A few days ago the BBC World News featured the work of The Marin Foundation in written and audio form! Above is a screenshot I took of the BBC’s home page on their website… And that’s us as the feature story! It’s been crazy since it went live. We have gotten tons of folks reaching out from all over the world. This impact of our story is being felt! It’s such a humbling thing to have happen, and it’s definitely surreal to know that our bridge building message is getting spread across the globe through the most internationally trusted media company in existence. Just unreal.

You can read the full article here

You can listen to the 30 minutes segment the BBC ran on us here (and you have about 30 days to download it to keep it if you want)

Yesterday I got an email from the BBC and they gave me the following, crazy, update about our stories since they went live:

—Our radio segment (which has also been featured throughout America on NPR) is the most listened to segment of any from the BBC World Service

—Our radio segment is the most downloaded segment of any from the BBC World Service

—Our article is the 2nd most shared article of any story on any of the BBC websites

—Our article is the 3rd most read article on any of the BBC websites

I have to thank Christopher Landau so very much. He was the producer of the segment, as well as the writer of the article. Christopher was the one who fought for this story to be done! Even after some higher-ups said no to his initial proposal, he kept at it over almost 1 full year (!!!!) before they finally said yes. And now look what is happening! Brenda and I first met Christopher while I was speaking in London earlier this year. He had read my book when it first released in 2009 and as he said, “kept it in the back of my head to do a story on it for just this time.”

I’m not the most trusting person when it comes to media folks… They never seem to quite tell the truth in how they are going to present or edit something. But Christopher did exactly what he said he was going to do. A stand up man. A balanced journalist. And now a person ever so dear to not only my heart, but the millions his work has reached around the world.

Just absolutely amazing what the Lord is doing with this.

No matter the outcome, faithfulness always wins out.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

Thanks for all of your great insights yesterday on what you believe is the Gospel! I loved reading them, and I generally like to think that the people that read this blog are at least 82.6% smarter than people who read any other blog Maybe it’s just that the people who have thought about what the Gospel means are the only ones who commented, but man, preach those definitions my brothers and sisters!

In the broader Christian world the word Gospel is thrown around so easily and quickly without a clue what it actually means. “Gospel” is now a part of the Christianeze language that, when someone says it, is to be automatically assumed they are: 1) A great Christian; 2) Totally know what they’re talking about. I would tend to say that neither of those points are accurate.

In fact, I physically cringe when I hear people say the word Gospel. I cringe because I know when people say it, that’s all I’m going to get from most of them when it comes to that word … just a bunch of lip service. This is kind of what I feel like when I hear most people talking about the Gospel:

Let me try and make this as clear as I can:

“Gospel” is not a word, it’s a way of life.

It’s not an understanding. It’s not a theology. And it’s sure not something that should ever be said lightly. Yet it has turned into all of those things.

In fact, I think the word Gospel should never be said.

You heard me right. Never. It should be lived. No one out there (especially those who are not Christian) cares about an over-used, under-impacted word that Christians say as the password to get in the club. However, through the message of Jesus living through you and I, we will be the hands and feet of Jesus’ reconciling work to bring ourselves and others into a restored relationship with God, each other, and have the strength to live a daily faithfulness of what it means to establish Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.

Jesus references the word translated to “gospel” seven times, five of them coming in the book of Mark. Five of those seven times Jesus says something to the effect of “preach the gospel.”  Narrowly looking at the phrase “preach the gospel” it would assume most Christians are right today in their spoken usage of the word. The problem comes in to play when looking at the whole of Jesus’ life and ministry. His overtly intentional incarnational ways (not just as the God-man but also in the way he went about ‘living in the neighborhoods’ doing good deeds) were the presupposition to his earning the right to speak about what people call ‘the Gospel’ today.  

There is no such thing as a Capital-G Gospel. 

I say this because the capital letter denotes a person or a name; a label. You could argue that Jesus (a person) is the Gospel (a label to Jesus’ work). But the problem I see with that is that Jesus the person commanded us to live as he lived – not just label as he lived. So many times throughout Jesus’ life the roadblocks people encountered with him were because they weren’t ready to live as he lived (the Rich Young Ruler, the Pharisees, etc).

The “Gospel” is based on a life lived, not a construction of how to get saved.

