Stranger in a Strange Land

The Stonehill Puzzle

2011-11-16T08:00:00.001-06:00

From the first time I heard the album Welcome to Paradise in 1976, I have been a big Randy Stonehill fan. His music was always a cut above whatever else was going on at the time in contemporary Christian music. His guitar parts were challenging enough to make me learn them (although I could never sing as high or as well as he did).

A discussion with a friend today over the relative merits of a couple of albums got me thinking about something that I noticed years ago. From 1976 to 1993, Randy always used producers for two straight albums and then went to another producer for the next two. It has always seemed to me that in each pair of albums the first is much better than the second. I have some thoughts on this, but let me first demonstrate.

His debut album Welcome to Paradise (the 1971 Born Twice is a glorified demo) is still one of the great classic Christian rock albums. Produced in 1975 by Larry Norman, the songs are still among the best he has written. Though the production values seem a little primitive, the performance is tight and consistent. The follow-up, The Sky Is Falling (recorded in 1977 but not released until 1980) has much better production values--definitely easier on the ears. However, the songs are nowhere near as strong and the silly side of Randy comes out in two songs ("The Great American Cure" and "Bad Fruit"). It's not a bad album at all (I love "Venezuela" and "Jamie's Got the Blues") but it just doesn't compare to its predecessor.

Terry Taylor filled the producer's chair for the next two albums utilizing Tom Howard and the members of Daniel Amos. Between the Glory and the Flame (1981) was uneven but very strong. The new-wavish styling that DA was using at the time really invigorated his songs, especially the opening three numbers. 1982's Equator was more consistent, but without the high spots. Good production, some decent songs, but not the same spark as previously. Also the silly side comes out in 4 songs ("Big Ideas," "American Fast Food," "Cosmetic Fixation," and the Star-Trek vocal on "World Without Pain").

David Edwards' producer Barry Kaye changed Randy's sound again on his two albums. Not only that, but the two albums were incredibly different from even each other. As with many of his albums the first, Celebrate This Heartbeat (1984) is noted for its unevenness--very strong songs matched by really weak ones. The production is good, simple, and clean. The next album, 1985's Love Beyond Reason, though very popular, is to my mind a disaster. No silly songs this time, just awful over-production including heavy reliance of the Fairlight synthesizer and the exploding snare drum sound so popular in bad 80s music. No fewer than 19 singers, musicians, and synthesizer programmers are listed. No terrible songs but no real great ones either (although I have always been partial to the underrated "Hymn"). He even included his first recording of his classic "Your Love Broke Through" (co-written by Keith Green and Todd Fishkind). We had been waiting for this for years and this 24-track train wreck was quite disappointing.

Dave Perkins managed to produce two consecutive disappointing albums, although once again, the second is better than the first, if only marginally. I will give them credit for trying something different with The Wild Frontier. Here Randy tries to rock out on his Fender Telecaster and put some grit in his vocals. There are even some good songs ("The Wild Frontier," "The Dying Breed," and "The Hope of Glory"). It's not just that the gentle folk-rocker cranks up the amp, it's that he just doesn't do it very well. The follow-up, Can't Buy a Miracle, like most second albums from each producer, suffers from weak material. The production is better but the songs are not memorable.

Randy turned to his friend and sometime engineer Mark Heard for what I consider his comeback 1989 album Return to Paradise. Though more somber than the album to which they were trying to hearken back, Welcome to Paradise, it contains his strongest songs in quite a while and has clean, simple production values. Though Randy had co-written songs in the past, this album is notable for containing 3 songs which he had no song-writing credit at all. Once again the follow-up was disappointing by comparison. Until We Have Wings was one-half studio (so only 7 new songs) and one-half live. The new songs were so-so and the live part did not have the same life that Randy had exhibited in earlier years. As one who had a couple of live bootlegs, I can attest that the 1990 live Randy Stonehill concert (if this recording in any indication) was inferior to the late 70s to early 80s version.

Surprisingly Randy brought back Terry Taylor for 1991's Wonderama. This is probably in my top three of his albums (along with Welcome to Paradise and Between the Glory and the Flame). The songs are very strong, the production consistent, the playing wonderful. Just one silly song ("Great Big Stupid World" which would have been better if the last minute had been cut). The album ends somberly with the ponderously slow "The Lost Parade" and "Lantern In the Snow" but is a fine album overall. I can listen to it again and again. Next, someone decided it was time for a quasi-greatest hits album called Stories. Eleven oddly picked previously-released tracks and two new songs produced by Terry Taylor, neither particularly memorable (though one was a hit).

After this, Randy recorded less frequently and with different producers on each album.

Some will disagree with my assessment (my friend Eric Stancliff, for instance, hates Glory and the Flame but loves Equator), but I will stand by it. I wasn't in the studio so I have no idea what went on there, but I wonder if a new producer energized Randy in a way that was different when he returned with the previous producer. In a couple of cases (The Sky Is Falling and Equator), too many silly songs were part of the reason. On another, the horrible production values of the day (Love Beyond Reason) was the culprit. However, I think that the most common factor was that the songs on these second albums were just not as strong as the first.

If you stumble onto this post and are a Randy Stonehill fan, let me hear from you. I would like to see if anyone else sees what I do or has a different take.

Be Careful What You Wish For

2011-10-31T12:38:00.003-05:00

Don't it always seem to go
You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone
They take paradise, put up a parking lot.
(Joni Mitchell--Big Yellow Taxi)

Well, it finally happened. Tony La Russa announced his retirement today as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals. I think STL fans fall into one of three camps regarding TLR. (1) He is the greatest manager of all time and we are lucky to have had him. (2) He is the village idiot and should have been run out of town years ago; the team won with superior talent and despite the manager. (3) Tony is a great, Hall of Fame worthy manager who could drive you absolutely nuts with some of his managerial moves.

Although I know people in all three camps, most of the most thoughtful ones I know tend to fall into the third group. This is also where I reside. Let's start with what many believe to be his shortcomings:

Tony is one of the more thin-skinned, smug, cocky managers I have ever seen. He treats both media and fans with contempt. He acts as if he is much smarter than everyone else and only an idiot would question him. He is a hot-head and very unlikable from a distance.

At times, he takes the bullet for his team regarding moves. At other times, he tries to shift blame (the bullpen phone snafu) or ignore the issue completely (his drunk driving arrest about which he never spoke).

His hot-headedness affected his relationship with some players. His feuds with players like Ozzie Smith, Scott Rolen, Jim Edmonds, and Colby Rasmus got them all run out of town. I will admit that the Rasmus trade was a key to winning the WS this year. You always should be willing to trade future assets to win now. The problem I had with the trade is that I really don't believe that was TLR's motivation in pushing for it; rather it was his pique at Rasmus. I think there was a little luck there.

Though he has a lot of company among his managerial brethren, he seems to eschew modern player measuring tools in favor of having "scrappy" players. Therefore, we are always treated to heavy doses of guys like Nick Punto (career OBP .325, career OPS+ 76!!!), Aaron Miles (career WAR 0.8--the definition of average).

His over-specialization of pitchers meant that he had to carry 12-13 pitchers. This so limited the bench that he could never carry decent pinch-hitters. Rather, to be on TLR's bench a player had to be able to play multiple positions which often meant guys with weak bats.

He, again like many managers, gave too many ABs to washed-up players for their "veteran leadership," even thought it is getting on base that scores runs.

I also find it really hard to believe that he had no knowledge of the steroids issue. His defense of Mark McGuire--while throwing Jose Canseco under the bus--is impossible to defend.

All this sounds like I think he was a terrible manager--far from it. But these warts really made it hard for many fans to really like him.

But LaRussa was quite an innovative manager at the same time. His use of the bullpen--while overdone at times--influenced all of baseball. He was an innovator in the use of video with hitters. He was not a gut-feeling manager most of the time, but kept tons of match-up stats that rightly affect playing time. By all accounts (with some notable exceptions), he was a good motivator and ran a quiet, business-like clubhouse. He wisely deferred to Dave Duncan--clearly the best pitching coach in the game--with good results.

In the end, the good far outweighs the bad in evaluating his career. He was a great manager, albeit with some serious quirks.

For the Tony-is-an-idiot crowd, however, I don't think today should be a celebration. The team will move on but it is fair to ask how well. Will management be able to find a manager who can seamlessly move forward? If they make a mistake and the team finishes below .500 for a few years in a row, STL fans would be up in arms.

Though I think they will make a good move, it is a precarious time.

I remember years ago when Fleetwood Mac toured for the first time without Linsdey Buckingham. Though Buckingham was the guy who made the band sound as it did, he was also, shall we say, a little weird. His perfectionist streak annoyed both the band and fans at times. His public persona on stage was at times downright embarrassing. Other than the good music, there was nothing that attracted you to him.

But when the band decided to tour with two guitarist/singers replacing their leader of more than a decade, one reviewer summed up his absence with this phrase: "Less artistic posturing; also, less art."

I hope that St. Louis fans don't end up wishing that he would come back, but you never know.

Elections, the Finale (Hopefully)

2011-10-24T17:06:00.002-05:00

If people are interested in a different kind of election, I offer for your consideration what the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod does. For those who are not aware, the LCMS is a conservative denomination. It has a congregational system and supervising districts (as we do), rather than central control by bishops as most other Lutheran groups do.

For their national President, the procedure is as follows: Circuits (our sections) elect delegates to the tri-annual convention, one lay and one clergy. Not every church or minister can attend as voting delegates. The circuits also have the right to make nominations for national office. The districts likewise are allowed to nominate candidates.

These nominations are gathered at headquarters. Each one nominated is contacted to see if they wish to run. The candidates are then allowed to put together documents outlining their qualifications and positions. Before the convention meets, a booklet is mailed out with all the business to be conducted and includes these candidate statements. (Also, the number of districts and sections that place a person's name into nomination is given.)

This would place an expectation upon any office-holder who did not expect to run for re-election to announce his or her intent quite a ways in advance so that others could be nominated.

The mechanics are simple enough. We would just need to decide the details.

Now I have a caution. I find the Missouri Synod Lutherans to be very heavily politicized. There are (and have been for many years) organizations within the denomination taking political positions on their future and direction. The recently un-elected president, Jerry Kieschnick, was considered to be part of the liberals and the new president, Matt Harrison, was the darling of the conservatives. (For the record, I have spoken to Matt Harrison several times when I was a student at Concordia. He seems to be a smart, good guy. I also knew that the would be president as early as 2006, though it took until 2010. I have never even seen Jerry Kieschnick.)

I don't mean the terms liberal and conservative in any way that reflects our political system or the Biblical theological world. For the LCMS, a liberal believes the church should be more like American evangelicals (less emphasis on liturgy, clergy robes and collars, and the confessions; more contemporary worship; among some acceptance of female clergy). The conservatives believe the church should be more like it was in the time of Luther (heavy emphasis on liturgy and the confessions; traditional worship; little contact with other denominations). I have generalized here and if any of my LCMS friends read it, they may take me to task. The point is that, although the divisions are put in theological terms, the biggest factional divisions are over church operations.

The politics are a bit ugly for my taste. There are newspapers and websites keeping these issues going and recruiting ministers and lay people to their particular side. As an outsider to their culture, I don't like it.

This is the biggest issue that keeps me from throwing my full support behind a nomination system that allows us to hear from the candidates. Though we have political things going on, our culture pushes those into the background. Overt politicking is frowned upon. I fear that a system like the Missouri Synod uses would inevitably lead us to blatant politics and factionalism. I'm not sure we would like it.

So I have shown you a method from another denomination. It can be done. What we need to decide is if we really want it.

A/G Elections Take 2

2011-10-21T20:22:00.002-05:00

At the special District Council for the Southern Missouri District this week, there was a great deal of sentiment to changing our tradition so that delegates would hear from the candidates and know something about them and their views before voting. We have no mechanism for this and even some reasons against such a system. We have traditionally believed that if we pray, God will direct our voting and that it makes no difference what we know.

This is mostly pious fiction. First, we normally re-elect incumbents. Typically, they receive the necessary two-thirds on the nominating ballot. Second, when electing a superintendent to a vacant position, the top candidates are district officials or presbyters. This is even true of the assistant superintendent and secretary-treasurer. If a candidate arises who is not already an official or a presbyter, it is the pastor of a large church.

The point is this: Only those who have a well-known name get elected. If we were really hearing from God, wouldn't you expect maybe, just once, a complete unknown would be elected. Like Saul or David were chosen. But this never happens.

So, we recognize that what we know (or think we know) about people in the district affect our voting. We hope and pray that God will guide us, but we are limited to those we know something about. So if we can get beyond the pretense that it is all about God directing us, perhaps we should consider being more knowledgeable about those upon whom we are voting.

The only way that I can see such a thing working is to completely change the nominating process. I think you would have to have the candidates declared ahead of time so that they have time to put together positions that the district could disseminate to the voters.

I know of one denomination that has this type of system. I got a PhD at Concordia Seminary which is part of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. So this post doesn't get too long, I will post again in a day or so that spells out their system for your consideration.

Southern Missouri Special District Council

2011-10-18T18:32:00.003-05:00

I had posted these comments on a Facebook page but they were removed by the page's creator as not being germane to the subject of his page. I disagree, but it's his page. As suggested by a couple of people, I am repeating those thoughts here.

Yesterday, more than 670 ministers and delegates from the Southern Missouri District of the Assemblies of God met to select a new Superintendent to replace Bill Baker who resigned mid-term and between regular council meetings.

There has been a groundswell developing in the district for younger, new-styled leadership. At least one web-site and a couple of Facebook pages have discussed this issue. Though I am not that young anymore, I sympathize with them. I have always found this district to be somewhat fuddy-duddy in its approach.

Ordinarily in settings like this, one of the other top district officials are the favorite to be elected. The Assistant Superintendent withdrew his name immediately upon being nominated, leaving only the Secretary-Treasurer, Stan Welch, on the ballot from the district officers. Sure enough, after the first electoral ballot, he was leading by a wide margin over a dozen or so candidates (I wish I had access to actual numbers).

On the third ballot, as per our bylaws, everyone but the top three were dropped from consideration. On this ballot through the fifth Stan Welch had a clear lead over the other two. However, his vote total didn't change and he hovered just below 50% (two-thirds is needed for election). One of the districts executive presbyters, Don Miller, began to open up a lead over another executive presbyter, Mickey Davis and was closing in on Stan Welch.

On the sixth ballot Don Miller passed Stan Welch and by the eighth ballot he went over the two-thirds necessary and was elected superintendent.

If you were there, you already know this, if not, I'm glad I could give you the information. But what I find interesting is the story that I think is told by this election.

As I said, it would have been following precedence to elect Stan Welch and, in fact, something like half of the voters seemed to lean that way. Another thing that traditionally happens in elections like this is that when one candidate has a large lead, supporters of the other candidates begin to shift their vote to the leader who looks "inevitable" to them.

Well, that's not what happened this time. Those supporting the other two candidates stayed their course and many of those who had been voting for Stan Welch began to shift. I won't say that this has never happened before, but it is hardly common.

I believe that--fair or not--a sizable portion looked upon Stan Welch (whose position, like the superintendent is a full-time job) as part of the status-quo that they wanted to see changed. I have not been around here long enough to know any of the players in our little drama, but I did already note that the two alternative candidates (including the eventual winner) were executive presbyters. They have many responsibilities and duties that they could also be considered status-quo.

This leads to a possible alternative explanation--that what the voters really wanted was someone who was currently a pastor so that experience would be fresher with the new superintendent. While this may have been behind some of the voting, I still think the non-status-quo argument is the strongest.

It remains to be seen if Don Miller desires to do things differently. I am looking forward to the future with interest.

I would love to hear from those who have the same or a different take on the proceedings. If you got here from Facebook, you can respond there. If you respond on this blog, please use your name. I find it personally frustrating to respond to Anonymous.

