Home / 2011 / March

Elephant Versus Humans: Crucifying The Wrong Guy

So the Interwebs is in an uproar against Bob Parsons, the CEO of GoDaddy. Because he posted a video which shows himself and three other big game hunters shooting an elephant, one of three bulls who were destroying a village’s vital crop. PETA are, naturally, very upset. Some people even shame him for vacationing in a poor country who is suffering under a notoriously tyrannical leader*.

I’m upset too.

I’m upset because the death of that elephant has caused so much anger. I’m upset because the death of that animal is being valued above the quality of life and freedoms of those poverty-stricken Zimbabweans, actual human beings who could starve if their cash crop is destroyed. I’m upset because we aren’t recognizing that not only did the death of that animal eliminate a threat to an entire city’s source of income, but it also provided them with meat**. Maybe it’s easy for us Americans as we sit in our nice houses, bellies full, temperature carefully controlled for maximum comfort, as we buy our food from a market which takes us all of five minutes to get to and which requires us to walk maybe 100 steps, from house to car, from car to entrance.

Why don’t we get righteously angry about our government spending millions (billions?) subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup/oil companies/coal companies/other already-filthy-rich companies/people and demand that we help Africa get clean drinking water and basic sanitation? Why doesn’t the free world cry for Mugabe to be deposed? And what about the hungry and poverty stricken in our own country?

If he isn’t already, Parsons—a wealthy man himself—should be helping the people of Zimbabwe in other ways too: donating money for wells, medical supplies, and educational materials, for example. But if the actions of Parsons and his mates—Ian Gloss, Tim Element, and Tony Theiler—depicted and described in that video helped a poor village in Africa—AFRICA, PEOPLE!—survive and fill their bellies, we’re crucifying the wrong guy.


* Why is big game hunting suddenly evil? The rich and powerful have been doing it for centuries, and at least he is targeting problem animals–not completely dissimilar from the problem feral hogs in Missouri.
** Parson’s video is described as graphic for the scenes depicting the Zimbabweans eating the elephant, carcass splayed open so that they might harvest the meat, but I maintain that this is only graphic to those of us who have our food processed for us. Millions of people around the world kill and then dress down their food every day.

What Are Your Top Android App Must-Haves?

We’ve made the switch. That’s right. We’re moving from 2 dumbphones + 2 iPod Touches to Android phones. We are so looking forward to only having to carry around one device for tunes and texts (who makes phone calls anymore, seriously?). Daniel, my brother, recommended a few strong Android devices, and after research, we’ve settled on the Nexus S. It’s Google’s very own Android phone, and ours will arrive sometime Tuesday afternoon.

I’ve been using iOS since December 2008, and I love the variety of apps available. In the past two years, I’ve used my iPod Touch for everything from a running stopwatch to a mobile attendance list for my classes to a creative writing notebook to a ToDo list to a synced-with-Rob’s-iPod grocery list, and much more.

So here’s the purpose of this post: Android fans and fellow iOS-to-Androiders, what apps are must haves for a new Android user? I’m not asking how to translate my iOS usage to the Android platform, but I want to know what the best and brightest Android apps are. Productivity, writing, Twitter, Facebook, gaming, weather, health stats, RSS feeds, clocks/timing, photography… you name it, I want to know. Tell me in the comments, or write a post of your own and link to it in the comments. I’ll add a list of these posts to the end of my blog.

Thanks to The Pop Herald for giving me permission to use the above image, two skateboarding Android robots, an homage to my little brother who used to skate all over Neosho and who is a huge reason we’re going Android.

Response to “Mark Driscoll on Twilight” [part 2]

This is the second part of a three-part series response to the video, “Mark Driscoll on Twilight.” Part 1 sets some ground rules for my response, part 2 covers my major objections to Driscoll’s arguments, and part 3 will go into some minor issues I have with Driscoll’s arguments and also some points on which we agree. Now to my response.

Driscoll seems to focus on two issues: Stephanie Meyer is a Mormon and the main conflict in the series is between humans, vampires, and animals.

The Mormon Issue

Meyer is a Mormon. So what. Driscoll gives a very sarcastic and—in my opinion—disrespectful history of the Mormon religion (which starts at 6:23). If I was watching this with one of my dear Mormon friends, I would feel very awkward during that part of the video.

Furthermore, focusing on meaningless details that are good only for a laugh does nothing to strengthen the argument for a mother who is going to have to explain to her daughter why she can’t read Twilight, or for anyone who might want to use the Twilight controversy as a way to witness to someone who loves the series. We need an actual arguable point.

