This won’t be another 3,000 word screed, more of a quick hitter. One of the biggest flaws in the Christian today is that they don’t study the Bible to learn what it has to say. They study the Bible to see what it has to say about what they already believe. We do what’s called eisegesis or proof-texting. Eisegesis is the process of reading preconceived notions INTO scripture.

Hm. Let me take one of my breaks here to throw in another disclaimer:

I am not, by any means, claiming myself immune to the things I am writing about. I have been as guilty as anyone of committing these errors, and I ‘m sure there are times that I still am guilty of these errors. However, in knowing this, I can catch myself when I find myself searching for a particular verse that matches what I think scripture SHOULD say instead of studying what it DOES say. I will never be a ‘perfect’ student of Scripture, and I will always be susceptible to error. However, as I continue to grow in faith and understanding, these times should be fewer and far between.

So, Eisegesis is the process of reading preconceived notions into scripture. We’re probably more familiar with the word exegesis which is the opposite, studying and cross-referencing scripture to extrapolate the proper intended meaning of the author. However, far too often, Christians are guilty of the bad one, eisegesis. We know what we’ve already been taught or told to believe, and we study the Bible to find verses (typically ignoring context) that support our position. We learn nothing new, and we certainly don’t account for the possibility of being wrong. We just find the verse that supports our belief, pat ourselves on the back, and put our Bible away.

An example of eisegesis would be the citation of Deuteronomy 22:5 to establish a dress code for believers. Many people read Deuteronomy 22:5 which reads, in English, “A woman shouldn’t wear men’s clothing, nor should a man wear women’s clothing.” Some Christians read this verse to mean that women should only wear skirts and not pants, since pants were, in early American society, thought of as men’s clothing. However, an in-depth study of the original Hebrew and also the context of the verse tells us that this is obviously not what the original author meant. But because this single verse, taken at it’s translated-into-English face, supports the idea, it is often taken by itself as justification of such practices.

There’s nothing wrong with having a favorite verse of scripture we like to refer to, by the way. Personally, I’ve always been exceptionally fond of Isaiah 53:6. However, if you are studying for doctrine, either to truly validate what you already believe (which we should do, but with an open mind willing to admit that what we believe is wrong) or to establish your beliefs on a something you don’t yet have a firm grasp on, there is one great big rule you must follow to avoid error: never read a bible verse.

Stand to Reason’s Greg Koukl has an excellent article on this subject, so I won’t belabor the point, but one thing we must remember is that the Bible wasn’t written in chapters and verses. The chapter and verse divisions as we know it weren’t completed until the late 13th/early 14th century. The books of the Bible were meant to be taken as a whole. The best example of this is the epistles. These were letters to specific people or groups of people with overarching themes throughout, meant to be read in one sitting. The Gospels and Acts and much of the New Testament are narratives, to be read like one might read a novel. The Prophetic books also are written with overarching themes and literary patterns that only make complete sense when read as a whole. If we want to know what any author really meant, we certainly can’t do that by taking a single Bible verse (which may or not be a complete sentence, much less a complete thought) and relying on that.

So how much should you read? Well, Mr. Koukl suggests a two paragraph minimum, the paragraph preceding the text in question to establish setting and context and the paragraph including the citation to make sure you’re getting a complete sentence and thought. Ideally, however, an entire chapter should be your goal. If you are establishing context, understanding what type of passage you are reading (literature, narrative, prophecy, didactic), and examining other passages to see what they have to say on the matter, you are on your way to proper exegesis.

Also, keep in mind, the Bible wasn’t written in English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. So to get the full meaning you have to be willing to do some digging, pull out a Strong’s Concordance and look up the etymology and original meaning of a word.

So now that we know what not to do, what should we do? We should model ourselves after the Bereans that Paul encountered. The Book of Acts mentions the Bereans in Acts Chapter 17 which says in part:

“Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.” Acts 17:11-12

We should, upon being presented with a doctrine or idea that is presented as Biblical, search the scriptures to see if it’s true! The Bereans even subjected Paul to this level of scrutinization. We should do the same, regardless of who presents us with the information. In many churches, the pastors and ministers are held up as untouchable and unquestionable, “the Man of God!” Let me assure you, even pastors and ministers can make mistakes, and we are all fallible. Regardless of how highly you think of your pastor or minister, after every sermon or bible study, you should, yourself, examine the scripture to see if what you have been taught is in fact in the book. Hopefully, it is! But if you find a point of question, you can take it back to that pastor or to another well studied Christian and see if sense can be made of it. The same goes for whenever someone makes a claim about what the Bible says in conversation. “Where does it say that? Is that really what it means? What is the context? Does the offered interpretation make sense in light of other scriptures?” These essential questions must be asked.

The situation might arise where a friend or family member makes a claim about scripture that you know to be false, and when you might offer an alternate interpretation, you are met with a defensive posture. “Who are you to push your ideas on me?” they might respond. Or, “Why cant I believe what I want to believe, and you just leave well enough alone?” Given responses like that, two things are important: 1) Don’t make it an argument. Debate and discussion are healthy but if it devolves into an argument and one side becomes angry, the conversation is lost. 2) Ask questions of the person to find out what exactly it is that they believe, why they believe it, and how they came to those conclusions. In doing so, you might find that they either are just relying on what they themselves have been taught or you might allow them to, while talking through it, discover the error on their own. (Not to sound like a repetitive shill, but Greg Koukl has an excellent book on methods like this called Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions. It is a must-read for any Christian who wants to be able to make an answer for their faith and talk intelligently about it.)

To close, as I said, it’s OK to be wrong about the Bible, as long as you’re willing to admit you’re wrong and study to become right. I personally was wrong about what I believed the Bible said for a long time. I accepted what I was taught and proof-texted it, never willing to consider that I was wrong. I don’t have it 100% right yet, and I probably never will, but feel I have a much more solid grasp on it now.

“1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting.3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.” Acts 2:1-4 NIV

Acts 2 is one of the most important narratives given in scripture. It is, by all accounts, the birth of the Christian church and the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell in believers. It is the fulfillment of promises made and the start of promises for future generations. For all Christians, it’s a beloved text that we read, rejoicing over the promises of God to send his Holy Spirit to sanctify the believer.

For Oneness Pentecostals, however, it is a proof text for one of the “Big Three” doctrines that set Oneness Pentecostals apart from orthodox (little o) Christianity. That is the doctrine of “Initial Evidence”, specifically, that the universal, immutable outward manifestation of a believer receiving the Holy Spirit is that the believer will speak in tongues. This uniform evidence is proof that a person is saved.  Without it, they are considered to have not received the Holy Spirit and are, therefore, not saved. You will, these days, be hard pressed to find a Oneness Pentecostal who will out-and-out declare that everyone who dies not having spoken in tongues is unsaved and hell-bound but it is certainly a reasonable assertion from the doctrinal statements of the two main Oneness organizations, the UPCI and the ALJC, that this is their belief. From my 10 years in the movement, I can safely state that this is absolutely what is preached by the leadership of these organizations.

There are those reading this who have never met a Pentecostal (or at least don’t realize that you have) and may never have heard of such an idea. This initial evidence doctrine isn’t unique to the Oneness movement, but it is unique to Pentecostals.  In certain charismatic denominations, there is a toned down version referred to as the “Second Blessing” or “Second Work” where, while it is considered the universal evidence of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit”, it is not a requirement for Salvation. The same arguments against the “initial evidence” doctrine hold true whether one considers it the initial evidence of salvation or a so-called “Second Blessing.”

You might also ask “Stephen, why do you care what some other church teaches? Why don’t you worry about yourself?” My simple answer to that is this: I have seen people fall completely away from Christianity over this issue. People who spent years and years seeking after an experience that wasn’t forthcoming, getting angry and bitter at God and the church and the people in the church, until they finally just throw up their hands and walk out the door. To be blunt, I don’t want anyone to turn their back on God because of faulty doctrine.  I firmly believe that. I’ve seen it. I know that’s anecdotal evidence, but it’s sufficient for me to take the time and effort to write this. I don’t mean that to be offensive, although I know some will take offense to it. I love my Oneness Pentecostal brothers and sisters. I was saved in a Oneness Pentecostal church (although tongues weren’t a part of that process). I just disagree with them.

