DHD: SOTU, Rose Day and other stuff

by Chris Doyle | Feb 8, 2019

Greetings!

Thanks for reading. I hope you’re staying warm.

Here’s my take on six topics that involve stuff that happened this week.

Enjoy!

1. State of the Union Address

I had to work a ball game Tuesday night, so I did not get to see the SOTU address live. I have seen portions of it, and I am pleased with what I watched, as well as with the reviews I have read from people I admire and respect. Even those who regularly criticize President Trump appear to be mostly mum about the speech.

By now, you’ve seen and read all about Trump’s address this week. One fascinating thing I take from it is how such a unifying declaration resulted after such a controversial build-up. Remember when Speaker Pelosi wasn’t going allow the address to happen? She claimed it was “unsafe” to deliver amid security concerns.

I am also encouraged with President Trump emphasizing Sanctity of Life when he said “All children, born and unborn, are made in the holy image of God.” Albert Mohler said this statement is “virtually unprecedented” comparing previous presidential speeches. I hope this comment has a lasting impact that will challenge future political views regarding the life of the unborn.

Quoting Mohler once again, he said abortion is “the only sacrament that still remains amongst the secular political left, and they treat it exactly as a sacrament to be protected and to be cherished at all costs.” You need to listen to Mohler’s Wednesday edition of The Briefing to get an excellent review of the SOTU address.

It’s true. Abortion is a major priority of liberal politicians, and they believe it is to be upheld regardless of pregnancy stage.

I made a commitment to never vote for anybody who even claims to be moderate on the issue (which is impossible to be). Regardless of party affiliation, I will not vote for a Republican or a Democrat who is not wholeheartedly pro-life.

2. Rose Day report

The Rose Day observance and rally at the Oklahoma State Capitol was an awesome experience. It seemed like attendance was near record high. If not, it sure seemed like a whole bunch of people walking the many floors of the edifice of never-ending construction (I can’t remember the last time I’ve been at the Capitol when it wasn’t under construction).

If you attended, thank you for participating! I’m sure you agree, it was an amazing experience.

Jen Bricker, the keynote speaker, was wonderful. I loved the standing ovation that happened near the end of her speech. I think she was even impressed. I especially enjoyed how she said she felt loved being surrounded by the many in attendance who value life. You can find out more about her at the Rose Day website.

I also sent roses to my elected officials, including my state house rep and senator. Neither of them are pro-life, unfortunately. I did get to talk to my senator, and she was kind and receptive. I did give her a list of upcoming pro-life bills that will be considered this congressional session and told her I will be paying attention to how she votes. I pray that maybe the many who visited her on Rose Day, as well as God’s intervention, will lead her to reconsider her view on abortion.

3. Comparing Northam to the Pences

Here’s another topic involving Mohler. In his Thursday edition of The Briefing, he discusses an article written by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. The article attempts to compare the controversy involving Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and the teaching decision of Karen Pence, the wife of Vice President Mike Pence.

I’ve mentioned Mrs. Pence in a previous DHD and the ridiculous accusations that media critics are making about her being a part-time art teacher at a Christian school. Cohen decided to use the recent media frenzy surrounding the racist photo in Northam’s medical yearbook as prime opportunity to call out the Pences in what Cohen considers equal bigotry.

Mohler gives an excellent response to Cohen’s misguided claims, especially involving his argument surrounding the misuse of Scripture. It would benefit you to hear Mohler’s explanation or read the transcript, specifically on this issue.

4. About the Green New Deal

A couple of months ago, somebody contacted me about criticizing Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez, when I wrote in a DHD that her views on certain issues were incorrect and nonsense. The problem was, the writer said, I don’t provide enough substantive justification.

Well, this week, the New Green Deal was released, which AOC co-authored and has been promoting through the media. I will hold back personal commentary, but I will mentioned that the New Green Deal includes removing 99 percent of all cars; removing oil, natural gas and nuclear energy as power resources; no longer traveling by airplanes; rebuild all buildings to make them energy efficient; free houses and education for everybody, as well as jobs and financial support for those who are unable or unwilling (??) to work.

Let me be clear, nowhere in the previous paragraph did I offer personal commentary. I did not say AOC or the New Green Deal is nonsense. I just presented a summary of what is proposed.

I’m curious to how American society responds to these proposals and how AOC and her supporters are setting examples themselves that reflect what is mentioned in the New Green Deal.

