I'm not sure what it is, but it's not adult:

Miley Cyrus, aka Hannah Montana, is doing what little girls always do--growing up. Perhaps there is some truth to Dolly Parton's (Now there is someone who has never before been quoted on STTA.) comment this morning, that people should "ease up on their criticism while she 'finds her way.'" I'll grant that growing up today is hard, and doing so with millions watching has got to be tougher, but cutting the young star some slack would be much easier if Miley's growth-pains were not so similar to part of Dolly's anatomy--in your face. Or, as concerns me more, very much in the face of millions of teen and preteen girls who follow her music and every move. I imagine she has a lot of teen-boy fans as well, who likely follow her every move for a different reason, and that is my point, sort of. A popular defense of Ms. Cyrus' new more provocative turn in her career is that she is taking on a more "adult" image. That is a justification that was offered a few years ago for what became the train-wreck named Britney. I'm not going to offer rules on how much leg is too much, etc. etc. While not labeling her performances pornographic in any sense, I think the comment of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart is relevant. "I know it when I see it." Not everyone who speaks against the over-exposure of our day is mired in prudery. Some of us think there is virtue worth preserving, and like the judge, we know erosion of values and standards when we see it.But even that is not my main point.Here it is:Wearing fewer clothes, and acting provocatively toward those we shouldn't provoke is not adult.It's STTA.

Heritage:

Heritage:

I was reminded twice of its power last week.

It was a rare occasion when all my family was together. The values that Mom, who is still with us, and Dad, who has been in heaven for 25 years, taught us and, more importantly, modeled before us, still very much show through. My siblings and I are who we are because of that heritage. In many ways I see it reproduced in the next generation as well.

As part of the message yesterday I looked at a couple of Old Testament kings. Their heritage was felt for hundreds of years. He is not nearly as well known as David or Solomon, or even Ahab, but Jeroboam the son of Nebat left a major mark. I counted 14 times that 1 & 2 Kings records the phrase the "sins of Jeroboam," referring to the idolatry he introduced into the nation of Israel. "The sons of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them" (2 Kings 17:22, NASB95) Two verses later the historian gives the account of the Assyrian conquest of the nation. A nation fell because of the actions of a man two centuries before.

Thankfully heritage can move people the other direction as well. Again

l notice all the times, for centuries after his death, that God said He would withhold judgment "for the sake of David."

The heritage you are leaving--and you are leaving one--will affect generations to come for good or ill.

Which?

It's STTA.

t likely won't surprise you to hear that I often disagreed with Senator Byrd's positions in the Senate. Nevertheless I find much to admire in the record of our longest-serving Senator. I was two years old when Robert Byrd was elected to Congress, eight when be became a Senator.

His career spanned wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He was senator during the turbulent Sixties. His service to our country spanned one of the times of greatest change that history has ever seen. In his youth Bird was a member of the Klan. He later rejected that affiliation and philosophy, and became a proponent of civil rights. Some conservatives wrongly continued to harp on his former association. Rather his heritage of repentance is commendable.

The Senator was famous for bringing money and Federal projects to his home state. My niece, for instance, worked for a Coast Guard installation, that was located a long way from the coast because of the senior Senator's influence. Some of us from other states may look forward to a broader spread of "pork." Dare we hope that our legislators would take a higher view, and work toward making the nation healthier, rather than making their constituents feel better? In spite philosophical differences, I admire that Bird looked out for his own.

The Senator was a lover of the US Constitution and the traditions of the Senate. Again, I might not always have agreed with how he interpreted our founding document, and there were times when he used the arcane Senate rules to obstruct what many of us thought should be expedited, and vice-versa, but we could use more of his dedication to doing it right.

Senator Bird is a powerful reminder that each of us are where we are for a purpose. We can make a difference. What are we doing with our opportunity?

It's STTA.

But, What Does the Bible Say?

