Year end, yet again

Sometimes reality makes my head swim.  For example, as I gnawed chicken wings a year ago tonight (yes, an odd tradition), I had no idea Tom Watson would vie for the British Open title but choke it away on the last hole of regulation play.  I had no idea how our new President would lead our nation.  I had no idea Michael Jackson would up and die.  I had no idea Tiger Woods would prove to be all too human.

I know the painful detail behind all of those events.  Now.

Isn't it odd that before us heaves an ocean of unknown?  The further we try to look from this moment, the hazier the horizon becomes.  And yet when we look back, the wake of our journey has high-def clarity.

Here we stand at the end of the dock in 2009 ready to embark upon 2010.  What storms will come?  When will we know tranquil seas and stellar weather?  What dragons lie at the edge of the map?

Will the nations of the world cripple their economies by submitting themselves to the whim of the weather?

Will America's beacon return to its inceptional brilliance or will it continue to dim?

Where will the adherents of Islam seek to rain their devastation?

Where will Barack Obama guide our nation?

Who will emerge as the Michael Ohrer of 2010 (go see "Blindside")?

What surprises will come out of Hollywood?  Will Pixar continue to bat 1.000?

Who will succumb to the drawn-out consequences of the curse like Ted Kennedy and Farrah Fawcett or die without warning like Billy Mays and Natasha Richardson?

Whose life will end suddenly at the hand of another as happened to Steve McNair and George Tiller?

Will we continued down Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" when it comes to healthcare, bailouts, economic policies, and the like or will we cut the umbilical and accept personal responsibility?

How will marriages fare this year?  Yours?  What will you invest? 

To whom will God entrust a new child on this voyage?

What unforseen boon will blow onboard our boat?

Should , He see fit to grant us each another 365 days, we will know the answers to all these questions.

Better than the knowing of the answers to those unanswered questions is what we will be and what we will have done by December 31, 2010.  Better still, what will we become over the next month, or the next week, or this next day.  Each breath is a gift.  You know that.  So breathe deep and use it well.

Tom Watson could have conceded the British Open by not playing in it.  You know, the game is for younger men.  But Tom got on a plane with his creaking bones, crossed the Atlantic, overcame the jetlag, and played the game.  He very nearly created the story of the century.  Missed it by that much, he did, but he teed it up and let it rip.

Please don't make impotent resolutions tonight.  That's like sitting on the edge of the dock and letting the tide roll in around you.  Commit to something and do it. Climb on board your Mayflower and take the Good News across the ocean.

No telling where God will land your boat 365 days from now should you embark.

Fanning the fire...after kids

I caught an article on one of the news web-sites about certain indicators that your relationship is doomed. Please, no fretting. I wasn't comparing and contrasting my affections for my bride against the whims of the day, but I was interested in what the secular culture felt to be toxic to a relationship.

Some of the items were of the "duh" variety. Husband and wife regularly taking separate vacations. Being overly tied to your parents, the mama's boy or daddy's girl. Others I couldn't follow. The woman being smarter than the guy, for example. Why is that a death sentence to a relationship? Isn't a relationship about caring more about the other person than you do for yourself? Isn't it about common goals and focus? For the Christians, isn't it about honoring and glorifying God in your lives?

Anyway, the relationship poison that knotted my knickers was "children."  Yes, kids!  Shouldn't it be obvious that if you marry another person and start--well, you know--that the little swimmer might bump itself into the little ovum and babies might be made? A sad fact of twenty first century life is that many couples don't want to have kids, and if one of the little beasties pops up, many couples let an unexpected child torpedo their relationship.

Anyway, this post isn't for those folks. It’s for the husband and wife that actually wanted kids. A great hazard to procreating is the demise of the spontaneous wrestling match between bride and groom. As dopey as the article was, one quote stuck out. “Once you have rugrats, your love life is over. Sorry, I speak from experience.”

I speak from experience, too, and yes, having kids can get in the way of the noon nookie, but the sexual sauce can age very well if the husband and wife must make time for blending their bodies.

To that end, a few tidbits we’ve picked up along the way.

1. Put your kids to bed! The parents that let their kids stay up until ten o’clock when they’re little don’t have their eyes set on each other. They’re letting the kids rule the roost. Kids need their sleep and dad needs to stare into mom’s eyes…and then some. At ten, both tots and folks are tuckered out.

