There is lots of talk about health care in Washington and how to make it a affordable and even universal to all. One of the things that has been pushed in the past several years is prevention. Public services announcements flock the airwaves with the dangers of cigarettes, the importance of exercise, and others. Many private sector groups have jumped on the bandwagon offering fitness plans to employees, schools have taken out sugar and soda pop from lunch menus and so on. One can argue that this is a good thing and may curb health expenses down the line and may save the country millions of dollars down the line, who knows?
Of course there are those who feel so strongly about it that they vigorously wish to find ways to mandate lots of health measures feeling the public may not be wise enough for their own good, so their are creative ways to coerce Jane and John Doe to "do the right thing." These can include banning "unhealthy" products or levying substantial taxes on things that ultimately may lead to heart disease, cancer, or other who knows what.
This got me to thinking about Jesus and how a relationship with him would be a most healthy thing for people. I know from experience that believing in Him and being a part of a church would make people healthier both physically and spiritually. I guess like a parent would do with his child, I could find those on my streets who know nothing about the love of Jesus and have no interesting in hearing me tell them about Him, maybe I could just round them up, make them come to church and bible studies with me, have them subject to all the benefits of the medicine that Christianity can bring, and in time they would feel better and their countenance and health would be demonstrably better. Of course I would have to force them and state laws may not allow me to do that, but hey wouldn't it be a good idea?
Most know that we don't do things that way in a free society. We may inform, encourage, try to persuade others to do things we sincerely believe will help them, but at the end of the day we let them make their own decision. But though most probably aren't cool with Big Brother type of stuff from those conducting public policy, many are fine with information being passed on that may pinch a nerve or two or some folks and how they live. Hence, people who smoke and are overweight often take a hit in our culture.
This brings me to an observation that I've discovered thanks to the new book, "Outliers," by Malcolm Gladwell. He became aware of a place in Pennsylvania called Roseto. The small town originated back in the mid 1800's when a group of Italians from Roseto, Italy arrived in the new world America and made a home of their own. A physician discovered that people who lived in the town of 2200 hardly ever had heart disease, they were considerably lower than the national average. In fact after looking back over the 100+ years of the town's history researchers discovered very few health problems with the people of Roseto. No suicides, little depression, little crime, few cases of ulcers, cancer, alcoholism, all in all the people were remarkably healthy and most died of old age.
What is the reason for this and how can this perhaps be used for public information so that others can learn what makes these people so different? Well, much of what was learned has to be discouraging to those invested in the health community and the information being spread to help the population become healthier. The people in Roseto cooked not with Olive oil but rather with lard which made their diet about 40 percent saturated fat. There was very little exercise going on with the folks in the town, in fact the majority of the folks were obese. It was also observed that many of the people smoke cigarettes. Researchers discovered time and time again that the people living in the town had a lifestyle that should have made them very unhealthy.
But was their lifestyle unhealthy? Researches decided to carefully observe the people of the town and see how they lived. Each day the folks spent time engaging with their neighbors; hanging out on the porch, having meals together, doing things with their children together. The people of the town who made the most money never flaunted it or bought extravagant things, and commonly they would help out those who had less. The town had 22 civic organizations which is a remarkable number for a town that size. The people all worshiped at the same church and they all retained their native Italian language. Marriages were intact, divorces unheard of. And it was common to see 3 generations living under one roof. Researchers wondered if maybe community and relationships played perhaps more a role in health than anyone ever imagined.
I'm giving out this information. Process it as you wish. I doubt you will hear much about a lifesyle like this over the public airwaves as a form of prevention to help alleviate public health costs. We don't want to judge people and tell them that divorce might be a bad thing, or that maybe we shouldn't move far away from our parents once we get a spouse and career, or tell people later when parents get old that it may be better to have them move in with us than be sent off to a nursing home, or to tell people to try out a church even if they may not be into it at first. No we can't do that because it is judgmental and it might hurt somebody's feelings. Funny how we don't mind singling out the smoker or the chunky housewife and their one or two bad habits, but we are uncomfortable looking at a person's life as a whole. I guess this hits too close to home.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Davey Crockett, and ex-girlfriend, and other characters or outsiders
I am not a great student of history. I enjoy the stuff actually but I am a victim of public schooling and laziness quite frankly so I can't properly evaluate many famous historical characters. I was flipping stations on t.v. the other night and came across "The Alamo" movie with Billy Bob Thornton as Davey Crockett. It was the tale end of the film so I didn't bother to watch it, yet it got me to thinking. Man, it was an incredibly different world not that long ago. I often wonder how characters like Davey Crockett, Lewis and Clarke, others from the pages of history textbooks would fit in to the 21st century. I think of this particularly in light of the fact that all people generally are sort of the same in today's world.
