Its Monday morning, December 29th. I hope all had a joyous holiday season, and are looking forward to a new year full of adventure and service in the kingdom.

Meanwhile, lets talk Cowboys football. For those of us who have followed the Cowboys for over forty years, yesterday was one of the alltime lows. Oh for the days of Landry and Schramm when character was king. America's team modeled character beginning with Landry. They didn't always win, but you never felt they were totally unprepared for a big game, but they never tried to build a team around headline grabbing players who made most of the headlines off the field by shooting guns and shooting their mouths off against teammates.

Mr. Jones showed his character on the first day of his ownership and his classless dismissal of Tom Landry. Its not that I question his dismissal of Landry. He was the owner and he had a right to make that decision, but it was the way he handled it that was an embarrassment to all who respect class, character and integrity. Nothing has changed since that first day. Jerry's arrogance is shown by his lack of concern for the fans and his determination to do it "my way" even if the product looks like yesterday.

One can only hope that if the fans want change, they will show it by keeping their pocketbooks in their pockets and refuse to buy seats in the new Jerry World Stadium. If anything can conquer his arrogance, its his greed. If the fans continue to spend for a product like yesterday, then they will receive what they deserve. We reap what we sow.

Now that I have vented I feel so much better. Do you need to vent? Do it now, before your new year's resolution about venting limits your freedom. I offer my blog to you free of charge. Now vent, vent, vent.

Christmas! What a wonderful time of the year and yet many are conflicted over Christmas. Its good feelings and its bad feelings. Most will spend a day or more with family that we may not see any other time of the year. Some of these people we love more when we see them less. There is always an uncle "know it all" and an aunt "super sensitive". We drink our egg nog while walking on egg shells.

We love to give gifts and especially listen for the oohing and ahhing when our gifts to others are opened by them. We feel like failures when the oohs and ahhs are too few. Then we feel anger, after all we had to take out a second mortgage just to buy those wonderful gifts. Well, at least we will be surprized by our gifts and smiles will surface on our face. When we open that beautiful box, only to find plaid socks and underwear, we fake a feeble ooh and skip the ahh.

Well, we still can enjoy the spread. Turkey, dressing, and all kinds of pies, cakes and candies. Then I realize I'm on a diet. I eat my full anyway and then spiral into depression as I reflect upon my lack of self control.

After viewing Christmas from an "all about me" perspective, I repent and reflect again on what Christmas is really about. Its about small children when they enter Santa's domain early on Christmas morning. Their oohs and ahhs are what makes life what it is. Such unadulterated joy is hard to find these days. Maybe if we could become as little children, we could rediscover the joy of Christmas.

Yet there is an even more profound reason for celebrating and enjoying this time of the year. We don't know exactly the month or day Jesus was born, at least not with absolute certainty. Traditionally the world has chosen December the 25th as the day for celebrating God's Son and His entrance into the world. I am thankful that at least some still remember the importance of His birth and life.

At Christmas we would do well to remember the model of giving and the proper way to receive.

"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONE AND ONLY SON THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE."

The giver is God, the gift is His only Son to live, die and live again. The recipients of the gift are the humans who occupy the planet earth. Some choose to receive the gift with the oohs and ahhs of faith; others view the gift as though he were a lump of coal.

May those who believe show their gratitude as we celebrate the gift and realize that no gift we give will ever cost as much as what God and His Son paid for our gift. May we also remember that no gift we give or receive will last forever, but God's gift keeps on giving forever.

Merry Christmas!

PART 2 OF CRITIQUE OF LISA MILLER'S ARTICLE IN NEWSWEEK OF DECEMBER 15th.

The third and final question to be discussed is "How she defends gay marriage from her interpretation of the Bible.

As noticed in our discussion of the second question, she asserts that the Bible should be interpreted as a living document which means that its meaning changes as societies and cultures change. What it meant 2000 years ago is not determinative of what it means today. That conclusion obviously opens up numberless possibilities. Meaning lives in the times we live in and in the mind of the interpreter. Conservative scholars(she shows no knowledge of scholarship including conservatives) believe meaning abides in the origin of the text, namely the author or authors. Postmodern interpreters deny that meaning is ever determined by the author for we are unable to determine the author's mind. Even if we could, they argue that it would be a waste of time because as the interpreter engages the text by interpreting it, a new text is actually born and that is the meaning that is real.

