A Couple’s Moral Responsibility to Frozen Embryos

Yikes! The world of biomedical ethics is complicated, but even more so when overlaid with a Christian worldview.  Take this question submitted to Russell D. Moore’s blog, Moore To The Point:

Dear Dr. Moore,

I know you don’t believe in in vitro fertilization, but my wife and I found it was a good solution to our infertility problem. We created multiple embryos, and carried two to term. We cannot afford any other children, so another round of pregnancies is not an option. Our quiver’s full. My conscience is bothering me a little, though, since we banked a number of other fertilized embryos, just in case the first round didn’t take. Do we have any responsibility for these embryos?

Sincerely,

A Stressed Dad

Okay, so if you haven’t read the column or haven’t peeked below, which way do you think he’s going to go on this?  Or, being perfectly honest, what the answer you would like to see, or the answer you would give if anyone asked you?

…

Time’s up!  Here’s a little bit of his answer, but clicking the link in the first paragraph here is highly recommended:

Dear Stressed,

Your quiver’s fuller than you think…

…In a Christian vision of reality there is no such thing as an “almost person,” which is what we think with the abstraction of “fertilized embryos.” Someone is either a human person, and therefore my neighbor, or not. You do not have “frozen embryos.” You have children, frozen in this cruelly clinical world of suspended animation.

It is one thing to decide you can’t afford to have children, before you conceive children, just as it is one thing to decide you can’t afford to marry, before you marry. You’re married though, and you’ve conceived children. You have an obligation to them. The one who does not care for his own household is, the Apostle Paul says, “worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8).

This doesn’t mean your game-plan is easy. There’s a cross to take up here. The path from frozen storage to birth is difficult, whether through bearing those children or making an adoption plan for them into loving families. But these are not things; these are persons, worthy of love and respect and sacrifice…

Any surprise or shock I had at his answer stemmed not from fundamental disagreement but from entering a world of consideration that was completely foreign to me.  A few days ago, I had no opinion on this issue.  Today, I see a couple in a particular situation who have sought advice that may not necessarily be the advice they want to hear. Despite this, I still find myself torn.

I want to look the couple in the eye and say, “I see your pain and struggle with this.” Then I want to look Dr. Moore in the eye and say, “That was a very wise answer.” In other words, “I agree with you and (turning my head) I agree with you.” It’s a great stance if you’re going into politics, but I’m not sure how it plays out in the world of faith and ethics.

Rather, there is the feeling of being confronted with an issue that is beyond yourself, something you feel you lack capacity to assess. Where is Solomon when you need him? I suppose that’s the role that Dr. Moore is being asked to play here.

He concludes by linking alluding to a familiar scripture passage,

Your conscience might seem to be a nuisance to you… But a nagging conscience can be a sign of grace. It might be that what you are hearing is a happy foretaste of obedience to Christ, as you hear his voice saying, “I was frozen and you remembered me.”

What do you think?

Standing With The Homeless and Disadvantaged

It’s so easy to be offended when you’re stopped at a traffic light and a scruffy, unwashed man suddenly leans into your open window and offers to clean your windshield.  Or the guy on the freeway off-ramp who is asking for help buying groceries. I don’t know what it is that makes saying no my default response.

However, when you actually get to know some of the people in that situation — as I have in small measure through the work my wife did co-founding a ministry organization reaching those very people — you tend to be offended in the opposite way when governments would restrict the right of those people to simply stand in an out-of-the-way location with a sign asking for whatever pocket change you can spare.

That’s the position that Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove — and anyone else who lives in community — finds themselves in when laws are passed that makes life even harder for people for whom it’s already hard enough.

On Wednesday he wrote:

In 2003, my wife Leah and I came to Durham to start the Rutba House, a Christian community of hospitality where the formerly homeless and the formerly housed share life together. Over cups of coffee and around our dinner table, we have learned the difficult stories behind the label “homeless” while also knowing the people who bear that label as friends. We have not ended homelessness in Durham, but we have seen that community is possible despite our fears and deep histories of division. We need not be afraid of those who beg for our help. In fact, our experience has convinced me that we cannot become the Durham we hope to be without them.