(Humorous aside. I was sitting near Ted Cederblom, pastor of the church where the meeting was held. As it began to fill, I asked him, "How many does this church hold?" He shrugged and guessed maybe 500. When the registration closed, it was announced that 678 delegates were present (along with a section of non-voters). I then told him, "Now you know.")

Steve Jobs at the Pearly Gates?

2011-10-11T12:14:00.006-05:00

The New Yorker magazine has this clever cover of Steve Jobs being checked by St. Peter not in the physical Book of Life, but on an I-pad. (Although, as my friend Ilene Vick notes, he was a Buddhist.)

This reminds me of one of my favorite nerd jokes. The story is that Bill Gates died and was met by at the entrance to heaven. St. Peter said, "Bill, we are just not sure what to do with you. On one hand, your software brought the computer to so many people for their enjoyment. On the other hand, it was buggy and crashed a lot, causing people to take God's name in vain."

He went on, "Here's what we are going to do. You are going to spend two weeks in hell and then two weeks in heaven. At the end of that time, you will get to choose where you will spend eternity." Bill thought that sounded like a good plan and was immediately transported to hell.

Upon arrival, he was amazed. White sandy beaches stretched as far as the eye could see. Every day was bathed in beautiful sunshine. The beaches were filled with hot women in bikinis. There was ample beer and a party going 24/7. "I'm not sure how heaven is going to top this," he thought.

After two weeks, Bill was transported to heaven. This was a beautiful, marvelous place that his mind found difficult to grasp. It was calm and peaceful and filled with wonder. After a few days, however, it began to feel a little...well, dull. Nothing was happening to stimulate his senses as had been the case in hell.

At the end of the second fortnight, St. Peter summoned Bill and asked him, "Which will it be?" Gates answered, "Heaven is a wonderful place, but I think I would prefer hell." "As you wish," St. Peter declared and Bill Gates was transported away.

After some time had passed, St. Peter made a visit to Bill Gates in hell to find him in torment in the flames. Gates cried, "This is awful. Where are the sandy beaches? Where are the girls and the beer? This isn't what I signed up for." Whereupon Peter replied, "Oh, that was the beta version. This is the final release."

The Riddle of Columbus Day

2011-10-10T15:08:00.003-05:00

Friends on Facebook have been posting interesting sayings regarding Columbus day: Let's Celebrate Columbus Day by walking into someone's house and telling them we live there now. Or this: If the Somalia pirates discover something while they are murdering and robbing like Columbus did, will we make a holiday for them?

It's easy and fashionable to denigrate Columbus and, by extension, the European colonization of the Americas. The indigenous peoples were treated horribly--killed, enslaved, relocated, absorbed. I have two thoughts on this trend:

(1) Anyone willing to give up their house or land so that we can return this continent to its state in the 16th century? I didn't think so.

(2) Europe desired to explore and expand. Anything inherently wrong with that? When arriving on this continent, they were technologically light-years ahead of those people who resided here and those people didn't exactly fill the lands, but only lived in a few areas. So what were the colonists to do? Turn around and go home?

Should they have acted differently? Absolutely. But this does not excuse the smug self-righteous exercise of demonizing Columbus and the exploration of the New World. Can we have a little balance here?

The Most Interesting Country Album Ever

2011-10-06T13:00:00.000-05:00

(Note: I am once again returning to blogging. I have actually discovered a couple of people were reading. This is not my deepest post, but it might be interesting to someone.)

How do you like that title? Well, hear me out. I am not a real country fan. Back in the day, I liked the late 60s-early 70s country rock of the Byrds, Flying Burrito Bros, Poco, and Eagles, but it didn't get me into the originals. I discovered bluegrass when the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band put out Will the Circle Be Unbroken.

At the same time, I detested Tammy Wynette-styled music and the Nashville Sound. Today, most pop-country offends my ears with its lack of authenticity or artistry.

That said, this album is a wonder. Hank Wilson's Back is the 1973 product of Leon Russell, an Oklahoma-raised turned L.A.-hippie musician. It actually received a bit of airplay on FM rock stations, who recognized its genius even though they didn't ordinarily play country music.

What is immediately obvious is Leon's love of this music. This is stone-cold country, made in an era when the record-buying public wasn't interested; he certainly didn't make it to be commercial. There are no dumb songs here; no D-i-v-o-r-c-e corniness. There are quite few standards, a few more-obscure (at least to me) but quality tunes.

Just about every country genre is covered, either by song or style. There is bluegrass, straight-ahead country, Nashville sound, honky-tonk, Texas swing, even a hippie-styled update of "Battle of New Orleans." The only thing missing is cajun music. Hank Williams, Jimmie Rodgers, Jimmy Driftwood, George Jones, and Ledbelly are among the songwriters covered.

If you have any interest in authentic quality country music, this album is certainly worth a listen. Tracks are available on You Tube and Grooveshark. If not, thanks for stopping by; perhaps I'll have something more interesting for you next time.

Good Works and Unbelievers

2011-02-24T09:00:00.000-06:00

If we believe in Total Depravity then what do we do with this passage:

At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God come in and say to him, "Cornelius." And he stared at him in terror and said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea." (Acts 10:1-6 ESV)

The result of the story is that Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and he was saved.

We know that our good works do not earn our salvation. In this case, however, Cornelius' good works moved God to make sure that Peter received salvation. Wow! That really runs against the grain of what we would otherwise expect, doesn't it?

Well, I don't want to build a doctrine on this single episode. I just think it should cause us to pause and acknowledge that the nature of our goodness or badness might be a little more complex than some are willing to admit.

Apologetically, I think we should not denigrate the goodness in people. Mis-quoting verses like Isa 64:6 as "Our righteousness is like filthy rags in the sight of a holy God" is, I think, unwise and ineffective. (Look up the verse in context; it says nothing like we make it say.) We can acknowledge that many non-believers perform wonderful acts of goodness with good motives all the time.

The point is that how many good things one does is not the payout window (to borrow an expression from Vin Scully). The problem that we all face is that we have sinned. Though it only takes one sin to break faith with God, that is an unnecessary point. Each of us have sinned many many times and we know it. Our sins separate us from God and he can not have fellowship with sin. We would be lost and without hope but for the fact that God made a way for us to be saved from our sins and their consequences.

And this is point we should make clear--God has made the way. Face it, who else could do so? Not sinful humanity. We are the problem--he is the solution. It is not just that there is a way, but the point is that God decided to create that way. And how simple that way is: Receive the grace and forgiveness present in the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made by dying for our sins. No long periods of study. No hours of meditation. No piling up of good works. No knocking on doors. Just receive the gift, because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9 ESV) This might be a tough concept for someone to believe but, once believed, it is easy to accept.

Good works make the earthly life better for the individual and for those around him. But it is only the grace of God that gains him eternal life.

This is not where I wanted to go with this post. Check back in a day or so and I will finish the thought on the mistake of being too extreme with Total Depravity

Youth can be boring too

2011-02-07T09:22:00.002-06:00

The Who's performance at last year's Super Bowl was so lackluster that I remarked at the time that it would kill the six year run of classic rock artists (Paul McCartney, Rolling Stones, Prince, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Who). Sure enough, this year the organizers turned to one of the darlings of the modern musical sphere: The Black-Eyed Peas.

There were touches of the MTV-produced days. More emphasis on dancing/production than on the musical performance. Unannounced guest stars. Younger, hipper music. The only problem: It was just as boring to me as others found the classic rock acts.

Please, I am not being an old fart who believes my music was better (although there is truth in that statement). I have always been more about the music than the production. Guest artists are fine if there is a point to it. And though I don't like hip-hop, the BEP do perform a catchy mix of genres.

The real problem is that they tried to do so much that the show was unfocused. You only have 12 minutes--make them count. Was that really Slash? They could have trotted out any tall skinny guy with a top hat and Les Paul. He was only on stage for a half-minute and added nothing other than a guitar riff that could have come from the back-up tape. And when did Usher become a back-up dancer?

They should have just done most of their three best party songs with one ballad thrown in the middle. By trying to do so much, it just fell flat.

The biggest crime, however, was the sound mixing. Couldn't they get whoever does sound for the band (and who knows their songs) to mix? They did? Well, that was embarrassing. From the opening notes, the sound was wrong and it never really improved. With the improvements in broadcast sound technology, it's not as if they were trying to mix for the Ed Sullivan Show. They have the equipment; the humans operating it were incompetent. I would like to hear more about what happened there.

Their performance is getting mixed reviews. It will be interesting to see what they do in the future. Can't they just find some performers who are well-liked (a youth act this year, a classic rock act the next) who will just give a good tight musical performance and leave it at that? Is that too much to ask?

What were they thinking?

2011-02-04T09:05:00.002-06:00

To rip off Marc Anthony, I have not come to bury Charlie Sheen, but to bury others. First a recap.

A successful actor, Charlie Sheen has been known to live a life of utter debauchery. You know the story well enough that I don't have to repeat it. His latest entry into rehab was not his first.

Since 2003, he has been the star of the very popular television program Two and a Half Men. The recurring theme of the show is his character's debauched lifestyle. Much alcohol and many women (including prostitutes) are what his character lives for. It's a bit of an inside joke, though everyone else gets it. Here, art imitates life as Charlie's past lifestyle is parodied in his character's.

The problem is that it seems that Sheen has never successfully kicked his vices. Even during the show's run, he has been the cover-boy of the tabloids for his on-again, off-again escapades.

I sincerely hope that this rehab trip does him some good. Even if he brings destruction upon himself, I would like to see him free from it and live a normal life. Better yet, I pray that there is a strong believer near him who can bring him to Christ. But that's not what this post is about.

It is funny in a way to lampoon the real-life Charlie Sheen in the fictional Charlie Harper. But I am wondering what is going through the minds of the writers and producers as they turn out this product. I suppose if Sheen had been completely rehabbed, it would be amusing to have him play the person he used to be but from which he has broken free.

But how do you write scripts detailing his boorish behavior when he still engages in it? When you know Charlie Sheen and you see how he is damaging his own life, when does it stop being funny? The dues the fictional character pays pale in comparison to what the actor is paying. Don't these people have any responsibility here at all?

Furthermore, are you in some way enabling him in his behavior by making a joke of it? Maybe he would realize he has a problem if you cast him in a drama where this lifestyle completely ruins him. As long as he struggles with his addictions, I think the laughter is hollow.

So I don't come to bury Charlie Sheen. I think it is Charlie Harper who should be buried. And maybe a few writers with him.

Israel and the Second Coming

2011-02-01T11:00:00.000-06:00

When the late 19th- early 20th-century fervor over the Second Coming arose, there was no nation of Israel. Jews were scattered all over the earth. There were a few living in the land known as Palestine. Larger scale immigration to the land began after 1881 as Jews fled eastern European pogroms.

Second Coming fervor did not depend on the existence of Jews in a nation called Israel. However, as more and more Jews returned to the land, American and British evangelicals and Pentecostals began to see the references to Israel in Biblical references to eschatology. Rather than spiritualizing Israel, they understood a modern Israel, both the nation and location, as the key player in end-times prophecy.

Israel's emergence as a nation in 1948 and its conquest of Jerusalem in 1967 completely changed the landscape. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth, originally published in 1970, articulated this position for the masses. In our circles (not among my Lutheran friends, however) it is an article of faith that when the Bible refers to Israel in prophecy, it is the current nation that is being referred to.

Therefore, the re-emergence of Israel is proof that we are now in the last days. Israel will exist until the end, be nearly destroyed by the Anti-Christ, and saved at the last minute by the return of Christ. I heard one man teach that if Israel gave up any land that it had conquered, then the promises of the Bible must not be true. Therefore, giving up land can not happen.

Further, the modern, secular, Christian-persecuting nation of Israel is seen by this branch of the Church as the inheritor of God's blessings and that this nation must be supported in all its decisions. The Arab nations (Muslims) are always wrong and Israel (Jews) are always right.

Excuse me a minute, but I have some questions: Just because a group of Jews move into the historic land of Israel, from which they were driven 19 centuries previously, why does it necessarily follow that the resulting nation is the inheritor of God's blessings? If an Israeli nation does exist in the land at the end times, how can we say that it will not be this nation, but one that comes into existence 100 or 1000 years from now? Is the Old Testament theology of the land still valid in the New Testament or has the Land been fulfilled in a different way as many other OT concepts have been? (This is a subject that I would appreciate feedback on now and that I want to address another day.)

I think the argument that the modern nation of Israel is necessarily God's nation is based on a circular argument: We originally believe that we were in the last days. The nation was established. The existence of the nation proves that we are in the last days.

I believe in the second coming. Jesus may return before I finish writing this blog entry. But there is nothing that is happening in the world today--including the existence of Israel--that demands its happening is imminent. You and I, like many before us, may die without seeing its fulfillment. This does not mean that he is not returning, only that we have no idea when.

The Second Coming

2011-01-22T14:54:00.003-06:00

By now you have all heard that Jesus is going to return May 21. Harold Camping, who earlier predicted his return in 1994, is at it again. In his earlier book, he hedged a little on whether 1994 was the exact time, but this time there is no doubt. He will not even speculate on what happens if he makes it to May 22 because there is absolutely no chance he could be wrong.

I have to hand it to him. Camping is not only bold, he also runs against the grain. Every prediction that I remember predicts Christ's return at Rosh Hashana in the fall. There is a certain logic to this: Christ was sacrificed on Passover. The Holy Spirit was poured out on the church on Pentecost (an early harvest festival). Therefore, it makes some sense to think that Christ would return on the Feast of Trumpets since trumpets are part of the second coming motif (not to mention the New Year/New Jerusalem parallel).

Camping, however, predicts a day in the spring. It's not even Pentecost. I have not read enough to know how he picks this particular day (nor am I really interested), but he gets points for being novel.

I am not here today to criticize a nut job (check out some of the other stuff he believes and you'll understand). I want to talk about our (and here I guess I am talking mostly to my Assemblies of God friends) approach to the second coming.

Our movement and others were founded in the atmosphere of the second coming fervor of the late nineteenth century. This is shown both in our continuing missions emphasis (which arose from the belief that the world needed to hear before Jesus came back) and the fact that 4 of our 16 doctrinal statements center on eschatology.

Even the early twentieth-century outpouring of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was explained in eschatological terms. Believing that tongues and the miraculous as common had waned after the first century, the understanding as to why it had been resurrected was the soon return of Christ. This is why you occasionally see references to the Latter Rain, an interpretation of Joel 2:23. Just as crops needed rain at the beginning (i.e., Pentecost), they also need rain just before the harvest (the Second Coming) Therefore, the fact that the Holy Spirit was again being poured out at the beginning of the twentieth century was proof that the second coming was very soon.

I have more thoughts for another post. Check back with me.

I'm back

2011-01-21T10:59:00.003-06:00

It has been 13 months since I last blogged. I think it was a combination of being lazy and thinking that no one was reading (except you Jeff). My friend Brian, however, is right. It is important for someone interested in theology to participate in dialogue. Which means not only commenting on other people's posts, but also creating some of my own.

I promise to my reader(s) that I will try to come up with something interesting at least once a week. That is not too large a commitment. If I come up with more, even better.

If you happened upon this post, I hope that you will bookmark me and give me a shot. If you like it please sign up so I know that someone is reading. Thanks.

Also, if you are new to my blog, check out some of the past posts.

How Total is Total Depravity?

2010-02-23T09:00:00.000-06:00

The first tenet of Calvinism is that of Total Depravity. It originates with Augustine's view of Original Sin, which asserts that human beings are corrupted from birth and incapable on their own to love God. Even Arminians and Wesleyans subscribe to the general concept.

I think that very few would say that Total Depravity means that each person is so completely evil that they are incapable of good acts. It's just that even good works are still tainted with personal satisfaction.

The important point of Total Depravity is that no amount of good works can save a person. We have all sinned and only the saving work of Jesus Christ can save. On that, all Christians can agree.

