Shalene Kearney's Page

As an artistic type, it's very difficult, sometimes, to walk the fine line between giving God the glory for the talents I'm blessed with, and taking credit for using them to His glory. In spite of this, I am confident that I can share with you (and not cross that line) the trailer for the video that I was priveleged to be a part of... (Remember I told you about it about a month or so ago.) I hope you don't mind my sharing with all of you. It was just such a thrill to know that I would get to use the talents He blessed me with, when Daniel contacted me to play one of the lead characters. So, please humor me, while I show you the trailer.

The video project (from which the trailer is taken) is for the California Mission Offering, which is a means to help support Missions in California. Now before you ask if there is such a large need for this, please do watch the video. Daniel Rhoten wrote the screenplay, and directed, edited and even did much of the footage. The original music is by Paul Haugen (of Clovis Hills...the church I attend and love) and I play an overly ambitious wife, on the verge of divorce. My character's husband (also played by Alvin- a Clovis Hills member) is an alcoholic; and I need to learn to put God first and my marriage second... above my career. Please watch, and then go give these other people some mad props, for all their hard work, would you? (And just in case you were wondering: NO, Clovis Hills was not involved in the production of this video, except as I stated above. Clovis Hills as a whole has just been blessed with some really good talent... I count it pure blessing to be counted among the members...) :) So without further ado, here is the trailer...


Bright Hope for Dark Days CMO Trailer from Daniel Rhoten on Vimeo

The full version of the video should be finished and ready for release next week some time... You can also find some photo shots for the promo materials at this link, if you so desire... I won't be hurt if you don't go see... but Daniel might like to know how good a job he did... :)

There are those that believe that Christians, are bigots and prejudicial, because they are not accepting of homosexual behavior, as normal and morally acceptable. It is generally held that in order to not be considered bigoted and prejudicial, we must not only accept homosexuality as normal and natural, but must embrace it as well. It is not enough to simply be accepting and caring towards homosexuals- as people- we must also accept their sexual activity, without regard to what God's Word says on the subject. Having had this discussion more in depth than was initially intended, in the comment section of another post, I am now in a position to state fully what my position is, and what I feel is the position of fundamental Christianity as a whole. (This is my opinion only, and may or may not apply to all that identify as fundamental Christians.)

I do not agree that acceptance of a behavior- any behavior- is necessary, in order to refrain from being a bigot or prejudicial. Nor do I think it should be considered intolerant, simply on the basis of that nonacceptance, as long as we are accepting of the person themselves; for all of mankind is loved by God. Because many Christians will not agree to wholeheartedly endorse homosexuality as right and natural, just as heterosexuality is, intolerant is the label applied to us.

Standing upon the Word of God, as our basis for our stance, is the worst kind of offense to those that would have us turn a blind eye toward homosexual acts- as sin. It matters not if we apply this same rule to all acts deemed inappropriate or sinful in God's eyes (sexual or not.) Does anyone else see this as somehow unbalanced? I do not agree that true Christians that apply God's standard to all sin, in the same regard, and without preference over any, can be considered bigots or prejudicial. Case in point, defining prejudice and bigotry:

Bigotry and Prejudice

The definition of a "bigot" or a "prejudice" are interchangeable, as the definition of "bigot" utilizes the definition of "prejudice' as it's own. So let's define prejudice: the Encarta Encyclopedia strictly defines "prejudice" as:

a preformed and unsubstantiated judgment or opinion about an individual or a group, either favorable or unfavorable in nature. (Now the broad application:) In modern usage, however, the term most often denotes an unfavorable or hostile attitude toward other people based on their membership in another social or ethnic group. The distinguishing characteristic of a prejudice is that it relies on stereotypes (oversimplified generalizations) about the group against which the prejudice is directed. (emphasis mine and some parenthetical comments my own)

Note that this definition says nothing about the actions of the group, but only about the group itself.

