Maypearl Maverick

HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?

2010-03-22T05:16:00.000-07:00

"Dr. Jones' office, can I help you today? Excuse me for saying 'today'. The earliest we could possibly see you would be December. Before we make you an appointment I will need to ask you a few questions. I hope you have insurance because if you don't, I will have to turn you into the IRS. The first offense I believe is 2500 dollars. I f this is your second offense, you may receive up to six months in jail. I'm not sure of the details, but I thought you should be informed..Oh you have insurance, that's great.

I only have a few more questions. How old are you? 66, oh."

"Why did you say oh?"

"Well if you are 66, you must be on medicare"

"So"

"Well I thought you said you have insurance."

"Isn't medicare insurance?"

The receptionist can hardly control her laughter.

"Medicare is insurance like monopoly money is money. Do you know anyone who will take monopoly money in payment for a bill you owe? "

" I have good news for you, there are no more questions to answer. You probably ought to look for a burial policy instead of a doctor. Have a great day...click"

2010-01-20T07:33:00.000-08:00

The Ground Hog is coming out before his day. Nothing like a Scott heard round the world to surface those in hibernation. Two quakes have awakened me: one a disaster of mammoth proportion and another metaphorical quake that has been felt throughout America and particularly in Washington D.C..

I. HAITI--The death and devastation are beyond imagination. Seasoned reporters and military personnel confirm that they've never seen anything like it. Such natural disasters remind us of the fragility of life and hopefully compel us to begin experiencing life differently than maybe we have in the past. Let us not take for granted our security and the presence of our family and friends. In a moment, in the twinkling of the eye, all can be snatched from us and them.

Is such a disaster what insurance companies call an act of God? Apparently such a description would be approved by Pat Robertson. Mr. Robertson said Haiti had been placed under a curse because of a pact it made with the Devil. Upon hearing Robertson's comments, I couldn't help but wonder why God decided to punish one of the poorest countries in the world when wealthy, powerful countries were just as evil if not more so and they get a pass. Does God discriminate against the poor and ignorant while showing favoritism to the rich and powerful? If I had such thoughts, I would have to believe that unbelievers would be led to ask the same question. "Wannabe prophets" constantly present obstacles to belief by idenitfying their own conclusions with the mind of God. Those who rush to interpret history and acts of nature as the consequence of evil are in danger of making themselves god. I don't believe God has appointed Mr. Robertson to be his word to the world. Only His Son can speak authoritatively for God and He has done so. Haiti is never mentioned by Jesus. However, Jesus does say in John 9 that some are wrong in assuming that the blind man was blind because of his sin. Rather he said that the blindness presented an opportunity for believers to reveal God to the blind man through their love and service. Christians should join with people of good will around the world in seeking to reveal God and His love in the midst of incredible pain and loss.

2. QUAKE 2: Massachusetts election for senate seat

A growing wave of anxiety and anger has reached the hallowed grounds of the center of liberalism's power. A place where the royal Kennedy family have presided for nearly 50 years. Who could have predicted the outcome of this election two months ago when the winner was trailing by 30 points. As the wave reached Ma. and passed through Boston a miracle occurred. A Republican senator was elected for the first time in nearly 60 years. Was this God's doing, as some claim Haiti was His doing? If so, will that mean that the next Democrat who wins a senate seat will have won because of God willing it? Folks Democrats and Republicans alike pray in order to make a difference, but the difference that is made is known only to God. We must be careful in offering conclusions that are ours as though they were God's. Such caution does not mean that we live as though God is not involved, it means instead that we will not presume to know the mind of God when He has not revealed it to us. Its fine for us to have faith, but there is a difference between my faith and God's knowledge and actions. I trust God with my future, but I don't always know what He is doing in that future. I trust Him because of what has been documented in the past. I trust Him because of what Jesus has revealed to humanity of His nature and character. I know He keeps His promises and if He says, "NEVER WILL I LEAVE YOU, NEVER WILL I FORSAKE YOU" then I can say "THE LORD IS MY HELPER; I WILL NOT BE AFRAID. WHAT CAN MAN DO TO ME" (Heb 13: 5,6).

What I have learned from the election is how little we know about the future. Where is the expert that two months ago predicted a Scott Brown victory? Paul asked the Corinthians "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the Philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"(1 Cor. 1: 20)

He has the whole world in His hands, but I don't know what tomorrow brings for I don't have God's will in my Hands or mind. Nature can produce disasters of biblical proportion, but without a commentary such as the prophets of old to tell us what role God plays and what role humans and natural law play, we are left with the need to simply trust God. Since the world and 6billion plus people are more than I can handle, I'm glad to leave both in the hands of someone big enought to handle it.

THE STORY OF MAJOR NIDAL MALIK HASON

2009-11-06T07:51:00.000-08:00

Another story of mass murder is hardly the news it once was. We are growing accustomed to such stories in our country. However, the largest mass murder on a military base on U.S. soil is still a major event and without question a tragic event. How much did we know and when did we know it? When you first heard about it, did you hear the name of the shooter? If not, what were your thoughts about what might have happened? When you heard that the shooter's name suggested he was an Arab, what did you think? When you heard that he was a dedicated Muslim, what did you think? We all have our own theories even before all of the evidence is in; often we modify our interpretations with the revealing of new facts. Where do we go for our facts in an effort to become better informed and to bettet understand what happened? Probably we watch television coverage or go to news sights on the internet to secure the facts. What not everyone considers is that the facts come clothed in a story shaped by the broadcasters and commentators who interpret for us the facts. Seldom do we seek or find facts isolated from a narrative being composed by the network or editorial staff designed to interpret those facts for the listener or viewer.

Yesterday's tragic event is another example of vastly different narratives being shaped by idealogues at networks and newschannels. Within hours one could pick up on the contrating narratives being used to explain the event that had just occured.

NARRATIVE # 1 Hasan was a psychiatrist and had to deal with soldiers returning from staysin Iraqand Afghanistan. He witnessed men and women experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and other negative effects of their involvement in the two wars being waged by his government in Washington. In addition, since 2001, he and other Muslims in the military were experiencing harassment. Some called him a "camel jockey" which he found very offensive. He wanted out, but the military wouldn't let him because of debts he incurred through a free medical degree he earned from the government while in the Army. He became more and more disenchanted with the wars and their consequences being felt by the people of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the consequences being experienced by returning soldiers, as well as muslims in the military. As CBS News.com expresses it "Military officials say they are still piecing together what may have PUSHED(emphasis mine) Hasan...to turn on his comrades".

CBS NEWS.COM further explains that a cousin said "soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim" and that as a psychiatrist he "was traumatized by the stories he heard from returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder as he counseled them at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and later, at Fort Hood."

ABC NEWS ONLINE adds that as "Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq, he was suffering from some of the same stresses he was trained as an Army psychiatrist to treat...his family says he had hired a lawyer to help him get out of the Armed Forces."

MSNBC goes further by presenting an article explaining that one of the reasons President Obama has been hesitant to send additional troops to Afghanistan is the fact that he is aware of the deterioration of the mental and physical health of our over-taxed soldiers who have been deployed over and over to continue these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "After many years of lengthy war zone rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Army personnel are experiencing record rates of suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other mental health problems, as well as worsening alcohol and drug abuse...The psychological toll on the all-volunteer force today is unprecedented, Army officials say, acknowledging that they do not know how much the Army can sustain before it breaks....making the health of the force a major consideration in President Obama's current deliberations over sending more U.S. troops to Afhanistan.

"It's unclear what motivated the Army psychiatrist who is thought to have opened fire on fellow soldiers Thursday, although it's clear he had worked in settings where the effects of combat stress were pervasive....A small but increasing number of soldiers undergoing the mental strain of repeated combat deployments are taking lives--often their own."

The article then points out that 75 soldiers at Fort Hood have commited suicide since 2003. Further 81 confirmed suicide deaths in the Army have occured thus far in 2009.

Now for a few observations on this narrative: (1) This account constantly refers to Nasan by his profession as a Psychiatrist. (2) This account emphasizes that he was himself traumatized by having to counsel with so many victims of the war who suffered from mental health issues. (3) Narrative # 1 focuses on the unfair treatment he received from his fellow soldiers. (4) This narrative seeks to make his story part of a bigger story that concerns the mental condition of all of the Armed Forces who are experiencing battle fatique from these prolonged war efforts. (5) At least the President is concerned about their health and that helps explain his hesitancy in sending additonal soldiers to Afghanistan. In this narrative the shooter himself becomes a victim of the Bush wars.

NARRATIVE # 2 This narrative focuses on Hasan's religion rather than his professional career as a Psychiatrist. Hasan is and always has been a muslim. Fox News highlights the comments of retired Colonel Terry Lee who prior to his retirement was a colleague of Major Hasan. Colonel Lee points out that Hasan had made several comments suggesting that he admired the suicide bombers in Iraq and Afhanistan. He also expressed his opposition to the U.S. war effort in these two countries. Apparently Major Hasan had expressed on a blog his admiration for suicide bombers.

This scenario leads us to believe that Hasan was a radical religious extremist who saw himself as part of a jihad against America. Some say he acted alone and thus cannot be a viewed as a terrorist because as far as we know at the moment he was not part of an organized effort. Is the definition of a terrorist "a member of a group" or "one who seeks to produce and does produce terror by his comments or actions"? If he was a fanatic terrorist then we may need to strenthen our military and prepare them for future battles. If he was psychologically impacted by the overwhelming stress being experienced by the military then maybe we need to find a way to excuse ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible. Do we see how these two narratives are fueled by political ideology as much as they are by the facts.

Factors that may or may not be explanatory are introduced to help support one narrative or the other. For instance the MSNBC story was supported by statistics concerning a growing problem of suicide on military bases across the country. Of course suicide is a growing problem among the non-military population just as it is among military personnel. Also it is interesting to note that the suicide rate in the general population is considerably higher in the 20 to 24 age group then any other age group in America. Many of our soldiers are in that age bracket. Also of note is the separation of families produced by military duty that would help account for more depression and higher suicide rate. In other words to extrapolate from the statistical data concerning suicide rates among the military that its all due to repeated deployments to the warzone is beyond proof from current data, but when weaved into a story about Hasan, the Psychiatrist, it helps explain his actions as a depressed and stressed soldier and helps reinforce the view of those who would like to see our soldiers disengage from combat.

Its probably too early to decide between these two narratives, but it illustrates the politicalization of news stories. There may emerge a third narrative that includes elements of both numbers 1 and 2 above, or it may be totally different. Our world view often provides the framework for our interpretation of facts presented to us by events. Political correctness and anti-war views make some individuals and news sources seek for data that can reinforce such positions. With others anti terrorism is a higher priority than anti-war views. With anti terrorists, terrorism is always a distinct possibility and its not the last possibility to be considered.

Our lesson is to remember that facts present themselves in multiple contexts (religious, political, family, personal etc.) and which if any explains the events can be determined only by following where the evidence leads. While our world view usually determines our initial responses to facts, our ultimate conclusions must be determined by the evidence. We probably all have our tentative conclusions at the moment, but before we can speak with certainty, we must await the arrival of further evidence.

The Promise of Civil Discourse

2009-10-19T08:10:00.000-07:00

My last blog discussed the need for civil discourse. One of the appeals of candidate Obama was to bring to Washington change that would include civil discourse rather than a politics of destruction. He promised to sit down with those across the isle and listen to them and engage in constructive give and take. I think many Americans were tired of heated rhetoric and longed for a day when our representatives in the branches of government would transcend party talking points and address our country's problems like grown ups should. Candidate Obama's demeanor seemed to suggest that he might be better at that then candidate McCain and at least a percentage of Americans who voted for Obama did so with the promises and appearances of Obama in mind.

Now, I wonder if those who endorsed him for the above reasons still endorse him for those reasons. Some red flags have appeared and no pun is intended with the color "red". However, one does have to take note when the President's White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn informs a group of students that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung, the communist dictator of China who was responsible for the Communist takeover of China. That concern is increased when she acknowledges that the Obama election team used a strategy of dealing with the media that was designed to control the message that the media had access to. Mao was leader of one of the bloodiest campaigns ever launched against human beings. Jean-Louis Margolin, European historian, has estimated that deaths during Mao's reign of terror were between 44.5 million and 72 million. Dunn quotes favorably Mao's "you fight your war and I'll fight mine". I might also add that Mao was famous for his statement that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". For the sake of the students to whom she was speaking and for the sake of those who want to believe in President Obama, it would be better in the future if she could find another political philosopher to admire rather than Mao Tse Tung.

Since his election President Obama, cabinet and advisors have refused to appear on Fox network because the news channel is so critical of him and his administration. That the network is far more critical of Obama then the other news networks, as well as ABC, NBC, and CBS should be evident to a five year old. However, that these others were far more supportive of Obama than McCain in the campaign was also quite evident. The other networks were also far more critical of Bush than was Fox, however, Bush never ceased to appear on those networks that were critical of him. A president is expected to stay out of the kitchen if he can't handle the fire. A President should know that the oval office is in the center of the kitchen and therefore one is in the wrong line of work if he can't handle criticism and debate.

I must confess that it concerns me when officials in the administration admit that they set out to control the media and from all appearances were quite successful. It concerns me when an administration sets out to isolate and marginalize their critics. It concerns me not just from the concern for freedom of the press, but it concerns me that the American people may lack the facts they need to form opinions and determine their votes. In fact, Anita Dunn complains about the fact that the last administration official to appear in a discussion format on Fox News had their comments "fact checked" by Fox. Some of the comments were found to be false, but her complaint was not that the official was exposed, rather it was that a network news organization would dare to "fact check" an administration official. She said she had never seen that before and apparently neither she nor the administration appreciated being "fact checked". Excuse me, but I believe most Americans want no less from the media and in fact, one of the primary criticisms of all media today, Fox included, is that they have an agenda that trumps truth.

One hopes that the administration's treatment of Fox will not be the first salvo of an assault on all communication that challenges the prevailing view of the administration. There have been a number of friends of the administration who have talked about bringing back the "fairness doctrine" that would force radio station owners to provide free time for any politican criticized on their station. Such would force stations to discontinue talk radio. I have mixed emotions about much that talk radio produces, but I do realize that for the most part they represent a legitimate voice of millions of Americans whose voices will never be represented in the major news outlets of America other than Fox. It is never healthy in a free society to silence one side of a debate. In America today, most polls show that our people are split almost down the middle between two political views. In free societies efforts should not be made to silence the view with which we disagree.

The history of Christianity has been a history that involved trying to silence those with whom we disagree. State churches have been responsible for encouraging the execution of those who were critical of the views of the State Church. In America the first amendment was introduced to prevent such religious domination in our country. Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims , Protestants etc. are allowed to express freely their views provided they do so without trampling on the freedoms of others.

There is legislation in Congress that may pass this year that could silence churches with reference to discussion about homosexuality. If encouraging people to think of homosexual behavior as a sin can be treated as hate speech which is what legislation before congress is advocating, then preachers and churches who read scripture that suggest such can be charged with hate speech.

All efforts to triumph over our critics by silencing our critics rather than taking them on in serious discussion and debate are incongruous with a free society. Seldom is one side of a debate totally void of truth or error and only through open dialogue will a conclusion be reached that is better than either view alone.

The Need for Civil Discourse

2009-09-16T08:19:00.000-07:00

As christians we need to view our fellow man as "the image of God" even when we disagree with him, he deserves respect. I realize that humans can become so barbaric that we find nothing to admire in them, but those are not the individuals I have in mind. This past week a number of events have transpired that have caught my attention. Joe Wilson the congressman from South Carolina who violated congressional decorum by shouting out "you lie" in the midst of President Obama's address to congress embarassed himself and hopefully those who would probably share his views on the issue in question. Yesterday former President Carter expressed his view that Wilson was a racist.

This morning driving to work I was listening to the Mike Gallagher radio program. He is a conservative talk host. He was bemoaning the fact that Joe Wilson had been rebuked by congress for his behavior. A caller, who happened to be black, identified himself as a soldier who had served during some of our recent conflicts and that he had turned his back on his parents views in becoming a conservative. However, he still was inclined to believe that some of the criticism from people like Wilson might be race inspired. Gallagher responded by suggesting that the caller was really not a conservative and even hinting that his military service was probably a hoax. He demanded the caller provide evidence for his assertion that Wilson might have been motivated by race, yet every time the caller tried to speak, Gallagher would talk over him.

Just as dangerous as big government is the danger of extreme polarization that can lead to civil conflict and even anarchy. Conservative talk show hosts do a service when they provide information to the public that the mainstream news media refuse to provide. However, when they become entertainers seeking an audience by slandering everyone who disagrees with them, they are as much a threat to our freedoms as those who are their polar opposites. Our goal should not be to out-shout our opponents. The goal should be to challenge them to rise above their hostility toward us and reason with us. Allow the argument to prevail rather than the emotions. Public discourse, when polluted by anger, becomes its on terror.

James Davison Hunter in his book CULTURE WARS launched an effort to understand the polarizing tendencies in our culture. He argues that the wars are a power struggle to define America. He explains that public discourse today is"divisive and inflammatory. But what makes contemporary public discourse even more inflammatory is the appeal to sensationalism...sensationalism and exaggeration, regardless of the party and the object of disfavor, always foster fear, mistrust and resentment."

Dialogue and debate are healthy for society, but is such possible in today's environment? Radio talk show hosts are concerned about winning the ratings competition and giving callers time to articulate a disagreement may hinder winning. Sensationalism and inflammatory rhetoric may be more successful. Politicians are concerned about solidifying their base and participating in real dialogue or debate may be a threat to their goal. Television is more concerned about advertising and time constraints than they are about public discourse so it is easier to promote their own political views then to provide a forum for genuine discourse. Any way who would listen to public debate? After all we Americans are busy. What we want is for someone to assure us that our gut instinct is right. We don't have time for that academic kind of talk that might call for us to use our minds and reason. So on we go, with some listening to Jimmy Carter and saying "amen", while others listen to Mike Gallagher and say "thats the way to tell him". Meanwhile ignorance, anger and fear continue to grow and our social fabric becomes more and more fragile.

just wondering?

2009-09-15T08:58:00.000-07:00

When George Bush was asked "who his favorite philosopher" was, he answered "Jesus Christ". When President Obama was asked if he could choose but one person to have dinner with, who would it be, he answered Muhatma Ghandi. Thought the answers were enlightening and can't help but wonder what significance, if any, can be found in their differing answers to somewhat similiar questions. How would you have answered either of those questions?

Wonder why the mainstream news networks did not think the video of ACORN employees advising people on how to set up an illegal prostitution business was worth airing. I guess they assumed no one would have found the video or story interesting, yet I can't help but wonder?

My niece is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer and in the process has received a shot that cost $7,000.00. Wonder if we had government insurance, would someone my age(66) find such shots available. If yes, who would have to pay for it and if no, who would want it? Just wondering.

If five years from now, China should require us to pay our debt, I wonder how much would be left for national defense and national health care. I guess as long as we have enough left to keep our printing presses running, we can just create money out of trees. Is it that simple? I'm just a simple man and just wondering.

I hope no one tells the government of my "wonderings" because such might become subject to a luxury tax to help fund the subjects of my wonderings.

2009-09-02T14:24:00.000-07:00

I received an e-mail discouraging me from discontinuing my blog. If you've read any of my recent blogs, please comment "yes" and that's all you need to say. I will mull over what to do.

2009-09-02T12:14:00.000-07:00

its been fun

"Concessions and Smiles"

2009-09-01T09:09:00.000-07:00

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles.

Britain and Scotland's release of mass murderer Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is a classic example of "concessions and smiles". He is responsible for the death of 270 people who were blown up in a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Due to bad health, it was decided he should be released and returned to Libya, his home country so that he might join his family for whatever time he has left. Don't you think the families of the victims of the bombed plane wish they had some time with their loved ones. Did the little children who died deserve their fate? Why should he receive a privilege that he denied to hundreds of others?

Why was he released? Was it strictly for humanitarian reasons? Do we suppose he's the only prisoner to develop a terminal illness while in prison? Do we really think all such prisoners are released? We're not that naive! So why does a man who killed 270 men, women and children earn such favor? Some sources in Britain have documented communications between Britain's government and Libya that suggest the release was demanded by Libya in order to receive their approval for a large deal releasing oil for Britain. If this is so, then this act of mercy was just a condition to be met in order to acquire oil from a terrorist Gadafi. Is there any wonder that the West is having a hard time defeating terrorism?

As Thomas Sowell has pointed out in a column today, a Scotsman of 250 years ago, Adam Smith wrote that "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent".

The "concessions and smiles" diplomacy is not just an unjust policy of the Scots and Brits, it is a policy embraced by many in America, including many in high places. We now believe we can sit down and talk with Iran and Hamas. We will surely be able to persuade them through kindness and reason to give up their terrorist ways. They will be glad to talk so long as we follow a "concessions and smiles" strategy. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Our "concessions and smiles" policy leads to investigating CIA interrogators with a view to possibly filing charges against those who were trying to secure information about future terrorist plans.

Paul writes in Rom. 13:3ff. that "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong...if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant...an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.."

I think governments of the West, including our own, would be well served to consider their responsibility to the good before they embrace "concessions and smiles" toward the evil. I would hope that terrorists would fear "the terror of rulers" when they kill the innocent (whether one person, 270, or 3,000).

We are reaping the results of a moral vacuum where we have lost the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Often the right to do evil is defended more than the doing of good. Christianity and care for the good and innocent are met with charges of "judgmentalism and self righteousness" while terrorists must be forgiven because our western values and culture "made them do it". Ultimately America is accused of being the breeding ground of terrorism. Don't blame Islamic extremism, but blame American arrogance and self righteousness.

How may we conquer terrorism? Will it be by "concessions and smile" or by doing whatever is necessary to protect the innocent and administering justice toward the terrorists??

GROWING THREATS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS

2009-08-27T10:09:00.000-07:00

One of the themes that has defined America is religious liberty. In the early colonies such freedom was rare. Until the birth of America, State churches were the norm. The first amendmentwas disigned to protect the people from a national church. Even as the first amendment was drafted there were still state churches in existence. Eventually state churches disappeared as state constitutions followed the lead of the national government. The first amendment was intended to free the conscience from government dictate. We can argue about whether denominations are good or bad, but we can agree that without a first amendment, such would be virtually impossible.

Today religious liberty is under attack from a variety of sources. Churches that choose to follow the Bible rather than cultural trends often find themselves on the wrong side of political correctness. Churches may object to women in the pulpit and may consider homosexuality a sin. Such views produce scorn from those who are feminists and gay activists. However, efforts to limit religious freedom have been around for decades, we just have not always noticed because churches and christians have often accepted the limitations without so much as a whimper. After all, we don't want to be viewed by the "in group" as fanatics who define the "out group".