No doubt there is an element of the curmudgeon in what I about to say, but that doesn't negate the point.
I'm tired of Christians telling me that the Bible doesn't say that they can't drink.
A few years ago--keep in mind that at my age a few years can be 20 or 30--I observed concerning the clergy members of a particularly liberal denomination, that smoking seemed to be a requirement for ordination. It was at a time when the downturn in recreational burning of tobacco in America was already well underway yet these people of the cloth (this was a denomination that early began to ordain women) all exuded smoke on a regular basis. It seemed to be more than a craving for nicotine. In addition to stained teeth and fingers, and a hacking cough, the two-packs-a-day gave these "spokespersons for God" a definite worldly air. "We are just, hack hack, common folk like you--long drag--don't let the backward collar fool you." Finished with the practiced, nonchalant snuffing of a butt that only an old hand can pull off.
I get the feeling that a lot of the young, evangelical social drinkers are after the same sort of credentials. "This isn't my grandfather's Christianity, and I've got the beer, wine, ale (take your pick) to prove it."
They post pictures of themselves drinking their libation of choice on their social networking page, prominently display their winerack in their home, advertize for their favorite brand, etc..
They argue the merits of one brew or vintage over another in such a way that they make plain that they are knowledgeable of such things--dare I say "more knowledgeable than the unwashed non-imbibers"?
Some of my emergent, emerging, already emerged--I don't know--colleagues seem to imply that drinking is a necessary part of ministry. Every Bible study needs to include a round of beer, or better yet Guinness, and having a meal without wine is not only barbaric but so socially inept that it clearly cuts one off from the masses he/she is trying to reach.

How about this?
Quit telling me that the Bible doesn't say you can't drink alcohol.
I never said it did.
I have upset people by being honest in regard to my hermeneutic conclusions. I think Jesus drank alcohol, and even created it at the wedding feast at Cana. I think the "little wine" that Paul prescribed for Timothy's stomach trouble had alcohol in it. I think the content was low, but it was there.
So just quit saying that to me as if preached old Billy Sunday sermons every other week. Here it is in writing: The Bible does not say that you cannot drink.

OK, what does the Bible say?

• It says that drunkenness is wrong. A quick reading of Proverbs will give abundant evidence. Ephesians 5:18 gives a direct command.
  
  What are your limits?
  
  What indicators are you watching for that would tell you that you are one of the perhaps 10% of our population who tends toward alcoholism?
  
  If a beverage existed that tasted exactly like your favorite "adult beverage," but had no alcohol, would you drink it?
  
• Whether we like it or not, the Bible says that we are our brother's keeper. If 10 folk who never drank go out for their first beer or glass of wine, it is likely that one of them will develop a drinking problem. For the other 9 to glibly say that, "The Bible doesn't say I can't drink." won't cut it. Romans 14 & 15 indicates that especially within the body of Christ we have a responsibility for the welfare of others.
  My concern at this point is not theoretical. I've seen it happen.
  
• The Bible says that we are to be salt and light zealous of good works. Alcohol creates a lot of carnage in our world. In Jesus day if a drunk camel rider went off the road, probably the damage could be reckoned in a few bushels of grain, or lost grapes. Not now.
  A German friend tells me that among his colleagues whoever is going to drive doesn't drink at all. I wonder how widespread that practice is. (When I was in Germany, I was not encouraged by the fact that at the service plazas on Autobahn--where folk legally drive in excess of 150 mph--hard liquor was sold alongside snacks and soft drinks. Among my countrymen, the standard is most often expressed in terms of, "I only had ____ (You fill in the number.).
  

So, my Christian, drinking friends you are right.
The Bible doesn't say that you can't drink alcohol. It does however say a great many things about what you and I must do in that regard. Some of us have chosen to honor those Biblical mandates by not drinking. That does not make me a legalist or a Biblical ignoramus (Well maybe I am, but not for the reasons we are discussing.) I am concerned. I think that while merely quoting what the Bible doesn't say some of my friends are assuming no responsibility for what it does say.

I've seen too many situations where people young and old had their lives ruined by alcohol. I can't and I won't say that you can't drink. I do ask you to consider the reasons not to. To friends who claim to love the Lord, but whose only statement about the Christian and alcohol is, "The Bible doesn't say we can't drink."

I'm sorry (No, really I'm not.) but that won't cut it.

Biomimetics--Must mean there is something worth copying:

One would think that we had enough vermin in the world, but apparently not. The Universities of Bristol and Sheffield, in England are working on a robotic rat. (They call it SCRATCHbot.) Actually, what the high-tech team is seeking to copy and reproduce are the whiskers of hated rodent. The project is one of several "biomimetic robots" being developed. The robo-rats have whiskers that flick up and down much like those of their living counterparts. As they vibrate, the delicate antennae can sense various substances-depending on how the operators program the units. They could, for instance, help firefighters find people in smoke-darkened rooms. It sounds almost like a script for a Transformers movie, but the little machines can even work underwater-Robo-scuba-rat. The idea is to copy a rat's ability to navigate and function without vision, based on a sophisticated sense of touch.Nature is full of good ideas. For millennia we have been making machines based on the design specs of this world's Creator. We are often unable to improve on the Master's work. I just returned from some travel that involved airports. Beagle-hounds are still being used for drug detection. It speaks of design. Great attention to detail, incredible technology and creativity are required to copy the intricacies of rat's nose. It sure doesn't make sense to think that the prototype is just an accident.I don't know why, but I have a sudden craving for cheese.It's STTA.