Our city’s new anti-panhandling ordinance has highlighted for us the importance of what we’ve learned at Rutba House over the past decade. Passed without public conversation as part of a consensus agenda in December, the new law did not go into effect until mid-January of this year. When it did, those who had purchased permits to beg under the old law were informed that they would be ticketed if they continued to “fly signs” at their usual stations. Within weeks, people who were asking for side jobs or spare change faced $250 fines. To date, at least two of them have gone to jail.

I do not believe City Council passed this new ordinance to send poor people to jail…

continue reading at Everyday Awakening

On Friday, this update:

…Last night, we had our first public meeting on Durham’s new anti-panhandling ordinance. Mel Williams of End Poverty Durham greeted the 200 people who crowded into Duke Memorial UMC’s fellowship hall by saying that we evaluate every public policy by one question: how does it affect the poorest among us?

If we are to know, we must listen to them. So we did.

One after another, men who have been ticketed for begging told their stories. Steve told about how, as he was standing on an exit ramp with a sign that said “Will Work,” his old boss saw him and picked him up last month. Now he has regular work and is able to pay the rent. But he came to speak for his friend Keith who just learned that he has cancer and is no longer able to ask for help because it’s illegal. Steve stood to speak for people like Keith who’ve been pushed further into the shadows.

Country shared his story. He told how he started priming tobacco when he was nine years old–how he worked hard every day for forty-one years before he was injured in a construction accident. On disability now, he gets medical care and a $710 check each month. But when his bills are paid, he’s already five dollars behind. For years, friends in Durham have stopped by Country’s corner and helped him make ends meet. But he got a ticket last week for talking through a car window to someone he’s known for years.

These are the stories that have convinced us that this new law is wrong. They are stories that make us ask, “How could a law like this have come to be?”

Some of us have spent Lent asking this question. When we asked the guys on the streets who’ve been getting tickets, they said, “Nobody asked us before the law was passed.” When we asked folks around town who run our homelessness services, they all said no one had asked them. So we talked to the Homelessness Services Advisory Council–the city/county group that exists to advise City Council on issues that affect the homeless. And they told us no one had asked them either.

How could a law like this have come to be? I think the answer is simple. Durham had not heard these stories.

But now we have…

continue reading at Jonathan’s blog

There was to have been a protest meeting on Sunday night. At this point, Jonathan hadn’t posted what the outcome was of that rally.

This type of thing is repeated in city after city in North America. Smug middle class people in their minivans or sedans weary of being accosted as they are stopped in traffic or walking on an errand downtown. People with the very attitude I confessed to myself in the opening paragraph. (My wife usually jumps in at this point and quickly produces some coins; then we drive away; I ask how much she gave; she tells me; I suggest she was overly generous. It’s a recurring scene.)

Not wishing to be thus imposed on for money, they urge their city or town councilors to pass legislation that will end the inconvenience once and for all. So the rich get richer and the marginalized get more marginalized.

But it’s different for Jonathan and the people in his community because he knows the people and their stories. And really, they is us. Anyone sitting in front of a PC or Mac right now reading this is conceivably there but for the grace of God.

To My Fellow Bloggers: What Your Amazon Links Support

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought -  Gay marriage donations?

