Wednesday, May 28, 2008

The Next Big Thing

Written by C.A. Muncey (www.relevantmagazine.com)

Gaming systems, clothing, cars … The list goes on and on. Every year we hear stories of mobs at stores during the holidays looking for the newest toys for their kids. But the truth is that, in many cases, we are often looking for hot new toys for ourselves. Objects keep changing, getting updated and modified all the time, and the masses run to the stores looking for the next big thing.

Everybody is looking for something more clever, more fast, more unique, more hard to find, more desirable. The old things just aren’t looking as good anymore. They aren’t shiny anymore. The scratches on little Mikey’s toys are seen as imperfections; rather than seeing the bumps and etchings on the plastic and recalling memories and fantastic playtime stories, we see a worn item. The clothes fit OK, but they are last season’s tailoring. Even though your car runs great, that dent in the side makes the car seem worthless. The old things just aren’t impressive anymore. At least not in the same way the new ones are.

The objects vary in size and expense and usually have much in common with their latter versions. But the old things just plain aren’t new, and they aren’t highly desirable anymore. Everyone has the old model or something like it, and it isn’t a big deal anymore. There’s a big commercialized push forward to stay on the edge of all the latest new toys for kids and adults.

Usually each next big thing is a modified copy of the past big thing. It’s a little different, but the same. It’s a sleeker, more modern model, but ultimately, it really is the same thing. A car is still a car, and a pair of jeans is still, well, a pair of jeans. You can still play with old toys; walkmans still play music; your beat-up car can still get you from point-A to point-B, and those jeans that don’t have holes in them, yet still fit and might even be more stylish if you wore them out a little bit more.

Matthew 6:28-34 teaches us not to worry about the clothes we wear. And though it doesn’t specifically say not to worry about getting a brand new car out of the lot or an X-Box 360, maybe we should take that teaching and apply to these wants in our lives.


Even if you hop into the race thinking getting the next big thing might make you happy, it doesn’t seem like the next big thing ever really satisfies. We get it, and then automatically begin looking for something different, better, more appealing. This is because new things start becoming old the second you get them.

On top of all this often times people spend money they haven’t earned yet. And that’s where the credit cards come into play, because we now live in a world where if you can’t afford it now, you can still have it. If we want to be wise stewards of our resources, we have to begin combating these habits

Even more dangerously, sometimes the “finding next best thing” game spills over outside of the commercial realm, and people become the object we are looking to upgrade. Friends and romantic endeavors get used and passed on, while on a search for the next best thing. Take an attractive guy or girl and size him/her up to yourself or your significant other. And then look for the next best thing: Someone prettier, funnier, smarter. It’s just that simple, and it happens all the time. I think it becomes dangerous when we begin looking at people as if we have them all figured out, rather than engaging each other as unique interesting beings filled with ideas, stories and life experiences unlike our own.

I think one of the root problems with this “finding the next big thing” phenomena is that we are confusing want and need. Just because we want something doesn’t mean we need it. And just because we want it, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to get it. We really have very few needs to survive and these needs can be obtained living a very simple life.

In the last year I’ve decided to lead a simpler life. I’m not saying taking these steps is for everyone, but it feels good to save money and pay off student loans. I’ve started to actually budget and watch where the money goes instead of just spending on whatever I want whenever I want it. And I have to say; it’s been satisfying. And the funny thing is I don’t feel like I am in want or need for everything. It’s been a full, rich year. Maybe taking a long look into yourself and coming to God for answers prayerfully will help you take the steps to lead a fuller, richer life also—even without the stuff.

Dig Deeper
Luke 12:35-38
Matthew 6:28-34

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

A Reason is not an Excuse (by Greg Koukl)

Oh me, oh my, I'm being abused by life. I think I'll go out and hurt someone.

I was very disgruntled and deeply disturbed by the turn the Menendez trial has taken in California. Eric and Lyle Menendez have been on trial for the last few months in a high profile trial. As I've mentioned many times in the past, I'm not as concerned about the details of this trial as I am with the ideas that are behind it. Ideas that I think are surfacing in this somewhat bizarre trial going on in Manassas, Virginia with Lorena Bobbit regarding the dismembering of her husband's penis. Incidentally, he was tried for sexual abuse and acquitted with regard for his actions towards his wife.