I know that there are all different kinds of people and even personalities so that is not what I mean. What I mean is that people who truly are different and are real characters have a hard time fitting in unless they are so talented that they can afford the label eccentric or "a real character." I wonder how many people in our society may be homeless or in prison because they just have always felt outsiders wherever they may be. Perhaps Davey Crockett would have been classified as having ADHD if he were growing up today. Who knows? I know now that society has an outlet for the real testosterone, courageous tough guys who can find a niche in Ultimate Fighting. A good thing I guess.
Brings me to the church. I've talked to many people who seem to understand the gospel, claim to be Christian, yet never go to church. I can easily point out to them the error of their position of it's "just me an Jesus" individualism. I also think one may use that as a smokescreen because a good church will preach about sin and cause conviction and clearly it is good to weed out those people who really aren't serious about following Christ. Still, there is reason for me to think that those things that make one an "outsider" in the world, then I am sure they exist within the walls of the church, perhaps even more so.
An ex-girlfriend of mine made me aware of this years ago. Many times we end up in relationships because of close proximity. I met my first girlfriend on the job and I'm sure if we met at another place we would have never "hooked up" so to speak. She was a tomboy to say the least and so non-intellectual, yet she was so trusting of people and just a deep down good person. She was the person who first brought me to church and we were together for about a year. And over that time I tried to change her, tried to refine her, make her more presentable. I wanted her to read more, go back to school, quit smoking, and a few other things. While I was doing that she also sensed the same thing happening at church only it was different. Nobody at church to my knowledge ever said anything to her but she clearly felt like an outsider there. Women's groups were totally foreign to her and she always want to hang out with guys over girls ( and she sure could throw a fastball..lol!) Many people who first join churches feel like outsiders but because they wish to "belong" they observe and find a way to fit into the mold. I guess because some new people join churches and find "their way" that many in the pulpit and in the pews tend to take a hands off approach to new faces walking in the door. This is not going to happen for some new faces and nor should it. I admire people who remain true to themselves and don't become a cookie cutter Christian and quickly latch on to the Christian sub-culture. Unfortunately these authentic people often are left behind and are shipwrecked from the joys of being part of the family of God.
I have no answer as to how the culture is going to condescend to those out here who may have been valued in a different time or a different place. Most likely there will be those who will slip through the cracks because no one is giving them direction on where an "ADHD" or another misfit person may succeed here in America. But as far as the church goes should'nt this be a different matter? Shouldn't we as followers of Christ, rather than be above the fray of the so-called "character," "outsider," or "misfit"....instead should we not condescend to make those "unlike" us feel the joy of "belonging, while at the same time feel no need or urgency to make them more "like us?"
I know that there are all different kinds of people and even personalities so that is not what I mean. What I mean is that people who truly are different and are real characters have a hard time fitting in unless they are so talented that they can afford the label eccentric or "a real character." I wonder how many people in our society may be homeless or in prison because they just have always felt outsiders wherever they may be. Perhaps Davey Crockett would have been classified as having ADHD if he were growing up today. Who knows? I know now that society has an outlet for the real testosterone, courageous tough guys who can find a niche in Ultimate Fighting. A good thing I guess.
Brings me to the church. I've talked to many people who seem to understand the gospel, claim to be Christian, yet never go to church. I can easily point out to them the error of their position of it's "just me an Jesus" individualism. I also think one may use that as a smokescreen because a good church will preach about sin and cause conviction and clearly it is good to weed out those people who really aren't serious about following Christ. Still, there is reason for me to think that those things that make one an "outsider" in the world, then I am sure they exist within the walls of the church, perhaps even more so.
