Sith vs. Jedi

Star Wars is my favorite movie of all time. I remember very vividly seeing the movie on a Sunday afternoon when I was six years old. My family saw the movie at Cobb Center theater and it rained while we were in the theater. That night at church I told all my friends about the movie. It made an impression.

In the original trilogy I was amazed by the Jedi. They were a cross between wizards and Samurai. A mixture of knights and magic re-wrapped in a sci-fi setting. I wanted to be Luke Skywalker and pilot a X-wing. The Jedi were the good guys. But early on there were a few disturbing things about the Jedi. In The Empire Strikes Back we learn that the Jedi are truth challenged. Obi wan lied to Luke about his father. In Return of the Jedi, we find out that for the Jedi truth is a matter of perspective. But those were minor concerns. The Jedi were cool.

Then came the revisionist history of the Prequels. I was actually excited when the announcement was made for the movies. We would finally see the power of fully trained Jedi at the height of their power. Unfortunately we also got Jar-Jar (a member of a race that can manipulate energy fields, but cannot master proper communication). From the prequels we learned some significant truths about the Jedi. Truths that led me to root for the Sith.

The Jedi live in a world of moral relativism. Truth does depend upon the point of view in their world. They do not wish to eliminate the Dark Side, only to bring balance to the force. They can not possess anything, but are supposed to give up everything. They take monastic vows and purge themselves of anger. They fight only to protect and defend. What a happy, fuzzy world - galactic hippies.

Arrogance blinded them it did. Qui-jon could have saved the Jedi a great deal of trouble had he heeded the council's warnings about training Anakin. Obi wan could have prevented a great deal of strife by saving Anakin's mother at the first convenient opportunity. Instead a small child is told, "Hey, let her go. Get used to it. It's the Jedi way to abandon family. Don't make attachments."

Perceptive they were not. The Jedi were so confident in their abilities that they let Dooku roam free for years. They could not detect the presence of a powerful Sith Lord right in their midst. And they didn't know they had a contract for an army of clones built from a questionable character.

Also consider: The only one who ever told the truth to Luke was Lord Vader. Obi wan lied to him. Fear and anger are only on the Dark Side. However, Obi wan looked somewhat angry when he avenged his master's death. Mace Windu was not calm and collected when he faced Darth Sidious. Yoda yielded to his anger during his fight with Darth Sidious - it was the only way he could hold his own. It was a Sith Lord that destroyed the Emperor, saved the last Jedi and brought balance to the force.

I deal in absolutes. Fear, anger, aggression - these are a part of being an SEC fan. Romance, passion and relationships are not a part of the Jedi handbook. Thus, no way I want to be a Jedi. Sith also understand true human nature. Plus, Sith were represented with Dark Chocolate M&Ms. Sith costumes are far better - I prefer black over earthtones. And who wouldn't want to shoot lightning from their hands?

So, join me on the dark side. We have cookies.

The Right to Vote

The founding fathers of our nation were well aware of the limits of a popular democracy. Rule by popularity was savagely criticized by top philosophers and thinkers across Europe. The founding fathers were aware of these criticisms and even shared these concerns. The uneducated and unproductive would vote for the candidate that would promise the most. Political leaders would be more concerned about pleasing the populace than in making the difficult decisions required to establish a fledgling nation. These fears would later blossom in the midst of the French Revolution.

The founding fathers wanted to guard against rule by the lowest common denominator. Originally, only white males who owned property could vote. In their world view these were the only responsible, intelligent men who could reasonable determine the course of the nation. And yes, they were wrong. But maybe only about their critirea.

The right to vote should not be limited according to race or gender. However, I am beginning to wonder if everyone should vote. There are people who will believe everything that they see or hear (how else does the Weekly World News and MSNBC stay in business). There are people who will believe every promise that politicians offer. They have no understanding of how government actually works. They believe the promise of free money, free energy and prosperity simply by the legislative decree. Just pass a law and health care will be free, cars will run on rainbows and global warming will disappear. These people should not be permitted to vote. However, at the moment there is no idiot detector to prevent them from entering the voting booth.

Here are some signs, though, of people who would do us all a favor by staying home in November:
If you choose a candidate based on a sign in someone's yard or if a bumper sticker will sway your vote, then don't vote.
If the opinion of an actor, singer or celebrity is the determining factor for choosing a candidate, stay at home.
If your understanding of history is limited to Oliver Stone films, have a movie marathon, but don't vote.
If you think that blogs are the only source of reliable news, then stay at home and monitor them.

As citizens we have a responsibility to examine the qualifications and convictions of the candidates. We should weigh that information against our own convictions and beliefs. We should choose the candidate that we (not the media) think will accomplish the goals that fit our worldview. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then you have a responsibility to stay at home on election day.

