Frank Caliendo: Really Really Funny Comedian

Now, I love impersonators. I think they're pretty much the funniest type of comedian to me because it's something that I can't do, and I love watching people do stuff I could never do.

Anyway, this guy, Frank Caliendo, has a free download that's stinking hysterical. Check it out here.

It's about 8 minutes long. And boy is it funny.

Save the Pinatas

This is true hilarity:

Click here to see.

Umbilical Cord Strikes a Chord With Me: Truly Marvelous Design

My wife and I are having our first child in about, oh, six weeks from now. Which means that the baby could come in a month or less. Which is just insane to me.

She has this book that her close friend, Kari, gave to her. It's a journal where mothers-to-be can record their thoughts and reflections. It also includes handy info on childbirth in other cultures (in nearly every culture, for example, women bury their placenta in the ground), and it details what exactly is happening to the mother and to the baby, developmentally.

I found this out today. Apparently, the umbilical, which is about two feet long, has an internal pressure that is similiar to a garden hose with a full stream of water running through it. That's so it won't kink, because if it kinks, the baby gets hungry real fast.

Now, the obvious question is, "What happens after the birth when you cut it?"

I mean, with a pressure similiar to a garden hose, this could create a real problem, both for the baby and for the mother. Imagine a garden hose spraying blood. Ick. Well, in the USA, nurses and doctors clamp the chord. But they don't really need to.

See, I learned that the umbilical cord is covered in this think jelly substance, similiar to petroleum jelly. Most of the time, the cord is floating in amniotic fluid, but when that jelly is exposed to air, it immediately constricts and contracts, choking off the the blood supply, making the cord safe to cut. Without this, there could be massive blood loss.

So even before there were clamps, and doctors, mom and baby were taken care of.

Is that not astounding? The whole thing just makes me want to personally thank God for such forward-thinking design principles.

Red States vs. Blue States: How Christians Can Be Purple-ers

I found this article by Chuck Colson at Christianity Today's website. Colson states, and I think rightly so, that there are "warring" factions in America, where people really, fundamentally hold different beliefs. He likens it to the differences in the nation right before the Civil War.

Colson's point is that Christians need to engage in their own "civil war," not by joining the political melee, necessarily, but by doing an "end-around" and instead do what Christians and the Church were built to do: work hard for the common good of all Americans. He says:

This is at the heart of the culture war—why the "reds" and "blues" are locked in mortal combat. It's a struggle for ultimate power. This is why we're seeing such hysterical rhetoric from the Left, which fears it's losing its power—and power is all that matters. The Right is just as bad. Some leaders say that since we're now in power, we get to impose our will on everyone else—an attitude repugnant to democratic governance.

What's the solution?

First, "red" Christians must reach out to "blue" Christians and vice versa. Ideology must not divide believers. Second, Christians are not seeking political power, so we're not out to "destroy" perceived political enemies. Nor do we line up for the victor's spoils, as if we were just one more special-interest group. Instead, we need to graciously contend (and demonstrate) that Christian truth is good for the right ordering of our lives, individually and collectively, and manifest our commitment to the common good by doing the things Christians do best: creating strong families, restoring relationships, helping the poor, working for human rights.

Christians are in a unique position to bring common grace to a deeply divided nation and offer something more than brief periods of peace between outbreaks of mortal combat every election cycle. In rejecting ideology and putting the common good first, we offer hope to America's warring factions.

Any thoughts?

New Will Smith Movie Trailer for "Hitch" looks Hilarious; Film version of C.S. Lewis Classic "The Chronicles of Narnia" in Production

Have you seen this trailer for the new Will Smith movie "Hitch"?

As my friend Josh Shipp would say, "Finally, a movie where WIll Smith is co-starring with humans."

So true.

On a slightly more theological note, due to the recent popularity of the whole "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, apparently some directors thought it'd be cool to do a film version of "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe." Click here for a look at the special effects pre-production, and click here for the film's official website.