How does she handle the texts of scripture that address homosexuality. Some such as Sodom and Gomorrah, she ignores. There are two texts in Leviticus that appear to condemn homosexual practice. These two texts she dismisses as, in her own words, "throw away texts". which is basically what she does with them. She equates these two texts with other Old Testament laws that we no longer practice. I disagree with her conclusion on these two texts, but since many in churches of Christ would probably wonder what's wrong with her conclusion since they too dismiss much of the Old Testament, I see little value of going into a prolonged argument to show why I think these commandments have value today. Clearly we are justified in omitting some practices that are embraced in the Old Testament, but some do have lasting value.

Next she considers Jesus and Paul. She argues that neither were particularly interested in marriage and that neither defined marriage as between members of the opposite sex only. In fact she argues that neither define marriage in any way. Check out Matthew 19:1-8. Jesus is asked about divorce and his view of what Moses said about the subject. In Jesus' response he appeals to Gen. 2:22-24. Both in Genesis and Matthew the only marriages under consideration are those between a man and a woman. We might add, the marriage under consideration was monogamous and not polygamus. Paul, in Ephesians chapter 5 compares Christ and His bride, the church to a marriage of a husband with his wife. Again the only marriage Paul is aware of is a marriage between a man and a woman(cf5:31).

She dismisses a couple of other texts where Paul appears to be critical of homosexuality and applies them only to prostitution or adults with children. Thus Paul nowhere condemns a loving homosexual relationship, but only a perversion of such relationships or rape, etc..

She does admit that Paul seems hard on homosexual relationships, but says that progressive scholars have discovered ways to harmonize Paul with gay marriage. In her article she quotes three scholars and is always careful to remind the readers that each is a scholar. Again no conservative scholar is quoted. Either conservative scholars are now extinct or never existed.

She realizes that the most critical text in Paul and the N.T. is Rom.1:26-28. The text reads as follows:
"Because of this(cf19-25) God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Her comment on the text includes the following: "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all...He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this text(including 29-31). She mentions that one scholar thinks he's talking about Roman emperors. "We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people..". If you're not happy with that interpretation, she offers the additional comment that "in any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce---and at least half of the christians in America disregard that teaching. Thus if nothing else works, you are still all hypocrits.

I taught ministy students for 28 years and if one had written a paper with such a flimsy argument as the above, lets just say he wouldn't have done so well. As to her view of Rom.1:26-28, an interpretation must be based upon context, grammar, and historical setting. Just which of those three would offer even a grain of support for her view. I guess she could say, "well they did have emperors and many did express homosexual lifestyle with younger males. Yes, but did I somehow miss the verse in Rom.1 that mentions emperors? That text must be hidden with the one that mentions the "really, really violent people". Yes later verses do mention some sins that might include violence, but to argue that the person spoken of by Paul in Rom.1:26-28 would have to also be guilty of the following sins is beyond absurd.

She also alludes to the Anchor Bible Dictionary as asserting that the Bible no where mentions female homosexuality. Maybe she ought to check out some of her scholars or else read Rom.126-28 which mentions "women changing natural relations for unnatural relations".

Several decades ago a homosexual author John Boswell wrote a work defending homosexuality and in it he suggested that "against nature" in Rom. 1 means "against one's natural urges". Since a homosexual's natural desire is for a relationship with the same sex this passage cannot be discussing those born homosexual. Instead, he asserted that the text is speaking of heterosexuals who are behaving as though they are homsosexual. In other words, heterosexuals are behaving in an unnatural way. Again, how would one know this by reading the text?.

Articles such as Miller's and even more clearly Meacham's comment, assume that homosexuality is biologically determined. Miller writes that "If we are all God's children, made in His likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that". Meacham adds that "Briefly put, the Judeo-Christian religious case for supporting gay marriage begins with the recognition that sexual orientation is not a choice--a matter of behavior--but it is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color". How can you blame someone for being white or black? By the same token, how can you blame someone for being heterosexual or homosexual? The analogy to race is not just an effort to silence critics, but its the basis for making the whole issue a civil rights issue so that any voice in our society against gay marriage or homosexual behavior shoul be labeled as a proponent of hate speech. In Canada a minister could be arrested for a sermon that might include some of the points I have raised and if some have their way, such will soon be the law of our land.