For 28 years I served as a faculty member and an administrator of the Center for Christian Education. Our purpose was to equip men and women for ministry primarily in churches of Christ. Even though we were a private school, we were required to follow government regulations. We couldn't call ourselves a college nor could we compare ourselves in any way to a college. To use the word "college" in any of our promotional material was forbidden. For instance, even though all of our professors possessed doctorates, except for myself, we could not say that our classes were taught on a college level, nor could we say that graduates who had attended both our school and an accredited college often said that our courses compared favorably with courses offered at accredited institutions. As a result we could never attain the cultural credibility that we believed our program deserved. Because of this fact, the President and the Board decided that we should seek accreditation.

We had two obviouse problems from the start of our efforts to seek accreditation. We had limited financial resources and a small student population. As we got into the process, it became evident that we were a David and the state was a Goliath. The state said for us to continue the process we would have to employ a full time librarian and Registrar. Two new positions and two salaries that we had not anticipated. Our annual budget increased by $300,000.00 while our student population remained quite low. The point man for the state wrote and said that I needed to be assigned to the classroom and that the Center would have to employ a new Dean of
Academics who possessed a Doctorate. I only had a Masters Degree and though I had been responsible for the fact that all of the staff apart from me possessed Doctorates, it was thought that my lack of experience in administration at a REAL college would prohibit me from being able to serve as Dean. We made the hire and continued forward. Our employee/student ratio was not what a prospective donor would want to see. As a result fund raising became harder and harder. The conclusion to this story is that we were forced to close our doors in June of 2005. One could argue, and I would agree, that we should have counted the cost in advance and not began the process until we were better funded. The point is that at the moment it is just history, but the story serves to illustrate that religious freedom is sometimes more of an illusion than reality. It didn't matter what those who had spent their lives in churches of Christ thought should be essential to preparing ministers for churches of Christ, what mattered was what the bureaucrats in Austin thought.

The government categorized us as a vocational school. Therefore until we became accredited, we would have to have students in class for something like 27 hours per week, if we wanted students to be eligible for certain government funds available to veterans. It didn't matter that we were providing education somewhat like colleges ( I hope the statute of limitations has expired).

What churches of Christ believed or what the school's board and faculty believed was quality education appropriate to our religious context meant nothing, only the government could make such determinations. Now I realize that the public needs to be protected from degree mills, but such protection does not require government dictates invading our freedom to educate potential ministers in a way consistent with the expectations of Christians who compose the church.

About three years ago the state board tried to close down a small school similiar to the Center who were so bold as to use the word college to describe their program. The state said only state approved colleges could use the term. The school filed suit and the case was taken before the Supreme Court of Texas. The court ruled in favor of the school and concluded that the state has no right to determine how churches educate their ministers. Therefore were we seeking accreditation today it would be a different story. Trust me when I say that many accredited institutions were probably embarassed by our State Court's ruling. The churches may not realize it, but there is a growing distance between higher education and the churches. What matters to many universities is what other universities think about them. The applause from their peers means more than the endorsement of the churches. Don't interpret my words as a blanket indictment of all Christian universities and professors. What I am saying is that academic freedom means much more than religious freedom to many in the field of academia.

Most Court rulings are not as friendly to churches as the Texas Supreme Court's above decision.

Recently Dr. William Thierfelder, President of BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE received correspondence from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission informing him that the school was under investigation because of a charge of sexual discrimination filed by eight faculty members. The charge was that because the school did not provide medical coverage for abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptives, they were discriminating against women. The college is Roman Catholic and views these practices as immoral.

The EEOC first dismissed the charges, but apparently when the decision reached the Washington office, there was a reversal of the decision and the case was re-opened.

Dr. Thierfelder offered the following observations:

"From a religious freedom standpoint, you don't have religious freedom...(the college) has gotten a lot of support from people who are not Catholic, and who may not share our beliefs on abortion, sterilization, contraception...they see the principle and what they're saying is, if you're a Catholic, or if you are of any faith, it doesn't mean anything. You're going to do what the government tells you to do....All of us need to have moral courage in today's world. We are so resolute in our commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church that there is no possible way we would ever deviate from it, and if it came down to it...we would close the school rather than give in...So it is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible." (quote from w.w.w.lifesitenews.com)

It will be interesting to follow the progress of this case. While I have serious disagreement with various views of Roman Catholicism, I applaud Dr. Thierfelder for his courageous stand. I fear that not all of our college presidents would take such a courageous stand on abortion or other isssues such as the gay lifestyle.

These issues will multiply if the health refrom legislation before Congress passes. Physicians, nurses, and hospitals will not be free to refuse to perform abortions. Many Catholic hospitals have threatened to close their doors rather than compromise. Again I applaud their commitment, and can only hope that others will be so courageous.

If we desire to protect our religious freedom we must exercise it no matter what the cost!

I have a bit of senior anxiety

2009-08-20T14:22:00.000-07:00

We senior citizens are a bit nervous about the new health care proposals. We have been assured that "death panels" and the like are simply the rabid venom of the radical right. Maybe so, but I think it may be working for I still feel uneasy. Maybe as we grow older we grow more neurotic, but still....

Just when I was about to say "yes we can" to the wonderful new world of life and freedom from anxiety, I read Jim Towey's article on "The Death Book for Veterans" which appears on the online web-site of the Wall Street Journal. He writes that President Bush was forced to intercede and discontinue the publication of a Veterans Administration workbook entitled "Your Life, Your Choices" which was first published in 1997. The book was authored by Dr. Robert Pearlman, Chief of Ethics Evaluation for the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care. The workbook leads veterans to ask and answer for themselves various questions such as " would life be worth living if "you can't shake the blues" or if you're a severe financial burden on your family?". Pearlman in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v Quill before the Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

In July of this year, under the Obama Administration, the VA re-introduced a revised version of "Your Life, Your Choices". The Care Providers are encouraged to point not only the older veterans to the publication, but all 24 million veterans. The publication is to be used in discussion of "advanced directives". Only one organization is referred to as a resource for such end of life planning and that is the notorious "Hemlock Society" (now known as "Compassion and Choices").

Mr Towey is President of Saint Vincent College and is also founder of "Aging with Dignity". I and some of my friends are very much in favor of being allowed to "age with dignity" and as a result, we get a bit nervous when healthy, wealthy middle aged folks, whom we have never met may be deciding whether its feasible to treat our cancer or provide a life prolonging heart surgery. Maybe for the sake of the economy and more deserving middle aged folks, we should decide to die. Maybe morphine can be sold over the counter and nitro glycerin provided in our cereal. Such would surely be a social benefit and more cost effective. Maybe those birthers can find me a new birth certificate, showing my age as 40. Or maybe the State could just lose my birth certificate and the government couldn't prove me to be ----. You didn't really expect me to give my age, did you?

READ, REFLECT AND RESPOND

2009-08-12T07:42:00.000-07:00

In recent weeks there has been angry debate over the proposal for healthcare reform in America. The reform being discussed would likely offer a public option of a government directed health plan. We've heard the debate and the pros and cons of each side. However, the problem is that there is no legislation that has been brought to the floor of Congress. Various committees and groups have presented proposals, but no definitive bill. In a country where smart people with computers exist, why can congress not propose a definitive bill, and then submit it to public discussion. Publish the bill on the Congress website and let those who are interested read the bill. This might take three weeks. Then after having time to read it, let the people communicate with their representatives and senators concerning their views and suggestions. Maybe this period of reflection and response could last another three weeks. Then after these combined six weeks, Congress could debate and vote.

Is such a proposal too laborious and slow? Some would object that no one would read a thousand page bill. If not, then I guess we can't complain, but I have a feeling that a large number would read it. Congress persons should give more attention to those who are informed respondents than they do to people ignorant of the bill. If the bill could be a matter of life and death to some, especially viewed as such by senior citizens, then I think they would be motivated to check it out. Since such a bill would likely change our health delivery system in America for decades to come, younger citizens might also be inclined to take a look at it. Six weeks might not be too long for Americans to be involved in a process that truly invites the will of the people to be expressed. No longer could politicians label opposition as scare tactics based on misinformation, nor could opponents offer criticism of something that has never been proposed. Right now, the debate concerns proposals not bills that have come up for vote.

Recent trends in Congress suggest that my proposal would meet significant opposition, because some congressmen have dismissed the idea of reading bills, especially without lawyers at their side. If my congressman hasn't read the bill or doesn't understand the bill, I want him to oppose its coming up for a vote until he has had time to read and understand it. If he has had time, but hasn't read it, I would like to know that so that I can support someone else in the next election. I also think that if more bills were published and read by constituents, we might call upon congress and the judicial system to simplify legislation so that average people can determine what it means.

Maybe a grassroots movement for such an approach by Congress might work and if it did it would be truly grassroots and not astroturf (or is it astroterf?). Oh well, I said I favored legislation that average people could understand.

ARE WE SURE THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL?

2009-07-24T09:39:00.000-07:00

I had decided to retire from bloggersphere, but I have an itch that needs to be scratched and I think blogging is the only answer. Many institutions of higher learning advocate that all cultures are right for those within those cultures. Truth about right and wrong is determined by those within a culture and not by those of a different culture. Some will go so far as to suggest that what Hitler did was right from Germany's perspective and who are we as non-Germans do condemn what happened. These same professors and institutions will condemn America for standing in judgment of other nations and their behavior. Who are we to condemn Castro or Hugo Chavez? The only culture or government that America can rightfully criticize is our own. This is one of the reasons that our institutions produce so many "hate America" students. Many of those graduating from these institutions are gaining increasing power in America. Those who hate America love France and other European governments and cultures.

My blog is generated by an event that occurred in Phoenix, Arizona this week. An 8 year old girl was raped by 4 boys, ages 9-14. When the 8 yr. old girl was returned to her father, he said he didn't want her. Police sergeant, Andy Hill, explained that the parents of the 8 yr. old were from Liberia and that in Liberia, a rape victim is viewed as responsible for what happens to her and that the rape is viewed as bringing shame on the family name. As Americans should we say, "who are we to criticize their culture?". If the Liberians accept it as right for them, then we are in no position to critize their values, after all, values have no authority beyond cultural endorsement. Then why do those who argue such, express so much hostility toward slavery. As long as a culture prefers slavery, why is slavery o.k.? Surely such examples as slavery and an 8 yr. old rape victim being rejected by her parents are enough to demonstrate that some things are right everywhere, all the time and with everyone. Some cultures are morally inferior to others. America is not perfect and we deserve some of the cricism that comes from Muslim countries who accuse of corruption and immorality as evidenced by hollywood and our tolerance of evil. Yet I believe that most women and christians would prefer America to the intolerance of the Islamic societies who sit in judgment of us.

Pray for sanity and common sense to return to higher education and those in positions of influence over government and society.

The Most Difficult Problem Christ faces in the world

2009-06-02T14:12:00.000-07:00

Kansas Law Enforcement Officers have charged Scott Roeder with entering a church building and gunning down one of the church's ushers. George Tiller fell victim to the gunman's wrath. If you didn't know it, you know now that Tiller was a famous physician who performed late term abortions. Pro-life causes had repeatedly pointed to Tiller as representing the kind of medical practice in America that threatens the lives of the unborn and that is responsible for taking the lives of innocent children. Those who would like to see Roe vs Wade overthrown by the Supreme Court would obviously like to see abortions such as those performed by George Tiller to come to a halt. Most Pro-life advocates believe that late term abortions are murder. However, most Pro-life advocates believe that to murder to stop murder is not a solution that an individual has a right to pursue. Its murder to take one's life without a legal basis whether performed by an abortionist or an anti-abortionist. Until the law is changed, abortion is legal. No matter how much we abhor the act, individuals have no right to take the law into their own hands.

The irony of taking the life of a man in a church and doing so in the name of Christ is not lost on the enemies of Christianity. According to witnesses Roeder's car had an anti-abortion sticker on it, as well as the fish , a symbol of Christianity. A number of political causes will be encouraged by the act of the murderer of Tiller. The anti-gun movement will receive a great deal of free advertisement from this act. The Pro-choice movement will be able to gain support for silencing critics of abortion doctors. Keith Olbermann blamed Fox News for this despicable act, and especially Bill O'Reilly who had referred in the past to George Tiller as "Tiller, the baby killer". Olbermann recommended that his viewers quarantine Fox News. He encouraged his viewers to ask waiting rooms across America, whether Doctors or other waiting rooms, to discontinue carrying Fox News. If they refuse to do so then change Doctors. The anti-Christian movement will find encouragement by the evidence that the accused had the fish symbol on his car. The result of this crime may be millions of dollars worth of free advertisement for the views we have just mentioned.

In Romans2:17ff., the apostle Paul wrote the following:
"Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; If you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law. if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--you, then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal...do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Paul's argument could have just as easily been applied to Christians as it was to Jews. What if the rhetorical question was "You who preach pro-life, do you commit murder?" In other words you preach opposition to murder by murdering? Such behavior leads to the name of Christ being blasphemed in the world. Many facts will come out in the next few months that are not known at the moment, but for now, the name of christianity and the cause of pro-life have been damaged greatly by the behavior of one who has chosen to be identified with Christ.

Nothing an enemy can do to us is nearly as damaging as the disobedience of God's people. When the advocates of the cause violate the cause, they do more harm than all voices of its critics. May all of us be reminded that even in criticizing an evil, we must do so in a way that brings glory to God. We may at times feel so passionately about a cause that we have a hard time being civil with the opponents, but God's cause is never advanced by ungodly behavior. My prayer is that the murderer of George Tiller will be brought to justice and pay the price that he thought murderers of infants should pay. Government is the body that has been entrusted by God with punishing the evil and until the law has been changed we can do nothing about abortion except seek to persuade our neighbors and elected officials to embrace a pro-life position and exert influence that might lead to the limitation and eventual removal of statutes permitting legal abortion.

Miss California

2009-05-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted much lately because I think that what I say is mostly an echo reverberating back to the author. I have refrained for some time in commenting on the plight of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, but alas I can no longer restrain myself. Carrie's fate has won her more publicity then money could ever have bought her. Just today it was announced that she will debut on Fox News with an hour long hosting appearance.

As a Christian I'm not too fond of beauty contests because I think they send a message that teen girls in America don't need to hear. Having said that, I realize that not all would agree with me. So, while I would have advised Carrie to pass on beauty pageants, I nevertheless am troubled by what happened to her as a result of her answer to the question about gay marriage. I heard her answer several times and walked away each time thinking that she was as kind as she could be in expressing her answer and convictions. The bombastic response of Perez Hilton and others of the gay marriage movement was beyond the pale of human decency. She was called every name in the book, most of which I cannot repeat. She was the target of all kinds of threats. Denounced as "out of touch" in a state that voted by a 52% margin to prohibit gay marriage.

It was only two days ago that Donald Trump confirmed that the title would remain with her. In his support of her, he mentioned that her position was no different from that articulated by President Obama. The question that begs to be asked is why Hilton and other gay marriage advocates have not bashed President Obama as they have Carrie. The answer seems quite simple. Her defense was based upon christian values she learned from the bible. Most gay marriage advocates are at the same time critics of christianity and the Bible. In advocating gay marriage, they are at the same time trying to diminish the influence of christianity.

Aggressive athiests, gay marriage advocates and apologists for terrorists have in common a hatred for christianity that transcends all other views they have toward enemies of our country and our culture. If asked to pick between Osama bin Laden and James Dobson, I have no doubt that many would take their stand with Osama. We must live and evangelize in an environment where anti-christianity is on the increase and the volume is being turned up to almost a deafening screech.

What do we do? We must do what christians have done for 2,000 years, tell the old old story of Jesus who loves even his enemies so much that he is willing to die at their hands. We will not surrender our convictions in order to find acceptance from those who hate us, but neither will we stoop to behaving according to their value system which means anything goes as long as it is directed toward our enemies. Genuine love is even more absurd to some critics of christianity than are our views on abortion and homosexuality. Never surrender to hate, but love the haters into surrender to the Lord. This is the only strategy for victory that our Lord has provided us.

2009-04-28T05:46:00.000-07:00

NOTRE DAME AND THE UNBORN

Controversy has raged within the Catholic Church since the announcement of the President of Notre Dame that President Obama would be their commencement speaker for graduation this year. No religious body has taken a more pro-life stand than the Catholic Church and many Bishops are irate that a speaker who is the most influential pro-choice person in the world has been selected as their commencement speaker and will in addition receive an honorary degree from the institution. Normally such honorary degrees are granted only to those who share the values embraced by the church.

One of my favorite Law Professors in America is Mary Ann Glendon. She is a Professor of Law at Harvard University. She is the author of several books and essays dealing with law, and has also written extensively on "life issues". When President Bush was looking for candidates for the Supreme Court, her name arose and I would have gladly supported her nomination. While Bush did not choose her for the Supreme Court position, he did choose her to be Ambassador to the Vatican.

I mention Professor Glendon because Notre Dame also invited her to speak at the same event as President Obama, but her presentation would have been an acceptance speech for an award that she was receiving from Notre Dame. When first notified she was not told that Obama would be delivering the Commencement address. She was excited about her award and being invited by Notre Dame. However, when she saw that the President of Notre Dame was using her presence as a defence for inviting President Obama, she had second thoughts. In this month's issue of FIRST THINGS magazine she published an open letter to the President of Notre Dame. In her letter she declined the award and the opportunity to be on the same platform with Obama. As a Catholic she had an issue with his presence and the awarding of an honorary degree to him. She pointed out that a Commencement was no platform for a debate and that it should be about the graduates and their accomplishments.

Notre Dame illustrates what I spoke about in my last blog. Christian institutions of Higher Learning are more and more distancing themselves from the views of their formative faiths. I could see Universities among churches of Christ salivating about the possibility of the President of the United States speaking at a commencement service, no matter what views he might hold on "life issues". The sad thing is that I'm not convinced that leaders in Churches of Christ would protest as much as leaders in the Catholic Church have protested about the selection of Obama. For whatever reason the "life issue" just doesn't seem to resonate as much with us as it does the Pope and Bishops. That is one of the major reasons that Christian ethicists have grown more friendly with the Catholic Church than many protestant groups. While there are significant and important issues which are troubling about the Catholic Church, one must give credit where credit is due.

I wish that Churches of Christ and other Christian fellowships had more people like Mary Ann Glendon who would give up worldly awards from prestigious universities in order to make a moral stand. I'm sure we have people who would do the same as she has done, but maybe don't receive the same amount of attention because we are not nearly as large as the Catholic Church. I reiterate as in my last post, that I believe in higher education and I have great appreciation for colleges and universities that have emerged from churches of Christ. However, the politics, credibility, and public image are so important that its hard to remember theology and moral issues when they threaten these other concerns.

May I say that I continue to pray for President Obama and have the highest respect for the office of President of the United States. However, sometimes in the interest of the service of God and life we need to disagree in meaningful ways even with the President of our United States. Therefore, I applaud Mary Ann Glendon for her stand as a Catholic against the best known Catholic institution in America.

Tony Blair's speech

2009-04-24T10:13:00.000-07:00

Check out Tony Blair's speech delivered on April 22nd at Chicago Global Affairs Conference. The speech may be found on REAL CLEAR POLITICS.

Prayer Concerns

2009-04-24T07:39:00.001-07:00

I am sure that most who read this blog are regular communicators with God. This morning I have been reflecting on the concerns that should be ours if we are Christians and Americans. So in addition to your personal prayer needs and issues may I suggest that if you have not already done so, include the following in your prayers:

(The following are not listed in any order as to importance)

1. Our government leaders both elected and appointed. While much that is going on today, as will be evident from some of my later concerns in this list, is inconsistent with my values and aspirations for America, I nevertheless need to heed Paul's admonition to pray for our leaders. If I haven't prayed for them, then their mistakes are my mistakes also.

2. Pray for our schools, both primary and graduate levels. Teachers are under so much pressure from political correctness and their unions that it is hard not to be intimidated into going along to get along. Also those in administration are obviously hesitant to cross any political correctness lines for fear of lawsuits from ACLU or families with "out of control" children.

3. Pray for Christian schools and universities. Many in higher education are more concerned about how they are viewed by accrediting agencies and other well known schools of higher learning than they are about biblical teachings and church concerns. A PHD cannot advance if he simply sounds like those in his church or those of the past. He must be cutting edge or he will be looked upon as "out of touch" with the latest and greatest. As our universities depend more and more upon donations from those outside their religious tradition, they must sound less and less like an echo of their church roots. They must invite more and more speakers that are well known in the larger religious community, regardless of what they are known for. Brian McLaren has spoken on some of our campuses recently, and I have no problem with that, provided their is some balance offered that encourages students to consider not just the pros but also the cons of what such speakers have to offer. McLaren is the leading voice of the "emerging church" which is a postmodern view of christianity which sees doctrines as divisive and even suggests that Buddhists, Hindus and others may embrace the Christ without knowing it, and thus enjoy all the blessings of Christ. Maybe those campuses that invite such speakers provide a penetrating critique, but knowing a little bit about how such institutions operate, I wonder.

I am not trying to put down higher education, in fact I believe in it more than most, but we need to know the kind of cultural pressures that are influencing such institutions. During the last couple of years of the Center for Christian Education's existence we were seeking approval from the state of Texas and the accrediting agency of Bible Colleges. During that process I had the opportunity of meeting with the appointed representative of the State Board of Education on numerous occasions. I discovered how much the State and accrediting agencies determine the operation and curriculum of private universities. Believe me, Abilene, Pepperdine, Oklahoma and others have more to fear from these sources than from the criticism of churches and christians. The Christian colleges and universities struggle with two poles: the church with which they identify and the state and regional accrediting agencies. Christian universities cannot and should not be the same as the schools of preaching in our fellowship. Since the Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that the State cannot control private christian colleges some of the schools of preaching have started offering degrees. I am torn between the two concerns, one that Christian truth not be compromised and two that schools of preaching really don't offer a curriculum that is equal to a Bachelors Degree. Yes, schools of preaching may offer more Bible, but a Degree is society's assurance that certain standards exist, and that one can assume a certain level of education exists that includes more than Bible. There are a number of fraudulent degree mills. Citizens need to have some means of determining the credibility of institutions of higher learning and this requires standards and laws. In spite of all that is done, some still peddle their wares and some fall prey to their promises. I think of one that has preyed on those in churches of Christ. Some of our graduates fell prey to such because in their minds they believed they had earned an equivalent to not only a Bachelors but even a Masters. The degree mill provided such for a relatively small financial investment. I too believed that the Center offered a quality education on par with many legitimate degree programs, but there were still additonal courses that would need to be taken to meet Culture's expectations of one with a Masters degree. If students had taken such courses in an accredited Junior College or University then their education was first class, but without those coursed they did not meet Society's expectations and should not received such a degree. Thus we need protection from those who offer degrees without meeting the standards presumed to exist in a degree program.

