"And the winner is..."

...not the American people. Considering I know only one person who has seen any (ANY!) of the nominated films (and that person, my mom, has seen only one of them), our nation's most prestigious movie award lost touch with the heartland (or purposefully divorced itself).

Considering the output of the mainstream media and most television producers, the Oscar contenders are no surprise.

E'08: Life, Part I - Abortion

Trundling the news across the Internet this afternoon, I came across a couple of stark articles in the British web-paper, the Telegraph.

The first is a horrifying account of a young artist who hung herself the day before her 31st birthday because she aborted her twins. It's a tragic tale.

The second is a commentary regarding Great Britain's Abortion Act, a bit of legislation that was meant to limit the confusion if it appeared a woman's life was jeopardized by her pregnancy. Ultimately what it did was to open the British floodgates for abortion on demand. The author states that 1 in 3 pregnancies in Europe now end in abortion.

As we turn into the homestretch for election 2008, America will be deciding what it believes regarding innocent life. If you think it's only about the baby, let me encourage you to click the link to the first article. This tragedy affects both mother and child. It drives us to the point where we must determine whether we will recognize mankind as and treat it with humanity or whether we will regard it as mere material treat it with no more value than a scrap of paper.

Choice and freedom are vital in our nation, but law has always guarded and protected the rights of the weakest citizens. Will we continue to wicker the law to satisfy our whims? Or will we guard our most vulnerable citizens from inhuman, barbaric treatment?

Your vote matters. Your voice matters. Just ask William Wilberforce.

E'08: Economics

Driving into work this morning, I heard a paid political advertisement that went something like this: "CEO's in America make more in one hour (or was it one day?) than the average worker makes in a year." My initial reaction was, "So?"

This kind of advertising is called propaganda because it distorts to make you think a particular way. It's not using reason and argument to make its point. It's trying to persuade through emotion and misdirection. Here are some thoughts:

1. What's wrong with a CEO making so much money? Doesn't he run the company?
2. Notice that what the average worker makes is nowhere addressed. Is the average worker unhappy? Impoverished? Then find another job or get training to better your position and your income.
3. Notice, too, that the CEO is contrasted with the "worker"and not an "employee." What impression does that leave? You're catching on! The CEO is obviously not a "worker." He doesn't do anything but sit in his posh office and soak his feet in $100 bills.

There was more to the radio spot, most of it not much better. Stuff like this is purposefully meant to set up a class warfare between those who are rich and those who are not. Congrats to the rich! They've probably earned it, and they'll pay more in taxes than I'll make in ten years!

When politicians start talking rich/poor, sniff the wind for a socialistic stench. And grab hold of your wallet!

False Pretenses

When I google-searched "Jordan" (the country), the only news source I found that spoke of the arrest and eviction of 8 Americans caught evangelizing was the Jerusalem Post.

I could talk about the irony that only a Jewish newspaper (none American that I know of as yet) would report about the treatment of American Christians in Islamic lands. I could also discuss the non-stop repression of faith outside nations founded upon Christian principles (Israel's only a fair shade better than liberal Islamic lands). But I'm not going in either of those directions.

The thing that caught my eye in the Jerusalem Post article was this quote:

(The Jordanian foreign minister) said the preachers came to Jordan under the "pretext of charitable and voluntary activities, but they have violated the law by undertaking preaching activities and were expelled."

Here's the rub: When did Christians stop ministering to the needy for the needy's sake? Jesus said that when we do it to the least of these we do it unto Him. Is there any better witness? Will not they know we are Christians by our love? Will that not open the door to spiritual ministry as well as physical ministry? BUT...can we let the physical ministry be an end in itself or do I only do it as a means to the end of presenting the Gospel?

It's interesting but the gospels tell of Jesus healing with no other message. Sometimes He did. Sometimes He didn't. It seemed on occasion that the physical healing was enough at that moment.

I cannot say what happened in Jordan. This may be an example of Islamic repression. Or it could have played out as the Jordanian foreign minister stated it did. He believes and conveyed it to the press that these Christians lied to gain entrance into his country.