Shocking Oil News

In the movie Casablanca (one of the truly classic films), Captain Renault (Claude Rains) is ordered by a German officer to close Rick's Cafe. Rick (Humphrey Bogart) asks on what grounds Renault is closing the cafe. Renault responds that he is shocked to find gambling occurring at the establishment. At that very moment Emil the croupier (Marcel Dalio) hands a wad of cash to Renault and says, "Your winnings, sir." Renault thanks Emil and continues to clear out the cafe.

A similar moment keeps occurring in the media and in the halls of Congress. Media pundits and Congressmen are shocked that oil executives are making record profits. I am not thrilled with high gas prices, but I am not surprised that oil companies are making money. To my knowledge there are no oil companies that have filed declarations that they are non-profit organizations. The executives of oil companies have one job - to make money for their share holders. If they cannot accomplish that mission, then they will lose their jobs. So, as the demand for oil increases and the supply diminishes, the cost of oil is going to increase and those who deal in it will make a profit. That is basic economics.

Before joining campaigns against oil companies, there are few facts that should be kept in mind. One barrel of oil does not equal a barrel of gas. Oil is used to create a variety of products - motor oil, home heating oil, plastics and other synthetic products. That is why selected boycotts of gasoline are silly. The boycotts hurt the station owners who are often struggling to survive, but have no effect on oil executives. The oil companies are too diversified to be hurt by any gas boycotts.

One further thought - home heating oil also comes from those expensive barrels of oil. This is an issue primarily for the Northeast. In all the condemnation of SUVs, why hasn't anyone brought up the issue of home heating oil? How efficient are the heating systems that use oil? What is their carbon footprint? Why not electric heat instead of oil? If the use of home heating oil was reduced, what impact would that have on the production of gas? One reason these questions are not asked is because there are many influential politicians who are in the home heating oil business. While the media is quick to point their fingers at the connection between Bush, Cheney and the oil companies, they are slow to point out the connection between the Kennedys and the heating oil business.

New solutions are needed to the oil crisis. The truth is, though, that government will not provide the solution. The closet socialists, feigning shock that a corporation in a market economy is making a profit, want to play Robin Hood. The only real solution that will emerge will come from inventors and entrepreneurs (for example - electricity replaced gaslight).

The Pope and God

It has been amazing watching the news this week. The visit of the Pope has overshadowed the presidential election! The last great supreme monarch has garnered more press than the free election of the next leader of our country. It is amazing that a religious monarch, remember that the Vatican is a country, whose authority extends over all members of the Roman Catholic church enjoys great attention from a supposedly secular nation.

This week it has been exceedingly easy to know which newscasters are Catholic. Most will identify their faith in conjunction with their coverage of the Pope, but it is hardly necessary. Most of them gush with glee over the arrival of their Holy Father. One female newscaster gleefully stated that it was like God coming to visit. I am not sure if her reaction is due to the faulty thinking of a celebrity worshipping society or the result of Catholic indoctrination. Either way it is disturbing. I am not a Catholic hater, a good many of them are Christians. But if people get God and the pope confused, then the pope is a stumbling block. (A side note - Protestants must be careful in leveling judgment against the Pope. We often elevate certain pastors to a celebrity level that rivals the Pope). I don't think the problem is the elevation of the Pope, though it is a contributing and misplaced sentiment; the real problem is total misunderstanding of the True and Living God.

Change and the Church

Every decade there is some new movement that seeks to revitalize the local church. Some of these movements are a welcome relief while others are a wicked poison. Often the movements are not anything new, just a repackaged version of an older attempt at reform. Change is often the mantra of these movements and they are proclaimed as a panacea for the church. The doctrines of such movements should always be the first thing examined. The popularity of a movement is not an indicator of validity. Fascism has been very popular at times, but that does not mean it is a correct political approach. Animism has had more adherents than any modern religion, but we know it is not the correct religious approach. After theology, practice should be the next thing examined. Does the movement practice what it preaches? Does it encourage correct ethical behavior among its adherents? These would seem to be obvious concerns, but it is amazing how many people follow modern pied pipers who publish and profess lies.

We are constantly told about how we can better do church. Often the methods do not require any change of theology and only minor changes in practice. However, there are still troubling elements that often emerge from these movements. Why do modern churches feel the need to criticize traditional churches? Emergent and missional churches are quick to call traditional churches judgmental and insincere. Is the name calling not an indication that they are no different? They are quick to judge those who prefer to dress well for church - apparently sloven dress is intended to bring us closer to God. The problem is not the style of worship, but the aim and source of worship.

