Almost all of Modern Family was interrupted because of the storms in the area. I have a feeling a lot of negative tweets were sent to Pete Delkus.
My job requires that I have an email with the IRS, so I get all the mass distribution messages. Yesterday I got one from the acting commissioner saying he was stepping down due to the recent events and then five minutes later I heard Scott Pelley state, “This just in, acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller has just resigned his post.”
I mentioned that I was curious about the procedure Angelina Jolie went through to preserve her nipples, well, her doctor wrote about in detail. To be honest, I get lost in the details, and wish there was some sort of animation video that explained it.
I’ve mentioned before how I’m surprised the actors on LOST haven’t really went on to do much else, especially the ones that played Jack, Kate, and Sawyer. Well, the actor that played Sawyer will be in a new show on CBS in which he has a chip implanted in his brain so he’s always wired into the Internet. That sounds interesting enough for me to at least give it a try.
Dallas has stolen the Byron Nelson from Irving. I guess they finally got them back for taking the Cowboys years ago.
Vote for the best burger in DFW, I’m surprised Twisted Root is currently in the lead..
I wouldn’t be surprised by the time my children are in high school, each classroom will have a web-enabled camera where parents can log in and view the class, the instructor and the behavior and interactions of their children.
In that Deep and Wide book my pastor is having us read, the author, a preacher himself, stated that a city police officer escorts him to his car after church. I wonder if that’s common for mega-church pastors, but off hand, that seems very odd. Also, in the same chapter, he stated he drives an Audi. I understand the point he was trying to make when he mentioned the car, but I think it could have been done without mentioning the brand. Here’s the Wikipedia entry on the pastor/author in case you are interested. His writing makes me think he’s the Evangelical Tony Robins.
Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino looks like she’s had some work done.
Last night’s Mythbusters tested what’s more sanitary for the individual and the surface area regarding drying your hands with a paper towel or air dryer. Paper towels won hands down in both cases.
Being the time-lapse guy that I am, I can’t believe I didn’t try this with one of my children.
I'm usually leery of Mythbusters results because the tests are lacking missing an important factor or two, but that was pretty clear. I use towels because when I'm done I use it to open the door.
I can understand this issue with an Audi. I think the church is often perceived as a charitable organization. But, as I get older, I'm beginning to see churches more as businesses for God. Now, mind you, I don't see that as a negative thing. They ofter christian leadership, community fellowship, religious education, counseling, etc. But, it is not designed to solve community issues (meaning, it isn't designed to be a soup kitchen…that is not it's core mission even though the fruits of accomplishing it's core mission should naturally create the desire to support these altruistic endeavors).
I *highly* recommend this talk on TED. It really changed my whole perspective on the role of non-profits in our society. And, I think it also changed my thoughts on mega-churches, as well. It specifically focuses on how our thinking on charitable giving is all wrong. In addition, take note how much churches get of charitable funds over other nonprofit organizations. Ironically, I wonder how our society would be different if more churches *successfully* accomplished their core mission? http://on.ted.com/Pallotta
Maybe it's because it's a reflection on the minister that he felt it was important to tell the reader he drives an Audi.
I drive a Lamborghini with the high end turbo racing and Formula One suspension package, but I never tell anyone that. It's reminds me of advice Bono gave me once about name-dropping being in poor taste.
I thought we've had this talk before and basically ended up agreeing on disagreeing. I, and many others, hold pastors to a different standard because they live off the tithes of others, and as the leader of their local church, they set a tone for how others should live. I don't think it's much different than thinking the head of a non-profit should be paid fairly but not in excess. Pastors deserve to be compensated fairly, and fairly is a debatable term and one that is hard for me to define. While I don't think they should take a vow of poverty, and I don't think they need to be frugal in all things, I think it's in poor taste to do anything that show they have a luxurious lifestyle. Pastors have the right to have nice things, but I think driving a luxury car is a bit much. So far, I think Pope Francis has done a great job in this area by bucking tradition and turning down certain amenities and luxuries afforded the Pope, and how it's often cited he rode public transportation in Argentina. Unfortunately there have been and still are many pastors that set a bad example, you've got your Jim and Tammy Faye, Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Charles Blake, Eddie Loing, Creflo A. Dollar, and Joel Osteen. It's up to the good pastors, rightly or wrongly, and in my opinion, to prove they are set apart from these individuals. Not for me, and not for fellow believers, but for the unbelievers. The unbelievers use a broad brush and don't know the just pastors from the unjust. Perception of a lifestyle and environment is vitally important, at least that's what Stanely just told me in that chapter. Unbelievers won't walk through the church door, much less pull into the church parking lot, if they smell a hint of corruptness, especially from the head pastor of the church. You have to earn trust. And if a church provides Financial Peace University material and I see a pastor getting out of a luxury car, he's already lost credibility with me.
