High Speed

Frank

A friend was recently complaining to me that it was taking too long for a game to load on his iPhone. I was thinking, “Dude, you’re playing a video game on your phone that’s not a monochromatic snake eating apples!” I can relate though, the wonders of 3G aside. I remember when the Internet became more than just forums and listserves and displayed graphics, full-pages of text, and even color. The wonder of it all! I didn’t mind at all that a page would take a while to load, it was assumed. As the Internet became more widespread, Internet access no longer required a network, but could be accessed at home with a modest 14.4 kbps dial-up modem (a little evolved from the primitive modem in the movie War Games). As more people started to use the Internet and more and more web pages became available, modem speeds had to increase to compensate. Of course as modem speed increased, so did the bells and whistles on each page. Pretty graphics gave way to music and video, Flash and Applets, RSS and Twitter. Can you imagine accessing the Internet today with a 14.4 or even a 28.8 modem? Now we have High Speed, DSL, wi–fi, and 3G and for some reason web pages take the same amount of time to load as they did with my old 14.4.

Our lives are very similar. As we learn to deal with all that’s on our plate, we add more and more. I have one kid figured out, let’s have another. Two? No problem! Let’s have three. Wait. No. Let me take that back and change subjects. One project at work? Nailed it. Give me another. One responsibility at church? No biggie, I can mentor that teen and lead that small group. Even though our dial-up is getting faster, we increase the data we need to download and the pace never seems to change.

This is where impatience comes in. Patience is the one fruit of the Spirit that I struggle to gain the most. I just can never seem to overcome my impatience. I cannot wait for my page to load and I long for the day of infinitely fast speed. The missing ingredient of course is contentment. As Internet surfers, we weren’t content with primitive web pages and their blocky graphics. We then weren’t content with online news services so we began to blog. We then weren’t content with blogging so we added social networking. Social networking takes too much effort so let’s limit our thoughts to 140 words and Tweet. I’m not content with my cell phone only being used for phone calls; I need to text. I then need to send MMS. Then I need games. Lots and lots of games.

In life, I’m not content with spending quality time with my family; I need to be busy doing something. I’m not content to just sit and watch a movie, I need to surf the Internet too. I’m not content with tackling one project at work, I need to add several more. So it’s no surprise I’m so impatient. Instead of wresting to be patient, I need to slow down and be content. I need to be happy without the bells and whistles. I need to be grateful for the speed I have.

“I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” (Philippians 4:11-14)

For other perspectives on patience, check out today’s blog-carnival over at Bridget Cumbley’s.

High Speed

Frank

A friend was recently complaining to me that it was taking too long for a game to load on his iPhone. I was thinking, “Dude, you’re playing a video game on your phone that’s not a monochromatic snake eating apples!” I can relate though, the wonders of 3G aside. I remember when the Internet became more than just forums and listserves and displayed graphics, full-pages of text, and even color. The wonder of it all! I didn’t mind at all that a page would take a while to load, it was assumed. As the Internet became more widespread, Internet access no longer required a network, but could be accessed at home with a modest 14.4 kbps dial-up modem (a little evolved from the primitive modem in the movie War Games). As more people started to use the Internet and more and more web pages became available, modem speeds had to increase to compensate. Of course as modem speed increased, so did the bells and whistles on each page. Pretty graphics gave way to music and video, Flash and Applets, RSS and Twitter. Can you imagine accessing the Internet today with a 14.4 or even a 28.8 modem? Now we have High Speed, DSL, wi–fi, and 3G and for some reason web pages take the same amount of time to load as they did with my old 14.4.

Our lives are very similar. As we learn to deal with all that’s on our plate, we add more and more. I have one kid figured out, let’s have another. Two? No problem! Let’s have three. Wait. No. Let me take that back and change subjects. One project at work? Nailed it. Give me another. One responsibility at church? No biggie, I can mentor that teen and lead that small group. Even though our dial-up is getting faster, we increase the data we need to download and the pace never seems to change.

This is where impatience comes in. Patience is the one fruit of the Spirit that I struggle to gain the most. I just can never seem to overcome my impatience. I cannot wait for my page to load and I long for the day of infinitely fast speed. The missing ingredient of course is contentment. As Internet surfers, we weren’t content with primitive web pages and their blocky graphics. We then weren’t content with online news services so we began to blog. We then weren’t content with blogging so we added social networking. Social networking takes too much effort so let’s limit our thoughts to 140 words and Tweet. I’m not content with my cell phone only being used for phone calls; I need to text. I then need to send MMS. Then I need games. Lots and lots of games.