The question as to whether homosexuality is biologically determined is not the slam dunk that such authors as Miller and Meacham seem to suggest. Very few studies have been undertaken and if time would allow I could show that those thus far conducted have been with extremely small samples and very predjuiced methodology. Further the two major studies that supposedly suggest a biological basis for homosexuality were conducted by homosexuals. While their homosexuality does not negate their findings. only evidence can do so, their orientation does raise the possibility of bias, especially when at least one of the scientific studies was conducted by a man who admitted his goal was to prove a biological origin of homosexuality. Even if homosexual preference could be shown to be in at least some cases biologically determined, it would not change the teaching of scripture. Heterosexuality which most of us would believe is biologically determined has constraints placed on it by scripture. Only the married are to practice it and then only with one's own spouse.

There is far more proof that alcoholism is produced by genetic factors in many cases, but such knowledge does not negate the biblical teaching on drunkenness. With God's help we are expected to refuse urges and desires that are sinful, even if we have a desire to satisfy such urges. Being single is no sin whether one has heterosexual urges or homosexual urges. One can go without sin by simply not acting upon such urges. In 1Cor.6:9-11, Paul says some of the Corinthians prior to their becoming christians, had acted upon homosexual urges, but now that they are christians they are no longer to behave in such manner.

Most of my post has so far simply addressed the homosexual component of the gay marriage issue, but the "marriage" element needs to be at least briefly touched upon not only from a biblical perspective as we have already done, but also from standpoint of history and science. While I'm not an authority on either, I do know enough to questions some of the assumptions of people like Miller and Meacham. Miller claims monogamy never became a general practice of the churches until the sixth century. Such an assertion is blatantly false. Not only was mogogamy the practice of christians in N.T. times, as well as the first five centuries of church history, it has been the practice of nearly all civilizations since the advent of writing. Most scholars believe that human governments and languages began in the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys of Mesopotamis. We have written laws going back to 2000 b.c. and such laws address marriage as between one man and one woman. Even evolutionists would tend to agree with such a conclusion and would argue that marriage arose in order to provide a father for the home. The human species is one of the few animal species where offspring have both parents raising them. In most species the male impregnates the female and then deserts her and the rearing of the child is left to the mother. Since the human child remains dependent far longer than nearly any other species, it becomes much harder for the woman to rear the child by herself. Evolutionists believe that this need gave birth to biological forces and sociological forces that evolved into marriage.

As we have learned in recent decades the brain functions in response to hormones generated and transmitted to the brain. The brain then responds with certain types of feelings and behavior. For example oxytocin is a hormone generated in females during sexual intercourse and childbirth. The feelings produced by oxytocin include attachment and loyalty. It is as though the female is programmed to attach to a certain male and her offspring. In the Bible a woman is to cleave to her husband and love her children. It seems that God has wired her so that such would be natural. So whether viewed from the standpoint of evolution or creation, marriage seems to be composed of two elements a male and female, as well as offspring. God said "be fruitful and multiply" and chose marriage scripturally and biologically as the means of doing so. If such is the case, then marriage cannot be divorced from reproduction as would be true should our society embrace gay marriage. I am well aware that reproductive tecnology can produce children where at least one of the gay parents can be a natural parent, but such was not in God's mind nor apparently was such in the mind of previous humans biologically or historically.

Everyone knows that the male hormone that tends to define him is testosterone. This male hormone produces an aggressive person who at times can be aggressive to the point of violence. It seems that this hormone was given him in order to assist him in protecting not only himself but his offspring. Yet sometimes he is excessively violent even with his family, but such is not as common as we probably assume. Not only does testosterone make one physically aggressive but also increases sexual interest. What we may not know is that recent scientific studies suggest that testosterone levels decrease after marriage and increase again only if the man secures a divorce. In other words testosterone helps the man desire a sexual partner, but the decrease in levels after marriage helps him settle down and become a loving husband. Again biologically we seem to be wired for mogogamy and caring for the children that we bring into the world.

Hopefully the discussion in this critique has helped us see that there are good reasons biologically, historically, and biblically for maintaining marriage as an exclusively heterosexual experience. Objecting to gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle does not make us haters any more then opposing adultery, fornication, greed, and arrogance makes us haters.

Let us not be intimidated by an agenda driven movement or media. Also let us remember that when we ignore biblical teaching by running to a no fault divorce court rather than working out our problems we surrender our influence and grant it to those who oppose our faith.

