san antonio flooding and nobody cares

Well. Any of you who know me and who've been to my humble commode ...ERRR.... abode - know that whenever we get more than a couple of inches of rain in old SA, my back room addition (aka my home office) takes on about 2 inches of water.

While we were in Oklahoma City just a couple weeks ago, for example, we came back to the smell of moldy carpets and drywall. I got so fed up, I pulled up the deck in back and tore down an old shed and began to research ways to stop the flooding.

Well, it was all a bit too late. Tonight, we got a deluge that caused flooding through the whole neighborhood. There's as much water as ever standing in my office and the streets are almost impassible throughout the neighborhood. We drove home tonight in about a foot and a half of water standing all the way down our street and the one that connects it to the main drag.

This first happened back in 1998 during the big flood. It's happened about six or seven times since. The flooding ruined our in-ground fiberglass pool. It actually collapsed in on itself in spite of being full of water.

We put in a french drain and built up a concrete wall around the back of the house, but it still floods - even after thousands of dollars being thrown at it.

The problems center around the horrible drainage in our neighborhood. We're the low spot and all our neighbors' yards drain into ours. I've talked personally to my city councilman twice about the issue - and he assures me he'll call me, but never does.

After we watched water flow yet again into our home, I decided to try to get some sort of assistance. If nothing else, I'd just like someone in the know to come out and look at it while it's flooding. I grabbed a phone book and didn't know where to begin. I thought of FEMA, but remembered New Orleans and decided I'd rather not. I figured there MUST be some agency that is in charge of drainage that could help. But I couldn't find anything in the phone book about it. I find this incredibly stupid since flash flooding is common in San Antonio.

So, I called the police. Not 911, but just the regular SAPD number. The guy on the other line was nice enough, but didn't really know what to tell me. I asked him who was in charge of drainage. He told me it was San Antonio Water Systems. This didn't sound right, but dude was a cop, so I figured he was right.

So, I called SAWS. I hit "1" for emergency and talked to a woman who informed me that SAWS had nothing to do with drainage. I asked her if she knew who I should talk to. She said the City of San Antonio. "What department?" I asked. "Streets and Drainage maybe?"

So, I called the City of San Antonio Streets Department (the drainage part was left out of its name in the phone book). I explained the situation. Now. This is where I begin to get upset. The woman on the other end couldn't have cared less about what I was telling her. She told me I needed to contact my councilman. I asked her how that would help stop my house from flooding right now. She said it wouldn't. She took my name and number and said she'd file a report. I asked what that meant and when I would hear back from someone. She said she had no idea. I asked if it would be tomorrow. She reminded me that it's Friday. Nobody would even be back in the office until Monday and that they'd surely be way behind. Besides, she said, if it's in your yard, we aren't responsible anyway.

Now - I understand she may not have been able to do anything about it, but at least sympathize. At least say "I'm sorry your house is flooding." Nothing.

I ask you - wouldn't it make sense for the City of San Antonio to have some kind of plan to address flooding since it happens every year? Wouldn't they at least put "drainage" in the name of the department that handles that?

The buck-passing is another thing that infuriates me. It's nobody's problem but mine. Yet you can't even drive down the streets of my neighborhood right now due to standing water. But will anyone take responsibility for it? Not on your life. The Streets & Drainage Department will refer me to the City Councilman who in the past referred me to the Engineering Department who said it's the Streets & Drainage Department's job. I'm sure if I keep pushing, I'll get a couple more departments to be fingered as the culprit who will also do jack to address the problem.

Now I know what you're thinking. Just move! Well, that isn't so easy. This house belongs to my parents. We moved in so they could move to another home that didn't have these issues. Now, my dad has stage 4 lung cancer. They don't need the headache of selling the house. Plus, they wouldn't get anything for it right now considering it flood if someone takes a leak in the back yard. And, I don't even want to tell them about it. They have enough problems.

So, if anyone has any pull with City Councilman Richard Perez - District 2, please put a bug in his ear. I will leave messages and try to get in touch with him, but I don't have any reason to believe it will go any better than in the past.

my postmodern manifesto

Thesis 1 - The Church must reform ourselves for the post-modern culture
Through the years, the Church has reformed herself. One example of reformation is... well... the Reformation. The Church as a whole and we personally have the responsibility of interpreting God's Word and reforming our theology. If the word is living and adaptable to any culture, then each culture has to figure out how to live the Christian life in its own context.