Barna Poll Reveals that Pastors Really Confused About What Preaching Is

Okay, imagine if someone polled a bunch of modern movie directors and asked them, "Which directors do you think influence modern cinema the most?" And the list came back like this:

1. Steven Speilberg
2. Martin Scorcese
3. Oliver Stone
4. Alan Greenspan
5. Michael Moore
6. Mel Gibson

What would strike you about that list? Well, most obviously, you'd notice that a certain non-director seems to be influencing directors, which would be curious. And you'd probably start to think, "How in the world is the film industry influenced by Alan Greenspan? I mean, who watches market reports and says, "Man, feds lowered the prime rate again. I feel a movie coming on about THAT."

This is EXACTLY the feeling I had when I read my friend Jon Fortt's post over on The Cross today.

Fortt reports that George Barna recently completed a survey which asked evangelical preachers to cite who are the most influential people and inspirational people to the American Church. The top six were:

1. Billy Graham
2. Rick Warren (Purpose Driven Life, Saddleback Church)
3. James Dobsen (Focus on the Family)
4. George W. Bush (President of the USA)
5. Bill Hybels (WillowCreek)
6. T.D. Jakes (Potter's House)

Uhh...what?

But don't listen to me. Check out Jon's comments. They're much smarter than mine would be. He's got this sardonic wit about him that really lights up my day.

Macbeth vs. the Apostle Paul: Why Sin Destroyed One and Not the Other

My Advanced Placement English classes are studying Macbeth, and one of the themes that Shakespeare, that master of human nature, pulls out in his tragedy Macbeth is that sometimes people choose evil instead of good. In the play Macbeth knows that it's not right to kill King Duncan in order to gain the throne of Scotland. As an audience we listen to him argue with himself and list the reasons why he shouldn't committ the heinous crime: King Duncan has been nothing but gracious, he's a good king, the people love him, and he's promoted Macbeth promptly in recognition of his miltary accomplishments. And yet still, with all this arguing, Macbeth still enters into Duncan's chambers and spills his blood.

Man, how I identify with Macbeth. The Apostle Paul and Macbeth could have been fast friends. As he says, in a letter he wrote to the Romans, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. Instead I do what I hate to do."

How many times has that happened to you? I really want to be the bigger person and not snap back in anger, but I let your anger fly anyway. I really want to get off my butt and lose weight but it's just easier to not. I really want to be honest but if I am, I might not be able to get what I think I really need.

But in their stories, one real, one fictional, their endings are completely different. They both end up being killed: Macbeth for his villany; Paul for his righteousness. Macbeth died a tyrant beheaded by a man whose family he killed. Paul died a marytr, and became a hero of the faith.

So what's with the opposite trajectory of their lives? How can they have the same root problem, and yet one overcome and one fail miserably.

I think what Jesus would say is that it has to with each man's spiritual choices.

Macbeth has chosen, in the words of Jesus, "the way that leads to death." Macbeth has chosen in the words of the Prophets of the Old Testament "people who do what is right in their own eyes" but who "have rejected the law of the Lord and his decrees." Macbeth has chosen, in the words of the Apostles in the New Testament to follow "the acts of the sinful nature." Macbeth has chosen, in the words of Yoda "the dark side."

Macbeth is not purely evil, and I think part of the reason that audiences like him is because he is so torn between these tough moral choices. He is conflicted, just as we are conflicted. And he makes the wrong call, just as often in our own life, we make the wrong call.

But Paul, who has the exact same root problem, the exact same leanings and tendencies overcomes them and is able to do good? Why?

Because he's connected to the water. He says in Galatians that if you're connected to God, like a grape is connected to the branch or plants are connected to water, then you will have a better character. It might be slow-going at first, just as all growth is slow, but it will happen. Instead of being a murderous, gluttonous paranoid tyrant, you can actually be filled with character that is just like God.

Love. Joy. Peace. Patient. Kindness. Goodness. Faithfulness. Gentleness. Self-control.