Much like my post on the holiness standards, I am going to take a moment and get something out of the way:

I am not a “cessationist” who believes that the miraculous gifts have ceased. I do believe that speaking in tongues, amongst other gifts as outlined throughout the New Testament, are still in operation today with the exception that I do not believe there to be any capital A ‘Apostles’ still among us. I am not claiming that no one speaks in tongues, nor am I attempting to invalidate any legitimate spiritual experience. I will discuss ways that I believe tongues are abused in churches today, making my case through scripture. Please do not write or comment telling me that you know tongues exist because you’ve spoken in tongues. I’m not doubting the validity of tongues. I am merely pointing out that they are not, by any means, the sole initial evidence of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life.

Phew. Now that that’s out of the way, let’s begin.

Let’s go ahead and set the foundation for the doctrine. Again, I think it fair that my 10 years in the movement qualifies me to speak on Oneness doctrine with some manner of authority. By all means, if you are a Oneness adherent who thinks I am misrepresenting your views, comment. If I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it. With that being said, Oneness Pentecostals point to Acts 2, specifically verses 1-4, and claim that that exact experience complete with speaking in tongues is to be had by all. They point to Isaiah 28:11-12 as a prophecy that foreshadows this:

11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, 12 to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose"— but they would not listen.

They also point to Joel’s description in Joel 2:28 of the outpouring of the Spirit (which Peter also cites in his sermon in Acts 2):

28 And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.

As far as Joel 2:28 goes, I don’t think anyone argues that it is indeed speaking about the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost and in the church thereafter. Peter himself confirms that by citing the prophecy while preaching. I certainly won’t argue against that. What I will point out later is how this is an example of, like Deuteronomy 22 in the Holiness Standards, we pick one verse out of context to prove a point.

They will also point to a number of examples of tongues as initial evidence in the Book of Acts, such as the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10 and the conversion of some of John’s disciples in Acts 19. These passages have been synthesized by the Oneness Pentecostal movement and the Second Blessing movements to form the idea that the initial evidence of everyone who receives the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.

The Holy Spirit, per this doctrine, is also something to be sought after. On one hand, they teach that, like the bible says, salvation is a gift freely given by God to those who believe. However, since obviously not everyone speaks in tongues the first time they hit their knees, there is this added element of “seeking the Holy Ghost.” They analogize the Apostles’ tarrying in the upper room for 40 days to this process.  In fact, many Oneness Pentecostals seek after this experience for weeks, months, or years. For many, the constant perceived failing of God to deliver on his promise is their impetus for leaving the Oneness Pentecostal movement or Christianity altogether. When a ‘seeker’ inquires why they have yet to receive the Holy Spirit, they are told to ask themselves what they have yet to give over to God. For example, in my years of seeking the Holy Spirit, I was told things such as:

• “Maybe you haven’t repented enough.”
• “There must be some sin you’re keeping from God!”
• “You must not be following all the standards!”
• “God will save you when you’re ready.”
• “God will save you when the time is right.”

In the end, the ‘seeker’ is made to think that if they start living a holy enough life, God will finally count them worthy of salvation. Until then, keep on keepin’ on, I guess.

That is, essentially, the foundation of this doctrine. That is not to say this is the extent of their reasoning, but it is certainly the foundation of it.

What, then, is the appropriate response of orthodox Christianity (that is, the core doctrine that Christianity as a whole has held to, crossing denominational lines) to this doctrine? In short, it’s an example of a batch of cherry-picked scriptures chosen to come to a pre-determined conclusion without looking at the bigger picture. It is an excellent example of eisegesis (reading one’s ideas into the text) where exegesis (or studying the text to derive the original meaning) is more appropriate. It ignores key texts that directly contradict the suggested interpretation. Now, for the long answer.

I will, naturally, be speaking from a more traditional Protestant viewpoint. My Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends might have a few yeah-but’s to throw in, but most of what I have to offer here is, again, little-o orthodox.

The giving of the Holy Spirit is, indeed, an essential part of salvation. It is a gift freely given to us, not because we deserve it, but because God loves us. Salvation and the gift, or indwelling, of the Holy Spirit go hand-in-hand. They are part and parcel. Christ spoke of the promised Spirit and told his disciples to go and wait for the promise that was indeed fulfilled in Acts 2. However, we need to ask ourselves the question: “Does scripture bear out the idea that the miraculous accompanying signs in Acts 2, 8, 10 & 19 the rule or the exception?”

Let me begin by making two key points here:

1. There is no scripture that clearly and definitively states that tongues always accompanies the indwelling. The case made by the OPs and the Second Blessing folks is a case made by linking certain scriptures together and ignoring certain others. There is no definitive verse that states “And you shall know they are filled with my spirit, for they speak in other tongues” or anything of the like.

2. The proof verses for the “Initial Evidence” doctrine come from either prophecy or narrative portions of scripture, and not from the didactic portions. Let me start by saying that, yes, like Paul said, all scripture is suitable for doctrine. However, that assumes the scripture is used and interpreted properly. The book of Acts merely states that on four definitive occasions, tongues was used as a sign of the infilling. It also includes, however, mentions of the Holy Spirit indwelling believers without tongues being present. For example, Paul’s account never mentions him speaking in tongues at the time of conversion. He does confirm later that he displays this gift, but it isn’t present at his conversion. He is, however, healed of blindness. The narrative portions of scripture explain that an event occurs. The didactic (or teaching) portions, such as the epistles, explain WHAT is true and WHY it is true.

With that being said, neither of those are definite reasons against the initial evidence doctrine. They are, however, a start. I would like to present what is often considered the “slam dunk” text to disprove initial evidence, and that is 1 Corinthians 12. It’s long, but worth inclusion here.

1 Corinthians 12 (NIV)

1 Now about the gifts of the Spirit, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15 Now if the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don’t need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don’t need you!"22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.

And yet I will show you the most excellent way.

This is the passage that was the coup de grace on any last grasp the initial evidence doctrine held on me. Paul is talking about the different ways the spirit manifests itself in the lives of believers. One can infer that there was some sort of division in the Corinthian church, that certain gifts were being esteemed higher than other gifts. This is the overarching theme of the chapter. Paul lays out in verse four that there are different types of spiritual gifts but they are all distributed by the same Spirit. He goes on to discuss the manifestation of the spirit in the lives of believers. The key word there is in verse 7, the manifestation, or phanerōsis, of the Spirit. That word, and it’s root phainō clearly mean “bestowment” or “appearance.” The “bestowment” of the spirit is given to each for the common good, and to each is given a different spiritual gift, as listed in verses 8-10. In 11, he brings it home. “All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.”

The chapter continues by delving further into the cooperation between the gifts, and that every gift, like every body part, plays it’s significant part in the church.

The final point is made in verses 27 through 30. Paul explains that Christ has placed in the church various offices and gifts, spread throughout the people. He then asks a series of rhetorical questions to hammer home the point that not every gift is for everyone. The questions are asked in such a manner that the reader is presumed to already know the answer, and the answer to all of the questions is the same. So let’s go down the list, shall we?

• Are all apostles? – No
• Are all prophets? – No
• Are all teachers? – No
• Do all work miracles? – No.
• Do all have gifts of healing? – No.
• Do all speak in tongues? – No.
• Do all interpret? – No.

Did you catch it? Do all speak in tongues? After five no’s, the answer isn’t suddenly "yes”. Not all speak in tongues. Paul is quite clear on this.

Now, let me be clear: I know there is a clear difference between the gift (dōrea) of the Holy Spirit as said in Acts 2:38 and the spiritual gifts (charisma) that are mentioned here and elsewhere in scripture. The dōrea of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling of the Spirit in the believer. The charisma is the spiritual ability that is granted through the dōrea. The Oneness Pentecostal attempts to make a delineation between the two. They will claim there are two types of tongues in the bible: the type given as the Initial Evidence of the dōrea and the type given as charisma. They will use this to explain that Paul is talking about charisma tongues and not dōrea tongues. However, their argument for this is not found anywhere in the teachings of the Apostles or Jesus, and it is not held by any mainstream Christian denomination. Paul never speaks of a different type of tongues, nor do any other apostles or Jesus himself. It’s just not in the book.

