Apparently that is the (non-exclusive) term used to describe body art that contains some ostensibly faith-based message. I have written previously about the subject of body art and basically I come down on the side of it being an ill-advised practice. But, that said, I concede that is it a purely individual decision. And I will also agree that in the context of eternity, it (body art) really will have nothing to do with a person’s salvation, or condemnation.
Still, no matter where you land on this subject, I have to seriously wonder if this sort of thing has a place during the course of a worship service, when glorifying God through prayer, the authoritative proclamation of God’s word, and the practice of the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, is appropriate…even in a culturally relevant, contextualized setting.
Body art, including some of its more extreme forms as a sermon topic?
Yes. Absolutely.
Chancel tattooing during the teaching from God’s word?
I think not.
This morning, I read through some childish bantering between what was apparently a Texas Longhorn fan and a Texas Aggie fan. The discussion was over which team possessed the better quarterback. The site was facebook. The discussion lead no where, basically. The rivalry between these two schools is so intense, that objectivity was the victim in the conversation thread.
This article from SI.com from almost two months ago, adds some light, if for no other reason, it adds some statistical facts to the discussion as well as some off the field personal texture to Jarrod Johnson, who is with out question lesser known to the general public than Colt McCoy, who has been on the national for two or three years.
Two months ago, I wrote a post, the subject of which was the then-upcoming movie titled The Blind Side. Well, the movie is now out and showing in theaters nationwide.
I will save you the time of reading another blog on top of my earlier one (that included two official trailers and an ESPN special feature on the real-life family that is the subject of the movie) and simply say YOU SHOULD SEE THIS MOVIE!
This LINK will take you to a rather long, but none the less interesting article about Madalyn Murray-O’Hair, the infamous atheist, who was successful in arguing for the removal of prayer from public schools. I admit my interest in the article was in part because I had the dubious distinction of being in the same high school graduating class (Austin-McCallum, 1972) as her son Jon Garth Murray, shown in the picture to the left along with O’Hair’s granddaughter Robin.
The last time I saw Jon was over 27 years ago, at our 10th reunion. I think to virtually everyone’s surprise, he attended. And I have to say that a badge of graciousness needed to be awarded to the person who did the work to research where he was living so that an invitation could be extended.
When I read this article, the question for these three that entered my head was “how’s that atheism working for ya’ now?”
The Death Penalty on Trial - Taking a Life for a Life Taken, by Ron Gleason, Ph.D. offers a Biblical look at the often controversial topic of capital punishment. This is a relatively short book, with the author’s material filling only about 100 pages, with the appendix, end notes, bibliography, etc. it is only 135 pages. Gleason, who is pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Yorba Linda, CA, deals very graciously, but directly with a subject about which there are probably very few people who take a stance of ambivalence. My (safe) hunch is that people feel rather strongly in favor of, or opposed to the death penalty.
Gleason systematically discusses the background of the death penalty across history and cultures. He then takes a look more specifically at the death penalty in what would be considered the church age, starting in about the fourth century A.D. citing St. Augustine as a supporter of the death penalty, then noting the support for it from the Reformers, especially, Luther and Calvin. But probably the most compelling evidence comes from Gleason’s pointing to the Old Testament and the verses that speak directly to God’s divine law, which was not revoked by the New Testament, but in fact reiterated for the purpose of authorizing civil governments to impose punishment on murderers via their own execution.
Gleason dedicates two chapters to the most popular objections to the death penalty in our age. One chapter addresses these from the perspective of the secularists who generally cite the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, regarding cruel and unusual punishment. The other is dedicated to the objections that are raised by Christians who oppose the death penalty because of the apparent contradiction between holding a pro-life stance with regard to abortion, all the while supporting capital punishment. In both chapters, he refutes the claims and shows the fallacy of their reasoning, pointing consistently back to scripture.
The author’s stated intent was to deal constructively with this topic for both Christians and non-believers alike. I think he has done a good job in accomplishing this task. But, I am perhaps not the best person to ask, as I already held to a pro-capital punishment position.
Watch the following video. It shows The University of Florida linebacker (and team captain) Brandon Spikes gouging the eyes of Washaun Ealey, a running back who plays for The University of Georgia, during the game last Saturday.