This rambling stream of consciousness reveals my own ambivalence when it comes to the issue of higher education. It is out of this ambivalence that I realize more than ever the need for prayer. The wisdom of more than Solomon is needed to address this issue. Pray for our schools, the professors, students and administrators.

4. Pray for President Bush and for those who served in his administration. He may have thought that once he was out of power that the criticism would end, but such has not been the case. The latest onslaught concerns "interrogation techniques". May the milk of human kindness be expressed in prayer for him, his family, and others who served with him.

5. Pray for Christians who believe it is their duty (a little used word now days) and responsibility to fight for the lives of the weak and those unable to fight for themselves. As a result we stand opposed to abortion and euthanasia, as well as embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of life. According to the Director of Homeland Security, we are a threat to the security of the homeland and need to be monitored closely by local and regional police and safety officials. Some Christians may be intimidated and silenced by realizing how they are viewed by government officials, however, we need to say with Peter and John "we must obey God". Our resistence to laws and policies will be expressed by freedom of speech and prayer. I know of no one who agrees with me in my opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell destruction who would bomb a clinic or research lab. I am more concerned about Bill Ayers and people who have actually attacked our institutions and our citizens then I am Christians who oppose abortion, but then I'm not the Director of Homeland Security. If she knows more about me and others than we know, mayb e she will reveal her sources.

6. Pray for Pakistan and other countries in the boiling Middle East. Pakistan is not far from collapsing. The Taliban is gaining every day in Pakistan. Should its nuclear power come under the control of the Taliban, well we know the probable scenario that would follow. We need to pray for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Decisions they make concerning our policies in Pakistan may decide our childrens future.

7. Pray about the issue in Iran. May the Secretary of Defense Gates advise the President in a wise manner and may God's sovereignty over Iran prevent their gaining nuclear weapons.

8. Pray that political discourse in America might focus more on issues and their merits rather than polarization through vile name calling and accusations without foundation.

9. Pray, pray, and pray some more about the future of Christianity in our homeland on earth. Christianity is not thriving, but Hinduism, Buddhism and secularism are. Since 1990, surveys show that Christianity has grown by 5%, while Buddhism has grown by 170% and Hinduism by 230%. However, the largest growth has been in those who embrace no religion. The number has grown from 13 million to 38 million. Our God is alive and as active as ever, but something is wrong with Christianity in America. We need God to lead us out of our malaise and paralysis. Christianity will not disappear from the world, but it may decline in influence in America. We need to thank God for its rapid growth in other parts of the world. America may sooner than we realize become a mission point for churches in Africa and South America.

10. Pray for our children and our families. Families are being redefined to include gay marriage and other arrangements such as living together in all kinds of combinations. Fewer and fewer children are growing up in a stable environment that includes a loving and dedicated father and mother who provide them nurturing, security and discipline. As goes the church and family so goes the nation.

Feel free to respond to my blog with additions to my list and interaction with my suggested prayer concerns.

2009-04-20T07:52:00.000-07:00

Its been a while since I posted. My wife Gloria's brother died a few days ago, and the dying process extended over about 10 days. We were trying to give attention to weightier matters than blogging. It seems that every experience of life exposes us to new awareness of matters concerning which we thought we were knowledgeable. In Jim's last days I became more aware than I ever had before that a person is aware of his surroundings and what is going on even if he shows little evidence of such by his appearance. Communication and prayer are heard and make a difference.

Also I became aware that hospice is not always helpful when subject to Medicare criteria. I have become somewhat suspicious of how hospice is brought into the picture when one is at a senior care center. Then when they are active I found that according to the hospice representatives their services are for crisis care only. They use the more politically correct terminology of "continuing care" which describes around the clock presence of a nurse in the room of the dying person. However, according to what hospice told us, such care is available only if medication has to be given more frequently than the care facility can provide. Just because a person has only hours to live is not sufficient basis for the presence of a hospice representative. When I asked the hospice representative what the definition of hospice care is, she answered "end of life care". My obvious response was, "isn't Jim dying?". Yes, she said but he's stable and does not appear to be in great pain, so medicare will not provide what they call "a sitter". The hospice provider HOSPICE PLUS in the end did provide continuing care, but they had threatened to discontinue it because "dying" is not a sufficient reason to provide "continuing care" only painful dying is sufficient.

My recommendation is that if you have a loved one who may be entering into a terminal state, you should thoroughly familiarize yourself with the provisions of hospice care. Apparently there will be a difference in the hospice care provided under private insurance and the hospice care provided under Medicare.

The world is heating up, is it Global Warming?

2009-04-07T10:20:00.000-07:00

Al Gore has made much more by losing the presidency than he ever could have made by winning. He should thank Florida and the Supreme Court. The millions he's brought in by the "convenient theory" of Global Warming would make a President's salary look like pauper's pay.

Is the world heating up? I think so, but not in the way Global Warming proponents suggest. North Korea launched a rocket against the stern warning of the United States and the United Nations. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned of serious consequences and the head of the United Nations expressed his displeasure with the North Koreans for violating United Nations resolutions. What will be the outcome of such provocative actions, more warnings no doubt.

News broke today that Iran has been furnished with material for nuclear development from a Chinese firm with money being channeled through New York banks. How's our teddy bear like relationship with the Chinese working out for us? China will caution us to be restrained in our response to North Korea and Iran. Should any penalties be introduced in the Security Council of the United Nations, China and Russia will be there to veto such penalties.

China, Iran, North Korea and Russia are all seeking a more positive relationship with the U.S. now that the trigger happy Cowboy is no longer in power.

Our new leader has voiced his hope that we will all soon dismantle our nuclear weapons and become busom buddies. My leader is the Prince of Peace, but I believe he suggests that as long as this world stands, there will be wars and rumors of wars. Could it be a bit unrealistic to believe that we will some day before long live in a loving world where people will settle their differences by talking and talking and talking. If such is possible we should feel good about the prospects because we certainly have the right leader to represent us. The world is warming up, but be hopeful for we have a cool leader who is certainly not trigger happy. My prayer is that if he should be gentle as a lamb that he might also be as wise as John Wayne. For those too young to remember John, suffice it to say, he always knew when to draw his gun and fire. Bad guys had plenty to worry about if they messed with big John, but good guys always felt safe when big John was in charge.

IS ABORTION A TRAGEDY OR NOT?

2009-04-03T08:26:00.000-07:00

The U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT on April 1st carried a blog by Bonnie Erbe that was quite revealing as to the thinking of those who promote abortion as a good option for women and for our society as a whole. In her blog she was taking issue with Media reports that viewed as a tragedy the increasing number of abortions caused by the current recession. Bonnie Erbe proposes "a counter view. It is not" a tragedy.

Her blog is a comment on a recent case reported by the Associated Press on March 25th. A woman in California, who could not afford a bus ticket, walked for an hour to the clinic where she requested an abortion. She reported that the pregnancy was planned and desired, but that since she became pregnant, her family's situation had changed. Her boyfriend had lost his job, and they barely had enough money to feed the three children at home, much less another child.

Erbe believes that all of us should agree that "In the long run...an unwed couple's decision not to bring a fourth child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy". "It's actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well."

"It's no tragedy; it's a good decision. The decision benefits society in two ways. It allows the couple to focus more time, energy and resources on their three children, giving each child a better life and a better chance of growing up to contribute to society. It also lessens the chance the family will have to rely on scarce public resources...to raise their children."

This article is so revealing. Its argument should serve as a warning to those who want to hand over health care to the government. More about this after reviewing her argument.

I want to consider her argument under three headings:

1. She says that the woman made a FACT BASED decision. Did she? Exactly what facts did she consider? Well, she considered her financial state. She considered her three children who have already been born. However, what about the fact that in her womb is another child. She considers how life will be better for the born, but does she consider the expense of a life to make the "better" possible?

2. The author says her decision was RATIONAL. I'm sure the decision made sense to her, but there is more than rationality that goes into a good decision. Hitler was rational, but his rationality resulted in the murder of six million Jews.

3. My major problem is with the MORALITY expressed in the author's argument in defense of this decision as good rather than a tragedy. If you will re-read the quotes from her article, you will see the constant references to "In the long run" , "in the end", and "better". All of these terms indicate that her ethic is utilitarian pragmatism. Her argument is that the end justifies the means. What end does she envision? The family will prosper and life will be better for the children she currently has. What about the "end" of the child in the womb? The author never defines the entity that is aborted. Clearly she would be unwilling to call the life in the womb a child, but she never mentions the child by any term. I obviously believe that the occupant of the womb is a child. I conclude such not just because I'm a Christian, but because I believe that Science cannot find another moment than conception when human life begins.

Her utilitarian pragmatism extends not just to the well being of the family, but also to the well being of society. "In the end" the abortion will benefit "society as well". Society is benefitted by the fact that an abortion is less expensive than support of another child. By such reasoning, one could argue that the death of one of her existing children would be beneficial to society.

When one's life is determined by the cost to society, many of us become vulnerable, and not just the unborn. One of the problems with a Government run Medical program is that the individual will no longer be the only consideration of the health provider, but also society who helps foot the bill by their taxes. Some individuals will cost more than they provide society. The same argument used by Erbe for abortion is being used in Europe and even in America for the validity and value of suicide and government assisted suicide.

When human life no longer has intrinsic value then it is no longer only the unborn who are endangered, but all of us. Our lives will be weighed in the balance and if cost benefits outweigh the value of our life, then only God can help us. Those who think Government supplied health care sounds good should consider the fact that in countries where such care is now available, certain medicines and procedures are not available to certain constituencies of society because they are not cost effective. The cost to society must trump the individual's well being. It appears clear that the author of this article is sympathetic to that type of reasoning, at least as it extends to the unborn.

Morality demands that we are responsible for our debts. However, the government is selective in requiring citizens to keep their contracts are suffer the consequences. The recent recession in the housing market and the business world has revealed how some contracts are binding and some not. Some are bailed out and some have to face the consequences of their decisions. A consistent morality or legality is hard to find.

The mother in Oakland admitted that the pregnancy was planned and by choice. That's a fact that seem to have been ignored when she opted for an abortion. The child in the womb did not make that choice, but she and her boyfriend. Instead of the parents fulfilling their commitment to the unborn, they escape by taking the life of the child in the womb.

I don't think Bonnie Erbe has demonstrated that the increase in abortions are good and not a tragedy. Instead I believe that her argument demonstrates that if her thinking wins the day, an even greater tragedy is just around the corner. By her reasoning, the disabled, the young and the elderly are especially vulnerable. I wouldn't even want to be on food stamps and need health care, the cost to society might be too great.

Think about it. We really are in a battle for the future of life in America and the future of our children.

"I like monotony" C.S. Lewis

2009-04-02T07:53:00.000-07:00

The title I've given to this blog says a lot about me. I haven't always been so boring, or Have I? Oh well, I guess the older you get the less energy you have for exciting new experiences that challenge the order and tranquility of your life. I love my family, my home, my community and my church. I like chicken, potatoes( or is it potatos , where is Dan Quayle these days?) and diet coke. I like the school my daughter attends. I like the sky over Midlothian and Maypearl. I like spring, summer, fall and winter. I like living in a free society. I have never liked having to move. After years in the same place, driving through the same fast food places, paying overdrafts to the same bank, and driving the same roads, life becomes predictable and little creativity and energy are required to live it. You might say we become embedded in place and space.

I spent 28 years of my life as a teacher and administrator for the Center for Christian Education. We closed our doors in June of 2005. For weeks, months and even years I dreamed about my work at the Center. My identity, my ministry and my life was embedded in an entity that no longer existed. I was blessed beyond measure to be able to relocate in ministry with the Maypearl Church of Christ. In a sense I was going home for I grew up in Maypearl. The names, faces and homes had changed. The house I grew up in 50+ years ago has been gone for decades. The terrain doesn't even look the same. There was once a train track not far from our house, but it has been gone for half a century. Yet, I can't drive by the hill where I grew up without thinking about my roots. I still remember events and relationships with family and friends that helped shape my life. Now 50 years later I still on occasion dream about the house where I lived as a child.

When my mom died I thought my heart died. When my dad died, I dreamed for years that he was still alive and I would wake up to the disappointing reality that such was not the case.

What is life and the life of those we love, "it is a vapor that appears for a little while and then fades away".

We take roots but circumstances uproot us and our loved ones. The very ones who bring us joy will bring us sadness. The only alternative to such existence is to refuse to love or enjoy life, place or space.

We become attached even to things and experience sadness when we lose them. It may be a house, a car, a job, or a pair of shoes. When I moved my office to Maypearl, I realized that I needed to downsize my library, so I sold or gave away several hundred books. The Maypearl church graciously gave my two rooms to house my library, but my books are still double decked and stacked in every nook and cranny of my office. Of course some of that is simply that I'm messy. My point is that giving up any of my books is hard. I have about 8,000 books and they are part of my monotony. I hope there wll be a reading room in my corner of the New Jerusalem. For I still have a lot of books that I haven't read from cover to cover.

Having emphasized how embedded I am and how much I like it, I realize that all that I have is temporary, but anticipatory of something permanent. The need to belong is a part of what it means to be human. However, we are saddened by the lack of permanence that characterizes our lives and those of our family and friends. The same lack of permanence is featured throughout the cosmos. Our world and ourselves are destined to pass away, but both are on a journey toward an embedded eternity.

Listen to Paul:

"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us; For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God: for the creation was subjected to futility..." that is all of this present life and world is subject to decay and death. Yet " the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God". Cosmic and personal redemption and renewal are waiting in the wings.

In Revelation 21: 1ff. John envisions a "new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and first earth had passed away...And I saw the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'See, the home of God is among humans. He will dwell with them as their God...He will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more...See, I am making all things new."

We will be embodied in a new body and embedded in a new world and will have fulfilled our long ing experienced now. Our longing for permanence in relationships and places. No matter where we travel in the new world we will always be home. No enemy threats from terrorists or no domestic threats from the economy will threaten our well being. We will experience excitement that will exceed anything Nascar can offer and yet not be threatened by a disastrous crash. We won't have to lock our doors at night or spend money for alarm systems. There will no employers calling us into the office to give us a pink slip. We will finally be rooted in permanence.

Until then we will long for permanence more and more as years go by while becoming more and more aware that such will always elude us as long as we seek to be rooted in the old world.

2009-03-18T07:57:00.000-07:00

Mirta Signorelli earned her Master's Degree in theology after having worked for years as a psychologist. She has until recently worked as a chaplain in Hospice Care facilities. For the past seven years she has served as a chaplain for the HOSPICE BY THE SEA, a non-profit organization that serves Palm Beach and Broward counties in Florida.

On February 23, she and other chaplains were told to "cease and desist" from using the words "God" or "Lord" in prayers and public presentations in staff meetings. Apparently some staff were not religious and the Administrator felt that such terms as "Lord" and "God" could be offensive to them. Signorelli had already been chastised for reading the 23rd Psalm which contains the word "Lord"; a word the Administrator thought sounded too Christian. Of course the 23rd Psalm is in the Old Testament and is a favorite text of non-Christian Jewish religion. Lord in the 23rd Psalm is not a reference to Jesus as anyone with any knowledge of Scripture should know.

The other six chaplains had no problem with the restriction. Signorelli resigned, saying she couldn't serve others with such restrictions. This event raises some important questions.

First of all, I am reporting what a Florida newspaper has reported and am responding to the report as written. I have no first hand knowledge of this story. Assuming the Florida report to be reasonably accurate, I think its worth reflecting for a few moments upon the story.

1. Why would a facility employ a chaplain and then ask them not to mention God. Why not employ a grief cousellor or psychologist if you prefer God not be mentioned.

2. Yes, but the restriction apparently was only in the context of staff meetings and not in relationship to the patients. Then why ask chaplains to attend staff meetings if they are not allowed to practice their chaplaincy in such contexts.

3. Of as much or more concern is why the other six chaplains had no problem with the restriction. Are they o.k. with being told that in certain circumstance they are not to mention God? What if the restrictions had extended to their relationships with the patients, would they have then had a problem? One would hope so!

4. What if the staff members who had a problem with the mention of God might happen to use a bit of profanity, would the Administrator point out that such speech offends the chaplain and that such language is forbidden? Or what if the staff members spoke of being atheists and ridiculed faith in the presence of the chaplain, would they have been told to "cease and desist"? Maybe they would have, but I wonder?

In an adult world we need to accept one another and tolerate one another. There are situations where I think certain language should be monitored. Profanity and such should not be allowed in the presence of children. However, as adults we realize that the real world is not composed of Christians only. Do you think Jesus corrected everyone who used profanity in his presence? People of that day had foul mouths such as some people of today. Since Jesus hung out with sinners and prostitutes, I imagine he was exposed to the same language as Christians are today. I'm not guilty for what someone else says or does. I can request that someone not use profanity or I can dismiss myself from the presence of someone who does, but I cannot expect administration to enforce my personal beliefs on everyone else. At the same time I should be allowed the freedom to express my thoughts whether religious or not without fear of being censored.

It would make as much sense for the elders to tell me not to speak of "Lord" or "God" because we might have some unbelievers Sunday morning as it does for a chaplain to be told not to use such words while serving as a chaplain.

As long as such censorship is isolated and not coming from Government agencies, its not quite as serious a concern. However, with the ever vigilant ACLU monitoring our speech and with hate crimes on the book, it may not be long before certain speech will be censored and outlawed. To call sodomy a sin could easily bring pain to a sodomist and thus be declared "hate speech". Thus certain scriptures might be illegal if read in public settings. I hope such never happens in America, but the climate is right for the enactment of these types of censorship.

"When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man's blood on us.'. But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than any human authority." (Acts 5:27-29)

Human authorities such as Administrators of Hospice facilities and Government agencies must not be allowed to silence the voice of dedicated Christians. My prayer is that we never have to choose between God and our employer or government.

life de-valued and threatened

2009-03-10T09:10:00.000-07:00

We're less than two months into the Obama era and already drastic changes have occurred. The economy continues to slide south. Those with funds available for investing are hesitant to do so because the administration does not seem to be business friendly. Of course those with funds to invest will soon have less funds as tax increases will take from the haves to give to the have nots so that we will have a more just society. Class warfare is being generated and now those subject to discrimination are not a race or a gender, but those who have been successful. Yes there are some bad rich people who take advantage of others and there are some bad businesses that play loose and fast with others money, but a whole class should not be deprived of their hard earned money because a few bad apples have been found. I am all for the rich giving more to help the poor and helpless, but those who take out mortgages they can't afford should not be rewarded for bad decisions and choices. When those who pracitice sound budgeting and buy only what they can afford are having to bail out those who made bad decisions whether they are banks, auto manufacturers, or house buyers it is not justice. When they will have to pay in taxes their children's inheritance to make possible the reduction of the amount of money owed by people who bought houses they couldn't afford, its not fair. Yet this is the new era of redistribution of wealth from the "haves" to the "needy" regardless of why they are needy.

Soon we will have universal health care. Sounds great doesn't it. People without insurance will have it and all will be well. Oh, did I mention that someone will have to pay for it. Those rascally business owners once again will be called on to make their contribution to the needy. It seems that most people who need health care even if they have no insurance can still receive it under our current system. Think about the number of illegal aliens who pay no taxes and yet receive care when the need is there. When we receive government health care, we will suddenly discover as they have in England, Canada and elsewhere that with government care, there is more government and less care. In Canada some medicines cannot be covered by the health care system because they are too expensive and even people with money are forbidden to purchase such medicines because it would be unfair to others who can't purchase them. There's a reason why the death rate for cancer is much higher in England then in America. There is also a reason why in England certain health care is rationed according to certain criteria concerning who should receive premium care. Oh, by the way, if you are 65 or older, it is amazing how little health care you need.

Yesterday, President Obama issued an executive order overturning President Bush's Executive order that prohibited government funded production of embryos for scientific research. Under Bush, private funds could be used for such research, but not tax dollars. Under Obama's E.O. tax money paid by Christians and others who believe life begins at conception, will be used to create life with the intent of destroying it. Tax payer funded murder will make implicit all tax payers in this practice.

Oh how I wish that churches of Christ and other conservative Christian bodies were as outspoken on this issue as the Catholic Church is. One of my favorite authors is Robert George who is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. In an article today in the Wall Street Journal that he co-authored with Eric Cohen, he writes the following: "Mr. Obama made a big point in his speech of claiming to bring integrity back to science policy and his desire to remove the previous administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making." What Obama means by ideoloical is the Christian and scientific argument that life begins at conception. If life does not begin at conception, let science show us scientifically the moment life begins. At conception a new genotype comes into existence different from mom and dad. That genotype will develop and remain the same until he or she dies. Just because in its early stages the cells do not look like adult humans doesn't mean that they are not human.

Mr. Obama claims he's taking science out of politics by liberating science to make its own decisions. Yet, he tells us he's opposed to producing cloned humans. Why? If science is free from politics then who is to tell science that it can't clone? George, a Roman Catholic philosopher adds that "The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science, it is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity." No one seems to respect the slippery slope argument, but please be assured that the granting of a right to produce embryos in fertility treatments has made our society less concerned about stem cell embryonic research. The recent birth of octuplets reminds us of what fertility treatment can lead to. Yet I would prefer octuplets to selective embryo reduction which many prospective parents choose, which is abortion of unwanted multiple babies so that the birth of just one will occur. Normally when a prospective mother receives embryo transplants, she receives at least four embryos. This is due to the expense involved and the fact that the rate of miscarriages tend to be higher with artificially produced embryo transplants. Thus if the sonogram shows a multiple pregnancy, the physician will recommend selective reduction of babies until only one remains.

Mr. Obama had already announced a reversal of the Bush policy of not funding foreign agencies that performed abortions.

Internationally, North Korea has warned us that if we interfere with their missile test, they will retaliate against America and South Korea. Recently China tested Obama by having war vessels approach an American ship with threats. We expressed our concern. How long before these teasers become the showdown predicted by Obama's Vice President?

My new hero is the President of another country, Vaclav Klaus of Czech republic. Klaus is demonized by Al Gore and his colleagues who tell us that the biggest danger facing America and the world is global warming. Klaus has written a book challenging Gore and his supporters. Klaus is also a vocal voice in support of the free market. In a speech yesterday at Columbia University he said that "fighting for freedom and free markets is something we always appreciated here in this country(the United States) and it remains the task of the day. In his speech he reiterated that "global warming alarmism" is a major problem.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I'm not arguing for a Republican agenda as opposed to a Democratic agenda. I have plenty of issues with Republicans in Congress and I had issues with George W. Bush. No person and no party represents perfection. My problems with Mr. Obama are not with his sincerity or his patriotism, but my concerns are with the ethics of his agenda and the future that will be passed to my children and grandchildren.

In less than two months we have gone far down the road that threatens life and liberty. By the way, Hitler also respected science a great deal and science respected Hitler. Before anyone thinks that I am comparing Obama to Hitler, please let me disavow such. My only point is that science cannot be given autonomous authority over life and death because whatever is possible some unethical scientist will be willing to do. There must be ethical restraints placed upon both government and science.

