Homosexuality and the Church

Well, I've been doing this for a few months and have readers in both Canada and the U.S. (and who knows where else). I see that my blogs are not searchable over Google, so I must be getting the word out. I've talked about both current issues and my own experiences, but what I really started this blog for, was to give opinion. I've decided that I'm going to start slapping down my views on several issues that, even in evangelical Christian circles, people generally try not to touch with a 10-foot javelin. One of these issues is the whole issue of homosexuality. Many people in today's left-leaning society would take me to task and tell me that there is no issue, and I'm just fanning the flames of intolerance (one of the favourite catch-all phrases of the liberal left). Worse, I would be labelled the infamous "homophobic" label for my views, which I suppose is supposed to somehow be on par with being called a racist.

Let me deal with this one first. Homophobic, is, by definition to mean that one is afraid of homosexuals. I am not afraid of homosexuals, just like I am not afraid of heterosexuals. So let's state that first. I know people who are gay, and I work with people who are gay, and hell, I found out that my old college roommate was gay - I still talk to him. I am not afraid of homosexuals. The problem these days is that if people somehow disagree with some the beliefs or behaviour of another group, they will get labels placed on them (sort of like people who point out that there is a problem with crime in black communities in urban areas - they then get labelled a racist...I tell you, there is no better way to create future racists than to alienate people to voice valid opinions (and yes, I agree, how they voice it matters). Go ahead, throw your darts at me - I'll be happy to absorb them. I've always called a spade a spade, to the chagrin of others, and that ain't going to change any time soon.

Where I draw the line on this issue is that I absolutely, unequivocally do not support what people call the gay "lifestyle". What does this mean? It means that I do not believe in gay romance, gay marriage, gay adoption - in other words, anything that would start eating away at what God has placed as His model of life-long marriage relationships between a man and a woman. Despite what many folks who choose not to have children will say, the fact of the matter is, married people do have a responsibility (obligation is too strong of a word) to procreate and continue to fill the earth. I think that is why God intended to put a woman and man together in marriage (also to satisfy each other, but as we're not doing a study on Song of Solomon, that will have to wait till another time). That is God's design. Men and men and women and women cannot biologically procreate. Men and women also complement each other in terms of personality, able to meet needs mutually (ie. women crave love, men crave respect). I don't believe such a balance can be achieved in a homosexual relationship.

Notice I did not discuss much in terms of sexuality, but I will now (THE NEXT PARTS ARE A BIT EXPLICIT SO USE DISCRETION)...some people will use the silly smokescreen that they don't believe in gay relationships because of the gay sex part - so let's be quite frank here. Gay sex can only be constituted mainly in two ways: oral sex and anal sex. The problem with using those two sex acts as the determining factor as to why the lifestyle is not acceptable, is that heterosexuals can and do engage in both, yet I don't hear incriminations raining down on straight folks. Now, it is very true that the Bible calls for a man not to lie with a man as with a woman. So basically, men should not be having sexual relations with one another. How it manifests itself is irrelevant, in my opinion. Now, if you want to know my opinion of anal sex, I can tell you - I would probably classify it as not being as "natural" as penile-vaginal intercourse. The anus is not really a naturally lubricated area, and since there is far greater chance of infection and bacteria, it's probably not the greatest place to be (and that is a generalization for men and women).

All that being said, let me generally state that I believe that many churches in North America have not handled this issue properly (with both sides of the coin). I want to focus on this, since much of the opposition to homosexuality is coming out of the evangelical Christian church. I think that churches have not thought this issue through and simply say "it is wrong!" (what is wrong?) and "that is disgusting" (which I can agree with, but I think there's a much more intelligent and logical way to discuss issues rather than name calling and belittling. Conversely, some churches have approached the issue in an effort to not offend and be compassionate and inclusive. I think this is more catering to today's "accept everyone and don't offend anyone" climate. These churches, I believe, are not looking at what Scripture is teaching.

Let me publicly state that I do agree with some homosexuals and lesbians who said that Christians oftentimes are guilty of having a double-standard for themselves and others. They say that homosexuality is wrong, yet they don't condemn gambling (yes, lottery tickets or being in the office lottery pool counts as gambling, folks!), don't condemn as strongly pre-marital sex, don't condemn relationships/marriage between Christians and non-Christians (which Scripture clearly warns against), don't condemn drunkenness, foul language amongst Christians, or even not showing compassion to the less fortunate, as Jesus taught). The same churches which would elevate homosexuality to the gravest of sins will have no problem raising their kids not to marry black people or using the "n" word freely in their social circles. All are great points, and I would absolutely agree that it is hard to take a Christian seriously who condemns homosexuality, yet has their own sins that they seem to place on a different sliding scale.

Here's how I believe churches need to handle the issue: 1) since Scripture clearly indicates that homosexual sexual relations is wrong, churches need to ensure that those who are in such relationships are rebuked (just as they should rebuke common-law relationships between men and women or pre-marital sexual relationships between men and women). 2) Churches need to distinguish that there is a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. What am I talking about here? I do not believe it is wrong to be tempted or struggle with certain things, including homosexual thoughts. Either acting on them or entertaining them is where it becomes sinful. In this vein, 3) I would have no problems welcoming a person who struggles with homosexual thoughts as a member of my church, so long as they remain chaste (ie. do not engage in homosexual relations or sexual relations), and they recognize that Scripture teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful). It's no different than welcoming a straight person who struggles with lust, but has it under control). Ordaining a minister who is has leanings toward homosexuality, yet chaste and recognizes that homosexual sex is sinful, is another issue, one on which I haven't come to exact conclusions, but of course, I should let you know that I do not support women in minister positions and I generally believe that senior ministers for churches should ideally be married, so I guess I probably would not support a single man who has struggled with homosexuality, as a church leader, for the same reason that I would not support a married man who struggles with undressing women with his eyes).

Some other items. One, is that the argument is made that so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and there are so many heterosexual relationships where the woman is being abused or beaten - surely give homosexual relationships a chance. I can, of course, never conclusively say that it is not better for a woman who is in a relationship where she gets the shit kicked out of her every night, to be in a loving relationship with another woman who doesn't abuse her. But I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. No one in their right mind would support a marriage where the husband constantly physically beats the wife (unless you are from the part of the world known for suicide bombers). But I find the problem in using this argument is you are using emotions in favour of the argument, rather than thinking things through. Agree, the woman should get out of the physically abusive relationship. She can always find another man. But let's say she wants kids and as a father, I know how important it is for my son to have both a mother AND a father. My wife brings stuff to my son which I cannot bring, and I bring stuff to my son that my wife cannot bring. That is God's design. But if you are a Christian, it is good to consider what the Bible says as well, not just your own feelings. Otherwise, what's to prevent a married man who is not happy with his sex life, to go over to the other lady at church who is having marriage problems and getting it on after Sunday service, at a local hotel? Certainly, he is feeling better and is getting his sexual needs met, but is what he is doing RIGHT? Unfortunately, that is the question many Christians are not asking themselves.

