The Daily Detour

A TDD birthday milestone

(NOTE: This particular post falls into the category of one of my longer entries, a category which seems to be growing larger these days. Sorry about that. But please bear with me and take a couple of minutes to read it, if you would. Because I could really use your input.)

Today is a very special day in the Crane household (or, at least, over in my cubicle in our little world here). For today we celebrate the 2nd birthday of The Daily Detour. (Cue the party music, balloons, and confetti!) It's hard to believe it's actually been two years since this little experiment got underway.

Many of you have been with us from the outset, while others of you have found your way here over time. Regardless of where your journey began, I think I can speak for all of us and say, that we're glad you're here. :)

As a part of this momentous occasion, I want to take a couple of minutes to peel back the cover and provide a little glimpse into my world of late. As most of you know, I am still without a full-time job (though I do have a short-term gig lined up for which I can wholeheartedly thank some local friends, the Doehrmans, for. Can't wait to get up dark and early! :) This period has lasted much longer than I had ever anticipated it would, and yet, God has given me ample opportunity to pause and reflect on a number of things, not the least of which is where I've come and where I'm going. I have logged too many hours since my departure from Light and Life last summer in personal introspection and career contemplation.

God has not yet revealed exactly where this path is taking me, but as I've shared with many young people over the years, there is the sensation that we are certainly moving somewhere, even if I can't see beyond the blindfold of uncertainty. So, I hold up my hand, grasp God's hand as it were, and trust that in His divine providence, He can see the path for my life. And indeed, with each step through every season of this journey, He is gradually lowering the blindfold and revealing more of what lies ahead and how to get there. I do not have complete clarity yet, but even in these past weeks, I see God beginning to lift the clouds of confusion as He further solidifies a vision in my mind and heart. (Sounds more mystical than it is, and given the fuzzy nature of the vision, I can't exactly describe the direction. But He's leading the way.)

In the meantime, I'm attempting to be faithful to do the things God has placed before me right now. This blog happens to be one of them. I must confess, it almost started out as a kind of hobby--me with a keyboard and an idea. But over the years it has grown as more and more of you find your way here. And it has begun to take on almost a life of its own. Through it all, many of you have written me over these past two years and explained how you were challenged to see people in a new way, or to think about some issue from a different vantage point--and more importantly, many of you have communicated how you who have found something here that causes you to want to live life better. Through it all, I have come to recognize the depth and value of this endeavor. And my desire to facilitate this experiment grows as the responsibility for undertaking this venture becomes more readily apparent. As I've said repeatedly, the reality of what this community has become has far exceeded my original expectations. I have each of you to thank for that.

In light of that observation, I have become more convinced lately that as much as it has exceeded my lowly expectations, The Daily Detour is not necessarily living up to its potential. This is no fault of yours. On the contrary, while sitting in the church service at Kingsway this past Sunday, for example, I latched onto a fleeting idea from the sermon being preached by one of their associate pastors, Shawn Tully. His message about reaching out to our neighbors solidifed in my mind the desire, even I would say, the obligation, I feel to take this bog medium to a different level in terms of actually attempting to effect tangible change in the world around us. (I'm continuing to flesh out my thoughts on that idea, and will certainly be bringing any conclusions to the blog in due time.)

As a part of this thinking process, however, I need your help. If you've taken time to read the description of what The Daily Detour is all about, I mention there that my intent with this blog was to go about "capturing your mindspace for a few minutes"--that is, that you would want to come and visit The Daily Detour on a regular basis (even daily :). That was my goal from the beginning, and to my increasing surprise, it seems that our little tribe (to borrow Seth Godin's insightful imagery) is growing larger by the day. This is especially surprising given the fact that I don't see myself as a very good blogger, as a "blogger" might be traditionally described. In fact, my posts would probably fit better in a daily newspaper column than within this particular context (this long-winded epistle serving as yet another example). And yet, you all continue to come back. :)

As you've noticed, there have been some significant cosmetic and content changes to the site in recent days. And in keeping with my current efforts jump on the "change" bandwagon, I want to do whatever I can to make your ongoing TDD experience a positive one. I can't do that very effectively without specific input from you. Thus, I hope you'll indulge me by responding to these two simple questions: 1.) Why do you make the time to visit The Daily Detour? What draws you here?, and 2.) What, if any, changes would you like to see to make the TDD experience more personally beneficial to you? (Don't be afraid to provide constructive criticism. My motto is, "Be gentle, yet firm.")

