Did the stupidity of much of the dot-com cliche madness drive you insane? Want to laugh about it now?

The other nite someone was lamenting that they did not live up to the standards that they had set up for themselves. I said that they should not beat themselves up about it. My friend Sean suggested that most of us would do well to raise our standards not lower them. This was in reference to walking with Christ i.e. acting more like Him. At least that is how I understood it.

Anyhow, this got me to thinking. What if we were to follow Christ in a more excellent way? What would that look like? This is not a theoretical question but a practical one.

So...I'm taking a survey. What does it look like to follow Christ in an excellent way? If you want to weigh in on this call or send an email. I'll post the results I have in a week or so.

Since Jim's writing about something I said, I should pitch in, don't you think?

The short answer is love. Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love. Our Scriptures say 'God is love.'. Real Christianity should include real, live love, love that is felt to some degree and that is most definitely acted out, not only for God and our 'loved' ones, but for neighbors and enemies, too.

I'll be the first to confess that I don't think my life has a lot of this kind of love in it. I want to grow in this area.

Real Christianity, excellent Christianity, should also include joy. Christianity is supposed to be joyful. How many joyful Christians do you know (who aren't simply in denial)? It's no wonder more people don't want to be like us as killjoy as we often are.

The kind of joy I'm talking about, again, is felt. But it also springs from a deep conviction that God is in charge and that He wants what is best for us. There's a big gap between what I want for myself and what God wants for me/what is best for me. If I want to be onboard with Him, I need to try to close the gap, or at least be willing to give up my version more.

There should be power in Christianity, power for personal change and for loving others in ministry and mission.

God's presence should be palpable periodically (how's that for alliteration!). Part of that presence should include God's guidance.

How's that for starters?

If you think I'm talking about something supernatural here, you're right. And you might think I'm stark, raving mad. But this is the kind of Christianity I distill from the Scriptures, and I'm holding out for it, even though I haven't experienced as much of it as I would like.

By the way, that FotR trailer I've been talking about is awesome. The Pillars of the Kings look amazing. Sir Ian looks great as Gandalf.

You can see some of the changes they've made from the book. If you're OCD about it, like me, you can read The Complete List of Film Changes MAJOR SPOILERS!

I don't mind some of the changes. The change from Pippin dropping a rock down the well in Moria to inadvertantly knocking a dwarf skeleton in isn't a big deal.

But I don't like the first Arwen add - that she helps Frodo at the Ford of Bruinen. If you're going to put here in Glorfindel's role, leave her behind at the Ford with Aragorn. Oh well.

It's all very heroic - gets my blood boiling, inspires me to be a hero.

But do heroes write weblogs? Or do they do something more valuable with their time? I ask this tongue in cheek, but do you get the real critical query underneath? Most heroes train for action so when the time comes, they can act. I don't train to act. I don't train for much. I have trouble staying motivated for such training, thinking it really matters. 'It won't matter if I sleep in this once.'

Or, maybe more, heroes are out doing heroic things right now. They're putting their lives on the line now.

Sure, you can say I can be a hero by doing my job well in Tulsa, being a responsible citizen, raising my children attentively. But I don't know...

Steven raises an interesting question (from Iain): what would we do with Osama bin Laden if we got him?

Daypop looks pretty good (via Blogger). It's a current events search engine that searches weblogs and newslogs.

Their top 40 list includes the Apple Fellowship of the Ring trailer download site that I linked yesterday.

Also appearing, the 3-2-1 Penguins! Shockwave game, Strategic Forcasting's Afghan Theater of Operations, and Star Trek's new series.

Report: U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan

I guess I was more right than I knew when I guessed that the strike force was in motion a little over a week ago. Of course, that only makes sense. Admittedly, I thought we'd have seen more actions by now, eg cruise missiles and the like. But discretion is very valuable right now.

I also guessed special forces were on the ground doing target id. I guess you could say I was partially right on both guesses, but anyone could have been.

