you wrote in very kind things (both here and on Facebook) and I appreciate your encouragement. No one wrote in to disagree, yet I figure surely someone does — for those who do disagree but who did not “flame” me, my thanks for your restraint! Judging from what I’ve seen on TV, et al. those who love the stories seem to really love them, so I’m sure that criticism isn’t easy to hear. I know that if someone had attacked Calculus, Newton, and Leibniz with the same intensity, I’d probably have to bite my tongue (yet, I do hope I would still listen, just in case I really did need to learn). Actually, a special thanks goes out to the woman who wrote me privately to say that she was enthralled with both the whole series of books and now the movies until looking at it more deeply and then repenting of those choices: you spoke honestly about these things out of a personal, intimate experience in a way that I could only approximate in my own comments. I appreciate your sharing that.
However, I will say more about the “children in church” topic. I wasn’t so surprised by the page views on the Twilight post, given that it is the current rage du jour. But the page views on the “children in church” topic was incredibly high, as well! Maybe the WSJ author was right and there really is a burning question out there on the topic.
Even more of you commented to me on the “children in church” topic than on the Twilight one — some here on the blog, but by far more on Facebook and in e-mails. Most of you related your own experiences, but some of you wanted more details about what my wife and I did when the kids were small. I elaborated a bit in the comments on that post, but let me add more details here.
My wife and I knew that if we and our children were going to enjoy more stress-free years ahead in church services we needed to train them early. And we had learned from the example of others, enhanced by the fruit of our own mistakes, that teaching a child to consider a blanket to his space to play quietly for a time was the way to go.
(Before I proceed, let me recognize that children differ from child to child and that I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. These things worked for us, and while the principles are hopefully sound, the application might differ (even greatly) from child to child.)
Here are the key points we incorporated.
- Practice during the week. Around midday while I was off in Actuary Land, my wife would practice quiet time with the little ones. Not always the same length of time as services and not always playing a sermon tape during that time, but doing something to establish a pattern so that when the Sabbath rolled around the children weren’t expected to behave dramatically differently than they do all week long. This seemed important, and ignoring it would have felt like setting them up for failure — expecting them to “perform” without “practice.”(A side note: The idea of quiet time — even when naps were outgrown — remained beneficial. Even now at 12, 10, 8, and 6 years of age, there are those times during the day when the young XY-chromosome-produced cacophony makes you say, “Enough!!! Find something quiet to do!!!”)
- When a child would persistently make a noise during that time, we would move to our first stage of intervention: place our finger on their lips and quietly say “shhhh.” I’m sure you know the universally recognized “shhhh” gesture, with a finger held to your lips. Well, that is what we would do with them, except with our finger. I felt that — especially given their very young age — the tactile sensation on their lips and the sense of request that they must have picked up from our face and tone would help to connect the two things.This alone often made a big difference, and though it usually needed doing a few times each service, it usually was enough to do the trick and did so in a manner that kept baby happy, Mom and Dad happy, and those around us without distraction. (Or minimally distracted, I hope! Dallas folks, feel free to write in and let me know if we failed and don’t know it! I can take it!)
- When those were not sufficient to keep the child quiet or when he seemed determined to crawl off of the blanket no matter how many times we scooped him up and redeposited him back onto it, one of us would move our things to the hall to camp out. At the time, Dallas did not have anything to serve like a Parent’s Room, so the hall had to do! Almost right across from the water fountain actually. (Ahhh, good times…)Our concern was that if we stayed in the main hall, the constant picking up of the kiddo and putting him back onto the blanket would eventually become too distracting, so moving things out into the hall solved that. It gave us the freedom to keep picking him up and putting him back on the blanket — oh, I don’t know — 800 to 900 times in a row without distracting the people around us. Thankfully, none of my kids ever seemed to think it was a game, which would have made it worse. I imagine they would just begin crawling off and then find themselves back in the middle of their blanket wondering, “How did I get back here?” (Aggies — like their dad!)It also gave us the freedom (and room!) to sit on the floor right next to him and pat his back or make his toys more interesting to them. We didn’t want being in the hall to be unpleasant, necessarily, but at the same time we didn’t want going out to the hall to be a reward either. Whether we struck the right balance, I don’t know, but the results were great and have continue to be so.
So, a lot of Sabbaths were spent almost entirely sitting in the hallway in Dallas next to the water fountain, repeatedly picking up kiddos and putting them back onto the blanket, or patting backs until our arms felt as though they were going to give out. We certainly weren’t perfect, but at least we had a plan. And, little Aggies or not, they did get it after a while, whether because of us or in spite of us!
My many thanks to those of you in Dallas during those years who did not laugh at us when you came out to visit the restrooms or the water fountains. (Well, at least not pointing and laughing, anyway!)
