Thanks to Graham for passing this along. Take the quiz and find out if you beat me. Remember: you have to be honest here. I feel like the number is pretty accurate (sorry, Foster, but yes, I might resort to biting or eye-gouging if threatened)...
Ryan Seacrest said it like he was saying: "And now singing 'We Are the World,'" but instead he said: "Singing 'Shout to the Lord...'" and I thought: it must be some other Shout to the Lord. Surely not the ubiquitous contemporary worship tune that is an unabashed song of praise to God, written in 1993 by Australian Darlene Zschech. To end what will likely be the most watched show of the night, if not of the whole week (although the Tivo users will have missed it since it ran after the show's scheduled end). A show that featured the likes of Brad Pitt, Robin Williams, Billy Crystal, and Annie Lenox. Not exactly people you think of when you think of contemporary Christian music.
But sure enough, there it was. As the opening piano intro played, I said out loud, to the empty room: What the hell is going on? Which was kind of funny given the fact that the folks on TV were singing about God. It was like I had stepped into another dimension. All of the American Idols singing Shout to the Lord, changing just one word (Jesus to Shepherd) so as not to offend non-Christians. (Side note: people have already been blogging about how they're disappointed that they made that change. Why be disappointed? From the standpoint of the producers, including the "J word" would open themselves up to anger from lots of non-Christian religious folks. And from the standpoint of a Christian, you should simply be glad that such an incredible song of worship was sung on a program like this.)
So why did they do it? I just discovered that Ruben Studdard put it on his "I Need an Angel" CD published in 2004, so that would make the producers familiar with it. And they already had the choir on hand. And the fact that earlier shows featured Dolly Parton singing "Jesus and Gravity" and those young guys with the dobro, guitar, and mandolin singing "This Little Light of Mine" shows they're not afraid to do religious material (this is Fox after all, right?) So I'm sure the atheists will write letters about how offended they are that they used a religious song to promote giving money to secular causes, and Christians will write letters about how offended they are that they didn't say Jesus in the song. Personally, I found it to be a very powerful and historic, albeit bizarre, moment. You?
If you missed it, you can check it out here.
I wrote this letter to the Chicago Tribune and it was published online, and has started a nice little dialogue on the Tribune comment board. I've been patronized and ridiculed online, everyone!! Pretty exciting. And I was told that Wrigley Field is no place for a 5 year old. Brilliant! You can read all of the comments here. Below is what I wrote, also available here. Let me know if you think I'm being unreasonable, or if my solution is a good one.
I took my five-year-old son to a game at Wrigley yesterday and the smoking in the bathrooms was awful. I'd rather they allow smoking in the stands than have to endure waiting for five minutes in an enclosed area where there's no escape from it. There's an easy solution, though: post signs that anyone caught smoking in the restrooms will be escorted from the park. Then send a security guard into the bathrooms every 15 minutes to enforce it. After the first few people are made examples of, people will realize it's not worth sacrificing the small fortune they had to pay for a ticket just to sneak a smoke.
Here's the stunt reel of my friend Victor, doing amazing things, in a student film, and in a little independent movie you might not have heard of called I Am Legend.
Here's the sermon I preached yesterday at Christ Church on The Parables of the Kingdom from Matthew 13. Part Two will come May 25th. Just click "Continue Reading" to get there. Or you can listen at cclf.org.
A friend of mine, Peter Nevland, sent me this video about his attempt to give away free money. I found a similar struggle once when I tried to hand out Cokes for free. Nobody wants to take it. I wonder what that says about our culture. Check it out.
I know this has been bouncing around the internet for a while, but it was sent to me again this week and made me realize I need to post it. If you haven't seen it, it's a pretty cool story.
In honor of today's Super Tuesday elections (and a Happy 8th Birthday to my daughter Ellie), I thought I'd throw in my analysis of who is the most likely person to get elected this year. I received an e-mail recently from a friend detailing how, in recent history, US senators have fared very poorly against those who held other offices, particularly Governors. For instance, in the last 50 years, presidential losers include Senators John Kerry, Al Gore, Bob Dole, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, and Barry Goldwater. Winners include Governors Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush (W). This year, it looks as though the Senator shut-out will be broken, as Senators Clinton, Obama, or McCain will likely be our next president, baffling Governors Huckabee and Romney.
You could read a lot into this, as some have, specifically that governors are better suited to be presidents because they're the top of the food chain, while senators are merely one of many leaders. There could be something to that. But what I offer to you is this: the person most likely to get elected is the one who comes across as generally competent and then is the most likable. Likability, at the end of the day, is what got Clinton elected twice, and then got Bush elected twice. We all thought Clinton could "feel our pain" so he coupled likability with empathy. And as nice a guy as Bob Dole was, nobody could stand how strange a guy he was. Ditto for Al Gore and John Kerry. Who would you rather go have a burger with: W, Gore, or Kerry? Politics aside, most people would have said W.
So on the likability scale, I think Hillary is doomed, and it will be a fight to the finish between McCain and Obama. Obama is one of the most charismatic figures in the history of American politics, but McCain is the self-proclaimed Straight Talker who was a Vietnam POW. If I had to guess, his views on abortion and the war will keep him out of the White House.
Of course, it's also all about the swing states. I'll blog about that another time.
I read a very surprising article in the latest edition of Texas Monthly (the National Magazine of Texas...I know, you non-Texans hate us...we're fine with that). It's about a really smart, Harvard-educated, respected, rich guy named Matthew Simmons who insists that oil demand will be vastly greater than supply, sooner than you think. It's a concept called Peak Oil, and one that others agree is a possibility. When you think about it, oil is a non-renewable resource. Unlike water, it doesn't fall from the sky, and who's to say that once we've found all the oil there is to find that there's no more oil left? Here's an excerpt of the article:
"As fuel shortfalls complicate global delivery routes and leave farmers unable to run their tractors, we will face massive food shortages. Products made with petroleum, from asphalt and plastic to fabrics and computer chips, will also become scarcer and scarcer. Standards of living will fall, and people will not be able to pay their debts. Lending will tighten, and eventually there will be major defaults. Growth will cease, and hoarding will set in as oil becomes increasingly rare. Then, according to Simmons, the wars will begin. That is the peak oil scenario."
It sounds apocalyptic and scary, but I don't think it's too outrageous given our world's addiction to oil. And he's helping people get practical about how to help the problem. In lectures, he asks questions like: “If your family were permitted to purchase only five gallons of gasoline per week, how would this change your lifestyle?” He also has some interesting ideas about how to help people save money: let more people work from home to save money on commuting. He says: “People shuffle into work and get on the Internet. You can have staff meetings by webcam.”
I don't know 'bout you, but it makes me want to ride my bike to work...once the snow melts.
I'm not a hater. I'm not trying to endorse a candidate or vilify another one. But watch this little clip, and you can see why, in my opinion (and provided he doesn't stumble significantly), Hillary is likely to lose and Barack is likely to win the democratic nomination. Clinton awkwardly laughs at a question directed to Obama in an attempt to punctuate the question. Obama smiles graciously, but then provides an unbelievable comeback. Watch what I'm talking about.
He's a sharp one. And she just comes across as trying WAY too hard.
Recent Comments