Both of these trials are similar in that in both cases the defendants testify that they've acted in self-defense after years of sexual and emotional abuse. In the case of the Menendez brothers, they both admit that they shot their father and mother, Jose and Kitty Menendez, but they say it's because they feared for their own lives and it was an act of self-defense. The same thing is being said by Lorena Bobbit. Her defense is establishing that Bobbit abused his wife on numerous occasions and they're trying to portray Mrs. Bobbit as a classic example of a battered wife who should not be held responsible for a desperate act committed in extreme emotional distress. Of course, the desperate act was the severing of his penis after he had allegedly raped her. He'd come in, apparently, after a drunken spree with one of his friends and she woke up to find him on top of her. Afterwards she went to the kitchen, reflected for a few moments, grabbed the knife and the next thing she says she recalls is driving along the highway with his penis in her hand which she quickly tossed out the window. It was later found by the policemen based on the information she gave them and they were able to sew it back on after a nine hour operation.

I guess there are a spate of jokes going on about this incident with the Bobbits. This is a serious circumstance and the details may be funny, but I have a concern about what is being stated in the method of defense of these trials or the contention of the defendants.

In neither case is the question of who committed the crime at issue. There is no question as to who did what. Both Eric and Lyle Menendez admit that they shot their mother and father with shotguns and Lorena Bobbit admits that she cut off her husband's penis. They both admit the deed. As it stands right now, the Eric Menendez case has been declared a mistrial because the jury was deadlocked on whether he is guilty of first degree murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter. The jury in the Lyle Menendez trial is still out. The question in my own mind is what possibly could there be confusion about. I guess they bought the defense's contention that this was a justifiable act in some way so it's not first degree murder, it could be manslaughter. They ought not to have killed their parents, but it was understandable and, therefore, the sense of culpability for the crime is minimized. The same thing is being said about Lorena Bobbit. This is just another very, very sad chapter in our retreat from the notion of moral responsibility.

I was really upset that the jury balked on the issue of culpability in the case of Eric Menendez and possibly in the case of Lyle Menendez and quite probably in the case of Lorena Bobbit. I hope they don't buy it, but they may. This reflects a trend that is very deeply debilitating to justice. Don Feder has an interesting piece not directly related to this case but which makes the same point in the Conservative Chronicle . The piece is called "The Dead-End Road of Non-Judgmentalism." He says, "Whatever you did, there's a justification. The search for exculpating circumstances is a never ending quest." He makes the point that during the Depression there was a lot more poverty, but a lot less crime. Actually, the crime rate declined. "But what they had and what we are rapidly losing is a sense of shame. Moral issues then were black and white and not soothing, conscience anesthetizing shades of gray." He really makes the point well that something desperately evil is happening in our moral consciousness in this society when it comes to the culpability of people who commit crimes.


We've talked frequently about the notion of relativism. This notion has crept in over the last twenty years to seep into the most obscure parts of our social thinking so that virtually everyone now is a moral relativist holding that it's inappropriate to make judgments in almost any case regarding a person's actions. That is happening now in this case. We have a terribly obscene murder in the Menendez case and a terribly obscene mutilation in the case of Lorena Bobbit. Yet, in both cases we are being asked to believe, and in some cases at least a portion of the jury is buying the argument, that though a person is responsible for an action, they are not culpable for what they have done. The word culpability simply means blameworthy. It is not appropriate to blame them for what they have done and there's been a trend on the heels of this relativism that reinforces the idea that people are not responsible for their behavior. We see this everywhere.

If I would identify a single trend with regard to the issue of justice and moral health in our society, the one that I would put my finger on is a form of moral relativism: people are no longer responsible for their actions. Someone else is always responsible. Your parents are responsible. Society is responsible. Your upbringing is responsible. Your genes are responsible. Your chemistry is responsible. It's the chocolate you ate this morning or the pizza you had last night or the difficult circumstances that you grew up with. All of these things, these inanimate things that can't be punished themselves are all to blame. And people, moral creatures who make moral choices, are not the ones to blame. Therefore, it's inappropriate to punish them. Because we believe this kind of thing, we are at a desperate crossroads with regard to crime in this country. Even now we have the proposed "three strikes and you're out" and people are battling against this because it doesn't focus on prevention and reform. Listen, my friends, it functionally reforms every person that has three strikes against them in that they are pulled out of society so they can no longer commit crime.

I listen to the testimony of Lorena Bobbit and hear these terrible things that her husband allegedly did to her. What if I granted that he did commit these things. Even if he was guilty, what then? Is it appropriate for Lorena Bobbit to take out her revenge on her husband? Her defense attorney says it was self-defense. Ladies and gentlemen, if you buy that I've got some seashore property I want to sell you in Montana. This has nothing to do with self-defense. It's the same thing with Eric and Lyle Menendez. These were grown people who could leave if they wanted. Self-defense is not the issue. Revenge is the issue in both cases. Vigilantism is the issue. I can prove that by Lorena Bobbit's own words. The L.A. Times records what she said on the witness stand. "'I remember many things,' she said in a quavering voice. 'I remember the first time he raped me. I remember the insults. I remember the first time he forced me to have anal sex and the bad things he said. I remember the abortion. I remember everything.'" Then it says that she remembered nothing after that until she remembered coming to her senses driving down the road with a penis in her hand sans the body of her husband. Now, the point I'm making is that by her own statement this is not an act of self-defense. This is an act of revenge. This is an act of taking the law into her own hands. She reflected on the harm that was done her and she responded by punishing the man that did it.

