A Whore's Uniform

Dave Chapelle did a platinum series stand up comedy that was quite hilarious if you can get past the language, and vulgar and crude bits. However, one of his bits had a lot of truth to it, and it was in regards to women wearing skimpy clothing.

Dave talked about how a woman might wear some revealing clothes out in public, but when guys begin to hoot and holler at the woman, she would defend herself, saying, "Just because I am dressed a certain way does not mean that I am a certain way." This statement is implying that she knows that she is dressed like a slut, like one who is easy and wants guys to check her out so that they can know what they can get, but that she isn't truly that way to begin with. Dave Chapelle says in a few choice words that this is confusing for men.

Dave likens the aforementioned situation to himself dressing up in a po-lice uniform, and while walking down the street a white man runs up to him and pleads for help. Dave just looks at him helplessly when the man asks for help for some perilous situation. Dave interrupts the man, saying, "Now hold on. Just because I am dressed a certain way does not mean that I am a certain way." Clearly, Dave is showing that because he is dressed a certain way people will respond or treat him in a certain way believing him to be a certain way. It is the same way, according to Dave's rationale, for women who wear skimpy clothes.

Yes, women should be respected by all men despite what they are wearing. But, Dave says, just because a woman is dressed a certain way it does not mean that she is a certain way. However, Dave concludes, she is wearing a whore's uniform, so it is no wonder, then, why men look at and treat her the way that they do.

Women, wear what you want, but know that your clothes talk, so don't be surprised when men hoot and holler at you when you wear a low-cut shirt or a tiny, butt-cheek revealing skirt. Or, perhaps you might consider not wearing clothes that stand contrary to your way of life, so that men might not get confused when they look at you and act on it. Either way, do what you want, but do you really want to be known for wearing a whore's uniform?

Enduring Triple Digits Without Air Conditioning

How was it possible for people 100 years ago to live in hot weather without air conditioning? I would like to know a few things. Were temperatures 100 years ago as bad as they are now? If so, then when people worked outside, did they work in the clothes portrayed in Hollywood, like Little House on the Prarie, for example? Keeping these in mind, was there a higher rate of heat related illnesses and deaths then than there are today?

Well, despite whatever truths belong to these questions, I have experienced some heat without air conditioning, and after already being exposed to a life of air conditioning, I never want to experience not having it when the climate hits triple digits again. Without it life is miserable when the temperatures rise above 100 degrees F. It doesn't take long before you become sweaty, sticky and smelly when you don't have air conditioning in triple digit weather. Boy am I glad that on a day like today (approx. 115 deg. F) I am in an air conditioned office!

1 Corinthians 6:9--Homosexuality and the Episcopalian Church

Many Christians ought to know that the Bible is quite clear regarding homosexuality: it is not an act that characterizes a son or daughter of God nor a devoted follower of Christ. I would like to briefly look at 1 Corinthians 6:9, which clearly identifies this message: if you are a Christian, then your life will not have anything to do with homosexuality.


1 Corinthians 6:9
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

The wicked will not take part in the kingdom of God. Who are the wicked? Paul states that the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, and homosexual offenders are the wicked; these are the ones who will not inherit God's kingdom.

The word for sexually immoral in Greek means a fornicator, or someone who has sex outside of marriage. Christians have no business sleeping around as it is not a characteristic of one who passionately follows the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The word for idolaters in Greek means a person who worships idols. Christians have no business having any other god than the Trinity. Otherwise, they split their allegiances and have no inheritance in God's kingdom.

The word for adulterers in Greek can mean a person who sexually assaults other people or someone who participates in orgies. It can also mean someone who corrupts or forsakes an allegiance, which I would think is the case here. Further study would be necessary to determine which meaning is intended here, but this would take some time that I do not currently have. In any case, Christians have no business participating in orgies, because that would be fornication and/or adultery, nor do they have any business sexually assaulting anyone, because that forsakes the golden rule. In either case, both are uncharacteristic of love, which God has called his children to exemplify. Additionally, any sort of marital unfaithfulness is seen as uncharacteristic of one who calls himself/herself a Christian.

The word for male prostitute in Greek means an effeminate male--one who is the receiver in a homosexual act or relationship. The word for homosexual offender in Greek means a male who participates in a homosexual act or relationship as the dominant one. Christians have no business participating in homosexuality, whether it be casual or cordial, because this perverted form of sexuality is highly uncharacteristic of God's children.

Clearly, this verse alone shows that prostitution, fornication, adultery, idolatry, and homosexuality are all indicative of the unrighteous, wicked ones who will not receive any inheritancee of the kingdom of God.

My question is, then, how can the Episcopalian Church approve and appoint of an openly gay bishop? Love the sinner and hate the sin might be their motto; however, they have gone beyond that. They have forsaken church discipline and the call to holy living, and they have condoned a lifestyle that is contrary to the Gospel.