This week we were asked by a Christian bookstore manager, “How many people know that the founder of Amazon is the largest single donor to the cause of gay marriage?” Honestly, I didn’t know myself, and the amount, $2.5 M (US) is staggering. He told me, “Tell your local churches that are buying from Amazon just to type ‘Jeff Bezos’ and ‘gay marriage’ into a search engine for themselves.”  A week later, I did this myself. There were many, many articles, but this one describes a behind-the-scenes look at the donation:

Thank Lesbian Jennifer Cast for Jeff Bezos’ Huge Gay Marriage Support

Like most of us, Jennifer Cast said she figured her former boss, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, was well aware of the threat to gay marriage in Washington State by the upcoming the ballot iniative and wrote to him, “I figured that if you felt the desire to support marriage equality, you would do it.” But, unlike many of us, this time she spoke up with a direct ask, and for the first time in twelve years working on the issue, Cast, 50, partners of 20+ years with Liffy Franklin, 63, emailed Bezos, “I beg you not to sit on the sidelines and hope the vote goes our way. Help us make it so.” She wrote, “We need help from straight people. To be very frank, we need help from wealthy straight people who care about us and who want to help us win.” She asked the billionaire for a contribution of $100,000 to $200,000. Within thirty-six hours he replied, “Jen, this is right for so many reasons. We’re in for $2.5 million. Jeff & MacKenzie”

This is the largest ever donation in support of marriage equality and it only happened because a lesbian spoke up and asked for it. Learn from her. The announcement also inspired other gifts, according to the Seattle Times, which reports, “Cast said she has received hundreds of emails since news of Bezos’ gift broke early Friday from well-wishers and those who suddenly wanted to give. One donor pledged $25,000.”

Jeff Bezos is worth $18.4 billion. Although William Lynch, the CEO of Barnes & Noble, isn’t a billionaire, his compensation last year was $10 million, going up to $15.3 million this year. He doesn’t have a connection to Washington State, but some of the Amazon haters need to ask Lynch for a significant donation. He can give to Maryland’s or to Maine’s campaign…

A link for this and what follows is available if you wish. The perspective below was actually from a gay website. The first line really sums up what’s happening even as you’re reading this.

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought…gay marriage donations?: The founder of Amazon.com, Jeff Bezos, and his wife, MacKenzie, just donated 2.5 million to help pass Washington state’s Referendum 74, which would legalize gay marriage. The donation from Bezos, the 15th wealthiest man in America, has been called a “game changer” by Washington gay marriage campaigners.

I do not see how any Christian blogger or media outlet possessing this information can continue to remain an Amazon affiliate or referrer. To everyone else, if you or your church purchases from Amazon, I think you need to take a long, prayerful second look at that situation.

Should the Tip for the Waitress Exceed Your Tithe Percentage?

Q: What’s the difference between a canoe and a Christian in a restaurant?

A: A canoe tips.

The bill for the meal at Applebee’s came with a pre-calculated 18% tip, but you certainly had the option to override it with any tip you chose.

But one customer argued that God only gets 10%, so why should wait staff get 18%.

But then he [update - see comments] she left nothing.

So another server took a picture of the receipt containing the comment.

And the restaurant fired her — really a third party in all this — despite years of exemplary service and management aspirations.

Apparently the customer — who to make matters worse claimed to be a pastor — was outraged when the story went public and demanded that heads roll.  To appease the customer, Applebee’s rolled one head, and lost a perfectly good employee in the process. Not sure I want to eat there again.

And then, the story went world wide. The link I have is to The Guardian in the UK. The newspaper’s online version takes a line from the server, “…tipping is not optional. It is how we get paid;” and renders it as some kind of quaint American trivia headline, “Tips are not optional, they are how waiters get paid in America.”

Excuse me, don’t people tip in Great Britain?

But before we go to far here, are we led to believe that the person who stiffed the waitress really gives ten percent? Because statistics on both sides of the Atlantic don’t support that notion. And if the type of person who does give ten percent is also the type of person who doesn’t leave a tip, personally I would rather they tithed less.

For example: Recently we attended a youth outreach event that is being held in a large restaurant complex and entertainment center. Many of the attendees — in their late teens and twenties — go out to eat afterward and since they are identified as being from the “Christian” event, the last word to them before they are dismissed is to be kind and generous to their servers.