The problem I have with Total Depravity is that it is sometimes taken too far. Consider the opening lines from the poem "As the Ruin Falls" by C.S. Lewis:

All this is flashy rhetoric about loving you.
I never had a selfless thought since I was born.
I am mercenary and self-seeking through and through:
I want God, you, all friends, merely to serve my turn.

This fits the extreme version of Total Depravity. "I never had a selfless thought." Never? Not once did you do something for another person simply because it would benefit them? Did you never pray for someone's well being when it would not benefit you at all?

Perhaps Lewis is engaging in a bit of hyperbole. Many Bible verses along the same line are probably using hyperbole as well to make the overall point: We are sinful in our nature and not good enough to be saved.

Do we really need to go this far with it? Is it not enough to acknowledge that we will never be good enough to be saved? Why must we tear ourselves down further and further?

I will have more to say in the next post, but I am curious about your thoughts.

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Part 4

2009-12-18T08:00:00.000-06:00

This is my final post for the time being on Sarah Palin. In the last post I gave my reasons why she should probably not be elected president. In this post, I will give my reasons why I think she has no chance of getting elected president.

1. Unless the economy never turns around, Barack Obama will be re-elected over any Republican candidate. This is the Bill Clinton philosophy: It's the economy, stupid. If the economy turns around in any appreciable way by early 2012, then Obama is a shoo-in. I don't care how fervently the religious right works against him, mainstream voters will vote him back in if they feel their pocketbooks are safe. You don't have to like this, but it's true.

There were a lot of reasons that Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, but this is a big one: 21% annualized rate of inflation for the first 3 months of 1980. George H. W. Bush was likewise a single-term president because voters perceived the economy as weak (ironically, it had been turning around in the several months prior to the election, but people catch on slowly).

Obama will not get voted out because he doesn't end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan soon enough. Liberals will be unhappy if troops are still in those countries in 2012, but they won't abandon him. neither will he lose his job over health-care reform. The only thing that could sink him is the economy. Given its cyclical nature, I have trouble believing that it will not be significantly better two years from now.

2. She sounds too conservative for the average voter. Her followers love her positions, but these are not the positions of the majority of voters in this country. Reagan had a way of communicating extremely conservative positions that resonated at a particular time. George W. Bush sounded less conservative than he was. With Palin, anyone who listens at all knows this is a conservative in the Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh/Alan Keyes mold. And the majority of voters think these guys are nuts. You would be mistaken for confusing the intensity of her followers with numbers of followers.

One of the reasons that John McCain picked her was a belief that she could help him with the so-called "soccer moms." That was a good strategy until she started expressing her extreme conservatism. "Soccer moms" are not raving liberals, but as a whole they are not evangelical Christians either. Unless Palin can find a way to expand her base, her candidacy will be doomed to a landslide defeat.

3. She has little support among the Republican party machinery. If you think this is unimportant, you are not paying attention. John McCain was not the favorite of most of the party bigwigs, but he had built enough support among them in his years in the Senate. Most of the party leaders seem to have taken a wait-and-see attitude with Palin. Although, with her leaving office so soon before 2012, it is hard to see how she is going to use her power of being an elected official to gain support with that group.

I think this makes it hard to see her even get the nomination. She will have some early strong showings in the primaries and will possibly be a force with which to be reckoned, but I seriously doubt that she could gain enough delegate votes.

If she did somehow get nominated, I could see the party leaders give her only token support while they concentrated their efforts on trying to gain or defend congressional seats. This will help her be on the wrong side of the landslide.

4. The fatigue factor. There is a danger in peaking too early. People get tired of you and of hearing about you. Obama was so over-hyped that he suffered a little bit for it in late-summer and early-fall. She is running the risk of being very old news come 2012, and some of the freshness that made her initially appealing will be gone. Will she have enough substance to overcome that? I doubt it.

To sum up, I have very serious doubts that Sarah Palin could come close to gaining the Republican nomination for president in 2012. If I am wrong, I still fail to see her gaining enough votes outside of her present constituency to capture the presidency.

Too Soon

2009-12-15T07:40:00.000-06:00

I received news that someone I knew died in a car accident. Her name was Summer and seh was (I think) only 29 years old.

I didn't know Summer well. She sang on a worship team that I belonged to for two years. She was still in college. She had impossibly long blonde hair and was quite pretty. She had a lot of personality and--though she was very smart--played a bit of the dumb blonde routine at times.

After I made contact with some old friends from Springfield, I noticed that she was on some of their friends lists. I did not add her as a friend, though. I am not in the habit of adding young, pretty girls whom I don't know well. Summer, however, must have seen my name pop up on one of the lists of our mutual friends and added me. I was touched at her desire to touch base with so many people.

When Tina was at Fashion Bug, it was her job to recruit women for a fashion show. The participants got discounts on clothes. Summer helped her every time. She would wear several outfits and go out as many times as they wanted her to. She had fun and made it fun for Tina.

It's not fair. When I say that, I don't mean to criticize God. We have no claim on this life. But in the randomness of this sin-infested world, a young girl who was teaching school dies before she can raise a family of her own, while many, many others who do so much less keep on living. Though I know God redeems death and turns it into eternal life, I can still be sad that she is not around and be angry at this world.

I know she rests in the arms of Jesus and is better off for not being here. God is good and will bring comfort to me and to those who knew her so much better.

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Part 3

2009-12-14T08:00:00.000-06:00

Before I get to the subject about Sarah Palin's presidential chances, I wanted to first discuss whether I think she is qualified to be president. Simply put, I do not think she is. Here are my reasons why.

1. Her standard-issue conservatism. I am more politically conservative that the average voter, but less so than most of my Christian friends. The fact that she is extremely conservative does not disqualify her (though i may not support her positions). What disqualifies her in my mind is that I cannot distinguish that she is thinking at all. She knows how to repeat the standard conservative mantras, but without any depth. I want a president who shows the ability to think and be a little creative.

2. Her lack of political experience. Two years of governor of Alaska and a couple of terms as a small-town mayor is hardly an impressive resume. You don't have to like it, but a successful president needs to be able to work with other elected officials and the bureaucracy. Her tendency to fire people who disagree with her and her resignation in protest from the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission may indicate that she "does not play well with others." While some may view this as a good trait, I see the potential for government gridlock.

3. Her lack of leadership. Where are Palin's followers? I don't mean the people who eagerly line up to buy her book. I mean the people who have given themselves to a life of government service. As diverse individuals as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had loyal government-types who believed in his vision. I don't see that for Palin.

In short, Sarah Palin, despite her enthusiastic following among a relatively small percentage of the population, has not exhibited the traits that I think make her a good choice for the top office in this country.

When I next speak about Sarah Palin, I will finally list my reasons why she will not be elected.

My Love-Hate Relationship with Christmas Music

2009-12-11T08:00:00.001-06:00

From childhood, I have always loved Christmas music. I looked forward to singing those songs in school and church, enjoyed playing them at home, and loved playing Christmas records at home. Over the years, however, certain types of Christmas music have really turned me off. So while I still love Christmas songs, there is quite a bit of it that I detest.

This is not the religious vs. secular debate. I tolerate songs about snow and Santa. Conversely, there are religious songs (or particular performances of those songs) that I hate. Actually, my split-personality over Christmas music reflects my taste in music generally: Give me authentic performances of good songs over schmaltzy or overblown music any day.

Here is what I hate about bad Christmas music: 1. Sleigh bells. 2. Bombastic arrangements of simple songs. 3. Overly-sentimental productions. Here is what I like: 1. Good solid lyrics and melodies. 2. Arrangements that let the song shine through rather than showcase the performers. 3. Performances that well match the song.

For example, yesterday in the mall, I heard a slow, lush, overproduced version of Up on the Housetop. It served as a wonderful showcase for the singer's voice, but completely missed the lighthearted mood of the song. It made me wonder if the singer spoke English. If she did, she wasn't paying attention to the words.

My all-time favorite Christmas album is by Bruce Cockburn. This 1993 release--simply title Christmas--contains 15 songs. All are religious. Some are familiar (God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen), others very obscure (Early on One Christmas Morn), and a couple of surprises (Angels We Have Heard on High in its original French version). In the liner notes, he states his goal was to capture the "songness" of each piece. And he does this in a masterful way.

If you, too, are tired of artificial music, try to find a copy of this album. You will again remember why you originally liked Christmas music.

No One Said Tigers Were Smart

2009-12-10T12:06:00.004-06:00

For the most part I don't care about Tiger Woods' sexual escapades. I feel bad for his wife and kids, but I never idolized the man. He is the greatest golfer I have ever watched play, but that's it.

I'm not particularly surprised that he has been unfaithful to his wife. Nothing that he has ever said or done has led me to believe that he had a particularly strong moral compass. He has a bad temper, cusses like a sailor, is overly competitive, and only seems interested in his own interests. It is about performance, not character.

I'm sure that some of the women who have claimed to slept with him are just seeking attention and could be lying. However, the count is up to at least 13. They're not all making it up. There is strong evidence that he had more than one long-term sexual relationship, many one-night-stands, and possibly encounters with prostitutes.

What interests me the most about Tiger is this: How did he think he would ever get away with this? I suppose there are people in his position who have managed to have some groupie sex on the road without their wife finding out. Perhaps it is even possible to have one mistress on the side if she is discreet. But Tiger threw all caution to the wind. In the day of TMZ and skanks looking to get on television, he should have known that this indiscriminate sleeping around was going to get out.

I can't decide if he was stupid or arrogant. Either way, Tiger is living proof of Jesus' warning: There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs. (Luke 12:2-3)

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Part 2

2009-12-04T08:00:00.000-06:00

The acceptance by the religious right to Sarah Palin is not a surprise. What is a bit surprising is the reaction of the left, especially the left-leaning news media. In short, they seem scared of her.

I really do not view her as a threat in 2012 (a post for another day), but perhaps they know more than I do. When reporting every campaign stop (=book-signing), there is always some talking head taking a shot at her record or family life or her lack of acceptance by mainstream Republicans. This is the treatment given to someone you fear.

In an incredible irony, the news media is actually giving more attention and credibility to Palin by attacking her. Her book tour is not particularly newsworthy. They could have ignored it or at least given it subdued coverage. But by taking shots at her, they just keep putting her smiling face on the TV screen again and again. It seems counterproductive to me.

Democratic party mailings have gone out with warnings about Sarah Palin in an attempt to raise money. They are trying to energize the left by trading on their fears of a Palin presidency. It reminds me of what the Republicans did with Hilary Clinton in 2006-7. She was the bogey of the right. Palin has become the bogey of the left.

Can she win? Should she win? Next time.

Another Celebrity Wanna-Be

2009-12-02T08:00:00.000-06:00

Now it has come out that the woman who somehow talked her way into a White House dinner to which she had not been invited is in the running for a reality show. I guess we should not have been surprised after she bragged about it on her Facebook page. Had she not tipped off the world to her feat, the entire incident would have passed unnoticed--which must be a bit scary as far as the White House is concerned. But passing unnoticed is not what this woman--and the scores of others like her--is about.

What is it going to take to end society's fascination with reality shows? The shows have to get more daring to keep ratings. Will someone eventually die? Get pregnant from a dating show? Jon and Kate have shown that we will watch a show that helps break up a marriage. What is wrong with us?

I feel so old or at least old-fashioned. I don't watch any of these shows. This puts me out of touch with the average person I guess, but I don't care. I have no idea who wins Survivor or the Bachelor (they are still going, right?). I can't name you any of the people on the Real World. My life has enough difficulties that I am not interested in their problems--especially as most of their problems are apparently caused by their own narcissism.

Get used to seeing more like the balloon-boy's parents or the gate crashing D.C. housewife. As long as people watch these shows, there will be people vying to get on them looking for celebrity and the easy payday. And when something really bad happens, we will have to look at our own cuplability.

Turkey Taco Recipe

2009-11-30T08:00:00.000-06:00

I have never understood it when people complain about leftover turkey on Thanksgiving. With our size family, we never have enough for my taste anyway. And besides, turkey tastes great and we don't eat it the rest of the year.

My favorite leftover meal is turkey tacos. It is more than just substituting turkey for chicken or beef. How it is prepared is what make them good. This is my own recipe. If anyone else makes them like this, I have never eaten them.

First, you need a mixture of white and dark meat. Ordinarily I prefer white, but when you shred the turkey, it is a little less important. However a mixture gives you a little stronger flavor and helps use up the dark meat.

Shred the turkey in a food processor. You need enough to fill about 1/2 inch of a large frying pan. Heat some oil in the pan first. You need more than a mere coating to protect the pan, you want enough oil to cook the meat. Then add the turkey. Add as much onion (fresh or powder) and chili (crushed or powder) as those eating will like. Cook the turkey, stirring frequently, until it is thoroughly toasted.

Cooking the turkey like this will make it tasty, but dry it out. At this point add a cup or two of liquid. You can use turkey soup if you made some from the carcass. Otherwise make some chicken bullion. This will put the moisture back in the turkey while preserving the flavor of the frying. Turn down the heat and let the turkey absorb the liquid.

Put on tortillas with whatever else you like to put on tacos. I don't add a lot of extras so as to not overwhelm the wonderful flavor of the turkey. If you use cheese, let it be mild. If you properly seasoned and moistened the turkey, you won't need any taco sauce either.

Try it out. They are a big hit around our house and is a wonderful way to use those turkey leftovers.

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon

2009-11-27T08:00:00.000-06:00

I am intrigued at the buzz surrounding Sarah Palin. A previously-unknown governor of a small state was elevated to VP candidate and suddenly she is the new darling of the right (especially the religious right). Why the attraction?

First, we cannot put aside the fact that she is pretty. I'm not being sexist here. Taller, more attractive men have always had some advantages in running for president. Though they will never admit it, people want to like what they see when they cast their vote. I can't help but believe that if Palin looked like, oh say, Rosie O'Donnell, her support might be a little less.

Second, she is simply well-known from her VP run. I believe that it would not take me long to round up two dozen Republicans who have more and better political experience and who support the same positions that she does. But they are only known locally and she has been in the national spotlight. This gives her a significant advantage.

Third, she is a conservative woman. When most of the women in politics range from center to the extreme left, this uniqueness attracts interest. I believe this was a major factor in John McCain's selection of her.

Fourth, she espouses all the "right" positions that energize conservatives. There is no ambiguity as to whether she is conservative enough.

Fifth, she belongs to the evangelical wing of Christianity. For those in the religious right, she is the proper kind of Christian. No more having to wonder if they should support Mitt Romney--a man with the "right" positions, but a Mormon.

Will this translate into the presidency or even the nomination for that office? I doubt it, which will be the focus of a later post. But she will not go away quietly and her supporters will have to be contended with.

The Lure of Celebrity

2009-10-19T07:11:00.000-05:00

Now it seems clear that the whole "Balloon boy" story was a hoax. I originally saw the story while the balloon was still in the air and was concerned. When I heard later, however, that the family had been on reality TV, I (along with many others) was immediately suspicious. This is just the kind of coincidence that just doesn't happen.

Andy Warhol's famous saying is that one day everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes. I wonder if he could have envisioned the world of reality television. Not only are people becoming famous for essentially doing nothing, there are a bunch of them actively seeking this life. While some appear on a single show and then go home, others have been on several reality series and try to be part of more.

I think this is a kind of sickness. If the media would cooperate with us, the best punishment for the family in Colorado would be to pack up the cameras, go home, and promise to never mention these people ever again. Don't embarrass them, ignore them. Sadly, it won't happen, but I can dream.

Health Care Debate

2009-09-18T07:25:00.003-05:00

Lost in all the shrillness of the health care debate is one unmistakable fact: The current system is broken. Too many people have poor access to affordable health care. Even those who have good coverage are being charged a higher percentage of the premium costs. In the meantime, health insurance companies are making very large amounts of money.