I suppose the lesson in all of this is: what kind of character are you? And if you're not, then Paul gives you the short answer: get connected to God.

Britsh pastor and author Oswald Chambers has this to say about sin:

"We have to recognize that sin is a fact of life, not just a shortcoming. Sin is blatant mutiny against God, and either sin or God must die in my life. The New Testament brings us right down to this one issue—if sin rules in me, God’s life in me will be killed; if God rules in me, sin in me will be killed. There is nothing more fundamental than that. The culmination of sin was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and what was true in the history of God on earth will also be true in your history and in mine—that is, sin will kill the life of God in us. We must mentally bring ourselves to terms with this fact of sin. It is the only explanation why Jesus Christ came to earth, and it is the explanation of the grief and sorrow of life."

This is what everyone has to come to terms with. Life has enough sorrow, but I think the greatest sorrow comes not in what happens to us, but what we do to ourselves. And perhaps the greatest sorrow and grief comes when you betray your own self by choosing to become a person who you don't even like that much.

Thankfully, there's an answer.

And thankfully, you don't have anyone else penning your life for you.

What Would Jesus Say In a Class About Shakespeare?

A couple of years ago, my father-in-law gave me a book roughly the size of a small buidling. It was the "Complete Works of Shakespeare" and it seriously weighed about 30 pounds, as though an Atlas and a Dictionary had mated. It's so helpful for a number of reasons 1: because it has all the works of Shakespeare and 2: we'll undoubtedly use it as a booster chair for our child later in life.

Anyway, my interest in Shakespeare has been upped lately because my AP English classes are getting ready to start Macbeh. And I'm thinking of trying to get through that whole book - all of Shakespeare's works - this calendar year. Lose 50 pounds, read all of Shakespeare, have a kid, write a book. Those are my goals.

I'm mostly intrigued right now by Iago in Othello. I can't quite figure the guy out. Why is he so vindictive? I mean, the dude devotes his whole existence to revenge, of systematically destroying the life of Othello. But why? Is there some underlying psychological pathos? Is it his wounded pride that he wasn't promoted? Is he jealous that Othello snagged the beautiful Desdemona? Is this all about sexual jealousy? Or was it, as it seems, because Othello got promoted and Iago didn't? Can being spurned professionally, passed over for a job, really lead to such vehement hatred? Iago certainly manipulates people using their own racial prejudice, but is Iago himself a bigot of monumental proportions? Is there some sort of religious hatred because Othello is a Moor? Did his father not spend enough time with him? Did his mother not breastfeed? Dr. Phil, help!

The conclusion I'm coming to is that Iago does what he does because...he's Iago. Shakespeare, that master of human nature, just draws up characters and lets them interact with each other. Some authors deal in species of men: by that I mean archetypes. The big strong heroic figure. The defiant, courageous woman queen. The wimpy guy who's smart, but weak and hated. The seductress. Etc. Etc. But Shakespeare seems to draw...individuals who surprise you. I mean, Macbeth, (though so villanous later that we hardly identify with him) at the beginning is so tormented, so clearly a man who desperately wants to follow his conscience. And yet he does wrong. Who of us hasn't been there? And the only difference between the foil characters of Duncan and Malcolm and Banquo is that these men...well, resist evil. Why? I guess because it's just who they are.

I've been thinking that maybe one of Shakespeare's contributions (among the obviously other hundreds) is that he's showing us that the most crucial part of human existence is...character. It's not just the most important thing on the stage, maybe it's the most important thing in life. Who you are on the inside, what your strongest values are, is all that matters. And that determines your destiny, the trajectory of your life. And really, there's no getting away from that.

Of course the next question is "How does one get character" and then after that "can one change one's character." Shakespeare seems to think so, in some plays, not so much in others. Perhaps that's just the way, too. Some men can change. Others can't or don't.

What I'd really like now is a commentary written by Jesus about the works of Shakespeare. You know, hear what The Lord had to say about The Bard.

But for now, if you'd like to comment, I'd like to read that almost as much.