I pose this first question because I genuinely want to know what brings you here, no matter what the reason(s). It's not necessarily intended to stroke my own ego, or to be a "pat-John-on-the-back" party (though I always appreciate the positive feedback). Rather, it is a chance for me to get a bit more insight into the nature of this tribe--more about who you are and how I can better serve you through this blogging effort. I want your time here to be worthwhile. As many people as there are who do comment on this blog, I know there are scores more of you who silently participate as well. And so, my desire is not to put anyone in a position of uncomfortable vulnerability. But I would encourage you to share your perspective if you're inclined. I believe your contribution will make for a better overall experience. Maybe it's because you're into politics? Or, perhaps you enjoy the cultural commentary? Maybe you value my particular vantage point on things? Or, you simply relish the role of the antagonist? Whatever the reason(s), I would love to hear from you. (If it's better for you, feel free to send me an email with your feedback rather than posting on the open forum of the comment board. The important thing from my perspective is to hear the people's voice.)

At the end of the day I am not here simply to blow hot air into cyberspace (though I have probably given ample evidence to the contrary :). I am genuinely seeking to provide this medium as a means that will hopefully be of some challenge, some encouragement, and some camaraderie as we all walk through this journey called life together.

And to all of you, I can only say again, "Thank you so much for the time you spend here at The Daily Detour. That you find something here worth expending that time means a great deal to me. I don't say thanks enough." So, raise your piping mugs of hot cocoa on this bone-chilling Friday. Here's to this past year together, and Lord willing, another great year to come. I know your life is busy and your time is precious. So thank you very much for spending your time with me...with all of us.

Unity in diversity?

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed President Obama's proposed economic stimulus, to the tune of $819 billion (with a "b"). The bill passed 244-188, with no Republicans voting for it. Further, there were actually 11 Democratics who voted against it. It now goes before the Senate.

As much as Obama has touted his efforts to promote bipartisanship in Washington, it is particularly telling that the only evidence of bipartisan support on this first major piece of legislation was among those who opposed it. (Maybe it only counts as bipartisanship if it goes in Obama's favor? :)

This raises the tension that Obama will continue to face throughout his presidency. How do we actually promote unity within a diverse culture such as ours? Since the beginning of his presidential ambitions, Obama campaigned on the generic message of "change" and promised to bring a renewed unity that has been lacking for so long. It's a nice dream. But the actual realization of that dream will always prove extremely difficult (especially if the parties involved actually believe in their convictions).

As much as Obama seeks unity in this country, even his inaugural speech didn't invite it. For example, he started out by stating, "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord." Fair enough. Choosing hope and unity is a desirable, even noble, goal. That said, he then went on to say,

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

The underlying assumption points the finger at people like former president George W. Bush and the Republicans (especially conservatives) who promoted "petty grievances and false promises", those of us who apparently choose "recriminations and worn out dogmas". The idea is that but for us pesky conservatives who hold onto our "worn out dogmas" (translation: beliefs that are simply different than the liberal worldview), we could actually achieve the unity we all so desperately desire.

In theory, we could say the same thing about liberals...or anyone for that matter who fervently believes in anything. The only way to achieve real unity is through compromise. But it begs the question, "Who should compromise, particularly when it concerns deeply-held beliefs?" The assumption that will continue to plague Republicans (and conservatives) is that it is we who should compromise our beliefs. The clarion call for a more moderate, centrist position rings out, even among the so-called sages in the Republican party. But when will people like President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or Senate Majority leader Harry Reid compromise their beliefs? When will they ask the same of their liberal constituency that they expect of the conservatives? They currently hold the power, so it won't be anytime soon.

