I was moved by this collection of 10 “last pictures taken” of the subjects prior to their death.

Some of those included are Will Rogers, Albert Einstein, Elvis Presley, Anne Frank, Abraham Lincoln, and Lady Diana. Also included is John and Jackie Knill, who were among the several thousand who perished in the Christmas tsunamis of 2004.

From the description of the Knills photograph:

On January 13, 2005 the bodies of Canadian couple John and Jackie Knill were discovered on a Thailand beach resort. They were two of the many victims killed from the December 26 2004 tsunami. Weeks later a Seattle man doing relief work found a damaged camera and discarded it but kept the memory card in the camera. After downloading the images he discovered pictures of the Knill’s enjoying their vacation, as well as shots of a huge wave approaching the shore. With each picture it shows the wave getting closer and closer to shore. The last picture taken of them before the wave hit (shown above) was shot just after 8.30 am on December 26.

Interesting Fact: The Seattle man that discovered the images recognized the Knills from a missing person’s web site and contacted the couple’s two sons in Vancouver Canada. The man then drove from Seattle to Vancouver to give the sons their parent’s last images.

The Lady Diana image is also fascinating to me, and there’s one of photojournalist Bill Biggart, who died at ground zero on September 11, 2001. I thought I’d pass it along.

(h/t Andrew Sullivan)

My friend B emailed to me a link to Tropfest NY this morning. Tropfest is an outdoor festival showing short films, and this year’s winner is Mankind is No Island…. This 210 second film, shot entirely on cell phone, pairs New York and Sydney on community, empathy, and homelessness. Its moving and powerful:

Interesting article, Even Evangelical Teens Do It, over at Slate:

…

Teenagers who identify as “evangelical” or “born again” are highly likely to sound like the girl at the bar; 80 percent think sex should be saved for marriage. But thinking is not the same as doing. Evangelical teens are actually more likely to have lost their virginity than either mainline Protestants or Catholics. They tend to lose their virginity at a slightly younger age—16.3, compared with 16.7 for the other two faiths. And they are much more likely to have had three or more sexual partners by age 17: Regnerus reports that 13.7 percent of evangelicals have, compared with 8.9 percent for mainline Protestants.

How is that possible? What happened to all those happy, young Christian couples from the ’90s swearing that True Love Waits? Partly, the problem lies in the definition of evangelical. Because of the explosion of megachurches, vast numbers of people who don’t identify with mainstream denominations now call themselves evangelical. The demographic includes more teenagers of a lower socioeconomic class, who are more likely to have had sex at a younger age. It also includes African-American Protestant teenagers, who are vastly more likely to be sexually active.

But partly the problem lies in the temptation-rich life of an average American teenager. The fate of the True Love Waits movement, which began with the Southern Baptist Convention in the ’90s, is a perfect example. Teenagers who signed the abstinence pledge belong to a subgroup of highly motivated virgins. But even they succumb. Follow-up surveys show that at best, pledges delayed premarital sex by 18 months—a success by statistical standards but a disaster for Southern Baptist pastors.

…

The results play out in the usual 19^th-century way. When evangelical parents say they talk to their kids about sex, they mean the morals, not the mechanics. In a quiz on pregnancy and health risks associated with sex, evangelicals scored very low. Evangelical teens don’t accept themselves as people who will have sex until they’ve already had it. As a result, abstinence pledgers are considerably less likely than nonpledgers to use birth control the first time they have sex. “It just sort of happened,” one girl told the researchers, in what could be a motto for this generation of evangelical teens.

My wife and I just watched Saved! again the other night. Interesting how right on that movie is in certain particulars…

The debate, I think, will be over whether sexual orientation is more like skin color or more like Parkinson’s disease. We are coming to understand more and more each year that sexual orientation–all of it, yours, mine, whether it be towards a member of the opposite or same sex–has some genetic foundation. The question then is what to do about it. For years, religious groups that argued against same sex practice said it was fundamentally a choice; now many of them are recognizing that in fact orientation (and the drives that stem from it) are more deeply rooted than that.