To make stem cell research a matter of compassion for the diseased is to create an either/or situation when such is not required. No one has the right to save someone's life by taking the life of another with out his permission. To destroy an infant in the ebryonic stage when the infant can't defend itself is unethical. Furthermore great progress has been made in other stem cell research that holds great potential without resource to embryos.

Wonder where we will be in four years if the same rate of change occurs in the future as has occurred in the past few weeks. Please pray for our country and for innocent lives inside or outside of the womb. Our children and grandchildren are at risk and my prayer is that our elected leaders will sooner and not later realize what is at stake.

I am always reluctant to speak out on what many would consider political matters, but life, liberty and morality transcends politics. If Christians don't speak out on matters of right and wrong, then to whom shall we delegate that task? If its not right to gender hostility between business and labor, wealthy and poor, and science and religion then we must let our voices be heard. If its wrong to take innocent life, its wrong even if done by politicians or scientists. We must not fear those who would try to silence criticism by appealing to separation of church and state. Every society needs a conscience. What I am attempting to do is contribute to the conscience of our country. I am only one voice and my contribution is only as valuable as my facts and the logic of my argument. My task is to evaluate as best I can, not by pragmatism and political preference, but from the standpoint of right and wrong. Life should not be the restricted to political debate or the test tubes of the scientists.

My blog belongs to Ronnie Wiggins, the American citizen and not to the Church of Christ where I worship. As a Christian I express the values that I believe are Christian. Secularists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others have the same right and I would not for a moment discourage them from doing the same thing. I do resent that on many college campuses across our land, tax dollars are funding a united voice that has nothing but disdain for religion and Christianity in particular. Recent surveys show that the number of Christians compared with the population in general is declining. Should we be surprised? We can blame the media, politicians, academia and I do. However, blaming won't increase the number of Christians in America and the world. If we don't like present trends then we must work the harder and pray more fervently to change the trends.

Life de-valued and threatened

2009-03-10T07:57:00.000-07:00

Stay tuned. I'll be back later today, and I have a lot to say. If you will listen, you'll be my friend forever, of course forever is getting shorter every day.

2009-02-27T07:49:00.000-08:00

Since taking such a hit from the free falling Dow Jones, I thought I had finally found a safe investment only to learn that real patriots must pay their taxes and sacrifice for the planet. In 2008 Quilted Northern Ultra and Charmin Ultra increased sales by a whopping 40% in some markets, according to Information Resources Inc.. Finally I had discovered a product doing well and bringing joy and comfort to millions. What more could a Christian investor hope for? What a blessing I could help bring to the world by investing in such an enterprise.

However, Leslie Kaufman of the New York Times has reminded me that "fluffiness comes at a price....millions of trees" must die for our comfort and my profit. Wow, I don't want to be a murderer. Its the comfort of humans vs the life of the trees. Being Pro-Life as I am, the choice seems clear. I must sacrifice money and comfort for the well-being of the planet. We should learn from the Europeans. Kaufman informs us that "In many European nations a rought sheet of paper is deemed sufficient".

We have so much to learn from the Europeans. They teach us that "big government knows best", universal health care can reduce life expectancy and save us money, higher taxes is always good, and that sacrificing comfort and money is the goal of all patriots of the planet. Fortunately we are blessed with some well trained teachers in Washington and New York who can provide us a crash course on the Eureka Europe Experience.

2009-02-26T07:00:00.000-08:00

Trees are budding and blossoming, weeds are growing (as evidenced in my grassless lawn), and hope springs eternal. The high temperature forecast for today is 85 and we are still in February. I guess those global warming guys must be right. I wish I had the money to buy some carbon credits, but I've lost my purchasing power through investing in the future. Yet, its spring and I'm sure that if I have the audacity to hope, all will be well. I hope, hope, hope infinitum.

Well, this morning's blog will be the last dealing with the arguments of the atheists. I may, although I haven't decided for sure, present a few blogs on "reasons to believe in God". So much of this type of discussion takes us out of our comfort zone. A few years ago, historian Mark Noll wrote a work entitled THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND. His argument was that conservative christians ( some of whom are evangelical ) have produced precious little work that appeals to the mind, and addresses problems that secular academia have presented us. Our children go to institutions of higher learning and are presented with problems they can't answer because parents and churches have provided precious little help in preparing them for the education experience. Should we just give up the mind to the unbelieving world, or should we equiip ourselves to confront unbelief with facts and arguments that provide more than "well, I just believe".

Atheists usually explain "belief in God" as some form of projection or wish for a father, who will protect us and provide for us, as we navigate through a very dangerous world that threatens our very existence. Sigmund Freud is the father of psychoanalysis and it is he who has formulated the view that still prevails among atheists. "Religious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature." Freud adds that religous beliefs are mere "illusions , fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind...As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection---for protection through love---which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life."

If Freud is right, then could one say that atheism results from a wish for "no father". Atheists would be quite resistent to such an idea, but Freud may have inadvertently opened the door to such a view. The previous quotes were taken from THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION, but of course Freud published many books. One of his earlier works was TOTEM AND TABOO, and in that work he writes the following: "Psychoanalysis of individual human beings...teaches us with quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on the relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along with that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted father". Might it not, therefore, be appropriate to examine Freud's relationship with his dad to help explain why he might reject God?

Sigmund seems to have viewed his father, Jacob, as a great disappointment. The family survived on money derived from the mother rather than the father. His dad was viewed by his son as weak and cowardly. Jacob allowed a notorious anti-semite to call him a "dirty Jew" and to knock his hat off without lifting a hand to defend himself. According to Dr. Paul Vitz, a psychologist who has served as professor of New York University, Freud declared his father to be a sexual pervert in a letter that he wrote. Jacob was a Jew and enjoyed reading the Old Testament and Talmud to his son. According to Vitz in his work FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS Sigmund saw his father as a "weak, rather passive 'nice guy' connected to Judaism and God, and also to a serious lack of courage and to sexual perversion, and other weaknesses very painful to young Sigmund". "Psychoanalysis" says Freud, "daily demonstrates to us how youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down".

If Freud were the only well known atheist to have a less than desirable relationship with his father, we might dismiss his situation as an aberration, but in fact his experience seems to be the norm among atheists. Vitz documents similiar problems among a number of well known atheists of history. Some of the atheists had no living father during their childhood and that in itself produced lasting problems for their psyche. Among these were such notables as Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and Arthur Schopenhauer. Still others had abusive and weak fathers and this list includesVoltaire, Ludwig Feuerbach, Sigmund Freud and H.G. Wells. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son wrote that "We rarely did anything together as a family. The hatred between my grandfather and mother barred such wholesome scenes." Albert Ellis, the founder of "Rational Emotive Therapy " was neglected by his parents according to biographer Daniel Wiener. Vitz writes that young Albert

was "abandoned by his father and has had to support himself and his mother" through life.

Historical data such as the above would seem to suggest that it is atheism that may be the product of projection. " If God is a father, then I wish not to have one " seems to be the echo heard from well known atheists through the centuries. Before closing, I want to share one more brief account of one of the most influential philosophers of the past 300 years.

No one has had more influence in the past 50 years or so upon art, music , politics and literature than Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). He pioneered the "God is dead" movement that came to prominence decades later. Nietzsche is often viewed as a prophetic voice of the future of the west. He had a deep hatred for Judaism and Christianity in particular. The Jews were viewed by him as bringing the most despicable religion of all time onto the stage of world history. The mild and gentle Jesus was seen as compensation for weak and cowardly people. These weak and cowardly people couldn't compete with the strong so they introduced a religion that awards "turning the cheek" and other passive, cowardly behavior. Nietzsche introduced the "superman" or heroic strong, self willed leader as the noble and religion as a compensation for the weak.

Nietzsche's father, Ludwig Nietzsche, was a minister in the Lutheran Church. He died just a few months before Friedrich's 5th birthday. Doctors diagnosed the cause of his death as a "softening of the brain". One biographer described him as "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound". Following his dad's death Friedrich wept for days. According to Neitzsche his father's death robbed him of the "superior guidance of a male intellect". Following his father's death he was raised by his mother and female relatives.

His autobiography ECCE HOMO includes the following observation: "The treatment I have received from my mother and my sister, up to the present moment, fills me with inexpressable horror...". His view of women is well illustrated in the following quote: "You are going to see a woman? Do not forget your whip."

Friedrich missed his father, but also viewed him as a failure. His dad had been sickly and according to Friedrich was lacking in "life force". Just months before his total mental collapse and admission to a hospital for the insane, Friedrich wrote that he was suffering from "nervous exhaustion (which is in part hereditary--from my father, who also died from the consequences of a pervasive lack of life force". "My father died at the age of thirty-six; he was delicate, lovable and morbid, like a being destined to pay this world only a passing visit--a gracious reminder of life rather than life itself". Friedrich's criticism of Christianity was that it lacked "life force" like his Lutheran father.

What complicated life for Friedrich was that he shared many of the same qualities that he viewed as defiencies in his father. As a child he was often picked on because of his frequent illnesses and weakness in appearance. He described himself as by nature warlike, but he looked like anything but a warrior. He was quiet, sickly and did not present himself as an imposing figure. As Vitz points out with regard to Nietzsche, he had "a strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak, a representative of what might be called a 'death force'--the very opposite of the Superman figure tht Nietzsche idealized. As one of his biographers put it, much of Nietzsche's life could be seen as a permanent 'quest for the father.' Indeed, the Superman may be interpreted as Nietzsche's idealized father figure."

Nietzsche's antisemitism influenced Hitler and his atheism influenced Marxism. The rise of nihilism and existentialism in art and music have been heavily influenced by an increased interest in Nietzsche.

Psychoanalzsing theists and atheists is a very speculative pursuit, but as the above shows, atheists cannot claim that theists are the only ones influenced by a need of a father. In my view the atheist argument to explain religion by projection or desire for a father is a mirror of their own father problem. Most atheists claim to depend upon reason for their conclusions, but claim that Christianity is rooted in psychological issues. They would be better served to avoid psycholanalysis and stay with arguments that appeal to reason. In such an arena I think Christianity can not only hold its own, but prevail.

2009-02-19T07:31:00.000-08:00

"The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals." These are the words of Christopher Hitchens in GOD IS NOT GREAT, p.103. He adds the following: "There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering in the desert...no dramatic conquest of the Promised Land. It was all, quite simply and very ineptly, made up at a much later date."(p.103). His problem is not just with the Old Testament, but also the New Testament.

Chapter eight of his book is entitled "The 'New' Testament Exceeds the Evil of the 'Old' One". He quotes such biblical experts as Thomas Paine and H.L.Mencken as dismissing the New Testament as a "helter-skelter accumulation of more or less discordant documents"(Mencken). "But this argument takes place over the heads of those to whom the 'Good Book' is all that is required." (p.110). Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris have little respect for the intellectual acumen of the Christian community. He argues that Christians simply assume that the four gospels present an accurate historical account, when in reality all evidence points to the contrary. The Gospels he tells us "cannot agree on anything of importance" (p.111). He points to the Gospel of Judas which was in the headlines a couple of years ago as being "fractionally more credible than the official account", however, in reality we have zero evidence about the life of Jesus, and in fact that Jesus ever lived is "highly questionable" (p.114).

He accuses the Christians of suppressing reasonable questions about its truth claims: "...until recently, Christians could simply burn or silence anybody who asked any inconvenient questions."(p.115).

His authority in dismissing the accuracy of the Gospels and much of the New Testament is "Barton Ehrman". Ehrman in his book MISQUOTING JESUS describes his journey from a conservative Christian college to Princeton where he earned his Phd and now has a reputation as one of more renowned "textual critics" in America. A "textual critic" is a scholar who studies the many manuscripts of the Bible in an effort to determine the original text. Therefore, Ehrman is someone to be respected for his expertise, but not necessarily for his interpretation of Christianity. Ehrman as a teenager had what he described as a "born again" experience which led him to Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, Billy Graham's alma mater, before ending up at Princeton. At Princeton and in subsequent years he began to give up his conservative views and determined that the Bible is filled with errors.

Hitchens says that "long before I read Ehrman, I had some questions of my own."(p.121).

Well, what do we make of all this? Has he burst our ignorant bubble and revealed us Christians to be ill informed ignoramuses?

One way to test the power of one's argument is to test the factual claims made. In other words if an author is wrong about his facts then his interpretations are much more suspect. Interpretations can be debated, but facts are facts no matter what one believes about them. The sun is shining this morning, Thursday, February 19, 2009, 10:19 AM in Maypearl, Texas. Someone could argue that its raining outside, but their argument could be dismissed because the facts would expose the argument as fallacious.

Hitchens asserts several facts that are so contrary to the recognized truth that his knowledge and interpretations become suspect simply because his grasp of facts is lacking. This is ironic since the atheists always look down upon the ignorant and uninformed Christians. Their arrogance makes it hard to disagree with them without feeling insecure, but the facts speak for themselves. Let me share just a few of the facts presented by him that are patently false.

On page 59 he writes that "even the stoutest defenders of the Bible story now admit that if Jesus was ever born it wasn't until at least AD 4." This is blatantly false. I have 7,000 volumes in my library, and many are written by Christian scholars who discuss this very question. Not a single one argues for AD 4 as the year of Jesus' birth. Check out whatever sources you may have in your library or in the church library and see what they say. Nearly all Christian and secular scholars would agree that the birth of Jesus most likely occured in 4 or 6 BC. I dare say, you won't nor will Hitchens find a scholar that argues for AD 4, and to claim that "even the stoutest defenders of the Bible story now admit" that Jesus was born in AD 4 shows an ignorance unbecoming such a brilliant atheist.

On page 120, he refers to his one authority on the bible as "Barton Ehrman". This is no big deal, but in the interest of truth and accuracy, where did he conclude that the author's name is "Barton". Maybe he knows something that Ehrman's publishers don't know and that "Bart" has never chosen to reveal in any of his books. If you don't get Bart's name right, then I'm not sure I can trust you to understand his arguments.

On page 112, the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in Egypt more than 60 years ago are described by Hitchens as "scrolls" when in reality they were codices. The difference would be like describing a newspaper as a book. Informed people would not be impressed by the mistake in fact. Yet he is so bold as to describe Malcolm Muggeridge, a well known Christian writer of the past as "silly"and dismisses C.S.Lewis as lacking in reasoning ability.

I am writing a blog and not a book so I can't respond to every issues he raises. Some of his issues have more substance than others. For instance believers have for centuries struggled with the issue of the Old Testament and God's commands to annihilate certain countries and cultures. This is a serious problem and one that cannot be summarily dismissed. However, informed thoughtful answers have been presented that can harmonize the God of the Old Testament with the loving God described in the New Testament. Yet it is true that some believers of the past decided that such harmony could not be achieved and as a result they rejected the God of the Old Testament as evil. The Nag Hammadi documents from Egypt represent gnosticism which was known for viewing the God of the Old Testament as evil. This is probably the primary reason Hitchens gives more validity to these documents than to the writings contained in the New Testament. These documents are all late 2nd century or third century writings and have no claim to historical testimony contemporary with the life of Jesus and the early church. When the gnostics first appeared in history, the Christians dismissed them as heretics because their writings did not harmonize with the early historical accounts and often dismissed Jesus as little more than a phantom.

As to Hitchens' claim that the Gospels do not agree on any of the important claims of christianity, one would be hard pressed to find a more inaccurate statement from anyone claiming to be informed. One can quibble about details. How many angels were in the tomb when the women arrived? Was the Passover of the synoptics the same as the meal described in John's gospel? Was the Sermon on the Mount really delivered on the plains ( compare Matthew and Luke). Hitchens says that Matthew and Luke disagree as to whether Jesus was born of a virgin. Read the first 3 chapters of Matthew and Luke and you decide if they agree. I believe the birth, family of origin, their names, his baptism by John, the mount of transfiguration, his arrest, crucifixion and resurrection are confirmed in multiple Gospels. Not a one of these historical realities are denied or contradicted by any Gospel. Thus to make the claim that they don't agree on anything of importance is beyong "silly".

If Dawkins and Hitchens want to dismiss Christians as uninformed about science, let them at least admit that they themselves are woefully ignorant of Christianity. Maybe we all could learn from one another, but the tone of their works make it hard for Christians to feel comfortable in discussions with them. It would be hard to have respect for someone who has shown such disdain for you and your faith. Yet, as Christians we need to respect people who disagree with us even if it is the devil himself (not that I'm calling Hitchens the devil). Jude writes that false teachers of his day dare to "slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil..did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said 'The Lord rebuke you'. Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand.."(Jude 9, 10a). If someone speaks abusively against whatever they don't understand, let it not be us.

2009-02-12T16:37:00.000-08:00

Vicki pointed out that today was also Abraham Lincoln's birthday and that he surely deserves at least a mention. Born on the same day and the same year, their contributions to history were significant and significantly different. I can identify with Abraham Lincoln. His family was poor and so was mine and so am I. It seems that he was destined to be president and I guess the parallel ends there. I am sure I was destined for something and until I discover what, I will continue to blog. His wife Mary Todd told her friends that "Mr. Lincoln is to be president of the United States. If I had not thought so, I would not have married him, for you can see he is not pretty." Gloria could have said the same about me except for the president part.

Some speculate that Lincoln might have been bi-polar. He definitely struggled with depression. "I never dare carry a penknife" as a caution against suicide.

Schweikart and Allen in their History write that "Lincoln was homely, but Mary Todd was downright sour looking, which perhaps eontributed to his having left her, literally, standing at the altar one time." Lincoln claimed that he was sick, but was it lovesickness or just sick?

Lincoln's religious faith or lack of it has garnered the attention of historians and not all agree. Some accused him of being a skeptic while others believed him to be a deist. However, not long before his death he was asked by a minister "do you love Jesus". His answer was revealing:

"When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I love Jesus."

We are the greater people for having been blessed with an Abraham Lincoln.

2009-02-12T10:39:00.000-08:00

Charles Darwin is 200 years old today. Of course he has been dead for some time; a victim of a meaningless, purposeless world produced by evolution. Most educators would name Freud, Marx and Darwin as the three most influential thinkers of the past 200 years. The theories of the first two have experienced the death that was a natural product of applying their theories to real life. Darwin's theory survives and even thrives in academic institutions around the world. Yet, it survives because people live as though "it ain't so". Instead of viewing love as a cold c
chemical process that is biological only, scientists live as though love transcends biology.

Imagine going home in the evening and greeting your wife with "I don't know why I'm here except that chemical activity in the brain led me here. Oh, John Jr., you do realize you are here only because you possess a "selfish gene" that desired to propagate more selfish genes, and Johnny you do understand that you are no different than and have no more value than a toad?"

Such conversations do not occur because scientists live contradictory to their theory of origin and life.

In 1925 there was a trial in Tennessee that pitted a part time science teacher and coach against the state of Tennessee which had banned the teaching of evolution as true. The trial was actually a stage production in that the American Civil Liberties Union had been looking for a teacher who would agree to violate the law and test it in court. They actually advertised in papers looking for a willing collaborator. The leaders of Dayton Tennessee were concerned about the diminishing population and prosperity of their community when one of their leaders saw the add which generated an idea for bringing puplicity to their community. They could get a local teacher to challenge the law and then provide lawyers to defend him. When potential prosecutors were informed of the idea, they went along with it for the sake of the community. The ACLU even offered to pay for the prosecutors, as well as the defense attorneys. The case was so high profile that Clarence Darrow, one of America's best known defense attorneys agreed to defend the teacher, and former Presidenitial candidate William Jennings Bryan volunteered his services to the prosecution. The fact that Bryan hadn't practiced law in more than 30 years was not seen to be a problem. The defendant had already been assured by all involved that he would not serve time.

The argument centered on the open pursuit of truth featured by scientists and the narrow minded bigotry of religion. The classroom should be a place where opposing ideas ought to be allowed so that truth could rise above the arguments.

Today, the shoe is on the other foot, Intelligent Design theory is fighting for a right to challenge evolution which now controls our public schools and schools of higher learning.

In a previous article in this series I quoted from Richard Dawkins, the leading advocate of Darwinism today and an aggressive advocate of atheism, as saying that religion draws its conclusions from a holy book that is not open to being questioned while he as a scientist derives his conclusions from the scientific evaluation of evidence.

The disagreement between theists who believe God is the origin of life and our cosmos and people like Dawkins is not so much as a result of science vs a holy book as it is naturalism vs theism. Most Darwinians are naturalists. They begin with an assumption not science. Their assumption is that nothing exists except matter and that all things and events must be explained by natural causes. They deny that design or purpose has anything to do with our universe and our existence. Theists refuse to rule out the possibility that reality extends beyong the material and natural. Theists believe there is sufficient evidence of design and purpose in the cosmos to lead to the plausibility of God's existence. Read the holy book's record of Paul's argument in Romans chapter 1.

Currently, many biologists, astronomers and physicists agree that design makes more sense then random mutations and natural selection. Maybe in the future we can examine more closely the actual evidence offered by theists and evolutionists, but today we simply want to pay tribute to the third member of the intellectual trinity that has helped shape us. Will we live to see the death of Darwin's theory as we have Freud's and Marx's?

2009-02-07T19:18:00.000-08:00

If you have read my blogs on atheism, would you be so kind as to respond with a simple "yes" so that I can determine if there is any value to my continuing to blog. I simply don't know if anyone is reading and it takes some time to write the blogs. It may be that I'm the only one who values such a discussion, and thus may be writing primarily to myself. If so I'm wasting a lot of the Lord's time that might more profitably be used on other tasks. This is the only problem with a blog. When you're preaching or teaching you can see an audience although you may question if anyone is listening, but when blogging, you don't know if anyone is there.

2009-02-06T06:19:00.000-08:00

If any of my readers have read the senate bail-out bill, could you tell me if I'm going to be re-imbursed for the investments I've lost in the recession. From my understanding the money in the bail out bill if given to the long term unemployed in America would provide 250,000 dollars each. I'll bet that would stimulate the economy. However, for those who will be seeking employment when they are ninety years old because they have lost their retirement due to government regulations and lack of self control of lenders and borrowers, well I guess we are the losers. Aren't you glad we can pay our taxes to help stimulate the economy that rewards those that fail and ignores those who are the victims. Actually I don't want other people's money, but I also don't want mine going to reward greedy corporations and politicians seeking to stay in office by rewarding those who have paid to get them elected

2009-02-06T06:09:00.000-08:00

As a footnote to my blog of yesterday, I need to point out that the idea of an earth centered universe is not a biblical doctrine, but a doctrine taught by the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle has had a great influence on Catholicism, and for that matter protestantism also. Thus Science's issue with Christianity is really an issue with Aristotle who influenced Christianity. Maybe I should also point out that the sun centered view of the universe had already been introduced in the 3rd century B.C. by a philosopher named Aristarchus. However, he was unable to support his contention with evidence and as a result his view never gained traction.

