The biggest objection I hear when I try to sell people on the merits of Twitter: “Twitter’s stupid. I don’t want to know what people had for lunch today.”

Some tweets — er, probably most tweets floating around the internet — are less than edifying, encouraging, or important. On the other hand, there are millions of other tweets every day that are educational, enlightening and inspired. Follow the right people, and you’ve created a personal news stream that keeps you up on the best news of the day and encourages you to live for Christ.

Twitter — like a book, a blog post, a pod cast or a film — is a medium. It has its 140-character constraints that limit it to sound bites and links. But those limitations are also its strength. People can follow and digest vastly more information when it comes in smaller bites. There is great breadth to Twitter. A Tweet can spread like wildfire with a few strategic retweets.

A blog post is better than a tweet for developing a thought. A book is better than a blog post for tying together a whole string of thoughts. But just because those mediums do certain things better, doesn’t mean “Twitter is stupid” and all you can do with it is comment about your PB&J.

We need Christians talking in all platforms. The message of the gospel can be just as powerful in a thoughtful tweet as it is in a 600-word blog post or a 400-page book. It can also spread further, too. Rather than disparaging it, Christians should seek ways they can capture the power in Twitter’s brevity by framing biblical truths in 140 characters.

But don’t take my word for it. John Piper wrote a great blog post Monday explaining why he tweets, in addition to writing books, recording lectures and blogging. The gist: “Tweeting is to preaching as Proverbs is to Romans.”

One uses complex argumentation, another uses the medium of epigrams. But both books are the inspired, life-changing message of God.

There’s hope for Twitter yet.

P.S.: Be sure to follow @Live4Veritas on Twitter for links to Veritas posts, daily encouragement, interesting news and other great stuff. Promise you won’t hear anything about my lunch.

I am at a loss as I write this article. I was planning to continue a series of articles entitled “What if we believed,” but I had to break my own series to get some help understanding a recent political/social network event. Wednesday marked what many news outlets are declaring an historic day. The first ever Twitter based Presidential Debate was held. I agree it was an historic day, but I rank this as an historic low.

In the late 1850’s Abraham Lincoln engaged in a series of debates with Stephen Douglas, discussing the expansion of slavery into newly settled territories. These debates consisted of one participant speaking for an hour, followed by an hour and a half presentation and response from the opponent, with a thirty minute rejoinder allowed for the participant who spoke first. These were not Presidential debates, nor were these Presidential candidates; they hoped to be, and the debates were seen as their hope for party backing. These were just two politicians hoping to be chosen by their party, and their method of self-promotion was protracted debate through multiple venues on a serious and weighty topic.

Today, our presidential candidates debate one another in 140 characters or less.

This is embarrassing. Not for the candidates. Politicians have always been committed to doing what it takes to reach whoever they can.

This is embarrassing for us, the American people, who decide the worth and value of the most powerful man in the world by how little he can say about his position. If you’re an American ally, you have to be scratching your head, thinking surely we have a better way of vetting our global leaders. I know I am.

There are numerous issues which could be addressed, but I would like to find out if I am the only one who finds this ridiculous.

Therefore, in the spirit of our modern effort to make every voice heard, I would love to hear your thoughts on Presidential hopefuls squaring off in the Twitter-verse.

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires public schools to teach kids about the historical contributions of gays and lesbians. Local school districts will be adopting new social studies curriculum as early as the 2013-14 school year.

Supporters say it’s a triumph that makes history books “more honest” and will help curb bullying by making kids more understanding of their classmates.

Opponents equate it with brainwashing, saying it will sanction, normalize and exalt an immoral lifestyle.

So what’s a Christian parent to do? Is it time for a mass exodus toward home schooling?

I’d argue that it’s a time for parents to sit down and think hard about their children’s education — specifically, how they as parents are going to teach gay history.

Christians shouldn’t simply retreat from the topic of the gay rights movement, in the same way we shouldn’t retreat from sex education. While my parents didn’t pull me out of my 9th grade health, public school health class during lessons about birth control and STDs, they also made sure I got a much more comprehensive lesson on the issues from them and my church.

I remember annual True Love Waits all-nighters in the church gym. There were hours of frank — sometimes cringe-worthy — discussions about sex so we teenagers understood about this wonderful, God-given gift and the pitfalls of abusing it.