One Christian's Response to the Tsunami and Suffering

The following is an email from a close friend of mine about the tsunami that I think is an especially well-written response from a guy far more intelligent than I. I've withheld his name on purpose, but have his permission to share the content of this.

Dear David,

I have been thinking about the same statement you made last Wednesday , and at some point I would have responded. But anyways, here is a summary of my thoughts - more or less organized - on this issue. To me this whole thing boils down to our false impression that we actually know our God, that we can penetrate his character, that on the pages of the Bible he revealed himself to us in a large enough measure so we can actually understand, make sense of, and explain to others why calamities happen, why there is genocide in the world, why tsunami's volcanoes, earthquakes, meteors, etc. wipe out entire cities, and countless people perish within hours.

Ultimately we experience the tragedy of the tsunami, much like the majority of tragedies and calamities around the world, from our living rooms, behindthe safety of our tv screens. The information, though tragic and hearth breaking, comes in a sterilized form, it can only penetrate so deep within us, it is filtered by the reality of the fact that it wasn't us, or someone we love, whose family was washed ashore dead, in the aftermath of the event.

We experience this first of all on an intellectual level, and due to our circumstances we have the leverage to control how deeply we allow it to affect us. We turn off our tv sets, then turn to each other and try to analyze, with a clear mind and unaffected emotions god's purposes in this whole event. Did god do this to punish, or not? If he did, then how do we reconcile that with our notion of an all-loving, and eternally forgiving God? If he didn't then why did he allow it? We will take one or the other position based on our own perception of reality, life, God, right and wrong, and so on.

But that is as far as it goes. We have conversations, and at some point we feel satisfied with the explanations and answers we arrive at.

Lets get beyond the television screen, and go half way across the world, where a man stands on the rubble of his own house, and stares with an expression that goes beyond desperation, down on the bodies of all his family members, wife and children. He is all alone, and the only possession he has left is the shirt he wears. Let's tell him that God did this to punish the pagans in his town. Or better yet, let's tell him that God really loves people and he would never do such a thing to anyone, and this is just a side effect of a broken world, and one of the things god allows to take place on earth. How much comfort do we think he would find in either one of these explanations. Which one will lessen his suffering more? Does it matter which one is true? Are there only these two answers, and if we can't think of a third one, then there mustn't be one? Does it really matter!?

A few years ago I went through a divorce. I remember the day, actually the night (why these things get discussed at night, I do not know) when my wife at the time, told me that she had given herself completely to another man, and if she could be with him at that moment she would leave me and go to him. That night and in the weeks that followed, I felt empty, broken and desperate. People were telling me (some were pastors of course) that this happened because somewhere I had sinned and even though they didn't know (in their words) how and where it happened, God was punishing me for that.

Others were telling me that God is trying me to test my faith and if I fight hard enough I can get my family back. Others said that God gives freedom of choice and my wife chose to walk away from her marriage via the adultery route, and there isn't much I can do to bring her back unless she decides to.

It didn't matter to me which one was right, which one was wrong. I continuously felt like a freight train was running through my heart, and all I wanted was the pain to stop and for me to get my family back. Explanations did not matter to me, and I don't see why it would have mattered to the rest of the people. What I learned from that experience is the same message that God tries to convey at the end of Job's book. God does not give an answer to Job, he doesn't pat him on the back
saying 'that a boy! Thank you Job for hanging in there for me, this was a celestial bet, glad we won!'

Instead, God comes and says: ' who is the one who darkens my plans with mindless rhetoric!?'

What I gather from Job is this: ' I am God, I don't owe you any explanations, deal with life.' If it happens to you, remain silent and wait for me to walk you through this. If it happens to others, pray for them, and don't presume you know me and why I did this.