Yes, I think we have had this conversation before. And you're still wrong??? 😉
First, my perspective might be a bit off because of where I live. Audi is a downright practical sedan here in the land of Bentleys. But that's not the larger point…
Second, Andy Stanley has sold tens of thousands of copies of his books. He makes some money on that. is he allowed to spend that money on a car of his choice?
Third, sometimes people hold their pastors to a standard that they themselves are not willing to be held to. If a pastor should not drive a luxury car, why should any Christ-follower? We all belong to the "priesthood of all believers."
You're right that Stanley and many other pastors earn income from other sources, and they have the right to spend it on what they want, but the overall issue is perception. Should they consider what others think of them by their purchases? How do they want their flock, especially the non-believers to perceive their lifestyle?
Yes, we all belong to the priesthood, we're all in ministry, but pastors have answered a specific call to have a career in ministry. They take the extra step to be ordained, or confirmed, or what have you, and with that comes certain sacrifices others may not have to make. In a sense, it's like when someone in the military or police force takes an oath. They are responsible for leading by example and setting a tone, and all of that comes with certain sacrifices and an image to uphold. And this calling means they are measured up against a higher standard.
When people donate or tithe, or heck, even taxed, they want to know where their hard earned money goes and pray that it is being spent wisely. There's no way of knowing if a pastor is spending money he earned from the flock or other ventures, so it's up to him or her to play it smart and think what kind of message he or she may be sending by what they buy, especially to the most judgmental, the ones they need to win over, the unbeliever.
I also expect the same from the head of a charity or non-profit. While they may have earned a fortune in the past or earn income from other sources, the people who donate to their cause don't have any idea about that other income. If a head of a charity or non-profit drives up to an event full of middle-income earners in a BMW and asks for money, I'm thinking their heart isn't where their mouth is.
I'm also reminded of the time I made a post about the President of the World Bank having holes in his socks, and you left a comment saying that you want him to have holes in in socks because it shows potential of him being humble. http://www.bagofnothing.com/2007/01/the-president… I guess that's my same line of thinking, I want my pastors to show potential of being humble.
I thought in the context of my reply I addressed your argument, but I think we're going to leave off where we started . . . agree to disagree. In our Christian capitalistic society, there's an unfair double standard. It's my reasoning, and reasoning of others, that's it's acceptable for non-pastors to drive expensive cars or have certain luxuries and pastors to abstain from them because of their call and perception of where tithes and priorities are spent. I understand your point that the rest of us have an obligation as well, but I don't think society as whole gets that. The unbeliever will pay more attention to the actions of the pastor than the rest of us. Church members will pay more attention to the actions of the pastor than the rest of the congregation. People are lead by example, and pastors have answered that call to be that sacrificial example of how to live in a capitalistic world.
I bet if we were in the same room this conversation would flow much better, but I also think in the most loving of ways you would probably have thrown something at me by now.
One clarification on the Southwest seat thing…yes, Southwest is replacing the original seat configuration in most of its planes with a new one called Evolve that includes 143 seats. The seat pitch (distance from the front of one seat to the next) is shrinking, but the legroom is not. How? The new seats are thinner and lighter because they use a different type of padding, so each seat doesn't take up as much space. I've ridden on one of the planes and couldn't tell a difference. Aviation reporters often have no clue what they're talking about, so take any aviation -related story with a big grain of salt.
I'm usually leery of Mythbusters results because the tests are lacking missing an important factor or two, but that was pretty clear. I use towels because when I'm done I use it to open the door.
I'm curious why it's a problem for you that Pastor Andy Stanley drives an Audi.
I can understand this issue with an Audi. I think the church is often perceived as a charitable organization. But, as I get older, I'm beginning to see churches more as businesses for God. Now, mind you, I don't see that as a negative thing. They ofter christian leadership, community fellowship, religious education, counseling, etc. But, it is not designed to solve community issues (meaning, it isn't designed to be a soup kitchen…that is not it's core mission even though the fruits of accomplishing it's core mission should naturally create the desire to support these altruistic endeavors).
I *highly* recommend this talk on TED. It really changed my whole perspective on the role of non-profits in our society. And, I think it also changed my thoughts on mega-churches, as well. It specifically focuses on how our thinking on charitable giving is all wrong. In addition, take note how much churches get of charitable funds over other nonprofit organizations. Ironically, I wonder how our society would be different if more churches *successfully* accomplished their core mission? http://on.ted.com/Pallotta
Maybe it's because it's a reflection on the minister that he felt it was important to tell the reader he drives an Audi.
I drive a Lamborghini with the high end turbo racing and Formula One suspension package, but I never tell anyone that. It's reminds me of advice Bono gave me once about name-dropping being in poor taste.