We are called to let our yes be yes and our no be no. When we pull the "bait and switch" to evangelize, we become no better than deceitful used-car salesmen (or pre-owned vehicles). If you are called to minister, then minister, and be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in you. If you are called to preach, then preach, and be prepared to give a cup of cold water to any who are thirsty.

If we're to be arrested, let it be for the good news and our good works, but not because we are crooks (1 Peter 4:14-16).

Old Books

I often wonder what you look at when you visit this site. Do you read the blogs? Do you check out the film recommendations (needless to say, I haven't seen one worth note in a while)? Do you pond-er the book grades?

Regarding the latter, you've probably noted (if you look there) a lot of old books. My sons tend toward modern fiction (when they read). My bride loves anything Austen, though recently she has expanded horizon to realms Bronte. When I was in college, I fell in love with classic literature, but with the busy-ness of life, I drifted like my boys toward modern fiction. Can you say "Clancy?"

A year or so ago I came across the article "In Praise of Old Books." In the article, C.S. Lewis is quoted as he argues for the value of interspersing our usual pleasure reading with works that have stood the test of time.

Let me encourage you to read the article. If you don't read books regularly, I'd encourage you to do so. What an adventure! If you're already a reader, I'd encourage you to dig into the classics, too. If you're already there, you are likely as blessed as I have been recently in my venture into "old books."

Berkeley

After a bit of slacking this past week, it's time to nuzzle up to the keyboard once again.

In writing about Berkeley, California's animosity toward the US Marine Corps, Thomas Sowell fantisized about what could possibly be done with that wacked out city...with a bit of a WWII spin.

"It is a shame that Berkeley is not on some island in the South Pacific, because then they could be given their independence and left to defend themselves."

Such a community with such philosophies would destroy itself within five years without the sustenance of what we call "civilization."

Who's winning?

I'm racing out the door but I wanted to give you something to ponder over the next few days.

Some recent events have troubled my soul. Is there a connection?

1. A cleric is roundly denounced in Great Britain for stating that they were not far from allowing Sharia law (Islamic law) in some parts of the country.

2. The US military is under fire for harboring and cultivating "fundamentalist Christians."

These events can all be examined through a cursory search of any news site.

There was a third event on our shores but it eludes me now. If those topics pique your interest, I highly recommend Mark Steyn's book, "America Alone." Fun read. Scary read.

God's peace.

The Sound of Silence

A few weeks ago, we watched "Shadowlands," the telling of C.S. Lewis' love discovered and love lost. The film provided a glimpse into the teacher's lounge (for lack of a better term) at Oxford University. The professors entered and sat. Sometimes they sat in silence staring into a fire. Sometimes they read. Never did you see them sitting alone.

And then conversation would bubble up in one of these little rings. The topic would be kicked around like a ball during soccer practice. While the topic delved deeply and the conclusions weighed heavily, the most profound aspect of this banter to me was the depth of fellowship enjoyed by those learned men. No doubt the deep quality of these individuals owed in large part to the honing provided by their fellow scholars.

Let me reiterate, much of the time was spent in silence. They would abide with one another in contemplative meditation simply enjoying the presence of the other.

Herein is relationship. Herein is fellowship. Flesh and blood meets flesh and blood.

What constitutes the majority of our relationships today? Are they a cell call and a quick text? Are they through e-mail or blogging? Or do we enjoy the company of one another? In one scene, C.S. Lewis and his brother merely sat in their living room. Neither spoke. They just sat. No TV (they had none at the time). The radio was off.

Would we go mad in the silence of our living room? Or would we discover fellowship and friendship of greater depth and beauty?

The thought scares me.

Non-action vs. Inaction

"We can't do nothing."

Yes we can, and often it is required.

First of all, there is nothing in God's word to encourage Christians to withdraw or isolate themselves from government. They are not to set up some manner of communal enclave or some society within a society. As foreigners in this world, Christians must be aware and involved in the community/nation in which they find themselves.

Second, every principle seems to indicate that the Christian should do all in his power to bring about good (godly principles) within that society. Jeremiah 29 and 1 Peter (all) are but two examples of this idea. The most important thing that a believer can do for their nation is to pray for it.