President Obama said in a speech this week that we cannot afford the status quo. I agree completely. I have personally lived in that nether world between having health care and being eligible for Medicaid. It is a scary place to be.

In their hatred of all things Obama, conservatives have forgotten that there is a real problem. Or maybe they all have cushy middle class jobs and don't know there are a lot of others who cannot get insurance. A government-run medical insurance would have all the problems of any government-run program, but it might be better than the obscenely profitable system in place now.

Regardless, conservatives need to look beyond the rhetoric and see the need. Relying on an unregulated private sector is not working. So now is the time to come up with a solution. That is, if you are really interested in governing and not posturing.

Obfuscating the Real Issues

2009-09-16T08:00:00.000-05:00

The silver lining in the whole Joe Wilson debacle is highlighting an important issue. Unfortunately, I think that everybody gets it wrong. When the congressman called out You lie, it was at the point where President Obama asserted that his health plan would not cover illegal immigrants.

Technically, Obama was right and Wilson wrong. However, I do understand Wilson's point. Given the history of court decisions, it is entirely possible that a judge somewhere could decide that it is unconstitutional to exclude illegals from the government health care option. Critics ascertain that Obama is being coy by claiming he is not including them while knowing that eventually they will be.

This is not impossible, but it does go against all of the president's previous rhetoric regarding the rights of illegals. So, while it is possible that they would end up being included by court decree, Obama was not necessarily being cynically untruthful.

Actually this debate misses two points:

1. The anti-immigrant forces continually contend that illegals use government services but don't pay taxes. I haven't seen recent numbers, but I remember a study from the 1980s (when this debate was at one of its cyclical high points) that showed that many illegals overpaid taxes. This was because they had taxes withheld from their checks, but because they didn't file tax returns, they didn't receive refunds to which they might have been entitled. Further, they had Social Security taxes withheld for which they would never receive a benefit. If this still holds true, then even if illegal immigrants became eligible for the government health plan, they might well be paying for it--at least at the same pace others in their economic class would. People may still object on principle, which I respect, but the cost to citizens might not be as significant as one might think.

2. In essence, most illegal immigrants already receive government health care, directly or indirectly. The vast majority of illegals are working poor. So if they have phony documents, some may qualify for Medicaid. Who pays for that programs? Taxpayers. In this case, the immigrants that some worry about getting government-paid health care are already getting it. So it's really a wash. Not all have the documentation to get Medicaid. But hospitals who accept any government insurance (nearly all of them) cannot turn anyone away from receiving treatment. If they can't pay, then the hospital either eats the cost or (more often) taps into a state fund that pays for indigent patients. Again, where does this money come from? Taxpayers. In short, I don't think that covering illegal immigrants in a government health play would change the amount of money that taxpayers pay for their health care. The difference would only be which account it comes from.

I am not trivializing the debate over immigration. This is a serious subject that needs better resolution than we have now. My point is that it is a distraction to the real debate about if health care should be reformed, if so how, and whether there should be a government-run plan as part of it. To focus on illegal immigrants is to ignore the real issues and is a shame. Next time, I want to talk a little about it.

This is a hero?

2009-09-14T08:00:00.002-05:00

Apologies for not posting recently (at least to my one fan, Jeff). My new job left me needing to make a new schedule. Hopefully, I will post more regularly.

You have heard by now about Congressman Joe Wilson's You lie outburst during President Barak Obama's speech to Congress about the Democrat's health care bill. Under normal circumstances, it would be discussed for a couple of days and Wilson would go back to obscurity.

But we don't live in normal times. The Democrats will probably use their power to censure the congressman in some way. And the conservative wing of the Republican party are turning him into a hero.

What Joe Wilson did was rude and completely out of line (in my next post, I will discuss the actual issue). He did apologize, which should end the issue. Censure is probably unwarranted. If I were Nancy Pelosi, I would quietly send out a message to all congressmen reminding them that the US Congress is not like the British Parliament (those guys are nuts) and that any future actions by anyone would result in some clearly defined penalty.

The Republicans, likewise, should just move on. Their guy apologized and they should move the focus to the issues that they have with the president's plan.

Amazingly, though, there are conservatives who are lionizing Wilson for his brave stand against the evil Obama. A guy who once attended our church now lives in DC and works for the congressman. His wife posted on her facebook page how proud she was and other conservative Christians chimed in with their approval.

Are you kidding me? Tell me what would have happened had a Democrat done something similar to President Bush. You know that Rush Limbaugh would have demonized him and Bill O'Reilly would have lamented the decline of respect for the presidency. Tell me I'm wrong.

This, of course, is just the continuation of the hatred of all things Obama. It has nothing to do anymore with what is right or logical. It has only to do with attacking what they view as the enemy of all things right and holy. And it grieves me to see Christians leading the way with torches and pitchforks.

There are important issues to discuss. The health bill may be the worst thing to ever be proposed. But let's discuss the issues, not make a hero out of a hothead who doesn't have the self-control (isn't that what the Bible promotes) to know when to keep his mouth shut. Conservatives need an articulate voice (I heard Wilson Sunday on Fox News--not articulate at all) not a guy who is famous for being rude.

Contributing to Society

2009-08-26T20:42:00.004-05:00

I am struck by the contrast between a couple of famous deaths. Today it was announced that Senator Ted Kennedy died. The last of a political dynasty, he was way too liberal for my taste but there is no denying that he dedicated his adult life to public service. Though there are arch-conservatives who possibly are delighted that he is gone, there is a sense in which society is poorer for having lost him.

Then there is the model who was killed by her reality-show ex-husband. Now her death and his suicide are quite sad for them and those who knew them. However, can it be said that society is any worse off because of their departure?

I think the answer is No. It seems that the only concern of these two is how to gain fame and fortune from their good looks. They didn't have real jobs or careers that would make a difference in the life of another human being. They lived for themselves alone.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying that society is better off without them or that I am in any way glad they are dead. But I just think that the contrast between how they chose to live their lives and how Ted Kennedy chose to live his is striking. Years from now, Kennedy will be remembered in some fashion for his contributions and the others will be completely forgotten. Why? Their real level of contribution to others.

Line of the Day

2009-08-24T08:58:00.003-05:00

John Smoltz pitched decently and got the win over the Padres yesterday. The Boston castoff just might have enough left to hold down a starter spot in the Cardinals rotation the rest of the season.

The best line of the TV broadcast yesterday came from Rick Horton. Noting that both Julio Lugo and Smoltz were considered worthless enough by Boston to give them away, he said, "If I were John Mozeliak, I would be calling their general manager to see if they had any more players they didn't like."

He's baaaaaack

2009-08-18T16:43:00.002-05:00

Amazing. Brett Favre actually signed a contract to play for the Vikings this year. I don't really care except to be amazed at how he can't seem to make up his mind. Or else he just enjoys stringing people along. Either way it's a bit odd.

I don't know how much he has left in the tank. Last year he was good early and not so good late. If Minnesota fans really think he is going to be the ticket to the Super Bowl, I think they are delusional. He might be better than their other quarterbacks (this is far from certain), but how much can he improve last year's 10-6 record?

I don't know what the final result will be, but I suspect that in the end, this story will be much ado about very little.

When Is It Time to Quit?

2009-08-15T14:21:00.002-05:00

How old does a rocker have to be to hang it up? I guess as long as they can reasonably perform and there are still people who want to attend a concert, let them keep going. I saw 80+ year old BB King a couple of years ago and though he was far past his prime, it was still a good show. Good tight band and his playing is a good as ever. He never was a great singer, so that didn't matter.

However, the other day, I listened to a couple of tracks from the Crosby, Still, Nash, and Young album taken from their concert tour of 2006. Their harmonies were never as clean in concert as on record, so I understood the occasional raggedness there.

What did surprise me was how bad Stephen Stills sounded. His solo voice was never smooth, but at 61 it was just awful. Apparently he knows it. On Wooden Ships, the opening back-and-forth dialogue vocals are done by Crosby and Nash, rather than Stills and Crosby. When Stephen comes in on the chorus, he sounds ragged, but is largely hidden behind the harmonies.

The worst, however, is For What It's Worth. Here his vocal is out there for everyone to hear and he just can't hit clean notes any more. It's sad.

So what should he do? Quit? He still plays an outstanding guitar. People still want to hear CSN perform. Though Crosby and Nash still sound decent (especially considering their ages), I don't know how a concertgoer can ignore Stephen's voice.

Still, it is not my place to tell him to stop. I just don't know if I want to pay to hear.

Stop the Insanity

2009-08-11T15:26:00.003-05:00

Recently, I blogged about being one of the few in my circles to admit to actually having voted for Barack Obama. Since most of those with whom I attend church or seminary are conservatives of the Bill O'Reiley/Sarah Palin variety, nothing that the president does will ever meet with their approval.

I don't think they are always fair or open-minded, but I can live with that. What amazes me is the lengths to which some people will go to smear Obama. Someone made this video that should sicken you, but will actually fire up some non-thinking Christians.

The contention is that when Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven," the phrase "lightning from heaven" would have sounded in Aramaic (or Hebrew) like Barack Obama. The anonymous poster's points are these: (1) The Hebrew word for lightning is Barak. (2) The Hebrew word for heaven (or heights) is Bamah. (3) The conjunction waw which unites words is sometimes pronounced "O". Therefore, when Jesus said Satan was like lightning from heaven it sounded like Barack Obama.

First, if this were true, it is simply ludicrous to think that Jesus was leaving us a hint as to the identity of the future anti-Christ. This is like the Bible Code nonsense.

Second, several of his contentions are just wrong. (1) The Hebrew consonants for lightning is BRQ. The president's name is derived from the Arabic BRK, which means the same in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic: to bless. (2) In the other 105 uses of BMH in the OT, it never refers to heaven. In Isa 14:14, BMH does not mean heaven either; rather, Satan declares he will ascend above the BMH of the clouds to get to heaven (Shamayim). (3) The conjunction waw when added to a word beginning with "B" will become a "U" sound. Despite his claims, no one who understands Hebrew pronounces it "O". Regardless, why would there be a conjunction here? That would make the translation "like lightning and heaven." It would never mean "from heaven." For that we would need the proposition "min".

The Aramaic (which Jesus probably spoke) words are pretty much the same as in Hebrew. To say "lightning from heaven" would be something like baraq min shamaya or baraq meshamaya. Since "lightning" is almost always plural in Hebrew and Aramaic, it would probably be more like baraqin meshamaya (Aramaic) or baraqim meheshamayim (Hebrew).

Don't you agree that it's a long way from baraqin meshamaya to Barak Obama?

Why a PhD?

2009-08-07T08:57:00.004-05:00

When I started on my late-in-life educational journey, it was not with the goal of getting a PhD. Titles and letters after my name mean little to me; my goal was to teach. Twenty years ago, I probably could have been hired in one of our schools after getting a masters degree. Today, a PhD is required, if not officially, at least on a practical basis.

So for the last six years, though my long-term goal was still to teach, my short-range goal was finishing the PhD. Now that I'm done, I have the degree but no teaching job. A bit ironic, huh?

Since it is theoretically possible to teach undergrads with just a masters degree (and a friend of mine with only a masters got a job last year), then did the time I spent in a PhD program make me a better teacher? I have thought about this a while and the answer is, Yes.

I didn't learn any thing about how to teach. I learned more content, to be sure, but what the program really did for me is teach me how to read more effectively and evaluate what I read. I am much better at doing original research, rather than relying on what others tell me.

So though I spent these last six years getting more education when I possibly could have been teaching, I think that I, and my future students, will be better in the long run.

Now I just need a job.

It's Not Just a Job

2009-08-05T08:12:00.003-05:00

Now that I have finished my doctoral program, I am just two days away from being unemployed. My only job the past five years has been as a student worker in the library at school. Since I am no longer a student, that comes to an end.

I am finishing in what has to be the worst year to be graduating with a PhD in my memory. Almost all colleges and grad schools have been hammered by reduced giving and shrinking endowment funds. There are very, very few jobs out there and too many of us chasing them.

So what do I do in the meantime. I have been asked several times if I might seek a church to pastor. Obviously, I could do that and could probably even find a church to take me. But it wouldn't be right.

I was a decent pastor. Some churches did well under my leadership. I started one that eventually closed. One church fired me. Quite a mixed bag.

But I really believed in 2000 that God was calling me away from pastoral ministry to teaching. Though I love the church and believe in the role of the pastor, I do not personally have the fire necessary to be one. That would not be fair to a church to try to fill the job when I wasn't wholly committed to it. (It also wouldn't be fair to my family who would have to go through the difficult moments of being the pastor's family if it were just a job.)

Because being a pastor is not just like any other job. It is not merely one of many vocations. To be a good, faithful pastor (notice I didn't say successful) is a life-consuming calling. Oh sure, when I was in the pastorate I took time for myself and my family. But I had no real hobbies or time-consuming interests. The church that I served was my life, as it should have been.

Since I do not have that burning in me at this time, I cannot take a church in good conscience. I suppose I could fill in during a vacancy, but that typically doesn't pay well enough. So I will probably do some accounting work while searching for that teaching position or next step that I haven't even considered.

But I won't pastor. That's more than a job.

Baseball Is Still the Greatest Sport

2009-08-03T08:20:00.003-05:00

Football has probably supplanted baseball as this country's premier sport. More people watch it, talk about it, and gamble on it than any other. I don't understand it, but everyone has their own preference.

Baseball is hardly dying, however. Except for a few cities where their team is run poorly, baseball attendance is strong (for 81 games, not just 8 like in football). Though I am a Dodger fan, it has been fun to live in St. Louis the past few years. The fans here support the Cardinals, know something about the game, and wear their colors year-round. In this town at least, football comes in second (and as bad as the Rams are right now, you could make a case that hockey is #2).

Those who want to say that professional basketball has overtaken baseball are kidding themselves (see, Bill Simmons). The Lakers just won the championship, but ask the average person in LA his/her favorite sports team and the Dodgers will come out on top.

I said all that to say this: Football training camps have opened and the sports news is now led by reports from the teams. Really? The average fan is really more interested in the fact that a fourth-string wide receiver really impressed the coaches rather than the score of last night's baseball game? Somehow I doubt it. About the only thing that is interesting about football this time of year is to find out which player has already had a season-ending injury (which happens too often). I think the reason for all the reports is not the demands of the fans, but only to justify the amount of people on the payroll covering the sport.

So follow, if you wish, the news from camp about this player or that (you might need it for your fantasy team). In the meantime, I will sit back on a nice summer evening and enjoy a baseball game.

Don't Even

2009-07-31T10:00:00.000-05:00

I went to the Cardinals-Dodgers game last night. The right team finally won!!! All week STL fans have been booing Manny Ramirez for being a cheater. Yesterday's report that he was on the steroid list from 2003 probably made the boos even more intense last night.

I'm sorry, but of all people, Cardinal fans have no right to boo a guy for steroids. Not when they still cheer for Mark McGuire. Not when they cheer for Troy Glaus and Ryan Franklin. On this score, you fans have no credibility.

From the Top to the Bottom

2009-07-31T09:00:00.001-05:00

One of the quirks of my personality is that I tend to suffer from Post-Big-Event-Blues. When the end comes to something that I have pointed my life toward, I get a bit depressed. I think there are two aspects to this feeling. The first is physical. When you need it, the adrenaline flows. When you don't, it stops. So it's actually sort of like drug withdrawal. (This potential physical aspect leads my ADHD coach to suggest that this tendency is possibly more common among ADHD people.)

The second is psychological. No matter how well an event goes, when it is done I think, Is that it? Is there no way to keep this going? Perhaps it's a bit of selfishness--an inability to have something good without wanting more. But it's a real feeling.

Last Tuesday was my big Dissertation Forum. It was the last step in becoming a Ph.D. (it's now DOCTOR Bob to you--joke.) I got to present my findings to an audience of peers (both other grad students and faculty) along with family and friends. For 45 minutes, all the attention was fixed on the presentation of my work.

