We did a show the other night on the 7 lessons of the Tiger Woods affair. But Allen missed one important one: IF you are going to cheat, use a call girl instead of a mistress.

How's that for controversial?

It should be stated for the record that I vehemently appose cheating - both personally and in principle. Some have questioned me on this from time to time because I seem liberal on some of my theology pertaining to sexuality. Despite this assumption being irritating to no end, it isn't the focus of the post. However, let's make something clear: Tiger was wrong.

But this post isn't about cheating. It is about confidants. While reading an article in the New York Post, I came across Ashley Dupree (remember: Elliot Spitzer's call girl) lashing out at the 6 7 mistresses of Tiger. Saying that:

"Here you have all these girls accepting gifts, money, trips from Tiger in exchange for sex -- all the while knowing he is married. And now they all can't wait to tell their stories in exchange for even more money from the tabloids? And I was the hooker? At least I kept my mouth shut."

There you go folks: hookers jumped past grocery baggers for the number 4 spot of people I trust.

1. Attorneys (attorney-client privilege)
2. Doctors (doctor-patient confidentiality)
3. Priests (notice I didn't say Pastors)
4. Hookers
5. Grocery Baggers (bagger-shopper confidentiality)

In college I got into an argument in one of my Pastoral Leadership classes on what to do when someone confesses that they had abused a child. California law requires that you turn them in. I took the unpopular (and right) view that I would not turn them in, and suffer the consequences, because I viewed a pastor-parishioner confidentiality trust to be sacred and necessary for the betterment of the individual and culture as a whole. Why?

Living in a culture where attorneys are the only people we trust with our secrets does not produce healthy people that are empowered to change and better themselves. Many of the problems we face in relationships, marriages, and the like are due to the secrets we carry around.

The purpose behind the sacred trust of attorney-client privilege is that no one would tell their attorney anything if it weren't there. And just as this is necessary for a good defense, having a trusted confidant is necessary for personal and spiritual growth.

It probably seems a bit odd - given that I live so publically - but I take privacy and secrecy very important. People in my life have confessed to a myriad of past inequities - including cheating, abortions, serious drug use, and the like. Stories and circumstances that I will take to my grave. The relief you see in someone's face from the cathartic release of a burden being lifted by openly discussing past transgressions in an open, honest, and non-judgmental environment only speaks to the importance of such exchanges.

So in an odd turn of events, society could take a lesson from Ashley Dupree. When entrusted with private information, keep your mouth shut.

Recently I got into a fairly surprising discussion with someone on what we really wanted out of life. And I don't mean like wanting to be famous, or wealthy, or a Senator. But when all is said and done, what is it that we really wanted? Or in other words: what is it about being famous, or wealthy, or a Senator that we think will be beneficial to our life?

I even surprised myself a little with the simplicity of my answer (which I am not going to share). But I'll leave it at there are really only two things I want out of life. That's it. Two.

I have since had this conversation with a few other people to decide whether or not I am crazy. The verdict is mixed. But most agree that "knowing me" they don't believe my simplistic answer.

When I was in college, a relative of mine sent me a book to read titled Running on Empty: Contemplative Spirituality for Overachievers by Fil Anderson. There are two things I remember about this book.

1. How super offended and hurt I was that this person sent me the book. It sounds a bit overly sensitive (and looking back it probably was), but nevertheless it had some larger context to the feelings.
2. More importantly, the story of the fisherman and the businessman.

It's a bit long, but I read it 5 years ago and I still can't get it out of my head.

There was once an businessman who had finally taken some time off work to go on holiday with his family, whilst taking a walk on the beach one day he saw a fisherman rowing a small boat towards the shore and noticed that the fisherman has caught quite a number of big fish. The American was really impressed and asked the fisherman, “How long does it take you to catch so many fish?”

The fisherman replied, “Oh, just a few hours.”

“Then why don’t you stay longer at sea and you could catch even more?” The businessman was astonished.

The fisherman replied, “This is enough to feed my whole family,” he says

The businessman then asked, “So, what do you do for the rest of the day then?”

The fisherman replied, “Play with my kids, take afternoon naps with my wife in the hammock, go out in the village in the evening with my friends for a drink where we play the guitar and sing.”

The businessman offered a suggestion to the fisherman.