I hope some are reading these blogs and if any of the things I write produce questions or problems either respond on my blog or on my e-mail (ronnie.wiggins@ectisp.net). Since I'm not writing for publication, I'm not providing footnotes for my quotes, but if any should be interested in tracking down my quotes, I will be happy to provide that info. upon request.

2009-02-05T11:43:00.000-08:00

In our last blog we discussed the atheist argument that Christianity is responsible for killing more people than any other philosophy or religion in the world. If such were true then it would be little wonder that people would reject it as negating its message of peace. However, we tried in our response to show that the atheists magnify several-fold the evils of history for which Christianity is responsible while at the same time almost completely ignoring the good that has resulted from Chrisitianity.

In the present blog, I want to evaluate their criticism of Christianity because of its alledged opposition to science, knowledge, truth and progress. All of the recent books advance the view that Christians have always opposed science and that scientific advancements have occurred because scientists were willing to be oppressed and persecuted by Christians in order to advance the cause of knowledge and truth.

Of course this view is not new. One of the best known advocates of this view was Bertrand Russell who popularized it in his lecture WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN delivered on March 6, 1927. He argued that people believe in God because they are indoctrinated as small children, then he adds that "the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you." Its interesting that in the same year that Russell delivered this lecture, the FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION by the father of psychotherapy was published.

The following quote from Freud agrees with Russell that fear is the origin of God. Religion he says is an illusion. "They are illusions, fulfillment of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of those wishes. As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessnes in childhood aroused the need for protection--for protection through love--which was provided by the father; and the recognition that this helplessness lasts throughout life made it necessary; to cling to the existence of a father; but this time a more powerful one. Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the dangers of life." In a later paragraph, he says that "scientific work is the only road which can lead us to a knowledge of reality outside ourselves." Thus according to Freud, God is a product of our neurosis and is a result of wish. God has no basis in reality outside of our wishes.

Hitchens in GOD IS NOT GREAT longs for the day when religion will be but a distant dream of a terrible past. "Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it (religion) no longer offers an explanation of anything important...It can now only impede and retard --or try to turn back---the measurable advances that we have made."

Dawkins in the GOD DELUSION gives a great deal of attention to the conflict between Christianity and science. The following words show how he sees each: Christians "know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief...The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence."

It is clear from the previous series of quotations that Christians are viewed as weak psychologically and thus in need of a father, and have a superstitious belief in a holy book rather than a mind open to research and evidence.

There is so much here that needs to be addressed, but for the moment I simply want to address the charge that Christianity has waged war on Science. This story of conflict goes back to two books written toward the end of the 19th century alledging that Christianity has been in conflict with science since the early days of science. John William Draper, in 1874, wrote HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE and in 1896 Andrew Dickson White, the first president of Cornell University wrote a two volume work entitled HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM. In the 100 years since the publication of these books, the conflict model has prevailed.

The centerpiece of their argument is the story of Galileo. According to their account, Galileo, who promoted the Heliocentered view of our galaxy was resisted by the Catholic church, because it would seem to diminish the value of man. The previous scientific model had assumed that the earth was the center of the universe. In that view man was far more important. Actually Galileo was only continuing in the footsteps of Copernicus ( a loyal Catholic) who had already introduced the heliocentric view.

As the story goes, the Pope tried to silence Galileo and when he couldn't, he had him arrested and held in a dungeon where he nearly starved to death. That interpretation is more "wish fulfillment" as Freud would say than scientific. The truth of the matter is that a number of Catholice theologians were open to this new view, but at the time proof was lacking and Galileo was asked not to promote it without any proof. He agreed, but then later broke his word. Thomas Kuhn, a scientist and author of THE STUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS admits that during Galileo's life there was no proof available for this theory. Galileo tried to support with evidence that proved to be false. Later he wrote a treatise DIALOGUE CONCERNING THE CHIEF WORLD SYSTEMS. This treatise is what produced the problem with the pope. Galileo had been free for 20 years since he first announced his support of heliocentric view, but in 1632 with this publication things changed. Pope Urban VIII had been a friend and admirer of Galileo. He even penned a poem honoring him. However, in Galileo's treatise, he featured a dialogue between his view and one named Simplicio. He placed in Simplicio's words an argument that had been publicly espoused by Pope Urban, and then he humiliated Simplicio. In Italian "simplicio" means simpleton. The Pope took offense to what he viewed as an embarrasing "put down". Galileo was ordered to travel to Rome where he was put under house arrest. He was never placed in a dungeon, but was treated with respect.

No question the Pope did not behave properly, but Galileo was not without blame in breaking his word, producing erroneous support for his hypothesis, and betraying his friendship with the Pope in the way that he did. I'm not trying to defend the Pope and the Catholic Church, but am trying to say that this great conflict between Christianity and Science based on this episode is largely a myth.

There is reason why the west has made advancements in Science that the Arab world and most other areas of the world have not. Christianity provided the environment that would encourage Science. Genesis one says that mankind is to exercise dominion over the earth. Such a relationship warrants investigation into how the world works. Furthermore, Christians assume as Paul wrote that God is a God of order. Thus we would expect to find laws that govern the natural world just as we find order in the moral world.

Atheists up until about thirty years ago argued that the world had always existed. The advent of the Big Bang theory was actually a disappointment to many because it said there was a beginning. Eastern religions such as Hinduism had been perfectly content with no beginning, but Jews and Christians insisted that there was a creation. The Big Bang confirmed that there was a beginning.

Polls show that the vast majority of Americans believe in God. At least 40% of American scientists believe the same thing. This troubles Richard Dawkins to no end. He says well the best scientists tend to be atheists. Elitist intellectualism has gone to seed with these guys, but as we noted in a previous blog, they are the "BRIGHTS" don't you know.

2009-01-30T08:47:00.000-08:00

Religion is evil
Christianity is a religion
Therefore Christianity is evil

This seems to be the logic offered in the recent books attacking theism or belief in God. The error in logic should be obvious. The major premise that religion is evil is a product of generalization from the worst examples and the coloring of all forms of religious expression with the same brush. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens want to take suicide bombers as the religious proto-type and infer from their behavior that all religions are equally evil. In the interest of fairness, I must admit that they attempt to provide historical documentation for characterizing Christianity as evil.

Dawkins especially is fond of illustrating the evils of Christianity by appealing to examples that the vast majority of Christians would view as extreme distortions of the Christian faith.
Dawkins produced a television documentary ROOT OF ALL EVIL and in it he interviews "Christians" He acknowledges that he has come under criticism for interviewing those that many Christians would label extremists. He responds to his critics with the following: "It sounds like a fair criticism--except that, in early 21st-century America, what seems extreme to the outside world is actually mainstream". One of his interviewees is "Pastor Keenan Roberts" who operates "Hell houses". In a hell house actors play abortionists and homosexuals. A scarlet-clad devil is present. Sulphurous smells and burning limestone are accompanied by agonizing screams of the forever damned. I know nothing of these Hell Houses except what Dawkins describes, but I wonder how many normal Christian families send their children to enjoy this experience. Call me stupid, but I doubt that most Christians would call this typical of most Christians or churches. Yet its from these kind of practices that Dawkins and others draw their conclusions about Christians in general.

When they do provide substantial reasons for labeling Christianity as evil, it usually is based upon the crusades, the spanish iquisition, the Salem witch trials, the treatment of native Americans and discriminatio against women and homosexuals. Of course slavery is also blamed on Christians. With such a shotgun approach, the hope is that some will stick.

To adequately address all of these issues would require a book rather than a blog, but I will try to address a few of their most common examples of corrupt, evil Christianity.

First, I nor any other writer would try to defend all that's been done in the name of Christ. Even in the first century, the writers of scripture point out that at that time much was being done in the name of Christ that deserved to be denounced not only by critics of Christians, but by Christians themselves. Read 2 Peter chapter 2 and the book of Jude. One thing the Bible makes clear is that we remain sinners even after becoming Christians and therefore, not all that we do brings honor to God or expresses the will of God as taught in scripture.

Second, the evils done by christendom have often been exaggerated. While we would never defend the crusade carried on by the Catholic church, nor the Spanish inquisition or witch trials, still the number killed in these combined efforts were far less than are often quoted in the writings of critics of Christianity. For instance Gore Vidal, the well known atheist, wrote that "more people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other name in the history of the world." For an effective rebuttal of such unwarranted hyperbole, one should read CHRISTIANITY ON TRIAL by Carroll and Shiflett.

The bloodiest century on record was not characterized by religious wars, but millions died at the hands of atheists. Communism killed as many as 100 million people. Hitler who was by no stretch of the imagination a dedicated Christian, was just as deadly, but his reign of terror was shorter lived. The fact is that war seems to be typical rather than exceptional in the history of humanity. Some religions have without question fostered war, but I would argue that Christian initiation of war has been the exception and that Christianity is better known for peace than war.

Read the Koran and then read the New Testament. Do they sound alike when it comes to fighting to promote their religion? Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight". He told Peter to put his sword up. Wars of the Old Testament deserve discussion, but since atheists want to criticize Christians then they must consider the teachings of Jesus. It wasn't until about AD 175 that we have any historical data confirming a Christian becoming a soldier for the Roman Empire. It wasn't until about 400 that Augustine presented an argument supporting Christians participation in warfare and only if the war could pass a number of criteria that would classify it as a just war. Does the world have more hope from a leader who is called "the Prince of Peace" or from a leader such as the atheist Karl Marx who called for revolution. The evidence is overwhelming in favor of Christianity.

Just as the works of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris exaggerate the evil done by Christianity, they minimize or hardly mention at all the good done by Christians. How many atheist organizations were at the forefront of efforts to relieve the suffering of the victims of Katrina? Churches sent trucks with food and clothing from all over the country. Christians went to New Orleans by the hundreds to help distribute relief and rebuild the city. Churches and Christian families opened their doors to vicitims of the catastrophe. I don't remember reading about atheist organizations and families participating in this relief effort. I'm sure there were some who did, but my point is that it is the calling of Christians to do so. Who were those who volunteered to work in leper colonies, Christians. Who led the way in building hospitals, Christians. Today one third of all hospitals in America are operated by Catholics. Baptists, Mehodists, Presbyterians and others have been a part of the effort to provide health care to neighbors, friends, and fellow Americans. Exactly how many hospitals have been built by atheists?

God told His people that His name would at times be blasphemed because of their behavior(cf. Rom. 2:17ff). Some of the criticism of Christianity is understandable because Christians are sinners, but when put in perspective, Christianity is not the terrible evil atheists would have us believe that it is. A balanced perspective would admit our wrongs, but critics who are honest with the evidence would have to admit that no movement has brought more good to the world in the last 2000 years than Christianity and Christians.

2009-01-29T14:23:00.000-08:00

In our previous post, we provided a few quotes from the trinity of contemporary atheism-- Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. In the present posting and future ones I will be examining the arguments they present against Christianity. After evaluating their arguments against God, I will discuss some of the arguments that Christian Apologists provide for belief in God. As you are well aware, I am not approaching the subject as though I could care less the outcome. I believe in God and am convinced that believers have no reason to be embarassed by their faith. However, I think we must assume that some atheists and agnostics are sincere in their beliefs and deserve to be answered and not just dismissed as evil people. My thoughts may not cause any unbeliever to re-consider their conclusions, but maybe at least those of us who are believers will be more convinced that we need not fear criticism of God. God is bigger than man and will not shrink away from man's criticism. When God created us free to think for ourselves, He undoubtedly knew that not all would reach the same conclusions. However, if we are to represent Him in the world, we must represent Him to atheists and agnostics. We must be ready to give an answer to them, as well as others.

One of the primary arguments being put forth today against Christianity is that it is a religion and all religion is dangerous. Faith is evil and produces ignorance, hate and violence. All of the authors of these recent books would tend to agree on this point. Such a view is not new, it has characterized atheism for over 200 years. However, it has gained traction in light of 9-11. The timing of the appearance of these books within a few years of 9-11 is not coincidental. Another factor that helped give birth to these books, in my opinion, was the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. Most pundits at that time credited Bush's victory to conservative Christians. Those two factors, one, an urgency growing out of political concerns and second, an opportunity growing out of concerns about religious extremism, offered a fertile field for these works.

Its important to note that the authors of these books do not see extremism as the problem, but to them it is religion. "Why" asks Dawkins "would anyone want to destroy the World Trade Center and everybody in it?" He quotes Harris in answering his question "The answer is that men like bin Laden actually believe what they say they believe--they believe in the literal truth of the Koran". He adds a quote from Muriel Gray, writing in the (GlasgowJ) Herald on 24 July 2005, "The cause of all this misery, mayhem, violence, terror and ignorance is of course religion itself". "The take-home message is that we should blame religion itself, not religious extremism...Voltaire got it right long ago:'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".

He makes a specific application of the danger of religion to christianity when he adds that "Christianity, just as much as Islam, teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don't have to make the case for what you believe....Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."

Hitchens says that "Religion poisons everything. As well as a menace to civiization, it has become a threat to human survival".

The argument of these authors develops in three steps:

1. Religion is a problem as evidenced by 9-11.

2. All religions call for blind faith and it is faith which is dangerous whether expressed in Islam or Christianity.

3. Its not religious extremism that's a problem but religion period!

Lest we argue that Christians are not bombing women and children, they point to the crusades and bombing of abortion clinics as the equivalent of 9-11 and imply that Christians could easily be moved to kill if they believed it was God's will. Remember Abraham and his willingness to kill Isaac. Was not he, a hero of faith, ready to commit an unspeakable atrocity in the name of God?

How do we respond to such an argument? Well, I've got to head for home now. Stay tuned and if time will allow, we will try to respond tomorrow.

2009-01-26T11:56:00.001-08:00

Its my kind of day. Visibility is about 1 mile with drizzle and fog. The forecast calls for an ice warning beginning at 6 p.m.. I wish the forecast called for snow, but will be content with ice. However, I do not want to lose power. I grew up with a fire place and have found them to be woefully inadequate when it comes to heat. I guess the "cake and eating it to" idea might apply in this instance. If I don't blog for a few days , you can assume that the power is out.

Since 2005 there have been several bestsellers written attacking christianity and denying the existence of God. In fairness to the authors, the books actually attack all religions but the primary target appears to be christianity and the God described in the Bible. To appreciate the anger they have for christianity, we need to see a few of their quotes.

Sam Harris, author of the first major attack upon God and the christian faith, says "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

Richard Dawkins in his work THE GOD DELUSION writes that christianity has much in common with the Afgan Taliban.
The Afgan Taliban and the American Taliban are good examples of what happens when people
take the scriptures literally and seriously."

Religion (again christianity as primary example) is so dangerous that parents should be prevented from teaching it to children even in their own home. Dawkins quotes approvingly from his colleague Nicholas Humphrey the following statement: "In short children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible...than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon." The Bible's pretty dangerous and that makes you and me dangerous, doesn't it. Guess what would happen if Dawkins had political power and not just a bestseller.

Christopher Hitchens has written the latest in the trinity of atheism published since 2005. GOD IS NOT GREAT is his work and according to the cover it discusses "how religion poisons everything. Hitchens goes so far as to question that Jesus ever lived. He thinks religious faith is a mental disorder: " The connection between religious faith and mental disorder is, from the viewpoint of the tolerant and the multicultural.. very obvious?.. To him, it is clear that religion is a product of ignorance and fear: "One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody...had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species.."

Dawkins sums up his view of the God revealed in the Old Testament in the following words:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." Wow I bet you didn't know all of that, did you? Some of these authors, especially Dawkins and Dennett(whose book I have yet to mention) refer to themselves as "brights". Who are we "dims" to disagree with "brights"?

The story of the atheists would be humorous if it were not for the fact that many take their word as difinitive and scientific while religious writers are ignorant and filled with hate.

In coming blogs I will interact with some of their primary arguments. Their arguments must not be ignored but addressed. In addressing the arguments we must not behave as "brights" but as believers prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within us.

2009-01-14T10:08:00.000-08:00

We are but a few days away from the inaguration of Barak Hussein Obama as the next president of these United States. If he keeps his words to Planned Parenthood, his first act as president will be to sign into law the FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT, H.R. 1964 and S1173 introduced on April 19, 2007 by Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York. Both are democrats and introduced the legislation just hours after the Supreme Court had in GONZALES v. CARHART upheld a limited ban on partial-birth abortions. Congressman Nadler in a letter stated that" today, the Supreme Court declared open season on women's lives and their right to control their own bodies, their health and their destinies".

The bill reads as follows:

Sec. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.--It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the "fundamental right" to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBTION OF INTERFERENCE.--A government may not---
(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose---
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) CIVIL ACTION--An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a goverment) in a civil action.

Section 6 applies(the act) " to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." viability is to be determined not by a standard but by the abortion physician.

Current legislation that would by nullified by this legislation includes the following:

----State abortion reporting requiremnts in all 50 states
----laws concerning parental notification (44 states)
----40 states restrict late abortions
----46 states provide protection for

physicians, nurses and other health care providers whose conscience would not allow them to participate in a procedure resulting in the abortion of an infant.

----27 states protect institutions that have similiar problems of conscience.
----the partial-birth bans would be lifted
----mandatory counselling providing the option of abortion along with other options would be nullified. Offering only abortion would be the norm.

These effects would be only a sampling of the consequences if the FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT is passed. Passage would require government funding for abortion, no matter what the reason.
Hospitals and health care providers could not refuse to perform an abortion on the grounds of conscience. Many Catholic Hospitals would likely close because the church does not allow abortion performed at its hospitals. Federal funding currently coming to Catholic hospitals would be withheld forcing the hospitals into financial collapse. One third of all American hospitals are operated by the Catholic Church. The closing of even some of these hospitals would interfere with the quality of health care available to millions of Americans, especially charity patients.

Why are we concerned now when the legislation is nearly 2 years old and has still not been passed by Congress? The answer is found in President Elect Obama's promise to Planned Parenthood and in the dramatically increased number of pro-choice representatives and members of the Senate that were elected in November.

What can we do ? Contact your Senator and Congressman and express your concerns.
Alert fellow christians and pro life friends. Pray fervently. The lives of millions are at stake.

2009-01-12T13:34:00.000-08:00

Thanks for being patient with me in my slow response to the problem I posed last week from Jude 14,15. I had to try to come up with an answer you would accept(just kiddin). My point in presenting the problem is to make us aware that there are genuine problems we must face as christians and that we do not help bring people to faith by glossing over such matters with a "nobody knows" or "well I just believe". It may be that we eventually conclude that nobody knows, but it should be after investigation of the problem and not before.

Also we should not make statements that informed people would immediately reject along with rejecting our credibility. The following is a quote from Jude 14, followed by 1Enoch 1:9:

Jude 14 "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: See, the Lord is coming with thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

1 Enoch 1:9 "Behold, he will arrive with ten 10 million of the holy ones to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him"

While our English translations of the two texts are not completely parallel, the thought is and is similiar to N.T. translation of Old Testament texts. There were several editions and translations of 1 Enoch and it is difficult to know which text Jude quoted from. Most scholars believe that 1
Enoch was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic and later translated into Greek and Ethiopic.

1 Enoch seems to have been written primarily to explain Gen. 6:4 where Scripture says that the sons of God married the daughters of men. Some interpreters have explained the sons of God as descendents of Seth. However, it seems that the dominant view among both Jews and Christians of the first two centuries of the Christian era was that the "sons of God" were angels. In Job and several other Old Testament texts, sons of God was used to describe angels. 1 Enoch is the first source of which we are aware that goes into great detail in explaining that the sons of God were angels and the consequences of their marrying women.

According to Enoch, the offspring of the union between sons of God and the daughters of men were the nephilim or giants. The rebel angels who left heaven to have sex with women influenced the earth in a very evil way which resulted in the corruption of human flesh which caused God to send a flood. The angels were ultimately bound in tartaurus to await the final judgment. John's appeal to the binding of Satan in Rev.20:1ff and Peter and Jude's reference to the binding of the spirits seem to reflect the same understanding as found in 1 Enoch(cf. 2 Pet. 2:4-6 and Jude 5 ff., as well as 1 Pet. 3:18-22).

No biblical scholar to my knowledge would deny some type of connection between Jude and 1 Enoch, but not all are agreed on the exact connection and the meaning of the connection. The following possibilites are usually presented, but not all have the same likelihood of success in explaining the relationship:

1. Jude was written before 1 Enoch and the author of 1 Enoch used Jude.

2. 1 Enoch was written first and Jude used 1 Enoch.

3. Both used an earlier oral tradition that claimed to come from pre-flood Enoch who walked with God.

The first view is endorsed by Guy N. Woods in his 1962 commentary in the Gospel Advocate series. This view can easily be dismissed because fragments of 1 Enoch have been discovered at Qumran which have been carbon dated back to 100 b.c.. Woods probably thought he was offering an explanation that would help support biblical inspiration, but when we offer interpretations that prove to be so obviously wrong we actually lose credibility.

The third interpretation cannot be totally disproved, but the evidence for it is non-existant.

The second interpretation is the only one that harmonizes with the evidence available to us.

If we conclude that Jude quotes from a non-bibical book and uses the verb "prophesied" in his description of this author's quote, are we faced with the following dilemma: either 1 Enoch was inspired and should be in the bible or Jude is not inspired and should not be in the bible. Furthermore no scholar(liberal or conservative) to my knowledge would claim that the Enoch, 7th from Adam really spoke those words. Some would argue that a hint of such a saying might have been passed along through Noah and his family on through the centuries until about 200 b.c. when the author of 1 Enoch included it in his text, but few take this suggestion seriously.

An examination of Christian interpretation of this matter in the first couple of centuries illustrates the problem. Earliest interpreter from about a.d. 100 to 250 concluded that Jude was inspired and so was 1 Enoch. By a.d. 350 most had concluded that 1 Enoch was not inspired and that as a result Jude was suspect. Jude was one of the last books to be accepted as inspired and much of the reluctance was based on his use of 1 Enoch, as well as a writing called "The Assumption of Moses". Jude 9 refers to Michael's quarrel with Satan over the body of Moses. The Old Testament does not contain that story, but early christians referred to the just mentioned work as containing it. Of course, "The Assumption of Moses" is not viewed as inspired by the early christians and is no longer extant. These two quotes from non-biblical sources made it tough sledding for Jude, but ultimately it made its way into the canon of Scripture.

Martin Luther and some of the other reformers came to question some of the books that had been accepted by the church councils as inspired. Carroll Osburn of Abilene Christian University has questioned Jude's canonical status because of the issue we are discussing.

Some facts to consider:

1. There are many references in the bible to writings not contained in Scripture. Check out the following texts: Esther 10:2; 2:23; 1Chron. 27:24; 2 Chron. 26:22; 1 Chron.29:29; Num.21:14; 2chron.33:19; 2 Chron.20:34; 2Chron. 12:15; 2 Chron.13:22; 2 Chron9:29; 2 Chron. 12:15; 1 Kings 11:41; Josh. 10:13.

