I'm a huge Evel Knievel fan.  I have posted a couple of times about the differences between the era of Evel Knievel and motorcycle jumping today.  Without going into too much detail, and I could go on for days, the biggest differences between the days of Evel and today's jumpers are 1) the bikes and 2) the ramps. 

First, a quick word about the bikes.  Evel jumped, for the most part, a Harley Davidson XR750 motorcycle.  It was (and is) a bike that was never made for jumping; it was (and is) completely designed for racing.  In the late 70's and early 80's, motorcycle jumpers began using motorcross bikes for their jumps - they are lighter and designed for airtime. 

Second, a quick word about the ramps.  Evel used traditional 10' high take off ramps with a fairly small landing ramp.  The ramps that jumpers use today are almost laughable; they are the size of an aircraft carrier.  Case in point, take a look at the two YouTube videos below.  The first is of Evel jumping in Portland in 1973.  Pay special attention to the take-off and landing ramps.  The second video is of Ryan Capes jumping this past year.  Pay special attention to his take-off and landing ramps.  The difference is staggering.

Now, I am in no way trying to ridicule Ryan Capes or any other modern jumper.  These guys have great talent and are a great asset to the sport.  It's just that when people compare the achievements of older jumpers like Evel to today's talent, they are comparing apples to oranges.  They are two different sports. 

That is why I have such great respect for Bubba Blackwell.  He is a modern day jumper who uses the Harley Davidson XR750 for his jumps.  Yep, the same bike Evel used.  Blackwell is a great jumper who could easily be doing all the crazy modern stuff, but he instead prefers to break records on the XR750.  So, you won't see Blackwell traveling 300 feet with his bike.  Could he if used another bike and different ramps?  Yes.  But he is using traditional ramps and the racing bike, which makes things much more difficult for jumping. 

I was amazed to learn on Blackwell's Facebook page that he will be attempting a 22 car jump using his XR750.  The record was held by Evel at 19 cars until Bubba broke it in 1998 when he jumped 20 cars.  In 2001 Bubba attempted a 22 car jump but came up short and suffered a devastating crash.  In June of this year, Bubba will once again attempt a 22 car jump; the jump that almost ended his life in 2001.  He will be using the XR750.   

I will keep you posted.  I know you will be holding your breath.

I have not been a video game kind of guy for a very long time.  Once the original Nintendo Entertainment System was replaced with the Super Nintendo, I was done.  (I am old enough to remember owning and playing an original Atari 2600, now those were the days!).  However, about a month ago one of my closest friends, and former NES aficionado, called to inform me about a new game we could play together through the marvel of online gaming called "Call of Duty."  It was a first person "shooter" game, of which I normally am not fond of, where we would be in a warzone together fighting for our lives and trying to eliminate enemy targets.  I told him I would give it a try, so I borrowed a Nintendo Wii from my brother, rented the game, and gave it a whirl.  It was a blast.  So, my friend and I have reconnected (he lives in TN and I live in CO) and we are having fun with the game.  My brother also has jumped on board. 

Well, a couple of teenagers at my church heard that one of their pastors was playing "Call of Duty."  So, they rented the game and we played online together, having a good time.  The next Sunday one of the parents of this student approached me with a smile and said, "I trust your judgment on this you know."  I was glad to hear that the parent was paying attention to what their son was doing on the television.  This past Sunday, yet another parent approached me in a light-hearted manner and said basically the same thing.  So, I thought it was time to write down some of my thoughts.  Here it goes.

Boys will be boys.  We can try all we want to encourage a 21st century concept of equality in all aspects of life, but such efforts are mostly ineffective and from a Christian perspective, not biblical.  Boys want danger.  Boys want to blow things up.  Boys want to be aggressive.  Boys want to be rambunctious.  Brothers Conn and Hal Iggulden have written an incredibly fun and insightful book called "The Dangerous Book for Boys."  The book is a practical manual for parents, mostly fathers, to engage the active minds of their sons.  It talks about a boy's passions for soldiers, wizards, adventurers, and Morse Code.  The book explains how to make a battery, read cloud formations, build a tree house, and create the greatest paper airplane in the world.  Wall Street Journal reporter Jeffrey Trachtenberg explains:

The unapologetic message is that boys need a certain amount of danger and risk in their lives, and that there are certain lessons that need to be passed down from father to son, man to man.  The implication is that in contemporary society basic rules of maleness aren't being handed off as they used to be.

My mom and dad were incredibly gifted in this way.  Although church life was at the very center of our family and my parents desired nothing more than for me to have a personal, intimate relationship with Christ, they did not prevent me from being a boy.  I had the largest collection of toy machine guns you have ever seen.  Me and my friends would play "war" all night, setting up ambush points and trying to put into action everything we had learned from the movie "First Blood."  The same continues to ring true today.  My brother competes at a national level at a game called "Laser Quest."  This is war using lasers (although the corporate office tries to gear its terminology to avoid such a concept).  It is not surprising that an overwhelming majority of Laser Quest competitors are guys.  Its just the way it is.  So, before I address the "Call of Duty" question, I first want to make very clear that I believe parents have to let boys be boys, and that means a certain amount of danger is always around the next corner.