Also in military news, Saudi Arabia will allow its ally the United States to launch military action from a U.S. base on its territory against Islamic militant Osama bin Laden

Thinking of The Lord of the Rings inspired me to head over to The One Ring. There I found an interview with Sir Ian McKellan and ! the Apple site to download the new LotR trailer ! (Windows is telling me I have another 2 hours to go for the full size.).

I also learned over there that Enya is doing some of the music for the movies. That's cool. I like Enya, even if my friend Roxanne calls her music 'from the hearts of space'

The Web Today's redesign slipped in under my radar: War, People, and World.

Must see Yahoo Lord of the Rings slideshow!

Liv Tyler looking pregnant (carrying Aragorn's love child? Draw your own conclusions!).

Peter Jackson looking hobbitish.

Sam has the coolest sword.

The amount of CGI this movie must have taken to get shots like this is staggering.

Also found in referrals log: Someone went to Shonen Knife, a Japanese punk band, before they came to my site. Interesting. Best guess: your favorite punk and mine.

Remember when my tagline was 'the way to a man's heart is through his weblog.'? Well, I find a referral pretty often from someone searching for how to win a man's heart or some such thing. Humorous.

This letter from a regular reader I've just met:

Dear Sean...

I've been following (er... "lurking") your blog for months now.

Before this, I've not really had much to say... and even this e-mail
is trivial. But I've always prided myself on my "cross-platform"
ability to understand members of other faiths when they discuss
matters of faith or religiosity.

Must admit, though, that last night's post (Wed 26 Sep) threw me for
a loop: what does it mean to be "seeker driven"; and what is the
"Calvinist/Arminian Distinction", and how does one not subscribe to
it as a pastor?

I'm guessing that being seeker driven has something to do with
proselytes, and that the C/A D has something to do with the
theological differences that entered into the Calvinist theology
post-Arminius.

But as I don't know, I'm asking.

Warmest regards,

sG

PS... "Jon VW" another theologically conservative blogger has an
eponymous site where he occasionally discusses religion from a
Lutheran/English Catholic perspective. Very interesting.

http://www.jonVW.com

My reply:

dear Silus,

thanks for you email. i trust your lurking means my weblog is worth following to you, and i'm glad.

maybe i need to update my post. i definitely used some technical jargon.

'seeker driven' means, like you suspected, putting those who are interested in faith but not yet across the line in the most important position. everything else is sublimated to that goal (to one degree or another). another way of expressing it would be 'having evangelism as the chief goal of ministry and structuring everything accordingly'. 'seeker driven' churches have 'seeker services' on sunday morning because that is prime time - the time a seeker is most likely to come visit church. their services designed to edify believers happen some other time, often wedpms. Willow Creek Community Church is best known for this posture.

i think i simply confused you regarding Calvinism and Arminianism. by C/A D is simply meant the distinction between the two theologies. i think these two views are built on false dichotomies, eg choosing between God's sovereignty/predestination and human free will. i think this is one of those places where the Bible points us to a paradox: God is sovereign and predestines people and human's are completely free to choose whether or not they will follow God and it seems contradictory, but it's simply more than our finite minds can comprehend, and therefore we reconcile it as paradox.

is that any clearer?

Good day. Day off. Home alone. Made coffee. Did a little cleaning. The weather has cooled off.

Want to know what pastors are like here in the States these days? Stats

I would describe myself as Evangelical, though I'd want to clarify terms (as usual).
I am theologically conservative.
I don't subscribe to the Calvinist/Arminian distinction - n/a.
I am not seeker driven, nor is my church, nor my senior pastor. (I think this result on the survey is given the lie, as the analysis points out, since churches aren't growing. At least we're honest about it (and we're growing, besides :-).
My spiritual gifts, given this grid, are teaching and encouragement. More senior pastors need to be leaders. The administration and prophecy results don't surprise me. A lot of pastors do a lot of administration (as opposed to leading, which is more critical). And prophecy can be simply railing against things. As we well know, there are plenty of preachers who do that.
I'm married, have a college (and mastersl/seminary) degree, and am bringing down the average at 29. I have not been divorced.
Our church averages more than 700 people in worship.