The Gospel is meant to be a verb that describes an action; not a label of the ideal of someone’s actions for us.

So please, I ask you to stop saying the world Gospel and instead just faithfully live your life. The “Gospel” will be felt with more impact through active unspoken mediums than any intellectualized ones.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

Recently there was a fascinating story breaking out of George Washington University’s (GWU) woman’s basketball team:

One of their players, Kye Allums, now identifies as a transgender male.

Here is the link to the story.

I am always interested in college sports stories because, as some of you may know, I received an athletic scholarship to play Division I baseball in college. All I know is that I had a hard enough time with my teammates when I told them I was moving into Boystown with my best friends – who had just come out.

Since this story broke, a lot of articles are saying that her teammates and her university are handling her admission great. I have a few thoughts as a former Division I (DI) athlete:

1. I would assume her team would be handling this situation well. My experience has shown me that the majority (being over 50%) of DI woman’s softball and basketball teams are indeed lesbian. This is not a stereotype. It’s a fact that I experienced first hand. In fact, it was the softball team at my university that introduced me to everyone I knew in the LGBT world in Chicago. Such a situation was not only true at my school, but 100% of the other Division I schools around the country that I had friends who played sports at. I’m not saying this is generalizable to every single Division I school in the country, just to my school and the dozen or so other DI schools that I had friends who played at. The question might be, then, Why are so many lesbians on DI basketball and softball teams? I don’t know. I just know what my experienced showed me.

2. I would image the school would be handling it well. GWU is located in Washington, DC. It seems to me, not in a bad way, that every secular institution wants to be on the forefront of this type of stuff.

3. I wonder what the other sports and players are saying about this – especially any of the men’s teams/coaches/players? Funny how I haven’t been able to find one article with one quote from any of them. I wonder why they’re all being so silent? Oh, that’s right… Because homophobia runs wild among men Division I male athletes and coaches!

I’m sure the administration is telling the coaches (who coincidentally want to keep their jobs) to make sure their players keep their mouths shut about this. If I was given a hard time for being best friends with LGBTs, I couldn’t imagine what is going on behind the scenes about this. Or, who knows, maybe all of the other players from the other teams just accept Kye Allums as a man now? Culture has changed quite a bit on this topic since I played in the early 2000s.

Here are some of my questions though, which I would love to hear your thoughts:

The majority of the articles on this story, when I googled it, are saying that ‘a man is now playing Division I basketball on a woman’s team‘. Is it really a male playing Division I woman’s basketball?

At what point is a transgender person ‘officially’ considered a member of the opposite sex?

I’m not trying to offend anyone, but to me these headlines seem like the ‘man who gave birth’ story.  A man cannot give birth. A post-op transgender man, in my mind, is by all social constructs a man. But giving birth is impossible for biological men. Going through a transition from female to male cannot make someone a biological man, it just aligns a person’s gender dissonance (The best book I have ever read on transgender thought is by Julia Serano, called Whipping Girl).

Just the same, Kye Allums is still genetically a female, and thus, although she is now a calling himself a [transgender] man, Kye is still a woman playing on a woman’s basketball team who identifies as a transgender male. If Kye got the surgery, took the testosterone and went the full distance, do you think he would be allowed to play on a DI woman’s basketball team? That’s up to the NCAA. But something tells me the answer would be no. I just wish we could report and label things as they are, instead of always going to the shock value of creating something that is an impossibility – a biological and/or post-op male cannot play on a NCAA woman’s basketball team.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

It is well documented that I LOVE American Idol, and I constantly voted for Adam Lambert this past season. Here is an article from yesterday that said the handlers from the American Idol runner up were nervous that the gay publication, OUT, was making Lambert look “too gay”. They were so nervous because they think it will hurt his career to be known as the guy who is too gay.

Is there something as too gay? If there is, what is too gay? Can someone be too gay? Is Adam Lambert too gay? Can being too gay hurt your public career?

Here are some of my thoughts, and I’d love to hear yours as well:

I think Adam Lambert is getting caught up in the gayness of himself. There are things like this all over the place:

My thought is if Adam wants to be the slutty, sex-driven-I’ll-bang-anything-that-comes-my-way-type-of-guy, that’s ok because that’s who he wants to be portrayed as. Doesn’t mean it’s right. Doesn’t mean that will give him mass appeal (hey, that’s why there is Kris Allen). And his record label needs to understand this. They can try to tame him, keep him under-wrap, do whatever, but it’s not going to work.