I thought we've had this talk before and basically ended up agreeing on disagreeing. I, and many others, hold pastors to a different standard because they live off the tithes of others, and as the leader of their local church, they set a tone for how others should live. I don't think it's much different than thinking the head of a non-profit should be paid fairly but not in excess. Pastors deserve to be compensated fairly, and fairly is a debatable term and one that is hard for me to define. While I don't think they should take a vow of poverty, and I don't think they need to be frugal in all things, I think it's in poor taste to do anything that show they have a luxurious lifestyle. Pastors have the right to have nice things, but I think driving a luxury car is a bit much. So far, I think Pope Francis has done a great job in this area by bucking tradition and turning down certain amenities and luxuries afforded the Pope, and how it's often cited he rode public transportation in Argentina. Unfortunately there have been and still are many pastors that set a bad example, you've got your Jim and Tammy Faye, Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Charles Blake, Eddie Loing, Creflo A. Dollar, and Joel Osteen. It's up to the good pastors, rightly or wrongly, and in my opinion, to prove they are set apart from these individuals. Not for me, and not for fellow believers, but for the unbelievers. The unbelievers use a broad brush and don't know the just pastors from the unjust. Perception of a lifestyle and environment is vitally important, at least that's what Stanely just told me in that chapter. Unbelievers won't walk through the church door, much less pull into the church parking lot, if they smell a hint of corruptness, especially from the head pastor of the church. You have to earn trust. And if a church provides Financial Peace University material and I see a pastor getting out of a luxury car, he's already lost credibility with me.
Couple things real quick. I only have a minute.
Yes, I think we have had this conversation before. And you're still wrong??? 😉
First, my perspective might be a bit off because of where I live. Audi is a downright practical sedan here in the land of Bentleys. But that's not the larger point…
Second, Andy Stanley has sold tens of thousands of copies of his books. He makes some money on that. is he allowed to spend that money on a car of his choice?
Third, sometimes people hold their pastors to a standard that they themselves are not willing to be held to. If a pastor should not drive a luxury car, why should any Christ-follower? We all belong to the "priesthood of all believers."
Grace.
An Audi is a luxury car? I think that's what Nathan was saying… I've disagreed with you for years on this Keither.
And I drive a 98 Honda Accord with a peeling paint job. I'm very spiritual.
Tony Stark drives an Audi, of course it's a luxury car! 😉
I can't sell you on the prosperity gospel Keith if I don't walk the walk… or drive the talk… or whatever.
You're right that Stanley and many other pastors earn income from other sources, and they have the right to spend it on what they want, but the overall issue is perception. Should they consider what others think of them by their purchases? How do they want their flock, especially the non-believers to perceive their lifestyle?
Yes, we all belong to the priesthood, we're all in ministry, but pastors have answered a specific call to have a career in ministry. They take the extra step to be ordained, or confirmed, or what have you, and with that comes certain sacrifices others may not have to make. In a sense, it's like when someone in the military or police force takes an oath. They are responsible for leading by example and setting a tone, and all of that comes with certain sacrifices and an image to uphold. And this calling means they are measured up against a higher standard.
When people donate or tithe, or heck, even taxed, they want to know where their hard earned money goes and pray that it is being spent wisely. There's no way of knowing if a pastor is spending money he earned from the flock or other ventures, so it's up to him or her to play it smart and think what kind of message he or she may be sending by what they buy, especially to the most judgmental, the ones they need to win over, the unbeliever.
I also expect the same from the head of a charity or non-profit. While they may have earned a fortune in the past or earn income from other sources, the people who donate to their cause don't have any idea about that other income. If a head of a charity or non-profit drives up to an event full of middle-income earners in a BMW and asks for money, I'm thinking their heart isn't where their mouth is.
I'm also reminded of the time I made a post about the President of the World Bank having holes in his socks, and you left a comment saying that you want him to have holes in in socks because it shows potential of him being humble. http://www.bagofnothing.com/2007/01/the-president… I guess that's my same line of thinking, I want my pastors to show potential of being humble.
Brother, my argument is not that pastors should have expensive cars, it's that if pastors shouldn't have them, then no Christian should have them.
I thought in the context of my reply I addressed your argument, but I think we're going to leave off where we started . . . agree to disagree. In our Christian capitalistic society, there's an unfair double standard. It's my reasoning, and reasoning of others, that's it's acceptable for non-pastors to drive expensive cars or have certain luxuries and pastors to abstain from them because of their call and perception of where tithes and priorities are spent. I understand your point that the rest of us have an obligation as well, but I don't think society as whole gets that. The unbeliever will pay more attention to the actions of the pastor than the rest of us. Church members will pay more attention to the actions of the pastor than the rest of the congregation. People are lead by example, and pastors have answered that call to be that sacrificial example of how to live in a capitalistic world.
I bet if we were in the same room this conversation would flow much better, but I also think in the most loving of ways you would probably have thrown something at me by now.
One clarification on the Southwest seat thing…yes, Southwest is replacing the original seat configuration in most of its planes with a new one called Evolve that includes 143 seats. The seat pitch (distance from the front of one seat to the next) is shrinking, but the legroom is not. How? The new seats are thinner and lighter because they use a different type of padding, so each seat doesn't take up as much space. I've ridden on one of the planes and couldn't tell a difference. Aviation reporters often have no clue what they're talking about, so take any aviation -related story with a big grain of salt.