There is another argument regarding monogamy, that I find is easier to address. The adherents of this argument claim that it is better to have a monogamous homosexual relationship rather than a promiscuous heterosexual one. I don't accept the premise that this has to be an either/or scenario, since I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that homosexual sexual relations is wrong - and yes, I am assuming that there is homosexual sex involved in my above example - otherwise, it can be constituted as two roommates, nothing more). I agree that being in any monogamous relationship greatly reduces chance of contracting an STD or infectious disease, but again, because I believe that homosexual sexual relations is condemned in the Bible, and I also believe that sexual promiscuity (in any form) is condemned in the Bible - the question for me is akin to asking a police officer, "what is better, me driving 160KM in a 50KM zone, or shooting my pellet rifle at pedestrians from a bell tower?" Both are wrong under the standard by which the police officer enforces, so it's a sham argument, in my opinion.

Another question that people ask that is just a set-you-up-and-knock-you-down question is whether gays or homosexuals can be saved (the questions usually comes out like "can gays go to heaven." Here's my answer on this one, and it applies to anyone in the world - and this is right from the Bible - anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, repents of their sins, and commits to live their life from that point forward as a follower of Jesus Christ, will be saved. End of discussion.

Just last week, there was the Pride Parade in Toronto (and around the world). I notice that they have since dropped the "Gay" part out of the equation. Anyway, if you watched coverage of it (I didn't choose to, but it's in the paper nonetheless, even in the more conservative ones), you would have seen many people flaunting sexuality. For anyone to say that there is no sexual focus in the gay and lesbian community is blowing smoke in my face. If it were a heterosexual parade, there wouldn't be as crazy of a display of people in various states of undress and flaunting certain body parts. The straight community do not have bath houses and cottages where men can meet for sex very casually. Yes, there are brothels and what not, but even those are under wraps. I was downtown in the gay district years ago (passing through while doing some shopping) and I went into some bookstore to use their washroom. I'm not kidding you - there was this hole in between stalls and I was like, "what the heck is that"? Thought it was something like some toilet paper dispenser that fell out of the wall. I was mentioning this in a casual conversation with someone a few months later and they said that it was blowjob hole, and I'm sitting there thinking, "you've got to be kidding!" Whether it was or not, I haven't seen one of those anywhere else. Anyway, if you don't think that sex is paramount to the gay community, just check out gay discussion online forums - it is loaded with more sexual stuff than many straight discussion forums. I am mentioning all this to emphasize that it is this whole gay sexualization that I find abhorrent and it is this that I believe the Bible condemns. I work with a gay man, who is one of the nicest guys I know, a very gentle person who I'd be happy to hire to work on my team anyday. He is not one of those "flaunt my sexuality" gay people. It's sad to see that Christians in the past have tossed him aside since he's gay. I am angered by the self-righteousness of certain Christians who seem to think that gays are less-human than anyone else. I think it's important to note how Jesus treats people, and I will leave you with this example, which is often used, but used incompletely.

Jesus found a woman who was caught in an adulterous situation. The crowds, no doubt comprised of a fair amount of "religious" people at the time, wanted her to be stoned, as it said in the law. Jesus simply indicated that the persons who are without their own sin in their lives should cast the first stone. People dropped their stones, realizing that they have their own sinful hangups. Now, don't stop reading here!!! Oftentimes, people will use the above example to cite that we should never judge people and that we should always be compassionate, etc. The story is not done yet! Jesus then turns to the woman and his final words are important, "Go, and sin no more!" Notice that? Jesus did not turn a blind eye to her sin, even though he made the crowds realize they can't simply condemn her. Jesus command her to stop sinning. So I think this is important in how we as Christians minister to our homosexual neighbours, colleagues, friends and family. People oftentimes will say, "love the sinner, hate the sin." (which is a Biblical principle). Let's not forget that there are two parts of that equation.

Are YOU Capable of Killing Someone?

My wife and I had a fascinating discussion last night in bed before we retired for the evening. Not sure how the topic came about (probably some current news story), but in the ensuing conversation, she asked me if I was in a similar situation where someone broke into my house and started to visciously attack either her or my son, whether in the passion of self-defence, I would be capable of killing the perpetrator, if need be.

Now, I know what the Christian answer is. Of course not. The Bible maintains a non-retaliation ethic, as is evident in the whole principle of turning the other cheek. The Bible also commands us not to kill. However, the Bible also commands us to do a lot of other things, which we don't do. So let's not prop up Scripture in order to make us feel more self-righteous when in fact we don't necessarily live consistent enough lives to authoritatively say that we can always yield to what God's Word has to say. Shall we strive towards a Biblical ethic of peace and non-retaliation? Absolutely. It is the ideal to which we should seek to live out. However, that is easy to say as you as the reader of my blog and me as the writer of the same. Would we be able to think logically if placed in such a moment where you have seconds (if not less) in order to assess the situation and make a decision?

What was my answer? I told my wife that I believe that anyone is capable of killing anyone else under the right circumstances, so for myself, I would not rule that out; however, without ever being in that situation (and heaven forbid I ever get into that scenario), I can't qualitatively say how I would react. But I did tell her that there are some things that generally cause people to snap mentally, and it is under those conditions that human beings are highly unpredictable. She agreed with me and said that for her, she would probably be capable to killing someone who was knifing me to death or assaulting our son. You see, there are some abhorent things which I think transcent societal and cultural norms. A man attacking a woman is one, and anyone sexually assaulting a child is the other. If you are shocked by my wife's and my reaction on this question, seriously consider yourself in the same scenario with your spouse or child on the receiving end of a violent act, and tell me that you would simply ask them to stop and politely leave, and then call the cops. If you have enough discipline to do that when your loved ones are being victimized, then hey, I applaud your ethic. I suspect, though, that most people will probably go overboard on the self-defence.