Barna is right on in his analysis of the challenges of pastoring. The main things a pastor needs to do are lead, teach, and care.

Most pastors work long hours, are constantly on-call, often sacrifice time with family to tend to congregational crises, carry long-term debt from the cost of seminary and receive below-average compensation in return for performing a difficult job. Trained in theology, they are expected to master leadership, politics, finance, management, psychology and conflict resolution. Pastoring must be a calling from God if one is to garner a sense of satisfaction and maintain unflagging commitment to that job.

Oh yeah, and this post comes to you in preparation for Pastor Appreciation Month. Feel free to appreciate me (kind words, point traffic this way, buy stuff off of my Amazon wishlist, etc. :-).

Israeli Rights Group Slams Israeli Army Violations (via the web today)

I'm starting to get a lot of referrals from Yahoo (where I'm listed as a new weblog), Yahoo search, and Google search. Cool.

It's easy to be overwhelmed by space photos, especially with all of the great pictures coming from Hubble and new observatories earthside. So here's the top 10 Space photos of all time. Must see. If you'll only spare the time for one of these photos, make it the Hubble Deep Field.

Do you know the way to Afghanistan? (also via randomWalks)

Noam Chomsky interview (via randomWalks).

Bin Laden's purpose:

they are fighting a Holy War against the corrupt, repressive, and "un-Islamist" regimes of the region, and their supporters, just as they fought a Holy War against the Russians in the 1980s (and are now doing in Chechnya, Western China, Egypt (in this case since 1981, when they assassinated Sadat), and elsewhere

also:

As for a response, they are, I presume, listening to the foreign leaders, specialists on the Middle East, and I suppose their own intelligence agencies, who are warning them that a massive military response will answer bin Laden's prayers. But there are hawkish elements who want to use the occasion to strike out at their enemies, with extreme violence, no matter how many innocent people suffer, including people here and in Europe who will be victims of the escalating cycle of violence. All again in a very familiar dynamic. There are plenty of bin Ladens on both sides, as usual.

Steven's arguments regarding police actions and wars, though arguing for war, only further persuade me that this ought not to be a war but that we need to protect civil rights, not suspend them. How much damage could these terrorists really do with stepped up action and security against them. I fear that war is not the right posture to take, and that it may only propagate more violence.

BRITISH troops will lead an international coalition alongside America to wage war on Afghanistan in the next 10 days as security and intelligence sources indicated last night that the net was tightening on Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect behind the terrorist attacks on America (via the web today).

Question: If they want to be successful, why is this information in the news?

War in a World Without Borders (via Matt)

This is a good essay which, among other things, examines the difference between war and crime, war and police action. Are we going to proceed as if this were a war (eg, civilian casualties and collateral damage are accpetable), or a crime?

But Bush has also sworn, much more broadly, to eliminate
evil from the world. That is quite a goal.

Yes, too big a goal. I trust Bush was using hyperbole here. However, it points toward the potential for abuse of such goal. We don't want to sign a blank check here, financially or morally.

What if, by "war", he means a broader spectrum of actions -- not just bombing and shooting
but psychological warfare, political and economic warfare, a full
spectrum of everything that the US can do to people or countries,
much as in the Cold War, but even more diffusely and with even less
geographical constraint?

This is surely what is intended, as Rumsfeld's press conference yesterday made clear.

Of course, the history of the CIA suggests
that quasi- and sub-military operations are going on all the time.
But perhaps the point of the present "war" is to massively escalate
that steady background of intervention in other societies, and to
institutionalize it by requiring that every government choose between
openly supporting it and being an object of it.

I don't think this this is the point. However, again, this bread mandate could be so interpreted. We must be cautious as we move forward. 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Add to that the Law of Unintended Consequences, and this baby begins to look like it could produce seriously scary results.