"Get rid of the pocket Flap Velcro, and give us back our buttons." The US Army did a recent study on the effectiveness of the hook and pile tape-the official designation for the space program invention that has made it possible for youngsters all over the world to delay learning the intricacies of shoe-tying-and that was the verdict. It's not nostalgia that caused the soldiers to desire the ancient fastening technology. Pockets loaded with whatever a soldier needs when he goes into battle strain the fuzzy closures, which sometimes come open at very inopportune times. Like many more complex devices, the dust and sand of the desert tend to clog the press and stick fasteners. Tests show that three buttons per pocket work better in the grime and mud, don't give-off a tell-tale "RRRRRIP" sound when opened, and cost tax-payers about a buck per uniform less to boot.I'm apt to do a STTA, when some news item gives the right stimulus, about sentimentally holding onto something from the past too long, after modern technology offers a better way.The point is: Nothing is either right or wrong, or better or worse, just because it is older or newer. Closures on combat uniforms ought to be judged on the basis of utility. Other issues or objects have their appropriate metric-being old or new is not it. If you love the patina that only comes from decades of use, or if you enjoy the smell of new, go for it, as long as something more important-like keeping a pocket secure--isn't involved. It's STTA

Using or abusing? Taking or caretaking?

Waiheke Island has something in common with much of the rest of the world. In the 19th Century all the trees on the island big enough for saw-logs were harvested, the rest of the vegetation was burned, and the land converted to grazing land. The problem is across much of the world resources were taken to profit a few. Little if any thought was given to putting anything back, while generations to come were left to deal with the deficit. After a one-hundred-fifty years much of Waiheke is once again covered with forest. The birds once again have a place to nest and feed.In the past people have mistaken used fact that God gave people the dominion over the world as an excuse to take what they wanted without concern for putting anything back. An honest look at Genesis1:26-31 & 2:15, however, indicates that God made us caretakers more than just takers.People are the pinnacle of creation, and this world is a place prepared for our use, but that in no way justifies the earth's abuse.This world is marked by sin and the ravages it brings to all creation, Romans 8:22. We long for the time when the Lord finishes His work of redemption, not only in us, but in all the world, Romans 8:23-25. In the mean time we ought to do what we can to care for the home God has given us in which to live.
It's STTA.

It's weird.
I took my friends motor-scooter out a little while ago. I'm a regular bicycle rider and have ridden motorcycles and mopeds in the past, so being on two wheels wasn't the issue. It was riding/driving on the left.
I found myself thinking through every turn. For more than forty hears making a left-hand turn has meant going to the far side of the road I was turning onto. Not here. Today it meant turning into the nearest lane. It is the right-hand turn that requires greater vigilance. Through in round-abouts at almost every intersection and--well--let's just stay it kept me alert.
I'm glad to say no paint or blood was lost.

So what is the right side of the road to drive on.? In much of the world it is the left side
How should we read, left to right or tfel ot thgir?
We could accumulate hundreds of similar cultural and regional questions.
If today I had chosen to be an arrogant American and ridden my friend's scooter on the right . . . well you finish the thought.
Are all rules of right and wrong just arbitrary matters. I heard yesterday that Samoa recently changed its law. It used to be a drive-on-the-right country. Now they are keep-left. I assume they have their reasons; neither in the ultimate sense is right or wrong.
Are there matters that are always right or always wrong? Who gets to say concerning these matters there are no options? Are there principles and laws that are beyond region or nation, concepts that if we choose to violate them there is a price to be paid?

It's STTA.

A Bride for Isaac and a Pony for Eliana:

I was privileged to listen in as a friend and associate was sharing from the Bible with his little girls. They are going through the book of Genesis. In addition to Genesis 24 being adult, or at least teenaged material, the story of Abraham's servant finding a bride for Isaac is long. My friend, rising to the challenge, pointed out the faith involved in the trusted servant's journey. He was flying blind. His dependence on God's guidance is evident. "I being in the way, the Lord led me." (24:27) In the same way that Abraham wanted to find a suitable wife for his son, and the family servant wanted to fulfill of role entrusted to him, Eliana had wanted a toy pony--one of those with a long mane that she could comb. My friend related the little girls prayer of faith about a desired toy to the old patriarch's trust in God for the provision of a daughter-in-law. God cares about both. My need is some where in between those two poles. God answered the old man and the little girl in His way, according to His plan. I'm glad I got to listen in. It encouraged me to make my requests known to God, with thanksgiving. (Philippians 4:6) It's STTA.