And it was a lot of work to put it together. Besides the obvious work to write the dissertation, I had to boil it down to a 30 minute presentation. What's more, I dedicated myself to communicating it to people who don't understand the technical field. I had a power point presentation that walked everyone through it that took quite a few hours to prepare.

It went well. I presented the material simply and passionately. Everyone understood it and complimented me on it. Afterward my advisor took Tina and me out to dinner.

And then it was over. There have been times in my life when I would spiral down into a dark mood. But since I recognize my tendency, I was determined not to go down that path this time. I don't know how anyone else faces this, but what works the best for me is forcing myself to get busy on the next task. I had to work early the next morning, but the first thing I did when I had some time to myself was to make a list of what I want to do now. And then I got started on them.

So for me the secret to coming down from the completion of one big challenge is to have the next new challenge to face. So far, it's working.

It's Over

2009-07-29T09:05:00.005-05:00

I've posted about Brett Favre's on-again, off-again retirement saga. Now comes word that he is not coming back. Really. For good. We hope.

It reminds me of what the late Gerald Ford said after Richard Nixon's resignation, "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over."

Christians and Guns

2009-07-27T07:50:00.003-05:00

I have a few gun-owning friends who are Christians. Some actually brag about it while others are more discreet. I wonder about how appropriate this is. So I have questions. True, the questions I ask and the way I ask them betray which way I'm leaning, but I am sincere at hearing some answers.

Disclaimer: I have never owned a gun. I have fired a few (I'm a horrible shot because of my poor vision and poor hand-eye coordination), but the closest I came was a CO2 pellet gun, which was a gift and I only had for a short time.

I can think of basically three reasons to own guns: (1) Hunting. (2) Recreation. Target practice, shooting tin cans, etc. (3) Self-defense.

I have no problem with the first two items on the list. Although neither appeal to me, I know many guys who really enjoy to hunt or just shoot. As long as you store the guns safely and keep them away from kids, fine.

It's the third item that bothers me. And here are my questions. If an intruder came into your home, what are you going to do with the gun? Shoot first? Only shoot if necessary? Just use it to scare them away?

(The last option is dangerous, because if you are not prepared to shoot, you might find the gun being used against you. If you are going to pull it out, I think you have to be prepared to use it.)

If you are prepared to shoot, are you concerned about potentially taking another person's life? Even if he/she is a criminal? Is there a difference between shooting someone to keep them from taking your stuff vs. shooting to keep them from harming you or your family?

And how does this reconcile with Jesus' words?

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (Matthew 5:38-46)

I am not entirely comfortable with any of the answers I come up with. I know that i don't own a gun so I will probably never face the issue. But still I wonder. How do you answer these questions?

Should I Be Alarmed?

2009-07-24T09:43:00.002-05:00

Walking around campus Wednesday, it was impossible to notice the signs posted everywhere: Fire Alarm Testing Today. How considerate of them. You wouldn't want a bunch of panicked people every time an alarm went off.

There's only one problem with this: The alarms never went off!!! Not once!

Am I the only one who thinks: Hmm. No alarms. Does that mean they don't work?

Since this has happened before, I surmise that they have a way of testing the alarms without bells and sirens sounding. And the reason for the warning signs is in case they make a mistake and set off the audible alarms.

However, what if every part of the system worked correctly on their scopes and meters but the bells were broken. How would they know? If we ever have a fire, might everything work perfectly except that one part that actually informs people there is a problem?

Years ago I worked for a company that did the annual fire alarm test by opening the relief valve on the sprinkler system. When water started flowing the alarm bells went off and the maintenance guys walked through every part of the plant to make sure each bell worked. I knew that system worked.

If they are going to go to all the trouble of posting signs warning about testing, perhaps there should be some kind of notification (like in the Daily Announcements) that the system tested out fine.

Otherwise, I will always wonder.

More Fun with Stereo

2009-07-22T09:00:00.000-05:00

I have been trying to post each weekday, but that's become a little difficult, so I'm cutting back to three days a week for now. I want to be able to keep it interesting.

I mentioned in my last post how odd the Lovin' Spoonful "phony" stereo recordings sound in headphones. Though it would sound fine at home or in the car because the sound would fill the room and each channel would be heard by both ears, with headphones each ear hears a single track.

There is one album from the 60s that sounds terrific in stereo headphones: The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds. Brian Wilson had left the road and concentrated on writing and producing records. He had been trying to create new sounds, including his own version of the "Wall of Sound" (think "Be True to Your School"). When the Beatles' Rubber Soul came out in December 1965, Brian was inspired to try to match it.

He wrote many of the songs not with Mike Love, as he normally did, but with an outsider name Tony Asher (Mike was on the road with the band at the time). Before they even returned, Brian had recorded a number of tracks with studio musicians. When the others returned home, they finished the album and released it in April 1966.

Though Brian Wilson eventually mixed the album in mono (for reasons discussed in the last post), there was a stereo mix as well. This mix is actually quite good and is especially interesting in headphones. I can hear instruments that get buried in the mono mix over the radio (listen for the bass harmonica). If you get the chance give it a listen with headphones--I think you'll like it.

Fun with Stereo

2009-07-20T09:40:00.000-05:00

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember mono records. At one time all recorded music was produced in a single track. Since the output of your record player (for you youngsters out there--a turntable with speakers) and radio were in mono, there was no problem.

The technology for stereo in recordings and radio actually go back as far as the late 1920s but was slow to catch on commercially. There is obviously additional expense (how much I can't say) and when you consider how primitive the recording and playback equipment of the day was, stereo would not have improved the sound greatly. (The motion picture industry took to stereo earlier since movie theaters could more easily be converted to stereo playback.)

FM stations began broadcasting in stereo in the early 1960s. FM radios were not common in most homes, however, an non-existent in cars. Further, these stations tended more to classical music and jazz.

Rock and pop music was the province of AM radio. Stereo came slowly to this band as competing broadcast systems vied for attention. Even today, AM stereo sounds flat to me, probably due to the difference between the ways that AM and FM broadcast.

Records of the early- to mid-1960s were mostly made in mono. They often recorded on two-track machines, but mostly put the instruments on one track and vocals on the other. Then they were blended together in a mono mix that came through fine on your car radio.

As home stereos became more affordable and popular (I got my first in 1964!), record companies took their two-track masters and issued them in "stereo." I remember having to decide whether to buy the Monkees' second album on mono for $2.99 or in stereo for $3.99. When the Beatles catalog was mastered for CDs in the 1980s, George Martin successfully convinced Apple to release the earlier material in mono (Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Hard Day's Night, Beatles for Sale, and Past Masters 1).

I thought of this the other day as I was listening o some old Lovin' Spoonful tracks on my MP3 player. The tracks were released on CD in the faux-stereo that resulted from using two tracks in recording. Using earphones, it sounds quite odd. Not so much the instruments, but the vocals. On You Didn't Have to Be So Nice, John Sebastian records counter-melody vocals on a different track from his lead vocal. So you get one in the left ear and the other in the right. On Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind and Nashville Cats, the lead vocal is in one ear and the harmony vocal the other.

This sounds fine in the car or at home because the sound blends in the room, but in earphones, it comes off a bit weird.

Blame It on the Yankees

2009-07-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

Though I am a National League fan, even I have to recognize that the American League is more talented overall. 12 years of All Star Game wins, though impressive, is not as meaningful as the fact that the AL consistently outperforms the NL in interleague play.

I blame it on the Yankees. Beginning in the 1990s, the George Steinbrenner-owned team really began to ramp up its changing of the face of baseball. Always big spenders, the increased revenue from their cable network really upped the amount they had to spend. So they did. If there was a free agent they wanted, they were never outbid. If they could make a trade for a player, they could then afford to give him a new contract.

Other people have pointed this out. Overlooked, however, was the improvement in the Yankee farm system. Many of the key players in their World Series run came from that system. And when they wanted a player on another team, they had the prospects to get him in a trade.

The formula worked. The Yankees made the playoffs every year fro 1995 until 2008 except for 1997. They won six AL pennants and four World Series.

When John Henry became owner of the Boston Red Sox, he called the Yankees "the evil empire," but quickly went over to the dark side himself. Boston now has two WS titles this decade and they did by pretty much the same formula used by the Yankees.

In my opinion, these two teams have forced the rest of the teams in the AL to work harder and spend more money. Obviously Tampa Bay spent only a fraction of what the Yankees did to win the pennant last year, so it's not only money. But when the big dogs are as good as they are, you must do something to compete. Therefore, I think that AL teams in general have been more aggressive in pursuing players than the NL teams. Eventually, the entire league has better talent.

Why don't the teams in the big NL markets do what the Yankees have done? Well, the Mets have tried, but I think their organization--from the owner on down--is basically incompetent. The Cubs have been owned by a media corporation who looked at the team as a money-maker, not something to invest in (and they are still the Cubs). The Dodgers changed ownership twice and has just recently reached a level of stability, which is paying off in having the best record in the NL.

I hope the playing field eventually levels, but for now, the AL has better talent and we have the Yankees to blame for that.

Not Again

2009-07-15T13:00:00.000-05:00

The American League beat the National League in baseball's All Star Game last night. Again. That makes 13 in a row. This game was close and could have easily gone either way, but the same cannot be said of every year and a 13 game winning streak is more than coincidence.

President Obama visited the broadcast booth after throwing out the first pitch and asked the announcers about this disparity between the leagues.

(By the way, I felt sorry for the Prez. His position gets him into the locker rooms before the game, on the mound to throw the first pitch, and into the broadcast booth. But he doesn't get to do what he wants. Joe Buck asked if he could stay for another half-inning, and Obama had to check with someone off camera who said it was time to go. I'll bet he would have liked nothing more than to chat with the announcers and then go down to the locker room after the game to talk baseball and drink a beer. But when you're leader of the free world, someone else makes your schedule.)

Joe Buck rightly answered that the American League is better than the National League right now and cited the best evidence--the consistently superior record of AL teams over NL teams in inter-league play. As to why the AL is better, Tim McCarver chimed in with, "It's because of the designated hitter," and then went on with an illogical and incomprehensible reason why it makes a difference.

Tim McCarver is normally an idiot. He either throws out stuff like this or else belabors a point that even a third-grader can understand. (The pitcher has to be careful here with a 3-2 count on the batter. If he throws another ball, he'll walk him and because the bases are loaded a run will score and since we're in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game, the other tema will win. I exagerate only slightly.)

The designated hitter came into the American League in 1973. From 1960 to 1985 the National League beat them 26 out of 29 times. The DH sure didn't seem to help then.

His argument that the DH means better hitters in the AL (who don't have to play thge field) misses the point that there are designated-hitter type players in the NL as well. However, the teams just play them in the field and hold their breaths. Though his defense has improved, if Prince Fielder came up in the AL, he wouldn't even own a glove. The same for Ryan Braun, Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, etc.

The presence of the DH will not in itself account for the difference in talent level between the leagues. There must be something else and I will explain tomorrow what I think it is.

Talking in Code

2009-07-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

Why do some businesses insists in using their internal code when they talk to the public? Recently I saw a commercial for the local electric utility saying that there were different types of CFL out their for my use. Since he was turning a lamp on and off, I figured he must be talking about light bulbs. So after wracking my brain, I decided that CFL must stand for Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb. A quick google search confirmed this.

Now I know what these bulbs are. We have several in our house and intend to buy more. But I never knew them by an acronym. I didn't just crawl out from under a rock and I am pretty aware of what's going on. If you mention that you just bought some new CFLs to your friends, how many will understand what you are referring to?

The St. Louis Metro (commuter train/bus system) spans both Missouri and Illinois. For some reason there are duplicate bus route numbers between the two state. There is a #1 route in Missouri and a #1 in Illinois. This confuses no one as they run nowhere near each other.

I am guessing that within Metro they account for the difference by making the Illinois routes 3-digit numbers starting with 5. So route 1 becomes 501, 12 becomes 512, etc. Nowhere, however, is this information communicated to the public (rightly so as it is not necessary). The timetables, signs at the bus stops, and sign on the buses say 1 or 12 or 16, not 501, 512, or 516.

So when the train operators announce their stops, do they insist on announcing that the particular stop services route 501, etc.? I understand that this is probably the "official" designation within Metro, but no one else understands it.

I doubt that the average person is actually confused by this (although I have seen some really stupid people on my commute), so maybe no harm is done. But why? Every passenger knows that 16 is the St. Clair bus. What possible purpose is served by the train operator calling it 516? Just another stupid business speaking internal code to the outside world.

The Rise and Fall of the Electric Sitar

2009-07-13T07:25:00.000-05:00

You are probably aware of the instrument that is the foundation of much Indian music--the sitar. It's unique sound dominates the music that those of us in the West think of when we consider music from India.

Because of the large Indian population in London, the British were the first to become aware of this instrument. It was often heard on the soundtrack of films from England. The average pop music fan was introduced to the instrument by the Beatles when George Harrison played it on Norwegian Wood. It's distinctive sound blended nicely with John Lennon's acoustic guitar to make a dynamite single.

George used it on two other songs, Love You To and Within You Without You. These were not pop songs, per se, but were Harrison's interpretation of Indian music. It also appeared on Across the Universe and Tomorrow Never Knows.

Following the trend-setting mop-tops, many pop bands of the 60s included the sitar on a song or two. The most prominent was The Rolling Stone's song Paint It Black, where it was played by Brian Jones (the picture at left is of Ron Wood playing the sitar part for the Stones sometime more recently).

But then someone invented the electric sitar. As best as I can tell, there were two versions, one with extra drone strings and one tuned like a guitar (see the pictures below). Now you didn't have to sit on a rug to balance the huge instrument.

After quite a bit of use in the 60s and early 70s, the instrument seemingly disappeared from pop music (although it pops up once in a while, like in Tom Petty's Don't Come Around Here No More). But for a while, it provided a fun texture.

I am compiling a list of 60's/70's songs that used the sitar or electric sitar. Here is what I've come up with so far:

Box Tops--Cry Like a Baby
B.J. Thomas--Hooked on a Feeling
Stevie Wonder--Signed Sealed Delivered
The Animals--Monterey
Frieda Payne--Band of Gold
The Spiners--It's a Shame
The Lemon Pipers--My Green Tambourine
Scott McKenzie--San Francisco
John Fried--Judy in Disguise with Glasses
Steely Dan--Do It Again
The Cyrkle--Turn Down Day

There were plenty of songs on albums that were not hits that used the sitar, but I'm interested in the hits. Can you think of any more for my list?

Join My Crusade

2009-07-10T09:00:00.000-05:00

I have had enough. It is time to end this. We must take up arms, if need be, to stop this once and for all. What is this menace to which I refer? The children's choirs singing the National Anthem and Take Me Out to the Ballgame at baseball games.

I know, I know. Why don't I torture puppies or say that Mom couldn't cook? But hear me out.

Everyone adores their kids. At certain ages, anything the little ones do is precious and fills a parent's heart with joy. But that's your kids. You don't necessarily feel that way about other people's children, do you? Every time we are in a doctor's waiting room and a little tyke is making lots of noise that seems to thrill the parent, I remind my own kids, "When you have children, remember that other people will not think they are as cute as you do."

So why should I, a paying customer who came to watch a baseball game, be forced to sit through a children's choir murder a song? Let's face it, kids can't sing well. If parents get thrilled by their children trying, save it for the school or church program. Let's not subject 40,000 strangers to it.

And besides, isn't the purpose of the National Anthem and Take Me Out to the Ballgame for the spectators to sing them? That's the tradition that I remember. Just give me an organ playing the songs and I'll sing along. Just spare me the "performance."