Combine it with regular Wednesday night youth group sermons on the topic, and it was almost to the point of overkill. But I began to recognize the church as an honest, open source of information on the scientific and biblical facts about sex. The church just covered the issue so much better than the awkward, one-hour lesson in my freshman health class, and I felt equipped to discuss my perspective on sex with people who felt differently about it.

Churches should look at this new California law as an opportunity to do one better. Rather than ignoring history, Christian parents should educate themselves about the key developments in the gay rights movement so we’re not blindly lashing out at a nebulous “cultural shift.” They should be prepared to take the lessons their children are learning, and parlay them into meaningful discussions about the biblical perspective on homosexuality.

Perhaps churches can teach gay history, in the same way churches host lectures about Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witnesses — so important developments aren’t missing.

But before that, parents should take an active role in how this curriculum takes shape. Local districts will be deciding over the next year or two which textbooks end up in classrooms. Parents should talk to teachers, school board members and administrators and take an active role in reviewing the curriculum. How will the lessons be framed? In which grade will they be introduced? What dates are the lessons taking place? All these are still open questions under the new law.

I think pulling kids out of public school should be a last resort, not a first resort. The first resort should be preparing kids who can respond to the mixed messages they’ll face for the rest of their life from peers and the media. Some parents might decide one or all of their children aren’t mature enough to sort out those mixed messages just yet; I respect their choice to keep their children in a private school or at home until that changes.

I hope Christians seize this new law as an opportunity to better understand and biblically, graciously respond to the cultural changes of the gay rights movement. I hope it doesn’t become a public school exodus, because Christian parents and students have something vital to add to this conversation. They have relationships to build within school communities; they have the Gospel to share with fellow moms, dads and classmates.

They have lights to shine.

Where We’ve Been Already

A few months ago we looked at a handful of presuppositions and observations concerning magic and portrayals of magic in film, which can be found here.  To recap, the following points were made:

Presuppositions:

1.  The Bible makes a binding, categorical condemnation of all magic and occult practices, strictly forbidding the direct practice or consultation of any form of witchcraft or wizardry.

“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

“For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord; and because of these detestable things the Lord your God will drive them out before you.

“You shall be blameless before the Lord your God.

“For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do so.

(Deuteronomy 18:10-14; cf. Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:6; Revelation 21:8, etc.)

2.  It is not necessarily sinful for Christians to watch films containing portrayals of sin, including witchcraft and wizardry.

Observations:

 1.  Magical/occult practices are wrong because they are an implicit attempt to gain power and/or authority over, against, or apart from God.

2.  Magical elements in films are usually set in fantastical universes where the supernatural is commonplace or a part of the very fabric of the world of the story (Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia, for example).

 3.  The magic portrayed in most films is far from an accurate portrayal of real-world magical practices.

Using these presuppositions and observations, we will attempt to develop a reasoned and biblical approach.

Of course, in developing a position on any thorny issue like this one we are prone to err on either side of the biblical standard by being too conservative or liberal.  This was an issue dealt with here.  Our goal here is strike the biblical middle ground that is faithful to Scripture while not unnecessarily restrictive or judgmental.  This will require thoughtfulness and nuance.

Seeing the Difference Between Magick and Magic

Before we begin, what exactly are we trying to accomplish here?  If we affirm the first two presuppositions, what are we doing?  There are important nuances in the portrayal of magic that directly effect whether or not we should watch certain films. Thus, while I do not feel burdened to prove the biblical acceptability of watching magic in films, I do want to develop an practical outworking of our previously developed theory. [...]

Surprise, surprise, but I finished this recent New York Times article still staunchly in the monogamy camp. Aside from the fact that extramarital sex is clearly extra-biblical, I can’t see how a couple — Christian or not — could ever be “secure” enough in their relationship to make it an open relationship.

The idea of a marriage where spouses know about and approve of each other’s romantic affairs seems absurd. But this article is worth a read to get an idea of where some of the leading voices in the pro-gay marriage movement stand.

It’s a long profile on one of the nation’s foremost sex/love advice columnists, Dan Savage, a gay man who adopted a son with his husband. They say a series of affairs has strengthened their marriage, and the “open marriage” arrangement is a more realistic approach than monogamy because it acknowledges one person cannot satisfy all of the other’s needs.

