Gay Marriage Suggestion

As a Christian who believes in what the Bible clearly teaches, I believe that gay marriage is wrong. For that matter so is gay sex. Not to mention any sexual relations outside of one man-one woman marriage, whether hetero- or homosexual.

The current trend in this country is toward acceptance of gay marriage. As the percentage of born-again Christians decreases, I think it may be inevitable that one day gay marriage will be legalized across the country. We can sign petitions, elect the right people, and vote on ballot initiatives, but without a true revival that sweeps the nation, I think we are only delaying it.

Interestingly, at the same time that homosexuals are fighting for the right to legally marry, heterosexual couples are living together without being married at increasing rates. It is ironic that the only people who want to get married anymore are conservative Christians and homosexuals.

I would love to hear how others react to this idea. How does it make you feel? Let me know.

So here is my two-pronged radical solution: (1) Allow gays to legally marry. (2) Have churches get out of the marriage business. When a Christian couple decides to get married, they go down to the courthouse like everyone else and get it done simply--that gets the legalities covered. At some later point, the church can solemnize the relationship in a much simpler manner than we do now. It could be done after service or even as part of the Sunday service as many of us do baby dedications.

In this way, we would truly separate the civil and religious aspects of marriage rather than mixing them as we do now. Gays could get legally married with all the legal, property, and taxation rights that go with it. Since they are already living in their sinful state, why do we care which legal rights are attached? However, only heterosexual Christians could have this legal union made holy by their Bible-believing church.

Think about it. Our traditional church weddings did not come down to us through the Bible or apostolic tradition. They are more indebted to high society and liturgical churches. I personally think that way too much money and time are invested in wedding ceremonies anyway. That kind of money could be better spent as a down payment on a house or something.

I realize I am dreaming. Wedding traditions are so ingrained in our culture (especially American church culture--notice I didn't say it was Christian) that the vast majority of churches would never accept a proposal like this. On the other hand, maybe I'm just ahead of my time. If the day comes that gay marriage is not only allowed, but clergy are required to not discriminate against them, perhaps we would want to consider such a step.

Understand that I am not denigrating Biblical marriage at all. Rather, my proposal separates the civil from the religious and solves a host of problems that are coming upon us, whether we like it or not. I know I have not considered all the ramifications of this, so I invite comments. We're going to have to something different someday, so why not discuss it now?

Generation Gap

Within an hour of the news of Michael Jackson's death, my wife picked up my 16-year old daughter and her friends from the mall. They had heard the news, but it was clear that it had not fazed them in the least. Tina was surprised. Wasn't he the biggest pop superstar of recent memory?

I reminded her that Michael's biggest hits were long before Katie was born and that he had not been relevant in quite a while. While Katie knew the big hits, they were oldies to her. She never watched MTV when they played music videos or saw the famous Motown special. She had no frame of reference in which to place Michael Jackson as a musical artist that she would care about.

Katie is the same age as Tina was when Elvis Presley died. To Tina, he was an old guy that her older cousins listened to. He had not had a hit in the time that she listened to music. When I reminded her of this, she understood why Katie and her friends were unaffected.

One generation's newest and freshest star is the next generation's relic. The Preacher was right, "There is nothing new under the sun."

Music and the Movies Continued

Actor-writer-director Christopher Guest has made several "mockumentaries," that is, fictional documentaries. With much help from Rob Reiner, Michael McKeen, Harry Shearer, and Eugene Levy, he has created a very funny body of work.

The two musical endeavors are This Is Spinal Tap, chronicling an eighties metal band, and A Mighty Wind, about a reunion of sixties folk artists. I find both hilarious, not only for the comedy itself, but also for the musical scenes that are portrayed.

But what is especially great about them is the music. While many of the songs contain humor that mocks the genre (think Big Bottom or Never Did No Wanderin'), the fact remains that most of the songs are really very well written. For example, though the lyrics are stupid both Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You Tonight and The Majesty of Rock by Spinal Tap are killer tunes and arrangements. Likewise A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow from A Mighty Wind is a song that could have easily been a hit.

But the quirkiest music movie of them all is O Brother Where Art Thou. A re-telling of the Odyssey set in the 1930s, the story is a typical Cohen Brothers oddity. What makes it interesting for this subject, however, is its use of old-timey music, most of it actually old and a couple of modern tunes written like old songs.