This, to me, is sufficient evidence against the doctrine of Initial Evidence. We, as Christians, don’t require outward proof of our saving faith. Paul himself said that tongues are a sign to unbelievers in 1 Corinthians 14:22. By the way, this is an excellent read regarding how tongues were abused in the Corinthian church, and there are excellent parallels to today. For example, tongues were always meant to be used orderly, and even then only with interpretation. If there were no interpreter, the speaker was to keep quietly to his or herself. In fact, Paul says that if the church is together and everyone is speaking in tongues with no order, if inquirers or unbelievers come in, they will just think the church is “out of their minds.” (1 Cor 14:23)

So how, then, do we know we are saved? We don’t require external proof, although that’s not to say there will never be any. We know we’re saved based on the promises given to us in scripture. Paul tells us in Ephesians 1:

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

and in Romans 10:

8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"t that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim:9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.11 As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame." 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Lets go back to Joel for a moment. Let’s continue on in Chapter 2 to Joel’s conclusion:

³² And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.

And Christ himself said:

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

We are assured through the promises of Christ that when we put our faith in Christ and earnestly call on the name of the Lord to save us, we are saved and filled with his Spirit. We don’t, and God doesn’t, require a specific outward miraculous sign. Although it’s possible for one to be given, it’s the exception, not the rule. There is, however, one sign that must be apparent in all believers, and that is found in John 13:

34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

I hope that I have expressed myself clearly, concisely and without hostility. I will say again: I love my Pentecostal brothers and sisters. I was saved in a Pentecostal church. This doctrine, however, I don’t agree with and feel compelled to speak against.

I go into more detail about salvation and what it means to become saved and what we should do when we are saved in a previous blog post, "What must I do to be saved?”

Eventually, Sarah’s HTC Hero started giving her fits. It was rapidly aging hardware unable to keep up with the higher resource demands by newer apps and updates to existing apps. It also had an interesting glitch where it would randomly show a completely incorrect time, causing alarms and alerts to be missed. I decided to replace it with an iPhone 4. We called Sprint, and found they had terminated their early upgrade program. If Sarah wanted a new phone before April, we’d have to terminate the contract and start over fresh somewhere else. Meanwhile, my stepmother was on an old, old plan with AT&T from the old Cingular days, $25/mo for 250 minutes, period. No nights/weekends, just 250 minutes. More and more, she was starting to go over that limit. I proposed the idea to my dad of putting her on our account to save both of us money. He agreed, so I hopped online to look at plans and grabbed a chat session with a sales rep. I asked him about my employee discount from my current employer, and he explained it was a 22% discount on the monthly charges.

I checked and saw the only VZW dealer open on New Year’s Eve was Best Buy, so I headed out there. I set up the account, a $69.90 family share plan (actually come to find out it’s a $50 plan with two 9.95 access charges, this is important later.) I added a $30 data plan for Sarah as well. Total, $99.90 with a 22% discount should be approximately $78/mo for the two lines. I was so glad about saving some money that I didn’t even contest the activation charge of $35/line. I just needed to stop by an actual VZW store to activate my discount. I did that on January 2nd.

I needed to bring my pay stub in, so printed it out, brought the stub in, they scanned it and gave it back. I asked again about the discount. “So this is 22% off all monthly charges, right?” “Yes, sir.” I inquired further, “and it will show up on the first bill, right?” They replied “Well, we’re supposed to tell you two months, but since you just signed up for service two days ago, you should see it on the first bill.” Good enough for me!

Everything is going great, the phones are working great. The 14 day return period runs out. Then, on January 21st, the bill came, no discount. I was going to have to call in, I guess.  Here is my description of what happened next, per my email to Verizon:

I called in on the evening of the 21st and was told “There is no discount on your line” and that I should go to www.verizonwireless.com/discounts and register my employee discount again. I asked to wait on hold for a supervisor and was denied this option. I insisted on waiting and speaking to a supervisor. I was told I should hang up and call back and ask someone else. Shortly thereafter, the representative hung up on me. At no time in the conversation was I vulgar or abusive.

After that call, I went to the website and registered my discount.

I called back and spoke briefly to another CSR, explained my situation and previous call, and was immediately transferred to a supervisor, Miles, Badge V0FRM42. He explained that the discount should take two months to apply (contrary to what I was told in store). He agreed to apply the 22% discount for the first two months as a lump sum to make up for this. He then explained that the employee discount only covers the $50 for the family share plan, not the $20 in line access charges or the $30 in data plans. In short, my expected $22/mo discount was only $11/mo. Over the 24 months of an agreement, this equals a $264 difference.He agreed to look into a way of perhaps waiving one of the access charges for a year to help make up some of this difference, and promised me a call back Tuesday at 6PM when the department that could help was available. I agreed to this. Tuesday at 6PM came and went, no call.

A series of tweets between myself and @VZWSupport ended with a call from “Antonio” I believe. He agreed to my request to waive the activation fees but was unwilling to do anything further.

I went further to explain exactly the resolutions I would consider acceptable:

At this point, I wish for one of two resolutions:

1: I will pay for the service we used, return the phones, and pay no early termination fee. I have been lied to by Verizon employees twice (about the discount and about a return call) and I’ve been hung up on. I no longer wish to do business with Verizon.

OR

2. I will accept a one time credit of $264 to make up for the discrepancy between the discount I was promised (22% on all monthly charges) and the discount I’m told I will get (22% only off the $50 family share plan amount) and the waiver of the activation fees to make up for the time I’ve spent on the phone trying to get this resolved.

I fired this email off to every Verizon executive email account I could find on the morning of January 25th. On the 26th, I received an email from Crystal on their “Executive Relations” team promising a full review of my account and a call within 24 hours. Sure enough, today, Crystal called. I rehashed the whole story with her top to bottom. She apologized for the misinformation, for the hang up, and for the missed call back. It was actually a very pleasant discussion where I explained how I had moved from Sprint and AT&T to Verizon, and how I was unhappy that this was my first experience with Verizon. She apologized again and offered to expedite the application of my discount and  to meet my request for a lump sum credit for the $264 which I gladly accepted. She promised another communication within 24 hours to confirm that these had taken place.

In the end, I’m satisfied. I would rather I had just been informed properly from the start, although I probably would not have transferred to Verizon had this occurred. However, it is nice to know that they were willing to live up to what their employee promised. It is an excellent example of how to approach any service issue with a major corporation: 1) Customer service, 2) Ask for a supervisor; 3) Attempt another, public venue for customer service such as Twitter/Facebook; 4) Executive e-Mail carpet bomb.

Keep in mind, I don’t advocate using these methods just to get something that would be “nice to have”, like an early upgrade. If people waste these higher tier’s time, they are less likely to listen when you have a legitimate beef.

The full text of my email is below:

Folks:
I found your email addresses via the consumer watchdog website Consumerist.com. The short version of my story is this: I bought an iPhone 4 and a basic flip phone with a family share plan at Best Buy from Verizon for two lines (one ported from AT&T, 330-XXX-XXXX, one replacing a line cancelled with Sprint, 330-XXX-XXXX) and added a data plan to one of this. This happened on 12/31/11. I knew I had a 22% corporate discount available, and I  knew I had to go into a Verizon store to activate it. I was also fully aware I had 14 days to terminate my service without service charges.

On January 2, I went into the Verizon store at  3750 West Market Street in Fairlawn, OH (330-XXX-XXXX) with my pay stub. I asked about the discount: “So this is 22% off all monthly charges?” and was told ”Yes.” They scanned my paystub (or took photos, couldn’t tell which) and told me that I should see my discount on the first bill.

My first bill arrived on January 21st, conveniently 7 days after my 14 days expired. On it I discovered no discount of any variety. I called in on the evening of the 21st and was told “There is no discount on your line” and that I should go to www.verizonwireless.com/discounts and register my employee discount again. I asked to wait on hold for a supervisor and was denied this option. I insisted on waiting and speaking to a supervisor. I was told I should hang up and call back and ask someone else. Shortly thereafter, the representative hung up on me. At no time in the conversation was I vulgar or abusive.

After that call, I went to the website and registered my discount.

I called back and spoke briefly to another CSR, explained my situation and previous call, and was immediately transferred to a supervisor, Miles, Badge V0FRM42. He explained that the discount should take two months to apply (contrary to what I was told in store). He agreed to apply the 22% discount for the first two months as a lump sum to make up for this. He then explained that the employee discount only covers the $50 for the family share plan, not the $20 in line access charges or the $30 in data plans. In short, my expected $22/mo discount was only $11/mo. Over the 24 months of an agreement, this equals a $264 difference.He agreed to look into a way of perhaps waiving one of the access charges for a year to help make up some of this difference, and promised me a call back Tuesday at 6PM when the department that could help was available. I agreed to this. Tuesday at 6PM came and went, no call.