We need to love homosexuals--gays and lesbians--because they need love too. Jesus would not ignore them nor condemn them; he would love them. However, he would not allow them to just stay in their current homosexual tendencies or relationships. He would call them to a holy lifestyle, rather a lifestyle that is separate of the world's standards. The Episcopalian Church is correct in loving the gay bishop that they have appointed, but it is wrong in appointing the gay bishop into leadership while allowing him to remain in his wicked homosexuality. His position is certainly confusing: is he one of the children of God who will inherit the kingdom of God? Perhaps he is one of the wicked ones who will not inherit the kingdom of God? We are not the Judge. However, his life demonstrates life choices that are uncharacterstic of a Christian, and for that reason he should not be in Christian leadership at the very least. His life is confusing, but God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33, NKJV).

Pirates 2 - Certainly Disappointing

With one word I can sum up Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest: disappointing. The movie just simply could not stand up to the first installment of the Pirates trilogy. The story was not all that clear, nor did it have a true climax or resolution. In the end it simply left you hanging as if you had literally fallen off of a cliff. I left the theater asking myself, "That's it?" This story was definitely found wanting.

Because the story was lacking, I think that the producers tried to mask it by throwing in tons of visual effects, and also a flirtatious lust between Elizabeth and Jack, so that there would be some necessary tension to help carry the movie along. Ultimately, I found myself quite bored throughout the movie. The scenes were too unreal--yes, even for a fictitious film--that I simply could not suspend my disbelief. The fight scenes were too complicated; doesn't Bruckheimer know that "less is more?" This movie is turning out to be just like the Matrix trilogy, where the beginning was great, the middle sucked, and the ending was just mediocre. Unlike most of you, I wasted my time and money at the midnight showing--which means I also wasted my sleep--for this disappointing film. Will the third installment of this trilogy be able to redeem it as a whole, or will I have to fix myself to the first movie and reject that the others exist? Only time will tell.

The top ten reasons why Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest was disappointing:
10. No true resolution
- This movie did not come to a close!
09. No true climax
- This movie lacked purpose!
08. Story was wanting
- The story didn't draw the viewer in as the first one did; it was boring.
07. Highly overdone computer graphics
- The graphics were too cheezy and unrealistic; it was not believable.
06. Too complex and busy fight scenes
- The viewer couldn't follow what was going on because too much was going on!
05. Too unrealistic choreagraphy
- Too many of the feats just simply could not be possible; it made it even more cheezy!
04. Tension of lust between Elizabeth and Jack
- It was not necessary and it detracts from the romantic love of the first movie.
03. Lack of explanations to tie-in the first and second installments
- Too many questions were left unanswered for understanding this film.
02. Too predictable, even Jack Sparrow
- The movie lacked the spontaneity that the first had; it didn't keep the viewer's interest.
01. Too dark; not enough humor
- Lacking in humor and abounding in dark, horrific images, it lost its airy touch.

Go judge for yourself. By the time I got home last night at approximately 3:30am, I was disappointed and angry with the movie. It just was a completely different world in comparison to the first movie, and I do not see how it will be redeemed by the third one.

A Parable on Prayer - Luke 11:5-10

A Few Quotes

George Bernard Shaw

Most people do not pray; they only beg.

Luke 11:5-10, NASB

Then He said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and goes to him at midnight and says to him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine has come to me from a journey, and I have nothing to set before him'; and from inside he answers and says, 'Do not bother me; the door has already been shut and my children and I are in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.' I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs. So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened."

A Sermon

I once heard a sermon that was touching base on tapping into the power of prayer, and it tried to focus on this text of Scripture. In the sermon prayer was recognized as the agent that releases the power of God; it defined prayer as a direct line of open communication to God; it indicated that prayer should be continual. Although I agree with these points, the orator's method of drawing these theological principles from the text was unwarranted. He was drawing these truths out of thin air--not from the texts he was looking at--and despite the fact that I agree with the truths, I have a hard time agreeing with his methodology for validating his points.

One of the things that I disagree with was the way he interpreted the parable. He took the parable to mean that in order to receive something in prayer one has to be persistent. To this I agree. However, he drove home the point that the father had children in the bed with him, which indicated that those who are Christians are already in bed with the Father. Now this is not to say that we have a child predator for a God, for it was merely the practice of First Century Jews to sleep together as a family. His point, then, was that we are already with the Father and therefore already have everything that we need, since we are in His bed, or beneath His wing of provision. The problem is that interpreting the parable in this way defies the purpose of the parable itself, and beside that, this interpretation would most likely not be how a First Century Jew would both hear and understand it. Here is what I mean.

A Short Exegetical Devotion

Parables are analogies. We get the word from the Greek word parabolê, which is the equivalent of the Hebrew word mashal, for which its root means something like "to be like" (Bailey and Vander Broek 1992, 105-06). Thus, a parable is a comparison of two relationships--an analogy. The parable in our text is comparing prayer to the relationship between the man and his friend. We must therefore interpret this parable in terms of this analogy.

Dr. Jack Painter said, "Parables are earthly stories with heavenly meanings." When we interpret parables we must look for the relationship between two earthly things and determine how they compare with two heavenly things. In this parable we are comparing the man and his friend with God and a believer.