2. Put your kids to bed! Yeah, I know I just said that, but small children need rest during the day, too. Naps or quiet time in the early afternoon provide the children much needed rest and on occasion can provide the folks with a frisky frolic on the rare occasion when they both happen to be home.

3. Schedule. Yes, spontaneity is nice, but it’s going to happen every blue moon as the children grow. So carve out time. Plan ahead. And then look forward to it. Talk about it. Send your bride an e-mail from work. Text him. Let each other know your thinking about them…yes, in that way.

4. Use the lock on the bedroom door. As your kids get old enough to occupy themselves during the day, you might steal a moment or two alone. That can also lead to some comical moments. I remember one day when my youngest son came to the door, and me suggesting that we’d be out in a bit. He turned to his brothers and asked, “Are they working on their recital in their?” as my eldest son began to practice the “Theme from Star Wars” on the piano. Oh, did we laugh.

The physical intimacy that comes naturally in the months after the wedding day must be cultivated with great care in the decades that ensue. If husband and wife let children bring an end to their erotic escapades, they run the risk of damaging their relationship.

Make the time. Make it happen.  Yes, enjoy your kids, but don’t ever stop enjoying (really enjoying!) your mate.

Answering the skeptic

My company’s Christmas party – yes, they still call it that – was a nice event. I did not, though, have the greatest of times. A very bright woman at my table made a few comments disparaging the veracity and message of Christianity. I felt it necessary, with as much grace as I could muster considering the festive atmosphere, to provide her evidence for the truthfulness of God’s word and the authenticity of its message.

With every support I erected, she would counter with another argument, factoid, or “what about,” a scenario that would seem to invalidate Christianity in the mind of any thinking person. Israel’s annihilation of the Canaanites is a favorite by which the sophisticate feels free to loathe the God of the Bible.

Anyway, the conversation went on. And on. I don’t feel I upheld the grace of the Christmas message. And I know I didn’t sway the mind of the skeptic.

As the sun’s rotation has moved me further from that day, the conversation continues to haunt me. Yes, I consider my manner. Yes, I consider what I might have said. More than that, I consider the skeptic.

Prior to the time of the Civil War, few in the Western world questioned the veracity or the authenticity of the Bible. Even the “skeptics” of the Revolutionary era, the Jefferson’s, Madison’s and Franklin’s, held a higher view of the Bible than did the skeptic across my table. What has happened? What has brought us to this post-biblical age?

I know the history. I’m familiar with the dismantling of the Bible that began in Europe in the nineteenth century. I also know the history of the men who have successfully dismantled the argumentation of the biblical skeptics. I know the decay and rot within Christendom as denominations have embraced a neutered Scripture. I am also aware of those who continue to hold a high view of God’s word and the power He has to redeem and restore.

Still, the serpent has injected his poison. Most Protestants and many Catholics do not believe that the entirety of Scripture is the word of God nor do they believe it to be true. But many do not know why they believe that. To most, the Church has become suspect; they have an axe to grind or something to hide from the masses. And the feeling continues that if the Church is corrupt, its source-text must be false, too. Any PhD to support that only lends credibility to the argument despite the evidence to the contrary.

An example. During the Christmas party debate, I mentioned fulfilled prophecy as evidence for the unique and amazing nature of the Bible. Taking the season in hand, the skeptic seized the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 which states, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” She noted, and rightfully so, that the Hebrew word for virgin is the same word for young woman or woman of marrying age not necessarily meaning virgin. Still, that Hebrew word is translated as virgin most of the time in the Old Testament and in most translations. Beyond that, a young woman of marrying age if so referenced in the Old Testament era was, unlike our day, presumed to be a virgin. Consider the two synonymous.

The virgin birth is significant for deity to become humanity. Protestants and Catholics differ as to its theological and Christological significance (we can talk about that through another medium if you’d like). Anyway, Matthew in writing to a predominantly Jewish audience cites the Isaiah prophecy, a messianic prophecy, to indicate the identity of the child. Writing in Greek, Matthew uses the specific word virgin in translating the Isaiah prophecy.

Or he quoted from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament done after Alexander the Great Hellenized the world. Seems the Jews, with no axe to grind, translated that troublesome verse in Isaiah 7 as virgin, too.

The point? While many will cite the corruption of the Bible by saying the passage in Isaiah could be translated young woman, it would be textually wrong to do so for a myriad of reasons. This is true for many of the questions and problems skeptics have with the Bible and Christianity.