"Prejudice" is from the Latin word praejudicium meaning "judgment in advance" and is directed, generally, as hatred or dislike towards a specific group or person, based on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

But note again, that it is a preformed, unsubstantiated opinion or judgment toward a person or group...not their actions. How then could one honestly attribute traits of bigotry and prejudice toward Christians? We Christians are, for the most part, fully accepting of all persons, just not all actions (or at least this how we should be towards all humanity.) They need not be mutually exclusive of each other. This would be akin to having a loved one lie to you, and saying that because we love them, we should be perfectly accepting of their lying behavior. This is preposterous!

Sexual Immorality in Scripture

Scripture defines sexual immorality as any sexual act that occurs outside the bounds of heterosexual, married, consensual sexual intercourse. This includes adultery, sodomy, effeminate male behavior, bestiality, incest, and more. All of these are regarded equally as sin by God, and by Christians that hold firm to His word.


Marriage Defined- Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages:

Let's look at Genesis 2:20, 22

So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. (emphasis mine)

This same chapter of Genesis then goes on to state that it is for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be one flesh (this is seen by many as well, to be a reference to the sexual union, though it is not exclusively a reference to it.) A suitable mate for man, is woman; and a suitable mate for woman is man. In addition, marriage is the institution through which God commanded mankind to procreate. Homosexuals cannot do biologically do this, without medical intervention (on the part of a female.) I grant that there are also heterosexual couples that are not able to this as well, but this is not because of anatomical incompatibility, but rather physical or other various reasons. Now for specific Scripture references that support the Christian view.

OT Scripture References Regarding Any Sexual Immorality:

In the Old Testament, we are told not to engage in any kind of lewd or lascivious sexual act- whether heterosexual or homosexual. These activities include adultery, fornication (sex outside of marriage), incest, bestiality, sodomy, and any other act of fleshly lust. There are many references but for the sake of space, I will list those that also address homosexuality, specifically. Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; and Judges 19:22 (this is a narrative very similar to that regarding Lot and the angels with him, before the destruction of Sodom). The question has been asked how the moral aspect is still applicable, but not the "death sentence," and I shall endeavor to address this in detail in a later post. Suffice it to say that OT law is not applied in the same manner, as it was before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and there are valid reasons for this.

New Testament Scripture References

In the New Testament we have a number of references to both hetero- and homosexual sin, as well. 1 Cor 6:9, 13, 18; Jude 1:7; and Romans 1:26-27 This last one, specifically, addresses homosexual acts, both female and male. I also find it extremely interesting to note, that though homosexuality was something that was known, and practiced by much of the Roman Empire- especially those of higher social status- at the time of Paul's letter to the church there; that there was no word (in Greek- the common language used for international and interracial communication) to describe a loving, committed, equal, homosexual relationship. Perhaps, if no such word existed, could it be because there was no such circumstance? Just a side thought.

Do I believe homosexuality is a choice?

Though I have used the word orientation, to state that I believed it to be a choice, I would like to try to clarify what I intended to impart. I believe that every sinful thought or desire is a fact of our humanity, and so therefore cannot be a choice. We all, as human, have them, it is a fact of mankind's condition. However, whether or not we act upon them is most certainly a choice. I was also asked if I were shown conclusive scientific evidence, that proved that homosexuality identification was something a person was born with- and had no control over- whether or not I would then be open to changing my stance. The answer is NO. The reason for this, is the fact that all sexual encounters are a choice, period. There are no exclusions. Sex is a choice. It is not a need. Some of us may believe that it is, but we are only fooling ourselves.

This is what I do know to be true, whatever our sexual orientation, it need not be also our sexual identity. If one should choose not to be aroused by members of the opposite sex, then they are free to choose celibacy, in my opinion. The same holds true for those that choose not be aroused the same sex. Self- identity need not be the basis of how we define ourselves. We are defined by who we are, not by what (or who) we do. (Please excuse my use of slang in the previous statement, it just happened to be apt.)

In conclusion, I would state, once again, that my unwillingness to accept and embrace another's sexual activity does not a bigot, make me- or any other Christian, for that matter. Everyone, regardless of any sin they may or may not have committed is loved without condition, by those that would profess to be Christ followers. For those Christians that cannot find it within themselves to do so, I can only say that being a Christian does not make anyone perfect, just more aware of our imperfections- or at least that is what should happen. I believe that most, if not all, Christians would agree with this statement; even if they agree with nothing else I have said here.

