The Epitome of Unhealthy Relationships

ABC's The Bachelorette is a case study in everything not to do when it comes to marriage and relationships. I was suckered into this chick show by my chic (and very hot) wife. And, I got hooked! In case you don't know, the premise is a lovely bachelorette must choose among several men, narrowing it down to two in the finale, and picking one.

Here is a list of deadly cliches that occur every second on the hit program:

"I just want to be in love."

"I must find my soul mate".

"Just go with your heart above all else".

"I need to be in love".

"I have to be in love".

"I must be in love".

When the emotions, and feelings, and quest to be in love rule the day, the result is exactly what transpired on The Bachelorette: she picked the wrong guy. She picked the guy every emotionally-unhealthy woman picks - the immature, edgy, wild, elusive "guy" who needs to be tamed (but hopefully can't be).

The other choice, a nice, stable, kind, established, mature man, got the axe. He was too healthy. After all, one must "follow your heart", which means follow those emotions and sensations that are stimulated by forbiddeness, raw sentimentality, and playing hard-to-get.

So the absolutely beautiful DeAnna chose the wandering guy who snowboards for a living over the established salesman with a good family. Worse, her own family recognized she should choose the more mature man. But, being the center of attention in her family, DeAnna must do something to keep that spotlight. Choosing the unpredictable snowboarder ensures that.

So am I some un-romantic, bitter, crabby dude? Yes, but other than that.... Actually, no. I just think everything I listed should be reversed. Lead with your head, develop your heart. Don't lead with your heart and hope the head develops. It may not. And feelings come and go.

Physical Abuse for the Lord!

The tragedy of most charismatic religious "revivals" is the pressure to out-perform the last one. Once various signs and wonders, "barking in the Spirit", marathon head-shaking and such has been done, many Charismatics look for the next "fresh move of God". Heaven help the evangelist who does the same ol' same ol' - he must up the ante to satisfy the hunger (among Charismatics and Pentecostals, "I am hungry" is a catch phrase which amounts to the desire for something religiously sensational).

Enter Todd Bentley. The tatted, pierced Canadian preacher is claiming to hear direct instructions from God on how to heal the sick. God's instructions include, kicking an elderly woman in the face, leg-dropping a pastor, a knee to the stomach, and various hits and body blows! Thousands are flocking to Florida for this "fresh move of God".

Since videos and evaluations of Bentley are all over the web, I'll just offer some brief thoughts.

First, radical does not necessarily mean righteous. While Christians may indeed be a peculiar people (1 Peter 2:9), that generally means by the world's standards, not biblical standards. Yet within Christendom, Charismatics tend to require increasingly extreme antics as a sign of authenticity. Since the outlandish acts in these meetings tend to disturb the more boring brand of Christians and cause the secularists to mock, it must be of God!

Second, this requires being "hard core" rather than discerning. One's religious commitment is seen in how radical one's behavior is, not how knowledgeable of the things of God one is. It's how WILD you are, not how WISE you are!

So, what's next? One can never get to the end of this; one can always be more radical, more outrageous, and more ridiculous. For now, it seems Charismania has become Wrestlemania!

Where You Gonna Go?

There's a powerful scene in An Officer and a Gentleman where Richard Gere's character refuses to quit bootcamp. He's being thrashed by a drill instructor who is on to his shiftless, street-hustling ways. The instructor walks away to start the "cya later" paperwork.

"Don't you do it! I got no place else to go! ...I got nothing...".

This scene leaped out at me when I was reading the passage where Christ's followers began abandoning him. Jesus had said some gut-wrenchingly difficult things (in the synagogue of all places!). They griped about the hard sayings and split.

Peter didn't know what the heck Jesus was saying either. But when he and a few others were asked whether they were leaving too, he said,

"To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!".

That's me. I can't answer every question. I can't fully solve the Problem of Evil. I can't fathom how the mind and body work together. And I can't grasp everything Jesus said - but I know enough to know he can be trusted! In my experience and opinion, the most brain-numbing questions of all time do not overwhelm the offer to follow this man Jesus.

There is no place else to go.

A Parent's Violent Dilemma

I have two sons aged 12 and 10. They love video games like the rest of us. As my parents were shocked at the now-tame antics of Alice Cooper, I'm disturbed by the graphic violence and live dialogue on games like Halo. The live dialogue to which I refer is the interactive on-line banter of players. Good-natured competitive "trash talk" is one thing, vicious threats and hard-core profanity is another.