Thesis 2 - God gives us the ability to interpret the rules, so sometimes they change
Rules change in scripture from one era to another - from one place to another. I believe this phenomenon still happens. In the old testament, circumcision was THE mark that someone followed God. If you had a child or bought a slave, the chopping was never far behind. Yet in the new testament, Paul tells the Corinthians that they shouldn't get all wrapped up in that - it wasn't necessary. Another example is the acceptance of gentiles into the kingdom. Back in the old testament, that wasn't gonna happen. Yet even then, there were exceptions. Rahab is a notable one. In the new testament, Peter has a vision about clean vs unclean food that translates into an acceptance of the gentiles. Peter had to have a vision.

Now, if Paul or Peter lived under the idea that God's law was already written down and it never changed, then these changes would never have occurred.

I believe that it's possible that the rules we live by can be translated by the Church and adapted to the era in which we live. This is not an endorsement of everyone making up their own rules. It's only to say that I definately don't have to live under levitical law. If I get a tattoo, I am not headed for hell.

Thesis 3 - We must respect different areas of focus politically and socially
There's more to "moral values" than abortion, homosexuality and evolution. Many believers have forgotten that poverty, greed, protection of the weak and caring for the widow and orphan are moral issues as well. Our political system unfortunately makes us choose the lesser of two evils. But we should be conscious that sincere people may choose differently between republicans and democrats. We shouldn't alienate or attack other believers for choosing different political positions.

Thesis 4 - It is vitally important for the Church to get a larger vision of ourselves and our place in the culture at large
It's time for the Church to build the Kingdom - not churches to build their own mini-kingdoms. Church growth for its own sake; family-activity based churches; book stores selling all sorts of ameri-christian paraphenalia; etc. The self-involved, inward nature of churches who build the counter culture without engaging the real culture creates a dangerous environment for believers who already tend to be selfish and inward.

Thesis 5 - We must each focus on addressing our own sins
Instead of believers being so eager to inspect each others' fruit (*HELLO!*) - that is to say, looking at everyone else's sin, we should focus on our own. We should allow God to work in the lives of others. Certainly, we can give testimony when we feel prompted by the Spirit, but we should use discernment and meekness as we share our lives with others. People who appoint themselves Holy Spirit to everyone in sign are clanging cymbals.

Thesis 6 - The Church should draw back from commercialism and consumerism
While we live in a nation based on supply and demand economics, this is not the way the Church should operate. Many church-goers have become consumers - going to several churches to find the one they like best. Churches compound the problem by viewing people as marketing targets. Book stores and coffee shops have moved in right next to the sanctuary.

Christ cannot be packaged or sold. As the Church, we should strive to not make christianity a business. We should protect the world from those snake oil salesmen in pastor clothes going in the name of Christ and lining their own pockets.

Thesis 7 - The Church should operate in the society with a spirit of ecumenicalism
That's not to say we won't disagree - methodists and baptists, calvinists and weslyans. It is to say that we should strive to present a united front to our culture and be willing to work together to address the needs of society.

Thesis 8 - We must encourage social responsibility and justice
Things like protecting the environment and human rights have not been the strong suit of western evangelicals lately. They should be. After all, God has given mankind the responsibility to steward our planet and He certainly cares for the oppressed, poor and powerless. Regardless of the politics of our times, it is necessary for believers to stand for what is right - even if it means standing with people we disagree with on other issues.

More to come...

questions for the right reverend pastor teacher preacher griffin

In response to questions posed by one of my millions of readers, I've decided to get a little more "in depth" with the analysis of my immortal soul. I want to answer all of your questions because as we all know, the world hangs on my every word.

Sprinkled or dunked? Dunked. Slam dunked in fact.

Infant or adult? Both - infant and twice as an adult. (One can never be too safe)

Have you given money to a building fund? I've given money to plenty of building funds not to mention pastor's salaries, church vans and about $5.8 million in snacks for bible studies over the years.

And to head off the next set of questions that are sure to arise -

Pre, mid or post trib? I'm not sure, but I have every Left Behind book ever written (all 474 of them) on the bookshelf beside me. I haven't read them, but my wife has and we are one...

Calvinist or Wesleyan? Wesleyan definitely. I am NOT in favor of peeing on things. That Calvin should really get some FloMax!

Tongues or not tongues? I'm totally in favor of tongues. They help us taste things. And when people speak in tongues, it's very entertaining. Kinda like rhythm-less white Christian rap music.

Hymns or praise music? Whatever John Tesh and Connie Selleca are doing these days.

Church growth? While most churches aren't increasing in number, they ARE increasing in total weight and mass. I think that's just as good.