A series of tweets between myself and @VZWSupport ended with a call from “Antonio” I believe. He agreed to my request to waive the activation fees but was unwilling to do anything further.

At this point, I wish for one of two resolutions:

1: I will pay for the service we used, return the phones, and pay no early termination fee. I have been lied to by Verizon employees twice (about the discount and about a return call) and I’ve been hung up on. I no longer wish to do business with Verizon.

OR

2. I will accept a one time credit of $264 to make up for the discrepancy between the discount I was promised (22% on all monthly charges) and the discount I’m told I will get (22% only off the $50 family share plan amount) and the waiver of the activation fees to make up for the time I’ve spent on the phone trying to get this resolved.

Thank you for your time, I appreciate your assistance.

Stephen M. Martin
330-XXX-XXXX

It was actually Sarah that planted the idea in my head of getting rid of the cable, although she didn’t know it at the time. While walking through Best Buy in early December, I made the offhanded comment that I’d like an Apple TV, and I didn’t think anything else of it. Sarah, however, remembered that when it came time to go Christmas shopping and bought me one. Somehow, I guessed what she had bought me and told her that it was a nice thought, but we don’t have NetFlix or Hulu, and we can just DVR any shows we want, so we returned it. However, a few days later at work, we got to talking about AppleTV, NetFlix and Hulu, and I got to thinking. Plenty of people had talked about dropping cable, installing an antenna for locals and using NetFlix/Hulu for all their shows, and it sure would be a lot cheaper. We wouldn’t even need the AppleTV, I already have a PS3.

I started pricing out antennas and thinking about how reasonable this would be. I did the math about how much we would save in a year, and I weighed that against what I would lose. In the end, I decided that having to watch ESPN on my iPad or computer was worth saving $500/yr in cable bills.  So, I did the math, ordered the antenna, and called Time Warner. (Trying to figure out how much I would pay for internet without cable was an adventure in itself, and ended up on Consumerist.) Coincidentally, NetFlix and Hulu run amazingly well on the PlayStation. NetFlix has better picture quality than cable most of the time, and never worse than cable.
Hulu tends to look more like streaming internet video, but for $8/mo, who’s complaining?

The antenna was probably the biggest challenge. I did a little research (not enough, I soon found out), asked some friends, and ended up with an AntennasDirect 43XG Unidirectional UHF Antenna. I previously had a satellite dish, so I figured I could use that post to mount it, but I ordered another post just to be sure. I also already had the coax ran from the dish, naturally, so that wasn’t a problem.

The next thing I had to do was figure out where to point the antenna. The most powerful antennas are unidirectional, which is important since most of our TV originates from Cleveland, about 40 miles away. A quick trip to TV Fool and their antenna wizard provided me with this useful chart:

A unidirectional antenna has a cone-shaped target area, and the transmitters themselves are omnidirectional, so to get all the channels I wanted, I aimed the antenna right around 12:10 on the dial. Turned on the TV, ran a channel scan and it started finding everything I wanted. (There was a little more to the actual work, involving finding the best position for the antenna, but that’s the gist of it.) However, I was missing one channel, WJW-8 Fox.

If you look at that transmitter map again, you’ll see two columns, Real and Virt. The “Real” channel number is what channel it actually broadcasts on. The “Virt” channel is how it actually shows up on your TV. For instance, WKYC broadcasts on channel 17 but shows up as channel 3.1. If you look, WJW Fox is channel 8, both real and virtual, and channel 8 is a VHF channel. I didn’t know the difference between UHF and VHF channels when I started (remember when I said I didn’t do enough research?) so a quick trip to AIM to ask a friend why I wasn’t getting Fox, and I got schooled. VHF channels are broadcast as channels 2-13 (30-300MHz), whereas UHF channels are 14-69 (300MHz-3000MHz). Fox is VHF, my antenna is UHF, hence, no Fox.  They were supposed to be moving to UHF within a few months, so any solution to this would be temporary and not worth spending a ton of money on. So what’s a guy who wants to watch playoff football to do?

I needed a VHF antenna, and I needed it to come on the same wire as the UHF signal. So I picked up a few things from Radio Shack to jury-rig this: a UHF/VHF combiner (looks like a splitter, but backwards), a VHF Dipole antenna (normal rabbit ears), a matching transformer (to convert the antenna wire to coax), some zip ties and electrical tape. I felt like a regular MacGyver. So, off to the roof. After about twenty minutes and some antenna aiming, we had Fox!

So, it’s been over three weeks without cable, and I can honestly say I don’t miss it. I get ESPN through my iPad (my dad still has cable, so I sign in to the app as him). All the shows we watch are on NetFlix/Hulu or locals. I prefer to listen to the Cavs & Indians on the radio, so that’s not a problem. I still need to purchase a set-top box so I can run the sound through my home theater, but that’s it.

If you have any questions about getting rid of cable, I’m your guy now, it seems. No cable? No problem.

]]> http://www.screevo.com/2012/01/cutting-the-cable-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-antenna/feed/ 1 http://www.screevo.com/2012/01/holiness-standards/ http://www.screevo.com/2012/01/holiness-standards/#comments Wed, 18 Jan 2012 02:45:43 +0000 Stephen Martin http://www.screevo.com/?p=41 A commentary on Oneness Pentecostal holiness standards

To anyone who has spent even a little time in a Oneness Pentecostal church, the words “Holiness Standards” probably hold certain meanings: skirts for women, pants for men. Uncut hair for women, short hair for men. No makeup for women. No jewelry. To some, it might even go farther, but these are the basics. The Oneness Pentecostal teaching is that it is the required duty of anyone who has received – or wishes to receive – the Holy Ghost. Not doing so is a willful sin that puts one’s salvation in jeopardy. (This, by the way, is all Oneness Pentecostal jargon. Most Christians have a different understanding of the salvation process.) They believe that these standards come from scripture, and they cite certain verse to make their case for each standard.  They take great pride in their adherence to the standards, almost to boastful levels.  They believe that by dressing this certain way, they will receive blessings from God.

Having spent 10 years in the Oneness Pentecostal movement, most of which either dating or married to a Oneness Pentecostal woman, I’ve had many discussions on the standards. I’ve seen how they are applied and when they aren’t. I’ve watched secular fashion change, and the standards adapt to match secular fashion. And in the end, two things have become clear to me about the standards. First, they are wholly unbiblical, misappropriating scripture out of context and cherry-picking verses. Second, when following the standards is inconvenient, they are willingly ignored. In this post, I will discuss these two points and demonstrate how the Holiness Standards are a legalistic hindrance to Christianity.

However, first, I must make a point that will surely be ignored by some. I will even bold and italicize it.

I BELIEVE THAT WE, AS CHRISTIANS, ARE CALLED TO LIVE HOLY AND MODEST LIVES, DEDICATED TO CHRIST AND THE MISSION OF SPREADING HIS WORD. I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE TO BE MODEST IN THOUGHT, WORD, DEED AND APPEARANCE. I DO NOT, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD MAKE US SUBJECT TO MAN-MADE LEGALISTIC DEFINITIONS OF WHAT MAKES A PERSON HOLY OR NOT HOLY.

Also, one might ask: “What does it bother you if they choose to live this way? They aren’t hurting anyone!” My answer is this: Who says they aren’t hurting anyone? If it were purely as simple as “I believe that I can be more modest by dressing a certain way, and I think this is  a good way that I personally can improve my witness”, it would be no problem. Admirable, even! The harm comes when pastors and ministers state, either implicitly or explicitly, that it is a sinful act to not abide by these rules and that doing so puts you in danger of Hell. Legalism of this sort will destroy the enthusiasm of the young convert and puts the faithful in the same shackles as the old Law. On top of that, it pretends to speak for God, a sin in and of itself. In short, I don’t believe that it’s wrong to dress a certain way in devotion to God, so long as it’s for the right reasons, and so long as you don’t attempt to force it on others and claiming it as sin to do otherwise.

With that being said, let us begin.

NO ‘SKIRTING’ AROUND  IT: THE PANTS ISSUE

The first point I’d like to make is in regards to whether or not the standards are scriptural. There are two Standards held up like the Holy Grail of Pentecost: Skirts and Uncut Hair.  First, I will address the idea that women are to only wear skirts. Oneness Pentecostals teach that women must not wear men’s clothing and vice versa. They cite Deuteronomy 22:5:

 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. Deut 22:5 (NIV)

There are a few problems with the citation of this verse.  The first is that we need to look into the Hebrew behind the English. In Adam Clark’s commentary, he writes:

“As the word…geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour  is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her.”