For the skeptic, there will always be another question.  There will always be the men and women of letters to support their position.  And yet as 2010 dawns, G. K. Chesterton’s challenge to the skeptic remains as powerful as ever. “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

What Child is this?

As grown-ups, we set aside childish ways.  Some parents will play "tooth fairy" with their children, but I suspect few adults who lose a tooth put that bicuspid under their pillow in exchange for a quarter or dollar. 

Some parents do the same with Santa Claus.  Yes, there lived a historical St. Nicholas (great story, by the way), but most parents don't lay that on their kids.  They sell the guy in the red suit, Rudolph and company, elves, North Pole, that's the schtick the kids get.  Do parents buy into it?  Despite Elf, I would have to say, no, Virginia, they do not believe in Santa Clause.


So what gives with baby Jesus, God incarnate? 

Really, I don't think many adults give it much thought.  Most believe it because it's what they have always believed while many that dismiss it do so because of its apparent patent absurdity.  Neither camp feels it necessary to examine the historicity and veracity of what took place in Bethlehem a couple millenia ago.  For the established Christian, the events of the nativity would prove a source of wonder and amazement at what God really did do.  For the skeptic an objective examination of Christmas might give them a new appreciation for the biblical accounts at the very least and might introduce them to the God who loves them at best.

The accounts of the advent of God the Son come from the pens of Matthew and Luke, the former being one of Jesus' twelve closest followers, the latter being a physician who very likely never met Jesus during his thirty years on earth.  He did take his passion for science and applied it to historic narrative.  So when he came to understand what God had done to eradicate his sin-debt through Jesus Christ, he sought to document accurately the account of those events for a friend of his, Theophilus.  How do I know this?  Luke said so.

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

How did he do this?  Notice what he said above.  He examined all these things over a period of time.  He seems well acquainted with eyewitnesses.  We do know that from the book of Acts, that Luke (also the author of that work) joined Paul in his travels during his second missionary journey.  As they traveled throughout Greece, Asia Minor, and Judea, Luke had ample opportunity to meet those who walked with Jesus Christ and saw the events that transpired.  I would seem he was well-suited to document these events.

Notice his account of Jesus' birth as memorably recited by Linus van Pelt from Luke's second chapter.  Look at the historic detail. 

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.

Does anyone today care that Quirinius was governor of Syria? Does he come into play anywhere else in the gospel story?  Not really, but it does anchor the specific time of the events to those who were familiar with the region.  It would be like someone today writing, "During the time that Gerald Ford served as President of the United States."  He did so for so limited an amount of time that your mind would immediately travel to the mid-1970's.

It's also significant because Joseph and the very-pregnant Mary lived in Nazareth, 100 miles north of Bethlehem.  Rome had dominion over the Mediterranean and therefore, over Judea.  When the emporer gets an itch, his subjects scratch.  Augustus wanted some idea about the extent of his territory and so he introduced his census with little concern for the pregnant Nazarene woman.  The Roman had no idea that his itch would have a hand in fulfilling a prophecy given hundreds of years earlier.  Micah wrote,

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

The Messiah would come from one of the most obscure towns in all Israel.  Because Joseph was of the lineage of David, he would have to be registered in the city of David, Bethlehem, he and all his family which would include his betrothed, Mary, great with child.  A God-thing?  Coincidence?  Regardless,  it would seem to be valid history in contradiction with nothing we know from archaeology or extra-biblical history.

The last thing I'd like to highlight from Luke's account is something unique to him in his gospel, something not found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.  After telling about the shepherd's arrival to see the babe, Luke notes that "Mary treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart."  It wasn't the only time Luke would highlight that tidbit.  Later in chapter two, after the young boy, Jesus, had remained behind in the Temple as his family headed home, Luke writes, "his mother treasured up all these things in her heart."

So what's the big deal with Mary?  How would he know that Mary treasured these things?  Could Luke have gotten this by divine revelation?  Yeah, I guess so, but that's not what he said at the outset of his history.  Eyewitnesses, he told Theophilus.  During Paul's two year imprisonment at Caesarea on the coast of Israel starting in AD 58, is it possible that Luke traveled throughout Judea and spoke to folks who knew Mary and told him about how those events had stuck with her?  Or is it possible that Mary was still alive?  Were she a teen as most surmise, say fifteen, when Christ was born, that would have put her in her 70's.  It is quite possible that Luke got his narrative of the Christmas story directly from Jesus' mom.