In life, I’m not content with spending quality time with my family; I need to be busy doing something. I’m not content to just sit and watch a movie, I need to surf the Internet too. I’m not content with tackling one project at work, I need to add several more. So it’s no surprise I’m so impatient. Instead of wresting to be patient, I need to slow down and be content. I need to be happy without the bells and whistles. I need to be grateful for the speed I have.

“I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” (Philippians 4:11-14)

For other perspectives on patience, check out today’s blog-carnival over at Bridget Cumbley’s.

My Last Tim Tebow Post… Really

Frank

Ok, today’s the big day. Who cares how the Super Bowl turns out, most of us can’t wait to see the ads (a poll in USA Today showed a 52/48 split between who is more interested in the commercials or the game respectively). The highest ratings might be in the first quarter when Focus on the Family’s pro-life ad staring Tim Tebow airs.

I don’t have much more to add to this other than to offer a little perspective. Teresa Heinz Kerry was blasted during the 2004 Presidential campaign for being “personally pro-life but politically pro-choice”. Her “personal” reason was her faith, which was demonstrated when she had a miscarriage after a doctor recommended having an abortion, much like the case of Tim Tebow’s mother. But her “pro-choice” argument goes that she was given a choice that wasn’t limited by the government. I’ve heard the same argument against the Tebow example, his mother was allowed a choice. Fair enough, but what about the choice of the yet to be born child? They are defenseless, so much so that reckless behavior by an expecting mother can be prosecuted and that crimes against a pregnant woman that results in the death of the fetus can be tried as Second Degree murder. Yes, both Heinz-Kerry and Tebow had a choice, and both chose to have their child. And most importantly, and less debated, is that they both trusted in God to work things out. And he did. Note where the trust is placed- in God, not the government.

Another argument against the Tebow spin on abortion is what if Tim had grown up to be a serial killer instead of a Heisman winner? (This was one comment in USA Today’s letters to the editor on the subject) So it’s ok to abort a could-be Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler? This is a common philosophical/theological debate- would it be moral to go back in time and kill a future killer? See the ending of The Butterfly Effect for a stomach-turning answer to that one. But given free-will, there’s no predestined fate for one child or another to grow up and be “evil”. Yes circumstances come into play (what if Adolf lived in the United States instead of war-torn Germany?) but at least the person has the choice in their life. They are free to grow up and make decisions as they see fit. See the movie Gattaca for this take on the argument.

My take? I was adopted at two weeks old. My birth-parents were a teenage girl and a recently graduated teenage boy. Legally, they had every right to see to it that my life never came to being. I’m grateful for their “choice”. But I’m more grateful that I was given the opportunity to make my own choices. Maybe someday I will be a serial killer. And I’ll never win the Heisman. But at least I’m alive.

***Update***
So the Super Bowl ended dramatically and now it’s time for the postgame evaluation: which ads were the best. The infamous Focus on the Family Tim Tebow ad aired and didn’t amount to the hype surrounding it. The world did not end with, the ads went on. The argument that this ad encroached on a tradition of neutrality, family, and escapism was contradicted by the Green Police ad by Audi, the suggested mastubatory Megan Fox Motorola ad, and the stereotype of the single black mom hooking up with a playa while feeding her kid junk food. Neutral and family-friendly indeed. Anyway, a better take can be found over at Get Religion.

My Last Tim Tebow Post… Really

Frank

Ok, today’s the big day. Who cares how the Super Bowl turns out, most of us can’t wait to see the ads (a poll in USA Today showed a 52/48 split between who is more interested in the commercials or the game respectively). The highest ratings might be in the first quarter when Focus on the Family’s pro-life ad staring Tim Tebow airs.

I don’t have much more to add to this other than to offer a little perspective. Teresa Heinz Kerry was blasted during the 2004 Presidential campaign for being “personally pro-life but politically pro-choice”. Her “personal” reason was her faith, which was demonstrated when she had a miscarriage after a doctor recommended having an abortion, much like the case of Tim Tebow’s mother. But her “pro-choice” argument goes that she was given a choice that wasn’t limited by the government. I’ve heard the same argument against the Tebow example, his mother was allowed a choice. Fair enough, but what about the choice of the yet to be born child? They are defenseless, so much so that reckless behavior by an expecting mother can be prosecuted and that crimes against a pregnant woman that results in the death of the fetus can be tried as Second Degree murder. Yes, both Heinz-Kerry and Tebow had a choice, and both chose to have their child. And most importantly, and less debated, is that they both trusted in God to work things out. And he did. Note where the trust is placed- in God, not the government.