The last thing the world needs is another hot-headed Christian alienating others from Jesus. It might take an army of Christ-followers a lifetime to undo what this person did in just a few seconds.

What I really like about Chelsea Welch’s story is that in the end, she takes the high road, something the customer in the story didn’t do:

As this story has gotten popular, I’ve received inquiries as to where people can send money to support me. As a broke kid trying to get into college, it’s certainly appealing, but I’d really rather you make a difference to your next server. I’d rather you keep that money and that generosity for the next time you eat out.

To see the discussion on Reddit provoked by this, click this link.

Related article at Christianity Today: Why Are Christians Such Bad Tippers?

Where is Pro-Choice Protest over Royal ‘Baby’ News?

From a hardcore pro-choice position, it’s not a baby. Not yet. But absolutely everyone is caught up in the celebration. And at least one blogger at Flagrant Regard had the courage to point out the resulting double-standard in an open letter to pro-choicers:

You rant and scream at your rallies, on your blogs, in your liberal-leaning newspaper columns and directly at your detractors that abortion – especially if performed on a woman prior to the 24-weeks-pregnant mark – is okay because the creature, the ‘it-thing’ inside that woman’s body is a fetus. ‘Fetus’, in your minds, being a word for a disposable type of developing life-form that’s not, in fact, a little human person.

Really? ‘Cause you wouldn’t know it today.

Every news server this morning broke the story that Kate Middleton, the internationally admired, beloved Dutchess and wife of the future king of England is about 12 weeks pregnant.

Websites have already been created in homage to the ‘baby-to-be’, throngs of royal-watchers are passionately discussing what the baby’s name might be if it’s a boy or a girl, women everywhere are gushing and/or vicariously ‘glowing’ over, with or for Kate Middleton in anticipation of the newly expected ‘child’ who will be 3rd in line to the royal throne (as if he/she had the job in hand already).

Is the issue here the celebrity brought on by pure celebrity or because this is a ‘royal’ pregnancy? Maybe there would be fewer abortions if all women felt they were carrying a child in line to a royal throne.

So if I am understanding this correctly, a woman has the right to call something growing inside her a “zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus” (thank you for the terminology, Pro-Choice Action Network) and then rip it out of her body if she believes it to be anything less than a prince or princess in the making?

And that’s just the beginning. Our anonymous blogger has just begun his well-placed rant.

Continue reading here. I’m sure some of you will want to comment, too; so I’ve shut comments off here so you can leave them with the author. You know you want to.

Is There Such a Thing as Auto Repair Ethics?

I’m probably the only person in North America who, during this summer’s intense warm weather in the middle of July, noticed that his car heater wasn’t working.

On a cool fall day, when the mechanic informed me the problem was simply a stuck “door” that sends the heat through to the fan and that it would involve “about half an hour,” I was pleased to avoid a major bill. But the owner of the business, who writes the invoices, didn’t see it that way.

The job is rated in the “blue book” as taking nine hours. Yes, nine hours. They are supposed to remove the dashboard, flush the system, baste regularly, adjust the mainspring and rustproof the cat. So he reasoned that by only charging me for four-and-a-half hours, he was doing me a major favor.

Problem is, the car wasn’t being serviced for four-and-a-half hours. Assuming the mechanic misjudged when he guessed 30 minutes, I’m guessing 60-90 minutes, tops. I know they spent a few hours waiting for a part, and I know when the car was ready.

Well, actually, that’s not the problem at all. The problem is that the mechanic is my “Christian” mechanic. I say that reminded that “Christian” should never be an adjective, however… This is the guy I recommend to all my fellow-believer friends, plus a few people from the community at large. “You can trust _________,” I will say; “he goes to ___________ Church.”

Right now, I believe that no longer applies.

And yes, I did complain vigorously at the time I picked up the car, but of course _________ was officially on holidays; he had taken a break from his vacation just long enough to come in and write up my costs, overriding his mechanic’s probably more accurate assessment of the time involved. Ultimately, I probably will not return.

