After seeing a Punisher logo married to the same rear window as a Bush campaign sticker, I began to think about how strange it was that Marvel Comics's The Punisher finds its primary audience and writership in the form of liberals, Democrats, and the socially compassionate.

Why? Because the Punisher is an essentially conservative "hero" (well, maybe more facist that conservative, but I still think he's a lot closer to conservative than to liberal). Frank Castle, the man whose insanity gives way to vigilante acts in the guise of the black-clad, skull-beknighted Punisher, is not about rehabilitating criminals. He does not care if environmental conditions contribute to deterioration of one's morality to the point where he turns to crime. He does not give mercy depending on one's background. He does what his name implies, and does so with extreme prejudice. He is, perhaps, comics's Number One supporter of capital punishment.

And so it seems fitting to see the Punisher wedded to the Republican party in such a way.

What it more baffling, however, is the fact that the majority of his fans wouldn't vote for George Bush if you promised them a three-year's subscription to the comic and a leather jacket sporting that ghastly skull face with the long, bunny teeth. They are against capital punishment. They support rehabilitation. Many are active supporters of a legalized drug trade. In real life, they would loathe a fascist pig like Frank Castle. And it goes without saying that the writers who pen Frank's adventures every month are as liberal (or moreso) than his readers.

My only answer to this strange disparity is that what we want out of our fantasy is something so utterly unlike what we are that outsiders will be baffled. I guess. Either that, or Democrats are getting tired of not killing bad guys, tired of sympathizing, tired of holding to Anne Frank's tired old naivete: deep down inside, people are basically good.

As it turns out, Adrian Warnock, the mind behind the other Decablog is really a stand-up guy. Over the weekend, we spoke about the dual-naming gaff and it turns out he was unaware of the pre-existence of another Deca. He was, understandably, so excited about coming up with the name (and I blush to admit, rightly so!) that he just ran with it. He apologized sincerely for the mistake and offered to rescind the name - and I might add, graciously. No, the threats of ten plagues were entirely unnecessary. So all of you ten-plaguers, back off. No, I mean it. Mr. Warnock is now under my protection, so take your plagues back whence them plagues done come or you'll be messing with me.

And you know what that means! You'll awake one morning with your belly button undone. And you no what that means! You'll awake to find your belly flapping loose in the wind. And you know what that means! You'll awake to find your dance card conspicuously empty as no one wants to put up with that kind of belly nonsense. And you know what that means! The doom of the world, my poor, plague-ridden friend. The doom of the world.

So to recap: Adrian Warnock: good man. Conclusion: lessons learned. My thoughts: give the man his props.

As usual, I'm depressed about the state of the church and consternated as a result of the lack of Christian-ness I see in Christianity. The latest thing to bother me (or at least the latest thing that both bothers me and seems vaguely blogworthy) is the church's treatment of both homosexuals and homosexual believers. The dearth of love, charity, and mercy I see coming from the body of Christ seems at odds with the preponderance of love, charity, and mercy I see exuded from the heart of Christ.

Not only do we have the rampant and evident disdain/hate poured out from fringe groups like godhatesfagsDOTcom and the still-fringe-yet-not-so-fringe-as-they-might-be Religious Rightifiers such as Dobson and Falwell), but the average evangelical/Reformed protestant is just as intolerant - only less apoplectic about it. Just some everyday examples to bolster my point:

• Heard thoughts on a just-seen movie: "Oh, it was pretty good - except one of the main characters was gay."
• Heard why someone won't see a particular movie: "Nah, Ian McKellen is a flamer - that's just gross."
• Heard the reason someone doesn't wish to shop at the only adequate art supply store in South Orange County: "Yeah, right I'm gonna shop there. Everybody's gay."
• Heard of someone's eternal state: "No, he's not a Christian - he's gay."

I mean, these are just a couple examples in a panoply of such anecdotes. These little snippets are fraughting throughout the moments that make up my day. And they embarrass me.

And I think I'd be on safe ground betting that they also embarrass our Christ.

The most common defense I've heard of this sort of mind-set or behaviour is that we - as believers, as the made-righteous - ought to be disgusted by the corruption of sin. And yes, I agree. Sin should always be revulsive to us, yet how often do we hear someone say things like, "Well, it was a pretty good movie - except one of the main characters was lazy." Or "Well, I would shop there, but all the employees are materialistic." Or "Nope. He's not a Christian - he over eats."