This simple fact, of course, must impact biblical interpretation, and should in theory change the way we argue over the matter. (I’ll point you, once again, to Kim Frabricius’ exposition entitled Twelve Propositions on Same-Sex Relationships and the Church)

But for those of us who argue for more inclusive positions for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we can’t assume that because we had that matter right we’ll win the day. Some are going to argue that we ought to use various therapies to remove homosexuality from the human condition. In fact, some are even beginning to make that argument today. Here is Roman Catholic priest Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of Ignatius Press, Pope Benedict XVI’s U.S. publisher:

“Same-sex activity is considered disordered,” Fessio said. “If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb, and a way of treating them that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science.” (from an AP Article linked at chicagotribune.com, free registration required)

Fessio is commenting on a recent article by Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who raised these sorts of questions on his blog (entitled Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?).

Mohler is clear that he himself is dead set against abortion or gene therapy to reverse orientation (of course, he thinks liberals wouldn’t be so against it), but would consider perinatal hormone treatment if it would do the trick. Here are his ten points to end his essay:

Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons — the fact that all humans are made in God’s image — reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons — whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever — are equally made in the image of God.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

One fundamental appreciation and two fundamental objections. He’s right about remarking that all human beings are made in the imago dei and must be treated as such. That’s helpful. And he’s right that our ethical landscape is about to be challenged with the new gene detection and treatment options on the horizon. We need more work done in this area.

But the rest of the argument isn’t consistent with that. Are we going to treat all of our orientation more like skin color or like a disease? Is our sexuality deeply something about who we are? The problem with this argument is that it isn’t consistent: if orientation has biological roots, the moral options for appropriate exercise of practices related to that orientation must be fairly offered. You can’t say that there is a morally appropriate route for fulfilling your God-given sexuality if you are straight, but not if you aren’t. The moral rules must apply equally; the must be able to be universalized. But Mohler falls into the argument that we mustn’t do that. And he does so because he falls back on an assumption of biblical condemnation of homosexual practice that is actually debatable. (Again, see above Kim Fabricius). Far better would be an extension of the biblical sexual mores towards homosexual partners, blessing unions and promoting monogamy among faithful couples and their growth into productive, mutually caring families. This would be to universalize the biblical teaching on human sexuality in a way that recognizes that the biblical authors didn’t write about same-sex relationships as we know them, but condemn what we all (should) condemn: gang-rape, pederasty, etc…

Second, this idea of treating away an innate human condition like sexuality is repulsive. This was experimented with in human history before with disastrous effects. I recognize that Mohler is against gene therapy and abortion for this matter, but how long until the next guy pushes this line further toward the abyss?

For what its worth, if I have a gay or lesbian child, I’m going to love him or her and encourage him or her to have a full, meaningful, grace-filled life, including one hopes a lifetime of happiness with a loving partner.

Knowledge advances, I guess. Here’s a neat little article out of the Tampa Tribune, highlighting the first 15:

1. U.S. life expectancy in 2005 inched up to a record high of 77.9 years.

2. The part of the brain that regulates reasoning, impulse control and judgment is still under construction during puberty and doesn’t shift into autopilot until about age 25.

3. Blue light fends off drowsiness in the middle of the night, which could be useful to people who work at night.

4. The 8-foot-long tooth emerging from the head of the narwhal whale is actually a type of sensor that detects changes in water temperature, pressure and particle gradients.

5. U.S. Protestant “megachurches” – defined as having a weekly attendance of at least 2,000 – doubled in five years to more than 1,200 and are among the nation’s fastest-growing faith groups.

6. Cheese consumption in the United States is expected to grow by 50 percent between now and 2013.

7. At 68.1 percent, the United States ranks eighth among countries that have access to and use the Internet. The largest percentage of online use was in Malta, where 78.1 percent access the Web.

8. The U.S. government has paid about $1.5 billion in benefits to thousands of sick nuclear-weapons workers since 2001.

9. Scientists have discovered that certain brain chemicals in our tears are natural pain relievers.

10. FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover wrote a drooling fan letter to Lucille Ball in 1955 to tell her how much he enjoyed an episode of “I Love Lucy.” “In all the years I have traveled on trains,” he noted, “I have often wondered why someone did not pull the emergency brake, but I have never been aboard a train where it was done. The humor in your program last Monday, I think, exceeded any of your previous programs and they have been really good in themselves.”

11. Wasps spray an insect version of pepper spray from their heads to temporarily incapacitate their rivals.

12. A sex gene responsible for making embryos male and forming the testes is also produced by the brain region targeted by Parkinson’s disease, a discovery that may explain why more men than women develop the degenerative disorder.