Another argument against the Tebow spin on abortion is what if Tim had grown up to be a serial killer instead of a Heisman winner? (This was one comment in USA Today’s letters to the editor on the subject) So it’s ok to abort a could-be Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler? This is a common philosophical/theological debate- would it be moral to go back in time and kill a future killer? See the ending of The Butterfly Effect for a stomach-turning answer to that one. But given free-will, there’s no predestined fate for one child or another to grow up and be “evil”. Yes circumstances come into play (what if Adolf lived in the United States instead of war-torn Germany?) but at least the person has the choice in their life. They are free to grow up and make decisions as they see fit. See the movie Gattaca for this take on the argument.

My take? I was adopted at two weeks old. My birth-parents were a teenage girl and a recently graduated teenage boy. Legally, they had every right to see to it that my life never came to being. I’m grateful for their “choice”. But I’m more grateful that I was given the opportunity to make my own choices. Maybe someday I will be a serial killer. And I’ll never win the Heisman. But at least I’m alive.

***Update***
So the Super Bowl ended dramatically and now it’s time for the postgame evaluation: which ads were the best. The infamous Focus on the Family Tim Tebow ad aired and didn’t amount to the hype surrounding it. The world did not end with, the ads went on. The argument that this ad encroached on a tradition of neutrality, family, and escapism was contradicted by the Green Police ad by Audi, the suggested mastubatory Megan Fox Motorola ad, and the stereotype of the single black mom hooking up with a playa while feeding her kid junk food. Neutral and family-friendly indeed. Anyway, a better take can be found over at Get Religion.

What Were They Thinking?

Frank

Surely by now you’ve heard of the 10 American Christians who were arrested in Haiti for child trafficking. The story goes that the children’s parents gave the children up in hopes of a better life. These “missionaries” acted in good faith, believing they were doing the right thing. In fact, this same sympathy drives the popularity of foreign adoptions by American Christians- the idea that adopting a child out of a “godless” country to raise him or her in a Christian home is an effective form of evangelism. When the earthquake hit Haiti, it was not surprising that one of the first concerns was of the orphans left behind, just as it was for the Indonesian tsunami.

But there is a right way and a wrong way of “saving” these children. I just watched an interview with a woman from a local adoption agency that was in the process of arranging for the adoption of Haitian children before the earthquake. When that news broke, this woman took the first flight she could to Haiti to ensure the safety of these children. The group that went to Haiti from Lifechurch in Pennsylvania, went because of the orphanage they supported there. The group from Idaho however, had no prior experience, no existing relationships, and no required paperwork. Like I said, they went in good faith, but ill prepared.

In classic evangelical terms, what would Jesus do? I think of Matthew 9, “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt 9:35-36) Here, Jesus went to where the needs were. He did not remove people from their needs, but he stopped there to meet their needs.

This is a tragedy, no doubt, and it is encouraging to see the millions of dollars raised for relief. But once the Red Cross leaves, once the US military leaves, once the donations stop coming, there will still be a need. If you are so concerned about the welfare of the children in Haiti that you would spend your life savings to get there to save a few, then you should stay there. Save them by rebuilding homes and schools. Stay there to feed them. Stay there to care for them. Because stripping children away from their parents is not saving them. My first link above had some statistics that are telling that the updated article doesn’t- nearly two thirds of Haitian children attend schools operated by Christian organizations and a majority of hospitals are Christian-run. That is meeting the need. Jesus “went” to meet the need. We should be so bold as to do the same. If hopping a flight to Haiti is out of the realm of possibility for you, look around your own city, your neighborhood, your schools. Find a need and go and meet it.

What Were They Thinking?

Frank

Surely by now you’ve heard of the 10 American Christians who were arrested in Haiti for child trafficking. The story goes that the children’s parents gave the children up in hopes of a better life. These “missionaries” acted in good faith, believing they were doing the right thing. In fact, this same sympathy drives the popularity of foreign adoptions by American Christians- the idea that adopting a child out of a “godless” country to raise him or her in a Christian home is an effective form of evangelism. When the earthquake hit Haiti, it was not surprising that one of the first concerns was of the orphans left behind, just as it was for the Indonesian tsunami.