What has achieved a new low is not necessarily the actions of this player, although his conduct is despicable, but rather the fact that Brandon Spike’s head coach, Urban Meyer has suspended him for….catch this….the first half of the game upcoming on November 7th. THE FIRST HALF! What makes it even worse is that Meyer’s first reaction when he was told about the incident was to simply move on. I’m kidding, right? Nope, “move on” is what Meyer wanted to do until he saw a replay of the incident.
Incredible. I don’t even have to ponder who I have LESS respect for, Spikes or Meyer.
I acknowledge the inherent risks in being a man and posting a link to this article, as it might leave the impression that I do so out of some satisfaction from its conclusions. As the husband of a wife, father of a daughter and hopefully someday the father-in-law to a daughter-in-law, that is not the case at all. Instead, I found it contained some refreshingly honest criticisms of “feminism” from inside its camp by some of its members and spokespersons…(I used that word as I assume “spokeswomen” might be taken with offensein our age of gender neutrality, thanks in part to feminism.)
The link above is to an interesting article by Albert Mohler that reflects on several newspaper and magazine essays and a book about feminism. On one hand, I am surprised by what has been revealed in these finding, and then again, I’m not. Having worked for many years in the corporate world, with many women professionals, the downsides to the women’s revolution were played out right before my eyes.
This whole matter can be filed in the “you need to be careful for what you ask for, because you just might get it, and then some” category.
Former President Jimmy Carter, the man whose time in office people in his own party would like to forget, has surfaced again. This time, he is making outrageous claims that even the White House has disavowed based on pure common sense, if not common decency. You can listen to Carter’s absurd comments HERE (along with those of Brian Williams, who seems to think he got a great scoop with this interview, so good in fact that he aired at least this segment of the larger interview before its originally scheduled time).
The question I have for President Carter is this…if there is, as he insists some pervasive racist mindset in the country that holds that an African American is ”not qualified to lead this great country”, how exactly did the current president get elected?
Does it make any sense whatsoever, that all of the “racists” in our country (who according to Carter now so numerous that they are jeopardizing the implementation of health care reform), would lay down their racist sentiments for the purpose of electing an African American to the presidency, and then take those sentiments up again when he begins to govern? Nonsense!
What a contrast in styles we have in these three headline-grabbing examples over this past weekend by our cultural icons in sports and entertainment.
First, on Saturday a profanity laced outburst takes place in a stadium holding thousands, during a live television broadcast, with an audience of perhaps millions. Her tyrade and subsequent point loss, that lead to match loss, paved the way for the eventual winner of the Women’s Championship of the U.S. Open, and may well cost her a bundle of money in penalties and forfeiture of prize winnings.
And then on Sunday night there was this. Maintaining his reputation for being outrageous in conduct and utterly mindless in comment, this knuckleheads’ ridiculous behavior got him literally thrown out theater where the awards were being presented and even has his fellow celebrities calling him a variety of unflattering names.
A gesture that was not at all required on her part, but demonstrating a graciousness that stands in stark contrast to the misdeeds of the other two. Well done Beyonce!
With the scheduled piped-in address by President Obama to school children around the nation next week, we step over a line that I don’t believe has been crossed in this country, ever. That is, of having a sitting president deliver a message directly to school children, on a forced basis, accompanied by a White House provided curricula, designed to augment whatever message Obama intends to supply.
While this approach by a U.S. President is best described as untested, it is not without precedent. The heads of state of the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea (the Dear Leader), and Venezuela have all spoken to the school children of their nations. One can only conclude that the rationale for such an approach is to communicate an age appropriate message, that leans favorably in support of that leader’s policies. Is there ANY reason to believe that Obama would approach this with a different motive? The short answer for those pondering the question is “NO.” And naturally, this will be pulled off without parental consent or the ability to provide an informed response in reaction to it. It seems to me that this is a form of indoctrination cloaked in the trappings of providing encouragement, or inspiration. Irrespective of a parent’s political leanings, this cannot be viewed as a good thing.
And for those who believe it is not possible to indoctrinate children, watch this. (In answer to the question in the title of the video…..CREEPY!)
Posted by Chuck 
Posted by Chuck 
Posted by Chuck 
This 