Though a couple of old recordings are used, most songs are performed by more modern artists like Alison Krauss and the members of her band, EmmyLou Harris, and John Hartford. T-Bone Burnett did a marvelous job of selecting good strong songs and good performers. Some of the songs have no particular relationship to the plot, but others fit in interesting ways. One of my favorites is the sirens singing Didn't Leave Nothing But the Baby.

The movie has been on CMT recently and I have rewatched it several times. If somehow you never saw it, you really need to give it a try.

Music and the Movies

Music has been an important part of movies since they added sound. The film The Jazz Singer(the first full-length film with both music and spoken dialogue) contained six songs and music was instrumental to the plot. There were movies in the thirties that were nothing more than filmed records of elaborate musical stage shows.

Then came my least favorite type of movie, the musical. A story told with standard dialogue for the most part, then interrupted by someone breaking out in a song that relates to the moment somehow. I can accept unreality in movies, but I just find the the idea that a person or group of people will spontaneously break into song (and maybe dance) so ridiculous as to not appreciate the art form. Further, music from these types of shows are normally of a character so different from that of the particular era that I don't enjoy much of the music either.

(Of course, there are exceptions. Fiddler on the Roof has such a strong story and good songs. On the whole, however, I don't like them.)

There are a host of movies, however, that feature music in a way that makes sense. I wrote last week about That Thing You Do. A movie about a (fictional) rock band ought to have a lot of music in it and this one does. A Hard Day's Night was terrific and Help was okay.

One of my favorite movies from the seventies is Phantom of the Paradise. A truly quirky and campy movie, it contains quite a few songs, mostly parodies of certain styles. Parodies without quality is easy. SNL does it all the time and the results are quite forgettable. The parodies in Phantom, however, are really quite good and listenable. Fox Movie Channel has been playing it quite a bit recently, but I have not been able to find the music online.

Tomorrow: Mockumentaries and the quirkiest music movie of them all.

Jon & Kate

Was anyone really surprised that Jon and Kate are "separating" (code word for divorce--there is no chance that either one of them are going to do what is necessary to put this marriage back together)? I don't even watch the show and I knew it was inevitable.

Flashback to the early seventies when PBS broadcast a show called "An American Family" which chronicled the daily life of the Loud family of Santa Barbara. During the filming, the wife and mother Pat Loud told her husband Bill that she wanted a divorce. I don't know how long filming went on (the show itself was edited down to 12 weeks) so it's hard to say just how much the intrusiveness of filming contributed to their break-up. But it obviously didn't help.

I haven't seen but a couple of minutes of the show (most of my info comes from my wife) so I am not taking sides between Jon and Kate in this mess. Neither do I think that it is the scrutiny of the gossip magazines (though they are vile) that caused the breakup. All they did was chronicle a marriage that was on the rocks already.

According to a clip I heard, the couple absolved the TV show of an blame in their problems. Of course they said that!!! What else could they say about the people who have been responsible for making them rich, if unhappy, these past five years?

There is no guarantee that this marriage would have survived anyway; the divorce rate is quite high. But consider these factors: (1) Though each of them has their faults and quirks, how does being on TV affect that? For example, would she be so annoyingly controlling (as I am told) if she didn't feel the need to present the family in such a good light for TV? (2) The pressures of constantly filming a TV show in your house must be immense. Pressure often breaks relationships. (3) With the TV show buying them whatever they want, they have obviously lost touch with real life. (4) Can someone tell me if Jon has a job or not? How can he afford to spend so much time away from the family with other women if he is working? Idle hands etc...

So if the show is at fault, how do families like the Osbornes or Kardashians or Simmonses survive? Easy. They are not ordinary people. They are already comfortable in the public eye. They have some experience in manipulating their image. And those shows are much more scripted than they want you to know. I stopped on the Gene Simmons show for a moment the other day and as they were sitting in the kitchen someone said, "We should ask (whoever) about that." Two seconds later the person in question enters the kitchen door. Tell me that was a coincidence.

I feel bad for this couple. Even if she is a shrew and even if he is an adulterer, divorce is a painful thing to go through. And they can point fingers at all the people or circumstances they want. But I will always be convinced that the seed for the end of their marriage were sown the day they invited the cameras into their house.

Think about your family. Could your marriage or relationships with your children survive the ever-present camera? As committed as I am to my family, I don't know that I could.

It's Not the Heat...