Third, we must understand that the prime Mover in all things is God. His will is brought about by you and by me. It is brought about by Bill Clinton and George Bush. Here is the amazing part: His will is brought about whether or not men will bow the knee to Him. Throughout the prophets God uses godless nations to bring about His purpose and will likewise bring those very nations to the bar of justice for not recognizing the true Sovereign of Nations. God used the godless to bring about the execution of His Son.

Finally, God has called His people to act (Joshua at Jericho) and He has called His people to not act and let Him do His bidding (Jehoshaphat against Moab & Ammon). In both instances (in all instances), the outcome is in the hands of God.

Therefore, in wisdom, as we prayerfully go through our days, we may be confronted with Lucky Charms or Rice Crispies and God will say, "Pick. The choice is yours." Other times, the dilemma will not be nearly as difficult. When confronted with juicy T-bone or live locusts, the choice is obvious.

But if I am confronted with Joe Stalin or Chairman Mao, neither is a viable option. HERE is where I believe the Christian choses non-action. Inaction implies that I just won't bother. That is the servant who buried his talents. A careful examination exposes either option to be a nightmare. I don't flex to Mao simply because I prefer bad haircuts over bushy mustaches. In issues of substance, both are bad choices. It's Assyria or Egypt. God called Israel to trust Him in situations such as that.

It is at this point, I believe we ought let God fight the battle. Either option seems like foolishness...based upon an examination (study implied, activity implied) of both candidates in light of what the Bible says. It is not burying of talents out of fear or failure to do my homework (inaction). I do not expend this particular coin on a known bad investment (non-action), and I utilize my other coins to bring about good for the world around me.

So, I contend, there are times where doing nothing is the best thing to do. Is this such a time? That, as yet, remains to be seen. Never, though, should we consider a convicted decision to "be still" a foolish decision or "falling on an ideological sword."

Election 2008: Ideological Suicide

Heretofore, the election posts will simply be E'08.

On talk radio this afternoon, I heard someone state that not voting in this coming election would be falling on one's ideological sword. Another way to say that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. In other words, the talking head felt that not voting would do greater harm than simply casting your vote for the best candidate.

That's pragmatism. You say, "I might as well get the greatest good out of the situation regardless of what is required to acquire that good." That's dangerous.

The Bible does not hide that God judges nations. Read the prophets. He holds them accountable for what they do and how they reign. Considering our government is of "We the People," that's me who will be held accountable. My vote matters.

Should I cast my vote for A to prevent B from getting nominated or elected simply because A is the better of two evils? Do I ally myself with A to do battle against B?

Isaiah 30 and 31 describe a situation where Judah faced an Assyrian threat. Because Judah did not feel they could defeat Assyria in their own strength, they sought an ally. They turned to Egypt. Note the cry of God:

Woe to the rebellious children,” says the LORD,
“Who take counsel, but not of Me,

And who devise plans, but not of My Spirit,

That they may add sin to sin;

Who walk to go down to Egypt,

And have not asked My advice,

To strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,

And to trust in the shadow of Egypt!

Therefore the strength of Pharaoh

Shall be your shame,

And trust in the shadow of Egypt

Shall be your humiliation."

He goes on:

Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help,
And rely on horses,
Who trust in chariots because they are many,
And in horsemen because they are
very strong, But who do not look to the Holy One of Israel,
Nor seek the LORD!

I see the spear whizzing at my head now, "But we're not Israel!" Touche'. The principle remains, though. Do we trust God or don't we? This is not foolishly putting God to the test ("I won't wear my seat belt because God is watching over me"), but trusting a God who calls His people to trust in Him in the international realm.

How does this play out? As a Christian citizen, I have a responsibility to vote. If I believe, based upon understanding and studying candidates' positions, upon comparing those with the word of God, and upon discussion with wise men and women, that either candidate would be an affront to God, I will withhold my vote and trust Him for the outcome.

To say I am falling on my ideological sword is falsely pressuring me into trusting government above the God who is over all government. If I pragmatically cast my vote for a candidate, I disappoint the God who aches for me to trust in Him.

Not casting a vote does not mean I resign from government. Perhaps the most faithful government servant ever was Daniel, a man who had no say whatsoever in the government over him. Rather I pray the more fervently for my land and my people and strive to be the best citizen that I can be. Not hardly political impalement.

So will I vote this November?

