I knew that would get your attention.

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!

Crazy Love, Overwhelmed by a Relentless God written by Francis Chan is one of those books that a serious and thoughtful Christian cannot read without knowing that their individual sanctification has a lot more upside potential than we had perhaps previously thought.  As one who holds to the concept of “progressive sanctification,” which I acknowledge is not universally held within Christendom, this book seems to speak directly to that point, with humbling examples of how out of touch we are with reality when we think we are seriously and consistently walking in the way of Christ in our day to day lives, irrespective of how devoutly we think we live our faith.

All 10 chapters of this book are terrific, and make penetrating  points about the outward evidence of our faith.  But none are perhaps stronger than chapter 4, titled “Profile of the Lukewarm.”  Just a few of the examples of “the lukewarm” are:

Lukewarm People give money to charity and the church…as long as it does not impinge on their standard of living.

Lukewarm People are moved by stories about people who do radical things for Christ, yet they do not act.

Lukewarm People seldom share their faith with their neighbors, co-workers or friends.

Lukewarm People gauge their morality, or “goodness” by comparing themselves to the secular world.

Lukewarm People love God, but not with all their heart, soul and strength.

Lukewarm People love others but do not seek to love others as much as they love themselves.

Lukewarm People will serve God and others, but there are limits to how far they will go or how much time, money, and energy they are willing to give.

Lukewarm People think about life on earth much more often than eternity in heaven.

Lukewarm People are thankful for their luxuries and comforts, and rarely consider trying to give as much as possible to the poor.

And there are more!

Chan’s chapter titled “Profile of the Obsessed,” as you might expect from its title, is the antidote to being lukewarm.  And to the degree that the profile of the lukewarm describes you (me), the less likely you (I) will be able to identify affirmatively with the obsessed.

This book is simultaneously easy and difficult to read.  In terms of its size, format and writing style it is very reader friendly, but the content is incredibly convicting, as you might have sensed from the examples cited above.  Chan is an engaging person, both in print and in the videos that are referenced in the book and which can be viewed for free on the Internet.  I recommend this book without reservation, to  any and all readers, especially those who come to it humbly and with a willingness to be called-out, but also encouraged and stirred up.  (Heb. 10: 24) 

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?”

HT: Challies A La Carte

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.  

Meyer wins hands down.

Respectable Sins written by Jerry Bridges is a book that I have finally gotten to in my reading list.  Published in 2007, this is certainly not hot-off-the-press.  But is it is an excellent, and revealing (or should I say convicting) book that will perhaps go on to be as significant a seller as Bridges’ million plus selling book The Pursuit of Holiness.

Bridges’ basic premise in the book is that Christians have been so focused on drawing attention to the highly visible sins of the world and society in general, that we have lost sight of our own more “refined,” “subtle,” “acceptable,” or “respectable” sins.  More to the point, he suggests that we not only overlook our more subtle sins, we actually tolerate their presence in our lives.  In an appropriately convicting observation, the author asks the reader “shall we presume upon God’s grace by tolerating in ourselves the very sin that nailed Christ to the cross?”

The solution to dealing with our respectable sins, is the gospel.  Bridges notes that “the gospel is a vital gift from God not only for our salvation but also to enable us to deal with the ongoing activity of sin in our lives.”

The respectable sins that are discussed in the book are:  ungodliness; anxiety and frustration; discontentment; unthankfulness; pride; selfishness; lack of self-control; impatience and irritability; anger; weeds of anger (these are sins that stem from unresolved anger); judgmentalism; envy and jealousy; sins of the tongue; and worldliness.

In spite of its uncomfortable subject matter, I actually found the book to be enjoyable to read.  Obviously not based on the revealing of the tolerated sin in my life, but because Bridges addresses the topics with a straightforward gentleness that allows the reader to relax and simply contemplate the personal implications.   The chapters are of such a length that I did not reach a level of saturation, or fatigue with the belaboring of a point.  Bridges makes his case for each of the sins succinctly but with clarity.  Of course, I will give credit to the Holy Spirit for His assistance in illuminating the subject.  As the author notes, the Holy Spirit combined with the gospel is ultimately our hope for identifying and eradicating our respectable sins.  We are to be encouraged because the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin, empowers us to deal with our sins, and encourages us, as His indwelling presence is the assurance that we have been forgiven of all of our sins and our unrighteousness.  Appropriating and acting upon this reality should give us the encouragement to deal with our respectable sins.  The progressing of our sanctification depends on it.