Now, I qualified this by telling her that there are some things which under no circumstances should warrant a lethal self-defence position. If someone is robbing your possessions, or calling you names (as hurtful as they may be) or vandalizing your property, I don't believe there is any justification for any acts of violence. I believe that violence, as repugnant as that is in my mind, is borderline permissible when it comes to self-defence only. Now, what constitutes self-defence is about as broad as what constitutes good food. In discussing this with my wife, I think we both agreed that shooting the perpetrator in the back or unloading 5 bullets in the back of his head will likely not have the support of many legal communities. I also added that this is a very slippery slope, since people may claim self-defence after killing someone out of vengeance and then staging a self-defence scenario.

My wife and I further discussed the John Grisham book, "A Time To Kill", which, without giving away any plot lines, was about a gang of white young men who visciously raped a nine to ten year old black girl. Of course, it is set in the American South, at a time where racial tensions were running high (I can probably still maintain that there is still a distinct air of that there, given my conversations with a person who lives in the American south). Anyhow, you have a father who does not have a propensity towards violence try to leave it up to the legal system to mete out justice to the perpetrators. Unfortunately, with the racial climate being what it is, it does not look like justice will be done. So what does he do? He sneaks into the courtroom the night before, hides in a closet, and when the next day comes and the alleged perpetrator is being led to or from the courtroom, out comes the father with a firearm and kills the guy.

Now, my wife asked me what is different between killing that guy in the courtroom and killing him upon stumbling across him sodomizing his daughter in the woods? I told her a lot, and in fact, despite my sympathies towards the father's position, what he did was absolutely reprehensible, since it involved pre-meditation and calculation - which would of course lend itself to being murder. Stumbling across a crime in progress may cause a struggle and in the ensuing grappling, the father may have killed the perpetrator. I don't believe in that B.S. line of not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity; rather, I think that in a crime in the heat of passion, people's mental faculties are not exactly logical and as such, they may do something that they may regret...or they may not, if they need to act in self-defence.

There are some peripheral issues to this discussion that are worth exploring. One is the whole sense of trust that people have in the legal system in general. How many times have you heard of a case where damning evidence was found at a suspect's home (such as a video of a rape or torture or killing clearly committed by them, but it got rendered inadmissible due to the way it was obtained - ie. without proper paperwork or warrant) and the suspect goes free due to lack of evidence. In this case, would people do the right thing and let the system handle the situation, or would they turn into a vigilante and go after the persons themselves. That's a hard one for me to field. I am a great supporter of community policing such as the Guardian Angels (who, by the way, are not vigilantes, since they seek to work in tandem with the legal authorities). As for vigilantes...in my head, I am opposed to people taking the law into their own hands, but at the same time, my heart asks what do you do when the system fails you and a known killer/pedophile goes free on a technicality?

One other issue which my wife, in particular brought up, that was quite fascinating is the whole idea of retalitation and vengeance, and specifically how a Christian would reconcile such a situation that I described above. Well, I think I may have somewhat addressed this one above, but let me take a stab at it here. Retaliating means that you are striking back in order to meet blow for blow, action for action, but it is out of a sense that you are yielding the law, or what you view to be right/wrong and what constitutes justice. I don't think that there is any good defence for retaliation, when it is particularly clear what the Bible says about it. Second, shall we seek vengeance? Again, I believe the Bible is quite clear on this one as well - vengeance is the Lord's. Remember, while worldly systems of justice have their uses, God has an infinitely wider perspective on making sure He metes out justice. It may not be in this lifetime and even if it's not, it's not for us to decide. So I don't believe that there is any justification in retaliatory or vengeance killing. I will even come right now and say that I believe both are wrong.

I should also point out that even if you do not take a neutral position, as my wife and I do, that you still may be surprised by what will happen. Several people I talked with are so confident that they will have no problems "dispatching" the perpetrator, that it almost seems like they wear it like a badge of honour. I suspect if they ever faced that situation, their sense of certainty will be eroded quite a bit - we are not talking about knocking the perpetrator unconscious here - we are talking about taking another's live, and even in self-defence, there is a grave finality to that action which cannot be revoked.

Naturally, I do not wish this scenario on anyone, but as my wife I concurred wholeheartedly, it is certainly something worth thinking about.

Even "Nice Guys" Have Something to Hide

Being an avid listener of news and talk radio, I am glad in a way that today, something else was front and center of the news, instead of constantly hearing about the every waking movement of that wench, Paris Hilton. At the same time, I sincerely wish there was something else in the news that would have displaced yet another sad story about a murder-suicide, and one that, unfortunately, involves a young child.

Unless you have been sleeping under a rock for the past 24 hours, you will have no doubt heard about the story of famous wrestler Chris Benoit, and how it appears as if he was responsible for the strangulation/suffocation deaths of his wife and seven-year-old son. I mention this as a springboard into my rant today, which is not about Benoit or even wrestling, but about the erroneous notion that when it comes to nice people, society in general has a pretty good inkling of who they consider will fit such an image. My argument here is that not only is it damaging to perpetuate this image, but it also fosters an increased need to try to live up to it, which only drives people's closet skeletons even further. Certainly this is nowhere more evident than today's church-going Christians, but for now, please allow me to lay out my points.

One thing that was said in today's many talk shows which dealt with the Benoit situation, was how he was regarded by his friends, family and colleagues as a true family man, in a business where family is not necessarily put on a pedastal. It was referenced how Benoit invited his wife and son into the ring when he won the championship, and how they were involved in his work, through appearances, etc. All in all, his public and private presentation on his family life would lead many to indicate that for all intents and purposes, he had a rather model life outside of the ring (as model as the life could be, in comparison with the lives of other wrestlers).

Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah - earlier this year, there was a case in the Toronto area (actually, in the Markham area, where I live), where two women were found dead in a quiet residential street, in what was believed to be a quiet residential home. One of the women was an account executive for a radio station in Toronto, while the other was a massage therapist (if I remember right). The massage therapist was separated or divorced from a major Toronto sports broadcaster. Anyhow, the guy charged, was the first woman's husband. When it made news and they interviewed the community, the overwhelming reaction was utter shock. "But, that family looked so happy together! They are always walking their dog and with their kids, always smiling...we never saw them argue" ...and so forth. The guy charged was deemed "a nice guy" who was "incapable of such a heinous crime". Heck, they even have inadvertent videotape of him by one of the major Toronto newspapers, who happened to be filming at the Toronto Zoo on New Year's Day - they happen to catch this guy on video (about a month before he was charged for the murders), and he said on the video something to the effect of, "it's going to be a great year for the family".