2. We know that Paul quotes Greek poets and even describes one as a prophet of the Cretans (Titus 1:12).

3. A truth can be contained in a book when not all in the book would be argued as true. I often quote points from authors to support an argument, while I would take issue with the author on some other matter about which he wrote.

4. We don't know as much about some matters as we may think we know. One such matter is the inspiration of scripture and how that works. We know that Luke researched other written documents and oral traditions before he wrote his Gospel, yet we trust that he wrote what God wanted Him to write. Was Luke inspired? Faith says he was, but he did research before writing so that he didn't just sit down at the table waiting for the Holy Spirit to start moving his hand on the papyrus or parchment.

After exhausting our knowledge and theories we will still be left with questions, but so is the athiest and critic of scripture. We need not be afraid of facts, but we should be skeptical of a faith that is willing to ignore the facts, and we should realize that such a faith will not win many serious questioners. We must be prepared to give an answer even if the answer may not be totally satisfying to others or even ourselves( cf.1Peter 3:15).

If this essay has raised further questions or failed to make sense to you, please blog me with your frank and even brutal responses. I will try to love you even if you have a problem with my conclusions. I said I would try, but try not to make it too hard for me, o.k.

2009-01-10T06:07:00.000-08:00

I'll be back Monday. Have a great week-end.

2009-01-05T15:04:00.000-08:00

Tonight Texas plays Ohio State. As an Aggie I have a hard time cheering for the Longhorns, but tonight I will do so. I'm not just as Aggie, but I'm also a Texan. Its Texas vs. Ohio. I have nothing against Ohio although I would differ with their political preferences from time to time, but I wouldn't root against them for that reason alone.

Texas has a remote chance to be voted no. 1 in the nation. If Oklahoma's Bradford throws for 5 interceptions and Tebow fumbles five times while Colt McCoy is 40 for 40 in pass attempts and throws for 600 yards, and Texas defeats Ohio State 72 to 0, then they might sneak into first place. One of the fun things about college football is that no one can actually prove who no.1 is because there is no conclusive on-the-field evidence since there are no playoffs. Think of how many watercooler conversations would be quenched if there were a playoff system. Our conclusions are usually determined by which school I attended or which school is from my state or area.

Many people choose a religious faith for similiar reasons. My family grew up going to this church is like saying all of our family attends Texas or A&M, therefore one or the other is the best school in the country. We in churches of Christ often prefer the church of Christ because we grew up in it. While those that grew up Catholic or Assembly of God prefer their respective churches for the very same reason. Still others prefer Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam for exactly the same reason. Unless our faith is more than a family heritage we have little to offer others.

Many in America have grown up in a secular environment and are like people who never attended a University and thus have no inclination to support a school simply because someone else's family attended it. Do we have the courage to test our faith by facts?

Yesterday morning in our adult class we were studying 2 Peter, chapter 2. When that chapter is compared with Jude, the most reasonable conclusion is that one author had the other writing in his hands or mind when he wrote. I believe that Jude is the earlier document, but such is not as we would say "a salvation issue". Jude speaks of Enoch, 7th from the generation of Adam prophesying and then he presents tw0 verses as quoted from Enoch. Most of us are familiar with the Genesis text that speaks of an Enoch who walked with God. Apparently Jude had this Enoch in mind, but where is his book from which Jude is quoting. Until the last century and a half, scholars knew an Enoch once existed but a copy was not available in its entirity. Finally a copy surfaced in the Ethiopic language. Scholars, after a century and a half analysis, have concluded that the book was written by a jew in the second century B.C.. The book seems to have been written to explain Genesis 6:4 which speaks of "The sons of God marrying the daughters of men". 1 Enoch, as it is now referred to in order to distinguish it from another similiar book written a couple of centuries later called 2 Enoch, identifies the "sons of God" as angels who rebelled against God. After coming to earth and marrying mortal women, they produced offspring labeled "nephilim" or giants. 1 Enoch says the giants were 300 cubits tall or about 450 feet tall, and we thought dinasaurs were impressive.

Enoch says much more that we might question, but the book was clearly held in esteem by Jude because he quotes 1 Enoch 1:9, 10 and calls it prophesy.

Now my question to my reader is what do we do with such a text in light of our understanding of inspiration? If Enoch was a prophet, why was the book not included in the scripture? If it was not an inspired work, what do we do with Jude's quoting his work as prophetic? If he was a prophet, should we not read his work and believe everything it teaches including the existence in the past of giants taller than the length of a football field?

I don't bring up such issues to create doubt, but to insist that our faith be based upon something even more than the inspiration of text. I believe in an inspired text, but my faith must not discount evidence that doesn't square with my understanding. To resort to " I just believe" may satisfy those who have sit next to you on the pew for 30 years, but such will be dismissed by serious searchers.

My point is that we often speak disparagingly about critics of the Bible when there are glaring questions that we have ignored because we have never been searchers but only inheritors. I will welcome your input and will have more to say in response to this issue in a future blog. Thanks for reading and don't give up on me, I am not liberal just because I insist that a meaningful faith must not be afraid of the facts and if we can't harmonize the facts with our assumptions then maybe we don't have all of the facts or maybe we need to question our assumptions. Maybe we will have to revise our interpretations because of new facts that may not be new but are new to me. Only when we are not threatened by truth can we have a meaningful and strong faith. Before we assume that others don't love the truth, we must be sure that we do.

Until next time, have a great interim.

2009-01-01T09:03:00.000-08:00

Happy new year!

My ten predictions for 2009

1. Sports gurus will not predict a Superbowl for the Cowboys in 2010.

2. The economy will begin to recover

3. Christianity will be blamed for all the bad things happening in our society

4. Snoopy Doggy Dog will lead a spiritual awakening among gangsta rappers

5. Barak Obama will have "no comment" on anything

6. Rod Bargojevich will announce that he plans to run for president on the Democratic ticket in 2012

7. The host of a late night show will plagiarize my top 10 list and claim it as his own.

8. The Maypearl Maverick will receive more hits than the Drudge Report in 2009

9. I will lose 40 lbs before December 31st 2009

10. Joe Biden will set a Guiness book record for the longest non stop talking in history.

The top ten are not in any particular order, but I am sure that oddsmakers in Vegas would bet on all 10.

Have a great day!

2008-12-29T09:26:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-22T07:52:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-12-16T11:25:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-12-13T13:14:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-10T08:49:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-10T08:24:00.000-08:00

2008-12-08T10:42:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-04T13:52:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-02T08:49:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-11-27T08:19:00.000-08:00

Its a beautiful Thanksgiving morning in Midlothian, Texas. Watching the news coverage of the Mumbai terrorists attacks remind us that we have been safe for 7 years. However, New York City and the railway system of the northeast are on high alert. While relaxing this morning I watched a re-run of Roseanne and her version of Thanksgiving. It included two male homosexuals who were about to adopt a child. Roseanne's mother had a fit, but guess what, she turned out to be a closet lesbian. Then there was a school play that showed the indians hosting the pilgrims for a holiday meal only to be slaughtered by the pilgrims. The pilgrims were also patriarchal and abusive of their wives. The indians taught them that to believe in a male god rather than in mother earth would lead to such abuse. I guess I should be thankful for such intelligent input to help me celebrate Thanksgiving.

It takes the Roseannes of the world to help me remember how thankful I should be. Our country is not perfect and our history is not holy, but without our past we would not be enjoying the present. Oh we have problems. The economy is in crisis, but even the economy would not be in nearly as much crisis were it not for 24/7 news coverage focusing on every conceivable negative they can surface. Real and not revisionist history will reveal just how different the present situation is from that of 1929. If you could choose any country of the world, where would you rather live than America.

As for me and my household, we will be thankful that we live where we live and continue to believe that our God has blessed us.

2008-11-26T07:13:00.000-08:00

Thanksgiving is the second most important holiday of the year for most Americans and Christians. Families get together to overeat and watch football, well at least some family members do. Others browse the sales available the next day, black Friday. However, most of us at least give some attention to the name thanksgiving and express thoughts and prayers affirming our appreciation for America and the blessings God has bestowed upon this land. In some ways its far more comforting to look to the past than to look to the future. Of course if we look far enough into the future, we can find great hope and comfort.

Holidays such as thanksgiving and christmas remind us of where we are in America. The parents in California who are protesting the two kindergartens where children are dressing up like pilgrims and indians to eat a thanksgiving meal together in peace. Protestors feel such activity is a sad reminder to native Americans of the abuse their forefathers experienced at the hands of the Europeans when they arrived on this continent. I wonder how many of the protestors are native Americans. At least one native American mother with children in the school involved was on TV protesting the protestors. She wanted her children to enjoy the experience and did not see it as a painful debilitating experience.

Recently Steve Colbert on the Colbert Report on the Comedy channel, began the annual attack on Christmas. Every year we hear how devastating Christmas can be for atheists, muslims, and other non-christians. Do we as Christians feel humiliation because of atheists and muslims? I don't. I believe in a pluralistic democracy where freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. All religions have opportunity to celebrate the holidays or special holy days of their choice. I don't go into mourning during the celebration of hanakah. It seems that the only words and events that are threatening to others are those associated with christianity or patriotism.

Tomorrow I'm going to forget about what others think of me and christians. I'm planning to enjoy my freedoms and blessings by sharing an abundance of turkey, dressing and football. Friday I will confess my sin and fast (or not). If any are still reading this blog, may I encourage you to celebrate our forefathers faith and enjoy the blessing of family.

2008-11-21T07:38:00.000-08:00

Good morning. It was 32 degrees early this morning and the sky is beautiful. God's creation is such wonderful place to live. However, I expect that the new heavens and earth that constitute our ultimate homeland will be infinitely greater because not only will we have the beauty, but we will have it without the storms of life that we now experience.

Since the election its been interesting to read the views of those who are counselling the Republican party on how to recover their lost influence. Some suggest the party forsook the social conservatives( translated"conservative christians"), and as a result they lost support. Others suggest that the selection of Sarah Palin was an effort to placate the social conservatives, but served to alienate the fiscal and foreign policy conservatives. Some suggest the party needs to move to the middle while others recommend it return to its roots. All of those making the suggestions seem to think views matter, but I wonder if they really influence the election in the 21st century.

In the first couple of centuries of our history, views were important in determining elections, but even then views were only one element among many that determined the outcome of elections. Why have most presidents been taller than your average citizen? Think its just coincidence! Do you think that Danny Devito could ever be elected president(and don't ruin my argument by appealing to his credentials"?

As America has moved from the era of print media to the era of the visual, requirements for the presidency has changed. Younger, better looking, and taller candidates tend to win. The Nixon - Kennedy debate signalled a shift from positions to posture and appearance. Its not what you say but how you say it. Its personality not positions. Did you hear some of the interviews conducted with voters who had just voted. They were not up to speed on the issues, but they knew who they liked better. The likeability factor is more important than complex issues or past positions.

Now my advice to either party would be to conduct a personality contest instead of a primary to select a candidate for president. Candidates would be judged by the wow factor. Does the opposite sex find the candidate extremely attractive, mildly attractive or just downright boring? Check the height of the candidate against candidates in the other party. Maybe a multiethnic panel could judge the potential candidate on the basis of looks, humor, height, smile, communication skills, walk, beauty of the candidate's family and what blessings he will promise those who vote for him. Once a candidate has excelled in each of those categories, he may be judged as presidential and offered to the public for viewing.

What does one believe and what will he do? Such questions are relics of a print era past and have no place in the visual world of the 21st century. If I'm right then the present input offered by reformation pundits is worthless. They just don't get it!

By the way churches in search of a preacher might want to consider the above approach. Oh, you say this is old news successful churches have been following this approach for several years. Take a look at some of the best known preachers among us, were the churches drawn to the preacher because of his knowledge and commitment or because of his appearance and style? Maypearl can never be accused of being part of the visual age because if you've ever seen their preacher.....I can't stand myself when that honest gene takes over.

2008-11-20T11:07:00.000-08:00

About an hour ago I spoke with my financial advisor. According to the latest value of my retirement investments I have lost about 50% of my retirement in 4 months. I have no social security benefits so my entire savings are in this investment. Right now we could live about 10 months on what is left. Would all join me in a verse of "sing and be happy"?

As christians we should know that this world can never guarantee us security. Social security is security only as long as long as it remains solvent. In the Old Testament God taught His people over and over that money, land, ancestors, or government can provide only an illusory security. I, as much as anyone else need to learn and re-learn the fact that my confidence must be in God and His reign rather than in this world.

I, like my brothers and sisters want to provide a quality education for my daughter, and braces for her teeth. fashionable clothes and on and on and on. However, as we approach Thanksgiving and Christmas I am reminded that there are still more important realities. I have much to be thankful for and may I "seek first His kingdom" and truly believe that He will add whatever He perceives my wife, daughter and I need. May I continue to look out to those around me who are in more dire straits than I am, and may I offer a helping hand to them. These are the thoughts that I trust God will impress upon my mind and heart because without Him doing so, I will wallow in fear and self pity, forgetting how blessed I truly am.

May we continue to pray for our country and its people. I think we may be in greater need than any of us are willing to acknowledge.

2008-11-12T13:08:00.000-08:00

Well, its been eight days and we've had time to reflect and consider the future of an Obama administration. Whatever it brings, we must as Christians realize that there are things more important than who becomes president of the these United States. As important as that is, we are citizens of a greater country.

Our no.1 enemy is not Iran and missiles it might acquire nor socialism nor islamic fascism. If we could eradicate the world of all evil governments that threaten our existence, we would not have dealt with our primary enemy. Satan is not frightened by our nation's military might.

The kingdom of God is bigger than America and stronger than America. Yet sometimes we forget that truth that's embraced only by faith. When John the Baptist came preaching "The kingdom of God is at hand", he thought he knew what it would look like when it appeared, but in Matthew chapter 11 we discover that he was wrong. He thought that in light of the Old Testament prophets the kingdom would express itself with great power which would overpower Rome and institute rule from Jerusalem. Some still long for that realization as shown by the "left behind books" of Tim Lahaye. When Jesus did not initiate an overpowering assault upon Rome, John wondered if he was really the Messiah. John's disciples posed the question to Jesus "Are you the one promised are should we look for another?". Jesus responded by pointing the disciples of John to Isaiah 61. "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."(matt.11:4f.)

Later in chapter 13 of Matthew's gospel. Jesus instructs his disciples about the mystery of the kingdom. "The disciples came to him and asked, 'why do you speak to the people in parables?"

"He replied, 'The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them."..

What is the mystery or secret? The kingdom is like a sower who went forth to sow. The kingdom is not like missiles and bombs, but like sowing seed. Some respond and produce fruit while other seed is unfruitful not because of the seed, but because of the soil. The kingdom comes by preaching and response rather than by force. John didn't know this secret. He was puzzled because of the lack of force.

The kingdom is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. when the wheat sprouted and formed heads. then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from? An enemy did this' he replied. The servants asked him,' Do you want us to go and pull them up?" 'No', he answered 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn." Later in the chapter Jesus explains the meaning. The field is the world(v38) the good seed are "sons of the kingdom" and the weeds are "sons of the evil one". The harvest is the end of the age.

This parable is not about the church that contains both faithful and unfaithful but it is about the world which contains kingdom people as well as those who could care less about the kingdom of God. God is not in the period of sowing going to overthrow the wicked. John the harvest is later and not now. The kingdom is both present as in Col:1 11ff/ and future as in 2 Tim.4:1. The mystery is that the kingdom in the present is not for judgment but for salvation. John said the Messiah would baptize with the Spirit and with fire. The present is the Spirit which indwells all sons of the kingdom and the future harvest will come with great power that will impress John as well as the angels of heaven. Then every knee will bow, now we choose whether to honor Him or not. The kingdom today grows by persuasion not by power.

Jesus goes on to say the kingdom is like a mustard seed. It comes appearing insignificant and unimpressive "where's the power?". Should we look for another?

Jesus was humble, son of a carpenter, born in Nazareth and without home or bank account. No wonder that most ancient histories hardly even mention him. Yet the kingdom he brings is like a precious pearl or hiddent treasure. To those who embrace the reign of God, they realize nothing else is as important. No wonder that in the beatitudes he describes his followers and the blessed as"poor, humble, meek, merciful, forgiving, peacemakers , hungering and thirtsing for justice in the world, and persecuted by those who oppose such kingdom people as they live among citizens of the world."

As we seek kingdom truths first and the reign of God as a growing reality we are less traumatized by the events of kingdoms of the world. "Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" which is our homeland. Praying for the kingdom to come is a prayer for God's rule to expand. Most of the time the word basileia rendered "kingdom" should be rendered reign. It refers to a rule and not a realm.

The kingdom comes not through political parties, or massive crowds of people, but like a mustard seed. Its coming is unassuming and humble, but its end will be powerful beyond anything we can imagine. Nuclear power will be like a spitwad when compared to the harvest power of the future, but for now our role is to sow the seed and watch the hidden power work withinthe hearts of changed people.

2008-11-11T14:13:00.001-08:00

"Redeem the time; redeem the dream" (T.S. Eliot). According to Arnold Toynbee, the historian, cultures and civilizations develop and die. The process is one of challenge and response. A culture is challenged in some way and it either responds and overcomes the challenge or the culture dies and something else replaces it. Today, we are faced with plenty of challenges and it remains to be seen if we can respond so as to preserve and even strengthen the good that remains in our country.

Russell Kirk writes:"No culture endures forever: Of those that have vanished, some have fallen to alien conquerors, as did Roman Britain; but most have expired in consequence of internal decay. When the cult failed, the culture presently crumbled to powder". Kirk is using "cult" in the scholarly sense of "religion". Kirk adds that "great cultures commonly pass through alternating periods of decay and renewal, flickering out finally after many centuries".

The mandate for the christians in America is to shine as light in our culture and call for moral renewal and thereby a strenghtening of our people. It matters little if we are in the minority or majority, God can work through one, a few or many. In the Old Testament God called Isaiah to remind His people that only a remnant would keep covenant with Him. Yet through that remnant the messiah came into the world and through the Jewish remnant of 12 apostles and a handful of followers of Jesus, the world was turned upside down. Our culture of the past 200 + years owes much to those remnants of the cult from the past.

Father may we dedicate ourselves to remnant living in order that the light of a culture influenced by christianity will not go out, but will once again burn brightly to your glory>

2008-11-10T14:02:00.000-08:00

We are awaiting what forecasters believe will be a stormy night in North Central Texas. We shall see.

It was disappointing to learn that the student newspaper at ACU, on the day before the election, endorsed Barack Obama, but again should we be surprised? Those of us who are alumni wish it were not so, but the liberal agenda is not a phenomenon of state schools only. Our Christian universities have discovered that we will complain but send our children to them in spite of the trends. When colleges reach university status, their association with other academic institutions carries more weight than their relationship with churches. Institutions of higher learning will not be held in high esteem if they appear too conservative religiously or politically. To be too conservative is to be closed minded and who wants that stigma attached to them. Conservative and intellectual are polar opposites as far as higher education is concerned. This is a significant reason that our country is moving left.

I hope that those who take the time to read the above will be blessed with a good evening and restful night.

2008-11-07T11:13:00.000-08:00

Now that the election is over, we need to re-center our minds and hearts upon our primary mission of bringing Christ to our world, nation and community. I want to challenge my few readers to think with me and share with me your thoughts. We have means avaiable to us today that christians of the past could not have even imagined. How do we appropriate and harness those means to accomplish our goal of outreach?

It seems to me that we are far better than we used to be in addressing the poor and downtrodden with the gospel. There was a time when people so feared the so-called social gospel that we were afraid to help the poor. After all we have the poor with us always. Our mission seemed greater. We are to save the soul and not the life of the poor. What we often did was surrender both. Now I think christians are more aware that man is whole and cannot easily be rent asunder so that we could address one part and not the other. If we ignore the physical and social plight of an individual, he has no reason to believe we have any interest in him except to add numbers to our church directory. The poor will hear our rhetoric about love, but will fail to feel loved. As I say I think churches are trying harder than we once did to express love of the whole person. The Maypearl Church of Christ has scheduled our annual christmas party and this year rather than just inviting our members, we are asking the members to invite someone or a family that might not have many social opportunities or finances that would even allow them to eat out.

As I say I think we are making progress in outreach to the poor, but we are not making much progress in reaching the more fortunate in our community. Those with more money and more education seem to strike fear in us. We have already written them off. Do we believe that Christ is appealing to and needed by only the poor and in many instances the less educated of our community. I think as a church we need to be an equal opportunity communicate and not discriminate against any group. We must not allow fear or lack of creativity prevent us from reaching out to certain elements of our community.

Share with me any ideas that you have seen work or that upon reflection, you think my work in reaching any part of society, especially the more affuent and the more educated. At the same time share any ideas that you think would make outreach to the poor, who many times do not have the education opportunies that others might have,more effective.

Ronnie

2008-11-05T13:36:00.000-08:00

Thought we might be sobered by the following poem appearing on the Constructive Curmudgeon's blog. Douglas Grouthius, a christian philosopher and professor is the Constructive Curdmudgeon.

Weep
Weep for America,
you who have tears
left for truth.

Weep for the continued
and soon to be intensified
slaughter of the innocent.

Weep for the supernatural
stupefaction that has
overtaken us.

Weep that character
no longer counts
that image is everything.

Weep that America
has forgotten her birthright

Weep

2008-11-05T06:09:00.000-08:00

I don't expect you to read all of my blog today. I'm trying to sort through my thoughts and doing it through a stream of consciousness expressed in my writing. So my writing is my way of organizing my thoughts and should you decide you have nothing better to do, then I invite you to tune into my evaluation and share with me yours, as well as your thoughts on mine.

Why did yesterday happen? I've already touched on the obvious in my earlier blog, but now I want to do a bit of cultural analysis that helps explain for me what happened and is happening and will happen in the future unless trends are reversed. Our country has in the past decade and a half grown more liberal and cynical. From 1994 to 2007 the following trends are documented by surveys of Americans by Pew Research Center:
1. Government should care for the poor and needy(from 57% to 69%). Once upon a time such people were cared for by charitable organizations, churches, and neighborhoods. More and more people believe such care is a legitimate function of government. I certainly believe there are times when government needs to offer assistance, but in general this should not be the primary function of government. Furthermore Katrina proved that government is seldom the most efficient means of administering immediate help.

2. Traditional marriage and family values have declined from 84% to 76%. People still have a more or less traditional view, but the realities before them is that marriages and families are losing their traditional place in our culture.

3. In 1999 55% of Americans said that prayer was important to their daily life. By 2007 that number had decreased to 45%. Thus America is becoming a more secular country. This is also evidenced by the fact that in 1994, 72% of Americans said they had no doubt that God exists, while in 2007 that number had decreased to 61%. These stats evidence the fact that the influence of the Christian faith is not where it was a few years ago. This also evidences the influence of the recent flood of books promoting a more aggressive form of athiesm by such authors as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. All of these books became best sellers.