Essentially, we have come to a place in our country where we mistakenly assume that the goal is to pursue agreement at all costs. Anything less is uncivilized I guess. But that is not how the Founding Fathers created the template of this democratic Republic. On the contrary, it is within our very diversity that we find our greatest strength. We are privileged to live in a country whose bedrock principles, encapsulated in our guiding documents, create space for divergent perspectives and dissenting opinions.

Confession time: I actually caught part of The Oprah Winfrey show yesterday in which she was interviewing the disgraced pastor Ted Haggard and his wife, Gayle. It was a very fascinating interview. When the Haggards were explaining their beliefs regarding homosexuality, sin, love, God, the Bible, etc. (which were fairly orthodox), Oprah was having some trouble reconciling their perspective with her own views on the issue of homosexuality. For example, she struggled to understand that if homosexuality is genetic (as she believes), why the Haggards viewed it as a sin. Especially given Ted Haggard's own journey through homosexuality, why he would choose to deny his own self, as it were. It got a bit testy at one point in which Oprah flat out responded to Gayle, "I don't agree with you. I simply don't agree with you" (not a direct quote). Had I been in that conversation, one of the things I would have said was, "That's okay, because that is the beauty of living in this country. We don't have to be in lock-step with one another. We can agree to disagree."

And indeed we can accept differences in perspectives without assuming that everyone has to see the world the same way we do. It is then into the public arena that we can offer our differing ideas and test them to determine which hold up and align with the reality.

It's okay to disagree and still maintain meaningful community and mutually-beneficial relationships with others. (After all, we've done our fair share of disagreeing here in TDDville in a manner of civility, and no one is too worse for wear--I hope :). Unity without compromise is possible, I believe. It's certainly not easy...but it is possible. For Obama & Co., however, we'll have to wait and see what the future of his version of unity holds in this country. 

UPDATE: The reports have hit the wire that President Obama was livid when he heard that Wall Street corporate executives received over $18 billion in bonuses last year. Let me make sure I've got this straight, Big Government is upset at Big Business for misappropriating money. Classic "pot meet kettle" scenario it seems. We're in good hands. :)

10 books to read before you die

I recently came across this list of "10 Books to Read Before You Die". I've seen similar lists before and am always intrigued to see why people include certain books over others. I wonder, if you were to create a list (even if it had books that you hadn't actually read...yet), what would be on it? (I'll need to put some more thought into my list and I'll post it on the comment board.)

Feel free to offer your list below, and if you're especially ambitious, include some simple rationale for your choice. I'm always look for more books to add to my collection (though Jean might not agree :).

The first week in our brave, new world

I must confess that my genuine intent was to take a cautiously wary approach to our new president, and to at least give him some time to get settled before addressing my grievances. But he has not allowed for such generosity. In a feverish attempt to begin solidifying his legacy (remember the artificial deadline of "the first 100 days"?), he is issuing orders and pursuing legislation at a dizzying pace.

And so far, it has confirmed the initial suspicions I had about him back in this presidential campaign. For those of us share a more conservative worldview, there is understandable cause for concern. Here are just a few highlights from week 1 of the Obama presidency:

1. The War on Terror: To his credit, President Obama offered some very strong words for our enemies in his inaugural speech a week ago. He affirmed,

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

And yet, just 24 hours later it seems as though the resolve of such rhetoric is crumbling, causing many to legitimately question where he actually stands on the issue of terrorists' rights. One of the very first orders that he signed was to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (where 245 enemy combatants have been housed while awaiting trial). He also signed an order ending the ability of our military forces, and other covert agencies, to use "waterboarding" to extract critical information from the enemy. These actions on the part of President Obama were done based on his particular philosophy about war, human rights, tolerance, etc. Fair enough. Regardless of what one may believe about those two particular issues specifically, however, the strong case can be made that these new measures don't take a harder stand on confronting terrorism than the previous administration's position. On the contrary, these are steps toward a more softer approach to how we treat our enemies. I wonder at what point the rights of the terrorists supersede those of us Americans? (Furthermore, where do we put the terrorists from Guatanamo Bay? In a detention facility in the States? "Coming to neighborhood near you...!")