…I waited a month to write this. I also used this to re-examine some of the pricing policies we use in our own business, where we sometimes wrestle with similar, but different ethical quagmires. In the end, I am only responsible for me, and I have to remember to try to deal with instances where I sense Holy Spirit conviction, and try to live my own life by the highest ethical standard.

Details, Details

I don’t hear voices. But on Monday I felt an unmistakable prompt to put a devotional here on Thinking Out Loud. My first response was, “No, that’s what Christianity 201 was created for.” But sometimes you do better to listen to those prompts. So here it is. The author, Cloudwatcher writes from a land down under, is a frequent contributor and comment-er at C201, and at 74-years young, is possibly the eldest writer in this blog’s blogroll with her blog, Meeting in the Clouds.  To read this at source, click here.

---

Oscar Hammerstein II wrote,

“A year or so ago, on the cover of the New York Herald Tribune Sunday magazine, I saw a picture of the Statue of Liberty, taken from a helicopter and it showed the top of the statue’s head. I was amazed at the detail there. The sculptor had done a painstaking job with the lady’s coiffure, and yet he must have been pretty sure that the only eyes that would ever see this detail would be the uncritical eyes of sea gulls. He could not have dreamt that any man would ever fly over this head. He was artist enough, however, to finish off this part of the statue with as much care as he had devoted to her face and her arms, and the torch and everything that people can see as they sail up the bay.”

We can well ask WHY?

Frederic Auguste Bartholdi was the sculptor. He went from France to Egypt in 1856 and was awestruck by the grandeur of the pyramids and the beauty of the stately Sphinx of the desert. His artistic mind was stimulated. Taken by the concept, he decided to design something out of the ordinary. He worked on the concept for 10 years, changing the design many times until he was satisfied.

The result was a colossal robed lady that stood taller than the Sphinx. She held the books of justice in one hand and a torch lifted high in the other.  After Bartholdi returned to France, the French government sought his artistic services. His 10 years of planning and designing culminated in the Statue of Liberty lighting the New York harbor.

The statue of Liberty was built in the late 1800’s. The Statue was completed in France in July, 1884 and arrived in New York Harbor in June 1885. In transit, the Statue was reduced to 350 individual pieces and packed in 214 crates. The Statue was re-assembled on her new pedestal in four months. The dedication of the Statue of Liberty took place in front of thousands of spectators October 28th 1886. President Grover Cleveland, the former New York governor, presided over the event.

The Statue of Liberty stands 305 feet 1 inch or 93 meters in height from the base to the top of the torch.

No planes flew at that time. There were no high rises.  It was not until many years later that airplanes were able to fly above it and the exquisite details and beauty of the top of the head could be observed. Bartholdi could have reasonably argued that such detail on the top was not necessary.

WHY did he, on such a massive job, take so much trouble
on something that he thought would never be seen?

Why?  INTEGRITY.

We see another example of such integrity in the work of MICHELANGELO in his four years labor (1508-12) in painting the very high ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The painted area is about 40 m (131 ft) long by 13 m (43 ft) wide. This means that he painted well over 5,000 square feet (460 m2) of frescoes, carefully perfecting the tiniest details of each figure he painted.

A friend asked him WHY he took such pains, since the figures would only be seen from a great distance, and no one would be able to discern such perfection.

The artist simply answered “I will!”

Why?  INTEGRITY

Integrity is MORE than NOT being deceitful or slipshod.
For the Christian, it means doing everything ‘heartily as unto the Lord‘

Colossians 3:23-24
And whatever you do, do it heartily,
as to the Lord and not unto men;
knowing that of the Lord you shall receive the reward;
for you serve the Lord Christ

We are not called to build a sculptural masterpiece or a great work of art, but the same principle applies.  If no one ever knows of our efforts, our work ethics should be the same.