One, Two, Three, strikes at the Old STTA:

An old story tells of three baseball umpires discussing balls and strikes:One of the men in black was impressed with his own accuracy. "Some is strikes and some is balls. I calls 'em the way they are.Another figured he had the power to actually make truth. "There ain't none of 'em balls and strikes 'til I calls 'em.The final ump believed in the reality behind the call, and knew his own limitations. "Some is balls, 'n' some is strikes. I calls 'em as I seez 'em"It wasn't a ball and strike call, but the discussion above is incredibly relevant to a game Armando Galarraga pitched yesterday. Making the call on the basis of hindsight and instant replay it is clear that Galarraga pitched a perfect game. An infield grounder was fielded by the first baseman, who tossed the ball to the pitcher who caught it and touched first a step before the batter. Listening to the sports-caster you can tell that's the way he saw it. The Ump, though, was calling 'em as he saw 'em, and for whatever reason, by his own admission when he saw the replay, he called it wrong. Unless the Commissioner of Baseball overturns the call-unlikely-the pitcher won't get credit for a feat so elusive that there are fewer than thirty perfect games in major league history.Stinks doesn't it? And that is STTA.But, does it change what the talented pitcher did? Does the fact that the umpire got it wrong change what the athlete accomplished. Well yes, and no. In one sense the umpire is one of the variables of the game. Other perfect games have been likely been spoiled because a gust of wind caused a fly ball to carry, or a fan in a white shirt distracted a fielder, who dropped a fly ball. Yet, no, the fact is the fact, even if it is called wrong. And that's something else to think about.There is only one Who is capable of rendering judgment that is unalterably consistent with fact. As John said of the Lord, "His judgments are true and righteous." (Revelation 19:2)And that's Something to Think About, strike three.

I'm riding the answer to your prayer:

One of my favorite scenes in a movie doesn't come from a major production. Sheffey is the story of circuit rider, Robert Sheffey. His area of ministry was around Radford and Abingdon VA, and over into the Bluefield WV region. When he was going from community to community a hundred-and-fifty years ago the area was mostly wilderness. Some of it still is. The preacher got around on horseback. Gideon, his trusted mount, was his closest companion. One day Sheffey met a family, all their possessions loaded on a wagon, and their horse dead. The man could have walked back to town and bought a horse, but they had no money. Sheffey was known as a man of prayer so he got down to tal;k to the Lord on behalf of the unfortunate folk. He never finished his prayer, though. Long before he got to the "amen" he realized he had been riding the answer to their prayer. He spent a moment saying good-bye, gave the folk some instruction about feeding and watering his old friend, slung the saddle on his own shoulder and headed on to town. I guess that scene touches me so, because I know that man--not Bob Sheffey; I'm not quite that old, but folk just like him. People who just keep on giving in service to God and others. A friend of mine, for example, is a modern circuit rider. He has a Bob Sheffey heart. He's looking to get a two-wheeled Gideon to use on his rounds. You might be part of the answer to his prayer. If you want to find out more drop me a line. It's STTA.

Ret.

I've probably seen it before--with my memory the way it is I may have received a note signed like this last week--but when I got the email today the signature caught my eye. "Pastor ____ ____ (Ret.)"I have seen that notation at the end of the names of retired military brass. And I notice that even as rancorous as the new media is today, interviewers almost always refer to ex judges, congress-persons, presidents, and governors by the title of the last, or in some cases the highest, office that they held. The (ret.) is understood.Since I'm a pastor who has gotten to an age when retirement, senility, or death are distinct possibilities, I thought about the three letters bracketed by parentheses for a moment. My friend who sent me the email just retired after a long and fruitful ministry. I thought of how glad I am to see him wear that title. He has brought credit to this calling of shepherding God's people. He kept the course and is finishing well. He continues to serve now that he is no longer in full-time ministry I thought when I turn in my notice, I'd like to continue to be known as someone who led the church. I thank my friend for leading the way with such faithfulness and distinction. He makes me glad to sign my name:Howard Merrell (not yet ret.) It's STTA.