2. Advancement of an aggressive homosexual agenda: The Obama administration just published their "Civil Rights Agenda" on the official White House website. As Kevin McCullough points out, this agenda includes extensive goals for advancing homosexual rights. Now, I've commented frequently about the need for Christians and the Church to reevaluate our approach to homosexuals, and I wholeheartedly believe that. The difficulty arises, however, when the current calls for unity and tolerance expect those of us with different moral beliefs on such issues to essentially abandon those convictions for the sake of the larger goal of unity. In this particular case, it is interesting that the "Civil Rights Agenda" on the White House's official website has equated the civil rights struggle of ethnic minorities in this country with the current struggle of homosexuals. (The underlying assumption that does not always invite scrutiny is the belief that homosexuality is a product of one's genetic makeup, as opposed to their formative environment. Thus, the homosexual has every right to march alongside those ethnic minorities who have struggled as a result of the color of their skin. This "homosexuality is genetic" argument tends to get tripped up when the evidence is revealed that there are many who have actually made it out of the homosexual lifestyle. After all, no matter how hard an African-American may try, they can't get away from the color of their skin.) As much as people want to say that such battles in the culture war are going away (and being replaced by more important issues like the economy), this aggressive nature of Obama's homosexual rights agenda should have conservatives, and other Christians, taking a fresh look at this issue. The ability to promote "compassion without compromise" continues to be a challenge for those who stand on the moral foundation of Scripture.

3. Federal funding for international abortions: Also, this past week President Obama signed an executive order lifting the ban put in place by former President George W. Bush which didn't allow NGOs to use federal funding for abortion services overseas. The difficulty with this issue, as with all controversial issues, is the use of tax dollars (including my own tax dollars) to finance things to which I am diametrically opposed. The same can be said for those of the liberal bent, concerning their tax money going to those things with which they disagree. Though I can't speak for the issues that are dear to the liberals' heart, I can say categorically, I don't want President Obama employing any means of taking the lives of innocent babies. And I certainly don't want him using my money to do it.

4. The federal stimulus behemoth: Obama's administration has been working frantically with congressional leaders to put together a stimulus package that they can roll out ASAP. (In fact, his transition team presumptively attempted to have the pieces in place so that Obama could sign it into law on the very first day of his inauguration.) If this administration gets its way, the dark cloud of debt that we are currently living under will become darker still. Not to mention the various entities in this country who the politicians have determined are deserving of our federal dollars. (There is a belief, for example, that groups like ACORN, the scandal-plagued voter registration organization which provided much of the infrastructure for Obama's presidential campaign, will benefit from the economic stimulus package.) In reflecting on this attempt by the government to print our way out of this mess, I heard a caller this week make a very astute observation. He asked why people get so up in arms when it comes out that a company, or CEO, is mispending money (to buy a corporate office, or redecorate an office, etc.), and yet, we trust the government to spend our money appropriately? Great question! Just another one of the many ironies of our plight which seem to escape us.

And so, we find ourselves, as ESPN's Chris "back...back...back...back" Berman has said, rumbling and stumbling our way into this brave new world of Obama's making. And this is just the first week. I can only hope and pray that someone will be willing and courageous enough to throw up a speed bump, lest we head too far down a path from which we cannot turn back.

One final thought: Having talked with many of you who read The Daily Detour, I know there are those of you who are not as interested in the political commentary here as you might be in some of the other offerings. I understand that, which is why I attempt to bring some variety to the posts. That said, as we all know, politics affects virtually every aspect of our lives. And with increasing government intrusion, the government's tenacles are reaching further still. For as John Adams wrote in 1765, "The jaws of power are always open to devour." It is because of this inevitable tendency that we must continue to protect our liberty with the "eternal vigilance" that Wendell Phillips spoke of. And vigilance comes through education and action. We slumber at our peril.

(I will be posting much more on these critical issues very soon, including the implications of Obama's "Peace on Terror". In the meantime,TyKef's blog raises some compelling questions and contrasts that warrant our attention.)