Why is it that people fall for this bull crap? I remember it was the same reaction with Paul Bernardo, the infamous Canadian sexual killer of teenagers. People were aghast back in the early 90s. "No, it can't be them!!!" (referring to him and his equally guilty wife Karla Holmolka). And the worst line, "but they were such a cute couple!" (as if that somehow disqualifies them of any ill-action towards anyone). When people conclude that a couple or a family or an individual is the epitome of what a human being should be, I think that's when the person being spoken of tends to want to continue to maintain and build on such accolades, and that, of course perpetuates the problem.

Now, that is not to say that there are not genuinely nice people out there, and yes, I am sure some people can be nice all the time. But as a discussion with one of my co-workers showed, things aren't always what they seem. She said to me one time that she has a good sense of who people are and what their personalities are like. I wanted to test her on this, so I asked her to give me an assessment on myself. She said that she does not believe that I have the capacity to get angry and lose my cool, since she has worked with me for 7+ years, and I've never lost my cool at work. She also believes that I am not the arguing type (at this point, I knew that her intuition was crap, but I wanted to keep it going to show the point). She said that she believes I am very kind and that I am "tolerant" of others. She also said that I was incapable of the standard gamut of "wrongdoing". Well...where would I start in my response? I mentioned to her my past with being a porn addict and dealer, how I got into fights when I was younger, and even after being saved, I still wrestled with lust issues. I also said that I argue all the time with people - she just doesn't see it since she's not in the manager's meetings...and yes, I even argue with my wife at home. I spank my son and don't tolerate insubordination. She asked if I swore, and I wanted to be honest, and so I told her, yes, once in a while. She was surprised. I'm not sure why, since she's getting an impression based on working with me and we work under strict professional guidelines. Of course, I'm not going to yell at people in open view in the office. Never have. I'm not going to berate people in front of our customers. And yes, to an extent, I have succumbed to the need to maintain as stain-free of a demeanour and persona as I can in the office. It is, of course, ironic that a couple of months later (only about a month ago), I had a huge blow-up in the office, where I was screaming and yelling in open view, and she was the target. It wasn't deliberate or planned, and I did apologize for an extremely short fuse, but in retrospect, I think God willed it this way to humble me at work, as well as to show others that Christians are not perfect, by any stretch of the imagation.

Speaking of which, this is rampant in the vast majority of churches in North America, and I would imagine world-wide. Is it any wonder that it seems like Christians in particular get shocked over and over again when a major (or minor) preacher or teacher "falls from grace". Interestingly enough, the non-Christians don't seem terribly surprised. Yet Christians seem to continue to hold in high regard the people who are perceived as types "you can't go wrong with". I'm sure they said that about Ted Haggard.

Where is comes from is a mistaken idealism about the fact that Biblical living means that while you try to perpetuate the fruits of the Spirit, as laid out in the Epistles in one's demeanour, even in times of failure, you don't show weakness (sort of how you won't hear too many Christian men admit that they have masturbated). As it is difficult to to live out (since as it says in Romans, we have a war being waged from Satan so we do things that we know we should do but we don't, and we don't do things that we know we should) a life that consistently shows real, tangible fruit at all times, it is sometimes easier just to cover up our shortcomings, thinking it will somehow discredit the Gospel if we show that we are in fact still fallen, frail human beings. That is not to say we should not strive to be Christ-like in all that we do (I believe we should!), but when we fail, let's be honest about it and ask for God's forgiveness and strength to continue, rather than blowing smoke in people's faces with a teflon spiritual life.

A message to Christians out there - be a little more discerning in who you consider to be your close-to-perfect people. I have always believed that someone who seems to always have their act together, who always have smiling kids, who always seems to get that job or that role or that material thing or that accolade, without showing or admitting any vulerability, struggle, or doubt, probably has something they are hiding. I am totally convinced of this. The Bible is clear that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (italics mine).

Many, many years ago, before my wife and I got married, we knew a fellow, who with his wife, seemed like the "Benny Hinn" of our social circles (and since I am not a fan of Benny Hinn at all, I want to state that when I compare people to him, I am not being complimentary). He advertised that he did not drink, did not swear, and every freaking moment, would say "Praise the Lord!" Ask my wife - I'm not kidding you here - it was that bad. Once, we were all at dinner with some other friends, and he started off with his "Praise the Lord" schtick. My wife whispered to me, "what is up his ass?", to which I burst out laughing. Yet others thought he was a godly guy who again, could do no one wrong. It came as no surprise to me when we found out that he was involved in some shady business dealings, which lost him some of his Christian friends as a result. I think over time, everyone's true colours will eventually show. The old adage applies: You can fool some of the people all of the time; you can even fool all of the people some of the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

The TV show Everybody Loves Raymond really drives this point home. If you don't watch it, I won't bother explaining all the characters, but what I do want to do is compare and contrast the two sets of parents (both in their 60s or older). Ray's parents argue constantly, get on each other's nerves, yet behind all the crazy antics and grumpiness, and sarcasm, lies a gentle tenderness and unspoken respect that can only be gained through honest and forthright communication. In the show, their marriage has lasted something like 45 or 50 years. Contrast that with Debra's parents, who never fought, who travelled together, and were kissy-kissy lovey-dovey all the time, using babynames for each other and smiles everywhere...one day, they had it with each other and got divorced and soon after, he brought home a younger woman. I think that episode really hits the nail on the head, as far as how people perceive relationships, but more importantly, not everything is always as it seems.

All that being said, I am writing this simply to provide some thoughts that you should never be surprised to hear such and such a person who was considered to be a nice guy, actually turns out to be a pretty rotten guy, or conversely, you should never be equally surprised to find out a person who has been considered a bad guy, to turn out to be a pretty decent guy. We don't know people's hearts, so let's all stop pretending that we do. I mean, you can read my blog here and get a sense of who you think I am, but in reality, do you really know? I could be a far-left leaning socialist liberal, for all you know, and I am just doing this to sabotage the growing conservative movement. I could be a closet homosexual hiding behind a guise of "married with children", a heavy gambler, a perpetual drug user. I could have a ton of money in the bank that I obtained through organized crime. The cops could be knocking at my door any minute, and you won't see blog updates in weeks, as I am in jail. You don't know any of this from reading what I wrote. I could be a closet schitzophrenic who otherwise covertly talks a mean talk of theology and seems like he has an aptitude for computer technology. All this can be easily put on (the movie Primal Fear makes this point brilliantly).

So next time we see someone who looks like they have it all together (or don't), let's not be so quick to draw conclusions one way or another. I believe everyone has something to hide - some just hide it better than others.