I used to love the heat. When I was much younger, I remember playing softball for hours under the warm southern California sun. When I lived in New Mexico, I had no trouble with the repeated 90-plus degree days that occupied my summer.


Then I moved to the Midwest and learned the meaning of hot. Low 90s coupled with stifling humidity is awful. The air should not feel solid like this. Walking outside from an air-conditioned building is like slamming into a wall. A hot one.

We live in a 100 year-old house. It has air conditioning, but with the antiquated duct-work it doesn't get upstairs where the bedrooms are. So we turn it off and open the windows. After six nights of sleeping poorly, I'm tired.

The 10-day forecast is for daytime temps in the 90s and nighttime in the 70s. I think we are going to have to set up the air mattress downstairs and sleep there.

The World Needs Nerds

In an earlier post, I confessed to being a nerd. As I said then, I am not ashamed or proud; it's just what I am. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. Let's set some definitions.

To me, the biggest difference between a nerd and a geek is, where both are extremely interested in things that are not cool, the geek also has no social skills. These are the guys (and gals) who can't get a date, annoy everyone about their particular subject, and just have trouble acting normal. The characters on The Big Bang Theory are a bit over-the-top, but people like them do exist.

A nerd, however, is still normal. He or she can talk about sports or politics or the latest movies. He still obsesses over books or fantasy baseball or science. It's just that he can talk to people and have normal relationships with others. This might be simplistic, but it's my definition.

Both nerds and geeks also have above average intelligence. Let's face it, a gold ol' boy who is really into NASCAR as well as beer and fishing is not what most people think of when they think of a nerd. He might be just as fixated and annoying about his subject, but society considers NASCAR mainstream. Besides, how much intelligence does it take to watch cars go around and around and around.

I bring this up because, as I write this, the American Theological Library Association is meeting on our campus and I am manning the library as they roam around. I think that being a bit of a nerd is a prerequisite for being a librarian. You have to either be overly interested in books or a particular subject or both.

The stereotypical librarian is also a geek. Somewhat anal-retentive about policies and being quiet. And while I have met a couple of geeks here today, most are friendly and normal. They are just really into being good theological librarians. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Without nerds, you wouldn't have a computer, or access to good books, or professors to teach in college. So before you make fun of them, learn to appreciate them.

Mortality Stinks

Yesterday I had an appointment with my cardiologist. The visit went fine; my medications are keeping my cholesterol and triglyceride levels at good levels. The conversation was positive and upbeat. Still I had a miserable time.

If everything went so well, why was it so bad? Because I was at the cardiologist!!! Since I had a heart-attack four years ago (mostly due to bad dietary habits), I will have to continue to see a cardiologist for the rest of my life.

Getting older is no fun. My body doesn't work the way it used to, what's left of my hair is turning gray, and I have to get stronger reading glasses. I guess I'm wiser than when I was younger, but I still don't like the way I feel physically.

I used to tell myself on my birthday every year that I am only in my forties; that's still young. Then I hit fifty. No getting around it; I am now middle-aged.

I know all the sayings: Getting older beats the alternatives, etc. However, I have decided that this cannot be God's original plan. The wearing out of our bodies must be a result of the fall.

Obviously I will press on; I'm just cranky today because I have a cardiologist.

The Music of the Movie

Yesterday I wrote about That Thing You Do. Among the many reasons for enjoying the movie, I really love the music. I am a sucker for 60s-styled pop/rock performed with modern recording equipment and techniques (see Phil Keaggy's Sunday's Child album from 1988).

The song, That Thing You Do, is performed--at least in part--ten times : in the garage (just the ending, original slow version), at the talent show, at the restaurant (partial), recording in the church (partial), on the radio, in Pittsburgh (partial), Columbus fair segueing into radio studio (partial), Wisconsin fair (partial), KMPC radio studio (partial), and the Hollywood Television Showcase. If you don't like the song, it's probably too many times, but since eight of the ten are just snippets, it works for me.

In the story, Jimmy originally writes the song as a ballad--a forlorn guy lamenting the love that he never had with a girl who is not even aware of his feelings. Done slowly, the words and mood of the song match. When sped up by Guy (who was clearly bored with the original version), the song becomes a dance-along party number. It's funny to see the girls in the audience at the television taping smiling as they dance and sing along to the song. This is not happy music!