John Gill gives a similar explanation in his commentary:

“…and the word [keliy] also signifies armour, as Onkelos renders it; and so here forbids women putting on a military habit and going with men to war, as was usual with the eastern women; and so Maimonides illustrates it, by putting a mitre or an helmet on her head, and clothing herself with a coat of mail; and in like manner Josephus explains it, ‘take heed, especially in war, that a woman do not make use of the habit of a man, or a man that of a woman…’”

One additional source agrees, Rabbi Jon-Jay Tilsen. In his article entitled “Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5”, he writes:

“In another attempt to identify the quintessential ‘men’s items,’ Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, quoted in the Talmud (edited about 800 C.E.), says, ‘What is the proof that a woman may not go forth with weapons to war?’ He then cites our verse [Deuteronomy 22:5], which he reads this way: ‘A warrior’s gear may not be put on a woman’ (B. Naz. 59a). He reads kli gever [geber] as the homograph kli gibbor, meaning a ‘warrior’s gear’.”

To sum up, a more specific translation might say:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

It’s a reasonable conclusion to state this verse has more to do with women in the military than it does with pants and skirts. Jason Young synthesizes these arguments up in this way:

“Considering the sheer specificity of Deut 22:5 and the precise nature of those things that are forbidden, Deut 22:5 is most likely ceremonial law rather than moral law, which would mean that it would have little, if any, implications for Christians today.”

Lets’ assume, however, for the sake of argument that Deuteronomy 22 does contain laws for the modern Christian. Let’s look at some other verses in the chapter that are willfully ignored:

“8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. 10 Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.12  Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.” Deut 22:8-12 NIV

Naturally, if we’re going to observe verse 5, these verses are just as valid today, right? So let’s go through them: Do you have a fence around your roof so that no one might fall off? If not, you are in violation of 22:8. Do you garden? Do you plant multiple crops in the same plot? Violation of 22:10. Do you have any clothes that are cotton/wool blend? Violation of 22:11. Finally, if your coat doesn’t have tassels, you’re in violation of 22:12.

The book of Deuteronomy is filled with laws that aren’t for today’s Christian, and are therefore not followed. We eat pork and shrimp. We work on Saturdays. We don’t stone children who come home drunk. So why is Deuteronomy 22:5 held up as a high commandment?

Let’s forget all that scholarship and context for a moment. Let’s assume the English translation stands alone, and that it really does just say “Women aren’t to wear men’s clothing, men aren’t to wear women’s.” What defines men’s and women’s clothing? Would that really mean pants for men, skirts for women? I offer two problems with this interpretation.

First, the origin of pants presents a problem to this. For purposes of this post, I will cite a Wikipedia article. The article itself is heavily cited so feel free to research further. To quote Wikipedia:

“Trousers first enter recorded history in the 6th century BCE, with the appearance of horse-riding Iranian peoples in Greek ethnography. […] Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.”

What was that past part? “Trousers are believed to have been worn by both sexes among these early users.” In fact, the residents of Greek and Roman territories at the time of Christ found pants to be uncivilized, only worn by barbarians. It’s only when the Empire expanded beyond the Mediterranean into colder climates that pants were met with greater adoption.  It wasn’t until almost 1000 years later that pants began to gain traction as clothing exclusively for men, and even then, only in certain cultures. So when did it become sinful for women to wear pants?

As a point of interest, there are some churches that also advocate that men should not wear shorts, even though it is quite common for OP women to wear knee length skirts. There is no biblical backing for this offered at all. It’s merely to impose something on men since the bulk of holiness standards were imposed by men on women.

TO CUT OR NOT TO CUT: THE HAIR ISSUE

The second Standard I will cover is the issue of hair. Oneness Pentecostal Holiness Standards teach that a woman is never to cut her hair, even to trim it. This standard is entirely based off of 1 Corinthians 11, in which Paul discusses propriety in worship. This chapter is an excellent chapter of what happens when you forget that the inspired Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek and later translated into English by fallible men. It’s also an excellent example of reading passages in their appropriate cultural and historical context.

Take a moment and read 1 Cor. 11 if you haven’t recently. I’ll wait.

Good. Now, there are a few brief bullet points I’d like to make on this topic. I won’t flesh it out entirely because there are two articles I will link that explain this in more than enough detail, so I won’t repeat it. The points are as such:

1. Paul is speaking to a specific culture and society about specific cultural morays and traditions that are not present in today’s culture. It is commonly accepted that he was speaking of cultural issues in the Corinthian church.
2. It speaks about the Corinthian tradition of women being veiled. The veil in this tradition was quite similar to the burka worn today in certain modern cultures. If Oneness Pentecostals really wanted to follow this chapter, they would insist on their women being veiled.
3. Nowhere does it say that a woman cutting her hair at all is a sin. It states that a woman going without the veil might as well cut her hair off. There is, again, a problem from forgetting the Bible wasn’t originally written in English. The links below cover this “shorn/shaved” verb confusion in great detail.
4. The word translated as “glory” in verse 15 is grossly misapplied in Oneness Pentecostal tradition. The common interpretation used to justify the Standards implies that a woman’s uncut hair plays a role in her salvation, that by this action she is considered holy before God, and this justification is made from the word “glory”. This is  an improper reading of the Greek. While “glory” is an appropriate translation, it’s used in the same way that a sunset might be called “glorious”. This is not the type of “glory” commonly attributed to God.

Long story short: There is no scripture anywhere that says a woman shouldn’t cut her hair at all. It suggests that a woman should have long hair The chapter discusses a cultural issue affecting the first century church. We live in a different culture today with different traditions. While there are lessons to be taken from this chapter, it needs to be read in the proper context.

I have found two excellent studies of 1 Cor 11. The first (http://pastorcraigsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/silly-rollie-pollie.html)  is from a blog called “Pastor Craig’s Blog” and is written by an Assemblies of God pastor. The other (http://www.orthodoxyouth.org/1cor/html/11commentary.html)  is from a site called Orthodox Youth, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. Both of these are excellent breakdowns.

AND NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY

There are other Holiness Standards throughout the Oneness Pentecostal movement to be sure. Restrictions on jewelry range from even forbidding wedding bands to allowing sentimental pieces only. Restrictions on makeup exist in a similar spectrum, verboten in some circles, whereas cover-up and blush are allowed in others. Skirts and hair, however, seem to be universal, so that’s what I’ve devoted this much time to.

HOW IT’S APPLIED

So now that we’ve discussed the standards, I think it’s fair to take a look at how they are applied. Let’s assume, again, the strict Pentecostal interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5, that it is sinful for women to wear pants. It’s considered a clear edict on gender roles. When, then, does this apply? One would assume that if an action is sinful, it is always sinful. Therefore, a woman wearing pants in any setting, or even when alone, should be considered sin. However, anyone who knows a Pentecostal woman can tell you, they gladly wear pants when around other women or male members of their immediate family. Why is that? Does a sinful action lose its sinfulness in the presence of others? The OP will tell you “Well, it’s a modesty issue! Men in my family or other women aren’t going to look at me that way!” However, that clearly flies in the face of the interpretation of the verse used to justify the standard.  Again, Deuteronomy 22:5 is taken as an edict on gender roles. It is an abomination before God for women to wear “that which pertaineth to a man”, and pants are clearly set aside in Pentecostalism as men’s clothing. Some may flinch at my using such a strong word, but this is only one of the many hypocrisies of the OP Holiness Standards. I would respect the concept of Holiness Standards all the more if they were applied the same at all times.

But since we’re talking about modesty now, what about it? What does modesty mean? Does it simply mean making sure you’re adequately covered? Is modesty an entirely physical characteristic? Absolutely not! In fact, I’ve seen some of the most immodest behavior by Standards-abiding Pentecostals. I’ve been to OP conventions and gatherings and one thing has always, ALWAYS shocked me, and that is the incredible emphasis and status given to expensive designer clothing. You will see women carrying bags by Coach, Louis Vuitton, Burberry and other labels where the bags go for well over $500. They boast about high-dollar trips to Saks Fifth Avenue and the like. The “last night of convention” outfit is purchased and picked out with the same care given to a wedding dress (and the same cost, at that.) The men are occasionally no better. Is modesty being completely covered when your covering costs more than some middle-class paychecks? Is it simply a physical thing? Or are we to be modest in thought and action, with moderation in all things? In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit to a few extravagant purchases in my own life, such as a flat-screen TV. You could argue that a $500 fashion accessory is no worse than my TV, and I’d be obliged to listen to that argument. I would counter, however, that the Holiness Standards are a form of witnessing in Oneness Pentecostalism, and the $500 handbag might undermine that mission, whereas my TV only ensures I can be depressed by the Cleveland Browns 16 weeks a year.

