Some people's clocks:

http://www.suite101.com/files/mysites/AskAlice/Clock.htm

From Defend the family.com (an anti-homesexual legal group)

The “gay” movement is exulting over the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas (which protects sodomy under the right to privacy), and well it might. That decision has not only overturned the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld the right of states to criminalize homosexual sodomy, it has robbed the states of virtually all authority to regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults.

The amicus brief which the Pro-family Law Center submitted on the Lawrence case highlighted the severe public health consequences associated with the practice of sodomy. Nevertheless, without mentioning public health at all, the court ruled that “[t]he Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual” (emphasis mine).

Neither, wrote the majority, is “the fact that a governing majority in a state has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral … a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” Justice Scalia, in his dissent, observed that “[t]his effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.”

A.T. Pierson, on the riches of the"eternal" life of John 3:16:

If I am a child of God by faith in Jesus Christ, all the past of God I inherit as well as all the future of God. Being a child of God, whatever is glorious in the past eternity of God comes to enrich my present and my future.

When God has a child born to him in his family by faith in Jesus Christ, the child does not simply start with the present moment of birth to enjoy a future that shall be blessed, but God enriches that new heir of glory by all that there is in the gorious past of his eternal existence. You have God for your Father, and all God's past is in Christ your past also.

Thanks all for the input. I appreciate it.
Though delayed in publishing, I've continued to mull over my last blog and your comments, and I was thinking...

First, perhaps my displeasure at WMUU was a tad...unfair. Unfair because I don't really know what their purpose is, or what kind of philosophy drives them.
Maybe I'll moderate my anti-MUU rhetoric to stating I'm confused.

Confused because sometimes I get the idea they're a Christian radio station running a ministry, but the majority of what I hear is "secular" stuff. For instance, one Sunday morning on our way to church Cathy and I turned it on to hear a song from a musical. Despite the host of good preaching available, the only preaching I've ever heard is Dr. Bob Sr. reruns. And despite the pleas in Faculty/Staff meetings to encourage our friends and neighbors to listen, at this moment I can't really see enough value in it for me to listen, let alone proselytize for them.

What I think about the music they play really isn't the issue. I don't really care if they want to provide a classical (or whatever you call their daily conglomeration) radio station. I just wish a station with the possibility of a lot of influence would put more emphasis on any kind of Christian music and preaching. I don't particulary feel like the world's crying need is a classical radio station sprinkled with Christian allusions, but perhaps they do and I suppose that's fine and I'm willing to chalk that one up to the personal preferences of a very young person.

Secondly, I think my first two grievances exceed personal taste. While I would never expect or demand any radio station (or preacher or song or book) to match my every view and preference and opinion, there is one standard that we can apply to what we hear on any radio station. That standard is truth as revealed in God's Word, and though we may debate on application issues we all know the truth issues are not relative.

I would contend that the truth is that the Gospel is not primarily about man. The truth is also that we are starving for a genuine picture of God, and part of our fuzzy concept of Him springs from years of experience-based theology and not revealed truth-based theology.

I realize radio opens up a world of application issues, and I can live with that. I am happy to listen to BBN, though at times I disagree with the preaching I hear or don't particularly enjoy the style of a song. But perhaps my point in my pet peeves is that I don't like truth being misportrayed, reinterpreted, or twisted.

Some might say I don't like truth according to me being reinterpreted and twisted, but I'd have to say I can draw some very definite lines of truth. That's one of the great things about God's Word-it can be objectively studied. I don't have to worry about being the one to define "sound exegesis." If someone is true to what the text says, that's sound exegesis. I, and every other Christian, have perfect liberty to determine if preaching meets the standard of "good" as applied to exegesis. That's not lofty seminarian arrogance, that's the beauty of a written Word that can mean only what it says.

There will never be a radio station on this fallen planet that is perfect, but we can all learn from the imperfections. And we can all be passionate about the objective truth, on guard for definite error, and biblically constrained in our consciences.