For me, “too gay” is someone that is intentionally throwing their gayness and overt sexuality in your face because they can. With that definition, yes, Adam Lambert is being too gay and I think it will lose him some sales. I can see why the record label is concerned about that messing with their bottom line, however I think they’re going over the top by warning publications to not make him too gay. He is who he is, and that’s why I personally like him.

Although, I was in a shopping mall while visiting my mom and dad this past weekend and she and I picked up a magazine with Adam Lambert on the cover. When we flipped to the middle to see the pictures it was him in underwear, literally making out with a naked girl below him. I guess his record label is ok with him being too straight.

Strange. I fear that Adam Lambert is going to get too caught up in this game. I’m going to buy his album because he’s got some crazy awesome pipes and can sing the lights out of the world. I love listening to him. I just hope he doesn’t lose that trying to make a point – whatever that point is.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

I’ll be honest, I totally thought Chicago was going to get the Olympics. Maybe it was my own bloated perception of Chicago being the greatest city on the face of the earth (yes, I am bias about that), or maybe it was because the untouchable Obama, Oprah and Daley threw their full weight behind the bid, but never did I expect Chicago to get the boot in the first round.

As soon as I found out I tweeted: “Wow. Chicago got bounced in the first round for the Olympics. I think many underestimated the silent resentment for America.  ”

Beyond that, it is no secret of Chicago’s horrific history of politics. Here’s a post I wrote about my thoughts on Chicago politics back December 13, 2008.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

This scene is from one of my favorite movies of all time: Austin Powers Goldmember! Thanks for being my Dad, Dad. You will forever be my Fazzah … oh, I mean my F-A-T-H-E-R.

Much love.

www.themarinfoundation.org

Last night I signed up for Twitter in the midst of my sapping around because Brenda and I had Cubs tickets for last night’s game (Cubs vs. Cards!) and not only did the game get rained out, but it got rescheduled for a date when I’m speaking out of town. How miserable! And to top it off, today I get to trudge around in the rain on the CTA for meetings all day.

Note to self—praise the Lord that I have a job and am doing what I’m doing…stop complaining!

Now that I’ve gotten that out:

For those who don’t know, Twitter is like a Facebook status except it is its own website. I’m not too sure how I feel about it. Maybe it’s just because I’m a loyal Facebook fan, but I don’t necessarily see the point. I thought I’d give it a try anyway. Just so you know, Twitter is in no way, nor will it ever, replace my beloved Facebook.

My Twitter name is:

lovesmesomeyou

Yes, you read that right. Broken up it says that I “loves me some you”. Which I actually do…

Much love.
www.themarinfoundation.org

First off, each week I’m getting more and more annoyed by the new judge Kara for the following reasons:

She says the same stuff for every contestant in a monotone, hand-gestured manner as she tries to make her “big idea” become a reality (which it never really does)

She tries too hard to make herself too relevant and important (trying to prove she belongs as a judge on the greatest show ever—which she hasn’t)

She is always telling the contestants: “You should have sung so-and-so instead” (Note to Kara—that is not useful or constructive at all because the song is already done and they can’t do anything else for that week’s style of song besides listen to her babble)

On with my updated rankings:

1. Adam
(He is just flat out crazy good and really strange—yet super entertaining)

2a. Kris
(He has an awesome voice, is awesome on the guitar and now we learned it’s the same on the piano)

2b. Danny
(Although I wish I would see some tears in his emotion, he kills it week after week)

4. Allison
(Just so different and fresh)

5. Matt
(I actually like him much more than America or the judges seem to)

6. Lil
(Although she has some pipes, she’s too predictable)

7. Scott
(His skill and attitude towards criticism amaze me, but I feel the others are just better)

8. Megan
(She’s very cute, but she tends to biff her songs every week)

9. Anoop
(It doesn’t seem he’s ready for this stage)

What is your ranking thus far???