But there is a right way and a wrong way of “saving” these children. I just watched an interview with a woman from a local adoption agency that was in the process of arranging for the adoption of Haitian children before the earthquake. When that news broke, this woman took the first flight she could to Haiti to ensure the safety of these children. The group that went to Haiti from Lifechurch in Pennsylvania, went because of the orphanage they supported there. The group from Idaho however, had no prior experience, no existing relationships, and no required paperwork. Like I said, they went in good faith, but ill prepared.

In classic evangelical terms, what would Jesus do? I think of Matthew 9, “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Mt 9:35-36) Here, Jesus went to where the needs were. He did not remove people from their needs, but he stopped there to meet their needs.

This is a tragedy, no doubt, and it is encouraging to see the millions of dollars raised for relief. But once the Red Cross leaves, once the US military leaves, once the donations stop coming, there will still be a need. If you are so concerned about the welfare of the children in Haiti that you would spend your life savings to get there to save a few, then you should stay there. Save them by rebuilding homes and schools. Stay there to feed them. Stay there to care for them. Because stripping children away from their parents is not saving them. My first link above had some statistics that are telling that the updated article doesn’t- nearly two thirds of Haitian children attend schools operated by Christian organizations and a majority of hospitals are Christian-run. That is meeting the need. Jesus “went” to meet the need. We should be so bold as to do the same. If hopping a flight to Haiti is out of the realm of possibility for you, look around your own city, your neighborhood, your schools. Find a need and go and meet it.

Pro Choice (but not like you think)

Frank

Just when you think the lightning-rod of politics and Christianity couldn’t get any more polarized, I saw this headline “Pastor’s Wife: Counseling freed Haggard of gay urges”. Of course, I left homosexuality off yesterday’s post as the other issue that does Christianity more harm than good when muddied with politics. But this article wasn’t what I expected when I clicked the link. It discusses Gayle Haggard’s new book chronicling her coping with her husband’s homosexual infidelity and “recovery”. The headline is a bit inflammatory because of the notion that you can counsel away homosexuality (or pray it away, and so forth). But the interview on the Today show heads this off as she states clearly, “That’s not true for everybody. That’s his story.”

It also brings up an important point about love, heterosexual and homosexual: it is a choice. This goes back to my distinction between lust and love– lust is selfish while love is sacrificial. This goes beyond the notion of love being the same as a feeling of affection. We choose to love our spouse, our children, our lovers, etc even while they drive us crazy because it is a choice. We may not “feel” love when we are most hurt, but we have to choose to continue to love those who hurt us. That is independent of sexuality. I would hope both gay and straight could agree on that point.

Gayle is a great example of this, choosing to love and not reject her husband regardless of fidelity or sexual identity. That trait is rare these days (another headline today: John Edwards and wife formally separated) and is hard for so many to understand. One justification for divorce is attempting to advocate for the children- that it would be better to be raised in a broken home than in a loveless one. But again, love is a choice. Maybe it would be better for a child to be raised in a broken home than to be raised in a home where one or both parents intentionally choose to be selfish and not love.

Back to sexuality, there are homosexuals in committed heterosexual relationships. Why/how? Because they choose to be. This is another example that is so hard for many in the world to understand but I cannot express it enough, love is independent of sex. I think if more embraced this view of love, many of the prejudicial barriers between Christians and homosexuals could be broken down.

Maybe we need a refresher of 1 Corinthians 13:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

-1 Cor 13:4-8

Pro Choice (but not like you think)

Frank

Just when you think the lightning-rod of politics and Christianity couldn’t get any more polarized, I saw this headline “Pastor’s Wife: Counseling freed Haggard of gay urges”. Of course, I left homosexuality off yesterday’s post as the other issue that does Christianity more harm than good when muddied with politics. But this article wasn’t what I expected when I clicked the link. It discusses Gayle Haggard’s new book chronicling her coping with her husband’s homosexual infidelity and “recovery”. The headline is a bit inflammatory because of the notion that you can counsel away homosexuality (or pray it away, and so forth). But the interview on the Today show heads this off as she states clearly, “That’s not true for everybody. That’s his story.”

It also brings up an important point about love, heterosexual and homosexual: it is a choice. This goes back to my distinction between lust and love– lust is selfish while love is sacrificial. This goes beyond the notion of love being the same as a feeling of affection. We choose to love our spouse, our children, our lovers, etc even while they drive us crazy because it is a choice. We may not “feel” love when we are most hurt, but we have to choose to continue to love those who hurt us. That is independent of sexuality. I would hope both gay and straight could agree on that point.

