I am posting videos of some "life-changing" moments for me.  You can view the first and second one here and here. 

Here is video number three and I remember seeing this Motown performance for the first time in Danville, KY.  When I saw him do what he does from 3:39 on, I was forever changed. 

In the July 26th, 2010 edition of Time Magazine, Bobby Ghosh reports that out of 5 million Muslim women in France, only 2,000 of them wear the much debated full-face Islamic veil.  The veil is so alarming to the French Republic that the politics have turned heavily in recent weeks to passing law that would ban the veils once and for all.  The most quoted reason for the protest is, of course, the oppressive nature of the veil and the message it conveys about women.  Ghosh in his article sarcastically asks if "anyone asked these women if they feel oppressed."

These kinds of issues are difficult.  I did some research on the obligations from Islamic Law concerning the full-face veils and even among practicing Muslims there is sharp disagreement.  Some will hold that the veils are only optional for Muslim women.  A second group believes they are not required but strongly recommended.  A third group understands the modesty laws concerning women to necessitate the wearing of full-face veils.  From what I can understand, the first and second options are the most widely held opinions among modern practicing Muslims.  This, in part, explains why out of 5 million Muslim women only 2,000 wear the covering. 

The extraction of religious and ethical standards from any people group for the enforcement of a different set of standards from an outside culture is a reality that at times is certainly warranted, but that always and only should come due to the most obvious and egregious of circumstances.  In other words, we better be darn sure that we are correct in forcing the replacement of another group's way of life with our own.  We can all cite the various times when history has shown this to be necessary and effective.  In this particular situation, I probably find myself agreeing with those who dislike the use of full-face veils.  However, for those women who are free to do otherwise but make the choice to wear them, their reasons for doing so are hard to refute.  Some explanations, such as the desire to prevent themselves from being just a sexual object to guys, present feminism with a problem as most feminists, regardless of coercion, typically speak against the use of veils.  In any event, it looks like Muslim women who live in France now don't have much of an option.  Take the veil off or come under the scrutiny of the French Republic.  All for your own good, of course.           

An important and interesting Supreme Court ruling was decided on June 28th, 2010 concerning the Hastings College of Law, a school within the University of California, and a student organization called the Christian Legal Society.  The case seemed important enough to me that I took the time to read the 85 page majority opinion of the court and dissenting opinion.  I thought it would be helpful to summarize in very friendly laymen terms what I consider to be the key elements of the case and make some brief commentary.

The Hastings College of Law has established a means to officially recognize student groups on campus called the "Registered Student Organization" (RSO).  Any student group who wishes to enjoy the benefits offered by Hastings must submit an application for inclusion in the RSO.  Benefits include, but are not limited to, the availability of campus meeting space and materials, the use of the college's means of communicating agendas, meetings, etc, and at times the access to special funds for traveling and other purposes for student groups.  When CLS applied for RSO recognition, their application was rejected on the grounds that it violated the school's Nondiscrimination Policy.  They were the first student group in the school's history to be turned down.  Specifically, the reason for the rejection was the requirement for all CLS members to sign a Statement of Faith which among other things, rejects homosexuality as immoral behavior.  The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the ruling from the lower courts that Hastings did not violate the First and Fourth Amendment by refusing CSL a RSO status.  

As I suspect many cases at this level operate, the thrust of the decision ultimately falls on how the court interprets one critical factor of the case.  That critical factor in this instance is the difference between the Nondiscrimination Policy and the alleged "All-Comers Policy" that Hastings asserted has been in place all along.  Although the two seem to be fairly identical in nature, they actually convey quite different things.  The Nondiscrimination Policy offered by Hastings falls in line with many other colleges and schools in terms of what it is meant to protect, with a few differences.  The "All-Comers" policy on the other hand is fairly unique to Hastings and asserts that every student organization must accept anyone into their student group.  Period.  Now, here is where things get interesting.