An ex-girlfriend of mine made me aware of this years ago. Many times we end up in relationships because of close proximity. I met my first girlfriend on the job and I'm sure if we met at another place we would have never "hooked up" so to speak. She was a tomboy to say the least and so non-intellectual, yet she was so trusting of people and just a deep down good person. She was the person who first brought me to church and we were together for about a year. And over that time I tried to change her, tried to refine her, make her more presentable. I wanted her to read more, go back to school, quit smoking, and a few other things. While I was doing that she also sensed the same thing happening at church only it was different. Nobody at church to my knowledge ever said anything to her but she clearly felt like an outsider there. Women's groups were totally foreign to her and she always want to hang out with guys over girls ( and she sure could throw a fastball..lol!) Many people who first join churches feel like outsiders but because they wish to "belong" they observe and find a way to fit into the mold. I guess because some new people join churches and find "their way" that many in the pulpit and in the pews tend to take a hands off approach to new faces walking in the door. This is not going to happen for some new faces and nor should it. I admire people who remain true to themselves and don't become a cookie cutter Christian and quickly latch on to the Christian sub-culture. Unfortunately these authentic people often are left behind and are shipwrecked from the joys of being part of the family of God.
I have no answer as to how the culture is going to condescend to those out here who may have been valued in a different time or a different place. Most likely there will be those who will slip through the cracks because no one is giving them direction on where an "ADHD" or another misfit person may succeed here in America. But as far as the church goes should'nt this be a different matter? Shouldn't we as followers of Christ, rather than be above the fray of the so-called "character," "outsider," or "misfit"....instead should we not condescend to make those "unlike" us feel the joy of "belonging, while at the same time feel no need or urgency to make them more "like us?"
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Professionalization of Faith and Politics
I never want to shy away from mixing faith and politics particularly when it makes for some good discourse. Now that President Obama has taken the oath of office, I've been thinking of some things that I believe are an indicator of where our culture currently is at. I'm not going to say that Americans are all about style over substance, though that argument can be made, but rather I am going to make an observation about our citizenry wanting professionals running the show both in government and maybe even in our churches.
I thought of this as I watched a recent interview with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. I'm sure there are those who were against Palin for reasons other than what I am about to bring up, still I have observed and heard in public debate from many casual voters (the determining voter factor in who will ultimately be elected) that Palin was "unqualified" to run for the second highest position in the free word. But upon close examination it was clear to me that these same casual voters were uncomfortable with Palin because she was just not professional enough. Before I go further let me give the reader of this blog a definition of terms. Most debate gets stifled because of a disagreement of how to define terms. I am using the term professional (perhaps incorrectly) more in the context of one who has high academic training and is an excellent communicator. As a "professional" Sarah Palin fell way short. She may have had a fan base who liked her for different reasons; endearing, mom, charasmatic, etc. but among the masses of non partisan voters she never had a chance.
What's wrong with this? Many who may accept my definition of professional may say, "What's wrong with electing politicians or having pastors for that matter who are high in academic training and excellent, even inspiring communicators?" Well, on first glance nothing. I thing leaders should be smart and know how to articulate their views. What is more problematic is how we place a premium on people being "more smart, more articulate" than what may be necessary. In life it would be ideal if all leaders were both good talkers and good doers. More often though there are talkers and there are doers. And just as the biblical book of James describes 'Faith without works being dead," likewise, reason would conclude that talking without doiing is dead.
Leadership requires making decisions. For a president of a country and a pastor of a church this requires executive ability. Many who have had this ability (hopefully along with ability and a dependance upon God) throughout history have not been the smoothe James Bond figure that Barrack Obama seems to be. Great leaders from history, if their lives would be brought to the silver screen, many would look rather "ordinary." But we live in a very visual world where a premium is placed on appearing "presidential" and Obama fits that mold beautifully. This world is far removed from the one where Eisenhower became president simply because he was a General and known as a great leader of men.