I know this is a long email, but I need to add one more thing. I think our evangelical world tends to overdo this whole image of God who is nothing but loving and forgiving. I know he is merciful, I know he desires a relationship with us, I know he waits patiently and forgives everything. I need his grace more than anyone I know, trust me. But at the same time he is a God of justice. I do not know why the tsunami happened. I am glad I have one more day than I was promised to live for him and be a light in the world. Love without justice turns to abuse.

Lets not take God's love and turn it into this co-dependent relationship, where he helplessly wrings his hands in heaven and lets humans walk all over him. We are to keep close accounts with our God, and at the same time throw ourselves at his mercy and grace, without which we would have no chance.

Some Christian Websites call Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life Unbiblical

One of my students referred me to this website for the American Family Association (www.afa.net). Apparently, there are some people who have a real problem with Rick Warren, who if you don't know it, is the pastor of one of the largest churches in the nation and the author of The Purpose Driven Life which is still flying off bookshelves, selling more than a million copies a month. Apparently, the AFA has a real problem with people learning that God loves them and has a plan for their life.

The following is an excerpt from David Hunt, a theologian who has spent a large amount of time railing against Warren:

According to Hunt, Warren's book includes no mention of Christ being crucified and resurrected for sinful men. Instead, he says, it enables people to "pick their venue" when they go to church -- choosing "what kind of music they want, what kind of worship they want, and so forth," and a place where they feel comfortable -- "even though they haven't really come to Christ" or repented of their sins.

"So this is what people want," Hunt laments, "and I think it's a prelude to the false religion that will be headed up by the anti-Christ actually. I think a lot of these people will be left behind at the Rapture."

!!!!?????!!!!

Imagine, non-Christians, going to a church where they feel like they can personally identify with the music, or choosing a place where the pastor speaks words that are meaningful or relevant!. And all these people non-Christians! What will our churches come to when non-saved, irreligious people stop by!

Rick Warren decided not to comment on David Hunt, or his organization's The Berean Call's criticism. Wise man. In Warren's shoes, I don't know if I would have shown such restraint.

I guess Warren and his dynamic church is teaching everyone that you really can't please everybody, so why not just work at trying to please the only one whose opinion really matters.

And that person is not David Hunt or the AFA.

The Asian Tsunami: How Can Christians Make Sense of This Disaster for People Seeking Answers, and What Kind of Answers Won't Help

There are few responsibilities that Christians have that are as important as being truthful witnesses to an unbelieving, confused and sometimes searching world about who the Lord really is. It's crucial, and there are few things than make me as angry as when people misrepresent God.

So when I hear Christians say things like: "Well, Indonesia was the most populated Islamic Country in the world, and the tsunami might just be God's judgment of them. That's what happens when you worship idols." Well, that just sets me off.

I'd like to remind Christians everywhere that simple answers will not help people make sense of this tragedy. Saying that those who died deserved death because of idolotry makes God not only a tyrant, but a hypocrite because certainly Indonesia is not the only nation with folks who don't believe in Christ. Such simplistic answers ignore the fact that of the 144,000 dead, most were small children who could not have reached the age of decision or reasoning. It ignores the fact that of the 144,000, there were undoubtedly some followers of Christ. And it ignores the fact that painting God like a tyrant, unleashing killer waves on people who upset Him, is nearly a blasphemous picture of God.

As a Christian, here's what I would say:

This world is broken, all of it. Even the natural world is broken. And we are a part of the natural world, and we too, are broken. Everything in this world is not as it should be. We are stranded in a world ruled by powers and principalities that are foreign and hostile to the way that God originally planned. And God hates all death, all destruction, all pain: which is why He sent Christ.

And as Apostle Paul said in Romans 8, "We know that the whole creation has been groaning, as in the pains of childbirth." Every bit of Creation longs for home, and these tsunamis remind us not only that we are not in the world we know we should be in, but that this world is dangerous and we are in desperate need of God's help.

To read other far more articulate theologian's perspectives on this, you can read David B. Hart's column here.

John Piper , a famous Christian thinker also responded to the tragedy recently in his blog.

If you have any thoughts on the tsunami and how it's affected (or affecting) your faith (whatever that might be), I'd welcome a post.