Can Christians even have pet peeves? Well, I guess we do, but maybe the question is how we should or should not express them or respond to others because of them. At any rate, today there were three things that...bothered me. I'm not sure you can properly classify them as pet peeves, but whatever you call them they're irksome.
(warning: do not continue reading if you have no desire to hear why i'm...annoyed.)

One of the good things about my morning job is that I can listen to the radio while travelling from one job site to another. But that good thing precipitated today's bugaboos. And here they are:

1: A man-centered gospel. In an untitled sermon by an unnamed preacher, the Gospel was presented as the source of authenticity. If you come to Christ, the appeal went, you can recover authentic humanity. Now, I'm sure there's truth there. We were made to fellowship with God, who is the greatest reality, and without a proper understanding and relation to Him we haven't found our purpose for existence or our reason to live, nor are we living in touch with reality; however, the message went on to announce that this reclamation of authenticity is the purpose of Christ's death and the greatest result of salvation. And there I began to wonder. Is salvation really about what happens to/for man? Is my authenticity God's greatest concern? I think not. And while I could be wrong, there seems to me a world of difference between a philosophy that claims salvation is fundamentally, primarily concerned about man's good and one that says salvation, like all else in life, is fundamentally about God's glory.

Contestant 2: An experience-based theology. The lyric of the chorus said something like "I know my God is real, because of the way He makes me feel/ I know my God is real, cause I feel Him in my soul." Again, I'm sure there's truth in the fact that God's Spirit testifies to our's that we are His children, and that that's an internal experience. But Puleeaase!! God is real because you feel something? You prove God's existence by some experience not explicitly tied to anything accept visceral, fuzzy feeling? Again, I don't think so.

Number 3: WMUU. Do I need to say any more? (should I say any more?) I mean, I have maybe 20 minutes in between subdivisions to get some kind of spiritual input, some meditation starter, some thought of God in the midst of the sweaty, dirty, hot work day. And the best they can do is Hawaiian elevator music? How bout some preaching? Scripture reading? Okay, fine, I'll settle for some good Christian music. But no, they're too busy playing the tamest version of "Yesterday" they can find. The billboard on Wade Hampton says
Beautiful,
Christian
Radio. And for the third time today I arrive at the same conclusion: I think not.

(and now some of you are saying, "Oh, we know. But you're working on it, bless your heart." :-)
So there you have it. I'm done. Was that ok?
david

Keneth Latourette, on the results of the early Roman persecutions:

In what must have seemed an unequal contest between naked, ruthless force and unarmed, passive resistance, it was not the imperial government but Christianity which emerged victor.

From the Employee Nomination Committee:

This month's nominee is a fine example of one who has gone the "extra mile" for her projects and team. Having served in the Editorial Department for two years, this employee has handled a variety of projects that include the following:

Latin II (Student and TE)
Bible 1 Worktext
That I May Know Him (Student and TE)
God and His Ways (Student and TE), and
Family Life Skills, which is currently in production.

In the nomination forms submitted, colleagues commended this employee for having given extra time and effort on three recent projects: the English 3 Student text, TE, and Test Key. Not only were these projects intensive but they were also being edited simultaneously. In addition, the teacher's edition was being outsourced.

In order to meet the production schedule and to uphold the testimony of the Press to the outsourcing company, this employee often stayed after 5:00 p.m. on weeknights and came in on Saturdays to ensure that galleys made it to the company on time. One co-worker stated, "She did all of this work happily and willingly."

Having put forth an extra effort with such a sweet and diligent spirit, this month's recipient went the extra mile and miles! We are pleased to announce that the Employee of the Month is Cathy Morris.

From Mark Twain:

You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.

In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination.

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.

Just the omission of Jane Austen's books alone would make a fairly good library out of a library that hadn't a book in it.

My mother had a great deal of trouble with me, but I think she enjoyed it.

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.