There are, of course, limits and boundaries.  Every parent must take into account their own child's make-up and understand what is too far and what is acceptable.  When addressing a game like "Call of Duty" there simply is no "right" answer.  I would encourage parents to think through the information listed above and then take a close and hard look at the game.  And then just use Godly wisdom.  Now, there are clear exceptions.  Some games are based on rewarding individuals for acting in criminal and at times downright disgusting ways - the game series of Grand Theft Auto comes to mind.  For me, this game would cross the line of what I would want my son to be playing because it rewards the player for acts such as killing prostitutes and setting up a successful criminal organization.  That crosses the line of boys being boys. 

Another concern, that was addressed recently even by my sister-in-law, is the issue of desensitization by the realism in the graphics.  This is certainly another issue to think through.  However, there simply is no way in our media-soaked culture to prevent our children from seeing images that will have the potential to cause some desensitization.  The only way to prevent that is to completely remove all media, especially television and movies, and enter into an Amish lifestyle (hey, that might not be all bad!).  Thus, this issue again comes down to the parent's discernment of their own child, keeping in mind that boys will be boys and at some level, playing war is not only normal but healthy.  From what I have seen, "Call of Duty" is certainly graphically intense, but not near at the level of some of the other games which might cross the line.

So, would I let my boy Justus play "Call of Duty?"  Yes.  But he will have to practice hard if he wants to prevent getting his butt kicked by his dad.  Will I keep an eye on what he is doing, the other games he is playing, as to make sure it does not cross the line of boys being boys?  Yes.  And if necessary, I will prohibit some games and some actions.  But only after I pelt him in the head with my new Nerf Dart gun right before tucking him into bed.  Because that's what boys do.           

Not long ago I briefly wrote about the reading habits of Dr. Albert Mohler and his commentary on the Amazon Kindle, an electronic book reading device.  Well, Together for the Gospel has video taped a "walk-through" of Dr. Mohler's study.  This is in his house.  Watch this and be amazed.  I usually get a lot of flack for the number of books I have in my office and home.  Now I have a video to defend myself! 

Al Mohler - Study Video from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

A 19 year old who is still living with his parents wrote to Dr. Russell Moore and asked a legitimate question about getting a tattoo.  Read the question and Dr. Moore's incredibly gracious and wise response below. 

Dear Dr. Moore,

I want to get a tattoo. I’d like it on my stomach, with a cross,
with the words, “Flee Immorality: You Were Bought with a Price.” I’d
like this as a measure of accountability for myself as the years go by,
in case the zeal I have for the gospel ever wains and I’m ever in a
place of temptation this will be an ever-present reminder of what I
know to be true.

I am really convicted that this is what the Lord would have me to do. Here’s my problem.

I am 19 years old and a college student. I live at home
with my parents. I work and pay for my own school, but I live with
them. I love my parents and truly believe I honor them, but where does
“honor your Father and mother” end? I really believe this is an issue
of obedience in doing what the Lord seems to be directing me to do.

You probably agree with my parents that I shouldn’t get the
tattoo and I can respect that. I’ve thought it all through. My question
isn’t whether I should get the tattoo; it’s whether I’d be sinning
against God and my parents if I did it.

If I am under their authority right now, when does that end?
When I’m 21? When I’m out of the house? Or does it ever end, when it
comes to making decisions like this?

Sincerely,

Bought with a Price

Dear Bought,

First of all, I hope my sons grow up to be like you, in all sorts of
ways seen in this question. Your letter evidences a lot of commendable
qualities: a desire to identify yourself radically with Christ, the
recognition that you must protect yourself from your own potential
future rebellion, concern for honoring your father and mother.

The command to honor father and mother never ends. It is part of the
holy will of God, and is applicable to every person, regardless of age.
When your ninety, you’ll still have an obligation to honor your
parents, even if only in memory and in speech. The way one honors one’s
parents changes, though, throughout the span of life. Jesus lived this
life before you. His honoring of his father Joseph and his blessed
mother Mary was of obedience in all things in childhood (Lk. 2:51), of
listening to pleas for help in adulthood (Jn. 2:1-5), and of caring for
weakness at the end of life (Jn. 19:26-27). All of this was an honoring
of father and mother.

What you’re asking is less about Exodus 20 than about Ephesians 6.
When does your obedience to parents end or, better put, when are you
responsible for making your own decisions.

It isn’t at eighteen. The Bible never puts eighteen or twenty-one as
some arbitrary mark between childhood and maturity. Instead, in
Scripture, maturity is less a chronological or biological matter than
an economic one. When are you able to establish a household, a
household for which you are responsible. The creation pattern is that a
man is equipped to provide for his household (Gen. 2:15). He then
“leaves father and mother” as he cleaves to his wife and forms (within
the larger tribe) a new household (Gen. 2:24).

