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.