Why I Believe in Capital Punishment

It's been said that capital punishment or state-sanctioned executions are barbaric and it is a shame that countries like the United States still have provisions in many of its States for the use of executions for crimes such as capital murder. This has cropped up in the last year or so with headlines which talk about lethal injections which have gone awry to other "botched executions". While I'm sure you have your opinions, I certainly have mine, and to summarize, I think that society in general (especially the more liberal-leaning segments as of late) put the wrong focus on things. Unfortunately, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-found-guilty criminals seem to be a social experiment with the softer segment of our society who somehow believe evil can be rehabilitated. Worse are those who choose to use the Bible to tout the fact that everyone should be given a second chance. While spiritually this is true, and I suppose practically it may be true as well, the fact of the matter is, consequences have actions. This is clearly seen in Scripture with those who choose certain paths reap the consequences of those paths. The cause and effect relationship is quite prevalent here. The thief on the cross may have believed in Christ on his death-bed, but he wasn't spared the punishment for his crime. Despite David being a crucial person in the lineage of Christ, David was still human and David sinned with Bathsheba, and there were tragic consequences as a result. Repentance may make things right with God, but God still allows you to face the result of your actions. There are a number of proverbs which deal with cause and effect. And the old adage "you play with fire, you get burned" is quite accurate.

So, this takes us to the issue of those who have been found by a court of law to be guilty of murder, child rape, etc. Yes, I know, I know, it has been shown (especially in Canada) some cases where people were incarcerated for decades, only to be found innocent later. And society does tend to find people guilty when charged, rather than presume their innocence until proven otherwise. But I'd say that there is less on the line in Canada, since it's not someone living or dying that we're talking about - they just lock them up for "life" (and "life" in Canada is considered about 25 years) , unless you're talking about a case like Paul Bernardo (if you haven't heard of him, look him up on the internet - he was found guilty of truly heinous crimes - and there is videotape proof of his crimes, which thankfully has since been destroyed or locked up somewhere). Bernardo has shown a pattern and tendency to be a predator - I don't believe that he will ever change. Someone is not right in his head. Even if it was psychological, does that make it right that we should just lock him up and pay for his food and such? My, what nice treatment he gets, even if he is confined to a 6 x 8 cell for 23.5 out of 24.0 hours per day, in isolation in Kingston Pen. Too bad his victims, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, both teenagers, were not afforded the same courtesy. And his ex-wife's sister (also a teen) was not given the same basic minimum human treatment. I say, let's fry Paul Bernardo's ass now.

I've also heard the argument that "what if someone is executed who is innocent?" Has that happened in the U.S., the current world champion of capital punishment? Not to my knowledge. And...the case that was closest to this occurring (in Virginia, I think)...after the guy was executed (and he swore up and down that he was innocent right up until the point he was lethally injected or electrocuted, or whatever they did to him), forensic DNA researchers confirmed that yes, he was guilty. This was, of course, after tons of left-leaning organizations petitioned for the commuting of his sentence.

How many more convicted criminals (we're talking murders and rapists here) were released after serving time, only to reoffend? I'm telling you, there is no rehabilitation for these people. You can cut their nuts off, chop their arms off, yank out their legs by their feet, but their hearts will still be wicked, and they'll think of some other way to hurt someone. Now, I know what you will tell me - Jesus can save these people. Absolutely he can. But just like the reckless person who was promiscuous before accepting Christ, and had previously contracted HIV, faith in Christ will not change what consequences you bring forth. The Bible says you sow what you reap. How true is that? Years ago, shortly before I was married, I followed a case on the news of a lady in Texas (I think) - Tanya Faye Tucker, or something like that - she was a convicted murderer, and she gave her life to Christ. While I don't know her heart, I have seen her in interviews and there is something about her which I believe shows a genuine conversion and newfound faith in the Lord. But guess what - they executed her anyway, and in talking with my Christian friends at the time, they were horrified that I thought that the State made the right decision. Recently, there was a guy in Tennessee, I think, who killed a cop back in the early 80s when he was young and stupid. He also became saved, and his life was changed and lots of people attested to this (this was the guy who for his last meal, wanted pizzas delivered to other inmates in other jails). He also was executed. I support that execution, since, as a believer, he is not beyond the laws of the land.

The only executions that I would support is for criminals found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in cases of murder or child rape. I would not support, for instance, what Saudi Arabia has as its criteria for executions, or recently in Iran, where you can be put to death for possession of pornography. I think essentially, for me, it comes down to the old eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth scenario, so my philosophy is life for a life. You murder someone in cold blood - off to the gallows with you - I don't care how you try to justify it. The vast majority of people in this world do not commit murder in their lifetime. You victimize a child sexually - off to the gas chamber with you - I don't care how abused you were as a child or how you cannot control yourself. You, my friend, are, as they say, SOL.

Cruel and unusual punishment during executions - botched executions, etc: Well, this is a tougher one. I agree with humane executions - at one point, I favoured letting a death row inmate incur the wrath of the family of the victim (so if they choose to shoot you like you shot their family member, that was fine with me...or strangulation or whatever else). But that just breeds a sense of vengeance, and vengeance is probably not a good reason for the state to execute someone. Executions should be done simply because it is just, and that there are dire consequences for crimes like first degree murder. Still, does it matter if they can't find the vein or if the prisoner suffers somewhat? They'll be dead in a short time anyway, so who cares? Again, they didn't afford any courtesy to their victims, so there ya go.

Other stuff: For those who make the deterrent argument, that it is not a deterrent. I haven't drawn firm conclusions to this point as of yet, but I will say that I believe the "executions are not a deterrent argument" to be a red herring, since I suspect that those who argue against capital punishment would still do so if there was conclusive proof that it was a deterrent, and that more lives can be spared. Similarly, the same people that play the race card, saying that there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by poor black men is, are, I suspect, putting on a smokescreen, since they would still be against the death penalty if it was 100% white men on death row. Anyway, I am not sure whether there are any deterrent effects in capital punishment, but it doesn't play into my arguments anyway. I am undecided on this point only because I know from experience that severe fines and so forth do have a deterrent effect (ie. speeding tickets, etc.); however, the U.S. has had capital punishment for a while now, and they seem to be as homicidal of a country as ever - but then again, they have a much larger populace than most countries and also have a large number of poor people. But again, deterrence has never been part of my argument, so there's no point in working out my thoughts here on the subject.

This argument can go on forever...but there's my 2 cents.