That has always been my concern about extreme environmentalists. Their lifestyles don’t seem to reflect their views. This reminded me of an article Matt Walsh wrote in 2017 titled “Climate alarmists, I can’t take you seriously until you start living like the Amish.”  In fact, check out this excerpt from the article and see if you find Walsh’s list ironic:

“I can only imagine how I would react if I actually believed that the extinction of all mankind was imminent, and my lifestyle was directly contributing to it. At a minimum, I would not drive a car anymore. Ever. At all. I would ditch electricity. I wouldn’t eat any kind of meat. I wouldn’t buy mass made consumer products. I wouldn’t give my money to any company that sells items made in factories with giant smokestacks. Those smokestacks are literally killing people. How could you continue shopping like everything is normal? What kind of monster are you? If I were you, I would live as John the Baptist, eating locusts and wild honey out in the desert. Lives are at stake, are they not? The end is near! Why are you so relaxed about it? Have you even started building the ark yet?”

Maybe the New Green Deal writers took a lesson from Walsh’s proposal?

5. Saving hymns

I enjoyed reading a piece by Leland Ryken titled “Can Hymns Be Saved From Extinction?” I love the many familiar hymns, and I appreciate Ryken intention of valuing these cherished songs as poetry.

His suggestions remind me of my dad. Ryken said hymns “contain so many allusions to the Bible.” My dad made it a custom to read from a hymn book as part of his daily quiet time.

Whether or not, your church sings the hymns, I would encourage you, whenever you come across a hymnbook, to skim the pages and read the lyrics of these great songs of faith.

6. Charles Stanley the photographer

I conclude with mentioning an article I read about the well-known Southern Baptist preacher Charles Stanley. I had no idea he was a shutterbug.

Check out “Charles Stanley: photography an ‘awesome opportunity’” and read how his photos have affected those who hear him preach.  

DHD: 3 Okla. topics, 2 Joe Carter topics, 1 Sarah Zylstra topic

by Chris Doyle | Jan 25, 2019

Greetings!

A short intro once again. It’s cold, by the way.

Here we go!

1. Building Bridges

I love this video!

These men are pastors of churches in the Oklahoma City area Capital Baptist Association. I have watched it twice. I hope it is shared beyond OKC.

2. Response to OU students’ video

Clarence Hill is featured in the “Building Bridges” video. He also did an interview this week with KOCO Channel 5 discussing a controversial video involving two OU students who were dismissed from school for making racially insensitive remarks in the video. Check out what Hill had to share here.

“Anger will not get us anywhere,” he said. It’s an excellent interview.

3. Stitt’s first executive orders

Read here about the initial decisions new Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has made. These are some bold moves that make a major statement to the state. It is apparent Gov. Stitt wants to be a good steward of state money and wants to hold people accountable. So far, I’m impressed.

4. Joe Carter explains New York’s new abortion law

I have discussed Joe Carter previously. For this DHD, you’ll get a double dose. We joke at the Messenger office how sometimes we need to wait for Joe Carter to do his “nine things” or “what you should know” articles before we can fully understand a certain current issue.

By now, you have seen much social media coverage on the state of New York passing a law this week that expands the terms of having an abortion. No doubt, I’m disappointed. I agree with every other Christian leader who spoke out against the New York legislature for passing this heinous act.

The best thing about the articles Joe Carter writes is the “matter-of-fact” presentation. Though it’s hard to lay aside emotions, especially in regard to what happened in New York this week, I appreciate how Joe can explain in such a way to help those who disagree at least consider why those of us who value the Sanctity of Human Life are troubled by the practice of abortion and especially at the extreme level this new law allows.

Please check out “New York Reveals Where Fight against Abortion is Headed.”

5. Carter Part 2

If you’re not familiar with Joe Carter’s writing style, check out this piece he wrote a few years ago about the Black Hebrew Israelites, since they made the news recently.

But that’s not what I wanted to share in this second Carter topic. I actually think I found my favorite article he has written. This week, he wrote “Confessions of a (Recovering) Social Media Fool.” I suggest you read it and then read it again. And then, do a personal study on the Bible verses he mentions.

I came to a similar conclusion less than a year ago that Joe presented. I try to be more conscientious of what I share on Facebook. As he mentions, social media comments can cost a person’s livelihood. But more importantly, social media habits should reflect the other aspects of a Christian’s lifestyle.

“Had I restrained my words on social media,” Joe wrote, “I might have missed a few opportunities to display wit or even wisdom. But I also might have used that time for more productive tasks, such as reading God’s Word, that would have helped me become a man of understanding. While I can’t get back the time I lost, I hope to use my time more fruitfully in the future.”

Thanks Joe for sharing your humility and wisdom.

6. Inspiration from an unknown small Christian college

It’s official. I’m a fan of Sarah Zylstra’s articles. In previous DHDs I’ve mentioned her articles on Thom Rainer and Frank Reich, and they are both fun, educational reads. They draw me in and cause me to want to know more about the person in her piece. Sarah has a great talent in journalistic writing, and I hope I can meet her someday to pick her brain and find out how she could help me improve my writing.