I'm not sure the exact source of the problem, why we as a Christian culture have decided to demonize one sin (and those struck along that particular bent) above and beyond others. But I do know that many of us have no problem with rooting for the gunfighter who is motivated by greed and revenge in a film that is a glorification of greed and revenge (a la The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly), yet we get all weirded out by God's and Monsters (about a young man who befriends an aging film director who swings the other way). I don't know what the answer is, but I know our collective hypocrisy does damage to our witness.

And which of us are without sin, really? One the one hand, if we are redeemed and have victory over sin, we should still be sane enough to look back, remember the circumstances from which we have come and regard with gentle concern and appreciation the struggles with which others wrestle. And on the other, how many of us still struggle with sins that were abiding with us even back before we were converted of hearts and minds? For every example of a Christian who was able to quit drug use cold-turkey without the slightest hint of a further desire, there are five who though free from the stuff, still live with that particular monkey on their shoulder day-in and day-out. It's the same with sex, sloth, anger, hate, gluttony, pride, greed, and gossip. There are believers whom God has ordained to struggle with a particular sin for all their earthly days. So why is it so difficult for us to believe that a real Christian can't be homosexually oriented, struggling in the midst of their chastity?

And in the end, is the buoyant gay neighbor any worse that the friendly and patriotic agnostic neighbor who likes to believe that all religions hold a little bit of truth. Many of us are happy to hold a neighborly conversation with the agnostic neighbor but are self-conscious and weirded out by the idea of actually being friendly with the nice guy next door with the slightly funny lisp.

This needs to stop. There is so little of Christ in us in these moments. So little love. So little charity. So little memory of just what we were saved from. So little of the Great Commission spirit in us.

If you're one of the ones who really has a difficult time imagining not retching at the idea of enjoying a movie with a gay hero or shopping in a store with a lisping, pretty man, I highly recommend browsing some of the writings of Misty Irons and her collection of thoughts: Musings on Christianity, Homosexuality, and the Bible. And please, do so with a compassionate heart, remembering what Christ did for you. I've found them to be almost universally helpful on these matters. Her honesty with regard to her own feeling is disarming as well. And, yes, she (and her husband) has taken a lot of flack for her compassion from those who can't help but continue to hate (ironic that they should sin so boldly in their condemnation of sin).

Welcome to Microsoft, USA!
So how is it exactly that people can get away with this:

I think from now on I will call my website Microsoft. I mean, if ripping off established branding is the order of the day, then I say, go strong or go home. [p.s., please don't hurt me Mr. Gates - I'm only kidding about the whole renaming my site thing - I know you love green to be associated with me and not you and so I'll respect that. Like I know you respect me :) ]

Though news reports were a bit premature, here, as I suggested it would be are 50 guilty pleasures - movies I love to love, but am slightly sheepish about loving to the depth and width and height to which I do.

My Top 25 Guilty Pleasures (Film)

1 - Flash Gordon

With a complete soundtrack by Queen, really, how could this go wrong? Fact: it couldn't. Complete with maniacal laughter, push-button disasters, Journey-esque mind-tripping effects, coloured midgets (red, blue, etc.), and a theme song that screams: "Flash! Ah-ah! Saviour of the universe! He saved every one of us!" Beauty bottled.

2 - Evil Dead II

As if Evil Dead weren't already one of the most amazing films ("it's so funny and violent"), within the first half is a scene of such comic proportions that better laughs may never be elsewhere found: a laughing deer hear and a dancing lamp. (confession: the dendriphilia scene from the prequel is up there too).

3 - Mallrats

A movie about two chumps who hangout at the mall, pining over loves lost. That this movie could be redeemable is brute tribute to the comedic prowess of one Jason Lee: sk8r, lover, liver of dreams.

4 - Hudson Hawk

Debatably Bruce Willis's best movie. Definitely his best ill-received movie. I once heard that he regretted making this. I respected him a great deal before hearing this tidbit. Keep in mind, it's the turgid tale of love, death, and one man's quest for an elusive capuccino.

5 - Trojan War

Changes $1 bills to 4 quarters or to 3 quarters, 2 dimes, and 1 nickel.