The Passing of Ruth Bell Graham

It is with great sadness that I read about the passing of Ruth Bell Graham very recently (June 14, 2007). For those of you who don't know who she is, she was the late wife of evangelist Billy Graham, for whom I have the utmost respect, and whose books and sermons were instrumental in the initial and ongoing growth of my Christian life (I have most of his books). Billy Graham is one of those people who is respected inside and outside of Christian evangelical circles. The reason for that is simple. He preaches the same, unfiltered, not-watered-down, straightforward gospel message, and has maintained a consistent lifestyle inside and outside of the spotlight. He has never been in any scandals, and lives a humble life, serving the Lord in all he does. Many of today's Christian leaders, who seem to focus more on style, rather than substance, can take a lesson on humble leadership from Billy Graham.

However, I strongly believe that Mr. Graham did not exemplify such a life alone, and while God certainly had much to do with putting the conviction and gifts into Mr. Graham, I also believe that God puts others in one's life in order to stir up or influence onself. As a guy who has been almost married for 10 years, I can tell you up-front that my wife has had a tremendous influence on me. I no doubt believe that Ruth Graham Bell had heavy influence on Billy Graham - in fact, if you read their biographies, it will become very evident. Remember, Billy Graham was on the road a lot for preaching engagements and speaking tours and holding evangelistic crusades. Ruth Graham was instrumental in raising their kids to be godly people and make a difference in the world, which they have done and continue to do through their own kids (look at how Will Graham, Franklin's son, is now carrying the torch for speaking to youth crowds and such). My wife was able to see Anne Graham live last year, when she came to Toronto, and was very encouraged by the message (I also heard Anne Graham on CFRB as a guest of agnostic host John Moore, as well as on several local Toronto secular programs. She continued the Graham family's tradition of simply stating the gospel message, no additives or preservatives added). If you ever hear Anne Graham Lotz speak, you'll hear the affection and utter respect she has for her mother, who simply and humbly raised her kids to love and serve God without distraction. If you hear Franklin speak, or read any of Franklin Graham's books, you'll also see that he owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to his mother for passing along Biblical wisdom and living a consistent godly life, to him.

Mrs. Graham was also extremely knowledgeable in her Bible, and that made her a well respected resource for others who had questions, and such - I read excerpts from some of her writings about 10-15 years ago and you can just tell that she knows her Bible very well. Still, despite her knowledge and devotion to God, it never got to her head, and she wasn't trumpeting to be an evangelical feminist or anything like that. Nor did it distract her from the real business of practising what you preach. I read one time a few years back that Billy Graham almost always ran all of his sermons by her to get her input and would implement suggestions by her. I really believe that without Ruth Graham, there would be no Billy Graham, in terms of the well-respected preacher that he is today (even though he is more or less retired from the preaching circuit).

I found it particularly interesting that the casket in which Mrs. Graham was laid to rest, was built by prisoners (in prison for life) at a state prison. These prisoners had become believers over time and built the casket as a token of their respect and adoration of Mrs. Graham.

New Golf Clubs

Well, I was definitely due for a change. I splurged a bit in 2001 and bought brand new clubs, bag, putter, etc. I am a slightly better golfer now, so I figured it's time to splurge some more (although in retrospect, this should have probably been an incremental spend rather than an all-at-once thing, as my face-to-face sit down conversation with my wife this afternoon can attest). Oh well, what's done is done...

OK, so my bag is predominantly TaylorMade now. Yes, even got a new bag. What can I say - I am not much of a shopping spree type of guy, but it was bad this afternoon (yes, I took some vacation hours off work, but what can you say). Anyway, here's my current bag (and contents, if anyone is wondering).

TaylorMade Essex Stand/Cart Bag (black/silver)
TaylorMade R580XD 10.5* Regular Flex Neutral Bias Graphite Driver
TaylorMade Rescue TP Dual 16* Steel Shaft Hodysseyybrid
TaylorMade RAC OS Steel Shaft Wide-Sole Irons 3-PW
Cleveland CG11 60* Loft Wedge
Odyssey White Hot XG-3 Putter

Carrying the bag is my ultra-light BagBoy LT440 Pull Cart (complete with beverage holder, scorecard holder, very large detachable wheels).

I am probably going to pick up one more compoent for the bag - a Ping G5 Graphite 7-Wood - I'll get this in the next week.

I did forego the 3W and 5W this time around. I never used the 5W in my previous Jazz set, and the Ping G5 7W would be sufficient enough for the loft and some distance. I've never used a hybrid club before, but the 16* Rescue club will basically replace the need for a 2I or a 3W. I was going to go for a G5 hybrid, but TaylorMade basically invented the hybrid club, so I have to go for that. I did not hit the hybrid clubs at all on site, and the reason why is that I expect to use them mostly in the rough or tough lies. I doubt I'll be teeing off with it much.

All that being said, I did test all the clubs after at the range/practice compound, where I spent around 2.5 hours this afternoon. The irons feel really nice weight-wise. I had a harder time with the hybrid at first, but I figured out how to get the most out of it - I tend to top a lot of my balls, but I made a mental adjustment to basically "dig" at the balls with driver and hybrid, and to my shock, it worked well. I didn't care if I got a ton of dirt - since I topped it mostly before, I wasn't even near dirt. Now that I make a conscious decision to dig at it with my shot style, I made tremendously good contact and get good distance (and I tend to not hook it as much). I generally play well with high irons and my pitching/putting is the better part of my game.

In terms of balls, I have historically used Maxfli exclusively with Strata occasionally (harder to find). That may in fact change this year. No, I am not interested in feeding the Titlelist corporate machine and am not good enough to use V1x balls (at around $8-9 a ball, I'd say no thanks). I know that Callway balls suck really bad, so I may go for one of two things: 1) a totally different flavour of Maxfli, or...believe it or not...try the Nike balls. We'll see. I can't keep using the same ball without trying out other stuff.

Despite the fact that my wife was not entirely thrilled with my purchase (she did seem to come to an understanding as the day wore on and as I pleaded with desperation), this purchase came at a good time. I've been invited to one of my client's annual golf tournament (this is a large Canadian IT staffing firm) next month. It's at one of those ritzy courses, so I may as well tune up with new gear, so I don't embarrass myself...too much.

If anyone is looking to play a couple of rounds before then, you can contact me.

Father's Day Thoughts

As I'm sure you all know, this Sunday is Father's Day. This is one of those days which I believe is not given the rightful reverence that it should. Mother's Day is cause of countless cards and gifts and mooshy phone calls to talk radio stations and such. And as it should be. Mothers play a key role in raising children, but let's not forget all the fathers out there who also play a pivotal role. Lately, you've been reading about me harping on certain ghetto communities around Toronto where, generally (I am sorry to say), they are comprised of families without fathers. You look at how the kids turn out, even raised by a hard-working single mother. Kids need both parents and not just a parent, but they need a father - someone to guide, encourage, teach and most importantly, correct them. This is particularly important with boys.