Unlike the Tooth Fairy and unlike Santa Claus, we have much that we can believe as historic regarding the story of the babe in a manger.  What we do with that is up to us. 

Merry Christmas!

political cartoon by Gary Varvel, copyright 2009

Idiocy at the close of 2009

My head's been swimming the past couple of weeks.  Most of it has been self inflicted.  Today, my noggin's in the middle of a Flipper marathon over two you-gotta-be-kidding-me comments from men in authority.  Join me in my flabbergastedness.

The first brain-buzzer comes from a US Army commander in Northern Iraq.  General Anthony Cucolo has ordered the women in his unit to stop getting pregnant (here).  I do believe that this was one of the major arguments against opening positions to women formerly held by only by military men back in the day of William Jefferson Clinton. 

Yes, I know public opinion was for it, but public opinion doesn't serve on the front line. You put men and women in close proximity in high pressure jobs far from home with little to do during their leisure time, and you're going to have to start building nurseries.  You can't very well keep a pregnant mama in hostile territory, so she gets sent home leaving the numbers of troops diminished.  It's no surprise the general's hacked, but what a stupid policy.

As dumb and ineffective a policy as it is, the fact that we have women in such positions is dumber.  Who do we indict for the general's dopey edict?  Not the general.  We need to look in the mirror.  It's you and I, baby.  You and I.

The other head-scratcher came from an Anglican priest (here).  He gave the green light for the needy to steal.  Ah, but the priest has his standards.

I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

Moral relativism at its finest.  He does encourage the kleptos not to take any more than they need.  Isn't that nice? 

But why does the Reverend think this even necessary?

The observation that shoplifting is the best option that some people are left with is a grim indictment of who we are...Rather, this is a call for our society no longer to treat its most vulnerable people with indifference and contempt.

OHHHH!  It's my fault.  Wow. Where to begin with that pile of goo?  The Rev's reasoning goes like this:  because there are poor, it's okay for them to steal, but only from big companies.  Do you think there is a bottom-line limit?  Perhaps there should be a sign in the window.  "Our company has profits in excess of $650 million dollars and we have stores in three-quarters of the United States.  Therefore, we are a larceny friendly store.  Come on in and fill your pockets."

What about asking for help?  The "homeless" guys who hold specific corners in my town seem to be doing okay.  I suspect that if folks really needed help and asked folks for help, they'd get it.  The affluent West has done more to try to help the poor out of their condition.  Look to the totalitarian Third World if you want to see rampant poverty and economic disparity.  Praise God for the blessed West and the health and wealth that have been enjoyed for so many years by so many.

Perhaps the most dizzying aspect of this insane dismantling of Commandment Eight is that it's the exact same rationale behind the social programs being enacted in our national legislature these days.  Yeah, the costs will be spread around kind of like H1N1.

Sure, there have been great generals in our nation's military and great preachers in our churches, but these two Jehus prove the addage that you can always serve as a bad example.

Nuclear Iran as winter falls upon Copenhagen

World leaders fiddled in Denmark this past week over issues debatable while a threatening certainty continued to move toward nuclear armament thousands of miles to the southeast. 

You make the call.  What should have been discussed in Copenhagen?  A threat over which there is no debate or a threat over which there is only debate.

Jay Nordlinger's perspicacious take on global warming, a nuclear Iran, and wintry Copenhagen:

Every now and then, reality breaks through dreamland, as in this bit of news: “Iran on Wednesday test-fired an upgraded version of its most advanced missile, which is capable of hitting Israel and parts of Europe, in a new show of strength aimed at preventing any military strike against it amid the nuclear standoff with the West.” Iranian missiles that can hit Europe: Will this development concentrate the European mind, no matter what that mind thinks of Israel?

I have quoted from this report. It goes on to quote Britain’s prime minister Gordon Brown, who said that the Iranian test showed the need for tougher U.N. sanctions. Well, best of luck with that. Brown said, “This is a matter of serious concern to the international community,” blah, blah, blah. And he made his statement, according to the report, “after talks with U.N. chief Ban Ki-Moon in Copenhagen.”

