The Daily Detour

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.

A tribute to Haitian missionary

As I mentioned earlier this past week, my good friend, Jeanne Acheson-Munos, was killed in the earthquake in Haiti. And her husband, Jack, was seriously injured and is recovering in a Miami hospital. When I heard about her death, I wrote a brief letter to the editor to The Indianapolis Star as small tribute to Jeanne and Jack's dedication to the Haitian people.

The editor saw fit to publish the letter in today's paper. My hope, as I wrote in the letter, is that we can admire Jeanne's self-sacrificing approach to life, and hopefully, follow her example as we have opportunity.

Healthcare hanging in the balance of the Bay State

Perhaps hidden among the rubble of the Haitian earthquake is a different kind of potentially earth-shattering upset in Massachussetts. Today is the special election between Democrat candidate Martha Coakley and Republican challenger Scott Brown. They are battling to see who will fill the seat held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Massachussetts has become as blue as it comes with the Kennedy dynasty firmly established there for generations. Which is why, until just recently, the victory of Martha Coakley was all but assumed. Not so anymore. Scott Brown gave a strong performance in the final debate and was closing the gap in the polls. He has since passed Coakley in the polls, and at last count was ahead of her by 5 points, 51-46%.

Why is this particular special election so significant? Because this election is about more than just Coakley or Brown. For many, it is being seen as a kind of referendum on what is happening on the healthcare debate that has been taking place in Congress over the past few months. President Obama's signature issue was moving through the legislative process (often being pushed through at times by the Democrat majority). And if Coakley wins, then the Senate majority stands at 60 seats, which further ensures that it is filibuster-proof, and the process continues at a steady rate.

If, on the other hand, Scott Brown pulls an upset and takes the seat, the Republicans would have just enough votes to further stymie what more and more people see as a piece of bad legislation.

The sheer irony of this situation in Massachussetts today is that it was Sen. Kennedy who was most fervently spearheading the push toward universal healthcare. And it may just be "his" seat which prevents it from happening.

Finding God in Haiti's tragedy

As you know by now, Haiti was hit by a major earthquake earlier this week. Since then, President Obama has been very committed to ensuring that American forces and relief agencies are working overtime on the frontlines in providing the necessary aid to this devastated area. As the relief efforts continue, the early projections are that over 50,000 people may have lost their lives.

Many of us may know people who have been affected by this tragedy. I personally have friends who live and/or have been working down in Haiti. I've had the privilege of ministering down there in 1988 and 1998 as a part of the Free Methodist Church. During that most recent trip in '98, I worked alongside Jack and Jeanne Acheson-Munos. They have since gone back to Haiti as full-time missionaries, to work along with our other close friends, Greg and Gail Ennis (with whom we just had dinner last Friday evening).

During the most recent update I received from the Free Methodist World Missions Department, it was reported that Jack Munos was stuck under the rubble for over six hours. He has suffered multiple broken bones and has since been flown to Guantanamo Bay for surgery and on to Miami. Unfortunately, Jeanne (pictured here) has yet to be found, as are a few other FM missionaries. The situation is dire.

This is just one of the countless stories of both American citizens and Haitian nationals who have been affected by this catastrophe. And the inevitable question is, "Where is God in all of this?" Reconciling natural disasters with the notion of a loving God is difficult at best. We can blame it all on God, or simply chalk it up to the natural order of things, depending on our beliefs. As much as we may want to blame God, it is difficult to know how to deal with these kinds of unbelievable tragedies without God.

I was listening to Dennis Miller's radio program today where they were discussing these very issues. He admitted that he was struggling with this question as well. A caller from Arkansas called in and made the point that we often talk about these kinds of things as being "an act of God." He suggested that we should instead be acknowledging that this kind of tragedy is an act of nature. An act of God, on the other hand, is how we respond to this tragedy. Interestingly, the caller's perspective seemed to resonate with Dennis and he acknowledged that "it gave him a toehold" for beginning to reconcile where God is in a place like Haiti.

There will be ample time to conjecture, and many people have already begun their analysis into the meaning of this tragedy. For now, it is imperative that those of us who are inclined to pray, continue to lift up all of those affected by the earthquake. And all of us can look for ways to offer assistance in what will be a massive relief effort.

UPDATE: One of our TDD readers passed along this information about how you can help: Compassion International, United Methodist Committee on Relief, former President Bill Clinton's foundation, and this article over at FOX News provides some of the means of support. Thanks for the heads-up, Emily. Also, here is a link to the Free Methodist World Missions.

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.

Speaking at Grace Church

Just wanted to let you all know that I'll be speaking at Grace Church in Mooresville this Sunday, on the topic "ReThink Church". It's a sermon intended to challenge our assumptions about what it means to be the Church today and broaden our understanding of how to make a difference in our world.

If you're in the neighborhood and want to stop in, be sure to come on over. The services times are 9:30 and 11:00 a.m. For more information and directions, click here.

Hope to you see you there.