13. Ancient humans from Asia may have entered the Americas following an ocean highway made of dense kelp.

14. An impact crater 18 miles in diameter was found 12,500 feet under the Indian Ocean.

15. Americans spent almost $32 billion on toys during 2005. About a third of that was spent on video games.

Happy New Year. I’m interested in what we’ll learn in 2007…

…of the meeting recently between Mark Driscoll and his peers, this one on Dwight Friesen’s Blog. It is rather revealing, I think. A few thoughts to make, after a lengthy excerpt:

If we had simply met and nothing tangible would have resulted I still would have been thrilled by the fact that we met face-to-face as our Scriptures invite. But as further evidence of the grace of God, I’m delighted to report that the meeting was a time of frank and honest discussion, where everyone had opportunity to hear, to speak and inquire.

Mark demonstrated a desire to hear and to learn, and told a number of stories of the impact of the response to his language that illustrated his need for change. He told the story of his contact with a member of the Haggard family after his comments went public and how as a result of that conversation Mars Hill Church will have a female researcher read his blog posts prior to publication. With tears in his eyes Mark spoke of his fear for his family’s safety as a result of the public response to his language . . . threats of violence must stop. Please, if you or anyone you know has responded to Mark or (anyone) with such threats of violence please, for the sake of Christ and the love of humanity explore your heart and repent of your sin. Violence is not the Way of Christ. Also, Mark’s pastoral heart was evidenced as he spoke clearly about the need to model humble leadership which appropriately acknowledges failure; he even confessed his need for wisdom as he wasn’t sure how best to proceed. Although the primary focus of our conversation was the tenor of Mark’s comments in recent years, he wasn’t the alone in making movement during the course of this conversation. Paul, the organizer of the protest, asked Mark’s forgiveness for labeling him, “Mark the Misogynist.” Not only that, the protest was called off. Further, for those in that conversation who had seen Mark as something of an an adversary prior to our meeting there was movement toward being advocates one for the other. I left that meeting with greater hope for a reconciled church in Seattle, and beyond. For all of us the proof will be in the pudding. How will Mark use his wit and prophetic platform in the future time only will reveal, but I do believe that he loves God and is desirous to serve Christ and to finish well the race he has been called to run.

We all know that actuating lasting change is difficult and slow as our greatest strengths are often our greatest weaknesses. And so the very things that brought us together for this meeting may bring people together again around future matters; and this is the nature of human experience. It is also the hope of Christian reconciliation that our differences and disagreements can bring us together at the foot of the cross. Our goal is not to agree on points of theology, as clearly we don’t, rather our goal is to grow in love and to move toward reconciled union because of God. This is just one of the many reasons why Trinitarian theology has such practical application in our lives. Three Divine differentiated persons in humble service of one another, and simultaneously one God: genuine plurality/genuine oneness. As followers of Christ we must disagree with another and we can still move toward one another in grace, love, humility and curiosity while recognizing that our oneness does not rest in our creeds but in our Creator.

I’m moved by this account. I’m glad that some practical, systemic measures are being taken to work on Driscoll’s public blogging (though, again, I hope he really has heard what the biggest complaint was; I don’t know if he has). I’m deeply troubled that Driscoll has received threats of violence. And I agree, this is a great model for future health of the church community in Seattle.

Driscoll’s latest on the controversy he sparked and his later response is up. Like his last post, I’m impressed by the spirit he brings to this latest message. I have no doubt that he has experienced these few weeks much like he mentions from the Book of James. That is impressive. I have no doubt that he has seen the effects of his words and might temper them in the future. I get his desire to mature more slowly, and am fascinated by his thoughts about how his sort of ministry in the 21st century is impacting that.

Still, while there’s quite a bit admirable in this post and what he’s learned, there’s nothing substantively new here on the original matter, and so far as I can tell there likely won’t be. An excerpt:

I came to the meeting expecting God would speak to me through fellow Christians and had much joy because He did. I learned that my theological convictions, even the most controversial ones, are as unwavering as ever. But I also learned that as my platform has grown, so has my responsibility to speak about my convictions in a way that invites other people to experience charity from me, which means inflammatory language and such need to be scaled back. I was also sad and sorry to hear that various things I have said over the years have been received very personally by some people who felt personally attacked. A female pastor had a very good insight: as my platform has grown, so has my audience, and that in some sense I need to consider myself the pastor of two churches. In Mars Hill where I labor as a pastor who deeply loves his people, they are gracious with my faults and flaws because they know me and they know of my love for them. But outside of Mars Hill, for those who do not know me or my pastoral affection for people, the perception of me can be very different. Therefore, I need to learn how to function most effectively in a new role as someone given a broader voice to speak for Jesus. There is much to learn. To be honest, this is all new to me and comes quicker than I would have hoped for; I wish I was at this place in my fifties or sixties, following a longer period of maturing. However, Jesus obviously has something different planned for me.