4. Democrats outnumber Republicans by 50 to 35%. The only annual stats that show Republicans outnumbering Democrats was 1991 and1995. This means that if Republicans are to win national elections they have to outwork and out argue the Democrats. That's why it is so hard for the Republicans to win against a charismatic personality like Obama. There is already a tendency for America to go democratic and if they have an impressive candidate its hard for them to lose.

One other stat I should have mentioned under 3 is that citizens identifying with athiesm, agnosticism or no religion has increased from 8% in 1987 to 9% in 1997 to 12% in 2007. You will note that the increase of nontheists and antitheists in America is increasing more rapidly today than it was in the 80's and 90's.

5. How many agree with this statement "Americans can find a way to solve whatever problems the country encounters"? From 2002 to 2007, the % believing the answer is yes declined 16%. This tells us that Americans are far less confident than we once were in our country's future and that we are more cynical concerning American creativity and ingenuity than in the past.

How did we get here? What's going on in society? Why do we have less faith in God and in America? The following factors weigh heavily in my explanation.

1. Control of the major idea shaping and values shaping media are in the control of those who have little faith in God or America. Higher education, news media and movie makers are all far more liberal and faithless than the average American, but their views bombard the public and slowly but surely America begins to echo the ideas and values of these culture creators.

2. The dissolution of the American family and the transitioning of mind shaping from family to hollywood and public schools are also trending young people in a much more liberal direction with growing disrespect for America and its founders, as well as God and the churches.

If time would allow and if I thought anyone would really care to read it, we could expound endlessly upon illustrations of the above, but I know I'm preaching to the choir.

What about the future and what can we do? We must stay informed and continue to recognize the importance of our freedom of speech. We must speak or forever remain silent. If we do not take advantage of our freedom by using it for good, we will eventually lose it. We need to be courageous in our witness for God and in our articulation of ideas consistent with God's word. The enemy would like to marginalize christianity as a realm belonging to ignorant and uninformed people. They tried to do that with Sarah Palin, accusing her of trying to censor books and being an advocate of creationism and dedicated to removing the theory of evolution from our education system. Movies like Religiouslous by Bill Mayer and the books by Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins take the most extreme religious views and try to paint with a broad brush all christians as of the same genre. I think its ridiculous for christians to wage war against children being exposed to the theory of evolution. Instead we should argue for open discussion and the opportunity for intelligent design and the possibility for credible theories other than naturalistic evolution. Such a view I'm sure is what Sarah Palin would defend, but she is caricatatured as an ignorant extremist.

Several years ago the church historian Mark Noll wrote a book entitled THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND which took to task conservative religious leaders for some of the mindless and thoughtless positions we have taken over the years that have hurt our credidility. With many christians Hollywood and higher education have simply been written off as belonging to the enemy. We cannot hope to compete in the mind shaping industry of our country if we narrowly confine our christian world to the church building and those areas that pose no threat to us. Our neighbors visit the theater far more frequently than they visit our churches. They will send their children to public schools and colleges before they will send or carry them to church. If we don't compete in the market place of ideas we will lose by default. We must not be content with simplistic answers that satisfy no one but ourselves and those who are like us.

We must read quality literature and encourage others to do the same. We must prepare to engage Athiests, agnostics and secularists in intelligent discussion and not bow out as soon as they challenge our faith. Read authors like Dinesh D'souza who has taken on the best known athiests in debate. We are not in a battle about instruments of music or the millenium we are in a battle for the existence of God and the reality of the historical Jesus. The days are long past when we could influence someone by simply saying the bible says. Today, people will answer "so what" to our assertion that "the bible says". Many times we talk to ourselves with arguments that might have worked in the 50's, but the discussion has moved far beyond those issues and sometimes we continue answering questions that are not being asked and so we look and sound irrelevant and out of touch. We must be informed and help our children and grandchildren to become informed as they grow and mature.

Churches need to challenge youth to enter the world of the arts and higher education as missionaries. We worry that they will be tempted and fall. Where is our faith? If we surrender all areas that contain temptation, we will have to exit this world. Temptation is as strong in the church as in the classroom.

Conservatives and Christians must outthink and outbehave those with whom we disagree and most of all we must outpray those who may be blinded by the father of lies.

2008-11-05T04:22:00.000-08:00

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! I think we all knew in our heart of hearts that the results would be as they were. In my lifetime the only other presidential candidate who approached the level of charismatic appeal of Obama was John Kennedy. Reagan had an appeal that I guess one could characterize as charismatic, but I prefer to attribute to his simple and straightforward presentation of conservative ideas and values.

We must all admit that Barak Obama is one of the most gifted communicators that we have ever seen in the political arena. His gifted presentations don't make him anymore right than anyone else, but it makes him more appealing. I think that appeal and the charmed existence he experienced in the world of journalism and the media were enough to overcome any argument that might be mounted against him or his views. I must also tip my hat to his campaign and its grassroots organization. He outmanned and outperformed the McCain campaign. Thus I must reluctantly admit that in some ways he deserved to win. That doesn't change at all my concern for our country and the future.

I have actually grown in my respect for McCain through the campaign. He's no messiah and as a human makes mistakes, but I greatly admire his character and his service to our great country.

What have we learned that might help conservatives in the future? We have learned that our country and its people have changed. We deceive ourselves if we believe that most people are conservative, but were just mesmorized by Obama. The Pew Research Center has polled our country every year for the past 20 or so years so trends could be determined. For the past four years there has been a significant turn leftward. Why? When I get to the office, I will give my answer to that question, and will look forward to your input.

Until then,

2008-11-04T14:51:00.001-08:00

I must confess I've had a bit of anxiety today. Faith does not free us of concern for our family, country and the future on earth. Well, I'm headed home to watch the results. Will blog in the morning. Please be available in case I need counselling.

2008-11-03T11:34:00.000-08:00

There is a fable that helps illustrate some of what has been happening in the presidential debates. In the fable, a dog has a bone in his mouth and upon coming in contact with a pool of water, looks into the pool and discovers what appears to be another dog with even a bigger bone in his mouth. The dog with the bone liked the idea of a bigger bone so he turned loose of his bone and reached in the water for the other bone. The result was that he lost his bone and discovered to his dismay that the water bone was not real after all. The point is that we often lose the attainable by seeking for the unattainable.

I rather think that may be the plight of the 40% of non taxpayers who are impressed with the promise of receiving a check from the IRS without having paid any taxes. Doesn't it seem more just if we take from the wealthy and give to the needy.

What happens, however, if the jobs that provide minimum income, but at least income dry up because the wealthy in order to maintain that wealth have to cut back payroll and benefits. Then the income from the wealthy decreases unless their taxes are raised even more and even more jobs are lost and the non taxpayers numbers will increase from 40% to 50, or even more. The payers become less and the amount paid becomes less while the needy become more and more. It might be better to hold on to what we have rather than look into a dream pool which seems to offer bigger benefits only to prove to be an illsion.

In America we are committed to justice and many times with the best of intentions we want to help the disadvantaged only to discover that the justice we seek is beyond humans to produce and in the process we become less just. In our effort to manipulate the system to increase justice we quite often ignore the innocent and create more injustice for innocent victims than we eliminate.

In law enforcement, our courts decided that criminals were not being treated equally by law enforcement officers. Thus the Miranda rights were introduced requiring that suspects who were being arrested should be reminded of their right to silence. After all, experienced criminals learned the hard way not to talk, but novices who were just beginning their criminal life style did not have the sreet savvy and would often confess. Our courts decided it was not fair that career criminals had an advantage over beginners. The forgotten group was the innocent victims of criminal behavior and those who would witness their attackers going free because of a question concerning reading his rights or some other minor technicality in the securing of evidence that clearly indicts the suspect. No wonder America has become less safe.

Thoma Sowell, a black philosopher, has come under attack from many of the black leaders in America because he refuses to blame the breakup of the black families and the greater share of social and financial problems they experience upon the results of slavery. He points out that until the sixties divorce rates and marriage breakups in the black community were consistent with the numbers of the white community. Slavery had been over for a hundred years. He further noted that immigration from Africa to America was and had been for decades higher than the number of black Americans immigrating to Africa. He points out that their standared of living and opportunites are far greater than they would have been had they remained in Africa.

America should provide and defend equal opportunity for all citizens regardless of race or creed. However, when the American government moves from providing safeguards for equal opportunity and begins promising equal outcome for all regardless of whether they have taken advantage of their opportunities or not, we are travelling a dangerous path and the innocent will suffer and the outcomes will be good only for those making the promises and not for those having to live with the processes introduced to effect the change.

Affirmative action is another example of taking away privileges earned by hard work and offering them to people who may be less equipped to saisfy the demands of a challenging curriculum. Parents who work hard and children who work hard in quest of a quality education can be denied the opportunity in order to try and compensate for perceived disadvantages suffered by a minority in the past. Entrance exams are dumbed down and grading is dumbed down in order to assure a successful outcome.
Then employers are disappointed because graduates with good transcripts can't perform. Our graduates when compared with graduates in other industrialized and technologically advanced countries do poorly, and we become less competitive in the global market place. The result is that all suffer including those whose deprivations we were attempting to address. We best help the needy not by redistribution of the wealth but providing equal opportunity for success to those who will study hard and work hard. Most of America's wealth is not in the hands of inherited aristocracy but in the hands of people who grew up in a middle or even low income home. Yet, their family and often their faith encouraged them to not become victims caught in the trap of the status quo, but to dream and to work to turn those dreams into reality.

Where else on the planet do such opportunities exist?Which country in the world would you rather live in than The good ol' USof A. What's is good for America is good for all Americans. If we begin encouraging class envy and begin drafting legislation designed to bring about equal outcomes rather than protecting life, liberty, property and equal opportunity we will see more and more incentive killed from equal opportunity employers and more and more incentive to reach out our hands. The only people thriving will be the people we have empowered by the loss of our own power granted by freedom and equal opportunity.

2008-11-03T06:08:00.000-08:00

This was a great week-end. Most of you already know that my daughter Haylee was baptized Saturday evening. The previ0us week-end she had gone to help in the church under the bridge in Waco. This church ministers to the homeless in Waco and each Sunday has a worship service and a meal for the homeless. One of our youth leaders had gathered the teens in a circle and asked various members of the youth group to read aloud certain scriptures. He asked Haylee to read aloud Gal.2:20 which includes "I have been crucified with Christ", Haylee respectfully declined to read the text. The youth leader in a state of shock asked her why she would not read it and she replied "because I have not been crucified with him and don't believe I should say something that's not true of me".

Now its true of her and immediately following her baptism we all read Gal.2:20 aloud and in unison. Haylee joined with us. It was a thrill for her mom and dad, as well as others who were present at her baptism

Please pray for her and that she will be a powerful influence for the Lord.

rd

2008-11-01T07:31:00.000-07:00

rd ramblings and reflections

Sometimes I try to think in terms of the big picture and most of the time my mind is overwhelmed because the big picture includes God and trying to figure out what He might be doing behind the scenes is beyond human comprehension except for maybe an occasional glimpse from precedents in the past. Yet faith requires that I not assume that humankind is in the driver's seat of world affairs. Thus as the election approaches I ask myself if God is involved in the process and if so what might His will be for the outcome and the consequences that would seem to follow.. Admittedly such analysis is speculative and some would say worthless. If you are of such a mind, then turn on Fox or go to Drudge where speculation doesn't include God. Maybe such is safer and more spiritual. You be the judge, but for those who have little to do and who believe God might be ok with such speculation then continue to read and let me know what you think.

First, I believe in God's providence. I don't believe that everything that happens is determined solely by man's thoughts and actions. When the ir0n curtain came down so unexpectedly and confounded all the experts in 1989, I believe God's providence was involved. When Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt, I believe human thought and action precipitated the event, but that God brought together the circumstances in such a way that the sell of Joseph happened in order to accomplish a purpose of God that transcended Joseph's experience. I wonder if God has some purpose in mind beyond election Tuesday that might transcend America and our personal lives. Could it be that God has some purpose beyond the national boundaries of the United States.

I'm sure leaders of Iran would answer yes to my last question and would argue that Allah wants America with its infidels to decline into an economic and violent abyss. Obviously I disagree with such an assessment, but we must remember that there are millions who are praying to their God and working to see that their prayer becomes reality.

Second. consider some of the events of the past couple of months leading up to the election. After the Republican convention and McCain's selection the polls showed McCain with a lead. The surge was working and at that time Iraq was the big issue in the minds of Americans. Then unexpectedly and overnight the bottom fell out of the economy. Who predicted it? Why did it happen when it did? Coincidence. maybe! Providence, surely we don't rule out that possibility. If it did have to do with a stategy of God, then we ask "what is God up to"? Why would He rig the election so that Obama would win? Doesn't He know that those of us who are serving Him are fearful of the consequences of an Obama administration , especially as it may impinge upon certain freedoms in our land such as freedom of religion to speak as the bible speaks even on such subjects as homosexuality and gay marriage. Surely God agrees with us Roe vs Wade opened up the floodgates of death and needs to be overturned, but that such will not happen in our lifetime if Obama is elected.

Just as with Joseph, God may have a salvation strategy that we are unable to comprehend that even transcends the immediate critical issue of life. Is such possible? As important as life is, could there be anything more important. From a human standpoint my answer would be no, but from an eternal standpoint, my answer would be yes. Eternal life is even more important then life in this world. The infants in the womb are ok eternally, but millions and billions of lives outside the womb are not ok eternally. The message of Christ and his mission of salvation may in God's sight transcend the issues of American politics.

Over the past decade or two some amazing things have been happening. The center of Christian influence has been moving south and east . For several hundred years the center of Christian influence and mission was the west (Europe and America). Look at the great cathedrals of Western Europe, they are museums with memories of a christian past. America's christianity has become soft and watered down into a nice comfortable cultural community not much different from other therapeutic communites such as AA. God blessed America and I believe His providence made it possible for America to win the revolutionary war and prosper under a constitutional form of government, but today we have forgotten. God warned Israel through Moses that after they entered the promised land they would be tempted to forget who brought them there and even begin to worship other gods and give them the credit for their prosperity and plenty. Hundreds of years later in Hosea, chapter two, Hosea writes that Israel had forgotten who brought her to the land and had committed spiritual adultery by going after other gods.

Have we forgotten? For a few days following 9-11 we briefly remembered. Even congress remembered as law makers gathered on the steps of the capital to sing of how God had blessed America and pray that He would do so again. However, repentance did not come and remebrance was short lived.

Maybe its time for God to raise up His people in other lands and to move our prosperity south and east where people with greater enthusiam and commitment will carry His torch in the world and bring the message of Christ to the world. Maybe christianity in America has followed after the baals of our culture. Just as Israel did, we call the baals by the name of Yahweh but our God is not really to be identified with the God who brought us here.

Technology, entertainment. prosperity and comfort have replaced the Christ who calls us to the cross. Maybe we are to be brought back to the cross for the sake of the world, and if we refuse the journey back God will reach the world from the south and the east while we fade into the museums of the past.

I obviously have no confidence in my speculations because I'm not God or a prophet, but I do have some historical patterns from the past that suggest that my speculation is not without basis. Is such speculation alarming and disquieting, sure it is. False prophets of old preached peace because they found that people had rather be comforted than alarmed, and usuallly paid the preacher better when they heard "peace, peace" rather than"repentance, judgment".

My prayer is that the above speculation is wrong and that Tuesday will be a day we can celebrate because of a victory that in our humble estimation will be best for America and Christianiy. However, if we are disappointed may we remember that we are a kingdom people even before we are Americans and that we may still believe that God's kingdom can and will prosper if we continue to serve our king and pray for His people not just in America, but to the south, east , north and west. "Thy kingdom(reign) continue to come and expand".

2008-10-31T13:01:00.000-07:00

Just 3 days to v day. What are our major concerns should Barak Obama be elected? socialism? enemies abroad might be emboldened to attack as Joe Biden warned? increased taxes that might even do more damage to the economy? These are legitimate concerns, but none of these are my number one concern.

My number one concern may be illustrated by the following:
(1) Joe the plumber challenges Obama's plan to raise taxes and suddenly Ohio begins an in depth background check on Joe. Is he behind in child support? Is he up to date on all his loans and taxes? Who are his friends? etc..(2) dozens of investigators upon the announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate land in Alaska to do in depth research to see what problems they can find with Palin's past. (3) Three newspapers endorse John McCain and suddenly the Obama plane no longer has space for reporters from these papers to accompany the Obama parade. Obama's bridge building rhetoric becomes hollow when you find that those who don't agree with him will be punished rather than engaged in discussion. Will this be the way he negotiates with Iran, Russia and China? And Bush is a cowboy!

Over and over voices opposing Obama encountered discipline rather than discussion. Do you think talk radio has any chance of survival when Obama is president and the senate and house are in the control of his colleagues in the same party?? I have problems with some talk shows because I think they have more air than thought, but we are still better off by having freedom of speech as opposed to controlled speech. Do you think talk radio will be the only victim? What about the internet? What about churches? Already the IRS watches over churches and parachurch organizations to make sure they don't become involved in elections. Of course many do and have for a long time, but in the future will certain kinds of churches become more of a threat than others? Jeremiah Wright will probably be viewed as a wonderful example of freedom of religion, but those like James Dobson who consider homosexuality as a sinful behavior might want to be extra careful.

The previous paragraph would be considered by many as trading in fear. We're told "it would never happen here". Canadian churches would have said that a few years ago, but now laws exist in Canada that designate certain bibical texts as hate speech and one who cites those texts in public places is in danger of being placed behind bars. Some have already suffered that fate.

AN ACT FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM authored by Thomas Jefferson in 1786 includes the following: "to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty....it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and order....truth is great and will prevail if left to herself.. she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict..unless disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors cease to be dangerous when (truth) is permitted freely to contradict them.

May we pray that free argument and debate will always be unhindered by political power of the left or the right. If religions we don't agree with can be silenced then those we do agree with can be silenced by the same powers and if political argument we don't embrace can be silenced so can the argument that we endorse. Pray for our country's decision and for the candidates even the one we may not endorse. Truth can handle itself if allowed the freedom to express itself.

rd

2008-10-30T08:27:00.001-07:00

To be or not to be, to blog or not to blog, that is the question. The popularity of my blog is evident by the comments I receive. Linda has asked that I continue and I appreciate her loyal following and I guess as long as I have two followers, Linda and the blog's author, its worth it. After all, as an introvert, I'm not much into crowds anyway. Today's blog presents me as the counsellee and my reader as the counsellor. In other words I need to vent and I know you will want to read my story.

In March of 2007 I bought a pre-owned Toyota Avalon. In June of 2008, I received a message from the Illinois Tollway that included a picture of my Avalon having passed through a toll booth without paying the toll. I was informed that I owed a fine of $104.00. At first I was puzzled then I noticed that the violation occurred in June of 2006. I thought "Oh this will be easy to resolve, I'll just call them and inform them that I did not purchase the car until 9 months after the violation". Wrong! I called and they informed me that I would have to provide proof.

I asked them how they had determined me to be the owner. They said the information was supplied by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. I then called the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles and they said. Our records show clearly that you purchased the auto in March 2007 and did not own the vehicle at the time of the violation. They suggested I ask the representative of the tollway to call TDMV and they would correct any misunderstanding the tollway might have. When I called my helpful Tollway representative, they said I would have to provide proof. By now a principle is at stake for me. I asked why I should have to correct their error and that all it would take was for them to make a simple telephone call. I was informed that they don't involve third parties. When I asked how that could be true, since they had involved them in acquiring the data that supposedly listed me as the owner of the car. They said they had policies to follow.

Meanwhile I had received another notice warning me that the fine is now 375.00 and climbing.
I spoke to five different people at the tollway and spent 3 hours of their time and mine when a two minute conversation between them and the TDMV could have solved the problem. I pointed out that the crime was committed by the car, not by me and that it seemed rather obvious to me that I am being assumed guilty rather than innocent and that the burden of proof should be on them. Furthermore I pointed out to them that even the TDMV representative said they would look awfully silly if they came after me since it is so evident that the truth is on my side. Surprizingly, they were not impressed and reminded me that I must provide documentation proving that I didn't own the auto or I would remain in violation.

What's wrong with our country? Policies and bureaucracies that spend 4 hours of taxpayers money on something a two minute telephone call could resolve. Automated telephone answering systems and dialing systems intrude upon our privacy and eat up our time. I think operations like the Illinois tollway operate by the assumption that if they can waste enough of your time and hassle you long enough you will pay whether you owe it or not. They may be right, for I don't want my license taken away or have to appear before an Illinois judge or serve time in the slammer.

I know, I know , why don't I just send the documentation they are asking for? Did I mention there is a principle at stake, although at the moment I can't remember what it is.

2008-10-28T14:46:00.000-07:00

Sunday morning following the morning worship a young man who is in a rehab center for drug addiction, asked me to define virtue. I had mentioned virtues in my sermon. It dawned on me that we are familiar with values but not virtues. In our discussion of the coming elections we hear a lot about the values of the candidates, but not much is said concerning their virtues.

In its classical definition "virtue" means the power to accomplish a particular function. Hemlock could be referred to as a "deadly virtue". Some older translations rendered Mark's words "Jesus, immediately knowing that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press and said, Who touched my clothes" in a way that illustrates the classical definition of virtue as power

Eventually, virtue came to mean a man who is whole and strong, one who can fulfill his moral function in society. The Greek virtues included were four in number: justice, prudence, self control and courage. These four are embraced in the New Testament, and specific
Christian virtues of faith, love and hope were added to these so that in later history, these were the characteristics usually used to describe a virtuous man from a christian standpoint, while at least the first four were essential to all men and women. Virtues were about character formation and were learned in childhood from family and faith communities. In modern times virtue has fallen out of favor and has been relegated to a Victorian past. Instead "values" are in favor today. Values are fluid and depend upon the eyes of the beholder. Just as the buyer and seller will disagree about the value of a car, so we disagree about morality and neither of us can prove the other wrong because values are personal and subjective.

Virtue was not just a concern of Christians. Plato, Aristotle and Socrates discussed it. Confucius said (and he really did)that the superior man thinks always of virtue while the common man thinks of comfort.

I'm afraid most of us are more common than superior. Because the family is crumbling so are the foundations. Our children know the price everything and the value of nothing. It takes virtue to shape values.

To paraphrase C .S. Lewis, I would rather play cards against a man who is skeptical about ethics, but bred to believe that "a gentleman does not cheat" that one who has a phd in moral philosophy but grew up among card sharks.

If you see an application to anything going on in the election process, well good for you. You might be virtuous after all.

rd

2008-10-27T07:15:00.000-07:00

Another beautiful morning in the neighborhood. The skies are clear, the air is crisp and God is on the throne.