I lament this "professionalization of politics" and unfortunatly as in many other areas of culture people of faith seem to follow the same course. Consider the ministry of megachurch pastor Joel Osteen, who like Obama speeks of hope and many other feel good buzz terms, and looks great behind a pulpit. The only difference may be that people of faith don't seem quite as smitten with the academic credentials that political voters do. Whether this is a benefit or not means little to me. What does matter and what question we should be asking to our postmodern culture is....What role does character play in who we choose to be leaders in our secular and spiritual worlds?
I thought of this as I watched a recent interview with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. I'm sure there are those who were against Palin for reasons other than what I am about to bring up, still I have observed and heard in public debate from many casual voters (the determining voter factor in who will ultimately be elected) that Palin was "unqualified" to run for the second highest position in the free word. But upon close examination it was clear to me that these same casual voters were uncomfortable with Palin because she was just not professional enough. Before I go further let me give the reader of this blog a definition of terms. Most debate gets stifled because of a disagreement of how to define terms. I am using the term professional (perhaps incorrectly) more in the context of one who has high academic training and is an excellent communicator. As a "professional" Sarah Palin fell way short. She may have had a fan base who liked her for different reasons; endearing, mom, charasmatic, etc. but among the masses of non partisan voters she never had a chance.
What's wrong with this? Many who may accept my definition of professional may say, "What's wrong with electing politicians or having pastors for that matter who are high in academic training and excellent, even inspiring communicators?" Well, on first glance nothing. I thing leaders should be smart and know how to articulate their views. What is more problematic is how we place a premium on people being "more smart, more articulate" than what may be necessary. In life it would be ideal if all leaders were both good talkers and good doers. More often though there are talkers and there are doers. And just as the biblical book of James describes 'Faith without works being dead," likewise, reason would conclude that talking without doiing is dead.
Leadership requires making decisions. For a president of a country and a pastor of a church this requires executive ability. Many who have had this ability (hopefully along with ability and a dependance upon God) throughout history have not been the smoothe James Bond figure that Barrack Obama seems to be. Great leaders from history, if their lives would be brought to the silver screen, many would look rather "ordinary." But we live in a very visual world where a premium is placed on appearing "presidential" and Obama fits that mold beautifully. This world is far removed from the one where Eisenhower became president simply because he was a General and known as a great leader of men.
I lament this "professionalization of politics" and unfortunatly as in many other areas of culture people of faith seem to follow the same course. Consider the ministry of megachurch pastor Joel Osteen, who like Obama speeks of hope and many other feel good buzz terms, and looks great behind a pulpit. The only difference may be that people of faith don't seem quite as smitten with the academic credentials that political voters do. Whether this is a benefit or not means little to me. What does matter and what question we should be asking to our postmodern culture is....What role does character play in who we choose to be leaders in our secular and spiritual worlds?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Is He Serious?
Much has been made about Mark Driscoll who is the pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. He is a provocative and controversial pastor who has a unique approach to presenting the gospel in this postmodern age we live in. Though he is highly orthodox in many ways he tends to rub many people the wrong way because he speaks to men (in particular) in raw language. He meets people where they are, speaks the language of the culture, and is very direct about matters of sex.
One thing Driscoll discusses matter of factly is masterbation. Christianity over the ages has frowned on masterbation, calling it a sin, and has preached against it. Driscoll gives the go ahead on masterbation and speaks frankly about it I presume because he thinks that the church's view on masterbation has hurt the cause of Christ and has made Christians out to be victorian characatures who think sex is a dirty thing. I think Driscoll is right in many ways and I have little problem with him talking directly about an something that people universally do, yet many feel guilty about doing, and many others shy away from even talking about the subject.
Having said this I think Driscoll adds a condition to his masterbation seal of approval that makes me scratch my head and say, "Is he serious?" He tells people that while they can go ahead and masterbate that they should make sure they do it without lusting. While I am not advocating lusting or giving permission for people to have sexual fantasies while they are masterbating, still I think we need to get in the real world. People masterbate when they are thinking about sex, and are creating an image that helps perpetuate an eros whereby making masterbation enjoyable. I think it is good for both single people and married people for that matter to have experiences in life where they are not overly preoccupied with sex. What i mean is don't allow sensuality to become an idol and find ways to feed it.