Another example is how the standards are applied to particularly talented people, or people of high social standing in any given church (family of the pastor or family of a notable ministry family, for instance). The examples herein are clearly anecdotal and I will certainly not name names. If you’ve read this far, you must give some weight to my words on this topic, so it’s not a stretch for me to ask you to take my word on the truthfulness of these scenarios. I have attended two OP churches over my 10 years in the movement. Both churches were pastored by men that preached and believed the Standards. In both churches, there were many exceptionally talented musicians. (I will say this for the OP movement: the music is phenomenal.)Publically, both pastors stated that if you wanted to participate in the ministry, you must abide by the standards. However, in both churches, there were particularly talented musicians or singers, or members of the family of a high-ranking minister, who, in some form or fashion, didn’t always abide. Whether it be cutting their hair (and I don’t even mean trimming ends, I mean less than shoulder length in one case) or wearing pants (publically, no less), these people chose to disobey the Holiness Standards. By all appearances, they were either never reprimanded for this, or they were and chose to ignore it and continue to go about their routines, keeping on in whatever they were doing.

Keep in mind one big thing: I don’t think any of them did anything wrong scripturally. One might argue “But they disobeyed their pastor!” I would proffer that even a pastor is a fallible man, subject to mistakes, and not everything they teach is going to be right. You have two choices when you disagree with your pastor on a minor issue of this nature: You can either 1) throw the baby out with the bathwater and look for a pastor you never, ever disagree with (good luck and Godspeed!), or you can 2) agree to disagree on the small stuff and continue working towards the greater work of the Kingdom together. There is no verse of scripture that states that a pastor or bishop or overseer (or whatever title your church uses) is to be blindly followed without question. Anyone who tells you otherwise is worthy of suspicion of their motives.

One final example of the hypocrisy of the standards is the unequal burden placed on women as opposed to men. Women are expected to abstain from certain articles of clothing. The clothing they do wear is scrutinized as to how revealing it is. They are to abstain from makeup. They are to keep their hair uncut (even if doing so subjects them to head/neck pain. I do know people personally who suffered terrible headaches from carrying pounds of hair on their head). They are generally held up to a much higher standard than the men. Men are simply asked to keep their hair less than chin length (or shorter) and, in some churches, not wear shorts. No one has ever provided to me a logical explanation as to why this is so unequal.

SO WHAT IS HOLINESS AND MODESTY?

So, what, then, is it to be holy and modest? What do you have to do? That, my friends, is a conclusion you need to draw for yourself, because it may be different in everyone’s situation. For some, it means examining whether or not the way you dress may send a message contrary to what Christ would have you send. For others, it means abstaining from things they can’t trust themselves to partake in responsibly, like alcohol or certain forms of media. For yet another, it may mean examining the books, television, and music you consume and seeing whether or not they harm your spiritual growth. If at all you are unsure, do three things: 1) read the Bible (and study for context!), for it’s the best source of instruction; 2) pray and ask God to lead you in how you can be a better witness for his work in your life through your thoughts, words and actions, and 3) talk to a mature Christian you trust, be it a family member, minister, church elder, or the like, and ask for their advice, and then back to step one, see what the Bible says about that advice. You are not made holy or righteous through your adherence to a dress code. The Bible clearly says that even our most righteous deeds are counted as “filthy rags” (Isa 64:6) (and if you really want to know how filthy, look up what the Hebrew for ‘filthy rags’ is in that verse.) Only by faith in Christ and the Cross are we counted as righteous. (Rom 4) The Holy Spirit that fills the faithful will guide you in your walk to become more like Christ, and by following the Spirit’s leading, you will learn to better live for Christ.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I believe I have demonstrated how the common interpretations of scripture used to arrive at Pentecostal Holiness Standards are flawed. I believe I’ve demonstrated more accurate interpretations of those scriptures. I believe I have demonstrated how those flawed interpretations are applied in an inconsistent manner, and I believe I’ve demonstrated how holiness and modesty are much more than adherence to a dress code. Any holiness or righteousness we have is counted to us only by faith in Christ and Him crucified. Legalism will never make you holy and it will never bring you closer to God.

Works cited:
http://www.actseighteen.com/articles/women-pants.htm
http://pastorcraigsblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/silly-rollie-pollie.htm
http://www.orthodoxyouth.org/1cor/html/11commentary.html
http://www.freegrace.net/gill/Deuteronomy/Deuteronomy_22.htm
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=022
http://www.beki.org/crossdress.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers

Additional Resources:

Jordan Strange’s (another former OP) video commentary on the Standards (4 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ5wcGnklzs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOkUlwZL5KE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN2GobBh3to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48NpgBAVhnI

Most of us have heard of the Bible, and even read part of it. We might have a favorite passage, but perhaps we have not yet understood the whole story. How would you respond if we were asked a simple question: “What is the Bible about?” I would answer “The Bible is about Man’s fall from grace, and God’s plan to restore Man to grace.” The first part is quite clear, and I don’t believe that many, if any, people would argue that Man is, by nature, sinful. Indeed, the Bible says that “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10), and that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). We all have sinned as a result of the sinful nature inherited due to Adam & Eve’s sin in the beginning. Our morality dictates that crime deserves punishment, and sin is indeed crime against God. We are all guilty, and while we remain in our sin, we all deserve punishment.

For a time, the response to this Sin was the Mosaic covenant of law and sacrificial atonement, that is, regular animal sacrifices made continually to atone, or make up, for Man’s sin. As man was continually sinning, man needed to continually offer sacrifice to continually atone for these sins. An imperfect man could only offer an imperfect sacrifice that was imperfectly sufficient. God could have left us under this covenant of law, except he had promised us deliverance. One of the most beautiful of these prophecies is given to us by Isaiah in the 53^rd Chapter:

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

And so, we are given, in the fullness of time as prescribed by the Father, the gift of his Son, Jesus. Jesus came in to the world like any other child, but he wasn’t any other child. He was the Son of God, Emmanuel, God With Us. 100% God, 100% Man, God, the Son, came to dwell with us. For 30 years, he lived quietly like any other man, except completely free from sin. When the time came for him to begin his earthly ministry, he brought to us a message of repentance, of love, and of hope. We were told to repent for our sins, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, and his disciples baptized. We were told to love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, to love our neighbor, and to love our enemies. We were told of a hope that whosoever would believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, sent by the Father to save his people, would have eternal life and be saved from their sin: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

Jesus went throughout the countryside for 3 years, preaching this message and teaching all who will listen, and in parables, telling people the true purpose of his coming. He privately prepared his disciples for this purpose: that he must die and be raised from the dead for the sins of all mankind. He would be a perfect sacrifice, sufficient to cover all the sins of whosoever believes in him, and he would conquer death once and for all, allowing us all to have eternal life with the Father in Heaven.

So these things came to pass: He was betrayed by one of his Apostles and handed over to the authorities, who brought false charges against him. He was beaten, mocked, stripped bare, and finally, crucified. As he was set to die on the cross, he announced: “It is finished.” (John 19:30) Then, he died. The perfect sacrifice had been made, and the foundation of our salvation was laid.

He was taken down from the cross, and his body was prepared for burial. He was buried in a tomb, like any other. For three days he laid in the tomb. On the third day, when one of his apostles came to anoint the body as was the custom, she found the stone rolled away and the tomb empty. As she stood there weeping over the missing body, Jesus appeared before her, risen from the dead. He later met with two disciples on the road to a town called Emmaus, and to his Apostles. He told them that they were to go into the entire world, making disciples of all men, and baptizing all believers. First, however, they were to go to Jerusalem and wait for the promise, for he would send them another Comforter. With that, he ascended into Heaven.