Either he still thinks this is just about him singling out Carolyn Haggard, and thus he’s missing the larger impact of what he wrote and what it means to say about women, or he’s got that and actually believes it. Either way, I think he’s likely done commenting on it. I note, also, that he’s a good and clearly thoughtful writer, and in nothing he’s posted on his blog has be apologized or retracted what he wrote about wives letting go for their bound-pastor-husbands. But I’m ready to move on.

Also helpful is this blog entry from one of the pastors who recently met with Driscoll about this matter, Rose Madrid-Swetman. (h/t Scot McKnight) As she says, “We are all life long learners on this journey where confession, forgiveness, and reconciliation is one of our highest callings.” Amen and amen!

And I’ll reiterate what I said before: no one should protest a church’s worship service. I hope the concerns about that he expresses in this post don’t come to pass. Driscoll, Mars Hill, and those who are upset with him all have my prayers.

Updating my earlier entry, Mark Driscoll thanks his critics on his blog this week. He stresses that his advice was directed towards young male clergy, and wasn’t intended nor thought through for a wider audience. So, as  Stephen Shields summarizes:

“What I did not mean to communicate was anything regarding the Haggards, particularly Mrs. Haggard. She is not to blame for the sin of her husband.
…
Lastly, I want to thank my critics, especially the most vocal. They have helped me to understand that more than just pastors are following what I am saying. Subsequently, they are helping me to learn how to more clearly articulate what I am trying to communicate. In that way, they have been of great assistance to me as I seek to pastor most effectively for Jesus. I have waited some time to post this clarification because in times past I have gotten angry and responded with a tone that was defensive, prideful, and not helpful. I am learning that critics in some ways are also friends because there is often some truth in what they are pointing out. Subsequently, God is using my critics to teach me and is asking me to be willing to listen.”

I’d suggest you read the Driscoll’s entire post. I admire the attitude of appreciation for critique (one such was from Andrew Jones, outlined on his blog TallSkinnyKiwi, who incidentally and rightly points to bob.blog as a helpful summary source of the whole affair).

I guess my thing is that Mark doesn’t seem to get what the big deal was: its not just that he intimated that it was Ms. Haggard’s fault, but it intimated that women in general are somewhat at fault when men go astray. True, this response is all about what the male pastor needs to do to get his sexual house in order. But that whole wives “letting themselves go” bit wasn’t mentioned in Driscoll’s response to the critics. He talked about full biblical sexuality within Christian marriage. He spoke about the importance of solid marriages for clergy. But nothing about the blaming the victim schtick. You know, the “she dressed provocatively so I couldn’t help ravaging her” thing. The “she’s not sexy enough anymore so I slept with a male prostitute in a meth-haze” thing. Not to mention how the deeper issue–the systematic suppression of innate homosexual orientation–isn’t even considered, but I gather there might be on his part a feeling that these are either choices or can/should be suppressed.

Now, was this original problem due to the audience that Driscoll was writing to, as he says?:

As I have re-read my blog, I can see how some may have misconstrued what I said. Because I was writing to male pastors, I spoke in such a way that was not as clear as it could have been regarding what is true of Christian marriage in general. Therefore, I hope that this post is more clarifying.

Whether written to male pastors or not, the point he made about women is just plain wrong. Whether its misogynistic or chauvinistic, as the debate is currently going in some parts of the blogsophere, isn’t really that germane to me. Its wrong. Not misconstrued. Wrong. Sinful, in fact. So I’m not satisfied. I appreciate Mark’s attitude of gratitude for the critique. I just don’t think he gets it. Still. In short, I continue to think that he’s a cad.

…by way of addendum, two quick other thoughts. First, as I think it should be clear, I don’t think that anyone should be letting Mark Driscoll off the hook because of this statement. Sure, we should be glad that he has an attitude of listening to his critics. But his critics should then point out, well, the obvious. Second, I also don’t think that anyone should protest someone else’s worship service, regardless of Driscoll’s response or views. There are ways to protest, complain, cajole, ridicule, critique, lambaste, etc, without disrupting a religious community’s worship of God.