Again, with your own kiddos you may need to do something totally different. You know them better than anybody. However there are two things I wholeheartedly recommend to everyone… (1) Be patient and recognize that you’re going to miss a good number of Sabbath services. It really is just one chapter in your life, and the time that you spend out in the hall or in the parents room or wherever you spend it lovingly and patiently bringing that little kiddo of yours back to his blanket and patting or rubbing his back until he finally goes to sleep will be well worth it in the years ahead. And (2) making sure that whatever behavior you expect during services (playing quietly, staying on a blanket or in a chair, juggling chainsaws, etc.) is being amply practiced at home for equivalent periods during the week. Expecting such behavior only on the Sabbath with six days of “do whatever you want” between Sabbaths is a recipe for failure and for frustrating your little kiddo (not to mention you!)
I hope this helps! Maybe those of you with a different approach can offer something in the comments (or, what will be more likely, in the thread where this may appear in Facebook). The more examples young families have to draw on and learn from, the more success they’ll see!
Finally, someone asked me what happened the day I had to pause in my sermon to address a situation while my wife was outside the room. Actually, some of you in Columbia may remember this better than I do, but from my recollection the youngest boy — among other in-seat contortions he was working on — had actually turned around in his chair so that his back and head were on the seat and his feet where on his brother’s head and neck, trying to “playfully” provoke him. (How my kids could turn a single seat into a jungle gym, I have no idea. Their bones at that age must have been made of linguine.) Apparently, his “gumption meter” was pegged that day!
I didn’t have to do much — I simply moved my head off to the side a bit from the microphone, called him by name, and told him to stop. When he heard me and saw me looking at him, he sat up, and that was the end of that. Still, even though I got back the sermon in short order I will readily admit that my mind wasn’t into it for the first few moments (sorry, Columbia!). Inside I was terrified that I might have embarrassed him by calling out his name in front of everyone like that. I was easily embarrassed as a kid, and I tend to project that concern onto my own kiddos pretty readily.
But I needn’t have worried — he weathered it just fine (little stinker), and when Mom got back she didn’t even know anything had happened until I told her after church. I’m just glad that he didn’t a taste for fame and notoriety out of it!
Our kids have been such a gift. From Boy #1’s faithful diligence, to Boy #2’s probing questions, to Boy #3’s endless testosterone, and to Boy #4’s potential for surprise hugs and kisses, I will say that I am delighted God saw fit to grant them to an unworthy soul like mine. And having them in church with us every Sabbath instead of off doing something else really is a wonderful blessing.
Well, it’s finally time for me to put these thoughts into words.
First, I really appreciate Mr. Karl Harmdierk’s commentary on the Living Church of God website – “The Day Is Darkest at Twilight” – about the presence of occult concepts in the Twilight books and movies. There are a number of things about that side of the stories that should be considered but which often aren’t. (For instance, the author, Ms. Stephanie Meyer’s claims to have gotten her ideas from dreams where the characters where talking to her, etc.) The glorification of “goth” elements and culture present in the stories is not something to be casually ignored.
However, there is an additional aspect about the Twilight series, both the books and the movies, that touches on a principle that I care very much about and have tried to communicate. It’s part of the very heart of what we’ve tried to accomplish with the Living Youth programs. And although I am very passionate about this particular topic, I will endeavor to be brief – though, certainly much more could be said than I will say here.
The Twilight books (and the movies, Twilight and New Moon, starring Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart have not been exceptions) have been praised by some for their element of “chastity.” After all, in a world where teenagers are depicted as taking off their clothes at every available opportunity, here are characters who do not “consummate” their relationship until they are married. Sounds great, right?
Except it is a deceptive lie. The chastity of Twilight is a counterfeit chastity, and a dangerous one at that.
First, consider some scriptures. We’re told in Proverbs 4:23, “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life.” (The Living Bible isn’t too bad here: “Above all else, guard your affections. For they influence everything else in your life.”) Also, in the Song of Solomon, the Shulamite gives advice every young person needs to know: “Do not stir up or awaken love until it pleases” – stated three times (Song 2:7, 3:5, 8:4). These are given in the context of warnings like in Song 8:6-7, verses which make it clear that it is not just the physical “act” of love that is being spoken of, but the broader realm of romantic emotion that encompasses feelings of intimacy and desire.
Consider, too, the teachings of Jesus Christ, in which He clearly explains to all of us that lusting in your heart is sin just as committing adultery with your body is (Matt. 5:27-28).
In light of these verses and others, the stories of Twilight are dangerous and misleading.