Youth groups? I think it's a great idea to get about 40 horn-ball teens together with a horn-ball 20-something leader and send them on overnight camping trips. I've never heard of any problems...

Emerging church? It depends on what it's emerging from. If it's emerging from a bog, then that could be cool and worth watching. But if it's emerging from a tomb or someone's intestines, then that would just be creepy and I'd rather not.

Name-it-and-claim-it or blab-it-and-grab-it? Neither. I'm working on my own variation - "Zip-it-and-rip-it". In my theology, you just keep really quiet and take stuff when nobody is looking.

Benny Hinn? If the dude has the power to knock down and entire side of a stadium, don't you think the shockwave would bounce off the back wall and ricochet to the other side - knocking those people down as well? And besides, why can't he heal his hair? I'm skeptical...

Coffee house churches? Yeah. Good idea. Because there's nothing better than a bunch of whacked-out hippie nut jobs - except a bunch of whacked-out hippie nut jobs hopped up on espresso.

more to come...

the status of my immortal soul

I visit a log of blogs. Some of them are post-modern (the ooze, vintage faith, etc). But I told myself early on in my blogging career that I wouldn't limit myself to only blogs I agree totally with. For iron to sharpen iron, it has to be dragged against something, right?

So, I also visit places like sliceoflaodicea (may they rest in peace - well, at least their comments area) and camponthis. In my travels, I'm CONSTANTLY accused of not being saved. Apparently, unless someone believes in the literal, absolute perfection of our King James bible and ascribes to 5-point calvinism and votes republican, they are lost.

This post will attempt to put an end to that. In the future, instead of responding, I'll just point people here. So let's begin the most comprehensive statement of faith I've ever put into words:

1) I believe there is a God.
2) Whether I believe it or not, there is still a God.
3) I believe God has revealed Himself to men throughout the ages.
4) I believe the Bible is a record of that interaction.
5) I believe that the Bible is inspired by God and is useful in doctrine, correction and instruction.
6) I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
7) I believe that He is the only hope we have of a restored relationship with God.
8) I believe that His teachings are a beautiful and appropriate way to live life.
9) I believe that nothing I do can repair my broken relationship with God. God repairs the break - not me. And He chooses to do this in the person of Jesus Christ.
10) I believe that Christ was born of a virgin, was crucified and resurrected.
11) I believe that baptism is required of the believer whenever possible in obedience to Christ's teaching. While it's not baptism that saves us, it's a picture of what happens to us spiritually. I have been baptized.

So there you have it. As far as I can tell, I'm meeting all the criteria for salvation. Beyond that, I feel like I've heard from God at times in my life. Unfortunately, intimacy is not something we can prove - and frankly, I'm not even sure why I have to prove any of this anyway.

more to come...

weighing in al mohler's comments

OK. I've been following a post over at CAMPONTHIS (Steve Camp's blog). It's about comments made by Al Mohler which are creating a firestorm amoung his generally uber-conservative fan base. I think it's also important to point out that not one of us really knows what the heck we're talking about. We're not geneticists or biologists or any other -ists for that matter. We're just three dudes trying to make sense of something we don't have any first-hand knowledge of.

Now. This will probably be confusing. Dr Mohler's comments will be shown in black. Steve Camp's will follow point-by-point in red. Mine will follow Mr. Camp's in blue. Good luck following this one! ADDED: TO MAKE THINGS EVEN MORE COMPLICATED, STEVE UPDATED HIS BLOG THIS MORNING. SO, THOSE COMMENTS APPEAR IN BOLD, ITALIC ORANGE AFTER MY COMMENTS. THEN, MY RESPONSE TO THE NEW COMMENTS ARE IN BOLD, ITALIC PURPLE.

1. (Mohler) There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.
(Camp) Agreed.
(john) There is also no proof to the contrary.
Agreed, but I am not a trained scientist in the field of genetic research and do not pretend to speak for that profession.
Let's see if you retain this humility throughout the rest of your post...

