Cool stuff on today’s Interwebs.

• Politifact reviews President Obama’s campaign pledges on Afghanistan.
• Internet Monk explores how to preach the story of Ananias and Sapphira (in Acts 5) without obscuring the Gospel.
• Hemant Mehta takes Rick Warren to task for not directly opposing new Ugandan legislation that would make homosexuality punishable by death. Under this proposal, anyone who is aware of someone’s homosexuality and doesn’t report it in 24 hours could be arrested for their silence.
• When Jon Acuff at SCL turns his talent toward Serious Wednesdays, you should check it out.
• Looking for new blogs to read? So is Anne Jackson.
• The Post Christian blog has some interesting thoughts on enemies. Pay particular attention to the beginning of the third-to-last paragraph.

Looking back.

I’m halfway through Don Miller’s most-recent book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years. In the spirit of making a better story for myself, I made a list of things I want out for my life.

Here’s what I came up with so far, things that I think I could look back on in 20 years and be proud of:

• To marry a beautiful, inspiring woman
• To write stories that move and excite people
• To have more adventures (whatever shape they may take)
• To be more giving with my money, regardless of how much I make at the time
• To lose 30 pounds
• To be courageous and take more risks, instead of letting fear poison my decisions (This probably can go along with taking adventures, but I wrote it separately earlier in my notebook, so I did it here, too.)
• To be someone who lives such a life of love that it makes others think twice about their decision to stop trusting and following Jesus

When I put these together, I realized a pattern:

None of them have anything to do with material possessions.

Nothing about having a certain number of books or having gone to Starbucks by X amount of times. Getting a bigger paycheck would be nice, but it didn’t cross my mind when I compiled my list.

Jesus once told someone that “one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

In 20 years, I think I’ll have learned just how true that is.

The other prodigal son.

I tend to fall into the trap of thinking that, after hearing a story a certain number of times, I know all there ever is to know about it. Same with Bible verses. I hear some of them enough times (say, Phil. 4:13), and I don’t let it affect me the way that it should.

I’ve felt that way about the Prodigal Son, which is probably Jesus’ most famous and heartfelt story of God’s forgiveness toward sinners. But there’s something I never noticed until tonight:

But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him

The wayward son leaves the home, squanders his inheritance, gets the trash kicked out of him by life, and returns home to a loving father and a banquet. The older brother refuses to go in, prompting the father to go out and invite him to the party.

Here’s what I’m wondering: Why does the father go after the older brother but not the son?

Yes, the text says that the father saw the younger son when he was a ways off and ran to him, but that’s not the same thing as leaving the house and searching for him. It’s like the father waits for the younger son, but the older son, he needs to be sought after, to be caught. Why?

Here’s a theory of mine (and it’s open for debate): The older son might be the son who was in greater danger and sin.

People who are suffering the consequences of their lives, who have been ostracized by friends and family, I think they won’t have too much trouble believing they’re not perfect. It’s easier to know that you need a change when you’ve hit rock bottom.

But people who are convinced that they have it together, they’re a different and sadder tale. People who realize the house is on fire can try to escape or call for help, increasing the odds of their getting rescued. There is no hope for someone who doesn’t even realize there is a fire.

So maybe, just maybe, that’s why the father runs to the older brother, because that son’s sin would never lead to the kind of bottoming-out that his sibling had experienced. Perhaps it would be just the opposite. The older brother could develop a reputation for being a godly man who doesn’t struggle (although really, his sins are just better hidden). And that will only reinforce the falsehood.

So the father runs to him, pleading with him to not miss the party (and going to this party would obviously mean accepting the younger brother whom he hates and welcoming him back into the family). But the older brother refuses and, although his feet never leave the floor, he’s running away from his father as fast as he can.

So for us “older siblings”, check yourself. Study your life and your actions. Study your heart: Does it love God? Your neighbors and enemies? Do you even realize there’s a problem?

Kicking the cliches out of church.

The real.faith blog has a post on the Top 10 cliches that should be excommunicated from the church.

Of the 10, “quiet time” and “ask Jesus into your heart” are my top two. Here are two more I would add:

11. “It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship” – I’ve elaborated my thoughts here.

12. “a high view of Scripture” – This one can be used against anyone who doesn’t share the same interpretation of a Bible passage as you. For example, I read an argument between a young-earth creationist and someone who doesn’t believe Genesis 1 was meant to be a literal process story of how God created the world with all its abundance. In the course of the argument, the young-earther said he held “a high view of Scripture,” which apparently is why he believed what he believed.

The dangerous result of having this in your arsenal: Aside from coming off as prideful and insulting, you never feel the need to question if you’re reading the Bible correctly. Why would you? You hold the “high view,” remember?

#13 is open for whoever wants to chime in.

Weigh on the Piper v. Wright brawl.