This is one of the things that the movie-makers get right about 60s pop hits. The music to the Beatles' I'm a Loser is much to cheery for the lyrics. Strawberry Fields Forever was changed from a wistful song about childhood into a psychedelic ditty. The success of That Thing You Do (both in the movie and in 1996) is that--in the words of Mr. White--it's snappy. If you are not familiar with this song, here is a snippet:

The movie contains three other songs that the Wonders perform. A running gag consists of Jimmy's constant worries about the song that was the flip side of That Thing You Do--All My Only Dreams. This is another ballad (Jimmy's preferred style) along the lines of All I Have to Do Is Dream. He is worried that it didn't get the attention it needed during recording, while everyone else thinks it was fine, the implication being that no one else liked it that much. A partial performance is shown in the restaurant they perform in for a while. It is a fairly predictable song, but nice. Here is a snippet:

Also heard in the restaurant is a short bit of Little Wild One. This is oddest track. Not written by the team that created the other songs for The Wonders, it was written by the members of a band called Gigolo Aunts. It seems to have been written for the movie as the band's discography does not list them as ever having recorded it. The leader of Gigolo Aunts also wrote the music for Josie and the Pussycats and has written for other movies and TV shows.

Musically, it is a nice bouncy tune. Lyrically, it seems to me to be a bit of a spoof of 60's songs. It extols the virtues of a girl who is, shall we say, easy. Other girls tease, she pleases. In the chorus, the protagonist declares his feelings for his girl, but when he wants to get wild, he knows who to go see. Pop songs of that era never praised the girl who "puts out", though they might forgive her if she comes back. An odd choice for the movie. Here is a snippet:

The final song that we see the Wonders perform--and in its entirety--is Dance With Me Tonight. In the movie, Lenny is the lead singer and The Bass Player is quite animated in his on-stage performance. It captures the typical party song of the day. Here is a snippet:

There are two other songs that appear in the closing credits and soundtrack worth noting. First is a song credited to The Wonders called I Need You (That Thing You Do). With that parenthetical title, it makes me wonder if they had the movie title first and that this was an early attempt at a song to match. Though I love this song (it's probably my favorite of them all), it would not have been a good choice to be the title track. The electric twelve-string always works for me. Another snippet:

Last is She Knows it, credited to The Heardsmen. According to the story arc told in the final credits, this is a band that Jimmy formed after The Wonders that made three gold albums for Play-Tone Records. This was the original pun-name that Jimmy came up with for The Wonders before Faye came up with The One-ders. This song captures some the non-sequitors that existed in 60s pop music where in one breath the guy has the girl but in the next he still has to win her. There is a nice phasing effect in the bridge (probably too early for 1964, but cool nonetheless). Here is a snippet:

All of these songs are eminently listenable. Rather than buy the entire album (which contains stuff I'm not interested in), I just bought the six songs from Wal-Mart.com (I assume iTunes and others have it as well). If you like these snippets and this style of music, you might get these tunes for yourself.

A Movie I Can Enjoy

When talking about Star Trek yesterday, I mentioned that I am not a movie critic. I am just not interested enough in movies to really study them (but if you want to talk about music...). I do, however, know when a movie has touched me or entertained me on multiple levels.

Tom Hanks has had a remarkable career, not only as an actor, but also as a writer, director, and producer; two Oscars for acting (plus three nominations); Emmys for writing, directing, and producing; and a bunch of Golden Globe nominations and wins. But my favorite Tom Hanks movie won him nothing: That Thing You Do.

This 1996 film about a fictional "one-hit-wonder" band from 1964 resonated with me on several levels. As a big follower of music, I got most of the small touches that others probably missed (no name for the bass player, the authenticity of the instruments and the actors' playing, the irony that so many in the music business don't understand music at all, the small scenes that mirror some real life event). And it was just fun. To follow these teen-agers (although because he was in the army, Guy must be a bit older than the rest) on a dizzying ride to the top of the pop charts is really enjoyable.

Though there are some mistakes and anachronisms in the movie (the IMDB page has a list), the movie is true to its era. The tour mixing has-been stars with new talent. The datedness of the jokes on the Hollywood Showcase. The clothing styles. The seedy side of the music business.

Knowing that Tom Hanks is behind every aspect of the movie--acting, directing, writing--and it seems clear to me that this movie is a labor of love for him. He wants the audience to like his characters (even Jimmy, who is often a jerk) and to like his story.

