The Daily Detour

"Cash"ing in on the power of the internet

(First of all, friends, sorry for the lengthy delay. I've been under the gun with some speaking engagements and writing deadlines, on top of everything else... Thanks for your patience.)

We've all heard and seen the power of technology--especially the internet, but it's not always easy to measure. Certainly, the expert utilization of internet potential helped rocket Team Obama to the White House (and this potential for political power was first demonstrated by the short-lived presidential aspirations of Howard Dean in 2004). But it's not always easy to fully appreciate the power of the internet until your the one who downloaded the 10 billionth (with a "B") song on iTunes.

That's what happened to Louie Sulcer, of Woodstock GA, this week when he downloaded Johnny Cash's hit song, "Guess That's the Way Things Happen". Not only did Louie get that unlikely distinction, but he also got a personal call from Steve Jobs, as well as, the $10,000 prize money for the "iTunes 10 Billionth Song" contest. He said he couldn't believe that it was actually the Apple CEO on the phone, but they ended up talking for a while.

The internet, as with any powerful tool, has the power to influence positively or negatively. And it is reshaping the world at lightning speed. The Church is beginning to recognize the potential of using this medium for influencing the world with the Gospel. But there is much untapped potential. For the internet brings your neighbor right to your front door, no matter where they live.

Just ask Louie Sulcer. Who da' thought he'd be talking on the phone with Steve Jobs? :) And to think that Mr. Sulcer is 71 years old. Who says new technology is for those young whippersnappers?

Love is in the air this Valentine's Day weekend

...and for Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher it's been in the air for a long, long time. At ages 104 and 102 respectively, Herbert and Zelmyra were married in May of 1924 and have enjoyed 86 years of wedded bliss.

In our current age of starter marriages and "irreconcilable differences" it's refreshing to see two people whose committed love for eachother has stood the test of time. Herbert and Zelmyra serve as a wonderful example to those of us who are navigating our way through marriage.

And to top it all off, the Fishers are tweeting. That's right, they have a Twitter account (@longestmarried) and are offering their time-tested advice to other couples over the Valentine's Day weekend. So, if you have a question, the love Drs. are in the house. :)

Captain America vs. the Tea Parties

Marvel Comics has issued an apology for their derogatory depiction of the tea party crowd in recent Captain America issue #602 comic book. Since World War II, Captain America has been standing firmly against evils in the world. And now, it seems like the self-proclaimed Tea Party patriots are the target of his condemnation. To put the Tea Partiers in the same league as the Nazis (in the 40's), flag-burners (in the 60's) and now white supremacists (with whom the Tea Party protesters were associated). Should we be surprised? Hardly.

C'mon, Capt. America, really? How far we've come...

More on the crusade against the "Tebow Super Bowl ad"

Yesterday, I posted on the much-talked-about Tim Tebow ad that was broadcast during last night's Super Bowl. The Washington Post has an article that amusingly reacts to the ad controversy...that wasn't. They link to the counter ad put together by Planned Parenthood. This ad, put out prior to the Super Bowl to try to preempt the deeply offensive Focus on the Family ad, shows former professional football player, Sean James, and Olympic gold-medalist, Al Joyner, talking about why joined Planned Parenthood in putting out the ad to counter the message of the Tebows. While they offer the obligatory comment about respecting Mrs. Tebow's decision, they want to protect every woman's right to choose.

Interestingly, Al Joyner states in the ad, "I want my daughter to live in a world where everyone's decisions are respected." This is ironic coming from Planned Parenthood, given the fact that their over-reaction to Pam Tebow's decision seems to promote anything but "a world where everyone's decisions are respected."

We saw this same irony in the vitriolic reaction by Planned Parenthood and other feminist organizations to Sarah Palin's decisions concerning her career and her choice to not terminate her disabled child, Trig. It seems to me that if we truly respected everyone's decisions, then these women and these ads like the Tebow ad would, at the very least, be non-issues. Or, at most, those women's groups who supposedly suggest that women's choices should be respected, would actually applaud the courageous decisions that such women make.