UPDATE: Dennis Miller captured the American's dilemma under Obama when he said, "Just because we're not terrorists doesn't mean we're bad people." :) It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Loving my warm, fuzzy Jesus bear

As I mentioned last Friday I had the privilege on Saturday of participating in an apologetics symposium up in Lafayette, Indiana. It was sponsored by the Covenant Institute, and Saturday's conference was part of a series of events that they co-sponsored with some of the Christian student organizations at Purdue University. Friday night was the opening event in which Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason spoke to an audience of 1000+ people. And then on Saturday he presented two other talks, which, combined with our breakout sessions, made for a very beneficial experience for all of those in attendance. It was good to be able to participate, to chat with Greg a little bit about apologetics and my own ministry direction, and to be challenged by those who came out on Saturday. All-in-all, a long, but fulfilling day. :)

In my own sessions, I was encouraged by the number of people who attended, desiring to more deeply consider the fundamental question about the reliability of Scripture. Can we really trust the Bible as an historical document? (I'll be sharing more about that session later.) 

For now, I wanted to bring to your attention an idea that Greg Koukl shared in his afternoon session. He spoke on the subject, "Taking Jesus Seriously". The premise of his talk was that we all (Christians and even most non-Christians) tend to have a very positive view of Jesus Christ. For many people He is held in high esteem (even if Christians are not--much like the message of the bumper sticker, "Jesus, save us from your followers"). Given His perfect nature, He is often used as the standard for how we should live and treat people. And both sides often utilize the model of Jesus in this way. Pick an issue--and to make it simple, we can highlight homosexuality (Evangelical Christians emphasize His justice and the punishment of sin, saying that Jesus would "love the sinner, but hate the sin". On the contrary, homosexuals would argue that is precisely because we are called to "love our neighbor as ourself," that homosexuality is acceptable to Jesus, and therefore, homosexuals should be embraced likewise by other people.) No matter the issue, everyone wants Jesus on their side and employs their positions accordingly to make it so.

But as Greg emphasized, we may love Jesus (or, the idea of Jesus), but we don't take Him seriously. And while it may be easy for evangelical Christians to point the finger at those outside the Church as being the ones who embrace this mentality, we must honestly admit that we are just as much at fault. We like the idea of Jesus, the big lovable teddy bear, who loves everyone and is there for us to give a big squeeze whenever we're in need. But what if there are some things that He actually wouldn't find acceptable in our lives?

This notion of the loving Jesus who unconditionally accepts us all is very attractive in our culture (and world) today. Those who embrace the pluralistic assumption that everyone who is sincere in their beliefs can take any road to God may find themselves stuck in the unavoidable reality of sin and its consequences. The resistance of any concept of sin is understandable. We want to promote diversity and embrace tolerance of everyone's perspectives. And thus, the reality of absolute Truth is undermined to the point of appearing extinct.

Greg pointed out the significant problem which results. We may like Jesus, but we don't like sin. And Jesus' role for even coming to earth was that of Savior, to save us from sin. But if the moral relativists (and pluralists) are right, and there is no absolute Truth (no moral law to which we are all held accountable), then there is no "sin". And if there is no sin, then there is no need for a Savior. Jesus becomes just another human being, like any of us. He has no, nor should he have any, moral status that is any higher than anyone else's. Beyond that, any one of us could have died on a cross in an attempt to save humanity.

And yet, Jesus was (and is) different. He is perfect, and his moral example is unexcelled in human history. Jesus Himself claimed to come as the Messiah, the Savior of humanity. And as such, He made no attempt to lessen the reality of sin. So for those of us who want to try to water down the notion of sin, and yet, maintain a high regard for Christ, the tension is unavoidable. It is this basic idea to which I commented previously when referencing C.S. Lewis' observation that Christ did not leave us the ability to ride the fence.