When it comes to ANYTHING in Christian service,
whether it is ministering to a lonely or needy person,
or sharing the Gospel message,
or singing in the choir,
or teaching children,
or cleaning the Church,
or working behind the scenes,
or playing a major role,
or whatever we do,
we should give 100-plus percent even to the tiniest detail
which “no one will ever notice”.
Our Father will and we serve Him.

1 Corinthians 15:58
Be steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

Why I Thank God for Contemporary Christian Music

Last week I received some advertising for three books by Kimberly Smith in which she allegedly is able to make a case for intrinsic evil in contemporary music forms.

I had always thought that the music war had ended, but much like soldiers carrying on the fight in the jungle years after World War II ended, it seems that some people are still waging the battle.

I have a great admiration for people who have a certain position that is by their admission based on preference. By all means, listen to what you like, and include in your church services that which meets the needs of your congregation.  Furthermore, mix it up a bit. Blended worship is always going to be balanced worship.

But don’t start citing studies and Biblical principles to support what is ultimately your preference, and don’t you dare dictate your personal choices to others as being normative Christian behavior, when neither statistics nor the weight of good argument are on your side.

For example, take a blank piece of 8.5 x 11 paper.  (That’s A4 for our British readers, I think.) You can use that paper to paint a beautiful watercolor picture of a valley with a stream. You can use it to write a poem about a friend who has been a help and encouragement to you.  You can insert it in your computer printer and print out your September budget.  You can do all sorts of good things with it.

Or…

You can write a slanderous article about someone in your city. You can draw a charcoal picture of a fox devouring a songbird. You can put up a sign in your front window telling peddlers to stay away and children to keep off your lawn.

But don’t blame paper, or pens, or markers, or computer printers for things people do with them. The paper is morally neutral, and so are the writing and drawing implements.  That is what I have always believed, what I have taught others, and what I still hold to. Morality rests in the heart of man (mankind) who posses moral agency.

A piece of paper has no such agency. It can’t act. A deck of playing cards may be guilty-by-association, but even there, the morality of a deck of cards would be tough to argue among skilled debaters or scholars.

None of this would sway Kimberly Smith, however. With books published in 1997, 2001 and 2006, she has spent 15 years making the case against Christian contemporary music. That’s her target. Not Top 40 radio. Not MTV. Not your local record store.  True, she is probably not enamored with those, but her focus is against the music that, without which, I cannot presume to be where I am today with Christ and who I am today in Christ.

That’s right. At the end of the day, I’m not prepared to argue with her. I’d rather use this space — and invite you to join in the comments — to say that I am so very, very thankful for the early Jesus Music and CCM artists who took the time to compose, to record, to tour and to thereby encourage me so much in the formative years of my Christian journey.

Would I have been a Christ follower anyway? Perhaps. But not with the same passion. The scriptures I learned, the Biblical principles the songs taught, the examples of the performing artists and songwriters were so very much needed and appreciated.

Here’s an example of what readers can expect in the book Music and Morals.

Chapter One: By showing how music is used successfully by the film industry to create moods and convey morality, the fact is established that music is a powerful entity and should not be considered amoral by the Church.

So in other words, because it’s evocative it’s disqualified. What about “O Sacred Head Now Wounded;” or for that matter, “Onward Christian Soldiers.”  Sorry, Kimberly, that just doesn’t fly.  Then there’s

Chapter Seven: Shows how specific rock music techniques are purposely used to manipulate, and if we as Christians are imitating those same techniques, the intent of manipulation remains, no matter the lyrics.

So much for William Booth or Charles Wesley appropriating the music of the day and making lyrical alterations. The lyrics don’t have weight in this discussion.

Or this blurb for For Those Who Have Ears to Hear:

This book gives solid, biblical answers to refute fifty common defenses (excuses) by proponents of contemporary Christian music in the chapter, “What We Believe is Our Truth.” Some of the statements answered are: “People are saved at CCM concerts”; “The music makes me feel closer to God”; “Where in the Bible does it say a certain beat is wrong?”; “Psalm 33:3 says we’re to sing ‘a new song’ to the Lord”; “It’s all relative; everyone has his or her own tastes,” and many more.