The Supreme Court, despite the request of CLS, did not consider the Nondiscrimination Policy in their ruling.  Only Justice Stephens attempted to bring that particular policy into his ruling, ineffectively.  Instead, the Court considered only the All-Comers policy because the policy was joint stipulated by both Hastings and CLS.  So, according to the majority opinion, CLS cannot joint stipulate to the fact of the All-Comers policy and then try to circumvent said policy after the proceedings have begun.  Thus, the majority opinion is written by only taking into consideration the All-Comers policy and if Hasting's actions constitutionally violated that policy alone. 

Justice Alito, who wrote the dissenting opinion, disagrees with the majority opinion concerning the denial of considering the Nondiscrimination Policy.  Although he agrees that join stipulation is a crucial thing that must be upheld, he disagrees with the full implications of this particular joint stipulation in the arena of the All-Comers Policy.  Listen to what Alito says:

"I agree that the parties must be held to their Joint Stipulation, but the terms of the stipulation should be respected.  What was admitted in the Joint Stipulation filed in December 2005 is that Hastings had an accept-all-comers policy.  CLS did not stipulate that its application had been denied more than a year earlier pursuant to such a policy. . .Indeed the parties did not even stipulate that the accept-all-comers policy existed in the fall of 2004."

Thus, according to Alito, if the Court were to recognize the absence of the apparent all-comers policy in 2004 and instead recognize the Nondiscrimination Policy in its stead, the outcome of the opinion would have surely been different.  The reason is because basic Nondiscrimination Policies have been routinely upheld by the courts to mean something very different than just "anyone can join, anyone can participate."  The Court has previously recognized that "the forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes the group's freedom of expressive association if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints."  Expressive association is the key phrase there.  For these reasons, Alito almost humorously summarizes by saying, "it is no wonder that the Court makes no attempt to defend the constitutionality of the Nondiscrimination Policy."

So, at the end of the day the Court's decision is riding on the legitimacy of their refusal to take into consideration the Nondiscrimination Policy and the date of the awareness of the so-called "all comers" policy.  If the All-Comers policy is accepted and the Nondiscrimination policy is not considered, as the majority has done, then it is difficult to argue with the decision.  If the reverse is true, then it would be difficult to uphold the decision.

As for me, Hastings seems to be more concerned about religion than they are the actual historical enforcement of an all-comers policy.  Their decision to create and stick to this policy might leave them with unwanted results.  Already, in order to consistently apply the policy and avoid further legal entanglements, school officials have been meeting all RSO groups to make sure they begin rigidly adhering to the standard that has been set; a standard that all civil society understands is not only impractical, but harmful.  The school, by definition, must now allow those who are in favor of using animals for cosmetic testing to be included in an animal rights group.  A hard conservative must be allowed in a pro-democrat organization.  And so on.  Headaches could abound for everyone and it is primarily because the school does not want a conservative, Christian based organization doing what it does on campus.  It is the classic "pick any color you want so long as it is black" motto.

How will this decision affect the lower courts?  Some Christian commentators are concerned that lower courts could take this ruling and run with it in ways that are not consistent with the specific issues of this case.  Christian groups could be denied recognized access to organizations because of the Supreme Court citing over and above the actual policies in place at the school. 

There are other equally interesting aspects to this case that I don't have time to write about here, such as the argument that a public school should not be considered the same as the public square, or the differences between conduct and status.  Regardless, I think one clear aspect of this case is the continued scrutiny of religion among the people and if this ruling has any future influence on other judges and courts, times will continue to become more difficult for the conservative evangelical Christian who operates based on the words of Scripture.  Of course, that is exactly what Scripture tells us to expect.               

Being a pastor is a privilege.  I am afforded the opportunity to step into the front door of people's lives and experience with them their innermost feelings, fears, joy, and grief.  Many times, when walking with a fellow brother or sister through the valley of death, the privilege is a difficult one to accept. 

Such has been the case this week.  A precious and beloved gentleman in our congregation has been fighting cancer, and unless our good Lord steps in, the fight is almost over.  This is a devoted husband and a loving father of four precious children.  For the last few nights I have spent time talking on the phone to one of these children in particular.  The conversations have been incredibly blessed and we have addressed topics from glorified bodies to the whearabouts of Christ during the three days He was in the tomb.  Looking back over the content of these conversations, one recurring tendency is noticable; the shift back and forth from understanding death to be a great gift and understanding it to be life's greatest enemy. 