For instance, is Twilight truly “sex free”? Some conclude that it is, because there is no actual, physical fornication taking place. However, this misses the mark by miles. But don’t take my word for it, ask Robert Pattinson, the young actor playing Twilight’s lead vampire, Edward Cullen.
Pattinson has said that Twilight is a metaphor for abstinence. Hey, that sounds great, doesn’t it! But look at his complete comment, given in an interview with the UK’s Daily Telegraph: “The success of the Twilight books comes from the fact that fans can lust after Edward and yet, certainly in the first book, there’s no actual sexual contact between him and the series heroine. Twilight is a big metaphor for sexual abstinence, and yet it’s erotic underneath. There are so many elements in the story which are sexy.”
Stephen King, the famous horror novelist, has also explained the pull of the book in similar terms to MSNBC: “People are attracted by the stories, by the pace and in the case of Stephenie Meyer, it’s very clear that she’s writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It’s exciting and it’s thrilling and it’s not particularly threatening because it’s not overtly sexual” (emphasis mine).
The key word there, of course, is “overtly” – the sensual eroticism and sexuality that Mr. Pattinson and Mr. King are talking about is not upfront and openly on display. But that it is there is beyond dispute.
Mr. King continues in the same interview: “A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like, the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that’s a shorthand for all the feelings that they’re not ready to deal with yet.” And yet by centering so much of the movie’s emotion around such eroticism, Twilight not only demands that its young, female readers “deal with” such sensual thinking and emotions, it also glorifies those things.
This is exactly what we are fighting against in the Living Church of God – a culture of compromise that has forgotten true values. When we’ve lost sight of the true values, it is easier to be deceived in accepting the compromised values for the true ones. When we accept the world’s version of “innocence” and “abstinence” we’ve lost sight of God’s view of these things. The New York Times’ review of The Twilight Saga: New Moon explained the story’s concept of chastity: “Chastity is only hot, after all, when it seems like it actually might be violated.”
“Erotic underneath.” Successful because “fans can lust after” the characters. Not a chastity that is pure and undefiled – a chastity that is “hot” and steamy, because it constantly, painfully lingers at the edge of being violated.
This isn’t chastity as God sees it. It is the devil’s counterfeit.
I know I may have offended some, and that you may want to chalk all of this up to one man’s opinion. Feel free. But that’s my take on it, and I have seen little to make me feel otherwise.
I thought this was an interesting an unexpected article in the WSJ’s online editorial pages this morning: “Seen and Not Heard in Church” by Laura Vanderkam.
According to Mrs. Vanderkam, a growing number of churches are asking the question, “Should children be in church?”
Apparently, many separate the kids and the adults. And I suppose that if I reflect back to my Sunday-keeping days, I do remember sitting in Sunday school for a long time, though I felt then that the longest part of my time there was in the general service with my dad and grandparents.
I know in our services in the Living Church of God, the children and the adults generally sit together as an entire family for the whole of services. We generally believe that the Sabbath is a time for families to be together before God and that children are a part of the community like the adults are.
I’m not saying it is easy — children have to learn to sit quietly with due respect, but for the diligent parent this is not an unattainable goal. No one would accuse our children of being perfect, and I even had to pause in one of my sermons once to get on to one of them when my wife was out of the room (you know Dad means business when he gets you from the lectern!), but being all together has been a great blessing. Increasingly as they get older, the kids ask me questions about the sermons, and often provide their “reviews” of what I said.
Of course, in the earlier days, there were times when my wife and I would spend most of the Sabbath service time in the hall (or in whatever area we could find) training them. We felt that if we took one of the kids out for being noisy, the goal of taking them out was not to just let them cut loose but to have more freedom in training them without distracting others around us. And part of what really helped when they were young was spending time each day during the week — at approximately the same time as Sabbath services and for approximately the same duration — having “quiet time”: either time for a nap or time in which quiet play was enforced and encouraged. This made it much easier for the kids to pick it up — much easier than when the only practice comes once a week during church!
I know that some of our congregations have special, age-appropriate activities for children after services — special lessons for small children or youth Bible studies and such — and I’m all for them! These are great when they can be done. But I’m glad that our Sabbath services do not split up the family. Training four boys to be quiet and attentive (somewhat-to-mostly-to-thoroughly depending on the circumstances) during a two hour service wasn’t the easiest thing, but it has produced wonderful benefits for all of us, and I wouldn’t change a thing.
[UPDATE: Almost right after posting this on Friday, I sent a more polished version to Charlotte for consideration as an Internet commentary, and I notice this morning that it is currently up on the Living Church of God website: "Should children be in church?" It says essentially the same thing but is worded differently in places, is cleaned up a bit, and has been tightened to fit the customary size restrictions on commentaries. You might check it out there, as well.]