This is an excellent book and well worth the time to read it.  But, be prepared to be convicted!

It may still be some time before we find out what was really going on in the cockpit of the jet that operated as NW 188 from San Diego to Minneapolis.  What is known is that for something over one hour, the plane was unresponsive to attempts to contact it by air traffic controllers and the company itself (via whatever means it has to communicate with planes in-flight).  During this period of “running silent”, the plane overshot its destination and had to turn around to land in Minneapolis.  And this, only after flight attendants had to bang on the cockpit door to get the crew to respond.  Meanwhile, interceptor jets were apparently prepared to take-off to intervene.  In the post-9/11 era, “intervention” includes the unthinkable possibility of a military jet shooting down a commercial airliner.

So-called experts called in by the media to speculate on what had gone wrong seemed to generally agree that the pilots had probably fallen asleep.  They “reassured” us that it is not at all uncommon for pilots to fall asleep while flying.  (Don’t you feel better knowing that?)  But the pilots themselves claimed that they were embroiled in a heated argument and failed to hear the attempts to contact them.  That explanation always seemed implausible to me.  But now, their explanation has been revised to them both working on laptop computers, and were not aware of attempts to contact them.  What!?  We move from a verbal knock-down, drag-out, to simply a couple of people working on laptops and distracted to the point that for over an hour, they are unaware of the very radios they are required to listen and respond to?  Do you suppose anyone is buying this?  I’m not.

And now, according to reports I heard today, the cockpit voice recorder is…blank.  Uh huh.  When that voice recorder could corroborate one or another of the various “explanations” of what was going on in that plane, but now it cannot, I am lead to believe that there is yet another explanation that is far more embarrassing, or scandalous that neither pilot wishes to have disclosed and that is why they erased the recorder, which a report today said they could do, once they had landed the airplane.

All three scenarios that have been offered (sleep, argument, laptops) are utterly unsatisfying.  Irrespective of which one it might be (or even another, yet to be reveled), these pilot have betrayed the trust of their employers, the agencies that license them to fly, and especially the passengers they are paid to safely deliver to their planned destinations.  And given the catastrophic possibility of the plane having to be brought down by a fighter jet as a contingency against a terrorist hijacking the two pilots involved in this incident really should be planning on a new line of work.  No matter what was REALLY going on in that plane.

On some level, this product makes me glad that I am not a golfer.  But for those of you who are, you should check this out and consider adding it to your bag.  It’s “the only club in your bag guaranteed to keep you out of the woods!”

Has anyone seen a man holding a golf club under a towel that is hanging from the front of his pants?  If you have, NOW you know what he was REALLY doing.

HT: my B-I-L, Matt

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 offense in 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.

Disappointed?  Yes.  Surprised?  Not in the least.  The “honorable” senior (Republican in name only) senator from the State of Maine, has announced that she will vote (again) in alignment with the party that she does not caucus with, to pass the so-called Baucus Bill for health care reform.  

Apparently, the “distinguished” lady from Maine fell sway to the persuasion of President Barack Hussein Obama, who called her yesterday to convince her to vote (as usual) with her Democrat comrades, er, ah, colleagues.  Well done Senator.  That’s the way to put a thumb in the eye of the party that you claim to be a member of.

But at the end of the day, does ONE vote from a RINO really make it a bi-partisan bill?

UPDATE:  Senator Snowe now explains that she voted for the bill to “keep things moving.”  Huh?  The bill (with her vote) passed 14 to 9.  If my math is correct, the count WITHOUT her vote would have been 13 to 10.  I am thinking the bill MIGHT have passed and “kept moving” even without her lending her “bi-partisan support” to it.

PREDICTION:  The democrats will now talk about the bill receiving bi-partisan support (by virtue of Snowe’s ONE vote) and they’ll do so with a straight face.