That is just perfect. The panjandrums of the world were in Copenhagen to talk about global warming, and the alleged giant threat that comes from the same. But there is a definite threat, an urgent one: the threat of a nuclear Iran, and the threat of rising, armed Islamofascism generally. I remember being at a particular Davos meeting where everyone was gravely concerned about global warming, saying we had to act now now now. A nuclear Iran and its associated menaces seemed to be an afterthought, at best. In other words, the wolf was at the door — but the world’s elites were looking past the wolf to some gauzy threat out in the blue.

I made this observation, at the time: Confronting global warming is relatively easy, because it means confronting good Western capitalists and industrialists. Confronting Islamofascism is much harder, for some: because it means confronting Third World radicals, about whom good Westerners harbor all sorts of myths and hopes.

In August, Ban-ki Moon said, “We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.” What did he mean? He meant that there were four months until these climate talks in Copenhagen. If only the world’s elites felt half the urgency about a nuclear Iran. Our priorities, and sense of reality, seem terribly askew.

It is interesting to hear Iran’s defense minister, Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, on television — on Iranian state TV. He said the following about his country’s new missile: “Given its high speed, it is impossible to destroy the missile with anti-missile systems because of its radar-evading ability.” True? I wonder what the state of U.S. missile defense is at the moment — and what it would have been if we had gone all-out after Reagan’s original call. I wonder, relatedly, how Israel is doing in this field.

One more thing, before I leave this subject. Iran’s new missile is called the Sajjil-2. And, according to the report I have linked to, “the name ‘Sajjil’ means ‘baked clay,’ a reference to a story in the Quran, Islam’s holy book, in which birds sent by God drive off an enemy army attacking the holy city of Mecca by pelting them with stones of baked clay.”

These are interesting times, ladies and gentlemen, and, of course, all too interesting. (Pardon the triteness.)

Read his entire Impromptus here.

Your annual dose of Theoden King

An excerpt from The Two Towers.  King Theoden, my favorite character in The Two Towers and The Return of the King played with amazing power by Bernard Hill, stands ready to receive his armor, overwhelmed by the forces that bear upon his keep, overwhelmed by what has happened to the days of the free West.

Read his words and try and divorce them from the LotR.  Do they have context for the days in which we live?

Where is the horse and the rider?
Where is the horn that was blowing?
They have passed like rain on the mountain,
like wind in the meadow.
The days have gone down in the West
behind the hills into shadow.

How did it come to this?

Watch it here (because you can):

Meteorological irony

Have you ever noticed that when folks decide to have a summit on global warming the location they pick just happens to get smacked with record cold and ten feet of snow.

Wonderful, wonderful Co-pen-haaaa-gen...

A Different Christmas Poem

This came to me by the hands of a friend.  I do not know the author.  I wish it had been me.

Praising God and giving Him thanks for the men and women who defend our freedoms with honor and humility whether they agree with their commanders or not.  May He sustain and uphold them as they serve during this most difficult time.
----------------------------------

A Different Christmas Poem

The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,

I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.

My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,

My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.

Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,

Transforming the yard to a winter delight..

Sparkling lights in the tree I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.
In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.

The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear..
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know, Then the
sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.

Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.

"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!
Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts..

To the window that danced with a warm fire's light
Then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,
I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."
"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.

No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My Gramps died at ' Pearl on a day in December,"
Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers.."
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of ' Nam ',
And now it is my turn and so, here I am.

I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white, and blue... an American flag.
I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home.

I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.
I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother..
Who stand at the front against any and all,
To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall.."

" So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
"Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all too little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."

Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget.
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled.
Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."

Perhaps racism caused global warming, too

Confession.  I have loved Disney's animated movies over the last twenty years.

Soon after we got married, my bride and I went to "Black Cauldron."  Haven't heard of it?  Not surprised.  We found it a foul film.  I thought Disney to be doomed.  Not so.

They reentered family friendly fare with a couple of Rescuer movies and then began to hit 'em out of the park like Josh Hamilton at the Home Run Derby starting with "The Little Mermaid."  When Disney married with Pixar to birth "Toy Story," smash followed smash.

Okay, I didn't see "Mulan" and the PC of "Pocahantas" made it a no-go for me, but those are the only hiccups in my mind.