So the angel’s name is Moroni (pronounced “more-own-eye”), which happens to have the word “moron” in it’s spelling. So what. Completely irrelevant.

But it sure is good for a laugh! Oh, and here. Let me tuck in a quick biblical reason to discredit the angel Moroni as well.

Here’s my hangup with Driscoll’s approach to The Mormon Issue: I have a problem with any leader, religious or otherwise, who models and thus advocates mocking another belief system or people group. Disagree, call them out on their weaknesses, but do so respectfully, so that your people might go out and do the same.

In Driscoll’s and his congregation’s cases, this would have encouraged the love which draws people to Christ. Insulting someone’s belief system–no matter how strongly you disagree–does not demonstrate Christly love. It drives people away.

The last thing I’ll say on this point is that influence Meyer’s religion is, from all that I can tell, completely absent from this series (with the exception of the chastity until marriage belief). This is a biggie because Driscoll makes a big deal out of Meyer’s religion, but that is just another empty argument. Should we only read fiction written by believers? Or only by Southern Baptists?

The Vampire Chastity Issue

When countering one popular defense of the plot, that the main characters, Bella and Edward, at least wait until they are married to have sex, Driscoll exclaims, “but it’s vampire chastity!” It seems that he is bothered by

  1. Bella is 17 and Edward is a 108-year-old vampire
  2. When they consummate their marriage, they have a half-human, half-vampire baby.

I have two problems with flippant dismissal of a topic that is, in my experience at least, regularly and consistently taught to church-attending teens.

First, the “vampire” part. Driscoll believes that vampires are spiritual, but of the devil because they drink blood and offer life after death but not through the saving blood of Jesus.

I’ll discuss the life-after-death point in part 3, but when did mythical beings and beasts—of any color—go off limits as pedagogical examples? What about The Chronicles of Narnia? Must we throw that out as worthy of learning any lessons from because there are half-human/half-animal creatures in it, for example.

Despite earning a B.A. in English Literature, I was never good at literary interpretation, so I’m not going to suggest what good or evil the Cullen brand of vampire could symbolize. After reading the books, I am not yet convinced that the good vampires in the series should be interpreted as evil by Christians.

Do allow me, thought, to give a little background in case you haven’t read the series. The Cullens (Edward’s vampire family) acknowledge that killing humans to drink their blood is evil—they agree with Driscoll on this. But they choose to fight it; they call themselves “vegetarian vampires” because they satisfy their need for blood by preying on animals only. Denying their thirst for human blood is painful and requires serious amounts of self-control. But they deny their evil nature and instead choose life for their natural prey. Similarly, Christians should be denying their sinful nature and choose Life.

Edward probably feels more strongly about his “life” than Driscoll does. As it gets closer to the time when Bella would become a vampire, readers see him wrestle with whether or not he has a soul.

Now let’s look at the chastity part. Edward is a main character, a good guy, who values saving yourself until marriage. It seems to me that, in today’s culture, it’s typically the guy who wants sex so bad, not the girl. Results?

  1. Twilight implies that it is okay for women to be sexual, to crave sex. This is personal for me, because I said no for so long that I had trouble saying yes when I was finally married. I was sort of programmed to be prude and not want sex.
  2. Edward’s chastity and Bella’s unfailing love for him teaches those teenage girls that they should find it attractive when a guy wants to wait. Again, how often do you see that in our culture?
  3. Finally, we see time and again throughout the series that the hero struggles with evil or temptation, but practices self-control. This is again a personal issue for me, and one of the reasons I read the series so many times.

Women Can Crave Sex

So, Twilight says it’s okay for girls to desire boys. Now, this is changing with shows like Sex in the City, but when I grew up, girls were typically portrayed as prude in the media and guys were typically portrayed as lusty horn bags. I had a True Love Waits Bible which had a special page helping girls say no to their boyfriends. There was no similar page for boys. My parents and my church taught me that I should say no to those horn bags’ advances, and the result was that I didn’t date guys who pressured me because everyone at my high school knew what type of girl I was.