That Thing You Do is a fun movie, but even more so if you have an appreciation for the 60s era pop/rock bands. Tomorrow, I want to take a minute to talk about the music.

To Boldly Go

When I first saw an ad for the new Star Trek movie, I thought, Why use the characters I already know with different actors? Just create new characters. But I heard good reviews and Tina wanted me to take her to Star Trek for her birthday, so we went.

I am not a movie critic. I'm sure there are problems with this movie that I didn't catch. But I don't care. This is an outstanding movie, one of the best I've seen in several years. The actors are true to the characters as we have always known them but, in some cases, fleshed out a little more and definitely more interesting.

The really clever touch (spoiler alert) was having Nero, the rogue Romulan from the future, alter the destinies that we know of the Star Trek characters. Now the movie producers are free to create new story arcs that are not dependent on anything that happened in the old TV or movie series. Because I promise you there will be more films with this cast. And I will be there to see them.

I don't follow Star Trek bulletin boards or bloggers, but I can imagine that this "alternative reality" part will bug them. No longer can they about how this movie misses some obscure point from an early TV episode. One of their reasons for living has been taken away!

Though I am a fan of the old TV and movie series, I have never been to a Star Trek convention nor do I own a uniform (but I've known some who do). The new movie is, in part, for us, the more casual fan. It may also appeal to many who were never fans of the original.

I agree with Roger Ebert's complaint that science and philosophy was replace with "loud and colorful action." However, I think that was necessary for the first film. Like him, I hope that future movies will downplay the action/adventure aspects a little and develop stories a little more.

I guess everyone who reads this blog (all five of you) has probably already seen this movie. But if not, give it a look. I think you'll like it.

The Irony of Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is the newest touchstone issue in society. An increasing number of heterosexuals are in favor of it and, barring a major revival, will undoubtedly continue to grow (I recently saw a sruvey that showed 98% of homosexuals in favor; are 2% of homosexuals really against having the right to marry? Weird).

At the same time that homosexuals are demanding the right to marry, heterosecual couples are increasingly living together without being maried. In 2007, the Census Bureau reported that 6.4 million couples were lving together without being maried. This represented 10 of all opposite sex couples.

If these trends continue, then in a generation or two the only people getting married will be Christians and gays. Very ironic.

Keeping Committments

Recently I said that I would never again talk about Carrie Prejean, but I was wrong. Yesterday she was fired as Miss California. Predictably she claimed that she was being fired for political reasons. The pageant said that she failed to honor her contract by not making appearances they wanted her to make.

If she indeed made the required appearances, all she needed to do was say so. Her failure to do so suggests to me that she probably did not make the appearances. Undoubtedly she decided that she had a higher calling to speak to anti-gay marriage groups than mall openings or whatever the Miss California people wanted to schedule.

Regardless, she did not perform according to the terms of the contract that she signed in case she won. Let's add this to the lies that she told to both the Miss California people and the public. And don't forget the topless photos she took for money.

I doubt that this will stop her sycophants from defending her. Defending Biblical marriage may indeed be a higher calling, but she did make commitments that she did not keep. Isn't being faithful a high calling as well?

Let's All Sing Like the Birdies Sing

I am not a Ludite (someone who fears changing technology). I use cell phones and computers like it was second nature. I had no trouble replacing all my vinyl records with CDs because of the superior sound quality. I use e-mail and have a Facebook page. Look, I even know how to blog.

But I just don't get the Twitter phenomenon. Updates by my "favorite" people on their activities by the day or hour or minute? I don't really need to know and I doubt that anyone wants to know this stuff about me.

I figure that writing a blog is egotistical enough. But at least here, I am expressing thoughts that maybe we can discuss. But to know that I am going to the gym now...what's the purpose?

I am really trying to not be a crank here. I just don't get it. Perhaps I'm just not social enough. Or maybe this is a fad that will soon die. Whatever, I can't see myself tweeting anytime soon.

Gibson vs. Fender

The first quality electric guitar that I have ever owned is the one that I bought this year: a Gibson Les Paul Premium Plus. When buying this guitar, it was my intention to buy a lifetime guitar. I do not have GAS (Guitar Acquisition Syndrome). My Martin J-40 is the only acoustic I need. The same is true with my Gibson SG bass.