How We Are Measured

2009-07-09T09:00:00.003-05:00

Let's continue to talk about how we refer to the recently departed. Last week, former NFL quarterback Steve McNair and a female companion were found shot to death in an apartment he and a friend owned. As it turns out, the woman was his girlfriend (he is married with four kids) and it appears that she killed him and then shot herself. I have two reactions to this story and to the reaction to the story:

1. Paul wrote: Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life (Galatians 6:7-8, NIV). This does not mean there is a direct event-by-event correlation of my sinful event to a bad thing that happens to me. It means that when you indulge in sin, somehow, someway, the results of sinfulness will come back on you. In McNair's case, it came back direct and hard. The latest news is that she was distraught that he might be seeing another girl (after all, why would she trust him--he is already a liar and cheater).

2. Several sportswriters have taken great pains to say that McNair's life should not only be measured by how he died or what he was doing that may have caused his death. Fair enough to a point--his life was more than the end of it. However, these same sportswriters seem to want to just sweep it under the rug, as in, let's just remember his football success, charity work, and how his teammates loved him. But you can't just ignore the fact that he was unfaithful to his wife and died as a result. His children will not have their daddy for the rest of their lives because he couldn't keep his pants zipped up. Harsh, but tell me I'm wrong.

So how should we remember him? As a very good football player, wonderful teammate, and questionable family man who brought on his own death by his adultery. If he was a mixture (by society's standards) of good and bad, then let's say he was a mixture.

Speaking of the Dead

2009-07-08T09:00:00.000-05:00

Never speak ill of the dead. That old saying has never been more true than during the hoopla surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. People all around the country keep making comments about how they will miss Michael, about how much he and his music meant to them.

Baloney. For the last 10-15 years, most of the comments made about him were about Wacko Jacko (as the tabloids used to call him). Whether or not he was actually guilty of molesting any kids, at minimum we know that he behaved inappropriately. Even fans of his music (do not count me among them) loved to make fun of his weirdness.

Now that he's dead? That all changes. Now all the strange behavior is pushed aside so we can talk about the Michael who touches lives.

Now if Michael Jackson truly made a difference in your life, fine. For consistency, though, I hope you weren't one of the one making jokes about him. If he didn't really touch your life, then shut up. Don't say that he did just because he is dead.

Need I Say More?

2009-07-07T10:26:00.002-05:00

The memorial service for Michael Jackson is being held this morning at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. Tomorrow, the Staples Center will be presenting the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey circus.

Patriotism and the Church

2009-07-06T09:00:00.001-05:00

Last Friday, Tina and I are going to an Independence Day concert and fireworks show (they had one on the official day as well). An article in our denominational magazine last week got me to thinking about the concept of Christians and patriotism.

I am glad to be a citizen of the USA. I think, for a lot of reasons, that this is not only the greatest country on the planet right now, but perhaps ever.

But what is patriotism and how is that different than nationalism? A lot of Christians in Nazi Germany supported Hitler's evil regime because of their patriotism (thankfully, many did not).

American Evangelicals have no trouble criticizing our government's policy on abortion, but if a Christian speaks out against the war in Iraq, the same people will accuse him or her of a lack of patriotism. This is obviously inconsistent, but points to a deeper problem.

I think that many in our churches are Americans first and Christians second. Or maybe it's 1 and 1A. Oh, they would vehemently deny this, but their words and actions betray them.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Rather than encouraging people to be patriotic, perhaps we should spend more effort making sure they are fully-functioning members of the Kingdom of God.

Loving your country is fine, but let's not mix it with our love for God. They are not the same thing.

Evangelical Christians and Barack Obama

2009-07-02T09:00:00.000-05:00

I am the only American Evangelical that I personally know who admits to voting for Barack Obama for president. While most of my friends use every opportunity to rip his administration, I remain cautiously optimistic that he will turn out to do some good for our country. Before you log off, at least listen to why I voted for him.

1. I have believed from the day that it started that the war in Iraq was a mistake. It does not meet what I understand to be the standard of a "just war." It was sold to Congress and the American people with lies. It has resulted in the deaths of thousands of our soldiers as well as multiple times that of Iraqi civilians. If we are ever able to establish a lasting government in Iraq (a big if), it is still questionable as to whether it was worth the cost. Therefore, I voted for Obama because I believed he would end the war long before John McCain would.

2. I believe that George Bush failed in so many ways as a leader. I don't doubt for a minute his dedication to Christ, but it takes more than that to run a country. While I believe that McCain would lead better than Bush, I thought that too many of their policies (tax cuts for the rich; shoot first, negotiate later) were similar.

3. I think it is time for Christians to stop being single-issue voters. That issue, of course, is abortion. Make no mistake, I take a back seat to no one in my opposition to this heinous practice. However, 30+ years of history has clearly demonstrated that the number of abortions is not going to be increased or decreased because of the occupant of the White House. (This is a discussion that deserves its own post one day.)

Does this mean I am unconcerned? By no means. The amount of money that the Obama administration is throwing at the economic crisis is frightening (of course, Bush was doing the same thing). I sincerely hope that Republicans can take control of at least one house of Congress in 2010 to provide some balance to the Democrat's agenda.

Rather than just bashing our president and his policies, I think we would do better to be supportive of that which we can support and gain listening ears in Washington.

Restoring What the Thief Takes Away

2009-07-01T09:00:00.000-05:00

Recently, I bragged about my incredible Martin J-40. Today I want to tell you the story of how I came to acquire it. Though I learned to play guitar when I was about 12, I played junk guitars my whole life. In my early thirties I realized that this was not just a teen phase and that I needed a real guitar. So I saved money that I got from my dad for birthdays, honorariums that were given for weddings and funerals (I did a surprising amount of the latter over a couple of years), and other odd funds that would come my way for my dream instrument. Doing no research (my bad), I decided on the ubiquitous Martin D-28.

I bought it at a Guitar Center (good people if you want an electric, acoustics not so much). I was thoroughly happy with it and played it for about three years. I was given a subscription to Acoustic Guitar magazine and began understanding more about these instruments. Though I was in no way unhappy with my D-28, I decided that if I ever needed to replace it, I would look for something like an HD-28 (scalloped braces).

We planned a special worship service on a Friday night. We used all the musician and many of the singers in the church and even brought in an outside keyboard player for it. Our Thursday night rehearsal went great and we were excited for the next evening.

Everything was left set up as we exited the church that night. To my utter dismay, however, when the church custodians came in to clean the next morning, the church had been burglarized. Among the missing items was, of course, my Martin D-28!

I was bummed. Even worse than not having it was the realization that some kid was sitting in his room not knowing what a quality instrument he had and playing "Stairway to Heaven" on it. Badly.

I borrowed an instrument and the worship service went great. Next came dealing with the insurance company. Actually, they were great. All of my missing items (which included a bass and some speakers) were covered, so the adjuster told me to go shopping.

This time I was prepared and ended up at a wonderful guitar shop that sadly doesn't exist any longer. This establishment had forty Martin guitars for sale. It was a guitar geek's candy store. After playing several HD-28s, the proprietor suggested I look at the J-40. He quoted the Chris Martin "dreadnought of the nineties" line and pointed out the different shape and tonal qualities. I was hooked. I played a half-dozen of this model. The tone of one was a bit muffled, but the others were bright and booming. One instrument in particular stood out, however. Others who happened to be in the store agreed that this was "the pick of the litter."

I have played this guitar for fifteen years, mostly in worship-leading. The devil--a thief and a liar--tried to silence praise by stealing my instrument, but God restored it to his glory. And the irony is that I ended up with a better instrument to give praise to God.

Gay Marriage Suggestion

2009-06-30T09:00:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-29T09:00:00.001-05:00

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

2009-06-26T09:00:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-25T09:00:00.001-05:00

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

2009-06-24T09:00:00.001-05:00

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...

2009-06-23T09:10:00.002-05:00

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

2009-06-22T09:15:00.001-05:00

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

2009-06-19T14:33:00.004-05:00

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

2009-06-17T13:03:00.011-05:00

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

2009-06-16T09:27:00.004-05:00

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

2009-06-15T07:47:00.004-05:00

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

2009-06-12T09:00:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-11T09:00:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-10T09:00:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-09T12:30:00.001-05:00

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

2009-06-08T08:03:00.003-05:00

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

2009-06-04T10:19:00.003-05:00

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

2009-06-03T08:06:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-02T09:42:00.005-05:00

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?

2009-06-01T09:08:00.004-05:00

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.

Editors needed

2009-05-29T09:43:00.004-05:00

As a would-be writer who has had a few things published, I am not always appreciative of editors. I like that they correct grammar or spelling mistakes that i don't catch. However, they also feel qualified to delete entire sentences that they think are superfluous or don't fit the tome of the publication. Delete my breathless prose will you? They're cultural Philistines.

However, I can think of one place that an editor would help: Facebook photo pages. People, just because you took 40 pictures of you and your friends at a party or the beach or a baseball game does not mean that you have to post each and every one of them. Especially when 20 of them are of the same people in the same basic pose. A few samples will satisfy even the most narcissistic subject in the photos.

The satirical on-line publication, The Onion, ran this story today: Police Slog Through 40,000 Insipid Party Pics To Find Cause Of Dorm Fire. The "story" led with: "The fire was ruled an accident after a tedious review of thousands of digital photos documenting every second of the five hour party."

That's how I feel after viewing some photo pages. Let's make a deal. I'll promise to look at your photo pages when you post them if you promise to self-edit and not publish every single picture you took. Deal?

Down moods

2009-05-28T09:58:00.005-05:00

Are any of you moody? That's definitely one of my traits. I don't think I get moody just because. Normally there is an event or series of events that send me into a funk. And once there it takes a while to climb out. I hate it.

That's actually the reason I haven't posted since Monday. I have some things to say (and will get around to them), but a couple of things happened over the weekend to make me a bit sour. I don't think I've been ugly with people, but I can see that I have retreated into my shell.

This is the one thing that I do that most drives Tina crazy. When I get in a funk like this, I just pull away from everything. Oh, I keep working on what I have to, but everything else falls by the way. She will say at these times, "You're pulling away from me." Most of the time, I don't realize I'm doing it until she says something or I'm almost through it.

Are you the type of moody person who retreats into yourself? You need someone to tell you when it happens. Are you married to a such a person? You need to have a talk with him/her to gain some understanding and then get permission to help pull him/her out when it happens.

I don't think this is the same as true clinical depression. That's a different story that may need professional help. I'm just talking about the down periods that come upon melancholy people. If you are one, find someone to trust. If you know someone, help them.

War, peace, and soldiers

2009-05-25T17:39:00.006-05:00

I am actually a bit conflicted by Memorial Day. By nature a pacifist, I am always uncomfortable with the idea of war. Though a pacifist, I am also a biblical realist; as long as the world is infected with sin, military force will be necessary to protect people.

I never served in the armed forces. I came of age just after the draft ended for Vietnam. I was glad to see that war ended and could not see myself in the military.

I supported Desert Storm in 1991, though it was hard to see what we accomplished in the end (except protect our gasoline).

I thought that taking out the terrorists in Afghanistan was necessary and proper, even if that meant removing their government. I never supported the war with Iraq as I thought our reasons were specious (and falsehoods as it later turned out).

So what do I think of soldiers, sailors and air personnel--past and present? I am glad for their existence and for their faithfulness to their job. I appreciate that I have the right to free speech to disapprove of the war because they are there to fight when necessary.

Many died in necessary wars; some in unecessary ones. It doesn't matter--they're all heroes. Thanks to you all.

Baseball in Heaven?

2009-05-22T11:10:00.000-05:00

There's nothing I want to complain about today and I'm in a good mood after the Cardinal's sweep of the Cubs. So today, a story.

Two elderly former baseball players were reminiscing when Jorge asked, "Do you think there will be baseball in heaven?" Jason said, "I don't know, but I sure hope so." As they continued to talk, they made a pact that the first one to die would make every attempt to return to the other with the answer.

A couple of years later Jason died. As his friend lay sleeping a week after the funeral, he was awakened by a voice, "Jorge, it's me Jason." Jorge woke with a start and exclaimed, "Jason, you did it. You came back. So tell me, is there baseball in heaven?"

"Well, I have good news and bad news on that front," answered the ghostly figure. Jorge cried out, "Give me the good news first." The specter spoke, "Yes, there is baseball in heaven." Jorge said, "That's wonderful," and then turned silent. After a moment he asked, "What's the bad news?"

Jason replied, "You're pitching Friday."

Baseball Is the Perfect Sport

2009-05-21T10:52:00.000-05:00

Growing up in southern California, my parents followed all the local sport teams. Dodgers, Angels, Rams, Lakers, USC football (mom), and UCLA football and basketball (dad). Track and field, horse racing, and the Olympics also drew our attention. But above all was baseball. Specifically Dodger baseball.

My first sports-related memory was my parents bringing me a Dodgers World Champions t-shirt from game 4 of the 1963 sweep of the Yankees (Sandy Koufax won 2-1). I was 6, but my love for baseball was set.

Baseball does not have the same level of popularity that it once did. Because of gambling, football garners more attention. Basketball attracts more inner-city youths than baseball now. Baseball is too slow, games last too long, has a steroids problem, blah blah blah.

I'm not having it. Attendance is as high as ever and you can catch a game on TV any night of the week. I have not caught a game in person this season yet, but that will change soon. My Dodgers have the best record in both leagues and my adopted Cardinals just beat the Cubs twice in a row. When baseball is going on, all is right with the world.

There are problems. The game must be rid of steroids and recent evidence suggests that the corner is being turned on that front. I would speed up the game just a little by forcing pitchers to throw a pitch within a certain time. The DH should go (or at least remain confined to the wimpy AL).

Every spring, some network plays "Field of Dreams" on TV. I almost always watch it at least once. My favorite scene is the speech that James Earl Jones gives about baseball. It sums up my feelings. Watch this clip and tell me if you don't get goosebumps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__X7ybW9Ljg

Track Record

2009-05-20T10:18:00.005-05:00

A 13-year old boy and his parents in Minnesota are attempting to refuse chemotherapy for the boy's Hodgkin's lymphoma. They claim that chemo will not cure the tumor and that alternative herbal treatment will. They follow a group called the Nemenhah Band from somewhere in Missouri that uses native American natural healing treatments.

As a Christian who believes in divine healing, I admit to some mixed feelings on this issue. As the father has stated, "Chemo is not foolproof." However, it does have a pretty good track record with this type of cancer. The results of the Nemenhah Band? Who knows?

A week after becoming a Christian we had a case in California of a family who refused treatment for their son because God was going to heal him (his pastor counseled against this). He died and they were prosecuted. Later the father wrote a book where he admitted his arrogance and failure.

And this is the problem with these parents. If the boy dies and he had not received the best available medical treatment, their mistake has permanent consequences.

Believing in religious freedom, I understand and am somewhat sympathetic to all the arguments in support of the parents' decision to withhold treatment. However, on the practical side, I cannot remember a single publicized case of someone surviving after recommended medical treatment is refused. If history is any guide, this boy will join all the others and die without treatment. If he is forced to have treatment, the results are hard to predict (some valuable time has been lost).

When Jesus healed the ten lepers, he sent them to the priests to be declared healed. Until the doctors agree that alternative treatment is working, this boy should not be allowed to refuse treatment.

A Tree Died

2009-05-19T10:42:00.000-05:00

I am a nerd. No, this is not a 12-step confession. It's the truth and I'm proud of it. I have my interests and I can be somewhat single-minded about them. I love books, especially about theology, and know way too much trivia about baseball, the Beatles and guitars. I am not cool and really don't care about pop culture.

(Note: According to my definition, a nerd is not the same as a geek. The latter is the type of person who cannot carry on a normal conversation and who you want to avoid. I hope I do not fit that category.)

But my nerdiness was tested recently when I saw the latest issue of The Sixteenth Century Journal. (For the record, I do not read this journal as it is not one of my interests. My job requires me to check the books reviewed in it against our catalog to see if we already have them.) For their fortieth anniversary (break out the party hats), they devoted their book review section to the best book reviews of the last forty years. Earlier they asked their readers to nominate those reviews that "most profoundly 'got your attention.'"