Eight days to go and then we learn our fate for the next four years. There are encouraging trends that suggest that the race may be tightening. More recent polls suggest that the difference between candidates may be 5% or less. Several swing states show a tightening. The discovery yesterday of a tape of Obama on a radio talk show advocating the courts and congress should do more to redistribute the wealth confirms the comment he made to Joe, the plumber. The radio show was from 2001 and proves that his views have been consistent. Will it make a difference to the American voters, who knows. Our heritage has been freedom and justice with the defense of property rights. Class envy has not been considered a good thing. Rather individual responsibility and self determination have been the virtues thought to lead to success. We have rejected the maxim "from each according to his means to each according to his needs.". In rejecting the maxim, we have not been indifferent to the needs of our fellow human beings.

In 2006 Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, wrote a book containing his extensive research in Americans giving patterns or charitable giving. The bookWHO REALLY CARES is an eye opener. He thought when he began his research that he would find that left leaning voters would be more charitable because of their articulated concern for the underprivileged and poor. However, what he found was that while America has more charitable giving than any country in the world, the majority of the giving comes from conservatives. Why? Because conservatives believe it is their responsibility to help their neighbors and that more money will reach the needy through local and bureaucracy free giving than will reach them through government. Those who believe the government should redistribute the wealth are not nearly as likely to actually come to the rescue of the needy. Of course there are plenty of conservatives who are not liberal givers and plenty of liberals who are generous, but as groups the conservatives are more charitable.

When government takes over our health care, do you think the quality of care will remain the same. Check out the quality of care available in England. There are long waiting lists for major surgery and rationing of care based upon age. The older we get the less appealing is government controlled health care. As someone has said "Anyone who is not a socialist before age thirty has no heart, but anyone who is still a socialist after age 30 has no head".

2008-10-23T07:12:00.000-07:00

Its a beautiful morning in the neighborhood. Its 37 degrees and has the fall feel. Great to be alive and blessed to live in America. However, for those of us who believe God rules in the kingdoms of men, there has to be grave concern about the future, not because our faith in God is weak, but because we trust God's word.

From a human standpoint, there are serious problems in our land. Our economy according to Greenspan is going through a "once in a century" tsunami that is destined to lead to escalating unemployment, increase in homeless population, less profits from businesses, and more government control of our economy. Retirees have seen their savings disappear. I could have finished paying for my house with the money I've lost in the last two months. I'm not alone.

The world scene is no more promising the the domestic. Russia continues to flex its remaining muscles, Iran threatens a pre-emptive strike on Israel, North Korea threatens to continue its military build-up and China progresses toward a financial take-over of our country.

The media has proved itself to be aiding and abetting in a move toward silencing certain voices in our country. Congress is most likely going to reinstate the fairness doctrine and silence radio talk shows that have in recent years offered an alternative to the msm. The left and the right have grown more shrill with the passing of time, but the right is going to see itself squeezed out of the conversation. All that will be left is the left. Oh conservatives can write books, but the populace seems more influenced by sound bites then by books.

Unions will no longer have a secret ballot which will give far more power back to union leaders.

Big business has shown itself to be more interested in gold fixtures in the private bathrooms of the CEOs tha the well being of their employees and the country as a whole. Small businesses are closer to the people, but will have a harder time surviving because of increased taxes placed on them.

However, these problems are but the tip of the iceberg. They are but symptoms of far bigger problems that may seal our fate. Two recent reports get closer to the real problems. According to a survey of the American people, 80% of those polled say there is a dirth of leadership in our land. Our founding generation produced Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. How could our founding generation have so many great minds and dedicated leaders while today we search as Jeremiah did for a few true leaders and all we find for the most part are partisan politicians who will say anything and take any position just to get elected and once elected, campaign promises and positions become irrelevant until its time to run for re-election.

Another report informs us that children of Americans are less likely to graduate from high school than their parents were. Our graduation rate is the lowest of any industrialized country in the world. Why is this so? Well, look at our homes. Divorce rate is about 50%. Single parent homes are growing much faster than two parent homes. Children spend far more time alone than I did when I was growing up. I doubt if those hours are filled with study time. In a sports saturated society, many minority students grow up idolizing T.O. and dreaming of their own professional football career and the money and lifestyle that will be theirs. When it doesn't work out, they turn to "whatever". Until more black leaders like Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell emerge to help instill the values of education, faith, and family, many will continue to go down a path that will lead to ruin and dropouts. Let not whites think we are doing better, many of our daughters are following such icons as Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. Have you seen Brittany's latest video, it hardly encourages education!

The point is----our problem is a moral crisis that reached the point that may be beyond return. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers realized that the form of government they were instituting would only work when people policed themselves by morals growing out of religious convictions. Though many of the fathers were deists and not conservative "evangelicals" they still realized the importance of faith to the future of the American experiment in liberty. That's why our founding documents spoke of inalienable rights granted us by our Creator, and sought to protect religious freedom. Modern courts have largely undone what the founding fathers put in place. The Christian voice is being systematically removed from the market place of ideas by "separation of church and state". As a result ultimate moral truths are being surrendered for relativism and pragmatism.

Where are the voices of God who will stand in the breach and call for a return to the old paths of absolute moral truth such as the truths expressed in the 10 commandments. God is....marriage and family must be valued and preserved( marriage as a man and woman )... property rights must be preserved (thou shalt not steal and that applies to government also)...Truth must be the coin of our currency( Thou shalt not bear false witness ). Think of some of the things that have been said about Sarah Palin. Above all life must be protected. These values will define a nation. These values are not restricted to Jews and Christians. Read Amos, chapters one and two. Countries without a revealed law were still expected to maintain self evident values that come from natural revelation. All men everywhere should see the wisdom of defending life, marriage and truth even if they don't recognize God. That's why God held accountable nations who knew not God.

Our country has been super blessed and we have a heritage that includes God as the source of permanent moral truths. Yet we've allowed our country to evolve into a selfish, lifeless, truthless culture that is now confused about what to do and seeking everywhere for an exit strategy. Hosea said if you sow to the wind, you will reap the whirlwind. I pray that we will survive the reaping.

Read Micah 7:1-7 and practice verse 7. God bless.

2008-10-21T14:13:00.000-07:00

Linda. my e-mail is.....ronnie.wiggins@ectisp.net

2008-10-21T08:45:00.000-07:00

Don't give up on McCain, there remains hope as long as Joe the plumber and Joe the bumbler are being covered by the news media. Joe the plumber seems more effective in communicating the message that resonates with mainstreet America than John McCain is, but since Joe showed up too late to win the nomination we must support his surrogate.

If we had a few more weeks, I would feel extremely confident that Joe Biden could deliver America to the McCain camp. His comments on an international crisis within 6 months of Obama's election provides one of the best arguments I've heard against Obama's election.

Did you see Sarah on Saturday Night Live? Apparently most of America did and was impressed.

This election may not be as important as the Constitutional Convention that gave birth to America, but words spoken concerning that event bring comfort and hope to me. Let me share just a few words from one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. One of only a few fathers without a formal education, but by all accounts one of the wisest of the fathers.

As the convention approached Franklin wrote the following words in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
I hope Good from their meeting. Indeed, if it does not do good, it must do Harm, as it will
show that we have not Wisdom enough among us to govern ourselves; and will strengthen
the opinion of some Political writers that popular Governments (governments
determined by the votes of the people) cannot long support themselves.
America was to be an experiment in liberty, one that many doubted could work because of the ignorance of the masses. Elections even today tend to contrast those who believe power should be left to the people and those who believe decisions can best be made by an elite group of politicians and educators.

When the convention bogged down in controversy and delegates were about to disband in hopeless division, Benjamin Franklin stood up before the august assembly and spoke these words:
Have we forgotten our powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its
assistance? ...And the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God
governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice
is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?....Except the Lord build the house,
they labor in vain that build it."
It seems from that time forward that the convention began to make progress and we remain the bendficiaries of their labor and God's blessing.

At the end of the convention, a lady asked Frankling what kind of government the convention had given them, and Franklin answered: "A republic, if you can keep it".

Such is the task for Americans today. Can the people be trusted to keep it, we shall see. In the meantime we should pray. Franklin's faith and mine would differ in many ways, but he knew who governs the nations. (cf. Dan. 4:32). Pray for our republic and pray that our people will make the right decision come election day. Whatever the outcome, realize that ultimate power belongs not to McCain or Obama.

2008-10-17T04:46:00.000-07:00

Big things are happening. Obama vs. McCain. Joe the plumber. Vicki's daughter Catherine preparing for Saturday wedding. I'm posting when I should be preparing for wedding also, oh well, there is never any anxiety at wedding time, all is calm, cool, and collected.

Linda, you asked that I provide a synopsis of last Sunday's sermon on THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. The following is a brief review of the themes.

The sermon sought to answer 3 questions:

1. what constitutes murder
2. what does Jesus and NT. add to Moses' words
3. how does the commandment speak to us today

I. What constitutes murder?

Numbers 35 distinguishes between accidental killing and intentional killing. The latter is not punishable by death, but the former is. Yet even the latter does not go without consequences the killer must be confined to a city of refuge, otherwise the avenger(normally a family member) has the right to enact vengeance on the perpetrator. Our laws make similiar distinctions. Also killing in military service or police action is not murder even if the intent is to kill. In those instances the individual is a servant of the state and acting as its representative and not as an individual citizen (Rom. 13:1-7).

2. What does Jesus and the NT add?

In the Sermon on the mount Jesus said even anger can be a murderous attitude. Thus Jesus warns us of the danger of anger and Paul adds that we must learn to be angry without sinning.
(Eph. 4:25ff.). Paul urges us to deal with anger on a daily basis rather than allowing it to develop like a cancer.

3. How does it apply today

Few of us and I assume none of us have knowingly killed a innocent person. Murder assumes that the victim did not deserve to die and that an injustice has taken place. Today the question of murder has to be attached to the question of life. In other words, we need a clear definition of both, because abortion for instance is justified by many because what is destroyed is not considered life by many. Thus the question of when life begins is the question of the day. Abortion is usually premeditated and thus intent is involved.

Barack Obama said the answer to when life begins is beyond his pay grade. A course in biology or genetics should be required for a presidential candidate. Plenty of scientists approve of abortion; however, none can deny that from the time the egg is fertilized by the sperm a new entity that is no part of the mother exists. We know this because the genetic code of this new entity is different from every cell of the mother's body. The new code is that of a new person. Just because it does not yet look like a fully developed adult human does not mean that it is not human life. An acorn doesn[t look like an Oak tree, but it will never be anything else. The life of the Oak tree is alive in the acorn. Those few cells that constitute the earliest stages of the embryo are not dead, they are multiplying and developing and represent the same beginning of human life that we all experience in our mother's womb. To intentionally destroy those cells is to murder human life just as to intentionally kill an adult human is murder.

Sunday, I was asked about those who once upon a time thought life began with the first movement of the baby in the womb and thus provided legal protection for life in the womb only after quickening. It is true that such was the assumption for hundreds of years and that it has only been in relatively recent history that we have become aware of when life begins from a scientific point of view. My answer is that we obey God's will to the best of our human understanding whether 1st century or 21st century. Today we know better than our ancestors knew and thus we should live accordingly.

To create human embryo for experimental purposes with the ultimate goal of destroying the embryo is again to create human life with the goal of murdering the life.

When life ends is a more difficult question because we now have a diffent definition than once prevailed. Its no longer a question of when the heart stops pumping blood through our body, but now its when brain wave activity ceases, in both the higher and lower parts of the brain. Some would opt for death when only a part of the brain activity has ceased. Because of modern technology we can keep organs functioning after brain wave activity has ceased. This issue carries us into the question of what it means to be "in the image of God". What does it mean to be a human etc.. If I were teaching a class on this subject I would want to explore those questions, but in a sermon time does not allow.

We must distinguish between prolonging life and prolonging the dying process. Sometimes that's a difficult call. However, one certainty can be determined and that is if a doctor or anyone injects anything into a patient that has no aim other than producing death, then one is killing with an intent to kill. Thus there is no biblical grounds for mercy killing or assisted suicide. If pain management ends in death as an unintentional consequence that is a gray area for which I have no easy answer, but my opinion is that such would not be murder. However, in such instances I think we would do well to talk to God before and after such treatment.

One thing further and that is that many of us (pro-lifers) seem to be interested only in life in the womb. Once a child is born, we don't seem to have nearly as much concern about whether he has food, clean water, and medicine. We offer money to many causes but often ignore the starving and abused children of the world. God will not smile upon us if we are pro life only as one enters the world and as one is about to depart the world.

2008-10-13T14:12:00.000-07:00

Do we all feel somewhat better? The Dow is up nearly 1,000 points. We still have a couple of thousand to go, before we breathe a real sigh of relief, but we have at least a temporary break in the trend.

Those who read this blog have seen comments by Linda. She is my niece and her husband Bob has had a recent hospital stay because of a gall bladder surgery. At the time Doctors discovered a spot on his pancreas. Further testing has revealed a mass, but the nature of it is still un-determined. Please pray for Bob and Linda.

My sister is still recovering from her heart attack and stint. In addition, her heart beat is only about 40 beats per minute. Sounds like the problem may run in our family. Please pray for her also.

Vicki, I trust that preparations are running smoothly for the Saturday extravaganza we call a wedding.

Yesterday my sermon concerned "Thou shalt not murder". I thought about asking for a show of hands and if no one was guilty then I could sit down, but I was concerned that someone would question my being paid for such a presentation, although I'm sure some would have recommended a raise.

However, if you spend time defining murder as distinguished from accidental death as discussed in Num.35, it does take a few minutes. Then when you sort through capital punishment, military action that leads to death, abortion , euthanasia and other such issues you can wind up with a rather lengthy sermon. I think I may have had one person upset with me. My guess is he thought it was too political, since his conclusions on the above issues would probably be different from mine. He and I have privately discussed the issues before. Oh well, whatcha gonna do? I feel a little like Jeremiah some time. Its a bit shameful to even compare myself with Jeremiah, when most of the people seemed pleased with the presentation and only one had a problem.

Eight years from now I could easily feel more like Jeremiah. Homosexuality will be briefly discussed as we explore marriage in the next week or so. If reading Rom1:26-28 can be declared hate language which many would like, then I suppose I would have to either identify with Jeremiah or discover a new hermeneutic. If Jeremiah could have lived in the modern era and had access to some of our great Ivy league theologians he would have found that it would have been unnecessary to take many of the stands that he took.

2008-10-11T08:34:00.001-07:00

The Restoration Project was a good experience. The hotel was quite nice and the food was for sophisticated palates, but I ate it anyway. There were about a thousand in attendance which means someone or ones contributed a couple of hundred thousand dollars to sponsor the event. I hope the investment in a down time like we find ourselves will not leave the sponsors penniless.

Among the speakers were Governor Perry, Mike Huckabee, Bob McEwen and Newt Gingrich (by video). The two speakers who were most impressive were historian David Barton and Representative Bob McEwen. Barton emphasized how many of our founders were preachers who left the pulpit with their congregations following them to participate in the revolution. McEwen provided one of the most impressive explanations I've ever heard for less government taxes and more moral accountability of our people and its leaders.

There was a great deal of Christian music with a powerful sound system to transmit the instrumental accompaniment. Vicki, I felt like Pastor Inkfest at the ministerial conference in Orlando, Florida. We looked a lot like the pastors Garrison described as attending that conference. There were a lot of Baptists and Assembly of God attendees and a sprinkling of churches of Christ and other evangelicals.

It was a good experience and I'm glad I attended, but Linda I couldn't work Perry and Huckabee into my schedule for coffee and private counselling. Maybe next time. I'm in such demand.

Until next time, Worship the Lord and pat your preacher on the back.

turn out the lights

2008-10-08T07:28:00.000-07:00

"Turn out the lights the party's over" and the headaches begin. The weather's beautiful.

Tomorrow Rodney Watson and I will be going to Austin at the invitation of the governor. My readers probably didn't realize that my circle of friends extends to the governor's mansion. He's paying for my stay at the Hilton, providing me with meals and entertainment. Its sorta like being an officer at AIG. The event is called "The Restoration Project". Somehow I don't think he's talking about restoration as in churches of Christ. Oh well, it should be interesting as the governor, Mike Huckabee and others will be sharing with us their vision of the future.

2008-10-07T13:49:00.000-07:00

I'll be leaving the office in an hour or so. I hope all will view the debate this evening. Time is running out, and God needs to hear our prayers. Sounds like I'm instructing God, let me re-phrase and say we need to pray more earnestly.

Another day with little good news from Wall Street. We are told that McCain does well in the townhall format. It will be interesting to see if tonight confirms that to be true. It seems to me that McCain must become specific in the areas where he disagrees with Obama and must document Obama's positions and affiliations. Obama will have less pressure to perform well. It appears if the polls are correct that its Obama's election to lose. Thus if he can maintain the status quo, he will win. McCain must knock it out of the ball park if he is to win. Without a seismic shake up the polls may continue to show a growth in support of Obama as McCain supporters become discouraged and Obama supporters begin see the finish line drawing nearer.

I'm not sure that McCain's decision to attack Obama is going to bear much fruit. The populace seems more concerned about the economy than about Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright. If McCain doesn't show why Obama's policies will be disastrous and his own successful, I'm afraid he will be found to be fighting a slippery shadow that others are not able to see.

Speculation today is that those approaching retirement have already lost as much as two trillion dollars in their investments. These numbers become personal and compelling and whether we like it or not make 9-11 seem irrelevant to many people. Unfortunately any candidate who has admitted to not knowing much about the economy is in trouble and while Sarah Palin has brought excitement to the conservative base, there must be a growing number who are now wishing that Romney were there to bring financial expertise to the McCain candidacy.

What cha think?

2008-10-07T05:58:00.000-07:00

The last couple of days have been rather busy. My sister, Wilna, had a heart attack Saturday evening and was taken by ambulance to Baylor in Dallas. The introduced her heart to a stint and the heart seems pleased and we are grateful for the blessing. In the process they did discover a slight blood problem that will require more testing to determine the seriousness of that issue, hopefully it is just the body's response to the heart attack.

I appreciate the prayers of those who read this blog. The number has doubled from 2 to 4. Please understand that qualifications for readers are quite strict.

Sunday I departed from my sermon series on the 10 commandments to discuss our financial crisis in America. The theme of my sermon concerned the basis of our security. 9-11 and the recent financial crunch have revealed that many of our assumptions about American security are false and even idolatrous. Neither Obama or McCain can guarantee Americans that all will be o.k. after the election. We Americans have a tendency to trust our institutions as though they were gods.

So far, we hear amens, right? Then I discussed the Christian's basis of security. We are believers in the one true God, we've been baptized and partake each week of the Lord's Supper;We sing acapella(at least some of us do) if we sing at all, and we pray each first day of the week. In our prayers, we applaud the fact that God is with us.

Read Jeremiah chapter seven, especially verses 1-15. Also check out Amos 5:14ff. and Micah 3:9ff., as well as Isaiah chapter 1. I know these, are the old guys from that Old Testament, they hadn't heard of grace or a personal relationship with God. We know God. Check out Hosea chapers 4 and 6. However, if you insist as I know some of my large body of readers will, see if you can locate John 14:15 and James 2, as well as Rom1:5 and Gal.5:6.

Bonhoffer warned us about cheap grace, but I'm concerned that we happy, happy Christians have found great joy in just that. I am eternally grateful for the grace of God. Only through the death and resurrection of Jesus will a single soul enter eternal fellowship with God. However, grace places under the lorship of Jesus, and we evidence his lordship in our lives by the way we live.

Isaiah, Micah, Amos, and Jeremiah tell their readers that their worship makes God want to vomit. Jesus said the same thing in a letter to Asia, "I will spew you from my mouth".

If only Americans know what we know? If only we lived what we know

Of course that sermon just appliied to those present Sunday not to me and my readers. The goal of my blog is that we might be happy, happy, happy. Put on a happy face. I actually have a bit of a temperature today, and don't feel so good, but I'm gonna be a happy warrior wearing a happy face because that's my goal in life.

Bottom line: Be faithful and have fun , these two aren't polar opposites, although the latter does need to take a back seat to the former.

I hope after this blog I still have my faithful four.

rd

2008-10-03T07:26:00.000-07:00

Savvy Sarah vs Joe Blow and the winner was John McCain. "There you go again Joe..dog gone it"
The two debaters appealed to different audiences with different approaches. Joe tried to impress with his experience and command of the facts, but with Joe you need a "fact check" with you all of the time. Sarah reached out to main street with her down to earth, "I'm one of you" style. Those trained in debate might have given the edge to Joe, but those trained in living probably gave the edge to Sarah. After the Katie Couric interview, expectations were so low that she easily won because she wasn't debating Joe as much as she was the MSM image of Sarah. My guess is that today, McCain is ecstatic and Obama is status quo.

McCain clearly has an uphill battle, but should he make the top of the hill, it will because he took a gamble on a little known Governor from Alaska.

........................................................................................................................................................................

Currently I am preaching a series on the 10 commandments and this week's sermon concerns "Thou shalt not murder". Should any murderers be reading this blog, please feel free to give me your confession so that I can supply my sermon with an illustration or two. I was thinking about asking for a show of hands from those who have ever commited this sin, but I decided that might not be very productive. We "Church of Christ" people are mostly introverts and are not much into therapeutic behavior.

On Wednesday we finally finished our study of Revelation. A lot of people were bettin that the end would come before the end of the study would come.

What can one study next after we have studied "the end"? Any thoughts, I'm always open?

2008-10-01T07:33:00.000-07:00

Thomas Jefferson wrote to the frenchman Lafayette and said: "We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a feather bed". The truth of his appraisal of the conflict going on in America is equally true of the present situation of our economy. Greed, politics and "something for nothing" mentality has gotten us into this mess. There are few if any innocent parties in our society. Credit cards, Mortgage companies, politicians, Joe Six Pack have all wanted to encourage spending more than we earn and now the chickens are coming home to roost. There is not a feather bed in our immediate future! Financial discipline, personal discipline and spiritual discipline don't come on feather beds, but without them we reap disastrous consequences. The Bible speaks of sin and the salvation offered through Jesus is the only rescue package we can count on. Some consequences can't be undone but the ultimate consequence can be replaced by something better than a feather bed.

2008-09-29T08:52:00.000-07:00

Sitting outside the church building this morning and experiencing the cool, cloudless, quiet environment of a late September day in Maypearl, I couldn't help but think of how deceiving the morning is. Depression, Iran, a turbulent campaign for the white house, and a loss by the Cowboys threaten the serenity of our citizens. Surely, Washington or Hollywood will come to the rescue and restore our sense of well-being.

This is my blogspot debut and after reading it, I am sure you will look forward to my encore presentations. Maybe your input will enhance the interest of my consumers!

rd