The goal of any church service should be to glorify God. Ultimately this cannot be done by human methods and means. The Holy Spirit must be the source of true worship. Only when God enables us to worship can we truly worship. If God is not the object of our worship, worship becomes a deluded form of entertainment. If God does not initiate worship, then we end up pursuing our own ideals of God and create idols in our image. These dangers exist in all churches, whether they are traditional, emergent or missional. Change is not the solution nor is it necessarily the problem. We must worship God in Spirit and in Truth.

Pope Benedict the Evangelist

Well, evangelist may be a stretch. The Pope has caused some confusion among the media and anger among Islamic advocacy groups by baptizing a Muslim convert during his Easter services. The Muslim man in question, Magdi Allam, has been critical of Islam and a supporter of Israel's right to exist. The conversion is not a surprise, only the manner in which the conversion took place. Media pundits are scratching their heads because the Vatican has been pursuing better relations with the Islamic world. This would seem to be a move in the wrong direction, politically speaking. That is because they do not understand the Papacy nor do they understand the difference between Christianity and Islam.

First, the Pope is still the Pope. He does not care about Media opinions. The Pope is still the last great, powerful Monarch in the world. His word is law and is not formed by focus groups or opinion polls.

Second, baptism and Easter are a good fit. Baptism is the outward expression of the true impact of the Resurrection. As a Protestant I would be the first to point out that the Catholic Church has added more to the act of Baptism than was intended, but even for the Catholic Church it remains an important act of identification with Christ.

Third, Benedict has affirmed, perhaps indirectly and unintentionally, that Christianity and Islam are ultimately incompatible. We can coexist, but that does not mean that we think we are equals. Christianity and Islam claim to be the only true faith. Since both faiths make contradictory faith claims, only one can be right. Magdi Allam was not fine where he was at (as a Muslim). He needed Jesus and has come to Christ as Savior. This is more than changing clubs or choosing a new baseball club to root for. Allam has acknowledged that Islam was insufficient to meet the ultimate need of man. Allam knows that only Jesus can truly make him whole.

I do not foresee a new wave of revivals breaking out across the world, nor do I expect to see Benedict leading a new throng of evangelists. However, I celebrate any time a man surrenders to Christ and rejoice in any opportunity to proclaim the Gospel.

Happy Easter!

Is Huckabee good for Evangelicals?

At this time I am not sure who I will support for president. I had hoped that Fred Thompson would make a decent run - the last actor elected president was very good for America. Unfortunately, Thompson's campaign has been mismanaged from the beginning. Though he is the most consistent conservative of the group running, it is highly unlikely that he will get the Republican nomination. So, I have been looking for a new horse to back. Unfortunately, the field looks pretty anemic.

Why not Mike Huckabee? He is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. I should identify with him and support one of my own. The media expects evangelicals to lock step with the SBC candidate without question. But I do have questions.

Southern Baptists are not uniform in belief or practice. There are many who use the title the Southern Baptist, but their beliefs are far from mine. Jimmy Carter is a faithful member and Sunday School teacher in an SBC church. (A quick explanation is needed here. Carter has renounced being a Southern Baptist, but that move revealed his ignorance. Only churches are members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Further, the Convention only technically exists during the few days it convenes in June to conduct denominational business. After the convention, denominational entities are responsible to carry out the will of the Convention. Individuals are members of the local church. Though Carter may not claim to be Southern Baptist, he is still a member of a Southern Baptist Church - though that church is also aligned with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). All that is to say, there is still a great deal of diversity among Southern Baptists.

I have never heard a sermon by Mike Huckabee. His previous churches will not post or release his past sermons. However, there are media claims that he was more of a moderate Baptist. Huckabee himself participated in a liberal Christian reconciliation effort sponsored by Mercer University, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the CBF (SBC leadership was not invited). Huckabee later pulled out because it was more political than he had expected.

Still, a moderate Southern Baptist is better than a Mormon or a secular candidate, right? Not necessarily. My largest concern about Huckabee came in an interview he did right before the Iowa Caucus. In the interview he stated that he was an agent of change and that he was comparable to Barack Obama. How are they alike? Both are engaged in populist rhetoric. They are both willing to say what people want to hear. Perhaps Huckabee's reference to being like Obama only meant that he was the underdog candidate that was not handpicked by the party machine. Still, populist often means appealing to the lowest common denominator, not well reasoned principles and standards.

Is Huckabee the best candidate? Is his candidacy good for Southern Baptists and evangelicals? One concern is that if he were elected many evangelicals would sit back thinking that American politics had swung back to the good old days and relax their efforts to effect social change. That alone is not a reason to vote for or against Huckabee, but it does add something to the pot.

I doubt that Huckabee will get the nomination. He scares the daylight out of the normal political establishment, both left and right. That is good. While I still have questions about Huckabee for president, there are many positives to his campaign. He has certainly helped to make the current election cycle interesting.