As the conversations progressed, these two themes would naturally come about.  It was never forced or coerced.  It was never strained or manipulated.  This teenager would find herself comforted by death for a moment, followed by a feeling of complete horror at its looming probability.  This leads me to discuss two points:

First, my experience in these conversations has reminded me once again of the Bible's perfect description of humans.  It is rather natural, and at times crucial, for us to be moved by our circumstances from one heartfelt position to another.  Sometimes these positions are contradictory.  Other times, as in the case of my teenager friend, they are complimentary.  Yet, for all of us at some time or another, we must cope by moving side to side across the wide spectrum of feeling.

Consider with me the the first and second chapters of Job, in particular Job's wife.  After Job experiences the first round of testing from God, presumably Job's wife was supportive and in agreement with his proclamation to bless the Lord even in distress.  Scripture does not suggest otherwise.  Yet, after the second round of testing, Job's wife makes a radical change of position and exorts Job to "curse God and die."  This seems like radical behavior from a woman who is perhaps not fully aware of her actions.  Yet, the fact remains that Job's wife is a beautiful picture of our own human tendacies to quickly move from love to hate, from feelings of safety to feelings of danger, from trust to uncertainty.  If you want to understand the human heart and mind, consult Scripture.  There never has and never will be a more precise case study.

Second, my experience in these conversations has reminded me that like so many things, death exists in a theological balance.  My teenager friend is perfectly consistent as she moves back and forth between welcoming death and fearing it.  The Bible does the exact same thing.  Let's first consider why humans fear death.  The Bible makes very clear that death is, in fact, our enemy.  I have heard many a good-intended person try to over-emphasize the gift of death by under-emphasizing the pain of death.  As a result, folks wrestling with the possibility of death are left frustrated as to why they are still concerned and still upset about the prospect of dying or losing a loved one.  Such a unbalanced presentation is harmful.  Paul clearly and emphaticlly writes that "the last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Corinthians 15:26).  Use of the words "enemy" and "destroyed" convey the importance of why Christ will ultimately triumph; He will conquer death, our worst enemy.  Christ Himself was moved by death on more than one occasion and angered by sin that has caused the need for death.  Thus, it is unreasonable and unbiblical to suggest that good Christian folks should be singing a happy tune about death.  In and of itself, death is a harsh enemy that will come under the most brutal judgment by God.

And yet, we can find comfort in what death provides for us and we can learn to share the heart of God in the way he views the death of His children.  Psalm 116:15 says that "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints."  The very pronouncement of death by God upon Adam and Eve was certainly a judgement and the beginning of the enemy's grip on humanity, yet it must also be seen as a merciful act that provides a gracious release from a sin-cursed body.  It is the embracing of this move to something better, to something greater than allows some to be "at peace" with death.  Certainly not at peace with the reality of death, but at peace with what death will bring.

This is why death will always be the greatest enemy to those who do not believe.  It can never be viewed as mercy or grace because nothing is understood to be gained by death.  Even those who are suffering from immense pain do not gain anything by death.  They simply lose something.  Most people who deny the reality of God or who stick their head in the sand to ignore Him will also quickly move on to another subject whenever death rears its ugly head.  For them, there is plenty to fear from death.  It is the end of everything.  Forever.

So, like so many other areas of Christian life, death hangs in the balance.  And wherever our good people are when they are dealing with death, that is exactly where they should be.  Our job is not to move them to another way of thinking.  Our job is to love them.  And when possible, remind them that the peace of God can and will guard their hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.  All for the glory of God.         

Check out a conversation me and a Lutheran pastor from Chicago named Scott Stiegemeyer have concerning the horror movie genre and its theological significance.  (I'm "hallo" on the site).

http://www.theblackesteyes.com/2010/06/body-count-podcast-1004/