The classic quality production-run solid-body electric guitars are the Fender Stratocaster, Fender Telecaster, Gibson Les Paul, and Gibson SG. There are a lot of different models and price points within each style, but in general the price for the Gibsons run 30%-80% higher than comparable Fenders. So why did I insist that I was going for a Gibson rather than a Fender?

In a word, tone. I have to admit that the Fenders are a bit easier to play and there is no more classic body style than that of the Stratocaster. However, I so prefer the tone of the Gibson humbuckers that for me there is no comparison.

I was asked once what the difference is between them. Although you can make a lot of tonal changes with amplifiers and effects pedals, the single-coil Fender pickups are generally cleaner but thinner sounding. The tone of the Gibson pickups are generally thicker but grittier.

The best example is to compare the sound of Eric Clapton's guitars from his days with Cream to that of his work with Derek and the Dominoes onward. Think of the crunchy sound of "Sunshine of Your Love" and the thinner sound of "Layla."

Recently, however, I found an even better example. Eric Clapton and B.B. King did an album together a couple of years ago. As noted, Clapton has been using Stratocasters for years and King has always played a Gibson ES-335 with humbuckers. The video below is really an audio clip of the end of the song "Three O'Clock Blues." EC's guitar is in the left channel and B.B. is in the right. They are playing notes in the same range so it makes a valid comparison.

Some people will prefer the tone of the Strat, but it is that humbucker tone that is my preference. Hence my purchase of a Gibson Les Paul. I would be interested to hear what you think.

Take Your Time

Yesterday we celebrated communion in church. One of our elders directed the service and it was quite meaningful. He delivered a short, but stirring message. Rather than the hurried service that occurs in many churches, he took an appropriate amount of time for reflection.

The Assemblies of God is part of the Anabaptist tradition which treats the Lord's Supper as only a memorial. Though I understand this position (but wonder if other options are worth discussing--another day), what bothers me is we often treat it as if it is a "mere" memorial. Too often it is squeezed into the service somewhere and rushed through. In some churches, there is an elaborate system of distribution, but no time for focussing on meaning.

Communion should be unhurried. We need enough time to remember what we are supposed to be remembering. The fact of Jesus' death on the cross for our sins should inspire awe. That we partake of his sacrifice through eating the bread and drinking the cup should move us.

I appreciate that our church does not typically hurry through communion. I hope yours doesn't either.

Two Weeks

Did you ever see the movie, The Money Pit, with Tom Hanks and Shelly Long? It was so-so with a few really funny scenes. They had one running gag that I will always remember. No matter how far away the house was from completion, when they asked the contractor how long it would be, the answer was always "two weeks."

That's where I am with my dissertation. When I am asked how long until I finish, I seem to always say, "Just another couple of weeks." Then a couple of weeks pass, and I am still not done.

Unlike the contractor in the movie, I really believe that it will only be a couple of weeks. So what happens? Lots of things. Something happens at home to make me miss a half-a-day of work. My adviser apparently leaves town for two weeks (I assume since I can't find him and he doesn't answer his e-mail). I distract myself with other things (really easy for me to do). Another reader does not get his comments to me when he says he would.

To be a summer graduate, everything needs to be done by the first week of August. It is already the first week of June. Two months can go by quickly. I hope it doesn't get away from me.

Those Who Can Teach, Teach

You know the old expression, "Those who can't do, teach"? It is a not-subtle slam against all teachers, but especially those at the college level and beyond. As this is what I went back to school to do, it offends me.

Let's narrow down the discussion to Bible college/seminary professors and the church. When a pastor has a question about the Bible or theology, how often does he/she call or e-mail one of our professors? Rarely. When the denomination wants to study an issue, what is the percentage of our scholars appointed to the committee. Small, if any.

Do we have the attitude of one pastor-friend who said to me years ago, "Bible college professors are failed pastors"? Or are pastors misled into thinking that with a few books, they have all they need to solve every exegetical or theological problem? These are two different issues. Let's take them one at a time.

First, I do not know the ministry experience of all of our Bible school professors. I know some who have had very good ministry experience and others who had light experience. My own experience is somewhat mixed, more than 15 years of success and failure. I even started a church (though it eventually closed).

To adopt the failed-minister attitude is unbiblical. It mocks Paul's words: But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose....Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (1 Cor 12:18, 27-28)

The church needs scholars and teachers. They need to be appreciated for what they can offer. They are not failed pastors, but hopefully they are successful teachers.