Between childhood and maturity, your parents are working to prepare
you for this responsibility, handing over more and more of it to you as
you prepare to give yourself over for the provision and protection of a
wife and family (Eph. 5) or for the sake of the mission (1 Cor. 7).

In Scripture, submission of any kind has limits. If your parents
demanded you to sin against God, you couldn’t do it. But that’s not
what they’ve done.

It seems to me, though, that this is less about obedience than about listening to wisdom. And I think your parents are right.

I’m not making an anti-tattoo statement here. Whether tattoos are
permissible for followers of Jesus is debatable, but really extraneous
to this discussion. Your parents understand, I’m sure, your zeal.
They’re also though able to imagine a fuller arc of life than you can
right now. They know there are a lot of things one can decide at
eighteen that one would see differently at a later time.

A tattoo is (apart from expensive, extensive work) a permanent
decision, a permanent decision made by a very young man that his older
self, his wife, his children, and everyone in his life will, in some
way, have to live with.

It may be that getting this tattoo is precisely what you ought to
do. If so, then work toward being on your own, cultivating the maturity
and the wisdom to hear outside counsel and to think this through with
the mind of Christ. In the meantime, though, be a sign of the gospel by
submitting to your parents even in something in which you think they’re
short-sighted. Submission, after all, isn’t to things one readily sees
as good ideas; that’s called “agreement.” Submission is often in
matters in which one thinks one knows better. God will bless that.

One more thing: a tattoo won’t stop you from wrecking your life, no
matter what it says. The rebellious heart gets what it wants, and will
do what it takes to get there. An immoral man can easily scoff at the
tattoo, or even blaspheme as a result of it in the throes of his
rebellion. Instead of working to embed the gospel on your skin, embed
it on your conscience. Cultivate repentance, confession, and seeking
the life of Christ. The answer for you isn’t your own skin ink but
Someone Else’s nail scars.

The images and news reports that are flooding in after the disastrous earthquake in Haiti are heartbreaking  As Christians, we should be moved to seek any way we can help these desperate people in crisis; the most obvious and immediate way is through our collective prayers.  Some of you will have the opportunity to have a more hands-on involvement with the Haitian people, a blessing that you should embrace if given the chance.

Unfortunately, the terror and death that has engulfed the small island in the Caribbean will elicit a multitude of "prophetic" pronouncements as to why God saw fit to bring about such a disaster.  These "direct line" statements into the mind of God turn me off even more than they do most non-believers who chalk them up as yet another reason to not trust and believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible.  After all, if belief in the Bible yields this kind of nonsensical thinking, who wants any part of that?  However, in reaction to those kind of careless words many Christians will depart entirely from the notion that God did, in fact, bring about the earthquake for his own purposes.  This becomes just another "cursed earth" event on which we can blame sin and leave God out of the carnage.  I want to very briefly and simply address a few of these concerns

First, defaulting to the cursed earth argument is not helpful nor Scriptural.  If we experience a period of drought and pray for rain, we are all too eager to thank God when the rain does come.  Unless, of course, it rains a little too much and we experience flood.  Then, it is the product of a cursed earth.  So, we have to somehow figure out where the line is between God blessing us with his control over nature and nature just doing what it does.  That, of course, is silly.  Now, earthquakes, floods, and all the other horrific acts of nature were definitely not a part of God's original plan and yes, sin did bring about their existence.  But sin did not remove God's presence and control over their comings and goings. 

Second, we have to be very, very careful when we begin citing specific reasons as to why God does what he does.  Just read the last chapter of the book of Job.  God was prepared to destroy Job's friends because they wrongly cited God's reasons for Job's afflictions.  That is not to say we are completely clueless and just throw our hands in the air as to the purposes behind God's actions.  God does reveal some reasons as to what he does what he does.  Sin does bring about horrific consequences.  However, at times so does faithfully following Christ Jesus.  God has revealed that his actions are always for his own glory and for the ultimate good of those who follow him.  So. . .

Third, our response is to acknowledge that the earthquake in Haiti does come directly from the hand of God.  Without him bringing it about, it never would have happened.  We can confidently say that God has a specific purpose for the earthquake, a purpose that will bring him glory and provide a good result at the end of the day.  We can provide some potential reasons as to why God might bring about such a deadly earthquake.  What we must not do is begin declaring the exact, specific reasons why God did what he did.  Although there may be some good ideas, much of those reasons could very well remain safely hidden in the mysterious will of God. 

Lastly, these kinds of events should cause each of us individually, our churches corporately, and our nation to re-evaluate our own standing before God.  Although we want to avoid the Pat Robertson sin citing reasons for God's actions, the fact is that God does judge sin.  And whether or not sin is the first cause reason for the Haiti earthquake, something I believe none of us can know for certain, we should nevertheless be humbled and moved to acknowledge our own sin and confess it before our holy God. 

So, let's not rob God of his complete sovereignty over his creation.  But let's not put words in his mouth either.  Let's just keep faithfully living for the name of Jesus Christ.