One last comment to those that do believe: We should remember that it is not our place to judge any unbeliever's sinful activity. The only "judgment" we are to make is in discerning whether or not it is sin, in order to refrain from it ourselves. The only time we should rebuke anybody's sin, is if they are already a part of the body of Christ, and we should do so according to Paul's instruction to Timothy. Though it is allowable to share what God's Word says about sin, only He can judge a person's heart, and only He knows whether or not they will one day become aware of the sin that holds them captive. Telling an non-seeking, unbeliever that they are a sinner, will do nothing more than cause hatred and revulsion of all that we are to represent. Let's follow Jesus' example in how we relate and communicate our love of all people, regardless of their sin.

I first heard of Paul Washer, over on Sicarii's old blog (sorry no link, because that "old" site has been taken down), and recently have begun listening to his sermons with my husband. I highly recommend him, to anyone that is serious about their faith in the Lord, and especially for those that are not so serious about it. Here is a CliffNotes version of one of his most powerful sermons. If you'd like to hear "part two" of sermons by Paul Washer, check out my hubby's blog tomorrow (since I stole this video from him today.) Blessings to you...



There is no "MORE" to this post.

I'm about to vent, and I've got to warn you, some of you may not agree with me, but I don't care. I'm extremely fired up about this, and this is one area where I CANNOT just sit back and be silent. Wanna know what's got me all riled up? I'll be happy to share: Bigotry! Bigotry in the name of religion, bigotry in the name of skin color, bigotry in the name of ethnicity, and bigotry in the name of race- simply put: bigotry in all its forms.

Bigotry is one of the few things that I have absolutely NO tolerance or patience for; and frankly, it is one practice that I am passionately against. Bigotry has no place in God's creation, and it's time that Christians, and everyone else, remembered that! (I am aware that not all Christians are bigots, and that bigots do not originate only within the Christian culture; but unfortunately, bigotry does occur much more frequently within "Christian" culture than it ought to. Since this is a blog with primarily Christian readers, I wish to point out the errors within "our" thinking, as well as those of other groups, that can be defines as such. Please also note: though I say "our thinking," I say so only because I am a Christian, not because I have a tendency towards bigoted attitudes.)

So what exactly constitutes bigotry? It is the thought that a group of people of differing skin color, religion, race or ethnicity, than ourselves, is somehow inferior, as a whole, simply on the basis of that difference. Bigots lump all people with the same general differing characteristic(s) into one whole, and judge them all accordingly. As an aside, I do not agree that all religions are equal, but I DO believe that all people are equal. What I am saying, is that we should be accepting of the people or persons that hold differing beliefs, are of a different skin color, a different race, or a different ethnicity than ourselves.

I don't know about you, but I was taught critical reading in school. I was also taught to think critically about the things I hear, and are told. With few exceptions, I truly believe that this process has served me well, and has been useful to my growth as a person of character. I know too, that I am not the only person that was taught the concept of critical thinking. So why is it then, that so many will allow themselves to be misled about certain things, all because they are too lazy to utilize this simple skill?

For example, on occasion I receive emails from well meaning friends and relatives, in which the text spouts off about a person or group, using generalizations to support their opinion. I received one such email today. (Though I had planned only to respond to the person that sent it, after thinking about it some more, I felt it warranted sharing here, as well.) In the email I received, there was "statistics" listed regarding Muslim terrorist activities, and later the author tied this in with whether or not Barack Obama should be elected president. While I agree that Obama is the least desirable candidate imaginable, I do not agree with the rest of what this email implied.

Firstly, the email listed numerous incidences of Muslim terrorist activities perpetrated by "Muslim males, between the ages of 17 and 40" in support of racial profiling by airport security personnel (does anyone else see this as an awfully broad application for a "profile?"); and then went on to make a correlation between Barack Obama and terrorist Muslims (whether or not this is true, is beside my ultimate point); and finally the original author went so far as to say that Obama is likely the Antichrist- based on a misinterpretation of Scripture (which I could find no basis for, in any translation- and I looked in all of them) stating that the Antichrist would be of Muslim descent!