I think it is good for masterbation to not be the big bad demon that many want to call it. Many people do it in moderation and don't turn "blind" from it. Having said that and realizing that people are going to do it, don't turn around and say make sure you are doing it without any sexual stimuli attached to it. This is ridiculous and an insult to reasonable people. Those who have any knowledge of the Christian faith, know that sexuality is a gift from God designed for the marrital relationship. Masterbation is simply a matter of economics, people doing something that works to fill a need. Can it be a sin? Yes, it can if it deters from your relationship with God and becomes an addiction. But to say that it's okay to do it but do it like an exercise you can do while watching a sports event or thinking about baseball cards just won't work. If you feel that way, just be honest and say you really don't approve of it.
One thing Driscoll discusses matter of factly is masterbation. Christianity over the ages has frowned on masterbation, calling it a sin, and has preached against it. Driscoll gives the go ahead on masterbation and speaks frankly about it I presume because he thinks that the church's view on masterbation has hurt the cause of Christ and has made Christians out to be victorian characatures who think sex is a dirty thing. I think Driscoll is right in many ways and I have little problem with him talking directly about an something that people universally do, yet many feel guilty about doing, and many others shy away from even talking about the subject.
Having said this I think Driscoll adds a condition to his masterbation seal of approval that makes me scratch my head and say, "Is he serious?" He tells people that while they can go ahead and masterbate that they should make sure they do it without lusting. While I am not advocating lusting or giving permission for people to have sexual fantasies while they are masterbating, still I think we need to get in the real world. People masterbate when they are thinking about sex, and are creating an image that helps perpetuate an eros whereby making masterbation enjoyable. I think it is good for both single people and married people for that matter to have experiences in life where they are not overly preoccupied with sex. What i mean is don't allow sensuality to become an idol and find ways to feed it.
I think it is good for masterbation to not be the big bad demon that many want to call it. Many people do it in moderation and don't turn "blind" from it. Having said that and realizing that people are going to do it, don't turn around and say make sure you are doing it without any sexual stimuli attached to it. This is ridiculous and an insult to reasonable people. Those who have any knowledge of the Christian faith, know that sexuality is a gift from God designed for the marrital relationship. Masterbation is simply a matter of economics, people doing something that works to fill a need. Can it be a sin? Yes, it can if it deters from your relationship with God and becomes an addiction. But to say that it's okay to do it but do it like an exercise you can do while watching a sports event or thinking about baseball cards just won't work. If you feel that way, just be honest and say you really don't approve of it.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Just Wondering
Marriage is hard. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. 24/7 proximity and seeing close at hand each others faults makes the relationship difficult. In the old testament there was polygamy and concubines. I can't imagine a second wife, but most men will admit to being attracted to other woman and even having connections to women either at work or other places. Men have affairs all the time and I just wonder if God had no clear ordinance against keeping a concubine how many men would jump at the chance.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Throwing of Flags
Coming up with the idea of a blog called, "Faith Unfiltered" I thought would be a cool idea to create some provocative discussions. However, I am becoming increasingly discouraged with the idea that you can delve into any controversial issues with Christians that will not include the typical "talking points" that Christians recite whenever topics fall outside of their comfort zones.
Still I plan on moving forward, heeding the charge of a radio minister I like, knowing that it is the duty of a Christian to make time to offend another Christian at least once a day. His charge is perhaps hyperbole, yet I find so much truth in it that I often find that I have to call my "brothers and sisters of the faith" to the carpet when they think so pedestrian in their Christian world view.
Some examples of what I mean are found on my "Facebook" page, the postmodern community networking site that millions flock to as an escapists playground. It's a fun little place to do the tag, hide n' go seek thing, but some decide that what is needed are overactive referees to come in and make sure that everyone is playing nice and following the rules. Did you ever notice that when you are watching sports that the best games are the ones when you never notice the referees? Same is true of facebook. Let things play out and really think hard before you are going to throw the flag on someone.
Christians are the most guilty of throwing flags, and the penalty most called has to do with sexual suggestiveness. This does exists and arguments can be made that it is inappropriate to use sexual images over public sites to perhaps incite flirting or lustful behavior which could be harmful to some people. However, the guidelines of what constitutes inappropriate images of sexual images, can vary tremendously from person to person, and some folks never even consider if there may be a valid reason or context of why one may post a provocative photo of someone on a public social networking site.