I'm not going to bother with reading this post so if there are multiple mistakes that need editing, well get over it! Love ya!

Have you read the cover article for the December 15th issue of Newsweek? If not, you might like to read it before you read my critique. However, if you like you can get the gist in quotes I pull from the article. The article is presented as a religious argument for gay marriage. The article is prompted by prop. 8 in California. Since the election, the gay community has been up in arms against the religious opposition mounted against gay marriage by the christian community. They believe and probably rightly so that had it not been for the christian opposition to gay marriage, the election's results would have been very different. As Lisa Miller, the author of the article says the conflict has escalated to all out war. Newsweek has quite obviously chosen to join the battle in favor of gay marriage. The magazine could have chosen to present a news article fairly representing both sides of the dispute, but instead decided to present a cover story promoting one side of the debate without a single quote from anyone who would disagree with their conclusions. Lisa Miller is the religious editor of Newsweek. If her article were not enough, editor Jon Meacham offers his support for her conclusion.

I crique it not just to speak to the question of gay marriage, but to speak to the culture war being waged against conservative christians by liberal institutions in our society, including some voices within scholarship of christianity. Every source she quotes as supporting her conclusions are described as scholars. There is an obvious reason for this practice.

I want to proceed by addressing three questions: (1) How would she like for her readers to think about religious opponents of gay marriage? (2) How would she like for her readers to interpret the Bible? (3) How does she defend her view of the bible as actually supporting gay marriage?

HOW WOULD SHE LIKE FOR HER READERS TO THINK ABOUT RELIGIOUS OPPONENTS OF GAY MARRIAGE?

She and her editor would like for the readers of Newsweek to dismiss Bible believers as "the worst kind of fundamentalism".


Her editor, Jon Meacham, quotes the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan who opposes the decisions of the Episcopal church to accept gay ministers and gay behavior. Duncan says that his opposition is "irrevocably rooted in the Bible" which he regards as the "final authority and unchangeable standard for christian faith and practice".
Meacham then adds his comments: "No matter what one thinks about gay rights--for, against, or somewhere in between--this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism....to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-christian tradition."

Listen to Miller: "Would any contemporary heterosexual couple--with an optimistic view of gender equality and romantic love --turn to the Bible as a how to script? Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it to be so....No sensible modern person wants marriage to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes." Notice the connotations of such words as "modern", "sensible", "intellectually bankrupt". The conclusion readers are expected to reach is that conservative christians are out of touch with the contemporary and modern. Christians can't be taken seriously for they are not sensible and are intellectually bankrupt.

After concluding that the Bible when properly interpreted, as she says by progressive scholars actually supports gay marriage, she writes that "Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Ah, conservative christians are, as you might have guessed, homophobic and thats the real reason we oppose gay marriage.

HOW WOULD SHE LIKE FOR HER READERS TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE?

"A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism... The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, its impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours." She and Meacham point out that the Bible does not condemn slavery, but christians today do. The Bible is very patriarchal, but most churches are egalitarian. According to them the Bible has been used by conservative christians in history as a support for racism, but we have finally moved beyond that view. The Bible allows anti semitism and calls for the death of adulterers, but we've moved beyond that. Now its time to move beyond our taboos on homosexuality and gay marriage.

The Bible is described by Miller as a "living document". "Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document...In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married--and a number of excellent reasons why they should." What does she mean by a living document? She means the same thing as liberals mean when they defend judicial activism by appeal to the constitution as a living document. Judge Charles Pickering in his book SUPREME CHAOS describes the term "living constitution" as a constitution that changes meaning as culture and society change. In other words meanings can be found in activist judges that the authors of the constitution would never have imagined to be there. As the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 found the right of privacy which they then concluded should be extended to the right to choose an abortion. For 200 years Supreme Court justices had ruled many times on such questions and had never found such a right in the original intent of the framers, but interpretation must evolve to reflect the thought of contemporary society. So while the Biblical authors would never have dreamed that their writings could be interpreted to defend gay marriage, we now know that it can be so used by appeal to "the living document" hermeneutic.

The framers of the constitution specifically wanted to exclude such ideas as a "living constitution". James Madison, who more than any other of the founders explained the meaning of the consitution to those who were being asked to ratify it, wrote the following:" if the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation is not the guide to expounding it, there can be no security for a faithful exercise of its powers".