That last statement deserves a post all of its own; but I'll touch on it briefly, as my first issue with this email. Obama's religious beliefs may be one of the reasons many don't want him for President. But to say he is the Antichrist?! Come on!!! What are we, children who have resorted to name calling?! My next issue is the fact that someone, claiming to be Christian, would so blatantly cite Scripture erroneously, to support their own agenda. There is very little in Scripture that would indicate that the Antichrist will be of Muslim, or even any other Middle Eastern descent. In fact, the only instances that might suggest this are references to Babylon, in Revelation. Critical examination of the text though, and knowledge of the entire Word, do not support this theory. Ancient Babylon was not the same Babylon as it is today, and was not even in the same location. The name Babylon is derived Babel, in which the worshippers of Nimrod were scattered, and their languages confused by God. In addition, Babylon- spiritually speaking, is more often a reference to the Roman Empire, and even idolatrous worship by the Jews themselves. In the latter, Babylon is not even a place, but a mindset. Lastly, and the reason I became riled up enough to write this post, is the fact that all Muslim men "between the ages of 17 and 40," and by default- all Muslims- were lumped together, by the email's original author, as the most likely to commit acts of terrorism. All this, simply because the author never took the time to really investigate the claims that they have heard or read, and to truly examine their own heart.

Let me explain. While it is true that their have been numerous acts of terrorism committed by those that claim to be Muslim (meaning they practice the religion of Islam), this could be said of many other religious groups, as well. Including Christianity, Jews, and even atheists. How many Americans, do you think, are truly aware that not all Middle Easterners are Muslim? Or, more importantly, that not all Muslims interpret the Quran or even Mohammed's teachings, the same as some of the extremists within the group do? In fact, I would go so far as to say that much like Christianity, the majority of Muslim believers do not condone terrorist acts; and that, just as in Christianity, it is only those that have twisted the applicable scriptures- Bible or Quran- to fit their own agenda, that use it to justify such acts.

I'll put this in context for you. Remember the "Crusades?" These were perpetuated by predominately "Christian" rulers, ostensibly to reclaim Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the various "oppressors." The "Crusades" were also used to justify acts that could only be classified as terrorist, against other groups as well. Though religion was cited as the main reason for these attacks; in reality, the attacks had more to do with maintaining land, power and wealth, for European rulers and/or the Papacy, than for religious beliefs. In addition to the "Crusades," there are numerous other instances where a person, or group of people-other than Muslims- has used one reason or another to commit acts of terrorism. Sometimes the reason is religion. For example, anti-abortionists that bomb abortion clinics; Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Other times, the reason is political or power induced. The examples for this include: kings and presidents throughout the world being killed by terrorists from their own country; the Japanese, in bombing Pearl Harbor; the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, by Jewish terrorists(this is the most deadly terrorist act that has ever taken place in Palestine or Israel to this day!); and let's not forget Timothy McVeigh, Theodore Kaczynski, or White Supremacists in the American south (KKK).

My point here, is that Muslims are not the only group to have factions within, that commit atrocious acts, nor are Christians, nor are whites, nor blacks, nor Jews, nor ANY other group. Each of these groups could be said to have committed numerous categories of assaults that the victims would consider terrorist. So why is it then, that anyone can justify hatred or intolerance, directed toward any other group, based on the actions of a few???!!! What happened to "love your enemy" and "judge not, lest you be judged?" Just because we don't agree with a group's religious beliefs is no reason to judge them all the same, and there is NO reason to judge any group negatively, strictly on the basis of race, skin color or ethnicity. Absolutely no reason.