That’s right. Kimberly is able to deflect fifty defenses of CCM without ever stopping to consider, ‘My goodness, there are fifty of them!’

A chapter in Oh Be Careful Little Ears is titled, “The Origins of Unnatural Rhythms.” Yes, they’re still playing that song. The market for this book is obviously the same people who are sucked into the King James Only argument. Or lack of argument. People who don’t want to actually think, but want to be told what to think.

I noticed that one of the largest online Christian book vendors doesn’t touch this title. Why should they? This is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire. (This type of book is never released through major Christian publishers; and usually contains sections underlined, in capital letters and in bold print — the publishing equivalent of being yelled at.)

Again, I am so thankful for those who have followed the advice of Isaiah 42:10 to “create new songs of praise.” And songs of hope. And songs of testimony. And songs for justice and mercy.

And I am so very sad that perfectly good trees are being cut down to print books that in the very long scheme of things, will do more harm than good.

Upgraded To First Class… For Four Minutes

James Thornber is a blogger with a fascinating story who we discovered because his blog has the same name as this one, Thinking Out Loud. Last week he shared this story:

Sometimes life hands you an opportunity to do something nice for people, and all you can do is stand back and watch it unfold. Barbara and I were returning home from California last week and were upgraded to first class. What a blessing! But that blessing lasted just a few moments before we saw an opportunity to do something even better. Better than first class? You bet.

As we waited to board our flight from Dallas/Ft. worth to Tulsa, we heard our name called over the speaker, requesting us to come to the check-in desk. The agent told us that they would like to move us to first class in order to keep another family together on the plane. I said to the agent, “Alexis, you are our new best friend.” She smiled, handed us our tickets and said we could board the plane. Yep, first class, folks! We’re flying First CLASS!!

I can now tell you that, after spending the previous three hours sitting in the economy section with our backs against the restrooms in the tail of the plane, the first class seats are amazing. They are wide, comfortable leather seats, big enough to accommodate both of us in one seat if we wanted, and leg room for someone and a foot and a half taller. We sat down a little dazed at our amazing luck.

Now it was us who got to feel like rich, important people as the remainder of the poor economy class folks boarded the plane, looking us over to see if we might be a celebrity or a famous sports figure. At least, that’s what I do when I walk through first class.

…you’re almost half-way, continue reading…

Equal Time

Because we’re inundated with media that tells us that everybody is doing it, the other side should probably have equal time.  Here’s what I think some people would tell you…

Materialism

• many of us are not going to a vacation resort this year
• what you think is our ‘new’ car actually came off a three-year lease
• I really don’t want a bigger house, in fact I’d like to downsize
• those new appliances we ‘bought’ were free with credit card points
• we think all those electronic gadgets are a waste of money

Boasting

• yes, we paid off the bank loan, but then we took out another
• many of us have kids that did not get straight A’s on their report card
• Harry’s new job was a departmental move, not a promotion
• the ten pounds I lost wasn’t exercise, they closed the local Krispy Kreme
• the little league team we coach made the finals only because another team had to forfeit

Ethics

• there are many people who do not embellish their resumé
• no, actually I don’t cheat on my income tax
• since you asked, not everybody looks at porn online
• sorry, you’re wrong; not everybody tells lies to get ahead
• if you look carefully, most of us really do drive the speed limit

Sexuality

• the kids in my core youth group at church actually aren’t sexually active
• the truth is, I haven’t thought about having an affair with the receptionist
• I’m not that insecure that I need to flirt to prove I’ve still “got it.”
• a lot of us women are not interested in reading the fantasy bestseller
• there are many people who think inward qualities matter more than outward appeal

Anything you’d like to add?