The truth is, we have come to place in our culture where the most strident advocates of tolerance have become increasingly intolerant of those opinions, perspectives, and choices that do not conform to their own. That is the nature of what I have described here often as "the tyranny of tolerance".

The other truth is that these women's groups have revealed their true colors where the choices of conservative women are concerned. They say they want to protect women's right to make decisions for their lives, but the truth is, they don't--if those women are making choices that they disagree with. This hypocrisy undermines the credibility of their pro-women message. And it is a hypocrisy that is obvious to everyone but those who have been blinded by it.

UPDATE: Politics Daily and the Daily Finance talk about the perfectly clever pump fake by Tebow & Co. Score one for the pro-life team in this round.

Tim Tebow in the Super Bowl

Football phenom Tim Tebow is going to be in the Super Bowl...in the broadcast at least. Perhaps you've heard about the growing controversy surrounding an upcoming commercial which alludes to the story of Tim, and more specifically, the decision his mother made to not abort him when she was young and pregnant. The sponsoring organization, Focus on the Family, has said they put the commercial together to let families and parents who are at wit's end know that there is help and hope.

I'm hearing more and more about this commercial by Tebow, so I finally decided to go and look at it on YouTube. Only, I couldn't find it. Why? Because it's not there.

That is what is especially puzzling and surprising about the mounting volume of criticism that is being thrown about by everybody from the National Organization of (some) Women to everyone's favorite pundits on The View. No one else has seen the commercial either. It's like writing review of a movie without actually having watched it.

All of the critics are up in arms for what they think the commercial is going to promote. And even if it does suggest a pro-life message, is there something wrong with that? I was under the impression that this is a free country with the ability to express perspectives that others might not always agree with. So much for being tolerant.

I guess we can watch the Super Bowl and actually see what all the hubbub is all about. 

UPDATE: That's what the fuss was all about?!? Talk about anti-climactic... That is the inevitable problem with presumptive criticism. There is always the possibility of ending up with egg on the face. Of course, all of the critics would never go so far as to admit their missteps. I went over to Focus on the Family's website to watch "the rest of the story" about Tebow. That extended interview with Tim Tebow's parents certainly presents a strong pro-life message. But the Super Bowl commercial was nothing to write home about. And if we start suggesting that any of the TV networks not run commercials from message-driven organizations, where does it stop? There would be very little advertising left. Ironically, the critics did more to draw attention to this issue by vocalizing their criticisms. If they hadn't said a thing, FOTF's website wouldn't be getting nearly the hits.

TDD Poll: Arlen Specter, sexist or not?

It's been a while since I've put a TDD poll out to the audience, but this most recent exchange between Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) and his congressional colleague Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) begs for feedback. The two of them were being interviewed on 1210 AM's Dom Giordano Show in Philadelphia Wednesday morning. During the course of the interview, Sen. Specter got more than a bit testy to the point of telling Rep. Bachmann twice to "act like a lady."

Real Clear Politics has the audio of that portion of the radio show.

Now, here's the TDD question, "What did you think of this exchange between Specter and Bachmann?" Were his remarks out of line? Did she deserve reprimand? What's your take?

Because this exchange comes in a specifically political context, the tendency may be to allow our political beliefs to influence our assessment. Regardless of your political persuasions, I'd like to hear from any of you (especially the females in our readership) as to what you thought of this specific exchange. (In a follow-up interview, Bachmann said she believes this will be the end of Specter in Pennsylvania. What do you think?) 

UPDATE: Sean Hannity sought a comment from Arlen Specter's office, but got no response. Here is Hannity's interview with Rep. Bachmann about the exchange.

What rights do we Americans have?