George Will Offers a Position that Pro-choice and Pro-life Folks Might Both Be Able to Support

Nationally syndicated columnist George Will says a few things about the court's role in abortion in today's column here.

Jesus' Tempation and James Dobson: Are Overt Forays into Politics Meaningful?

I’d like to return to a moment in Christ’s life, as recounted in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. This moment is often called “The Temptation” and it happened right before he began His public ministry. Jesus went out to the wilderness to be alone with His Father, evidently to prepare for the trying three-year ordeal He was about to embark on. While he was out there, Satan paid Him a visit, and directed three specific attacks on Jesus.

The first temptation had to do with Christ’s physical condition. After fasting for 40 days, I’d imagine His body was absolutely crying out to Him for food (my body cries out after about 6 hours, by the way). Satan says, “Why don’t you turn one of those rocks over there into bread.”

To which Jesus responds, basically, “There’s more to sustaining a man than food for the body. Man also needs food for the soul, and that’s more important.”

The text says that then Satan takes Jesus to a high place and shows Him (in some sort of vision I assume) all the kingdoms of the world. Satan says, “I’ll make you King of all this, if you just, you know, join my side. I'll make you second in command.”

Jesus is offered to be instant ruler of the world’s kingdoms. Satan offers to make him an amalgam of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Bill Gates: more power, more wealth, more command than anyone on earth. Amazingly, Jesus turned it down, saying, “Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.”

Jesus often used Scripture to shoot down attackers, but this one is particularly important, I think. When offered the chance to bring about His kingdom by political and military might, Jesus turns it down.

I've often wondered why this was. Seems to me that if that were the case now, and Jesus had a cadre of evangelical leaders by his side advising him, most of them would push him to go ahead and take that route.

"Can you imagine the mighty ways we could change the globe," I can imagine some of them saying, nearly quivering with excitement. "We could establish clearly and in writing, for all to see, exactly what God expects and what God wants. Humanity will be changed forever. This is indisbutable. God's laws will be the trumph card, finally, and everyone, regardless of what they think, will have to bow down!"

Seems like a good road. And certainly those wanting a Chief Emperor Jesus don't have bad intentions. Bringing about God's kingdom is a noble goal, after all.

But Jesus turned it down. Why? I mean, wouldn't it have made the whole thing a lot easier?

Apparently not. Hundreds of years earlier, Israel had the chance to be God’s representative on earth. They were the most powerful nation on earth, with more political and military might than any other nation, and that didn’t work out so well. They were beat into the dust twice: once by Assyria and once by Babylon. And God took Israel from that place of dreaming about being a world superpower all the way to the other extreme: they became a small broken, exiled remnant of people with next to no power or money or might. The only thing this ragtag group had in common was a love for God and each other.

Jesus would work the same way, with another ragtag group.

I say all this as a reminder to James Dobson, whose work as of late is so political and so entrenched in the inner workings of the political machinery of the United States that I fear that he has changed camps. It’s as though he’s stopped believing in the power of the Church and began placing his trust in the power of the United States legislature and judiciary and executive branches. Wrong trinity, Mr. Dobson.

On its face, it seems like a good deal. I mean, change the laws of this nation to reflect what God would want, and you can influence millions. But that’s not the way Christ chose to work (and He could have). He chose, instead, the local church, which means that the local church has got a lot more power than the US will ever have. Even if it is slower and clumsier, nothing can stop it, because it has God.

I just wish Dobson would remember that when he’s devoting all his time attempting to rig judicial appointments and change state and national laws and outlaw homosexual marriage or ban abortion. Jesus didn’t attempt to bring his Kingdom about through laws, but through people whose hearts He had won.

I wish Dobson would remember that the real power in this world doesn’t come from what laws are made, or who governs us, but in the real and living Christ doing transformative work in the hearts of individuals.

That’s something worth devoting your life to. Even if it is slow and clumsy and painstaking, it’s the way Jesus chose.