“I am a specialist in business management. I could help you to become a more successful person. From now on, you should spend more time at sea and try to catch as many fish as possible. And when you have saved enough money, you could buy a bigger boat and catch even more fish. As you go on, you will be able to afford to buy more boats, recruit more fishermen and lead a team of your own. Soon you will be able to set up your own company, your very own production plant for canned food and do direct selling to your distributors. At that time, you will have moved out of this village and to the City, and then expand your operation to around the world, and finally you can set up your HQ to manage all your other branches.”

The fisherman asks, “So, how long would that take?”

The businessman reply, “About 15 to 20 years.

The fisherman continues, “And after that?”

The businessman laughs heartily, “After that, when the time is right, you can go public and float your shares in the Stock Exchange, by then you will be rich, your income will be coming in by the millions!”

The fisherman asks, “And after that?”

The businessman says, “After that, you can finally retire, you can move to a house on an island, play with your kids, take afternoon naps with your wife in the hammock, go out in the village in the evening with your friends for a drink where you play the guitar and sing”

The point is that a lot of the time we think we are working hard towards a life that we want, only failing to realize what we really want might be right in front of us and attainable.

It's a question I ask myself almost everyday: what is it that I am working so hard for and how does that fit into what I want out of life?

What about you?

(And if you don't want to share your own, feel free to try and guess mine)

If there are two things I like in this world, it is 1.) skinny, blonds with no boobs, and 2.) being right. Rarely do these two collide in one glorious moment for me. But God Bless Carrie Prejean they did.

If you don't know by now, Carrie Prejean dropped her liable and slander case against the Miss USA Pageant because allegedly she was shown a tape of her that was acquired by TMZ performing "a graphic sex act by herself" that was "so graphic, even TMZ wouldn't post it."

Details have since surfaced that the solo act was recorded by her then boyfriend when she was a teenager. How TMZ got it, nobody seems to know.

As you may recall, I wrote about Carrie back in May saying that her situation illustrates why no one takes the "Pro-Family" movement seriously.

She makes one blanket statement about being against gay marriage in a beauty pageant, and all the sudden she is a champion for family values. But after the release of information about her boob-job, then underage sexy lingerie photos, then topless photos, and now a sex tape, many in the pro-family camp are now questioning their pick for <sarcasm>2009 Family-Values Champion of the Year Award</sarcasm>

But as pro-family organizations drop her faster than they can count their gay friends, my opinion of her hasn't changed. I was not in the camp that condemned her from the get go (even though I support gay marriage). Nor was I in the camp that lifted her up as a bastion of family values.

She was (and is) an attractive young woman, who got put on the spot with an unfair and divisive question, and she did the best she could to be honest with where she stood. What proceeded was not fair on many levels. She got judged harshly by the pro-gay lobby. She got elevated to a level of leadership she was not equipped for on the pro-family lobby. And all of her past transgressions were now viewed through her statement which is not only unfair, but also, not really relevant.

Now there are no sex tapes of me out there (so you can stop looking as I know you all are). But that makes me no worse or better than Carrie. And frankly, none of us are worse or better than Carrie. We all do stupid things we regret. We all make mistakes. Does that mean we should all be in leadership positions in lobbying groups? Absolutely not. But that does mean she should be treated with the same grace you would want to be treated with.

Will I read her book? Probably not. Would I put her on a board of directors? Probably not. Would I take her on a date? Probably. But none of these answers have anything to do with anything that has happened since the pageant.

This should serve as one more example of where we all can take a lesson in not being so quick to judge or elevate.

This week marked two things I can't believe are here already.

It seems like only yesterday tiny Jadyn was asleep on my chest 9 days after being born (lower left hand photo above). We spent her 1st birthday at the Lake (photo 2). Her 2nd birthday was more low key and spent it at the house (photo 3). I didn't make it for her 3rd birthday due to Asher's premature delivery in Hilton Head (picture 4) and the craziness that ensued in June and July. And I didn't make it today because of our M-F launch.

I was however very humored to see the following Facebook Status update from Andrea this morning.

ANDREA: it's your birthday sweetie!
JADE: it is?
ANDREA: yes, you are four now
JADE: I don't want to be four, I want to be three

Typical woman always lying about her age and wishing she were younger :)

As much as I love Jadyn and as important as she is in my life, her turning 4 wasn't the biggest thing that happened this week.