Second, Paul's admonition about the members of the Body of Christ should also cause us to value our scholars and professors. Most pastors are capable of constructing weekly sermons and Bible studies, and of examining simple theological issues without having to consult some expert. However, there are occassional questions that demand much deeper study and insight than the average pastor or denominational official can bring to bear. Why not talk to the people who have done this deeper study? For that matter, why not include them any time theological questions might be raised?

I hope that I will be able to convey to my students that their professors--regardless of their practical experience--are valuable in the Body of Christ and have contributions to make. Hopefully they will remember and take advantage of this resource.

Let the teachers teach, and let them do so after the student has left school.

One Last Shot of Glory

I have always been fascinated by the ability of fading baseball stars to reach back and find one more great performance before the end. I don't really understand it, but it happens.

Bill Simmons wrote in his ESPN column today about the sudden and tragic decline of Boston's David Ortiz. Many people have speculated that he may have been a steroid user as his rapid rise in power during the steroid era was matched by his rapid fall after testing went into place.

Simmons (a rose-colored-glasses Boston homer if there ever was one) has decided that steroids is not the answer in this story. Rather, he thinks that Big Papi is actually older than the 33 that he is reported to be. Players from the Dominican Republic have a notorious history of making themselves younger to be more appealing to Major League clubs. In Simmons opinion, if Ortiz is really 37, then this decline is very predictable for a large-bodied slugger. (I am skeptical and think that steroids could still be the answer here, but there is no evidence yet.)

As a fan, Simmons was encouraged by the slugger's first home run of the year. Unfortunately, it has not been followed by any other signs that he has regained his bat speed. It was possibly one of those last-gasp heroics of the declining star.

From 1974-1978 Doug Rau was a mainstay of the Dodgers rotation going 73-49 with a 3.20 ERA over those five seasons. Solid. Then he started the 1979 season 0-4 through 6 starts with an ERA of 8.10. He looked like maybe he was hurt. Then he inexplicably gutted out a one-hitter over a very good Montreal team that won 95 games that year.

The sports section of the LA Times featured the story with a huge headline that ran all way across the top of the page. LA fans rejoiced. Rau was back. Not long after that his arm fell off and he only started 7 more games in his career.

Fernando Valenzuela was the biggest thing to hit the Dodgers when he earned both Rookie of the Year and the Cy Young award in 1981. All the pitches he threw eventually took a toll and he was injured through most of LA's 1988 World Series season. In 1989 he was only 10-13 and started the 1990 season 5-6 and clearly struggling (he finished the season 13-13). But on June 29, he took the ball and no-hit the Cardinals. I will always remember Vin Scully's game-ending call, "If you have a sombrero, throw it up in the air. Fernando has thrown a no-hitter."

Valenzuela was cut the following spring. He hung around baseball for several more years, but was never again a top pitcher.

If he is indeed finished, Big Papi may have a two-homer six-RBI game left in him. If so, don't be fooled, however. It sometimes happens before the end.

Where Does It Go?

Why is it that literary and musical artists seem to run out of steam at some point? A couple of weeks ago I listened to the new Lyle Lovett album. It's terrible. Maybe two decent songs and the rest is just blah.

It's not like he's putting out product too fast either. From 1986 to 1996, he released six albums of pretty good quality. The last of these six, "The Road to Ensanada," is probably my favorite. Since then he has released two albums of new original material: "My Baby Don't Tolerate" (2003) and the latest, "It's Not Big, It's Large" (2007). The former is a pretty good album, the latter is very disapointing.

So what happened? Did he forget how to write? Is he trying to do new things that just aren't working? Has comfort and success dulled the creativity gene? Or is it possible that there is only so much creativity in a person that runs out after so many songs or so much time? After all, it happens with athletes. The arm or legs can tolerate only so much mileage.

I'm not picking on Lyle; it happens with everyone. The Rolling Stones are still touring to big crowds, but face it, nobody goes to the show to hear the material from their newest stinky album; they're wanting to hear "Jumping Jack Flash" one more time. Jackson Browne is easily my favorite singer-songwriter ever, but his latest album is even worse than Lyle Lovett's; there is not a single song on it that I enjoyed.

Being able to continue to perform is not the same as being able to create new music. The former is one thing--when you can't sing or play anymore, the people stop coming. But when you can't create anymore, do you lose your relevance? I don't have a lot of answers, but I have a lot of questions.