Now, in order to determine the comparison being made, we must determine what the point of comparison is between the two earthly objects. In the case of the man and his friend we see that the friend is persistent in asking of the man for aid. He specifically asks for loaves, because it was the Jews' custom to provide for their guests, and failure to do so would bring shame upon the hosts. The friend does not want shame to come upon himself and his family, so he seeks aid from the man. Now, in the east no man knocked "on a shut door unless the need was imperative" (Barclay 1958, 148). It was their practice to leave the door open all day and there was little privacy, but when the door was shut, that was a tell-tale sign that the homeowner wished not to be disturbed (Barclay 1958, 148). The man is already in bed and his family with him. Could you imagine a neighbor coming over at 3am in the morning asking for some milk? This would probably be a similar situation. Beyond that, the Palestinian families slept on the floor on mats, huddled next to each other to provide warmth; so to have a member get up in the middle of the night would inevitably wake the whole family (Barclay 1958, 148). Despite knowing that he will wake up the entire family and greatly disturb the man, the friend knocks persistently. The word for persistence in Greek means to do something with a lack of sensitivity to what is proper or with disregard to the opinions of others (BDAG 63, see anaideia). This friend knocked on the door despite the custom of a shut door indicating privacy. He did not care that he would bring shame upon himself by waking him up; he had a need and he had to fulfill his duty to his own guest. So, the relationship that we see between a man and his friend is that by persistence, the man reluctantly gave into his friend's request.

Is this relationship what we see between God and a believer? Does God begrudgingly give in to our requests? Do we annoy God with our prayers? Do we disturb God by our persistence?

Jesus made it clear that the comparison being made is a contrast. In contrast to the man with his friend, God graciously gives us all things. Although a reluctant man will give a friend what he needs in the middle of the night, God will give abundantly to those who believe in him. This is particularly indicated with Jesus' words, "ask, and it will be given to you" (v. 9a). Those who ask of God will receive what they request, because the Lord seeks to give them good things. Again, "seek, and you will find" (v. 9b). Those who seek from God will find what they are looking for, because the Lord will guide them to it. Finally, "knock, and it will be opened to you" (v. 9c). Those who knock persistently will have the door opened, because God cares for those who believe in Him and desires to give them what they need. However, unlike the reluctant man, God gives abundantly to all who ask of him, and seeks to give good things (Lk. 11:11f).

Therefore, the analogy is as follows:

God : believer ≠ man : friend
With Respect To: A giving to B; A answer B's request
(God is not to the believer as the man is to his friend with respect to the manner by which God gives to the believer versus the manner by which the man gave to his friend.)

Knowing that God is nothing like the man is quite comforting. In fact it helps to know that God wants to provide for my every need in a joyful manner. Not only that, but He wants to give me things that are beyond my comprehension! Requests made in prayer don't burden, disturb, or irritate God; I don't have to feel like I am troubling God with my requests. God wants me to bring my requests to him, and he is happy to receive them at any time, unlike the man in the parable.

Jesus is therefore saying that we can bring all our requests to God, whether we think they are worthwhile or burdensome, because He cares for our well-being and wants to grant us our requests.

The Difference

The difference between the orator's sermon and my short exegetical devotion is our methodologies: while he tried to draw conclusions from unimportant details that seemingly tied into what he wanted to say, I focused on the analogy itself, which is what Jesus was trying to do--use an analogy to make a point; and while his interpretation is good, it does not fit the context of chapter 11, whereas mine does--our role in prayer (vv. 1-4), God's role in tandem with ours in prayer (vv. 5-10), and God's role in prayer (vv. 11-13). The simple fact of the matter is that his point rests on minor details in the parable, but the First Century Jew would realize that the minor point, which the point of the orator is built upon, is nothing more than "filler" to help build the story, and do not actually do anything else in the function of the analogy. It helps fill in the lines, but it is not something for which a major point should be made. The orator was obviously not reading the parable as a First Century Jew would, or at least he was not attempting to. He was merely attempting to interpret it as he saw fit without regard to how it would have originally been heard by the original audience. I believe, however, that the original audience would have ignored the simple, minor detail about the children being in bed with their father, and would have focused on the main points of the story.

The story is all about a man in his dealings with his friend in need in the middle of the night. The point of the story rests on this, not on the children. This parable serves to show how God's role functions in tandem with our role in prayer. It does not indicate anything about one's relationship as being under God's provisional wing. It does not mean that because we are already with the Father and therefore have everything that we need. In truth this parable is all about the fact that when we pray and ask of God, no matter how we might ask--whether simply (ask), intently (seek), or persistently (knock)--our request will be received. God does not answer our prayers as if he is troubled by them, or as if they are a hassle to him; He graciously longs to give us what we need, and He wants us to feel free to ask Him at any moment without hesitation. Indeed, it is fully acceptable to beg in prayer, but it is not required in order to receive an answer. God hears all of our requests no matter how big or how small, no matter how hard-pressed or casual we offer them up, and He gladly desires to give them to us.

God is never beset by our requests, so go to Him with anything and everything!

____________________
Bibliography

Bailey, James L. and Vander Broek, Lyle D. 1992. Literary Forms in the New Testament: a handbook. Westminster/John Knox Press: Louisville.

Barclay, William. 1958. The Gospel of Luke. The Daily Bible Study Series. The Saint Andrew Press: Edinburgh.