At 9:00:00 PM on Monday we launched our Monday-Friday presence into the talk radio universe. If I can't believe Jadyn is turning 4 because time has flown by, the M-F radio presence is the exact opposite. I can't believe this is finally here because sometimes it felt like it was never going to happen.

But ohh has it happened. The week has been incredibly busy and I am still trying to find my routine (and get the new website done). For the most part there have been few errors - actually surprisingly few to be honest. And I think once things settle down, this is going to be a lot of fun.

Opening night was a blast. We opened for sure with Charlottsville, VA, Saginaw, MI, and Warner Robbins, GA. The remaining of our 30 launch affiliates will come online within the next week or so.

Afterwards we (myself, Allen, Anita, and Phil) went out (at 12:15 am) and celebrated at Taco Mac. Got some drinks. Had some queso dip. And even though there were times I never thought that day would come, it finally did, and it was great!

Check out the photos from the first night and leave some comments if you'd like. Be sure to invite Allen and I to be your friends on Facebook as well. We'll be using that a lot more in the coming months.

Working weekends for the past four years meant that I regrettably had to check the "will not be attending" box to the 30+ weddings I have been invited to. Even some that I planned on going to, got canceled fairly last minute because of work (which I got an earful about one in particular this weekend).

Though as my plane banked and began its descent over Memphis, I found myself staring out the window and thinking back to a conversation I had with Allen a year earlier about balance. And how because I implemented balance into my life this year, my descent "back home" felt more like coming back home than it did after my March weekender.

But in classic "Andy blog honesty," I also freely admit that while this trip pointed to one area of balance I was glad to be growing in, it also brings to light another area of balance I still am missing.

Weddings are of course incredibly joyous occasions for me, but also a bit of a reminder of my own discontent and loneliness. I freely admit that.

I don't think I am alone in this with other 20-somethings professionals that try to use the excuse that they are focusing on their career over their love life. But at 27, a full 6 years beyond when I thought I would have been at my own wedding, here's to my sincere and honest wish for Lissa and her husband to experience a full and happy marriage. And here's to me in continuing to try and figure out the balance needed to find a full and happy marriage of my own.

Tonight I met up with a professor of mine from college who was in town for a conference. Dick wasn't just a professor to me though, he was a mentor, and most importantly: a friend.

At one particular point in my life, when I was at a cross road on who I was to become, I looked around at all the people I respected and came to the conclusion that 20 years down the road my life would be the most fruitful and fulfilled if it looked like Dick Pritchard's. Needless to say I have an extreme respect for the man.

So amidst Shrimp Purloo, Peacan Pie, and a waiter that probably wished we hadn't taken a seat in a small, Midtown restaurant for 2.5 hours: tonight we discussed everything under the sun.

As the meal was wrapping up - but still an hour before we would leave - we began to discuss communication and relationships.

When I was in Dick's class, he assigned a book called "The Contemplative Pastor" by Eugene Peterson.

I didn't read it.

Dick knew I didn't read it (as with pretty much most of my assigned reading).

But I very much remember it's content and the discussion that came from it.

In the book, Peterson makes the point that we learn three languages in order:
intimacy, naming, and persuasion.

From our first moments in life we learn words of love - which in reality have little to do with actual words. We then proceed on to "naming" - it is here we get an understanding of possession. With possession understood, we finally complete our verbal development with "persuasion" - or the language needed to persuade in order to attain that which we want to posses.

It should be noted that this isn't just in romantic relationships. It translates to all relationships: parents, friends, co-workers, mentors, mentees, customer service agents, the homeless man on the street. Everyone.

The irony I pointed out is that I have essentially fallen into a profession that is hyper-focused on persuasion, opinions, belief systems, and world-views. And I think it is precisely because of this that for a while now I have felt a heightened struggle with most of human language in contemporary society being focused on persuasion. Something that if I would have read Peterson's book, I would have probably dealt with 4 years ago.

Unfortunately though, the causality of this sad state of affairs is intimacy.

I blogged about this before, but it bears repeating. I think one of the most powerful movie trailers I have ever seen was for the movie Crash. The line that hit me was, "...nobody touches you...I think we miss that touch so much that we crash into each other just so we can feel something."