Much love.
http://www.themarinfoundation.org/

Due to the shear train-wreck that is the new TLC reality show, Toddlers and Tiaras, my wife loves to watch. I actually think it’s one of those “sad train wrecks” and not the “entertaining train wreck” that I usually enjoy watching; but since my wife and I only have one TV, what we decided to watch we both watch. The show is about the inner-workings of, as the title so eloquently states, toddlers (and their [crazy] parents who try as hard as they can to project normalcy in front of the cameras) that are involved in child beauty pageants.

I have seen two episodes of this show, and both times they have left a tremendous impact on me—socially and theologically. The first show featured the pageant age group of 0-11 months, as well as the 12-23 month age grouping. My favorite part of watching these age groups (and by favorite I mean the part that makes me want to throw up more than anything), is when the parent’s hold up their 0-23 month old kid in the air to show them to the judges like they are an idol of beauty and perfection. Their pose reminds me of another similar picture I seem to remember from my childhood (see below).

No Joke! That is literally what the parent’s do…

And it also reminds me of another picture ingrained in my head from childhood—one that was shown in the movie Roots as the slave traders tried their best to make their “cargo” look acceptable so rich white people would give them money. Sound familiar?

Last night’s show just solidified all of this in my mind. It didn’t just show the actions of what these people believe the ideal of what a perfect perception of beauty is; it was also vocalized by the judges. At the end of the show one of the judges was asked,

“Why, and how did you determine the winner?”

The judge’s answer:

“I was looking for the glitz and glamour over natural beauty; it showed me whose parents were willing to go the extra mile and spend the extra money to make their daughter look the best.”

No matter how many times the moms might say “beauty is on the inside” (which one of the girl’s moms reiterated throughout the show), their actions always prove otherwise. And to the girl who won? Her winning response was:

“I’m excited that I won because it makes me feel beautiful.”

That’s coming from a 10-year old girl whose self-identity, worth and sexuality are being indoctrinated into a culture that extols unrealistic ideals that a pageant beauty of big money, fancy clothes and altered features = societal acceptance and love. All I kept thinking about was: Where does this leave the church and how are these kids, and all of the other kids watching this program supposed to know and understand true unconditional love from God?

I believe that these types of pageants are nothing more than child prostitution. And you can quote me on that.

In the first century church the philosophical pagan thought of the day was that the body was inherently evil, and thus the pagans adorned themselves with jewels, fine clothes and loaded themselves with lots and lots of ritual sex that was supposed to bring pleasure in order to cleanse their evil nature (hence Paul’s treatment in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20) that reminds the Corinthians that their body is a temple of the Holy Spirit—countercultural to what modernity (at their time and ours) believes.

The problem is that the Church is not doing anything to reverse the societal trends of what it means to live a distinct, beautiful life in Christ. That type of life is one that is not focused on sexuality (straight or gay) by not having to live in the ideal life that communicates the only acceptable means to existence is to grow up, get married, have kids and reproduce the cycle all over again (whether in a straight life or in a gay life that believes the same).

I believe God’s original intent in creating humans was not for them to exist how we exist today, but rather His creation was to live in relation to the Garden, and live in relationship with Him. Pure. Plain. Simple. The Trinity recreated in real life. And yet overt sexuality has become the dominant trait and characteristic of what is normal and acceptable (Christian, secular and gay communities). Doing my graduate seminary work at Moody Bible Institute—those who attend MBI call it Moody Bridal Institute.

Everyone thinks that is funny. I don’t. It’s sad, and it’s very, very pitiful. That just shows us where the lines have blurred into living with the “ideal mindset of human life” focused on a social and Christian norm that has been reverted back to a first century pagan belief system—not how God originally intended. You can talk to me about the Fall as being the cause of this mess, but with every ounce of my being I believe that we have already won the battle with evil through Christ’s death. And thus, we have an ability today, in 2009, to make countercultural decisions that reclaim God’s goal of an ideal human existence: live in relation to the Garden (or the earth today) while living in relationship with Him. Pure. Plain. Simple. The Trinity recreated in each one of our lives.

Until Churches, parents and leaders start to reorder their, and the younger generation’s priorities of what is to be acceptably mainstream (both mainstream secular as well as mainstream Christian—which has almost been just as deadly), we’ll just keep producing more well intentioned people believing that unconditional love can only be birthed through actions revolving around what is believed (Christian and secular) as an ideal sexuality.

Much love.
http://www.themarinfoundation.org/