Bruce, imperfect examples can still be examples.  Though I don’t know enough about Irwin to draw any serious comparisons to Cousteau, I wouldn’t presume to say that because Irwin did dangerous things he loved nature any less.  Perhaps he thought that was the best way, in the 21st century, to get the next generation excited about nature.  Nor am I  prepared to say that because he did stupid things he didn’t display an obvious passion for God’s creation.

As far as the Kairos rebuke, as far as I can tell, the journal is rebuking only those Christians who take “little delight” in God’s creation.   I certainly don’t think that is a rebuke to every believer, but it is a challenge to every believer to ask himself the question, “What does it look like for me, as someone who knows that God created the world, to appreciate it?”  I trust we won’t do something Irwinesque, but perhaps it will remind us that men who swim with stingrays and feed alligators don’t have the market cornered on enjoying or appreciating nature.  We are actually the experts here since we know Who made them all.

Frankly, from what I do know about Irwin, I think the Journal made a decent jump.  Again, I don’t think examples have to be perfect to work.  I will say that those who watch Irwin (including the author of the quick take) would disagree with your assessment that Irwin was more interested in danger than nature.

As for football, I leave it to you and Keith to hash it out.

Posted in Culture |