Forty days later on the day of Pentecost, that promise arrived: the Holy Spirit, to dwell in all those who believe. This was promised throughout the Old Testament, and confirmed by Jesus. The Holy Spirit is a gift given to all those who put their trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and changes your life. The Apostles taught exactly what was needed to receive this spirit: to put your trust in Jesus Christ, and have faith that he was the Son of God, sent by the Father to die for our sins, and that he was raised from the dead. The Apostle Paul teaches us: “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:13-14) He also says: “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” (Romans 10:9-11)

There are three questions we must ask: The first is, what does it mean to have faith? Is faith merely knowing about these things? Chances are you’ve heard most of this before. You were aware of these events, and it’s possible that if I asked you if you knew that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, you would say yes. It’s entirely possible for someone to “know” about what Jesus did without actually believing in him. A lot of people know about Jesus. Faith, however, is deeper than just knowing. True faith takes place in your heart. It happens when you make a conscious decision to entrust your life to Jesus Christ. It is acknowledging that you are a sinner, and that without the Cross, you would be lost for eternity. It happens when you tell God: “From here on, you’re in control.” Faith comes by hearing the message of the Cross and accepting that it is for you. When you have faith and believe in Jesus, you are saved. If you merely “know” about Jesus but haven’t yet put your trust in Him to save you, you don’t have faith, and you are not saved.

The second question is: How do I know I’m saved? The easiest answer is that the Word of God tells you! As Paul said, if you believe in your heart, you will be saved. As Jesus said, whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life! These promises are enough to confirm this to us. However, the personal experience of the Holy Spirit working in your life is even stronger evidence. We are a new person in Christ. We are given the power to overcome our sinful natures, and we become a new person. We will notice a change in ourselves. We will feel the Spirit’s guidance in our lives, and we will feel compelled to live for Christ. We will bear spiritual fruit. The Apostle Paul teaches us that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” (Galatians 5:22-23)

True faith will also be born out in our actions. It’s true that we cannot be saved by our actions. By ourselves, nothing we do can possibly outweigh the sin in our life. The Apostle Paul teaches us that “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) However, if Faith is a fire, good works are the light it gives off. Where there is fire, there is light. The Apostle James writes “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:14-17) He goes on to say “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” (James 2:26) A fire without light is no fire at all, and a faith that is not acted out daily is no faith at all. It is merely “knowing”, and not truly believing.

The third question we must ask is: What should we do after we are saved? The first thing you should do is be baptized! In baptism, we identify with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, and we proclaim our faith in Christ. Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize, and Peter repeated this when he commanded the new believers on the day of Pentecost to be baptized; in fact, the first thing the 3,000 that believed on the day of Pentecost did was to be baptized. The Apostle Peter wrote that baptism is the “pledge of a clear conscience toward God.” (1 Peter 3:21)

You should also find a church where the Gospel is preached and the teachings of the Bible are shared. There are many different styles of churches, and they all have different styles of worship. They might even have different interpretations of certain teachings. However, a true Christian church will not stray from the essential doctrines of Christianity: that there is one God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A true church will teach about Jesus Christ, the Son, who suffered, died, and was buried. A true church will proclaim a salvation that is by grace through faith alone, and will baptize all believers. And finally, it will do all these things in accordance with scriptures, not by the authority or dictation of man but by the Bible which is the inspired Word of God. Your church family will be a source of strength in times of weakness, a source of learning as you grow in your Christian walk and a source of fellowship with others who share the joy of salvation.

Finally, you should strive to daily grow in your relationship with Christ. Study the scriptures daily to see what they say about how a Christian should live. Read to find guidance and comfort in the struggles of daily life. Search the scriptures to be sure that what you are taught comes from God and not from Man. The Apostle Peter taught “For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.” (2 Peter 1:5-9)

The Bible is clear about these things. There is much more to Christianity, which you will learn as you grow in your Christian life. First things, however, are first: We need to be saved, and the Bible tells us how.

Scriptures taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com.

The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Your first paper assignment is two-fold. First, you will describe the earliest memory you have. Be as specific and detailed as possible. Describe what you remember seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, thinking, feeling. Depending on the strength (and length!) of your memory, this section of the paper might be anywhere from two paragraphs to two pages long.

Next, analyze why this particular memory may be so clear to you. Do you still experience similar reactions/emotions? Has this memory taught you something important or shaped your current lifestyle choices? Or, do you think this memory is a coincidence and says nothing about the person you have become?

Here is my submission:

It’s Natural To Abhor A Vacuum

My Earliest Memory

Most, if not all, of the memories from my early childhood center around interactions between the two siblings I lived with: my sister, Stephanie, with whom I share both parents and my half-brother, David, who is my mother’s son from her first marriage. I am the youngest and David is the oldest, and we are all separated by two years. The particular memory I have chosen may not be sequentially the first memory I have, but it is the earliest complete and concrete memory I have surrounding a specific event.

My siblings and I had a tendency to play rough. We would play games like “tackle”, which is essentially where one of us would stand next to the bed and the other would get a running head start and then throw themselves at the other, tackling them violently on the bed. This usually only went one or two rounds, until I got hurt. I was a very small child, and my brother was a rather large child. This particular memory, however, centers around a game we came up with one day, and in the end, we only played it once. One of us, and to this day it is disputed as to who, came up with the idea for “The Hitting Game”. There were two rules: 1) we each could take turns hitting each other as hard as we like, and 2) we weren’t allowed to tell on each other. I was somewhere around age 4 ½ at this time, making my sister 6 ½, and my brother 8 ½. I weighed all of 30 pounds, and by that age, my brother weighed close to 100 pounds. The odds were definitively stacked in his favor, but I was only 4 ½ and thusly I didn’t understand odds and probabilities yet.

The game started with my sister. She took her best shot at me, a rather flimsy hook to the shoulder. She dealt a similar blow to my brother. The first round complete, my brother decided he should be next. He took the opportunity to deliver a club-like blow to the back of both my sister and myself. It was heavy, it was substantial, and it hurt. A lot. Round two was over, and it was looking like we had a clear winner. However, as stated, there are only two rules. My 4 ½ year old brain decided that the absence of a rule on a matter meant that I was free to make up my own. So I took my shot at my sister, but it was half-hearted. I hit her only slightly harder than she had hit me. The deciding point in the contest was at hand; it was time for me to hit my brother as hard as I could, and he couldn’t tell on me.

I eyed our surroundings and chose my weapon quickly. The Fisher-Price Magic-Vac™ swung quickly and struck true. My brother’s eyes went wide, and his hands went to his mouth. My mother, who had taken that opportunity to walk in just in time to see the coup de grâce delivered, gasped in horror. She had just finished mopping and cleaning the linoleum floor that had been installed that week. My sister laughed. David sprinted towards the kitchen, and almost made it to the sink. It was like a slow motion action scene in a movie. The shout went up from my mother.

“DAVID! Don’t spit blood on our new-“

Too late. The mouthful of blood ruined the last hour’s work. The skittering of a front tooth could be heard. It really was nice linoleum.

“- floor. Stephanie, go find that tooth. David, get to the sink. STEPHEN MICHAEL, GET TO YOUR ROOM.”

That’s about where any agreement on what happened ends. From there, neither myself nor my siblings really remember what happened.

As to the significance of that memory, I think it speaks less to who I was or am as a person, and more to just being a childhood story we like to tell and retell at family gatherings every year. Unlike a lot of stories, it hasn’t gained much in embellishment over the years. It’s been nearly 21 years since that happened, and the story is still told the same today as it was when I was 10. I think the charm in it, and the reason it stands out so much and is still retold today, comes from the strange juxtaposition of what might be the most harmless and benign children’s toy ever – the Fisher-Price Magic-Vac™ – and the violence of it all.  Beyond that, there isn’t a whole lot of analysis I can offer, beyond the harsh lesson my brother learned that day: if you’re going to play the Hitting Game, you have to be willing to pay the Fisher-Price.

Opposing coach has pole-vaulter disqualified for wearing friendship bracelet

This one just gave me a headache. During a track meet, the coach of Monrovia High School, Mike Knowles, decided that if his team couldn’t beat their opponents, South Pasadena, with actual talent and ability, he would rules-lawyer his way to a victory by pointing out that an opponent was wearing a friendship bracelet. Citing a “no jewelry” rule, he had that opponent (who had just made the winning pole vault) disqualified. Good job, Knowles. Coach ‘em up. What lesson does this teach?

