Man Writes Letter to Editor

Here is a recent editorial from the Rockford Register star:
Pharmacists should follow law, dispense all prescriptions
I sent a letter to the editor:

I didn’t think the recent editorial board opinion concerning pharmacists who refuse to distribute the so-called “morning after pill” treated this sensitive topic fairly.

The first sentence implied that these pharmacists and the lawyers who represent them are “forces that want to limit women’s reproductive choices.” Are we to believe that the pharmacists are sitting around, twirling their moustaches and plotting to destroy “reproductive choice”?

Secondly, you state that pharmacists that refuse to distribute morning after pills “don’t take their professional obligation seriously.” It seems to me that the pharmacist who thoughtfully risks his own well-being so as not to violate his or her conscience is the one who is taking their professional obligation seriously. I don’t know how you can so flippantly dismiss their convictions.
This issue is deeper than you make it out to be and you should be more careful in your assessments.

I was going to sign it, "Angry White Christian Man," but I thought it might hurt its chances for publication.

What!?! No services on Christmas!

From Steve Camp:

I think this is great; a step in the right direction—answered prayer possibly. Have you noticed something of a common denominator here? The churches canceling their morning services are seeker-sensitive or emergent in nature. So be of good cheer! At least one Sunday out of the year, we should be grateful that those churches won’t be spreading their usual dumbed-down, self-focused, trying to be culturally relevant, non-biblical, skewed theology to their attendees. This is a blessing in disguise, trust me. Now, if we could only just find another 51 reasons for canceling their services… it could really have a positive spiritual impact on our nation and evangelicalism-at-large. Until then, thank the Lord for this small, but early Christmas gift in the form of an ecclesiastical stocking stuffer, if you please.

Ouch, Steve!

Also, Tim Challies chronicles Joshua Harris' decision to cancel services on December 25th, and then his cancellation of his cancellation.

My home-town church cancelled Dec 25th services (I think), but their having 3 Saturday evening services instead. Frankly, I'd rather go to church Saturday nights anyway. Even if you're a keeper of the Lord's Day, didn't the Sabbath start at nightfall?

At any rate, I'll be in Galena, kickin' it at the GBC Christmas morning before driving back to Rockford for an afternoon of ping-pong and familial skylarking.

I am offended...

Brothers
Some companies have been selling things called "Holiday Trees." These "Holiday Trees" are apparently used as decorations during the "Holy-days." The not-so-subtle implication that something called "holiness" exists is a blatant violation of the seperation of church and state. Be on the lookout for these Holy Trees and report such sightings on this blog. We are organizing a movement to buy all of these Holy Trees for a public burning, thereby banishing this holiness from our community once and for all.
Jay

Favorite Blogs

Hey we need to spruce up that blogroll...

Here's a few of my favorites:
Pyromaniac - Phil Johnson teaches John Macarthur's Sunday school class... and is hilarious.
Blog & Mablog - Doug Wilson. Hands down best blog name.
Camp On This - Steve Camp. CCM's rebel son.
Tim Challies - always interesting.

Gift Giving and Fairness

Giving gifts has a always been a somewhat sore subject for me. As a kid, my parents rarely got my brother and I what wanted -- possibly due to financial issues or naivety. As I grew older my brother and I would always take care of each other on Christmas. He would buy a gift I really wanted and I would buy him a gift that he really wanted, knowing that the gift would cost more money than what our parents were willing to spend.

Should equality in gifts given on Christmas be something that's desired? Admittedly, I never had to really deal with it until marriage, since I only had one brother to purchase gifts for.

When you have to give gifts to different related people do you:
1. Spend the similar amount of money on all parties, mostly so they will never feel bad?
2. Purchase gifts that each person will enjoy regardless of price (within limits of course), but not accounting for equality?

In bigger families, the equality thing seems to be the central aspect of gift purchasing. No one wants to feel like "He got something he really likes and all I got was this...". At the same time, can this reaction be avoided? I guess if you give many gifts, eventually everyone will at least have something they like. But a lot of money was probably spent on those other gifts that enabled you to feel that way.

What does the Bible have to say about equality in giving? God doesn't operate on fairness alone. He sees the means and the end and can adequately reward those who have proven themselves worthy. We, however, are not in the same position and to attempt to get to the concept of equality it seems we can lose sight of what the purpose in giving is all about. For extended family, we can't give as a reward, so we give that they may enjoy what they receive.

I say everyone should just give each other one gift they want for Christmas and let the monitary value of the gifts not determine their actual value or the value of the giver upon the recipient. I feel this issue is more of a heart issue than anything.

Where is everyone???? Brian...is that you????