The first night, the scams came early. I ended up buying three bottles of water at the airport when I only really wanted one and our taxi didn’t take us where we wanted to go, probably because the driver wasn’t getting a commission from the hotel where we were going. This left us on the streets on Delhi, two westerners toting backpacks, in the middle of the night. I’m not sure I’d prayed for so many things to happen instantly in my entire life. But the main thing I was looking for was God’s protection.

Soon after walking the streets, looking for our hotel we became bombarded by all sorts of people. Many were auto rickshaw drivers (basically a dude driving a motorcycle with a cab on the back) and others were just asking for various other things. No quickly became the most common word of the night.

After a couple of uncomfortable, and frankly scary, hours we finally found a different hotel to stay at. We had found where we were supposed to be, but couldn’t actually get there thanks to walls and closed gates. God did indeed show His protection on us.

As the trip went on, we became better at handling the constant bombardment from people. Every shop owner tried to lure us in, every taxi driver tried to rip us off and every touristy place we went was complete swarm of people trying to sell us something. Again no, was our answer.

It can be defeating to become so rude. I actually started feeling bad at how mean I had to become. A simple no or no thanks didn’t work. Only angry no’s did. As a Christian, I struggled with who I had been forced to become. I’ve always believed Christians should act differently to show how God changes us when we believe, yet I had to resort to meanness on this trip. I still haven’t fully figured out how I could have acted differently.

How about you? Are there times where you find you have to stray from who you really are to survive something like a trip to a foreign country? If so, how do you deal with it?

(As a side note, I’m not completely down on India. Our trip had some highlights as well, which I’ll write about next week.)

Unfortunately, I’ve seen enough in our Christian culture—even in the last week—to know this is not some rare ugly example of how Christians can treat fellow believers with whom they don’t agree. Arguments are fine, but why do we seem so quick to turn to hatred, discrediting and exclusivity when we come upon a brother or sister who we deem too conservative, too liberal, too fundamentalist, etc?

(Reminder: Quick Thought is a quick post for you to respond to with your first reactions and thoughts. The goal is to keep comments short, too. Maybe a couple sentences but no more than 100 words or so.)

Rev. Dottie Escobedo-Frank says, “This is what it means to be a church. We’re just trying to take care of some people who are hungry and trying to reach out to our neighborhood.”

The city says it’s glad the church is helping out, but wants them to be in an appropriately zoned area.

So what do you think? Is the church in the right? Should they move the breakfast outreach elsewhere? Do they need to be good neighbors and respect the wishes of people around them? Or is this another case of residents over-reacting?

Awards make me uncomfortable.

The Oscars take place this Sunday, and I can’t think of a more brazen example of self-glorification in contemporary America. Don’t get me wrong, I love watching the Academy Awards, and maybe if I ever won something like an Oscar or a Pulitzer Prize or a Nobel I’d feel differently about this whole honoring system. Yet I sometimes wonder if our current, awards-obsessed society isn’t uncomfortably similar to the culture that built the Tower of Babel – the people who believed their achievements matched those of God. At what point does professional praise cross over into blasphemous hubris?

There is something inherently unseemly about awards, especially when they are sought out by the honorees. I’ve worked for newspapers for 16 years, and the annual rite of scouring through a year’s worth of stories and photos and designs, trying to decide which to enter into various journalism contests, has always struck me as an icky task. Likewise, the campaigning that goes on by the studios and stars during the Oscar season reeks of neediness and desperation. Can’t the work speak for itself?

Of course, awards serve crucial functions beyond the flattering of egos. A paper that claims a newsroom full of trophies and plaques will be seen as a more accomplished and trustworthy outlet to potential subscribers and advertisers. An Oscar winner suddenly has new found power in Hollywood, enabling him or her to take on risky creative projects that would otherwise never see the light of day.

Awards have their practical functions, then, but I still see them as necessary evils. And as I watch the starlets parade down the red carpet, reveling in the bright applause of countless flashbulbs, or see the producers and directors standing triumphantly on the stage, hoisting their golden statues high in the air, part of me wonders if we aren’t all getting a little too big for our britches, as grandmas are fond to say. Those giant Oscar statues that stand guard outside the Kodak Theatre during the Academy Awards ceremony seem to be getting taller ever year. How long until they reach as high as the Tower of Babel?