I was talking to someone on the airplane and in reflection on this issue this young lady said, "They got what they deserved." Maybe they did, but that's not the point. Maybe Dr. Gunn got what he deserved at the hands of Michael Griffin (remember the abortionist that was murdered last year). Maybe the child molester in Sonora got what he deserved when Ellie Nesler, the mother of his alleged victim, blew his head off in a court room last year. The point is this: who's doing the giving that they got, not whether they got what they deserved. Justice is the responsibility of the government to carry out. Even if everything that was said was true, even if we buy everything that was said by Eric and Lyle (in which case, as my neighbor Tony said earlier today, then it's Jose and Kitty Menendez who are on trial), even if we buy what Lorena Bobbit says, even if the other parties are guilty of everything they claim, is it still justifiable for them to do what they did? My answer is no and my reason is because a reason is not an excuse.

Many times we approach trials like this and we see the terrible things that happened to people and we are asked to excuse the crime because of the reason involved. But a reason is different that an excuse. Even if we might understand why a person would be inclined to act in a fashion, it doesn't excuse the behavior. In fact, the behavior should be punished. That is the way, ladies and gentlemen, that we instill values. We act based on those values that we believe in. When we punish evil, when we punish harmful actions, when we punish wrong doing, we are saying that such acts, even when understandable, are not acceptable because they are not excusable. Then hopefully, fewer and fewer people will do that kind of thing. That's how you influence a society.

Just a thought on one common factor in both of these cases. It's the cry of abuse, the cry of being a victim of some sort. Whenever a person begins to cast a party in the language of a victim the next thing you'll hear from them is a request not to judge them. If you're a victim, then you're not responsible for your behavior. It's become more and more popular for people to cast themselves as victims, and not just individuals, but whole groups of people. The minute they do so it makes it impossible to make a difference in their lives because victims aren't in control of themselves. That is why they can't be held responsible for their behavior and they can't be asked to change their behavior.

I started one of the biggest bruhahas on this station about two and a half years ago when I was talking about racial difficulties. I said that Whites would never be able to solve Black's problems. I wasn't trying to make a policy statement, a moralistic statement or a philosophic statement. It's simply a pragmatic statement that people can only solve their own problems. The minute we push any of our problems, whether it's a racial problem or a background problem that we personally have, we push it on someone and make them responsible for it, then we no longer are responsible and, frankly, nothing will ever get done. That's why when people start casting themselves as victims, not only are they asking us not to hold them morally responsible, they are making it impossible to ever change their behavior because they are not in control of the behavior. If they aren't in control, they can't be held responsible. They're victims. The thing that victimized Eric and Lyle Menendez and also Lorena Bobbit, apparently, is abuse.

What I'm about to say is going to be a little difficult for me to say because I realize that there are people out there that have suffered terribly at the hands of others. It seems to me more and more that there is a new name for growing up and it's simply called abuse. And it's used to justify all sorts of bizarre and immoral behavior, all sorts of other abuse. It's very popular to talk about abuse now and people talk about the lives they led and what they experienced as kids. I'll tell you honestly, I think back on my life and I think back on the lives of kids I grew up with and we all experienced the same thing. I got strapped. My mom busted hairbrushes on my butt. I was famous for how many hairbrushes got busted on my butt as my mom whopped me. Did I like it? No, but that's discipline. My friends all got the same thing. I lost privileges. I was yelled at. People swore at me. What was that to me? Abuse? No, it was just growing up. Some of you are thinking I had it so hard. That's the point. Everybody has it hard. Everybody has difficult experiences in their lives. Everybody can look back on a time when their parents just lost it and did something that we could call abusive, but we would do ourselves if we were in the same circumstances. In fact, it's those kinds of things that people do now in the same circumstances that they're asking to be exonerated of responsibility for because they have had the same things happen to them, too. They were abused in some fashion. The new word for growing up is abuse. What used to be the normal hard knocks of life is now considered extreme and bizarre, and because of those things we ought not be held responsible.