It’s interesting to see how the expansion of gay marriage is changing the gay subculture:
- It’s downplaying promiscuity
- It’s downplaying the tight networks of friendships that take the place of a spouse
- It’s emphasizing the stability of the nuclear family structure
- It’s calling into question monogamy in general

Questions to ask: Are those cultural changes good? Bad? Mixed?

And another: This story was written by a religion writer, who notes that pastors counsel couples before marriage that they should stay faithful no matter what. When the couple returns a few years later for emergency counseling as an affair threatens to rip them apart, the pastor counsels them to work it out and to forgive. Is that hypocrisy? An inconsistency? The article suggests marriages should be strong enough to outlast infidelity, and Savage concludes that infidelity, therefore, shouldn’t be as big a deal as we make it out to be.

What do you say to that?

For many American churches, the Fourth of July is a chance to celebrate our country’s freedoms and Christian heritage. Congregations reverently and enthusiastically sing hymns such as “America the Beautiful” and “My Country ‘Tis of Thee.” Christians seem to have a greater degree of patriotism than non-Christians, especially if they’re 70 or older.

During my years growing up in church, I saw recurring tension between pastors and members of the congregation who felt the church did not show what they felt to be healthy patriotism. On a number of occasions, the pastor was confronted when he failed to place the American flag in “a place of honor.” At other times, parishioners complained that Memorial Day and Independence Day services marginalized veterans by not asking them to stand in recognition of their service. They asserted that the church was becoming “unpatriotic.” [...]

Jobs are hard to come by these days. It’s a tough market out there. Our struggling economy has pushed the unemployment rate well into the double digits. In Grass Valley, CA where I live, numerous businesses aren’t even handing out applications. One drug store reported holding 1,000 existing ones! It’s understandable to see why many guys sit at home with dim prospects for contributing in the work force.

Being enrolled full-time at seminary makes for a tricky job situation. I worked part-time writing religious articles for a local newspaper and doing odd-jobs on the side when I had time. It helped to have a decent amount of money saved from my Spartan lifestyle in the Suriname jungle. When the semester ended in mid-May however, it was imperative that I make money during the three months preceding the fall term. But what do you do when places like Rite Aid won’t even take your application and the newspaper job is pumping out only $100 a month? You find a way. [...]

When some people think of online dating, they think of people like Kip from Napoleon Dynamite (see here).  But according to today’s statistics, one out of five relationships begins on the internet.  Take a look at John Piper’s video. I would be interested to hear what you think.  Is online/internet dating a legitimate option for Christian singles?

“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,” shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say ‘You fool,’ shall be enough to go into the fiery hell.” –Matthew 5:21-22

I have found road rage pretty annoying. I have seen and experienced the virulent, obscene anger expressed by drivers for seemingly trivial offenses (if any). From the diminutive 5’0, 110 lb mom honking her horn and flashing double-fisted curses to the middle-aged man pulling a gun and opening fire on another driver. The violence, threats, and rage know no bounds on the road these days.

Being cut off on the road or slamming on your brakes because of another’s blunder warrants an angry reaction — that’s a given. But it is outright shocking to see people become as irate as to nonchalantly flip you the bird and attempt to drive you off the road.

Undoubtedly, people are much bigger and bolder behind the anonymity of the highway and protective panes of glass. You will rarely see epithets and dirty looks turn violent. A guy or girl can shout or wave whatever insult they wish and speed off to safety, likely never to see the person again. Seems harmless, right?

When we examine road rage in light of scripture however, it exposes something deeper, darker and more sinful about our nature.

Most Americans consider themselves “good people”. When asked why, the answer usually is something like, “well, I haven’t killed anybody”. Evangelist Ray Comfort addresses the issue by conveying the reality that what often keeps people from killing someone has nothing to do with their “goodness”, but simply the greater fear of punishment. It’s not that they don’t desire to kill another but that they just haven’t had the chance. The repercussions for murder are greater than the overall benefits. It’s simply a decision based on prudence. To those who call themselves good based on what they haven’t done he alerts them to the fact that conspiracy to do a crime is as bad, and carries just as great a punishment as actually carrying it out. [...]