More importantly, what rights should we have? Evaluating our rights was one of the findings that was revealed in a recent survey by the American Revolution Center. The analysis of the survey is lengthy, but I did want to bring some very interesting findings to your attention for feedback. The question posed to the respondents was, "Is it essential that Americans have the right to [insert name of specific right], important but not esssential, or not that important?" The following represents a summary of the answers to that question (by percentage):

1. The right to a fair trial (Essential = 84%, Important = 14%, Not important = 1%)

2. The right to practice the religion of your choice (Essential = 80%, Important = 18%, Not important = 2%)

3. The right to privacy (Essential = 76%, Important = 22%, Not important = 2%)

4. The right to speak freely about whatever you want (Essential = 70%, Important = 28%, Not important = 2%)

5. The right to practice no religion (Essential = 66%, Important = 23%, Not important = 10%)

6. The right to assemble, march, protest, or petition the government (Essential = 65%, Important = 29%, Not important = 6%)

7. The right to not have your property searched or seized (Essential = 59%, Important = 32%, Not important = 6%)

8. The right to own firearms (Essential = 45%, Important = 35%, Not important = 19%)

So, what do you think? As many people may or may not know, these are the kinds of rights guaranteed every American in the U.S. Constitution. (For the list of the Bill of Rights and the other amendments to the Constitution, click here.) Whatever one may think of them, they are ours and the reasoning behind them is worth revisiting, even in this modern age. We certainly could all use a refresher. :)

A war by any other name...

In yesterday's paper, I happened upon Charles Krauthammer's compelling article about the state of our foreign affairs, specifically related to our efforts fighting against terrorism. With the thwarted terrorist attack on the NW 253 flight on Christmas Day (thanks to the quick-thinking actions of some of the passengers), the ever-present threat of terrorists cut through the noise of the economy, healthcare, and global warming. Obama & Co may be attempting to downplay the threat of terrorism by forgoing the use of the term "War on Terror", providing a civil trial for the 9/11 mastermind, and the like. But, the threat is real. And but for the failure of the bomb to go off, combined with the vigilance of average Americans, we would be talking not about how "the system worked" (as Janet Napolitano asserted in the immediate aftermath), but instead about the Christmas Day massacre.

I've said repeatedly on this blog (including this post from back August 2007 among others) that we must remain vigilant to the clear and present danger of Islamic radicals seeking to destroy our country and way of life. But unfortunately, it is difficult to question how seriously those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are taking the threat. In fact, FOX News is polling with this question, "Are you confident in the Obama administration's ability to battle terrorism?" It's a fair and very legitimate question, given the fact that the jihadists are not passing out party cigars that simply blow up in our face.

Some might question the accusation that Obama is not taking our national security as seriously as he should. Consider for a moment, however, how much political capital Obama has expended on issues like stimulus funding, global warming summits, and most significantly, the healthcare debate. Has he exercised half as much focus on the pressing need? One could strongly argue that he hasn't. In fact, Krauthammer summarizes the feelings of many when he writes,

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face.

Krauthammer goes on to make the fundamental point:

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not...Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

It is the governing philosophy of Obama & Co. that concerns me, where the reality of terrorism is concerned. If the leadership of this country continues to downplay the threats we face, the next time even concerned citizens will not be able to prevent a tragedy on American soil.

Tiger Woods' conversion to Christianity

Brit Hume, commentator on FOX News, just became a national news story for his brief comment on "FOX News Sunday" yesterday that Tiger Woods should convert to Christianity from Buddhism if he hopes to recover from the crisis he has made for himself. Here is the actual text of Hume's comments:

"Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it's a tragic situation for him. I think he's lost his family, it's not clear to me if he'll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal -- the extent to which he can recover -- seems to me to depend on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist; I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'"

It's interesting how much attention Hume's comments have received for his momentary foray into the religious realm. Many people are responding--some very unfavorably--to what he said. On the one hand, it seems as if people feel as though he committed some kind of unforgivable sin by passing any kind of judgement on someone or something. In addition, however, there are a number of people who have extrapolated various interpretations out of what Hume said, seeming to jump to conclusions that he may (or may not) have been implying with his comments.