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.
This is a false statement--there is no evidence of this whatsoever.
I think Dr Mohler should cite the studies in question. I know there are studies that show some link between biology and sexual orientation. Whether they are flawed or not, I'm not really qualified to determine. Neither is Mr Camp. Both Camp and Mohler should cite some data here. Either Mohler should roll out studies and prove them to be reliable or Camp should roll them out and disprove them. Sorry Steve - just saying there is not evidence does not make it so.
Even my limited knowledge recognizes that this is a false statement--there is no current evidence to suggest biological causation predisposes ones sexual orientation. Furthermore, the Scriptures contradict such assertions (Psalm 139; Romans 1:27-28).
You're using Psalms (a book of poetry) to contradict scientific finding? Sorry - I can't get on board with that. And you have two verses cited. I can build plenty of squirrely doctrines on just 2 verses. And I don't believe you have enough research under your belt to say that there is no evidence.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment.
Again, this is pure conjecture. Where is the genetic evidence that "shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment"? More importantly, where is the biblical evidence to support this claim?
Steve - how about hermophrodites - people born with both sets of reproductive organs? What about babies born with their hearts outside their bodies? What about asthma and crone's disease and alheimers and - well, you get the picture. People are certainly born with abnormalities in their bodies and minds every day. It's clear that the imperfection of our condition begins in the womb as much as our lives do.
Again, where is the genetic evidence that "shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment" exist and have imprinted ones genetic code? More importantly, where is the biblical evidence to support this claim? Looks like we're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.
Since the writers of scripture knew nothing about genes and blamed most illnesses on evil spirits, I wouldn't expect there to be any biblical evidence for or against this idea in scripture. As for modern scientific evidence about the topic, we're at an impass here. You will automatically reject any studies with that finding as being funded and performed by liberals and are therefore inadmissable.


4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible's moral verdict on homosexual behavior.
Then why give any credence to it if it even did exist? Because gay people are people. They have feelings. If it's true they have desires they have no control of, that will change the way many people view them. Instead of stiff-necked sickos who have decided to lust after strange flesh, perhaps Christians will view them as people just like us who were born with things they will struggle with thoughout this life. If it deserves credence, then give it credence. You can't deny credence for some arbitrary reason.
Yes it would. It would mean that God created all homosexuals in the homosexual condition. It would take their predisposition out of choice to divine design and would further legitimize their claim to God given same sex desires. Speaking biblically, Romans 1 would have to be rewritten, for there would be nothing "unnatural" about men fulfilling their sexual desires with other men; women with other women if they are "born" with that genetic desire. IOW, sin would just science.
Perhaps when this earth was brand new, people were created in perfection. But that was then and this is now. People are born with a myriad of problems - from physical imperfections to mental problems. Does God create babies with their hearts outside their bodies? Was it God's fault that the baby we adopted was born addicted to heroine and will struggle with fallout from that for the rest of his life? The fact that there is biological inclination does not excuse our choices. But, it does change the way Christians approach homosexuals. It gives us a reason to feel for them - to understand that their struggle is real and they're not just being jerks to spite us or God.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.
We have the Scriptures brother; they are sufficient to give us all the counsel we need to minister to those who are caught in the sin of homosexuality (2 Peter 1:3-4). They are sufficient for all matters of life and godliness.
The scriptures are largely silent about many issues that we face. Here, we will be unable to agree because of many fundamentalists' insistence on worshipping a book instead of the God who inspired it.
This is foolish--scientific discovery is the new seminary for pastor insight into the depravity of man. Bolderdash! We have the Scriptures; and they are sufficient to give all the counsel we need to minister to those who are struggling in any sin including homosexuality (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Psalm 19:7-11; 2 Peter 1:3-4). They are completely sufficient, lacking nothing, for "all matters of life and godliness." Sola Scriptura.
Luckily, Paul didn't think so. His scriptures were not near as comprehensive as ours are. In fact, as Paul wrote that to Timothy, his letter was not officially scripture yet, was it? So I guess the old testament that Paul used is sufficient, right? Let's get rid of the new testament.


6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.
Agreed.
You can't agree to that Steve. You deny that people can be identified as anything other than heterosexual. You say that if someone claims to have inclinations otherwise, they are choosing those desires and are in sin. That is not equal. That is passing judgment.
I agree that all people are made in the image of God; I disagree that gay people are marked by predisposition toward homosexuality.
Steve, are you gay? By what knowledge do you make this statement?