Case in point - how many times have you heard in your lifetime a child (mostly boys) refusing to do something because "my father will kill me!" While obviously, the words are exaggerated, it shows a healthy fear of one of the authorities in one's life. Fathers are often not given their due because they are oftentimes supporting their child in ways that society no longer feels has a direct impact. Fathers and sons do not need to sit there and hug each other all day, tears in their eyes, and whisper sweet "I love you, Dad" and "I love you, son" ad nauseum. That's not how men and boys communicate and I'd appreciate it if the left-leaning liberal politically correct machine would stop trying to make boys (and men) act like a bunch of pansies. That is not how God made us, so stop trying to change it. It ain't gonna work.

It was telling this morning on one of the talk shows where the host said for sons to express their love to their fathers through words, by calling into the station. Not a single man called, when they opened up the line. Nope, I didn't even consider it. Sorry to say, that stunt was pretty...well, gay. Men aren't going to call up a station, identify themselves, and start wordsmithing a Carlton Cards moment to their Dad. I certainly wasn't going to call in - my own Dad would have been embarrassed to hear me start talking like a European actor. No, it's OK....really...

Now, does this all mean that sons don't love their fathers? Of course not! But boys and men have different ways of showing love to their Dads. Why do women feel as if they have to project their own ideas of parental relational manifestations onto these poor sons? I think that fathers have a primary responsibility to provide for their kids and family (yes, that includes the wife, all you femi-nazis), and spend time with their kids. But how that plays out is much different than women and daughters. A perfectly happy father and son would be more than content to watch a hockey game or basketball game together, all the while, not conversing with one another. Of course, the femi-nazis will be up in arms over the lack of communication, but we men are not women, damn it! We bond by doing things together, not talking. Ask any man that.

My Dad spent countless hours watching hockey games with me and it became a nice father-son ritual. I have a great relationship with my Dad today (at least I think so) and he is forming a wonderful bond with my own son - they would go do activities together and my boy looks up to his Grandpa so much. My Dad also made sure food was put on the table, that his kids were well looked after. He drove us everywhere without complaint, though I'm sure many times it was inconvenient for him. He taught me life skills that I have carried on since and have passed on to my son. My Dad taught me to be self-sufficient in everything I do, and put up with the many mistakes I made on the way. He instilled the value of hard work on his sons (and daughter, but I'm focussing on boys here), and that has shown, as now that my brother and I are in the workplace, we have received glowing reviews from our employers year after year. We give credit to our parents, but a lot to my Dad, for putting the value of hard work on our brain. It was an honour for me to have him select the Chinese name for our son.

The best way for me to show love to my Dad is to give him the respect and honour that he deserves. He recently told me he had a computer problem - I quickly made arrangments to go and help him. In fact, to this day, if he were to ask me to do something, I would probably do it, no questions asked. I will never be able to repay him for all that he has done for me in my lifetime, but the least I can do is to thank him in ways which are practical and tangible (helping him out when he needs it, and even if he doesn't, is a big part of that). Most sons, I believe, feel similarly towards their Dads. Sometimes, it doesn't have to be about conversing for hours in order to constitute a relationship. Sometimes, all it takes is just for fathers and kids just to hang out, go golfing together, have a beer together or the old fashioned throw the football around.

Space Travel and Exploration Is a Waste of Money

I've always felt this ever since I was a kid, and now, even though I'm a staunch capitalist, I do have my limits. One of my pet peeves is the exorbitant amount of money governments put into space travel and exploration. I can never be convinced that the billions, perhaps trillions that are spent studying space and sending people into space is well justified. I had a conversation with my brother years ago, and of course, he's on the opposite side of the fence, and said that space exploration is natural as it is satisfying people's normal curious nature. He also said that don't we want to find out if there is life outside earth? I have heard this echoed from many defenders of space travel and exploration. Here is where I have an axe to grind.

Why are people caring about life outside this planet, when they can't even take care of the life on this planet? By this, I mean the enormous amounts of people who are starving on this earth, who die everyday because wealthy nations put their money in absolute dumb-ass projects like space travel. I am not some bleeding heart, trust me. If people put themselves on the street - well, sorry, I have no sympathy for them. If they don't go to school and then end up getting in a gang and then get arrested and have no money to support their child that they fathered outside of wedlock and now has disappeared from this poor child's life - well, tough crap.

But there are many people on earth, who happen to be born and live in impoverished countries. They obviously had no direct impact on how they became that way (though it would be tremendously helpful if these people did not choose to have any kids, since that's just creating another mouth to feed that they are unable to do on their own). I have no problem with countries like Canada and the U.S. pitching in, and it's good that we are...but so much more can be done if governments forget about sending a multi-billion dollar spacecraft into orbit to dock with the space station, only to discover that their multi-billion dollar spacecraft is ineed a multi-billion dollar piece of crap that malfunctions. Imagine how many people that money could have fed!

Now, I know that there will be people who say that there may be medical advancements that may be achieved. Like what? How would researching some medicine in space help on earth? The only thing being researched are reactions to space conditions and how different things react in space. If I am wrong here, feel free to email me and let me know, but I'm willing to bet that my email box will be empty for quite a while.

For whatever reason, generations of parents have been proud if their child ended up working for NASA or became an astronaut. I think I'll severely beat my kids on the butt if they ever pursued this as a career. If they became an airline pilot, I'd have no issue with that. Airline pilots have very good, marketable skills. How about astronauts? They just sit in expensive spacecraft and then go into orbit and study something that does not really do anything for humanity, other than satisfy a curiosity. When Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, I didn't see what the big deal was. What did him landing on the moon do as a tangible (read what I am saying here) contribution to society? Mother Theresa did more in her lifetime than NASA will ever do in its existence. Let's take care of our own who did not do anything to deserve their plight, before we start worrying about extra-terrestrial lifeforms and whether there is water on Mars.

Solemn Day Tomorrow - June 12, 2007

Tomorrow is the day that our baby was due, the baby that we lost last fall.