Election 2008: Republican or Democrat?

Much has been said from the liberal (progressive?) side of the spectrum during this political season about how Christianity informs their position on the issues, too. To say it is one thing but to back it up with a biblical foundation is quite another.

That said, while the past two decades have seen the right (generally, the Republican party) establish their platform in line with biblical principles, more and more Republican candidates are voting for things that seem contrary to such principles. For example, Dr. James Dobson recently stated that he would not cast a vote this November (for the first time in his life) if a particular Republican candidate were nominated because of that man's poor track record in such instances.

Why do you vote the way you vote? The one who calls himself "Christian" and believes in the absolute truth of God's word, must submit to Christ and the authority of His word as he or she examines first the issues and second where the candidates stand on those issues. Simply because a political party has fallen in line with what the Bible has said in the past does NOT mean they will do so tomorrow.

Over the next few weeks, I will be discussing various issues through the lens of God's word, the Constitution that frames our government and the Declaration of Independence that set our nation in motion, issues that I believe are imporant for us to assess as we move deep in the heart 2008. Please feel free during in those posts to add your comments for the benefit of other readers.

It's going to be a bumpy road to November.

Epitaphs

One can learn his lessons in many ways. Two of the experiential ways are the good example and the bad example. Being a hall 0f famer at the latter I have often shared how not to do things with my boys ending the lesson with the painful truth, "You can always serve as a bad example."

The other day after just such a lesson, son #3 began to laugh and said, "Dad, we're going to put that on your tombstone." It was a lighthearted moment and we all roared!

I had to think of that moment at the end of the Super Bowl when Bill Belichick went out of his way to exemplify "poor sportsmanship" to the entire world. Ladies and gentlemen, if you ever need to point your children to how not to behave amidst the thrill and drama of athletic competition, there it was in spades!

Positively uncertain

One day while scanning Foxnews.com, I noticed a tab on their Science section titled "Evolution and Paleontology." Curious, I clicked. What I noted amused me. That was a few weeks ago, but the humor remains.

Here are a few of the titles to articles within Fox's E&P section from TODAY:

• Scientists: Biting Insects May Have Killed Off Dinosaurs
• Earlier Evolutionary Explosion May Have Preceded Cambrian
• Frozen Calf May Explain Mammoth's Extinction
• Geology May Have Created Perfect 'Cradle of Humanity'
• Human Evolution Seems to be Accelerating
• Scientist: Human Race May Split in Two in Far Future
• Comet Air Burst May Have Killed Off Mammoths, Restarted Last Ice Age
• Some Neanderthals May Have Been Redheads

My personal fav:

• Prehistoric Cave Bears Weren't So Cuddly After All (question: did somebody once posit that prehistoric cave bears were cuddly?)

Time for your Mister Rogers moment. What do all of these have in common (the last one is a wee bit more challenging)? Then, after you've knocked that question out of the park, what does this say about the concrete certainty that surrounds evolution in the halls of academic learning?

Talk amongst yourselves.

...And to the Republic

We are a republic.

Many refer to our nation as a democracy. We are not. Even our president and other national leaders refer our form of government as a "democracy." Such an error should be like fingers on a chalkboard to every American.

Some may think that a little thing. It is not. Here are a few quotes from our founders about what they thought of democracy as a form of government (excerpted from David Barton's book, "Original Intent"):

• "[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison


• "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Adams


• "A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment


• "We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt." Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution


• "[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived." John Quincy Adams


• "A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils." Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration


• "In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth." Noah Webster


• "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration


• "It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion." Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text

Why the hostility toward democracy? It becomes majority rule. Whatever the whims of the mob become the dictates of society. That leads to anarchy or lawlessness.

The intent of a republic was that law would be king, lex rex. We would elect representatives who would enact law by which the nation would be subject. Rule of law versus the rule of whim.

As our nation slips further and further from the intent of its founders, let me encourage you to take a moment and read David Barton's article, "Republic v. Democracy" at his sight Wallbuilders.org. You'll find the quotes above therein. His book, "Original Intent," is a captivating read and a wonderful resource to have on hand in every home for explaining the purpose and plan for our nation when the heroes of the Revolution sat down to determine what our nation would become.