When we remain stuck with persuasion in our relatinoships, intimacy gets thrown aside. But our desire to fulfill our lives with persuasion and attaining that which we have named, unfortunately only leaves us emptier for it.

By now I am pretty sure everyone has heard of Carrie Prejean - aka "Miss California" - aka "The Girl Who Got Figuratively Bitch Slapped by Perez Hilton Regarding Gay Marriage."

We did a show on it. CNN has covered it. MSNBC ridiculed it. FoxNews has offered her a job. And I hear her and James Dobson are dating. Ok, those last two might be made up (or ARE they?)

Yet nobody made the statement that I have been from the very beginning: Carrie Prejean is the reason nobody takes the anti-Gay Marriage movement seriously.

Before - did I mention before - TheDirty.com released this photo of a 17 18-year old Prejean modeling for some awesome panties, I had a conversation with my brother about how this Miss USA situation is a joke and perfectly illustrates the irrelevancy of the anti-Gay marriage movement.

Then when TheDirty.com released the photo to the right all I could think of was: YES!

Now I don't take any issue with the photo. Future wife: please use Carrie as "clothing" inspiration. But then again, I freely admit I am liberal when it comes to "modesty." I also know I am liberal when it comes to Gay Marriage (reference: this post).

But two questions come to the surface:

1.) Am I the only one who thinks her boobs were better before the implants?

2.) Why are the religious right "excited" to have her as a spokeswoman?

As stated before, I think gay marriage should be legal because we don't illegalize divorce and pornography. Two things that are equally as "Biblically morally wrong" as homosexuality. And the fact that we scream at the top of our lungs about one, and not the others, makes us worse than hypocrites, it makes us irrelevant. And not irrelevant in the trendy way hipster Churches talk about being relevant. I mean irrelevant in that nobody gives a damn what we have to say not just about homosexuality - but about anything.

But I tell you the real tragedy in this whole situation is that The Associated Baptist Press - yes The Associated Baptist Press - had the best article I have read on this issue. Not per se because I agree with the conclusion, but for at least questioning the absurdity of the situation.

And even after Prejean has come out and apologized for the shoot, saying she regrets doing it and won't do it again, I have to think: who cares? Why? Because this isn't about her. It is about us!

The Church's mission will not return to it's key mission of creating disciples of Jesus Christ until our interaction with the world we live in is a consistent one.

I have been wanting to use this first clip in a blog for almost a year. But it wasn't until this past new episode of Scrubs that I finally found my muse for writing.




Ladies, here's the deal: whether you like it or not, most men do equate sex with love. And you can sarcastically demean that feeling away, but just as we don't like it that most of you cry sometimes for no reason, or that all you need sometimes is for us to affirm that you are beautiful in order to provide security that the relationship is alright, equating sex with love is ingrained in who we are.

Shaunti Feldhan wrote a fantastic chapter in her book For Women Only detailing this. And since I probably am not writing this with enough sensitivity, I would highly advise all married women - or planning on getting married someday - to read it. But I am going to try, so here goes...

I find two things interesting about the clips above.

First is the expectation that after the husband has been "bagged" in marriage, sex then becomes a tool at the woman's control. What if communication were used like that? What if Scrubs cut over to Turk and JD and JD said, "you know what is great dude, you only have to talk about her day when you actually want to?" (Cue: big hearty laugh)

How positively does that portray marriage?

Second: listen to some of the verbiage Carla uses in the second clip. Notice how she says "I still make sure you get sex at least once a week."

Feldhan makes a comment in her book about how men would rather not have sex, than have sex with someone they feel is doing so out of obligation. And I have to agree with her.

It isn't about "making sure he gets sex." It is that she wants to have sex with him. That is what is equated to love in our DNA. That is what when a "mommy" forgets she is also a "wife" is painful.

Now I am not saying this gives men the right to expect sex "every night" - like Carla exaggerated in her lament. Every relationship is different and that is fine. From most of the conversation I have with married men, it isn't even the lack of quantity of sex - although they wouldn't mind having it more often - but rather the fact it doesn't feel desired.

Trust me. I know more than a single guy should how hard it is to be a mom. It is literally a 24/7 job. There is no time off. There are no vacations. I have the utmost respect for moms. And I am certainly not advocating that post-children sex life needs to look like the newlywed sex life.