This morning, as I participated in a Christians-in-the-Workplace prayer meeting with other colleagues who are believers, I asked for prayer for our own situation, how we are still yearning for another child, if that is God's Will. At this point, we're still trying and there is still a lot of time left. I am not interested in scientific and medical means to create a child, so at this point we are simply yielding to God's timing. It's tough, though...just waiting. Meanwhile, it seems that all around us, people are pregnant, left, right and center. But I have to not think like that - I just need to trust that God will answer us in due time (one way or another). Still, I will be lying if I told you we weren't anxious.

Tomorrow evening, we will be spending some time picnicking at a local park - my son, wife and myself. We do have the lovely dwarf lilac in the backyard that reminds us that life oftentimes will have dark, cold, withered days, but there will be times when life flowers and blooms and is fragrant. We just have to remember to take the bad with the good, and simply trust God to do the rest. I truly believe that - I'm not just saying that.

Still, it will be a somber day tomorrow, so your prayers would be coveted as we remember what could have been, as well as look towards the future.

Now I Understand Why People Drink...

Yes, it is 3:25AM in the morning, and yes, this is the third night in a row where I haven't been able to sleep. What a crappy week it's been. Unfortunately, against my better judgement, I just wanted to forget it, so I went over to the LCBO after work yesterday and bought a hundred bucks worth of beverages in the hope that I can at the very least find a way to forget everything. Don't remember much from last night except downing a Stella Artois, followed by a Bacardi Pina Colada Breezer, followed by a Keith's, followed by a Bacardi Mixx Rumrunner Blonde, and after that, I may have shared another Keith's with my wife, while I was semi-conscious trying to watch Desperate Housewives. At the very least, I was very relaxed on the couch.

Needless to say, I did forget most of what happened this week, at least for a few hours, and I was able to hit the sack at 10:30PM and sleep for at least a couple of hours. I woke up a couple of hours ago with a massive headache, so I went to the washroom thinking I wasn't feeling that great, and I just had some water and went back to bed. The pounding headache is still there, so I figured I may as well try to blog for a while and hopefully I will eventually get tired. You would think that having no sleep since Wednesday night and being alcoholically medicated would help, but I think I feel worse than I did before. Actually, now that I think about it, it could have been the fact that I have had severe allergies this week as well and I just took antihistimines a couple of hours ago when I awoke.

OK, I'm feeling tired now. I'm sure this will eventually catch up to me. I wish that I was lying on some beach this week, rather than have to deal with all the crap that I had to deal with. This week did have some promising news at work, as I found out that the fella that I recently hired, the one with the body odour issues which he is controlling for now, may actually be a Christian. I ended up conversing with him yesterday (unfortunately, I don't recall too much of it right now due to my current condition of exhaustion), and I remember, "this is the best news I've heard all week." I had a nice discussion with him - maybe I'll get into it later. On the drive home, before I hit the LCBO, I was listening to John Moore on CFRB (he's a self-proclaimed libertarian agnostic, and unfortunately, he uses the CFRB's generally conservative airwaves to spout off his view that he is not against religion, but does not believe in God. He brought on Christopher Hitchin (sp.) who recently wrote a book entitled "God is Not Good" (I'll probably pick it up out of general interest, but will drop cash on a used copy, since I'm not interested in lining his pockets). Of course Hitchin came on and was rambling about some logical fallacies in Christianity. I tried to call in, but I found it unusual that, although normally, Moore opens the phone lines for about 15-20 minutes at the tail end of the show, he only ended up taking two calls, both of which show sympathy to Hitchin's arguments. I'm sure there were a lot of pissed off Christian apologists out there who could have torn a strip off Hitchin's arguments, but alas, there is media selective bias for you.

Oh well...I see by the clock it is indeed late. I still have about eighty five dollars or so of beverages, so any good friends who want to come over and share a drink, come on by. Hell, I'll barbecue some chicken wings or burgers and we can discuss the environment, military history - anything other than church. It's probably unwise for me to try to down all of this myself - I do understand much better now why people choose to drink to forget their troubles or stresses, but I think it's a short-lived solution, though I have to admit, sometimes a short-lived solution is better than none at all.

Later, gators.

Eldership... and Elementary School - Then and Now

I've had a lot on my plate lately, including an unbelieveably discouraging experience heading up a nominating committee for our church's board of elders this year. What can I say? What I thought was going to be pretty straight forward ended up turning political, and I am seeing now that some people clearly have their own agendas. In truth, church is not much different than anywhere else, where you have competing priorities, viewpoints and egos. I'd rather not dissect the latest scenario, but I am starting more and more to think that being an elder is not worth all the aggravations that come with the job. The rewards are few (not that I'm looking for rewards), and I am just getting the sense that what I thought I was signing up for is actually not what I signed up for. My view of elder is someone who rises above politics and works, under the foundation of biblical principles to teach, admonish, encourage and disciple people. I think that I can offer these things without the elder title, and in fact, I think I was doing more of this before I signed up for this job. Now, it seems like it's down to politics and a popularity contest - I don't want to get sucked into this at all. When I start disliking a couple of the people that I work with, it's probably time I find something else to do before I end up doing or saying something that I regret later. But I'm going to cease this topic and turn my attention to something else a little more happier.

Last night, my wife and I had the privilege of attending a meet-and-greet at my son's new school (he will be going in the fall), where they introduced the junior and senior kindergarten staff, as well as the principal and vice-principal (both of whom are under 40). I have to say, if there is one time I actually felt like a parent, it was last night. And what a proud parent I was. I remember, not so long ago, that my son was born, and I cradled him in my arms, and promised him that I would look out for him and take care of him the rest of his life. In the last four years, he has developed into a wonderful little boy, and I am just awed that time has flown by so fast, and that he will be attending school in the fall. I was telling my wife, no doubt it will come sooner rather than later when he will be in high school, learn to drive, and go off to school.

Our meet-and-greet was in the library last night and I have to say, a lot has changed in 25 years or so. OK, so I'm still expecting card catalogues with the dewey decimal system. Now the public school library has top of the line technology (computers, presentation touch-boards), and even in kindergarten, there is a technology component. You would think that as an IT guy, I would have a ho-hum attitude towards this. But I am still in tremendous awe over how things have changed in such a short time (as short of a time as 25 years can be). My, how the years fly by.

Now, schools have peanut allergies, security concerns, class size concerns and working with people of different backgrounds. It is in this environment that my son will start his academic life, and I am excited that we have prepared him well. It will be sad to see him go to school, but that is a part of life, and we're just grateful to have had the chance to be his initial mentors (though obviously that will continue through life), as we hand him into the capable hands of his kindergarten teacher in a couple of months. I have a feeling that the years ahead will just fly by, and we're looking forward to hearing about his accomplishments and successes.

We love being parents.