Let me give you 2 recent examples of things that got me into "hot water" with some of my Christian friends. One even decided to "defriend" me over a photo on my facebook site. I had been on a blog site of a friend of mine that discusses the objective philosophy of Ayn Rand and how he is writing a book about Christian Objectivism and how those who "follow" the philosophy of Ayn Rand can have a conversation with Christians about objective worldviews and see where there is common ground. This is an interesting idea and ambitious since Rand was an atheist and many would not want to take the time to engage in debate with "Randians" who are clearly anti-religion and anti-Christian. But back to the main point. On his site was a link to a blog site about libertarian views of government (something that I am particularly interested in and one that I believe Ayn Rand was astute on as well) and I decide to click and check it out.
One little blurb (unrelated to the general theme of this site I may add) that caught my eye was a reference to the 50's pinup, "Betty Page" who had just passed away in her 80's. Because this happened right before Christmas, the author of the blog posted of photo of her in a Santa hat. She also was nude, though strategically covered, the words Merry Christmas posted across her breasts. Under the photo was a quote from Page with these words...I paraphrase since I don't have the quote at hand, "After turning to the Lord Jesus late in my life, I realize that the funds that I have to preserve me late in my life, are from my work as a model and pinup girl." She then went on to say that she doesn't feel particularly bad about it, rather it is just the way it is.
I posted this on my facebook page with the photo which I think was germain to the quote and left the comment, "Interesting!" People can have any opinion on her quote, comment on it or not, and that's just the way I left it. What happened however took me by surprise. A friend was highly offended by the photo, accused me of somehow endorsing Betty page, and even made it seem like I was out to harm "children." There was no looking at context of what I was getting at, I'm sure no reading of the quote, nor any questions directly to me of why I put it there. All I know is that some people at church heard about it, and she was no longer on my friend's list. Obviously, she hit the delete button on facebook, twitched her nose like "Samantha Stevens" on the 60's show, "Bewitched" and poof....I was gone. Oh, well, as my boss at work says, "I will live to see another day."
Now the most recent example and perhaps a little more complicated, though I don't really think so, is my posting of a picture of Helen Mirren on my site. Facebook allows you to become "fans" of celebrities and this is one way for people who visit your site to know some things about you and perhaps get a feel for your personality. I like the actress Helen Mirren and I posted a photo of her on my site. She is looking into a mirror, putting on make-up, and she has on a dress that shows substantial cleavage. For a caption I put, ..."like the finest of wine." With this I got a comment like, "yeah, this looks like ___(wife's name). "What are you thinking?" I take it this implies that I shouldn't be looking at anybody but my wife, and why am I posting sexy women on my page, which I guess by "the Christian definition" is as the valley girls would say, "totally inapproriate."
As a person who wants to be "real" I wish to let you in on a secret. I work with the public and see many people every day. I also see many women on a daily basis. Many guys I work with often say when they see an attractive woman, "Isn't she hot?" For years after my conversion to Christianity, I felt at a loss as how to respond to that. Looking back I don't know why because my sentiments were clearly, "yes." I guess I felt that as a single person, or married person for that matter, I shouldn't be looking at women for their physical appeal or heaven forbid, their t & a so to speak, but, you know what, I was. It would be nice to say that I only have eyes for my wife, bride of my youth, but it isn't the real world. Women get my attention and I do look at them. I agree that it's not good to have the cavalier attitude that, "you can look but not touch" philosophy that many men have. This potentially leads many to become disenchanted with their spouse, checking out all the babes, and lead them to have unrealistic expectations of what their wives should look like.