Let me clear about one thing: I am not faulting anyone here. However, I think that sex is a serious subject and what a teenage girl is taught about sex, explicitly and implicitly, has a lasting impression on her life. That education needs to take into consideration both her chaste years and her married years. It’s not enough to dish out cheesy, “Sex within marriage is a beautiful thing!” comforts. They didn’t help me. What I needed to hear was something like, “Say no now, then say ‘hell yes!’ later.” Or “You might think you want to have sex right now, but just wait to you’re married! You’ll want to have sex all the time then!” I needed to hear that I should and would get turned on once I got married, and that should give in fully to those urges at that time.

See, on Arugust 14, 2004, I got married. And suddenly, overnight, it was okay for me to say yes; I could now have sex.

But it still felt naughty. It took a long time for sex to really feel like the celebration of intimacy that I was taught that it should be and not something forbidden. And it took an even longer time for me to feel comfortable admitting that I really wanted to have sex, that I desired it.

I can’t blame all of this on outside sources—I’m pretty sure that part of this is my personality and part of it is a medication I have been taking off and on for nearly a decade. But I value Twilight because it reinforced for me that I can want to have sex.

I imagine that Driscoll would argue that most teenage boys are not like Edward and would take advantage of girls wanting sex, resulting in a mass deflowering of our newly sexualized teen girls, and I agree with him. This is one disadvantage to this lesson offered by the Twilight series.

However, I respect that Twilight opposes the cultural norm here and says that men are chaste and women lusty. This is the part where discerning parents (i.e. those who read what their children want to read) will council their girls, reminding them that while Bella feels sexual attraction and wants to have sex outside of marriage, they are expected to have those sexual desires but control them until marriage, like Edward. Once they are married, they can and should give themselves over to that desire. But this requires that parents take a very personal and dedicated interested in what they’re children are reading.

Maybe this point is enough for you to say, “Deal-breaker. I cannot let my little girl read this series because of that.” That’s okay with me.

Edward Is Chaste

Edward is a hero who resolutely guards Bella’s purity (along with his own) because he loves and respects her that much and because he believes in the sanctity of marriage. What a great guy for our daughters to use as a model for who they date. Edward is setting the bar high for today’s teenage boys!

Edward Teaches Self-Control

Edward’s consistent struggle to acknowledge, ponder, and then overcome his desires—whether it is for Bella’s blood, for her virginity, for her protection, for nearly every big decision he makes—presents another excellent standard for our children.

Our culture teaches impulsiveness. It does not value carefully considering choices. Most TV shows and movies do not show characters weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a certain course of action for all involved. Books tend to do this more, for sure, but the modern young adult fiction I’ve read doesn’t, not to this extent. We do not always learn that we must wrestle with decisions, before and after we make them. And that is an important lesson for all ages.

And that’s a lesson that I have needed to learn at this age. Edward showed me a calm way to handle issues, issues that I much too often mishandle. He logically considered how he might react to a situation, and he anticipated possible outcomes and other people’s reactions. He respected the fact that others would disagree with his choices, but he held steadfast. The final battle of the entire series is fought logically, not violently, and it is won by defense rather than offense.

I have a temper. It can flare up at the slightest offense some days. The part I struggle with the most, the part that embarrasses me the most, is that my temper is usually reserved for Rob alone. I seem to have no problem controlling myself while under fire from most other sources.

I am working on it, but it’s a hard habit to break. Strangely enough, reading Twilight reminds me how I should be handling it when Rob pushes my buttons because Bella often pushes Edward’s buttons, as 17-year-old girls tend to do. While reading the books, I was actually more deliberate, more pensive, more controlled during conflicts with Rob. And some of those habits stuck, while some of them come and go. I’m still trying to build skills that Edward displays. Modeling restraint in all areas, not just sexual restraint, is a strength of this series that Christians often ignore or are ignorant of because they have not read it themselves.

Whew! That was a lot to cover today. But I feel passionately about this topic, and I love you, my dear reader, for indulging my every whim and reading whatever strikes my fancy to write about. I also love comments or response posts! *wink, wink*


* Throughout the first two books, Edward struggles to decide whether he should distance himself from Bella for her own protection, not only because of his lust for her blood, but also because the world of vampires is a dangerous one for humans to live in. He tries several different ways to protect her, and in the end, discovers that he just needs to protect her himself. He is capable of this because his lust for her blood becomes manageable when he thought she had died; he finds strength when he realizes that he could never live without her and giving into the intoxicating scent of her blood would only tear her from him forever.

** The Cullen vampire clan is different from all of the other vampires in Twilight because they believe that killing humans for their blood is evil. They call themselves, jokingly, “vegetarian vampires” because they satisfy their need for blood by killing only animals.