Texas Third-Grader given one week’s detention for having a Jolly Rancher during lunch

A lot of school districts have adopted “no minimally-nutritious foods” policies, barring the sale of pop and candy in lunch rooms. My local school district pulled their pop machines out 5 or so years ago. However, most of those policies say that parents can still pack whatever lunch they want to. Anywho, this third grader was caught with a *gasp* Jolly Rancher. The school decided that, under the policy, they had to give this girl a weeks’ worth of detention. You see, her mother hadn’t packed the Jolly Rancher – it was given to her by a friend. The mother decided to use the incident as a teaching point: “I told her, ‘Leighann, unfortunately you’re learning very young that life’s not fair.” Smart mom, dumb school district.

Finally, one more video.  This guy decided that he wanted a job at one of the prestigious marketing firms in his area. He based his plan around the fact that people tend to Google their own names. So, he bought Google Adwords for the names of a lot of execs from these law firms.

That’s all for now!

I decided to follow up by checking out Brian Windhorst’s Twitter and sure enough, I found these gems:

LeBron: “I spoil a lot of people with my play. When you have 3 bad games in a 7-year career, it is easy to point that out.”

and

LeBron: “I put a lot of pressure on myself to go out be great and the best player on the court. When I’m not, I feel bad for myself.”

Is that so, Mr. James? Well, consider this an open response from the fans you play for.

Spoil? You SPOIL us? Spoiled would be if we got your level of performance out of a guy we gave the mid-level exception to. Last time I checked, the Cleveland Cavaliers pay you every last penny they are allowed to pay you under league rules. They pay you like a superstar, like you’re the best of the best. You are EXPECTED to be GREAT night in, night out. Yeah, we get it. The shots not always going to fall, not every night’s going to be a triple double. But you know what last night was? It was just pathetic. You were lazy and inefficient on defense, you were slow or sloppy when passing the ball, you were uncommitted when driving the lane. You did NOT earn your game check. I found this video on ESPN.COM to sum it up better than I could:

You played soft in every aspect of the game. You were slow, you were sluggish, you seemed disinterested, and unmotivated. You did NOT look like a champion. I was pretty young when Michael Jordan was in his prime, but I remember enough about those days to know that MJ never, EVER would have let a game like last night’s happen. He would hold his team accountable, he would hold his coach accountable, and most importantly, he would hold himself accountable.  He wouldn’t shrug his shoulders and say, and I quote, “I feel bad for myself.” That’s what makes it so very much worse.

You should feel bad. You should feel terrible. You should feel ashamed. But you should also feel sorry for letting down your team, your coach, and your fans. You should have come out first, before Mike Brown, sat down, and apologized. For letting someone come into OUR house and embarrass us like that. For not giving 100%. For not being a max-contract player. Because all of those things are YOUR responsibility. We show up, we buy the tickets, we wear the gear, we patronize the sponsors, you play winning basketball. That’s the deal. No one expects you to go “fo’, fo’, fo’, fo’”, but last night was unacceptable.

I’m not usually ‘get angry about sports’ guy. Today I am. I don’t take kindly to being called spoiled by millionaire athletes with McMansions and shoe deals. And you shouldn’t take kindly to being punked in your own house. But you were, and you rolled over.

Grow up. You wanna be like Mike? Be like him. Be a man. Be angry. Get fired up. Be aggressive. Just… do the opposite of whatever dreck that was you pulled out last night.

Edit: LeBron spoke again today, so I figure I might want to give a look at what he said 18 hours later.

So LeBron attributed last night’s abomination to an “off” night. “Off?” Apparently, he also has a talent for understatement. He went on to imply that the issue wasn’t effort, but possibly poor coaching:

“We tried to do the things we wanted to do with the gameplan that was given to us but it just didnt’ work.”

Welp. That definitely doesn’t sound like Mike, Kobe, Magic, or any of the other greats. The only true voice of reason about the whole thing has been Dan Gilbert. The following quotes were from an interview with Brian Windhorst of the Plain Dealer.

Our entire franchise has done everything in its power to put all of our players and its coaching staff in the best possible position to execute when it counts. And to deliver to the highly supportive fans of Cleveland a proud, intense, impassioned all-out drive to achieve a championship.”The last two home playoff losses and the manner in which we lost these games does not come close to being anywhere near the high expectations all of us have of our organization. Our fans and supporters deserve more. Above all, the fans of the Cleveland Cavaliers, as well as the entire franchise, deserve and need our players and coaches to dig deep within themselves. We have to ask ourselves two questions. Will we remember who we are and choose to impose our will on our opponent for the remainder of this series and beyond? And how much do we want it? I believe in our players, our coaching staff and our entire franchise. This series is not over.

That right there is what we needed to hear. But NOT from the Owner. Our Franchise Player needed to drop that knowledge, and he didn’t. He shrugged it off, threw out some soundbites about everything other than the issue at hand, and took off.

I hope, at the very least, that he was paying attention to the man who writes his checks. Because if not, might as well call it a year.

- If you bet money on the fact that midway through the second quarter, both LeBron James and Rajon Rondo would both be oh-fer from the field, first collect your winnings, and then check yourself into a addiction treatment facility because you obviously have a wild gambling problem.

- I just lost my Dish Network feed of the game.

I'm pretty sure this is how he picks his
rotations.

- In the Forumopolis NBA PLayoffs thread, I made the comparison between Mike Brown and Romeo Crennel:

Romeo Crennel was a wildly successful defensive coordinator under one of the best coaches in the history of his sport. He had so much success and was a part of so many good teams, that he “earned” the right to be a head coach.

Mike Brown was a wildly successful assistant coach under one of the best coaches in the history of his sport. He was so good at his job and had so much success, that he “earned” the right to be a head coach.

What happened to both of them from there is pretty obvious: They both showed that they really aren’t very good head coaches. Romeo Crennel had absolutely nothing in the way of clock management skills and was very slow to make the proper adjustments necesary to keep his teams in position to win games. Mike Brown has very easily gets flustered and has trouble (some days, he never gets it right) putting the right rotation in place to counter an opponent’s game plan. Eventually, it cost Romeo the respect of the locker room, he lost control of the team, and then he lost his job. I think Mike Brown will find that if he doesn’t coach the Cavs to a championship this year,  he will meet a similar fate.

The Next Bernie Kosar. Quote me.

- Speaking of the Browns, call me a stupid homer,  but I am pretty optimistic about the upcoming Browns season. When Mike Holmgren came in and quickly put the Josh Cribbs situation to bed in the proper manner, it eased the fears of a lot of us Clevelanders. Most, if not all, of us in C-town (and yes, for the purposes of Sports, I am a Clevelander) were made curious by the signing of Seneca Wallace, and curiouser by the signing of Jake DelHomme. We breathed a sigh of relief when Derek Anderson was cut, and were upset but also okay to see Brady Quinn go. The draft, however, is what made everything OK for me.

Haden gives us the true #1 corner we’ve been lacking. Eric Wright is just always going to be a #2, and Brandon McDonnell is too busy beating women (allegedly) to be a reliable corner. The second round brought two wildcards. TJ Ward hopefully can overcome his injury riddled past and fill some holes in the defensive backfield, and Montario Hardesty could give a great 1-2 punch with Jerome Harrison in the running game. Most of the more successful running games in the NFL rely on a two-back system, and Jennings hasn’t shown himself to be a reliable option either at the 1 or 2.

Then came the money-maker. Colt “The Next Bernie Kosar” McCoy. I just like this kid. He looked good every week in college, a four year starter who was a true team leader, and showed himself to be an excellent student of the game. IF you haven’t seen his film session with Jon Gruden, head over to ESPN.com and check it out. Mike Holmgren knows quarterbacks. If Mike Holmgren says that Colt McCoy could be the Browns franchise quarterback, then I believe him.

With some decent free agent pickups, like Scott Fujita, long story short, I see 7-9 as a minimum for the Brownies next season, and I don’t think 9-7 is out of the question.

- Half time at the Cavs game. Rondo still doesn’t have any points, but LeBron still looks like something’s bothering him. He still doesn’t have any field goals, and I haven’t seen him take a perimeter shot yet.

- The Indians are just terrible, and that’s really unfortunate. I really thought coming out of spring training we were at LEAST a .500 team. But alas, it’s not to be. Looking like a 45-117 year is what we’re going to have the joy of watching this year. I guess this is Manny Acta’s free year. Next year better be different. But I’m almost certain they aren’t getting any of my money unless they get back in the neighborhood of .500.

Well, the second half is about to start, and my Dish Network feed is back. So with that, I have one more thought.

C’mon, Cavs…

Do it for Craig Ehlo

Do it for Ehlo shirt available at ILoveTheHype.com