Back to Helen Mirren though. Over the years she has played many roles and has showed great diversity as an actress. Honestly though, I have been very attracted to her confidence in her own skin and her comfort level with her sexuality. I realize that "biblically speaking" women are most highly prized when they are "modest" in their sexuality....something that I have no evidence that Helen Mirren is. Then again I have no reason to believe she is a Christian or the woman of "noble character" spoken of in Proverbs 31. I conceed that this is the type of woman I should find most appealing and many times I find charm in other kinds of women. To this I plead guilty and Christians can chide or challange me on this poiint. However, I still find Mirren, at least as far as her feminine characteristics go, intoxicating. Here is a woman, now 63, who ages gracefully and doesn't do the cosmetic thing. If anyone would have told me that at 46, I would find a 63 year old woman "stunning and sexy" I would never have believed it. One publication called her, "the thinking man's sex symbol" which I find to be right on the mark. Forgive my lack of humility if I consider myself a thinking man...lol!
Mirren was a looker and sexy from her early films like "Age of Consent" and the scandalous "Caligula", and even as the 2nd law of thermodynamis applies to her as well as all of us as we advance in years, she remains a looker and sexy in her 60's, "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Jones" she was 59 I believe. She may have a wrinkle, two or three that she didn't have in her 20's or 30's, but like fine wine she surely ages well.
I can hold this view totally apart from my relationship with my wife. My wife is the one I am with day in and day out. We have the better for worse, sickness and in health covenant of marriage. Helen Mirren is an actress and my sentiments about her just tell you a little bit about me and how I think. Now if I go around stalking Helen Mirren or have photos of her as a shrine all over my house, then you as a Christian can do the Joan Rivers..."Can we talk" kinda thing. But unless these things are obvious and you are certain of context, please do me a favor. Be a good referee and stay out of the way. We need less throwing of flags and more of thoughtful conversation.
Still I plan on moving forward, heeding the charge of a radio minister I like, knowing that it is the duty of a Christian to make time to offend another Christian at least once a day. His charge is perhaps hyperbole, yet I find so much truth in it that I often find that I have to call my "brothers and sisters of the faith" to the carpet when they think so pedestrian in their Christian world view.
Some examples of what I mean are found on my "Facebook" page, the postmodern community networking site that millions flock to as an escapists playground. It's a fun little place to do the tag, hide n' go seek thing, but some decide that what is needed are overactive referees to come in and make sure that everyone is playing nice and following the rules. Did you ever notice that when you are watching sports that the best games are the ones when you never notice the referees? Same is true of facebook. Let things play out and really think hard before you are going to throw the flag on someone.
Christians are the most guilty of throwing flags, and the penalty most called has to do with sexual suggestiveness. This does exists and arguments can be made that it is inappropriate to use sexual images over public sites to perhaps incite flirting or lustful behavior which could be harmful to some people. However, the guidelines of what constitutes inappropriate images of sexual images, can vary tremendously from person to person, and some folks never even consider if there may be a valid reason or context of why one may post a provocative photo of someone on a public social networking site.
Let me give you 2 recent examples of things that got me into "hot water" with some of my Christian friends. One even decided to "defriend" me over a photo on my facebook site. I had been on a blog site of a friend of mine that discusses the objective philosophy of Ayn Rand and how he is writing a book about Christian Objectivism and how those who "follow" the philosophy of Ayn Rand can have a conversation with Christians about objective worldviews and see where there is common ground. This is an interesting idea and ambitious since Rand was an atheist and many would not want to take the time to engage in debate with "Randians" who are clearly anti-religion and anti-Christian. But back to the main point. On his site was a link to a blog site about libertarian views of government (something that I am particularly interested in and one that I believe Ayn Rand was astute on as well) and I decide to click and check it out.
One little blurb (unrelated to the general theme of this site I may add) that caught my eye was a reference to the 50's pinup, "Betty Page" who had just passed away in her 80's. Because this happened right before Christmas, the author of the blog posted of photo of her in a Santa hat. She also was nude, though strategically covered, the words Merry Christmas posted across her breasts. Under the photo was a quote from Page with these words...I paraphrase since I don't have the quote at hand, "After turning to the Lord Jesus late in my life, I realize that the funds that I have to preserve me late in my life, are from my work as a model and pinup girl." She then went on to say that she doesn't feel particularly bad about it, rather it is just the way it is.