Ok, maybe it’s not so much of a brawl. Maybe it’s just a theological back-and-forth between two popular leaders in the church: John Piper (of his books, I’d recommend Desiring God first) and N.T. Wright, whose Christian Origins and the Question of God series, by the way, is excellent (especially volumes two and three: Jesus and the Victory of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God).

If you’re interested in talking about it or just reading what other people have to say, Open Source Theology has started a discussion and can be a good place for exploring different views.

Enjoy.

Couldn’t say it in church? Try it here.

Think about the things you’ve always wanted to say in church but couldn’t.

Now, go to Anne Jackson’s Web site, submit them, and see if you get into her latest book.

Jackson, who wrote Mad Church Disease and runs the FlowerDust.net blog, is asking people to submit their thoughts for her forthcoming Permission to Speak Freely, which will collect and publish those entries in a creative way in print and on a Web site (similar to PostSecret).

(If you submit something, please note the legal copy toward the bottom of the link.)

Uncle Sam wants YOU … unless you smoke.

The departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs had asked a panel for recommendations on reducing tobacco use in the U.S. military. The panel’s response: Ban smoking.

Raleigh’s News & Observer reports that the military could refuse to admit smokers into the Armed Forces, phasing out smoking within 20 years (which would also give time for our military men and women who smoke to retire from their posts).

From the N&O:

Tobacco-related health problems cut into combat readiness and cost the military $846 million annually in medical care and lost productivity, and cost the VA another $6 billion, the report said.

Clink on the link to read the full article (or support your local newspaper by buying a copy somewhere) and weigh in below.

A Facebook movie? Really?

When I go out to coffee shops, bookstores, and theaters, it’s partly to get me out of the house, off the computer, and (usually) off of Facebook. (Being sociable is another part, by the way.)

Hollywood is now ruining that.

The Facebook movie, officially called “The Social Network,” is starting production this year, according to Mashable. It’s supposed to follow real-life FB founder Mark Zuckerberg, and the script was written by Aaron Sorkin, who I admire for the first three seasons of amazingly witty dialogue on “The West Wing.”

Who knows, maybe this movie will actually be something worth tweeting about. But we’ve got a while to find out if that’s true, and so far, I’m skeptical.

Our Disturbing Scriptures: Bye bye, rebellious children.

A new post on the “Our Disturbing Scriptures” series is long overdue. Part of this was just due to a busy schedule; another part was (and this surprises even me) I couldn’t think of another good example to write about. Considering the contents of the Bible, which can range from dismembered concubines to the mass slaughter of an entire generation of Egyptian children, that’s saying something.

Anyway, during my vacation this past week, a new one came to mind:

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Hear and fear, indeed.

I’ve been in churches most of my life, and I can’t recall when, if ever, I heard someone devote some serious time to unpacking this passage for an audience. Maybe that’s because, like me, they find it too harsh and unsettling to devote time to, and sometimes it’s easier to forget that passages like these even exist.

I understand the need for a child to be disciplined since it can ultimately breed maturity and character. But the death penalty seems to be too much, to say the least.

How were these parents, themselves flawed human beings, able to judge when their child had reached the point of no return?

Would the supposedly rebellious child have a chance to respond to and appeal the charges brought against him?

And if the death penalty had to be pursued, were there not faster ways of killing a person than throwing stones at them? Why drag out the punishment?

This seems like a brutal punishment, as if a crime deserving a spanking is instead being settled with a gun.

I can think of one possible explanation, though it’s not entirely satisfying:

If children didn’t honor their parents when they were young, those parents might not be taken care of when they’re older and in need their children’s support. God, by instituting this punishment, is trying to prevent an entire generation of elderly people from suffering neglect and abuse.

I leave other explanations open to the comments section below. (Also, I’ll try and do a better job of updating this blog.)

Drop your atheism, win a trip.

Here’s a new TV show idea that’s so off the wall, you’re going to be surprised it wasn’t invented by Fox.

The premise of the new show in Turkey, “Penitents Compete,” is simple: A panel of religious leaders will try to convince an atheist to convert to one of their respective faiths. If the atheist converts to one of their belief systems, they’ll win a trip to its holy site.

So, first salvation, then vacation.

My first reaction (and I have nothing else to go on, having never seen this program) is it risks trivializing salvation and puts it on the same level as the prizes on “The Price is Right.” But if there’s any good that could come out of this show, it’s this:

It’ll give believers in God a great chance to see which of their arguments for the existence of the Divine work and which ones may not be so convincing. It could give Christians an example of how to (and how not to) interact with people who completely disagree with them, who think that “theist” is a synonym for “irrational and stupid.”

So if you’re watching the show, what arguments do you think the panel should use? Which arguments should they avoid?

Or, should they avoid participating in the show altogether?

(via Friendly Atheist)