Because of my affections for what Disney has done in the recent past, my eyes snagged on an article in my local paper yesterday criticizing Walt's company for taking so long to do a film with a black princess (here).  Let's see.  "The Little Mermaid" is a Danish tale if memory serves.  No surprise that Ariel would be pasty white.  "Pocahontas," being a Native American (which I think immigrated from across the Bering Straight, but that's beside the point), was portrayed as -- you guessed it -- a Native American.  Could you set "Mulan" in Ghana?  Yes, I guess you could.  But it's a Chinese tale.  Why would you do such a thing?  Esmerelda, the gypsy in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," was a gypsy, and so the artists at Disney portrayed her with fairly swarthy skin.

The gist of the article is that in this era of Obama, Disney's making up for not ever having a black princess by tossing the black community a bone by making the fairy tale "The Princess and the Frog" hip-hop.  It might turn out to be a cute idea.  It didn't do much for "The Wiz" or "Blackula," but you never know.

My beef with the author (Lana Sweeten-Shults) comes from her imposing racial purpose on Disney.  If in fact the company did make their film to satisfy some color-angst, is that not of itself a racist act?  Personally, I think Disney is color-blind despite the vivid hues of their movies.  If they found a grand story from Guinea-Bissau, I bet they'd make it.  Racism?  I don't think so.  Jasmine seemed awfully Arabian to me.  And I loved "Frozone" in "The Incredibles."

So I wrote Ms. S-S; My keyboard had hardly cooled when I start catching wind of an opinion piece by one of the most race conscious (if not racist) writers on the planet, Eugene Robinson, clubbing Tiger Woods.  If there's anyone in public America that deserves a good whup up side the head, it's Mr. Woods, but Mr. Robinson does not thump him for him (hard) for his adulteries.  He calls him on his choice of ladies!

Here's my real question, though: What's with the whole Barbie thing?


No offense to anyone who actually looks like Barbie, but it really is striking how much the women who've been linked to Woods resemble one another. I'm talking about the long hair, the specific body type, even the facial features. Mattel could sue for trademark infringement.


This may be the most interesting aspect of the whole Tiger Woods story -- and one of the most disappointing. He seems to have been bent on proving to himself that he could have any woman he wanted. But from the evidence, his aim wasn't variety but some kind of validation.

Now if the lassies were all one-armed, six-and-a-half footers with a uni-brow, I think we might wonder about Tiger's choice on about level eight or nine of the discussion.  But Mr. Robinson (ironic name to this discussion), can't get past skin deep.

But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes -- some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an "official" standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive.



His taste in mistresses leaves the impression of a man who is, deep down, both insecure and image-conscious -- a control freak even when he's committing "transgressions."

What's Eugene's beef? Tiger didn't bed any black women! He's trying to fit in with the crackers! That's his problem!  Adultery is okay, but don't be an Uncle Tom transgressor.

If that's not about the biggest pile of racist manure, I don't know what is.  Entitled to his opinions?  You bet, but that an editor or a publisher would give such a Jafar, Frollo, Ursula, Syndrome, or Hopper a nation-wide voice is beyond me to peddle such guano is beyond me.

Let's indict the indictable (an adulterous superstar), but let's call a decade long moratorium on blaming race for anything, especially when it comes to kiddie movies.  A crime's a crime whether race is causal or not (or sexual preferences or religious malice).  Making an animated princess black might have occurred simply because it fit a unique twist on an old story and not for any deep-seated need for racial reparation.

Let "The Princess and the Frog" stand on its own merit.  And let the Tiger fall on his.

The fallibility of science: The scientist

A few weeks back I jotted a series covering a biblical response to environmentalism, global warming, etc. (here, here, here, and here).  Then I tapped out a couple of posts exposing man's fallen nature--yes, I'm included in that--(here, here, and here).  Now we have the merging of fallen man with environmentalism and you get the Climate Change Scandal, a change you can't believe in.

What?  You have not heard about the doctoring and fudging of statistical data to make global warming appear a fact?  You have not heard about the corruption of the peer-review process preventing those with papers that deny man-made climate change from getting published?  You have not heard about the e-mails between such vaunted scientists as they explain to one another the best ways to cook the books and to silence the rabble?  All this from the premiere institution for the study of climate change.

If you haven't tracked this, I invite you to read two columns from Jonah Goldberg here and here.  The first gives a bit more detail behind the corruption of the environmental "science," and leads into the second article, the reason this scandal is so significant.  Later this month, the world converges on Copenhagen, Denmark to determine what steps the nations will take to stem the tide of "global warming."  The restrictions upon industry and upon individuals will be pocket-biting. 