This is a new level of nerdiness than I could ever imagine. Not best books of the last 40 years, but the best reviews of books from the last 40 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think of a book review not as art, but utility. It is supposed to tell me enough of the book that I can make an intelligent decision as to whether I should buy it or at least check it our of the library. A good critical review will briefly acquaint me with the scholarly debate that surrounds the book. Review can also be helpful in determining a particular reviewer's view of a subject if he/she has not written about it elsewhere.

But a collection of the "best"? As my boss responded when I showed it to him, "And for that a tree died."

Last Call

2009-05-18T09:00:00.001-05:00

I promise that this is my final post regarding Miss California, Carrie Prejean. And actually it's not about her at all; it's about us and Christian celebrity.

Let's get these points out of the way:

1. Her answer (to an unfair question in that setting) was courageous. Not real intelligent-sounding, but it is off the cuff and she's not a scholar or public speaker.

2. She was and still is being criticized for her stand which is contrary to that of the mainstream media. Similarly, the release of her semi-nude and topless photos are to embarrass her and her position.

3. She did pose topless for some photos. She told the Miss California organization that none existed. After the first ones came out, she insisted there were no more. When the latest ones surfaced, she blamed the wind. She has not been truthful.

None of this is what really bothers me. What I find difficult to understand is the conservative Christian media completely defending her and making her into a celebrity spokesperson. Are we so desperate to declare our opposition to gay marriage that we will so willingly ignore all the problems with her character and use her to further our message? This is simply wrong.

Let's say she gave a less-than-definitive answer to the gay marriage question. Even though she is a Christian, would James Dobson still have had her on his radio show? Worse, if she said that she was a Christian who supported the right of gays to marry, wouldn't he have attacked her? And then, if the photos came out, he would have questioned her character and integrity and said that this is the kind of supposed Christian who would support gay marriage. Tell me I'm wrong.

Instead, because she gave the right answer, he and others have to downplay the other issues and build her up as much as possible. Not because she is a fellow-believer, but because she said the right thing. And because she is now a celebrity.

How sad. If it were not for her own complicity in seeking out the media (she could have said no), I might start feeling sorry for her. She is being used by people who, once her celebrity fades, will be content to toss her aside and ignore her. I can imagine that 15 years from now, when her star has long faded and she is going back to college to finish the degree she abandoned to chase the celebrity dream promised her, she will look back and realize that she was used.

Had I been her advisor after the pageant, I would have counselled her to make one appearance (Today show, perhaps) and issue a statement like, "Hey, I'm just a colege student and beauty pageant queen. I stand by my answer, but it is up to everyone in this country to search their hearts for the right answer." And then, I would have her go back to school and turn down all media requests.

But, of course, I would have advised her not to take the racy photos that she did in the first place, too.

Baseball Should Not Be This Sad

2009-05-16T13:41:00.005-05:00

My friend Jeff Morris jokingly asked me why I didn't post about Manny Ramirez and the steroids (or more specifically the female fertility drug used after steroids). Since I am a fan of the Dodgers who beat his snake bitten Cubs in the playoffs last year, he thought it only fair.

I would never shrink from such a challenge, but the truth is, I just don't know how I feel about specific instances of steroids in baseball any more. I feel as if the last 15 years of the most wonderful sport on earth has been robbed of its beauty. I remember when the ball started flying out of the park in record numbers in the 90s (Brady Anderson, of all people, hit 50 in 1996). We thought that the baseballs were juiced. Turns out it was the players.

I enjoyed the Mark McGuire record setting season. Unlike many, however, I always felt this nagging thought in the back of my head that it was less than right (we found out in the middle of the chase he used Andro--since banned).

Baseball has always been about numbers. In 1969, my friend Steven Johnson and I spent the entire summer playing darts on the baseball game on the back side of the dart board. We kept box scores and tallied batting averages and ERAs. I know a lot of the big numbers: Babe Ruth, 60 and 714. Hank Aaron 755. Roger Maris 61. Rogers Hornsby .422. Don Drysdale 58 scoreless innings. And, no, I didn't look any of those up.

The numbers put up in the steroids era takes the magic out of the numbers. And that hurts. On a competition level maybe it doesn't matter. Sure, Barry Bonds undoubtedly used steroids to get to 73 HR. But some of the pitchers who got him out were also on steroids. But the numbers aren't as meaningful anymore.

I think what makes baseball the greatest sport, at least to my generation and older, was the magical connection with kids. When I grew up, even the dorkiest of us dreamed of being a big league baseball player; no one dreamed of being a pro basketball or football player. We followed the players and kept track of their stats.

It was magic. Even though the times have changed and kids today probably don't have the same connection, it is still sad to see the joy sucked out of the numbers.

I still love baseball. Living in St. Louis now, I have been privileged to watch a sure future Hall-of-Fame player (Albert Pujols) entire career. I plan to get out to the stadium when the Dodgers come to town in July and watch often of TV. (If Pujols is ever proven to be a steroids user, I will be crushed.)

But there is an element in which it will never be the same. And that's too bad. I could blame a lot of people--players, owners, the commissioner, the people who invent this stuff--but it really doesn't matter. It's just a little sad and that's really all that can be said about it.

Wayman Tisdale

2009-05-15T13:35:00.004-05:00

After my previous snarky post about a bad-boy NBA player, I was saddened to read of the passing of one of the good guys, Wayman Tisdale.

Tisdale was an All-American at the University of Oklahoma, averaging 25.6 points per game and 10.1 rebounds per game in his three years. He played twelve seasons for three teams in the NBA, averaging 15.3 and 6.1. Like many others before and since, his size (6'9") allowed him to dominate in college, but made him just a little too small to have anything more than a good career in the NBA as a post player.

What makes Tisdale noteworthy is his character. You could consider him the antithesis of what most consider the typical NBA player. He was a dedicated Christian who got his college coach to move practice from Sunday morning to Sunday night so he could go to church (where his father was the pastor). I don't ever remember him getting in a fight, causing a scandal, or fathering children other than with his wife.

After retiring, he carved out a new career as a jazz bassist. Most ex-athletes seem to have nothing else to do when they quit. It seems they all either play golf, coach, or go into the broadcast booth. Not Wayman. A self-taught musician, he recorded eight albums, two of which topped the Billboard Jazz chart.

He suffered from bone cancer which cost him a leg, but not his smile. He died today at 44.

Here is a link to a terrific ESPN piece from last year:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?page=tisdale-081203

Here is the link to his web site:

http://www.waymantisdale.com/

News Flash

2009-05-15T11:17:00.001-05:00

From today's Belleville News Democrat:

"NBA player Darius Miles charged with pot possession in Fairview Heights."

In other news, the sun rose in the east.

Ezekiel: Full of Faith or Wimp?

2009-05-15T09:00:00.001-05:00

Yesterday I read a fascinating little comment in a sermon by John Wilbur Chapman from 1894. He quotes another 19th-century preacher, John McNeil, on the story of Ezekiel and the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37). You know the story. God asked Ezekiel "Son of man, can these bones live?"

Ezekiel does not say yes or no. McNeil imagines the prophet looking down at the dead bones in which no life was present and being afraid to say yes. But then he also looked up to God in heaven and, knowing that God probably wouldn't have asked him if it was not possible, was afraid to say no. So he punted: "Oh Lord God, only you know."

If McNeil is right about Ezekiel's hesitation, I am right there with the prophet. It is so much easier to have faith when studying the Bible or in prayer or in theoretical discussion about the power of God. However, it is another thing altogether when you are called upon to pray for a dying child or for a marriage that has crumbled. Then the reality, even impossibility, of the situation intrudes on all the best theories.

On the other hand, it is one thing to have all the faith in the world that God can fix the situation before you. However, how do we know what God intends or wants to do in this situation? I forget who said that it was difficult to speak for a God who keeps his own counsel. It is perhaps just as arrogant to believe that every person you pray for will be healed as it is faithless to believe that none will be.

In the end, I wonder if McNeil was too hard on poor Ezekiel. Perhaps the prophet was not undaunted by the monumental task. Maybe he just didn't know what God wanted. So he gave the best answer he could: "Only you know."

The Liar's Crown

2009-05-14T11:45:00.002-05:00

We can now sleep easier at night. Carrie Prejean will be allowed to keep her crown as Miss California. Donald Trump accepted her explanation that her topless photos were just lingerie shoots when she was a teen-ager.

However, now racier photos were released that she earlier claimed did not exist. The new photos are not from behind, but clearly show her breasts and nipples (the news outlets that released them covered up the nipples). There is no lingerie being advertised here and it seems that she was 20, not 17 as she claimed, when she posed (before her breast enhancement).

Now I understand that she probably lost the Miss USA crown because of Perez Hilton's totally unwarranted response to her answer to the gay marriage question. And these photos may indeed have been released to mock her Christian confession.

However, the girl is a liar. She signed a form stating that no photos like this exist. 1st lie. Then she stated that there were no more shots other than the lingerie shot from behind. 2nd lie.

Why in the world is she being held up as some kind of Christian role model? She is attempting to make a living and a career, not on talent or ability or hard work, but on her looks--both natural and enhanced. Do we want our young girls to emulate her in strutting her body before talent judges or a camera lens? And do we condone her lies?

Let Ms Prejean return to the scrap-heap of obscurity where she belongs. Let her go back to school and finish her degree and become a teacher. And stop holding her up as a defender of the faith. Let's reserve that for people who are actually doing something for God out there.

PC or Common Sense?

2009-05-13T11:32:00.008-05:00

We all have experienced PC (politically correct) language. For example, people who we once described as handicapped or disabled become differently-abled because it doesn't sound so negative. Sometimes it is just silly (see my post about the Blind Curve), but not all examples of what some people call PC speech are necessarily so.

I have come into the habit of referring to the Old Testament as the Hebrew Bible. This happened because of my dissertation work on an OT topic and through my involvement with the regional arm of the Society of Biblical Literature. It has become the preferred scholarly term within many in that guild.

This definitely makes sense in the SBL. This is not a Christian organization; it is a scholarly one. It includes scholars and teachers who are dedicated churchmen, lapsed Christians, Jews, and hard-to-pin-down-religiously. You may be surprised to know that not everyone who studies and teaches the Bible for a living is a strong Christian. Just check out the religion faculty at your local community college sometime.

For an organization like this, though they recognize that the Bible is claimed as sacred Scripture by Christianity, the purpose of SBL is not to promote it as such. Therefore, the Bible does not properly belong to the Church, since it is also claimed by Jews and less-than-orthodox Christians. The purpose of SBL is to study the Bible academically, and let religious groups do as they wish with the findings.

Old Testament is not properly a scholarly term (neither is New Testament, but SBl and others use that term without problem), rather it is a church term. It describes that part of the Bible which the Jews considered sacred at the time of Jesus and which the church considers to be also part of its scriptures since the New Testament continues the plan of God begun in the OT.

To Jews, however, Old Testament implies two things: (1) that their Bible is outmoded when compared with the NT and (2) that it somehow belongs to the Christian church. Using the term Hebrew Bible, however, solves all difficulties and allows all scholars to speak together. Hebrew Bible (note--not Jewish Bible) refers to those parts of what is considered to be the Bible that were originally written in Hebrew (with a smattering of the related Aramaic).

In fact, there is a question as to how well the terms Old Testament and New Testament reflect good Christian theology. Did God have one plan that was replaced? If so, is there any benefit to reading the first plan at all? Or is it all just one plan?

There is no way that the modern church is going to adopt Hebrew Bible and Greek Scriptures or something similar for OT and NT. The familiar terms are just too familiar. But if you hear me or anyone else refer to the Hebrew Bible, don't accuse us of being PC; we are just using a term that is better for the circles in which we sometimes travel.

Gibson Les Paul Premium Plus Review

2009-05-12T14:46:00.000-05:00

Recently I purchased my first real electric guitar--a Gibson Les Paul Premium Plus.

Like many other people, I have always considered the Les Paul the holy grail of guitars. Big sustain, growling humbuckers, and that classic style. For the longest time, however, I had talked myself out of the Les Paul. They are expensive and heavy. When the time came that I could start shopping, I started looking at SGs since they have similar pickups but are a bit cheaper.

First, I need to say that I would not own an Epiphone version of the Les Paul or SG. I played a couple of them years ago and was shocked by the poor quality. Since I am an acousitc player first, I tend to press hard on the neck. I was actually bending the necks of the Epiphones enough to change the pitch. No thanks. It's Gibson or nothing (I'll talk about the difference between Gibsons and Fenders another day).

Another part of owning a guitar like this is the way it looks (you look good, you play good). So I eliminated the models without block inlays (most SG Standards, Les Paul Jrs, and Les Paul Studios).

At a Guitar Center, I played a couple of SGs and then saw my guitar--a used Les Paul Studio Premium Plus. As expected, it has the great Les Paul tone. But what sold it for me was the look and the price.

The Premium Plus (which is not made any more) is an upgraded Studio in that it has block inlays, gold hardware, and a flamed-maple top (mine is natural finish--you can also find them stained different colors). What the guitar lacks when compared to a standard Les Paul is binding around the body and fretboard (neither of which are important to me) and no pickguard (more on that later).

Being a newer model, it features a chambered (partly hollowed out) body. This reduces the weight significantly (from 10 down to 7 pounds according to some) that makes it much more comfortable to play. I have read purists that hate the chambering, but I find it has all the sustain I can ever use. How long do you want to hold one note anyway?

What really makes this guitar stand out is the flamed maple top. As you can see in the picture, it is gorgeous. So much so that Gibson did not include a pickguard so as to not cover it up. Therefore, this might not be a good option if you really beat up your guitars when you play.

The final selling point for me was the price. The new SGs that I was looking at cost $1500, but I got this beauty for $1100. A Les Paul rather thanb an SG with an upgraded top and for less money!!! I couldn't buy it fast enough.

Since Gibson does not make this model anymore, you would need to look around for a used one (I've seen a few on e-bay). Obviously there are issues with used guitars. The back of mine had buckle scratches and the gold hardware is already fading a bit. Of course, the factory warranty is no longer in effect. But if you can evaluate guitars and do not mind a used instrument, I have been seeing these in the $1100 to $1500 range.

To sum up, this is a great guitar that will be my sole electric for the rest of my life. If you can find one, check it out.

Keep Piling On

2009-05-11T14:28:00.006-05:00

A PhD is a prestigious degree. In many fields of academic study, it is as high as one can go. There is nothing beyond the degree but to continue to research, write, and teach.

Of course, there are cynics who see it differently. Some of my friends possess a B.A. degree. If you get your degree in one of the sciences (or, curiously, in accounting), you get a B.S (Bachelor's of Science).

Well, everyone knows what else BS stands for. So if you go on and get a Master's, that's an M.S.--More of the Same. Finally the Ph.D. stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.

With that in mind, I would like to call the attention of everyone who is doing, has done, or is considering graduate school (especially PhD) to the wonderful online comic strip titled, naturally, "Piled Higher and Deeper." Though its author concentrates on science majors (one humanities character just got "laid off" from the strip for economic reasons), students and former students in any field will get a chuckle (professors, less so). Here is one of my favorites:

His site can be found at: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php.

The Joys of Longetivity

2009-05-09T09:14:00.000-05:00

You've heard the old jokes: I had a great sex life and then I got married. Or the little boy who wrote this definition of a widow: Someone who lived with her husband so long that he died.

Among people who have been married multiple times there is a new term: serial monogamy. In other words, being faithful to one person in a relationship at a time. When that relationship fails, you are faithful to the next one.

I guess serial monogamy is better than infidelity anytime, but people who have not been married to one person for a long time are missing out on some wonderful joys.

Today is my anniversary. Tina and I have now been married 28 years. One of the pleasures of being married this long is that I have got to watch her change and grow close-up.

When we got married, Tina was a 19-year old. She smiled a lot and laughed at my jokes. We played games and did silly things. Then came children and she grew into a young mother. It was all good.