Thomas Jefferson agreed when he wrote the following: "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make a blank paper by construction. On every question of construction [we should] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted; recollect the spirit manifested in the debates; and instead of trying[to find], what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one, in which it was passed". The conclusion of Madison and Jefferson about the original intent of the constitution is the same conclusion that conservative scholars take with regard to the Bible. Please don't misunderstand my argument. I'm not suggesting that the Bible is like the constitution in its form. This is where Alexander Campbell went astray and this is where we in churches of Christ have followed him astray. The New Testament is not a constitution, but it is an authoritative document which must be interpreted by trying to capture the original intent of its authors. Such is not the manner of interpretation advocated by many universities today with reference to ancient documents are for that matter contemporary documents. European academicians have brought to America a relativist approach legal, historical and religious literature. They contend that origianl intent is beyond our ability to recover and is of little value if it could be recovered. A document means what an individual or a society decide it should mean at the time of interpretation rather than by recovering its original intent. That is what is meant by a "living constitution" and a "living Bible(document)".

Understanding of this matter shows why (at least in this area) conservative christians and conservative political theorists tend to have a lot in common and why advocates of pro choice abortion rights and gay marriage tend to identify with political liberals. Its a disagreement over how we interpret our founding documents.

I am going to have to discuss the third question at a later time, probably Monday. Thanks for reading thus far and feel free to respond on my blog.

This has not been a great morning. I began a post 30 minutes ago and somehow I managed to delete it. Ah the wonder of the computer. In the old days of typewriters and white out you didn't have such problems. Speaking of the old days which I seem to do a lot of now days. I miss them, especially this morning. Its cold outside, but its warm and cozy in my book littered office. One thing is missing--warm comforting hot chocolate or coffee. In the old days, someone made coffeee for me when I arrived at the office. Then came along those feminazis(quiz: who popularized that term). Now when I arrive and say "has anyone made coffee" I hear a haunting echo that seems to be summoning me and being the servant that I am, I speed to the kitchen to make coffee. There's always someone who rains on us good ol' boys' parade and ruins our utopia.

Speaking of "good ol' boys", how many of you knew the name of the Illinois governor before yesterday morning at 6:30. I hope I'm not alone. When I read reports about governor Blagojevich, my most pressing question was "how do you pronounce Blagojevich". Maybe its Blago-je-vick, but that doesn't sound very profound. Maybe its Bla-go-jevick, but that doesn't sound much better. Being the smart guy that I am, I turned on talk radio and listened for their rendition of Blagojevich. They pronounce his name Blaga-ya-vick. I thought that I would follow their lead, but then I remembered that talk radio is dominated by conservative republicans who have little knowledge of liberal democrats, so how could I be certain that they were right. Even if they knew the proper rendering, how could I be sure that they wouldn't mispronounce the word on purpose. So naturally, I decided to go to the mainstream media where liberal names are the dominant language spoken. After hearing all pronunciations I decided that in my vocal communication or is it oral communication, oh well whatever, I would simply refer to the person in question as "the governor of Illinois".

Of course in print I can still refer to him as Bla.......... I'm practicing for my oral presentations. To refer to him as Bla......... reminds one of the transcript of his telephone conversations as recorded in the press.

The story is fascinating from a number standpoints. First, from the standpoint of the press. Here's a liberal democrat trying to intimidate the Tribune dynasty in Chicago. Since the Tribune and other well known msm are in financial crisis and fighting for their survival, how much energy will they put into investigating this story. Will there be any effort to tie "the governor" with the president elect. The New York Times, the Los Angelos Times and the tribune network of papers sacrificed all to get the "Illinois senator" elected. Their very survival might be guaranteed if they could expose a connection of the president elect to the scandal of Bla..........."the governor". Second, its interesting from the standpoint of scandal and the democrats. Our president elect ran on a platform of change in Washington. Will his experience in Illinois be his model of change? I think Washington is already enough like Illinois. What kind of reform movement did president elect Obama lead in Illinois? I guess I just haven't heard about it, I'm sure he did, after all politicians wouldn't mislead us, would they? Third, it makes you wonder about the genesis of tax free 501c 4 charities. Do these charities arise from altruism or from political favors?

There is not an area of society that seems untouched by political favors. I have seen politics in the church just as in the community. Whenever areas becomed politicized scandal is waiting to surface. Seek ye first the kingdom where political favors play no role in its administration.