Beyond all of that, I would suggest that there is another way to evaluate his comments. It seems as I read back over them (and saw the exchange on video) that he is simply making a passing observation about a key theological distinction between Buddhism and Christianity. And it's that distinction that I would draw your attention to.

As Hume said, "I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith." The key question is, "Is he correct in his assessement on that point?"

In fact, he is, because one of the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism is that there is no concept of "sin". As such, then, if there is no sin, then there is no need for forgiveness or redemption. This is one of the major hurdles that Buddhism faces when set against the backdrop of evil in the world. If there is no sin, then we have lost the ability to judge evil and condemn it accordingly.

People will certainly argue about whether or not Buddhism or Christianity (or whatever belief system) is right for Tiger Woods. And they will often cite the inconsistencies lived out by professing Christians as evidence for dismissing the merits of Christianity. As I pointed out in my talk yesterday, however, there are a great many people who claim to be Christians, but claiming something doesn't necessarily make it true. Our actions must back up our words.

Are Christians perfect? Hardly. But that is all the more reason why we need the ability to ask for forgiveness and find the redemption that will ultimately be found in the one who perfectly saves...Jesus Christ. A point that Brit Hume was trying to make in a genuine effort to point Tiger toward the help that he so obviously needs.

UPDATE: As the "controversy" heats up, Brit Hume stands by his comments. On a side note, it's ironic how quickly people assume that someone is proselytizing when the subject of religion comes up...a subject which has become one of the forbidden topics of conversation in the public square of this "tolerant" society.

"ReThink Church"

I was able to speak at Grace Church in Mooresville, Indiana this morning, and had a great opportunity to catch up with a lot of old friends. I spoke on the idea that it is time to "ReThink Church". In essence, the challenge for Christians is to reconnect with God's oirginal vision for what the Church is to be--namely, that it isn't about going to church; it's about being the Church.

One of the themes that I emphasized was the need for Christians to "be holy". That is, to be "set apart", living our lives in a way that is markedly different from the world. As I've shared on here often, it is imperative that Christians pursue a life that is tangibly different because of their Christian faith. Here are just a few highlights for those of you who may not have been there this morning:

In our attempt to be “in the world, but not of the world” we have created a reality in which too many of us are “in the world and of the world”.

George Barna writes in his book, The Second Coming of the Church:  “Most Christians . . . have fallen prey to the same disease as their worldly counterparts.  We think and behave no differently from anyone else. . . . In short, the spirituality of Americans is Christian in name only.”

When we become what Dick Keyes calls, Christian chameleons, “there is nothing to offer the world that the world does not already have.”...

What is “holiness?”

Often it has been defined in a very pharisaical way—that list of “Do’s and Don’ts” that are to be the defining characteristics of the good Christian.

We proudly proclaim, “I don’t drink and chew, and I don’t go with girls that do.” J

But is that really it?

I wonder, for example, if we actually going to see people like C.S. Lewis in heaven? (He smoked and drank regularly.)

Our emphasis on holiness has elicited a harsh reaction from people, in part because of what our version of holiness implies.

But also because we have promoted the concept in a way that is often less than loving.

In fact, it seems we have often come to be known more by what we’re against, than what we’re for. And in doing so, we have created the assumption that only people who live a certain lifestyle are invited into the “Christian club.”

And as a result, people don’t stop long enough to consider the merits of the Christian faith.

Christianity has come to be defined by behaviors.

But it is so much deeper than that.

It centers around TRANSFORMATION.

“If anyone is in Christ,” writes Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17. “ He is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”

And that transformation—that butterfly-like metamorphosis into a new creation—results in our living in a way that is noticeably different from those around us. The way we think, the way we act, the way we interact with others—they are all different.

That is “holy living”. Being set apart…

Who do people see when they see you?

You may the only Jesus that people ever see! 

This last idea is the most significant where Christianity is concerned, because we are called to be Christ's ambassadors in the world. The challenge in this new year is to recommit to pursuing all that God wants of us as we continue to point people toward the hope found in Jesus Christ.