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.
Agreed.
Steve - Again, you can't agree to that. You don't believe it's possible to identify human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation. You believe that to be an impossibility, right? There are no fetuses that have homosexual tendencies.
I am also prolife and stand fully against the murder of unborn children.
So am I. But again, you can't agree with that statement because you don't believe that sexual orientation is a real thing.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.
This is inexcusable for a Christian leader to define genetics (even if it could be accomplished) as being "appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin." Science is not one of the "means of grace" used by our Lord in the salvation or sanctification of anyone.
So if you had a grandchild and it was determined that your grandchild would develop early alzheimers disease - and if a procedure could be performed that would clear that up - you would be opposed to it?
This is inexcusable for a Christian leader of Dr. Mohler's influence and biblical astuteness to see "genetics" as being considered "appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin." Is now science to be included as part of the "means of grace" used by our Lord in salvation or sanctification?
You'll accept science as a means of healing disease, but not as a way to avoid temptation? Sounds like a double-standard to me, Steve.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice.
I'm not confused on this at all: we are spiritually held accountable for both.
I'm not confused on this at all beloved--are any of you? Moral responsibility flows from the moral choices we make. We are spiritually held accountable for both.
And we're held responsible for the things we're born with too. Just because you are born with a predisposition to sin doesn't make that sin acceptable. It also doesn't make us not born with that predisposition.

We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.
That bold statement is absent of any biblical mandate whatsoever and irresponsibile for a Christian leader to assert.
Steve - did you choose to love music? Or did you just realize as you were growing up that you loved it? Did you choose to be sexually attracted to women? Did you decide when you were 12 or 13 "Hey! I love the ladies!" Or did it just happen? Isn't it possible that gay people develop attraction like you did? Some of it is natural - you're born with it. Some of it is cultural - you learn it.
Ah but we do; and THAT'S the point... That bold statement is absent of any biblical mandate whatsoever and completely irresponsibile for a Christian leader to assert. We are the ones sinning because we say that homosexual temptation and attraction is a choice and not genetically predisposed as you affirm? Bull.
You sin if you are insisting that something is false when it may be true. You are sinning when people say "I can't help feel this attraction" and you say "Yes you can!" Yes. That is a sin.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation.
I will make that claim now: science will never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation.
I will put the appropriate amount of faith in that statement coming from a musician with no scientific training. Steve - it is irresponsible for you to assert such a thing considering that you really don't know what you're talking about. You are asserting it blindly based on a misguided, antiquated understanding of ancient texts from a time when scientific understanding was much different from what it is today.
I will make that claim now: science will never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. Scripture has already defined the reason and choice for "that orientation (Romans 1:18-32). ...Where is it? Who has proven this? Why didn't you cite it in your article for us all to read? And now you conveniently slip in gender identity into the mix. Let me guess, were there transgender sheep as well? Is that the basis for this proposterous claim?
Fundamentalists may never ACCEPT science that claims a link between biology and sexual orientation. But they also didn't accept that the earth was round until someone sailed around it.

We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.
Again, science adds nothing in effective biblical ministry to anyone--especially those in the gay community. It's the power of the gospel, not genetic discovery or alteration that is needed today.
Proof texting ancient texts does not dismiss reality, Steve. Reality is messy. It doesn't fit into five-point this or 7-step that. The reality is that the earth is round. Stars aren't hung in the sky - they're other stars millions of light years away. Reality is that sneezing doesn't mean someone has a demon. Most people with multiple personalities are not possessed - they simply have brain abnormalities. And perhaps science will contend and prove that sexual orientation is biological. It's messy. Welcome to reality.
Again, science adds not one thing to effective biblical ministry--especially for those in the gay community. To do so, is to write the next chapter in a "therapeutic theology"--genome doctrine. Listen, it's the power of the gospel, not genetic discovery or reversal that is needed today to understand, impact, and minister effectively to any sin issue facing mankind in any culture.
Nobody is arguing that fact Steve. What Dr Mohler is saying is that perhaps we are born with predispositions to feel certain things. If we as believers understand this, we will certainly have more grace and understanding with people who struggle with this particular sin.

donald miller on narrative

an interesting talk about abortion by john piper

Wow. Abortion as racism? I must say, I've never heard it laid out quite so plainly. I'll really need to think about his one...

the messy church with marc driscoll

real stories from mars hill

Here is a video used at the 10th anniversay of Mars Hill. They have For all those who take issue with Marc Driscoll's methods, here is some fruit...

about emergent village from tony jones and doug pagitt

Here's a great "intro" to Emergent Village straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. The phrase that really captures my imagination at the very end when Tony Jones says the goal of EV is "to fashion a beautiful Christianity that we can hand on to our children and our grandchildren and then they can then pick up and make their own and reform in their own way..."

Christianity has been in a constant state of reformation since Christ walked the earth. There have been major reformations (like...uh....the Reformation) and smaller ones along the way. The idea that it is our responsibility to decide how we will live Christ's commands in our culture is powerful. It's not up to church committees or pastors or a group of elders to dictate. Instead, we reform our faith into culture in a way that honors and glorifies God. Good stuff.