I posted this on my facebook page with the photo which I think was germain to the quote and left the comment, "Interesting!" People can have any opinion on her quote, comment on it or not, and that's just the way I left it. What happened however took me by surprise. A friend was highly offended by the photo, accused me of somehow endorsing Betty page, and even made it seem like I was out to harm "children." There was no looking at context of what I was getting at, I'm sure no reading of the quote, nor any questions directly to me of why I put it there. All I know is that some people at church heard about it, and she was no longer on my friend's list. Obviously, she hit the delete button on facebook, twitched her nose like "Samantha Stevens" on the 60's show, "Bewitched" and poof....I was gone. Oh, well, as my boss at work says, "I will live to see another day."
Now the most recent example and perhaps a little more complicated, though I don't really think so, is my posting of a picture of Helen Mirren on my site. Facebook allows you to become "fans" of celebrities and this is one way for people who visit your site to know some things about you and perhaps get a feel for your personality. I like the actress Helen Mirren and I posted a photo of her on my site. She is looking into a mirror, putting on make-up, and she has on a dress that shows substantial cleavage. For a caption I put, ..."like the finest of wine." With this I got a comment like, "yeah, this looks like ___(wife's name). "What are you thinking?" I take it this implies that I shouldn't be looking at anybody but my wife, and why am I posting sexy women on my page, which I guess by "the Christian definition" is as the valley girls would say, "totally inapproriate."
As a person who wants to be "real" I wish to let you in on a secret. I work with the public and see many people every day. I also see many women on a daily basis. Many guys I work with often say when they see an attractive woman, "Isn't she hot?" For years after my conversion to Christianity, I felt at a loss as how to respond to that. Looking back I don't know why because my sentiments were clearly, "yes." I guess I felt that as a single person, or married person for that matter, I shouldn't be looking at women for their physical appeal or heaven forbid, their t & a so to speak, but, you know what, I was. It would be nice to say that I only have eyes for my wife, bride of my youth, but it isn't the real world. Women get my attention and I do look at them. I agree that it's not good to have the cavalier attitude that, "you can look but not touch" philosophy that many men have. This potentially leads many to become disenchanted with their spouse, checking out all the babes, and lead them to have unrealistic expectations of what their wives should look like.
Back to Helen Mirren though. Over the years she has played many roles and has showed great diversity as an actress. Honestly though, I have been very attracted to her confidence in her own skin and her comfort level with her sexuality. I realize that "biblically speaking" women are most highly prized when they are "modest" in their sexuality....something that I have no evidence that Helen Mirren is. Then again I have no reason to believe she is a Christian or the woman of "noble character" spoken of in Proverbs 31. I conceed that this is the type of woman I should find most appealing and many times I find charm in other kinds of women. To this I plead guilty and Christians can chide or challange me on this poiint. However, I still find Mirren, at least as far as her feminine characteristics go, intoxicating. Here is a woman, now 63, who ages gracefully and doesn't do the cosmetic thing. If anyone would have told me that at 46, I would find a 63 year old woman "stunning and sexy" I would never have believed it. One publication called her, "the thinking man's sex symbol" which I find to be right on the mark. Forgive my lack of humility if I consider myself a thinking man...lol!
Mirren was a looker and sexy from her early films like "Age of Consent" and the scandalous "Caligula", and even as the 2nd law of thermodynamis applies to her as well as all of us as we advance in years, she remains a looker and sexy in her 60's, "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Jones" she was 59 I believe. She may have a wrinkle, two or three that she didn't have in her 20's or 30's, but like fine wine she surely ages well.
I can hold this view totally apart from my relationship with my wife. My wife is the one I am with day in and day out. We have the better for worse, sickness and in health covenant of marriage. Helen Mirren is an actress and my sentiments about her just tell you a little bit about me and how I think. Now if I go around stalking Helen Mirren or have photos of her as a shrine all over my house, then you as a Christian can do the Joan Rivers..."Can we talk" kinda thing. But unless these things are obvious and you are certain of context, please do me a favor. Be a good referee and stay out of the way. We need less throwing of flags and more of thoughtful conversation.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
New Year's Day
Happy 2009 to everyone. Hope to post more often in the new year. Have to admit that right now my energy levels are low with the details of life. Got some things on my mind yet I just haven't been motivated to get moving on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)