You know, I loved the movie "Tombstone." Doc Holiday and Wyatt Erp were having a conversation towards the end of the movie. Erp was to have this showdown with Johnny Ringo who was the fastest gun around. Erp was trying to make sense of this. He asked Doc Holiday, lying in bed dying, "Doc, can I beat him?" Holiday said, "No, you can't." And Erp asked, "What drives this person?" Holiday answered, "He wants revenge." Erp said, "Revenge for what?" Holiday replied, "Revenge for being born." Ladies and gentlemen, you don't have the right to take out your anger and pain of growing up and the pain of life by killing and maiming the ones who hurt you. This isn't to glorify the abuse, minimize it, dismiss it, or say that some don't have it worse than others. But let's face it, life is abusive. It's called growing up. That's just the way it is. Mature people understand that and are willing to take the licks of life and move on instead of crying the victim and asking everyone else to excuse the abusive behavior that they then do.

A reason is not an excuse.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Responsibility, what's that?

Galatians 6:3-5

If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

Personal responsibility. It almost sounds like a dirty word now. Look at our society today. We have people suing everyone out of all there money for things that were not in their control. For example: here in Minnesota, we are seeing not the first, but the second family suing a bar because their adult children drank too much and died as a result. Think about it for a second. The parents are saying, “My child drank too much and died, and I am holding you (the bar) responsible for their lack of judgment.

So, what happened? What has happened when we admit our mistakes, our faults, and own up to when we do something wrong. It’s a difficult thing at times, but it’s the right thing to do. Someone a lot smarter than myself once told me that doing the right thing will usually have immediate negative consequences, but if we chose the wrong thing to do, the negative consequences just take longer to occur, and usually have more effects than the right thing. Think of it this way: choosing to go to the movie, or do homework. If you choose homework, you miss out on a little fun with friends. If you choose movie, you miss out on learning something, getting a good grade, and getting in trouble with the parents.

We need to choose to be responsible for our actions. It is a choice that we have to make daily, in fact, almost every moment. It’s a tough decision, and one that many adults can’t even make today. Look at the verse above, from Galatians. We are called to carry our own load, and test our actions. It’s basically a call to cowboy up, and be accountable for what we do. It’s time to stop playing the victim, and start living.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Never Read a Bible Verse

One of the most important lessons that I can pass on to everyone is that we should never read a Bible verse. Huh? Never read a Bible verse. We can’t single out one line out of any part of the Bible, and expect to understand what is going on in the context. Instead, we must read the whole paragraph at least. If we read the paragraph, we get an understanding of what the context is. We don’t speak in single-sentence paragraphs, do we? If you take one sentence out of a speech, or a letter, you could really misinterpret what is being said. I have an example of just that below.

“One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.” If someone in the future read this sentence, and tried to extrapolate (or pull) and understanding of what this is about, maybe they would think that Negro’s lived on an island all by themselves. What a horrible life, to be segregated onto an island, just because of their skin color. Not only are they on an island all by themselves, but they are the poorest island of the group, being surrounded by prosperous island nations.

Do you see how dangerous, or silly, just reading one sentence can get? The sentence in quotes is from the “I Have A Dream” speech, by Martin Luther King Jr. Now, understanding the author, and the relevance, would you think he was talking specifically about an island? No. That’s my main point here: we can’t just expect to understand the Bible with a simple glance at one verse here or there. There is so much history, culture and play on words going on, that we have to be smart about what we read. English is a tricky language, and there is so much we can do with inflection, and implications, that without understanding what the rest of the subject is, we can get lost.

Meaning always flows from the top down, and not the other way. We always start communication with the big idea first, and work our way to the details. You don’t start talking about the hockey game last night by opening a conversation with this: “Oh man, that was the best save Backstrom ever had!” What are you talking about, would be my thought. You need to start with the big ideas first in communication.

Don’t forget, individual words don’t always hold the key meaning of any verse in the Bible. Words, on their own, can be important, but the paragraph and context is always going to point out the intent of any author. Remember, when the people wrote the Bible, they did not have the numbers for verses written there. Again, they did not write verse numbers in their books. This happened hundreds of years later.

So how can we read the Bible and get an understanding of what’s going on? First, understand what kind of book you’re reading. Is it a historical book, poetry, proverbs, prophesy? What idea is being developed in the book? What’s the point of the chapter? If you start out from a wide look, and then zoom in, you can’t go wrong in understanding what’s going on!

The Feed

Here's the lowdown:

Summer Stretch

June 18th-August 7th
Get your registration in by May 23rd!
Grades 7-9, $160
Grades 10-12, $80 (leaders fee)

We also need two adults to sign up to help out during each week. Sign up now!

Camel Book Drive

Bring your used books to church, and drop them off in the bin next to the rotating bulletin board. No religious books, textbooks, or books on American/European holidays please.

May 9th Mystery Night

For everyone 14 years old and over! We meet at church @ 7 pm. Bring all your friends, and get your hands ready for fun!

May 30th

Night @ the Movies! We are watching "Enchanted." Meet @ 6pm. Bring some friends, and a hungry belly for popcorn and fun!