Even as Climategate begins to get some press, many are frantically trying to get the genie back in the bottle.  "Man-made global warming is real," they cry.  "Man is the blight of the planet."  No, man is the God-given steward of the planet. 

Like many other moral issues, should one side of the debate persist with its message and should they get a few who hear them in key locations (like a vice president?), then more and more folks are going to come to see this inconvenience as truth even though true data-crunching science does not support the conclusion.  On that day, man submits himself to a most unforgiving planet.

Chris Matthews

Two days ago I took a shot at Chris Matthews for calling Westpoint "enemy camp" (here).  He offers one of the most incredible apologies I have ever seen.  He showed a great depth of character.  You can watch the video here.

That said, I believe Chris Matthews sees Westpoint as "enemy" territory not because he hates the military (he doesn't) and not because he hates those who hold what could be characterized as a conservative worldview or those who hold a biblical worldview (he doesn't).   He does know and understand that a preponderance of those who serve in the military hold to conservative and often biblical ideals.  As Matthews states, President Obama's views on using the military would not find a lot of buyers within the gray walls of Westpoint.  That would put the President on hostile ground were he in a debate. 

But he is not in a debate.  Barack Obama is the President.  That establishes him as the Commander-in-Chief over all of the military.  Our military is civilian run.  It always will be and it needs to be.  Military personnel obey the orders of the President of the United States and uphold our Constitution regardless of whether they agree with those orders (unless they are unlawful).  You salute smartly and do your duty.  You give your opinion when asked and sometimes when not asked, but when the answer takes on a finality, then the orders must be executed.

So, in a sense, yes, President Obama did give his speech in hostile territory.  Whether the men and women in gray like him or agree with him, they support him as their President and as their Commander in chief.

While his words may have been apt, Chris Matthews words were in poor form at such a time and in such a place.  He recognized that, manned up, and gave an apology for the ages. 

He will continue to be hostile toward things "conservative." Perhaps, though, Chris Matthews will be a little slower to speak.

People

There's none righteous.  No, not one.  Not my words.  God, through the heart, mind, and hand of Paul, made that plain.  The reality of the daily newspaper bears it out.  A few thoughts on a few folks making a name for themselves of late.

• Tiger Woods.  Power.  Money.  Fame.  Talent.  None of which sets a person outside the bounds of law or morality.  How often, though, when so much comes to one so young or so old, that they succomb to the lies and the enticements of the serpent.  I cannot cast the first stone, but that in no way excuses or condones his egregious conduct.  It just reminds me of the inkly blackness of my own heart and the pristine grace of a God who's offered himself on my behalf.

• Chris Matthews.  My respect for his journalistic insight has diminished exponentially since Barack Obama's election because he is unashamed in his bias.  Last night, in trying to make a point about the conservative nature of the military, Matthews suggested that the President, in choosing to give this speech at Westpoint, the US Military Academy, had entered the "enemy camp."  Charming (watch it here).

UPDATE:  Since originally posting Matthews original comment, he went on air last night and began with one of the most sincere apologies I have ever seen from one in the public eye.  He need not apologize for leftist political views.  He needn't even apologize for pretending they are journalistic.  But what he said two days ago needed an apology and he did so with a class rarely seen on TV.  Watch it here.

• President Obama.  Nations that make the Russians look conservative have begun to recognize the hollow nature of the President's rhetoric.  Here's a German assessment of our leader's speech.
• Scientists.  Did you know they are human, too?  Did you know that they can be as petty, back-biting, arrogant, deceitful, and hypocritical as you and I?  Do you think we might stop treating them as deity heretofore in the wake of Climategate?  I hope so.  SUVs for all my friends!
• Thomas Sowell.  This from his "Random thoughts on the passing scene" from yesterday (always worth the time...here):

Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara River, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don’t know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world.

On that note, here's hoping that the sun rising in the east tomorrow morning is 93 million miles away.

Immunity and Tiger Woods

A few days ago, I railed against Adam Lambert and his irresponsibility as a celebrity where he believes he has no responsibility but to "art."  I vented,

You are a role model. You are an example to everyone you meet every day. If God gives you the opportunity to have an extraordinary stage upon which to play, then your responsibility to your fellow man increases manifold. You have responsibilities to your coworkers and your bosses. You have responsibility to the staff that supports you. If you are a celebrity (athletic, "arts," politics), you have a responsibility to those who appreciate your work. And what about the responsibility to the God who created you?