Sure enough, a picture of me fervently praying was shown on the big screens in a general session montage the next night. That was me in a private time with God—displayed for everyone. I wasn’t ashamed to be shown in worship, but it felt like a private moment was being used publicly, almost like an advertisement for the conference’s great worship. I didn’t make a big deal of it, but it bugged me. And obviously, it was strange enough for me that I’ve remembered it all these years.

I thought of this episode on Sunday when I attended the National Religious Broadcasters convention church service. During worship, cameramen—with video cameras equipped with bright lights—walked through the darkened crowd to capture footage of worshiping singers. Their images graced the giant screens on either side of the stage. During the sermon, cameramen again streamed through the aisles to capture attendees flipping through their Bibles and listening. Without a doubt, it was disruptive. I also wonder about the appropriateness.

Even in corporate worship, shouldn’t personal communion with God remain somewhat private and intimate? Or does this fall under the category of being–like David—completely unbothered by who sees us worship and how? I don’t think I have any qualms with being “undignified and humiliated in my own eyes” when in front of my God. However, I also don’t think my worship needs to be used and broadcast—especially when it could feel like my worship is used to “sell” the effectiveness of the service.

Thinking this through has made me see that staging a worship event is a tricky prospect; media ministers at churches have difficult strategy decisions to make. There’s the tension of wanting to involve people who are not up front with wanting to be respectful. There’s the tension of entertaining with establishing a worshipful mood.

What do you think: Is there a line not to be crossed when it comes to filming private, intimate time with God? How do you draw that line? Are you even bothered by churches or worship planners filming or taking pictures people in worship? Why or why not?

As many of you know, James Dobson retired from his Focus on the Family radio show last week.

Honestly, I’ve never been a huge fan but it’s all mainly for how political he became, which is really a shame because there are good ministry programs coming from Focus on the Family. Matthew Paul Turner wrote a post on his blog reminding me of some of the groundbreaking things Dobson did as well.

The reason why I am thankful for Dr. Dobson is because he was the first “famous Christian” that I heard who talked at length about clinical depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, borderline personality, antidepressants, and other mental health topics. That might not seem like a big deal today considering numerous Christians discuss their mental anguish on broadcasts, in books, and on blogs. But back in the 80s and early 90s, many Christians deemed those topics “hogwash.”

How about you? What are your reflections on Dobson’s exit? Does his involvement in politics taint the work of his ministry?

Anyway…I came across this video featuring Chad Hedrick. He’s a USA speed skater who won the bronze in the 1000m race in Vancouver (to add to his gold, silver and bronze from Torino in 2006).

In the video, he talks about his faith as an athlete and how it can be perceived by others. He says:

I have guys from the media talking to me all the time and I tell them I want to have a great time, make special memories with my family, and if I go there and give 100 percent and it’s not enough, I know God has a path for me, and that‘s the path that I’m going to follow. They interpret that as: I’m soft, I’ve lost my competitive edge, I’m not very confident. But they really don’t understand; and I’m hoping throughout the Olympics and Vancouver that they see that I am still very competitive, and that you can be a Christian and still be a competitive person.

How about you? Can it be tough to balance being a Christian and being competitive? Does knowing if an athlete is Christian change to way you root for them in an event?

(This video came from the website Beyond the Ultimate which has a list of Christian Olympians and features their stories.)

A group of Anglican British bishops are urging Christians to reduce their carbon footprint during Lent. According to the USA Today, the bishops are asking people to at least go a day without using their iPod, cell phone or other technology. The goal is to use less electricity which will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide put into the air.

Rev. Richard Chartres says man made climate change has a big impact on poor people in developing countries. He says, ”[The] Carbon Fast [is] an opportunity to demonstrate the love of God in a practical way.”

A second article from The Christian Post highlights a move by the National Council of Churches to focus on clean water during Lent. The organization says billions of people around the world don’t have access to clean water or proper sanitation. They’ve created a blog to help Christians pray, study and take action to help provide more clean water around the world.

The NCC’s Jordan Blevins says, “Water is symbolic of our relationship with God, carrying the image of renewal, promise, and hope. Focusing on the global water, sanitation, and hygiene crisis for the Lenten journey brings us into better relationship with God, and all of God’s people.”

When I hear of people giving up stuff for Lent, often times it’s focusing on something personal, like giving up a certain food. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But what about joining together with other Christians to show some sort of larger impact this Lent? Any thoughts?