Now that I've finished my rant, its time to look at what we can do about this. First of all, each of us needs to examine our hearts and our motives, and adjust our thinking according to what is "true, noble, just, pure, lovely and of good report" (ref. Phil 4:8). Secondly, we need to teach our children this Truth. Bigotry does not fit any of the definitions of those words. Our children learn what we teach them. Are you teaching them good or evil? Thirdly, we need to take a stand against such things as I have shared with you today. Let it be known that love is the answer, not hate. As long as we allow the continuation of these attitudes, and don't voice our objections, they will continue. Being a Christian does not mean being quiet when we ought to be loud. That's not humility, that's just fear and laziness. Now, perhaps the attitudes will continue regardless of what we do, but that does not negate our responsibility to do something about it. This is called social responsibility, and ultimately, it is an area in which we that are Christians will be judged. We must do whatever we can to thwart the deceiver's plans to cause chaos and hatred to run rampant; and the only antidote to hatred is love. What do you say? Are you with me? Have a great week, and blessings to you all.

Ever feel like life is conspiring against your every effort to have a relaxed day (much less more than just "a day")? That is my feeling lately, especially the last two days. You see, it's the end of the school year, here, and having my daughter schooled through the California Virtual Academy means that one, I have to be sure she stays caught up- and when she isn't, making sure she gets caught up; and two, that she has time to study for her finals, so that we can show that having her home has been a good decision- beneficial for her grades and study habits. What that means is that I'm spending significantly more time looking into her lessons, in order to try to help her study and understand each subject. I'd really like to know: Can anyone explain to me what the value of learning what the figurative language means in poetry, has for adulthood? I'm serious. If you can tell me a valid use for this knowledge, for the average person (not including teachers- English or otherwise) I would like to know what it is. Anyway, back to the subject at hand (no pun intended.) I like learning, but I didn't care much for school when I was there, and I'm not liking it much more now. I think I'm just nuts. Maybe someday, I'll look back on this and find that it did help me in some way, as I'm sure that it must be. (Right?) I just don't see it right now. (Except of course, for having my daughters unspoken gratitude.) :)

So after the day's school work was done, we took some time to go play at the skatepark, so that Mercedes could hang with her "newly found" brother (her father- whom we just found, as some of you know- has a son as well.) While we were there, Mercedes fell and hurt her wrist. Though we don't think it's broken, it is certainly hurting quite a bit. After coming back home, getting ready for dance practice, and going to dance; we then had a graduation to attend, and more of her "lost" family to meet. We didn't get home until about 9:30. I just started to relax, and was getting ready to go to bed, when horror of horrors, the next installment of my trying day was to begin.

My daughter (the youngest one) woke up at about 11:00 with her bed full of vomit. So I did what any caring mother would do: I cleaned her up, cleaned her bed up, gave her a drink to rinse out her mouth, put clean sheets and blankets on the bed, and put her back down. Less than 30 minutes later, she was screaming again! I went back in there, and this time, it was much messier! YUCK! My poor baby had a case of the stomach flu.

After a night consumed by holding her over the edge of my bed to be sick (it's the only way either of us could get what little bit of sleep we did) and much of yesterday rushing to her side to place a bowl under her mouth (and cleaning up when I wasn't fast enough) I finally took her to the doctor. I was told it was "the sickness of the week" and that it was going around. Apparently the doctor was right, because when she sent me to the Children's Hospital to have the baby treated for dehydration, it seemed almost every child there, was there for the same thing. We spent the evening sitting in uncomfortable chairs (remember this is after almost no sleep, and an already frazzling two days) with her in a fever induced sleep. I got to hold her down while they gave her tylenol for her fever in the only other way to do it, when a person can't keep anything down (use your imagination, it's not hard to figure out.) A few hours later, I then got to hold her down again while they gave her IV fluids. I think I cried more than she did. This is my two year old, we're talking about here. She kept telling me she wanted to go home, and that she was all better now. :( Well, after the IV and the medicine they gave for her stomach through the IV, she did look much better. No more vomiting, and no more fever. We got home about 10:30. I did get some sleep last night, but then this morning, the fever was back, and although there was no vomiting, we had other messes ALL DAY LONG! I think I preferrd the other. I know the smell of my house was better with the other. So could you all do me and my family a favor? Pray for us. Pray that I can keep my sanity, that my baby gets well, that my other daughter's wrist heals quickly and that we can somehow get back to a state of normalcy. I hate that when it rains it pours! Have a blessed week, all of you, I'm not sure I'll be up to posting again before the week is over.