Then, in her mid-to-late thirties, she began to change. One day, without discussing it with me, she went out and got a job (a good thing, as it turned out). On that job, she advanced and gained a lot of confidence. In her early forties, she got a tattoo (and one more just recently). She got her license and last year bought a motorcycle (by herself, since I don't ride).

These things are a bit superficial, but they are emblems of a deeper reality: She has grown into a much more interesting person than I married. And not only is she more interesting, I got to go along for the ride.

And that, among other things, are what people who don't hang on to their marriages never get to experience. They experience a spouse at certain times of their life, but not through the growth times. And it is a joy to do so.

It will be interesting to see what the next 28 years bring.

This Just In....

2009-05-08T10:31:00.004-05:00

General Francisco Franco was the dictatorial ruler of Spain from 1936 until his death in 1975. He took sick in 1974 and was in and out of the hospital. The last time he went into the hospital, the American national nightly news programs typically led of their newscasts with some report on the health of Franco. It was comical how there was never anything new to report, but they felt the need to do so anyway.

Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update parodied this intense focus after Franco's death. For several weeks Chevy Chase would open the faux-newscast with, "Tonight, General Francisco Franco is still dead."

I thought of this old comedy bit when I read this headline: "Favre tells Vikings He's Staying Retired." Enough, already!!! I don't want to read Brett Favre's name again unless he un-retires (actually I don't want to even read that) or when he goes into the football Hall of Fame. Until then, spare me.

Skeletons in the Closet

2009-05-07T08:42:00.007-05:00

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was pilloried by many for her stand on one man-one woman marriage. Her answer to Perez Hilton was clear and sensitive. I wonder why such a loaded question was allowed in the contest to begin with, but that's another subject.

No it turns out that Miss Prejean has some semi-nude pictures in her past. The first one that has been published was a lingerie modeling shoot and, while it shows a whole lot more than I want my daughter revealing, is a long ways from porn. The most recent report suggests that there are three more racy pictures. Until they surface, neither I nor anyone else can express an opinion on them. We will probably see if it's true and the nature of these pics over the next couple of days.

I am not surprised that she has been attacked an neither should she. Possibly she did lose the Miss USA crown over the answer, which is unfair. I applaud her for giving a truthful and morally correct answer.

She has reacted to the uproar over her photos by calling it an attack on her Christian values. And she is correct. When you don't like the message, attack the messenger.

But Miss Prejean shares some of the blame here. She posed for the photo (an possibly more--we'll see). Further, she was not content (nor was the Christian media) to just give her answer, lose the title, and then go on her way. No, she milked her 15 minutes of fame by appearing everywhere to defend herself and her answer. In so doing, she set herself up for attack.

I am against gay marriage and believe in the right of everyone to speak out. But what makes a beauty queen some kind of expert or role model? Why should she think that her opinion needs to be heard. By speaking out anywhere and everywhere she made herself a target.

Being a target would be okay had her closet been clean of skeletons. The particular photo is one that could appear in nearly any magazine in the country, but it is a morally questionable choice for a young Christian woman with stron moral values.

I am not saying that she should not have spoken out. But she also should have known that any photos that she took in the past would come out. If she is surprised, then she is quite naive.

James (3:1-2) said that not everyone should strive to be a teacher because they have greater accountability. The larger principle revealed by this statement applies to anyone who will dare to speak out in society. Make sure your own house is in order before you put yourself before the world as an example of morality.

Where's the Outrage?

2009-05-06T09:00:00.000-05:00

Last week something came out of Congress that in a parallel situation a few years ago provoked outrage from certain corners of the news media. Why is that any of their business? Don't they have anything better to do? But this time, those voices are silent. Yes, it is time to take on that bastion of the media.........................sportswriters and sportsvcasters.

A few years back Congress had hearings on steroids in baseball. Besides the discussion about steroids themselves, the overwhelming majority of sports writers, columnists and talking heads decried Congress taking up this matter.

Recently Congress again entered into the sports world by holding hearings regarding the BCS system of producing a champion in college football. This time no outrage about Congress investigating something that shouldn't matter to them. Just discussion of the arguments. Of course, the congressional committee was hard on the BCS people and seemed to support a playoff system. Wow, the same opinion as that held by the majority of the sports media. You don't suppose there's a connection, do you?

Amazing. Because the tone of these congressional hearings lined up with the majority opinion in the sports world, it wasn't a waste of time in their eyes. Even though the economy is still in the tank.

If I had to choose, I would rather have Congress investigate steroids than the BCS because the former potentially impacts impressionable young athletes all over the country. The type of system college football has to determine its national champion affects who again?

Some in the sports media like to say that we who decry steroid use are "hypocritical" without saying exactly why. If they excoriate Congress for holding hearings on the important issue of steroids, but don't on the important issue of the BCS, who is the hypocrite?

What's In a Name?

2009-05-05T08:51:00.010-05:00

The Mexican or Swine Flu that has caused so much panic now has a name: H1N1. Although if I understand what I'm reading, This particular strain of flu is a sub-type of H1N1. The 1917-19 epidemic was a strain of H1N1, but not exactly the same. H1N1 was considered behind half of the ordinary seasonal flu in 2006.

But as soon as the WHO gave it a name, the news media had to pick up on it. Mexico was getting a bit bugged (pun, get it?) by the name Mexican Flu since it absolutely killed their tourist business. Pig farmers were unhappy with the term Swine Flu because some people were avoiding pork products.

But if H1N1 is only a class of flu and not the designation for this strain within that class, isn't using H1N1 actually imprecise? Mexican Flu identifies the place of its first known outbreak, just as the 1917-19 epidemic was called the Spanish Flu. (Although researchers believe that it originated elsewhere and had its initial big outbreak among WWI soldiers in France. Military control over the media in France kept the news out. The first that the world heard of the outbreak was from Spain. Hence the name.)

I have always been amused at the desire for faux-precision in terms. Recently I saw this sign. Didn't we used to call this a Blind Curve? Surely, the sign-makers were not motivated by some desire to not insult the blind. I think it is the quest for unnecessary precision at work again. No, the curve itself does not lack sight--it is trying to describe a curve that you can't see around so you should be careful. But everyone understood Blind Curve. To be honest, this sign makes me stop and think a second, "What in the world are they talking about?"

Precision in language is a good thing. I have to be aware of it all the time when doing exegesis and theology. But sometimes precision becomes ridiculous.

The Lost J-40

2009-05-04T08:33:00.001-05:00

Note: A lighter post today. From time to time I do want to talk about guitars and baseball. Today is about my guitar. My guitar playing friends should appreciate it. The rest of you may like hearing the story about it.

Chris Martin's primary invention at the Martin Guitar Company was the J-40. It is the guitar for which he says he will be noted. He once boasted that it would become "the dreadnought of the nineties."

Well, it simply didn't happen. By the late nineties, dreadnought sales dwarfed that of the jumbo series. Though I understand that Martin owners can be a bit traditional, the relative failure of the jumbo to capture the market's attention surprises me for no other reason than this: The J-40 is an outstanding guitar!

Structurally, the J-40 is an OM guitar (sometimes called a 0000, which is just a bigger 000) with dreadnought depth. This results in very even tone from the lowest bass to the highest treble. Though it is not as bass-heavy as a D-28, it has plenty of bass response since it is made of rosewood.

Additionally, it is LOUD! The large size combined with scalloped bracing make this a boomer. Another guitarist borrowed mine for a gig we were doing (I was playing mandolin that day) and was blown away by its volume. He simply could not tell if the guitar had been added to the monitor mix or if he was just hearing it naturally.

I think that Martin may have confused the guitar-buying public by the style and price changes over the J-40's history. The original 1985 model added gold tuners, white binding on the fretboard, hexagon abalone fretboard inlays, and a pearl soundhole ring. By the early nineties, the pearl soundhole ring disappeared (see picture of my 1994 model, above). Its price was about the same as an HD-28. In the late nineties, Martin made a J-28 with all the extras stripped off and upgraded the J-40 with the 45-style Martin headstock inlay along with pearl inlay in the soundhole and top binding. The J-28 was priced like a D-28 and the J-40 was getting up into the D-41 range. The J-28 was eventually discontinued and the current J-40 seems to have the same appointments as the late nineties model (see picture at right). As a result its list price is $1000 more than an HD-28 and almost $1500 than a D-28.

In other words, I think Martin messed up their best invention of the last 20 years. The only jumbo model in their catalog has so many added cosmetic features that the resulting price drives away the average guitar buyer. If guitarists are unaware of the marvelous sound of the J-40, the extra price will keep them from seeking it out.

If you are in the market for a great guitar, can afford something in a dreadnought range, and don't mind buying used, it would be worth looking around for an older J-40. If you play one, I think you will find that, like mine, it is the finest guitar you have ever played.

Form without Substance

2009-05-03T13:49:00.005-05:00

One of my favorite musical artists is Lyle Lovett. He is a terrific songwriter, always puts together an incredible band, and just makes good music. His songwriting is inventive and quirky, some might even say a bit odd (imagine me liking something odd).

I have seen him play live twice in St. Louis on the banks of the Mississippi in the shadow of the Arch. Both shows were outstanding. Tina, who is not a fan, saw the 2006 concert with me and was blown away.

His 2004 appearance was supporting his 2003 album, "My Baby Don't Tolerate." This album closes with two gospel numbers and he closed the concert with them as well.

I do not know Lyle Lovett's heart or his relationship with God. He was raised Missouri-Synod Lutheran, but does not currently belong to that church. I am not being unfair to say that he has never made a statement that indicates a born-again experience. Some of the details of his life might also cause you doubt that he believes as evangelical Christians do.

But he does have an ear and a feel for gospel music or at least for black gospel. The two songs--"I'm Going to Wait" and "I'm Going to the Place"--are theologically sound. If a choir performed either one of these songs in your church next Sunday morning, you would be blessed by the music and the message.

But I remember being a little troubled by these two songs as I heard them live. It's not just that they were being sung by a guy who I wasn't sure what he believed about the message. Then it hit me. Both songs talk about heaven, God, my Father, my Savior. But there was no mention of Jesus.

You might think I am quibbling over some trivial point. I don't think so. Now each and every Christian song does not need to explicitly name the name of Jesus. But in the case of these two Lyle Lovett songs, I just felt as if the absence was telling. Salvation without sacrifice. God's love without a mediator. Heaven without a relationship with Jesus.

As Lyle wrapped up his show, this verse popped into my mind: "Holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power" (2 Tim 3:5). It just seemed to me that these songs held out a vague belief in a universal salvation, but never examined that it is only by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross that buys that salvation. In our celebration of salvation, we must never forget how we get there.

Here is a Youtube clip of one of the songs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k56DJuP4DXU

Exercise: Valuable or Worthless?

2009-05-02T13:31:00.004-05:00

As I worked my body on the elliptical machine at the YMCA today, the verse in 1 Timothy 4:8 (in the KJV) echoed in my head: Bodily exercise profiteth little. How to reconcile Paul's admonition to my thrice-weekly routine?

The first thing to recognize (and all the commentators are in basic agreement on this) is that Paul does not say that the benefits of exercise are so little as to be no benefit at all. There is a parallel comparison with the next phrase:

For bodily exercise is little usefulness,
But godliness is all usefulness.

Well, when you put it like that, of course anything we do for our physical bodies is meaningless in comparison with having godly character. So, in context, Paul's purpose is not to preach against physical exercise (he has no other comments on the practice), but to put it in proper perspective to being like God.

Naturally, even here we could make comparisons with people who exercise obsessively or who hone their bodies to painful perfection. How chiseled do you have to be to work at a desk?

Even so, I think we need to be careful when comparing what many of us do (or should be doing) in relation to exercise when compared to Paul's time.

First, the average person in Paul's day was not in need of exercise. In truth, they "exercised" all day long--we could call it work. Farming, keeping house, woodworking, or whatever a person did all day long was physically demanding in ways that most of us do not understand. They had no machines, it was all done by hand. And legs. And back. The last thing that the average person thought after the end of the work-day was, "Maybe I should go down to the gym and lift some weights." There were many fewer seriously overweight people than we see today. And though they were smaller, they were comparatively stronger than we are on average.

Those who did the kind of exercise to which Paul refers were the athletes in each city who were trained between 16 and 18 to participate in games between cities. What they did was for show and for a short time. Their work pales in comparison to what a godly man or woman could accomplish.

Most of us, however, do not do physical labor that compares in any way to what the average man or woman did in the first century. We are rich by comparison so we eat too much. We get soft. A good steward of the body that God gives needs to get in some exercise. I had a heart-attack four years ago. Though one artery to my heart was completely blocked (there's the over-eating fatty foods), the monitors showed that I had 100% heart function. The doctor attributed it to my workout regimen.

So we need to understand Paul's point without being bound to the cultural background which makes up the literal expression that he uses to make the point. Physical exercise has much more benefit to us than to those in Paul's day. But in comparison to being godly, it is still of small importance. So let's do both: take care of our bodies and live as he wants us to.

Maybe We're Not All Going to Die After All

2009-05-01T15:55:00.009-05:00

In the words of the late Emily Litela, "Oh, that's very different. Never mind." Now it seems as if the swine flu might not be "a more serious strain than seasonal flu."

Unlike the kneejerk reactions of some, I really don't blame the news outlets or government authorities for causing panic. The news needs to be reported and the government needs to be proactive.

The real "villain" here is modern technology. 200 years ago, the severity of the disease would have been known long before the news could travel widely. In fact, you stood a good chance of getting infected yourself before the news reached you that an epidemic had spread. Today we know instantly.

I put "villain" in quotes because though modern technology allows news to be spread widely before enough facts are known, it does not qualify as some kind of evil. Had the disease been as bad as first feared, knowing as soon as possible would be a good thing.

I repeat my original point. When we hear bad news, we need to spend at least as much time in prayer as we do following the reports. If we do that, God can properly align us with him so that we might trust him in everything.

Killer Flu?

2009-05-01T10:20:00.001-05:00

Note: I am still thinking about the death of my co-worker Regina today. I went to make tea and would have left the remaining hot water for her (as she did for me), but there was no need today. I just poured it out. That was hard. I have written some lighter stuff already, but not today. I will post that stuff next week.

There is another lesson from the terrible epidemic sweeping around the world: Despite all of our knowledge and advances and hubris, we are not in control. There are many things that are just bigger than we are.

This latest spreading killer is not a new type of cancer or a disease that we have never heard of. This is the flu. Now we've all had the flu, both the cold-symptom flu and the stomach flu. And while we use expressions like, "I'm so sick I think I'm going to die," we know that we won't. It's just the flu!

I assume that, as with any disease, those who die are from the pool of people in poorer health or with weaker immune systems. Even so, the flu, an illness that typically causes you to miss a couple of days of work or school, can become so bad that it kills people. It's a bit scary when you think about it.

As thoroughly modern people, we live most days as if we do not need God. When we need food and shelter, we work for it. When we are sick, we go to the doctor. When our transportation breaks down, we take it to the mechanic. We are normally capable of meeting our own needs or can get the help that we need in this world.

Modern medicine has become a victim of its own success. We cure nasty cancers. He have pills and shots for problems we didn't even know we had. Artificial limbs have become commonplace. Therefore, when our modern technologies are unable to fix a problem we are surprised.

I broke my shoulder in December 2007. Badly. Even so, I never doubted that it could be fixed; it was simply a matter of what needed to be done. Imagine my surprise when the doctor said that the 50% range of motion that I had was as good as it was going to get.

Anyone would be unhappy with a prognosis like that, but I was doubly disappointed because I had placed my faith in the ability of modern medicine to fix anything.

We are not in control as much as we think. We sail along through life and then the economy tanks or a teeny tiny germ lays us low. And at times there is nothing we can do about it.

This is why we need God. You might still lose your job or I might still get sick. But when those things happen, we need to be holding his hand and not putting our trust in ourselves.