6 - Six-String Samurai

If I were you, I'd run! "If you were me, you'd be good-lookin'." 'Nuff said. 'Nuff said.

7 - Tampopo

The strangest, funniest, spookiest comedy about food ever devised.

8 - The Sea Hawk/Captain Blood

While The Sea Hawk definitely has better-put-together sea battles, Captain Blood definitely has a more engaging story. Still, like most blockbusters, being a "good" movie was never a concern.

9 - Secret Admirer

This is the romance-comedy (of errors) upon which I cut my teeth as a youngster. Lori Laughlin = to die for. (yet not in a Lauren Bacall sort of way.)

10 - THEM!

When you or I eat radioctive sugar, we die. When ants eat radioactive sugar, we die. Therefore, the villain of this film is not the obvious patsy - the giant ants that kill people - rather, it is the sugar. Beware the sugar. Perhaps it should be retitled: SUGAR!

11 - Red Dawn

Wolverines!!!

12 - Empire Records

Rory Cochrane's strangely sage Lucas is the reason to watch - but the side benefits are getting to see both Liv Tyler's and Renee Zellweger's best roles to date.

13 - Return of the King

Despite the weird Rankin/Bass animation and the plainly awful songs (though not as bad as the Rankin/Bass The Hobbit), I cannot not love this. In many ways superior to the recent Peter Jackson rip-off.

14 - Cemetary Man

Okay. A guy who works in a cemetary whose job is to keep its frisky residents where they belong? How could that not be on the list. Haven't seen it since it came out who knows how long ago - but even the trailer was simply wonderful.

15 - Deep Impact

Don't ask me why, but for some reason this is the one disaster movie that actually resonates with me. Plus, the president of America is black and that just seems even more improbably than the fact that astronauts blow up a comet before it hits the Earth. I mean, this is America, efter all.

16 - Real Genius

If this isn't the best Val Kilmer movie, I'm not sure what is. Maybe Willow.... Regardless, I've always adored the idea of freezing the floor, so this one will always have a soft place in my heart.

17 - The Quick and the Dead

Evil Dead II meets For a Few Dollars More. When people get shot in the head, you can see through the hole. I ask you: Does it get any better? Okay, well sure, there's always Flash Gordon, but be fair, okay?

18 - The Warriors

Gangs on rollerskates. Gangs in baseball stirrups. Gangs the whine, "Come out and pla-ay!" IF only real gangs were this much not-scary.

19 - Shaolin Soccer

Perhaps the best use of wire-fu in a film ever. And Iron Stomach's telling call to the love of his life: heartfelt to say, "The least."

20 - North Shore

It's all about the Turtle, haole-boy.

21 - Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

While the first Elm Street film was good and inventive and scary, #3 is just plain fun and butt-kicking.

22 - Big Trouble in Little China

Most people don't realize that this was s'posed to be porrly-written and poorly-acted. But then, most people prefer milk chocolate to dark - so I guess that tells you that.

23 - Napolean Dynamite

Tina you fat lard! Don't be jealous just because I've been chatting online with hot babes all day. I bet I can throw a football over those mountains. Tom's probably my favourite animal right now - bred for his skills in magic.

24 - Cobra

The coolest, lamest, coolest Stallone movie ever!

25 - Bubba Ho Tep

Elvis and JFK, in their sunset years, versus the Mummy! Just like it really happened. This may be the coolest documentary I've ever seen. Plus, the addition of The Chin.

Guilty Pleasures (Film) - 24 Runners-Up (alphabetical)

8 Femmes
Beastmaster
Better Off Dead
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure
Buckaroo Banzai
Extreme Days
Fortress
Godzilla vs. King Kong
Goonies
Independence Day
Last Starfighter
License to Drive
Little Rascals
Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome
Mars Attacks
Predator
Re-Animator
She's All That
Summer School
They Live
Top Secret!
Tremors
UHF
Weird Science

Guilty Pleasures (Film) - Top Guilty Pleasure Film that I Hope to Never See Yet Am Glad to Know It Exists

Cabin Boy

It's all about the Elliot, yo.

Later tonight: Top 50 Guilty Pleasures in Film. I'll be posting this evening and already have my list, but I may have missed something, so if you've got a nomination for cheesey wonder and delight, please mention it with verve and aplomb. Thanks youse.