Gayle is a great example of this, choosing to love and not reject her husband regardless of fidelity or sexual identity. That trait is rare these days (another headline today: John Edwards and wife formally separated) and is hard for so many to understand. One justification for divorce is attempting to advocate for the children- that it would be better to be raised in a broken home than in a loveless one. But again, love is a choice. Maybe it would be better for a child to be raised in a broken home than to be raised in a home where one or both parents intentionally choose to be selfish and not love.

Back to sexuality, there are homosexuals in committed heterosexual relationships. Why/how? Because they choose to be. This is another example that is so hard for many in the world to understand but I cannot express it enough, love is independent of sex. I think if more embraced this view of love, many of the prejudicial barriers between Christians and homosexuals could be broken down.

Maybe we need a refresher of 1 Corinthians 13:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails.

-1 Cor 13:4-8

Feeding The Political Stereotype of Christians

Frank

If it’s not clear by now, my politics are mostly conservative though I like to think of myself as a moderate. I don’t like extreme stances on any political topic, recognizing the political process is designed to force compromise. And few things make my blood boil as much as the mixing of politics and religion, as if voting a particular way makes me more Christ-like.

One issue that is always right in the center of the politics/religion debate is abortion. Another is… guns. Guns? Well, didn’t you know the Bible Belt holds a holster? (insert laugh track here) When either of these topics come up, the Left almost always overreacts, regardless of whether religion is involved. But if you mix both of these with religion, you can imagine the reaction in the Main Stream Media and even more so on teh internetz. And both issues have come front and center recently.

First, a week ago ABC “broke” the news that a supplier of gun sights to the military has been encoding Bible versus in their serial numbers. I watched the news clip and I didn’t get it. An example serial number would look like AOOCX32JN8:12 (taken from this photo). So you’d have to actually look for the serial number, care enough to read it, and notice the scripture verse at the end. To a Christian, the reference would be obvious with the abbreviation-number:number format. But to a non-Christian, it would be gibberish. And I say “broke” the news because as was quickly pointed out, this really is old news. Though there are several concerns: one, if the weapon falls into the hand of an enemy (in this case, Islamic terrorists) it would send the message that yes, the Global War on Terror is a “Holy War” (which it is, by the way, on one side anyway); two, that this is offensive to the non-religious; and three, that this violates the Separation of Church and State .

One and two don’t hold water because they would first have to find and recognize the “code” and I highly doubt that would happen by accident. This did come to the media’s attention because of number two however. Not because someone noticed the Scripture, but because he heard others talking about it, which caused him to make the argument of number three. Yes, the Federal Government purchased the sights, but a company supplied serial number, logo, or anything else does not represent the government, only the company. It’s not as if there is a law that only Christians can use this weapon. Of course the media was quick to inflame the issue by noting the irony of using a gun with a Scripture reference to kill Islamic extremists. Of course, the point could be made without making pot-shots. (Funny, when I bookmarked this to use in my blog, there were only a few comments. As of this posting there are 168 while most posts on this particular blog average less than 10) And even if you legally prevented the company from putting whatever they want on their product, you cannot prevent a soldier from carving anything into his stock, painting the nose of a bomber, or writing a message on a bomb like “say hi to Allah for me”. And if you think that doesn’t happen, then you are willfully ignorant of the reality of war.

The other recent news is of an “anti-abortion” ad starring Tim Tebow for the Super Bowl. If you want to see an example of overreacting, just read the comments from the Women’s Media Center. I personally love this gem, “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.” I wonder if they consider the benign ads by “the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, you know, the Mormons” to be homophobic after the backlash against that church after California’s Prop 8? The National Organization of Women called the add “demeaning” even though the context given is actually celebratory of life. I wonder if they consider a baby shower, a christening, or infant baptism to be demeaning against someone who is pro-choice or has had an abortion, because it seems as though this ad is in the same context. Anyway, I appreciate CBS for sticking to their guns. But I don’t know if the can withstand another week and a half of political pressure. Of course, this news wouldn’t have even caught my eye if it wasn’t for the broad-brush headline “Women Oppose Super Bowl Ad”. You’d think if these organizations speak for all women, they would be just as outraged by GoDaddy ads. But that would be asking too much.