It is good to keep this in mind, because questions of right and wrong
in the aftermath of the east coast attacks can be very complicated.
Who is responsible? One answer is that the people who organized and
executed the attacks are solely and completely responsible, and that
nobody else's actions, right or wrong, have any relevance. Another
answer is that context is everything: the United States, it is argued,
created these extremists and contributed to the oppression and anger
that helped them grow. The proponents of these two answers, it is
fair to say, hate one another. In part they are simply politically
polarized: rightists reflexively supportive of America's pursuit of
its interests versus leftists reflexively opposed. But on another
level their positions are two sides of a coin. The coin arises from
a confusion about right and wrong. We need to distinguish two kinds
of responsibility, moral and practical. The bombers have absolute
moral responsibility for their actions: they committed mass murder.
But that fails to answer some important questions: what could we have
done to keep the disaster from happening, and how can we keep it from
happening again? These latter questions have their moral components,
in that certain policies might be deemed culpably reckless, but they
do not assign moral responsibility for the bombing as such. We are
responsible for our actions in helping to create the context, and they
are responsible for theirs in acting on it.

This analysis of responsibility is right on.

The rest of the article is really long, but I recommend it if you have the time and gumption. Or scan for the parts you find most useful (quick lesson in efficient reading there :-).

My friend, Eric, has a very thoughtful and appropriately nuanced post on his thoughts regarding the war on terrorism.

In fact, you should go read a bunch of stuff over on the good ship Clueless. Specifically, I recommend Parkinson's Law and the size of the Cabinet, layoffs in secondary industry signal long recession, and the importance of maintaining civil liberties in difficult times like these.

Steven analyzed the link I sent him from CDI about the president's military options. He drew very different conclusions.

I have continued to dialogue with Josh about Islam. Maybe I just need to give a rest. I'm certainly no expert. However, there seems to be an environment of noncritical cozying up to Islam in response to hate crimes. I am trying to get a proper understanding of Islam, and I don't trust the most eager people to give it. This is largely a matter of principal for me: proper study and interpretation. So, since I'm not a 'professor' in this case (ie, someone who professes something or professes to know), I should probably just give it a rest. I don't have anything against Islam. I don't think I'm being hateful. Enough for now. (I'm still open to your commentary and concerns.)

Here's another Islamic explanation of jihad. A quote:

Islam however is a religion that sees it its duty and commitment to form an Islamic state. Islam came to reform society and to form a nation and government. Its mandate is the reform of the whole world.
Such a religion cannot be indifferent. It cannot be without a law of jihad. In the same way, its government cannot be without an army. While the scope of Christianity is extremely limited, that of Islam is extremely wide. While Christianity does not cross the frontiers of advice, Islam is a religion which covers all the activities of human life. It has laws which govern the society, economic laws, and political laws. It came to organize a state, to organize a government. Once this done, how can it remain without an army? How can it be without a law of jihad?

Once again, a significant part of Islam is theocracy. The writers of Al Islam may decry suicide and civilian casualties, but their goal is imposition of Islam. Most Christians would confess to the goal of changing society, but I also think most would say Jesus' method was from the inside out, calling people to a different life. Legislating morality does not change people's natures. Jesus wanted a change on the inside that resulted in changes on the outside. The author of this article belittles such ideas.

Jesus says love your enemies. Muhammad says fight your enemies. While Christianity has often done abominable things (say, from a human rights perspective), those things have been false to the ethic of love. When Muslims do abominable things (same context), there is at least some degree to which it is consonant with its core teachings.

Is it time to laugh again yet? It feels like it. This worked for me (via Matt):

Those who cannot remember the plots of the '70s tv shows are condemned to repeat them.

randomWalks linked an interesting, informative article about military options available to the president. My guess is that special forces are on the ground right now doing better target id so they don't have the same problems they've had before blowing up insignificant or politically damaging targets.

Richard Dawkins' invective against religion infuriates me. I understand that he was angry about the attacks. We all were.

His trust in mechanistic evolution requires a far greater leap of faith than religion. He implies that all religious people are fools (we 'fell for [religion]').

I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.

He has gone too far this time. It is a mortal insult to call my dearest conviction 'nonsense'. I am livid.