What I am saying is that it is going to be a tough marriage if sexual needs aren't being honestly discussed and attempted at being met. Because for men, sex does in fact equal love.

My 2009 Atlanta Braves season tickets came on Friday!!! And to say I was excited would be a huge understatement. And the best part about it, they are baseball card themed! Every ticket looks like a baseball card from a past or current baseball player. They...are...AWE-some!

This is my first year with a full season ticket package. But getting my first season ticket package got me thinking about the first baseball ticket I ever held.

I was in 2nd grade. My dad took me up to Chicago for the day. I remember the excitement of just the two of us, riding in his little 3-series BMW for 3 hours or so.

StubHub wasn't around at the time so purchasing tickets to a sold out game meant finding a scalper. "Teddy the Ticket" was infamous around Wrigleyville, so we found the bar he hung out in before games and dad bought two tickets. This was also my first time in a bar (it was legal).

I don't remember where we sat, I don't remember who we played, and I don't remember if we won. I guess through the years all those details have proved to be relatively pointless. I remember feeling loved though. And I remember how special and important it made me feel to go to Wrigley for the day with dad.

After the game, dad bought me a my first Cubs hat. It was bright pink - and even though I know I am going to get laughed at hardcore for this, I freely admit I liked the color pink as a boy.

But to leave out this detail of the day would leave out the beauty of the day, and the beauty of who Dad was and is. He always gave me the freedom and independence to make my own decision. I am sure internally he rolled his eyes when his oldest boy picked a pink Cubs hat. But he bought it for me anyways and I wore that for years until it was lost while riding a horse on a Dude Ranch trip.

Now I am 26 years old and wearing more gender appropriate hats. I am old enough to take myself to baseball games and pay for my own tickets. And just like at that first baseball game, I still rarely care where I sit or who we are playing. And even though it is Turner Field and not Wrigley, and it is the Braves not the Cubs, there is still something special about stepping through the turnstiles and watching America's pastime.

I look forward to the day when I can take my own boy to the park - just the two of us. But for now, I just appreciate the company of a good friend and a couple of hours at the park.

It was six years ago I came to the same conclusion Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer - two law school professors at Pepperdine Law School - recently came to in a San Francisco Chronicle article that was picked up by Time. Conclusion: the government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business.

The truth of the matter is that marriage licenses weren't required until the early 1900s in (successful?) attempts to keep black people from marrying white people. It wasn't until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 where the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional - but unfortunately the government's authority of marriages stuck around.

I have said it before but the government should only have two roles: 1.) protect us from others - including things like physical harm (murder, rape, etc...) and all other forms of harm (financial laws, contract disputes, etc...) - 2.) do that only which the government can do (build highways, defend the country, etc...).

Sanctioning marriage does not fall into either of those categories.

I am sure someone right now is saying, "ohh but won't someone PLEASE think of the children." And while I would like to say no, frankly, I am sick of thinking about the children, I also realize that isn't going to convince anyone who does "think of the children" of anything. So here's another approach.

I don't think growing up with a mom as a stripper is particularly healthy. I am sure there are some great stripper moms out there, but on the whole, I am going to say that strippers usually do not make good mothers. However, there is nothing illegal about stripping - despite it's questionable morality - thus there is no reason for the government to intervene.

If we take the "think of the children" philosophy of governance, why not make it illegal for strippers to have kids? Or pornographers? Or casino owners? Or politicians? Or anyone else with "questionable" morality.

Likewise, it makes absolutely no moral, legal or logical sense to continue the racist-roots of the Government being involved in the marriage business.

If the government wants to make it easier on families for tax purposes or if they want a method of finding census data, fine, have civil unions for all. All the same benefits - regardless if it is heterosexual or homosexual relationships. There is no second class tier system where the government gives heterosexuals "marriages" and homosexuals "civil unions." In the governments eyes, we are the same.

Let religious organizations hold on to their traditions and vernacular like they have had for thousands of years. Nobody needs to redefine any terms. Marriage becomes a religious ceremony like baptism.

Think how much less contentious this society would be if we could come to that agreement. Conservatives/Religious folks compromising on detheocritizing an already detheocritized government, and Liberals/Gays compromising and letting religions keep their tradition.

No more fighting. No more constant hatred by both parties. We become like most other groups in society where everyone's rights are protected, and we agree to disagree.

Then all we would have to dispute is abortion.