Hopefully rain may come our way within 24 hours. Some severe weather is also possible. Hope we get the former without the latter.

Getting older is not exactly what I expected. I imagined a day when worries would be behind me. All my kids would be healthy, wealthy and wise. All would fight one another to provide for Gloria and me in our senior years. We would live in the mountains. I would read, write and breathe the mountain air.

I'm proud of my kids and they are thoughtful and caring. I don't worry about not being cared for, but I didn't expect that so much care would be necessary. In ten years I've had 4 bi-passes, a stint, a pacemaker and lots of bills. Saturday I was diagnosed with "fuchs' dystrophy". If you've ever heard of it, you're ahead of me. After doing a little research, I discover there is no cure except cornea transplant. It can be treated with drops until it worsens. It produces blurred vision, watering eyes and frustration. The disease is inherited and produces swelling in an inner layer of the cornea. In a worse case scenario blindness can result, but I'm trusting that mine will not become a worse case scenario. If I were blind I couldn't blog and I know that the world awaits my latest blog as is evidenced by the many many many responses to my blogs. I have never trusted numbers and am sure that I have many silent readers.


So now I have lost my vision of reading and writing in my mountain cabin. Instead I see myself with coca cola glasses rocking in a rocking chair waiting to be fed. Oh well, I couldn't breathe the mountain air anyway without wearing my pacemaker out before its time. Did someone say these were the golden years or was it the olden years? Ecclesiastes 12 means more to me than it used to when I would preach a powerful sermon about remembering the creator in the days of your youth before the golden years set in.

If any of my readers are young may I suggest you never visit this sight again. Seems like I keep using words like vision and sight. I need to expand my vocabulary before I fall into dark(stop it) depression. God bless those readers who are experiencing with me the golden years.

Please include my sister Wilna in your prayers. She just learned today that she has chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. We were hoping and praying that the tests would eliminate leukemia, but the bone marrow test confirmed it. She is very special to me and I solicit your prayers on her behalf. She is a strong lady and has been a rock in our family all of my life. She will address this disease with confidence and faith.

Its 10:50 A.M., Tuesday morning. Our church building is located on a hill just outside of Maypearl. The wind is howling and it seems colder than the temperature would suggest. My daughter Rona and her husband are with us this week. They arrived from St Louis, Mo. Monday morning about 4:30. Its great having them with us and tonight we will celebrate my grandson's 10th birthday. It seems like only yesterday that we were in the hospital comforting mom as Elvis was making his way into the world. Time does fly.

Recently I have re-read Pitirim Sorokin's THE CRISIS OF OUR AGE. Sorokin wrote this work in 1941. He lived in the Soviet Union through the revolution of 1917 and was sentenced to death in 1922, but was later banished from the country and in 1930 began the sociology department at Harvard University where he taught until his retirement in 1955. He died in 1968.

Reading his work of 1941 is like reading a current critique of our 2008 culture. He divides history into periods. The periods cycle and re-cycle. A period may last a century or a millenium. The three periods into which he divides history are (1) ideational (2) sensate and (3) idealism. The ideational is characterized by creativity and development in the areas of religion, ethics and philosophy. The sensate features development in the material world of science, empire building and economics. Idealism is a combination of thought and reason, as well as some features of the ideational. He argues that as a period begins it has high energy and creativity, but that as it advances the creative wanes and fatigue grows. As a period begins its death cycle and transitions to another mode, great stress, wars, psychological issue and pessimism emerge. He believed that beginning in about AD 1300, we entered into a sensate period. By late in the 19th century we were beginning to grow old and that by mid 20th century we were well into the transition to either ideational or idealism.

He suggests that the greatest names and most creative minds of science, the arts, poltics etc. lived in the heyday of the sensate culture from about 1500 to 1850. Leaders of the last 150 years are less creative and more imitative. Style has replaced substance. Glitter and size have replaced creativity. Throw away best-sellers have replaced classic literature. As we look back 67 years, we can see that he was prescient. Today there is much more talk about spirituality and less talk about creative theories. The question remains open as to where we are going, but it seems that he was onto something even if his models may not have been the best or exhausted the options. Will Christianity once again advance around the world or will the ideational option be characterized by the continuing advancement of Islam. Will our grandchildren live to see sharia law in America or will America once again become a shining light for democratic values and laws. Time, prayer and people will tell the tale. At the moment God only knows the outcome.