Yes, we can love Jesus. He wants that from us. But we can't truly love Him, if we don't also take Him seriously. In Galatians 5:11, the apostle Paul talks about "the offense of the Gospel". And indeed, as I pointed out in my session, the idea of extolling one Truth over others is very offensive, particularly in our pluralistic society, in large part because of the parameters that inherently come with such a claim and the moral demands that are placed on our lives. But as Philip Yancey wrote in his excellent book, The Jesus I Never Knew, "How would telling people to be nice to one another get a man crucified? What government would execute Mister Rogers or even Captain Kangaroo?"

As much as I loved Mister Rogers, Jesus was no Mister Rogers. There are many of us who want Jesus. But I wonder, do we want all of Him? What would happen, for example, if we actually took God at His Word? The implications would be life-changing! 

Our little superheroes

I wanted to put up just two of the latest pictures of our little munchkins. The boys met up with "the real" Batman at the Children's Museum on Saturday.

Here are Mark, Andrew, and Caleb standing tall with The Dark Knight, ready to vanquish evil villains.

  And the first official smiling picture of Emma. Any more like that and the boys had better watch out!

Hope you all had a good weekend. Lots more to come Monday and the rest of this week, including an assessment of Obama's first week in office and a very important birthday celebration coming up. Stay tuned!

The nagging question no one is asking...

Amidst the coronation (even in many cases, the virtual deification) of Barack Obama and his many promises of government-engineered salvation for all, there is that underlying question. It is a very legitimate question that no one (particularly those of the liberal bent) dares ask. But columnist Ben Shapiro addresses it in his recent column:

"What will happen when government fails?"

Indeed, an honest look at the government's track record of genuinue success is tough to swallow. And we'd all do well to chew on that tough gristle for a bit as we contemplate the future under our new president.

Covenant Institute apologetics symposium

If you've found your way to the new 'Speaking Schedule' page on the blog, you may have noticed that I'll be up in Lafayette, Indiana tomorrow to participate in an apologetics symposium. It is part of a larger event in which the Covenant Institute is bringing in Greg Koukl (from Stand to Reason) and a group of us to address a variety of Christian worldview and apologetical issues.

My particular topic is, "Bible Reliability: Can we really trust the Bible?" If you've been following the blog over the last month or so, you know that this is a critical issue that can induce some passion on both sides of the subject. And for the Christian especially the question of Scripture's reliability provides the cornerstone of our faith. So if you haven't look into it for yourself, I would highly recommend taking some time to study it further. (I'm hoping to bring more of the content from my presentation to the blog in the coming days.)

Anyway, it should be a great day. There is an open invitation to any of you within traveling distance of Lafayette (home of Purdue University--included just as a point of reference, not because of any allegiance. I grew up in I.U. country...demonstrating once again that The Daily Detour can bring together in community, if not unity, people of different allegiances. :). For more information or directions to the event, visit the Covenant Presbyterian Church website.

New TDD look and feel

We've taken the first step to upgrade The Daily Detour site a little bit in order to give you better access and more content. (NOTE: You can click on the big TDD logo at the left for immediate access to the blog.) Hopefully, you will find the changes to be positive as you adjust to the modified format. There are some additional tweaks that still need to be made, which we're planning to address next week. In the meantime, hopefully these changes will make your TDD experience that much better.

If you have any questions (or especially, any suggestions for greater usability, etc.) regarding the site, please be sure to let me know. I know your time is valuable and it continues to humble me that you would think there is something here worth sticking around for. I really appreciate it. Have a great day!

"Life: Imagine the potential."

Today is the 36th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision which officially legalized abortion in this country. I have said, and will continue to say, much on this blog about that crucial issue. But today I simply want to bring this very creative ad from CatholicVote.com to your attention. Simple, yet powerful, it stands as a reminder that there is more than one way to engage on controversial issues. We can still stand firmly for our convictions but do so in a manner of civility which may actually persuade others toward our positions.

And more importantly, it reminds us, that every unborn life has unimaginable potential. Imagine the potential if we actually embraced that idea!

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt over at Townhall.com brings another challenging perspective on this tragic anniversary.

UPDATE: NBC refused to air this ad during Sunday's Super Bowl.