Proof positive that I have been up to no good whatsoever (not that you didn't already know that):

Asked the other day whether emotional abuse was fitting reason for Christian divorce, I thought for a little, did a little research, and came to... well, the obvious conclusion. It ain't. Scripturally, there are only two instances that make divorce acceptable behavior for the believer: in the first case are divorce based upon the marital infidelity of a spouse (as rendered acceptable via the words of Christ himself); in the second case are instances in which an unbelieving spouse requests divorce and the believer grants the request (as in Paul). Those seem to be the only acceptable cases for Christian divorce.

So then, what about all the believers and pastors who claim Christian provision for divorce in cases of emotional/physical abuse? I haven't heard any reliable interpretation of any biblical text that would support divorce in these cases. Paul does allow for a second option (one that may avail a modicum of relief in the case of emotional abuse) that is a step shy from divorce. We might call this "separation." Paul's example is in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, where he commands the separated couple to remain in their unmarried state perpetually until such time when they are to be reconciled. The couple is still treated as a couple, though separate. This allows the emotionally abused partner to live in relative safety while giving the abuser time to repent and show a genuine change, thereby smoothing a reconcilliation. The entire goal of the seperation seems to be reconcilliation.

This said, it is deeply important that if one is in sin and abusing a spouse, that person needs to be brought into the regular process of church discipline (according to Matthew 18) - first being approached with notification of the sin, then being exhorted by two Christian brothers, then at last being brought before the authority of the church for final exhortation and (in the event of an absence of repentence) ultimate earthly judgment, whereby the church declares the exhorted to be "not of us." These are three separate steps and are each designed to remind the sinner of the believer's place in Christ and promote the power of the gospel that sinned might be abandoned and repentence won.

If the abuser is deemed to be a non-believer, the abuser may ask for a divorce and the abused believer may grant it; but without the non-believer's petition for divorce, Paul's exhortation would be for believer to remain in the marriage - that the spouse might be saved (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:14-16). While the damage a believer will almost necessarily receive from such a marriage may seem needless and exhorbitant, we have to keep in mind the Christian ethic - that we to expect abuse from the world (cf. John 15:20) and rejoice when it comes for in suffering at the hands of the world, we are united in the suffering of Christ (cf. Acts 5:41; 1 Peter 4:13), and it is by that suffering that God's grace is known.

[Take note, for this is key] Paul knows this (keep in mind that he was writing in a patriarchal society in which abuses were not uncommon). He knows that the believer is destined to suffer at the hands of the unbeliever. Yet still he exhorts the believing woman to remain married and faithful to her wicked husband - that she may lay down he life sacrifically that he might be saved. This is pure Christianity; and I think we do a disservice to the comission of believers by suggesting they flee relationships because of emotional abuse. Rather, we should exhort them in the Scriptures, proclaim to them their abundant hope and joy in the gospel, remind them of their citizenship, of their inheritance as the adopted children of Righteousness. We should focus their faith on the means of their salvation, the bright and shining Son of heaven, the eschatological lamb whose own blood was spilt at the hands of sinful men that he might redeem sinful men. We should encourage such believers to remember that - as Paul reminds us - suffering is but for a time and its fruit is a pure and undefiled hope, and that though we be hard-pressed on every side, we are not crushed for if God is for us, then none can stand against us (cf. Romans 5:1-5; 2 Corinthians 4; and Romans 8:28-39).

Though I am loathe to do it, I have strong reason to continue my blog - at least temporarily. There is an issue which I may have strong need to address in the coming month or two. Whether the need truly arises or not will depend upon how things pan out - and if such panning goes poorly, then I will have the first true and accurately reported news story I have ever ran. I know this goes both contrary to the stated purpose of my site as well as the fact that I know longer have any great desire to continue blogging. But this issue is one of grave importance and so, I feel compelled. I will only run such a story (and it's implications and accusation) if justice is subverted - and though I do not believe justice is mine to administer, I will endeavor to make known a truth.

But for this story to be heard, I'll have to bring back readers - that there will be those to hear and disseminate as appropriate. To that end, I will once more continue (for the time being) the blogging at Nowheresville, USA. It is my sincere hope that justice will win out and there will be no need for any stories or controversies.

But until I know what to do in this regard, the blog is back. *sigh*