First off, resist the temptation to conflate technical excellence with excellent content. Technically-dazzling poison is still poison. I am indeed completely impressed with today's video games.

Secondly, I want my boys to be able to fight and defend themselves. A boy will typically fashion a weapon from a stick if that's all he has. So I see some value in video-game dexterity. We are probably witnessing tomorrow's warfare.

Most concerning to me is the bloody demise of cyber-enemies. They scream in pain and blood when you take them out. I am convinced this has a desensitizing effect on the psyche. I once read a report on the military playing actual audio of women being tortured in order to harden and desensitize combat soldiers vulnerable to capture. This necessary evil comes at a high cost to the soldier and his family the rest of his post-traumatic life.

Well, mean Dad that I am, I just cancelled my son's Halo account. My wife and I are thinking through possible parameters with that game in particular. We pulled the trigger (!) when I overheard an opponent graphically suggest incest to my 10-year old last night. Hearing his protests was a time machine! I said the exact same things to my "clueless" parents!

Finally, consider that on-line communication is breeding passive aggressiveness. People say things under the protection of anonymity they would never say to someone's face. I have little reason to doubt this will spill over into real life.

By the way...right now, at this very moment, and I'm NOT exaggerating, my son is throwing a baseball with a neighbor kid outside in the sunshine. Check the pics!

Larry Norman. A Loud Voice Silenced.

The "Father of Christian Rock", Larry Norman, died of heart failure at age 60 on February 24th, 2008. You can google his interesting history but most importantly he was the central (human) figure of the Jesus Movement of the early 1970's. His influence led to Contemporary Christian Music but rallied hundreds of thousands of young people to be followers of Christ right after the Woodstock days. He's best known for asking (and singing), "Why should the devil have all the good music?".

In fact, I first heard him at the "Christian Woodstock", Explo 72, that year in Dallas. Nearly 100,000 youth gathered to make a statement about Jesus and listen to Larry and some other bands. To the chagrine of conservatives, the American stereotype of Christians was forever busted up by Larry's long blond hair, jeans, leather jacket, and rocking guitar! He got the attention of Paul McCartney, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, and Kris Kristofferson.

Born April 8, 1947, in Corpus Christi, Texas, Norman began writing and performing at age 9. He later moved to San Jose, California, where he became part of the local music scene, opening for the Doors and Jimi Hendrix.

But Larry was stuck. His songs were too "religious" for Rock radio and too Rock for religious radio and book stores. That's why only a few have heard of him today. He was an enigma who refused to become a stereotype himself. In fact, he foresaw that "Christian Rock" would become an industry within the Christian ghetto rather than an authentic expression and introduction of Jesus to a radical youth culture.

Christian music quickly became filled with poseurs who dressed up like rock stars and looked and sounded ridiculous. But Larry was the real deal. He was a genuine rocker and student of the arts.

I met him after his concert in Dallas in 1979. Among those hanging around to see him, a woman asked him, "Can you share your testimony with us"? Now let me be clear. That irked me then and irks me now! The dear sister was not free to enjoy what she had just heard until she heard the right lingo from Larry. (In fact, and I'm not making this up, there was a "Christian restaraunt" in the area where the waitress gave her testimony before taking your order! That way, you could feel okay about going out to eat). Larry refused her request and said he had a boring testimony. If she wanted an exciting one, "check the Apostle Paul". I laughed but it made sense.

Larry died broke having struggled with heart problems for years. But I encourage you to read up on him and his music. You'll see how rich he really was.

Fundy Swap!

I usually run from the room when something representing Christians shows up on TV. My blood pressure can't handle it. But I must say the producers of a recent episode of Wife Swap were mostly dead on! In fact, it was excellent television.

The hook was a conservative fundamentalist Christian family with a stay-at-home mom swapping with a liberal Christian family with a stay-at-home dad! The contrast was so excellent that I think every Evangelical church in America should show it. It spurs important social and theological issues.

I hasten to add this does not mean Wife Swap is always an example of good TV. I like the premise, but can't stand the editing in "reality shows". The producers get reaction shots from unrelated incidents and coach the participants into conflict. Fine, but don't call it "reality".

First, due to today's diversity, it is necessary for some definitions. In brief, a Christian is a person who believes the claims of Christ are true and based on that receives Christ's offer of relationship with God, which Christ paid for on a very gory cross.