Today, Tiger Woods broke his public silence regarding his extramarital affairs by saying he was “so sorry” for his irresponsible and selfish behavior. He admitted and apologized for disappointing his fans and causing them pain. “I have a lot to atone for, ” he said.

This apology was expected and widely called for. Many have been debating whether or not he owed any explanation or apology to fans. Yesterday, my favorite sports radio show, ESPN’s syndicated Mike & Mike in the Morning, took a fascinating angle on why the public wanted Tiger to say he was sorry for his personal failings and indiscretions. Their conversation really got me thinking about celebrity failure and our desire for information.

Here is what Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic had to say:

Greenberg: [The American public] now expects that someone in Tiger Woods’ situation has to open up everything in himself and explain it to the satisfaction of every single person in the world. That’s the world we live in now because so many people chose to do that for their own personal gain. … I keep hearing people say that he needs to apologize. What exactly is he apologizing for? If Tiger Woods walked up to you in the street and said, “Hi Fred, I am sorry” what would you expect him to be saying he’s sorry for?

Golic: Do you think people really want an apology or do they want The National Enquirer stuff?

Greenberg: Here’s what they want: They want Tiger to hold up a picture of each individual woman we’ve seen on the covers of the tabloids and explain what really happened with each one.

Golic: Everybody is saying “apology this, apology that” but what they really want is the dirt. … They want to hear him explain his situation. Was everyone happy when the baseball players got up there in press conferences and said they were sorry [for using steroids]? No, they wanted to hear the details. ... If you get up there and say you’re sorry, the general public will be going, “That’s it? An apology? Give me more than that!”

What do you think? Did Tiger owe us an apology? Why or why not?

Should we be looking at ourselves in the mirror about why we want to hear celebrities apologize and reveal private information?

And finally, what did you think of what he had to say today?

It verges on blasphemy to question “The Blind Side.”

Not only has the movie garnered Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress, it has also made an unexpected $241 million – and counting. What’s more, the picture has been wholeheartedly embraced by scores of American churchgoers. Sermons are even being fashioned around it.

I thought the film was a crock. Yes, I realize it is based on a true story, that of Leigh Anne and Sean Tuohy, a wealthy, white Christian couple in Memphis, Tenn., who took in a homeless black teen named Michael Oher and nurtured him to an eventual career in the National Football League. Good for all three of them – they should be proud of taking huge risks and defeating overwhelming odds. I only wish “The Blind Side” had given us an honest sense of their sacrifice and struggle.

As presented in the film, the Tuohys essentially adopt a pet. Oher, played by Quinton Aaron, comes into their lives without much trouble or disruption – indeed, you get the sense that training a new puppy would present more difficulty. The lack of character given to Oher – he gets maybe a dozen lines – is insulting. (It may also be one reason the real-life Oher has been noticeably absent from the studio’s publicity machine).

Nearly everything in “The Blind Side” is incredibly easy. Issues of assimilation, racial identity and prejudice are glossed over, quickly dismissed or ignored altogether. What I can only imagine were huge hurdles for the Tuohy family are often tidily handled.

Take, for instance, the fact that the Tuohys have a teen daughter who is slightly younger than Michael. When Leigh Anne (Oscar nominee Sandra Bullock) asks her daughter, Collins, if she is uncomfortable having Michael in the house, the girl replies that all the people making jokes at school are being stupid. Cut to her friends snickering in the school library when Michael walks in and Collins leaving them to join Michael at his table. Problem solved, or avoided?

“The Blind Side” offers every single heroic moment that may have taken place in this true story, but not the times of real doubt and struggle that surely came before. It is the opposite approach of that taken by the similarly themed “Precious,” a fellow Best Picture nominee. That rough, graphic and notably less financially successful movie – about an obese, illiterate 16-year-old girl trapped in an abusive home – is all struggle, with a minimally happy ending.

Ultimately, “The Blind Side” presents a misleading portrait of Christianity as a religion free of trials and tribulations. According to the picture, being a Christian means having a lot of money, wearing a cross around your neck and plucking an impoverished kid from the projects on your way home from lunch with your society friends. But is living a faithful life this sunny, this simplistic?

Obviously I’m in the minority on this one. Did “The Blind Side” rub anyone else the wrong way? Those of you who loved the movie, what am I missing?