Her latest story isn’t on a person but a school. Montreat College in North Carolina is the subject. I’ve known about Montreat as a sports opponent to Liberty University, my alma mater and former employer.

Are you looking for an easy “feel-good” read? Do yourself a favor and find out how God worked in bringing this small Christian college from the brink of disbandment. And see if you also enjoy Sarah’s writing in “The Montreat Miracle.”

REVIEW: ‘Stan & Ollie’ is a delightful film about friendship and fame

by Michael Foust | Jan 25, 2019

The film Stan & Ollie (PG) expands nationwide this weekend, telling us the story of the popular comedic team Laurel and Hardy as they try and revive their aging careers.

Stan and his friend Oliver were once the most famous comedy duo in the world.

But that was 16 years ago, when they had weathered the death of silent films to become successful in feature-length sound movies, too.

It is now 1953, and the tandem known as Laurel and Hardy have embarked on a multi-city tour of Europe for a series of live shows, where they’ll perform their hilarious acts for fans and newcomers alike. Who knows? They may win another movie deal out of it.

If only people would come.

The first few shows are less than half full. The hotels, too, are unremarkable. Stan and Oliver are accustomed to big rooms and bellboys, but the budget only allows basic amenities. They’ll have to carry their own luggage.

“I thought you had retired,” one hotel employee tells them.

It seems people nowadays prefer the newer comedy tandem: Abbott and Costello.

Yet something extraordinary happens as their tour progresses. Word begins spreading. Theaters begin filling. Stan and Oliver are funnier than ever.

Maybe they will get a movie deal. And maybe they’ll learn to become true friends… in the twilight of their careers.

The film Stan & Ollie (PG) expands nationwide this weekend, telling us the story of the popular comedic team as they try to revive their aging careers. It stars Oscar nominee Steve Coogan (Despicable Me 2 and 3) as Stan Laurel and John C. Reilly (Wreck-It Ralph), another Oscar nominee, as the hefty Oliver Hardy.

The movie tells the story of two men who had little more than a working relationship in their younger lives but grew to appreciate one another as their careers were ending and they were running out of money.

It is among the funniest films I’ve seen, and proves once again that the most creative humor is the cleanest humor. Coogan and Reilly are spectacular.

Warning: minor/moderate spoilers!

(Scale key: none, minimal, moderate, extreme)

Violence/Disturbing

None.

Sexuality/Sensuality/Nudity

Minimal. We see women in one-piece swimsuits in a “bathing beauty” contest.

Coarse Language

Minimal: A– (3), d–n (2), h-ll (1). Also: dear G-d (2).

Other Stuff You Might Want To Know

Several characters drink and smoke. One character places a bet over the phone.

Positive Elements/Life Lessons

Stan and Oliver provide lessons on bitterness, forgiveness and forgiveness.

At the heart of their divide: Oliver’s decision to get a different comedy partner years earlier when Stan was holding out for a bigger contract.

“You betrayed me,” Stan says.

Oliver responds, “You loved Laurel and Hardy, but you never loved me.”

But by the movie’s end, they reconcile and have a close friendship. It’s touching to watch.

Worldview/Application

Our society worships fame. It’s at the heart of popular music, gossip magazines, television sports, and Hollywood movies. But just like that easily distracted dog in Up (“squirrel!”), our attention span is brief. The only thing we like more than celebrities are new celebrities.

Laurel and Hardy didn’t lose fans by becoming less funny. No, the public simply moved on to something else. At their pinnacle, most Americans knew who they were. Nowadays, very few do.

Fame, like everything else in life, is fleeting. James tells us that our lives are like “a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes” (James 4:14).

The things of this world don’t last. Instead of compiling treasure on earth, our focus should be on eternal matters—treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:19-20).

What Works

The comedy, which required practice and impeccable timing. We don’t hear a single curse word in their show, but it’s funnier than anything on Netflix.

What Doesn’t

Not applicable.

Discussion Questions

1. What made Laurel and Hardy so funny?
2. What can we learn about fame and popularity from their story?
3. What can we learn about forgiveness and friendship?

Entertainment rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars. Family-friendly rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Rated PG for some language, and for smoking.

REVIEW: ‘On the Basis of Sex’ is a sympathetic, incomplete view of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

by Michael Foust | Jan 25, 2019

‘On the Basis of Sex’ provides only a partial view of the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the Supreme Court’s most liberal justices.

Ruth is a brilliant young female attorney living in a male-dominated legal world.