So what does this have to do with our personal walk as Public Christians? First, there are some whose devotion to the NRA is as strong, if not stronger, than their devotion to God. That is a real temptation that should be resisted. Second, we also have to resist the temptation to elevate celebrities to idol-like status as Tim Tebow has become. (This ad would have never been greenlit if not for his involvement) Yes, he’s a missionary. Yes, he’s pro-life. And as a football player, he has as much right to endorse his “product” as Payton Manning does DirectTV. But at the same time, we should pick our battles carefully and stand on our own convictions, not those of the Christian celebrity du jour.

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) The shrewd part we seem to have figured out. Now we just need to work on our innocence.

Feeding The Political Stereotype of Christians

Frank

If it’s not clear by now, my politics are mostly conservative though I like to think of myself as a moderate. I don’t like extreme stances on any political topic, recognizing the political process is designed to force compromise. And few things make my blood boil as much as the mixing of politics and religion, as if voting a particular way makes me more Christ-like.

One issue that is always right in the center of the politics/religion debate is abortion. Another is… guns. Guns? Well, didn’t you know the Bible Belt holds a holster? (insert laugh track here) When either of these topics come up, the Left almost always overreacts, regardless of whether religion is involved. But if you mix both of these with religion, you can imagine the reaction in the Main Stream Media and even more so on teh internetz. And both issues have come front and center recently.

First, a week ago ABC “broke” the news that a supplier of gun sights to the military has been encoding Bible versus in their serial numbers. I watched the news clip and I didn’t get it. An example serial number would look like AOOCX32JN8:12 (taken from this photo). So you’d have to actually look for the serial number, care enough to read it, and notice the scripture verse at the end. To a Christian, the reference would be obvious with the abbreviation-number:number format. But to a non-Christian, it would be gibberish. And I say “broke” the news because as was quickly pointed out, this really is old news. Though there are several concerns: one, if the weapon falls into the hand of an enemy (in this case, Islamic terrorists) it would send the message that yes, the Global War on Terror is a “Holy War” (which it is, by the way, on one side anyway); two, that this is offensive to the non-religious; and three, that this violates the Separation of Church and State .

One and two don’t hold water because they would first have to find and recognize the “code” and I highly doubt that would happen by accident. This did come to the media’s attention because of number two however. Not because someone noticed the Scripture, but because he heard others talking about it, which caused him to make the argument of number three. Yes, the Federal Government purchased the sights, but a company supplied serial number, logo, or anything else does not represent the government, only the company. It’s not as if there is a law that only Christians can use this weapon. Of course the media was quick to inflame the issue by noting the irony of using a gun with a Scripture reference to kill Islamic extremists. Of course, the point could be made without making pot-shots. (Funny, when I bookmarked this to use in my blog, there were only a few comments. As of this posting there are 168 while most posts on this particular blog average less than 10) And even if you legally prevented the company from putting whatever they want on their product, you cannot prevent a soldier from carving anything into his stock, painting the nose of a bomber, or writing a message on a bomb like “say hi to Allah for me”. And if you think that doesn’t happen, then you are willfully ignorant of the reality of war.

The other recent news is of an “anti-abortion” ad starring Tim Tebow for the Super Bowl. If you want to see an example of overreacting, just read the comments from the Women’s Media Center. I personally love this gem, “By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers.” I wonder if they consider the benign ads by “the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, you know, the Mormons” to be homophobic after the backlash against that church after California’s Prop 8? The National Organization of Women called the add “demeaning” even though the context given is actually celebratory of life. I wonder if they consider a baby shower, a christening, or infant baptism to be demeaning against someone who is pro-choice or has had an abortion, because it seems as though this ad is in the same context. Anyway, I appreciate CBS for sticking to their guns. But I don’t know if the can withstand another week and a half of political pressure. Of course, this news wouldn’t have even caught my eye if it wasn’t for the broad-brush headline “Women Oppose Super Bowl Ad”. You’d think if these organizations speak for all women, they would be just as outraged by GoDaddy ads. But that would be asking too much.

So what does this have to do with our personal walk as Public Christians? First, there are some whose devotion to the NRA is as strong, if not stronger, than their devotion to God. That is a real temptation that should be resisted. Second, we also have to resist the temptation to elevate celebrities to idol-like status as Tim Tebow has become. (This ad would have never been greenlit if not for his involvement) Yes, he’s a missionary. Yes, he’s pro-life. And as a football player, he has as much right to endorse his “product” as Payton Manning does DirectTV. But at the same time, we should pick our battles carefully and stand on our own convictions, not those of the Christian celebrity du jour.

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) The shrewd part we seem to have figured out. Now we just need to work on our innocence.