An Evangelical describes what I think is the biblical definition of a Christian. Roger Olson has noted an Evangelical is one who satisfies five characteristics: (1) biblicism (adherence to the supreme authority of the Bible regarding everything it teaches when properly interpreted); (2) conversionism (belief in the essential importance of radical conversion to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior); (3) the centrality of the cross of Jesus and the forgiveness it provides in attempts to grow in character and spirituality; (4) persuasive, respectful evangelism and social action on behalf of the poor, oppressed, and powerless, including the unborn; (5) a respect for but not slavish dependence on the history of Christian tradition and doctrine.

A Fundamentalist, today, no longer means a person who holds to the fundamentals or essentials of a Faith. As J.P. Moreland says,


"Evangelicals are not Fundamentalists. While they share many beliefs in
common with Evangelicals, contemporary Christian Fundamentalists differ from
Evangelicals in that Fundamentalists are far more black and white, they are deeply suspicious of culture and anything that smacks of compromise with contemporary thought, they are too confrontational, narrow, rigid, dgmental,and harsh for Evangelicals. Fundamentalists tend to elevate minor areas of Christian teaching to the status of central dogmas and militantly fight all who compromise. The texture and tone of Fundamentalists differ sharply from those of Evangelicals. Fundamentalists tend to be defensive while Evangelicals tend to be more mercy-oriented towards outsiders.

Evangelicals are not the Religious Right. For one thing,there is more political diversity among Evangelicals that one finds in the Religious Right. For another, even where Evangelicals would agree with conservative political thought, they are careful to derive their views and express their allegiance to radical discipleship unto Jesus and not primarily with regard to the Constitution".


I do suspect that the "fundy" family may have been a little more balanced than portrayed. The fact that they get together and talk and are so close-knit is a good thing. There was a lot of love displayed in the family.I'm wary that the fundy father's theology will take its toll on the kids.

The teaching he's embracing is more a reaction to today's absentee fathers and teen promiscuity than it is scriptural instruction. His role as "Gate Keeper" will be counterproductive if he is heavy-handed and not sensitive to each child's individuality. It is a very wise adage that parents cannot isolate, but only insulate their children. That includes fostering good thinking skills.

I think a "Gate Keeper" or spiritual-leader father is one who provides teaching and protection, but also ensures an environment in which each family member can thrive and grow spiritually at his or her own pace.

My hope for the "Liberal" parents is that they don't spend more time denouncing conservatives than actually offering good instruction. That just fosters elitism and arrogance. One blogger agreed with me and wrote, "Both of these families seem to have been building their lives on reactions instead of intentions to a large degree".

The Liberal father was portrayed, probably accurately, as a cry-baby who is typical of a modern confused male. He has been emasculated by radical feminism's success at taming masculinity. Not because he chose to be a stay-at-home Dad or wasn't "macho", but because he was a whiney man trying to be "sensitive" and apparently eager to embrace any and all role-reversals.

I can't help but conclude that the best position that an individual or family can be in is somewhere in the middle of these two families. WAY in the middle!

My Favorite Atheist

House is a compelling medical-mystery show on Fox. The main character, Dr. Gregory House (Hugh Laurie), is a brilliant, loveable curmudgeon who solves excruciatingly evasive ailments. The show is hands-down the best writing on TV though it pushes the blood and sex envelope. Still, it's about the only thing I sit down and watch.

Dr. House's atheism adds to his complexity. He struggles between viewing humans and diseases as mere battling species and having genuine compassion for his patients. The latter gets in the way of his research and diagnosis.

House is simultaneously enraged at a God who would allow cancer yet stands in awe at the complexity of bio-systems. He is a whirlwind of cold rationality with a reluctant warm side.

Well, here's the complaint. Glaringly absent, in House and virtually every medical show I've ever seen, are chaplains and pastoral characters. Ironically, TV producers who pride themselves in gritty reality ignore the reality of the chaplaincy. Dying, agonizing patients are left with a little comfort from harried internists or have to listen to Dr. House gripe! That's not reality. Highly-trained pastors and chaplains at least offer comfort and counsel in America's hospitals.

Due to his secular humanism, it's my understanding that Gene Roddenberry nixed the idea of a chaplain on board the Enterprise. Too bad. I would have loved to see Spock get into a little theology!

Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to volunteer and go through the training at the chaplaincy program of a large Dallas hospital. I'll let you know my progress.