The year is 1959, and although she graduated at the top of her class in one of the nation’s most prestigious schools, Ruth can’t land a job in a law firm. Some male lawyers believe she should use her skills as a secretary. Others would like to hire her, but fear their wives would become jealous.

So Ruth takes a position as a law professor at Rutgers University. There, she will mold the nation’s future lawyers to enter the fast-changing world of the 1960s. The job also will allow her to practice law in the courtroom if the right case arises.

Such a case lands in her lap when she learns about Charles Moritz, a Colorado single man who is taking care of his ailing mother and wants the same tax benefits for hiring a nurse that are afforded to women. But the federal tax law allows only females to use the tax deduction when hiring in-home nurses.

Ruth believes if she can convince a federal court to overturn a law that unfairly targets a man, then it could lay the groundwork for overturning laws that unfairly target women.

Will her strategy work?

The movie On the Basis of Sex (PG-13) is now playing in theaters, giving us an overview of the early life of now-Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It begins with her entrance into Harvard Law School in 1956 and ends with her arguing Moritz’s case before the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the early 1970s. Her nephew, Daniel Stiepleman, wrote it.

Although Ginsburg is one of the nation’s most socially liberal justices—supporting legalized abortion and same-sex marriage, for example—the film aims for broad appeal by spotlighting her targeting of sexually discriminatory laws. She complains that wives should not have to sign up for credit cards in their husbands’ names. She says women aren’t allowed to work overtime. She notes that there were no women’s restrooms when she began attending law school.

The word “abortion” is never heard in On the Basis of Sex, even though she became one of the biggest supporters of its legalization. Perhaps this is because Ginsburg didn’t play a direct role in the 1973 ruling.

The result is that people from both parties can watch the film and cheer her, even if her legal philosophy needs to be questioned. One such example is when Ginsburg in the film argues that times are changing and that the law is behind the public sentiment. This begs the question: Then why not pressure the legislature to change the law? Or change the legislature?

In fact, the real-world Ginsburg said in 2013 that she regretted how abortion was legalized—with one case overturning all pro-life laws nationwide. Roe, she said, became “a symbol for the right to life movement.” She would have preferred a piecemeal approach to legalizing abortion— although, for sure, it still would have come through the legal process.

“That would have been my ideal vision of how this would have been evolved,” she said.

Like the real-world Ginsburg, the big-screen Ginsburg (played by Felicity Jones) supports incremental change, too. Her goal in the film is to take on each law where men and women are viewed differently. Supposedly, there were 178 of them. When the three justices ask her if she’s wanting to overturn all 178 laws, she says, “No.” She’s only fighting to overturn one section of the tax law. Legal attacks on the other ones will come later.

“We’re not asking you to change the country,” she says. “That’s already happened without any court’s permission. We’re asking you to protect the right of the country to change. Our sons and daughters are barred by law from opportunities based on assumptions about their abilities.

“You have the power to set the precedent that will get us started.”

There’s a lot to like about Ginsburg in On the Basis of Sex. She fought for common-sense women’s rights that all women today—conservative and liberal—enjoy. She backed an incremental approach that leaders in any movement would be wise to use. She also was a devoted wife and mother of two children. The film shows her caring for her sick husband when he faced the possibility of death after a testicular cancer diagnosis. She even attended his classes and took notes (He was in law school, too).

But lurking in the background, unsaid, is her stance on more controversial decisions. As a Supreme Court justice in 2000, she voted with the majority for legalized legal partial-birth abortion—a procedure in which an unborn late-term baby is partially delivered, feet-first, before its brain is suctioned. When a similar case came before the court in 2007, she voted the same way again, although this time she was in the minority. In 2018, she joined dissenting justices who would have required pro-life pregnancy centers to hang signs about the availability of abortion.

It’s easy to cheer for the Ginsburg in On the Basis of Sex. It’s just not the full picture.

Content warnings:

Warning: minor/moderate spoilers!

(Scale key: none, minimal, moderate, extreme)

Violence/Disturbing

None.

Sexuality/Sensuality/Nudity

Minimal/moderate. We see Ginsburg disrobe down to a slip and kiss her husband in the bedroom. The scene then cuts away.

Coarse Language

Moderate. A– (4), s–t (3), D–n (2), misuse of “Jesus” (1), misuse of “God” (1), b–ch (1), b—ard (1), f-word (1), d–k (1), “h-ll no” as part of a chant — several times.

Discussion Questions

1. Is Ginsburg a legal hero? Why or why not?
2. Name three positive traits about Ginsburg from the movie. Name three negative ones (from either the film or real life).
3. What led to abortion’s legalization?

Entertainment rating: 3 out of 5 stars. Family-friendly rating: 3 out of 5 stars.

Rated PG-13 for some language and suggestive content.