You can read the rest of it here if you are so inclined.

On the heels of "Mr." Lambert's public irresponsibility, Tiger Woods wraps not a nine iron but himself around a tree.  At 2 a.m. (I harken back to a Golden Earing song).  In the middle of the night after Thanksgiving.  Going 30 mph.  With no alcohol involved.

Had Mr. Woods been drinking, that would have come to light, he would have been charged, he would have released some form of apology be it the typical leftist non-apology or a man-up, I-blew-it apology, and life would press on.

But there was no booze.  Perhaps yesterday's press release would offer insight (here).  Nope.  "The situation is my fault."  That's a good start.  So what happened, El Tigre?  "This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way."  He hooked that response badly out of bounds.  Here's where that sticky issue called responsibility comes into play.

His non-answer that hints at some "private matter" would not have been necessary had he stayed inside his palatial Windemere estate.  Were he and Elin having issues like millions of American husbands and wives, it would have remained a "private matter" had his SUV remained parked.  Had he been frustrated and upset about some business dealing and had he needed to vent some steam, if he entered his private fitness center and driving range as opposed to going tree-wheeling, it would have remained a "private matter."

But Tiger drove it into the woods.

Many believe that what you do in private (or behind the closed doors of the Oval Office) does not affect who you are in public.  That is a lie.  You are not a machine and you cannot compartmentalize like that.  You're not that good.  Neither is Tiger.  Privacy, a concept inherent in property ownership, does indeed extend into your domicile until what you have done in your domicile spills onto boulevard and up against an oak.

His image hangs in the balance because young and old, duffer and scratch golfer, player and not, look up to him.  Endorsements hang in the balance because corporations use his face to hock their goods.  His respect as an athletic icon hangs in the balance because he reflects on his sport, all other golfers and sport in general because he represents them.  That is the price--and the responsibility--of fame.

A pastor has a responsibility to his church (and to God).

A president has a responsibility to his nation (and to his God).

Al the American has a responsibility to his family, his neighbors, his church, his community, his bosses, his employees...

You get the idea.  No man is an island.

If Tiger would man-up and admit what he did, a forgiving public would move on and the issue would fade.  "I blew up at my wife and stormed out of the house like a child."  Sounds pretty normal.  Too bad he hit the tree.  "We ran out of diapers and on the way out the driveway, I dropped my iPod (or was busy texting Michael Jordan who happened to be golfing in Dubai) and shwacked the tree."  I've heard about people texting and driving.  Really, any answer would calm the masses.  His non-answer hints at scandal.

As jackals have the unpleasant job of scouring the Serengeti of its carrion, so the media must root out the truth of what went down.  As distasteful as that might seem, the Tiger has left them no other choice.
-------------

AP Photo

Clarity from Moscow

Despite "Allahu akhbar," despite having neato ID cards with SOI (Soldier of Islam) imprinted upon them, despite wearing the traditional garb of the Muslim playing for the Al Qaeda team and despite the most gruesome act of treason in my memory, our President has urged caution and restraint against leaping to conclusions regarding the very interesting day Malik Nadal Hasan had last month.  Let's let those investigations play out before we label this "terrorism" or indict a particular ideology.

This morning, Fox News has this headline from Russia.

"Official: There is little doubt...This is terrorism"

In case you missed it, a Russian commuter was derailed carrying hundreds and dozens have died.  Evidence of explosives has been found. 

Explain to me why Vlad Putin's office with startling immediacy and only a few facts is willing to label an atrocity what it is, but we still refer to Malik Nadal Hassan as an "alleged murderer" or "suspected gunman" when the evidence points as plainly to Mecca as do Islamic prayer rugs.

Let's call a traitor a traitor.  Let's state plainly that the impetus for his action is the same fundamental brand of Islam practiced by the C4-vested vermine infesting Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Netherlands, and the better part of Michigan.  Let's give civilized Muslims in America and around the world the opportunity to speak out against such filth and afford patriotic Muslims the opportunity to show their solidarity with the land of the free and with the tenets of civilization.

Bowing to emperors, kissing the rings of mysogynist kings, and not letting the military line up terrorists and traitors against a wall and reducing their carbon footprint does nothing but self-neuters in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of middle America.

So, Vlad, well done!  You're more apt to quiet the scum of the earth when you catch 'em and kill 'em than when you mollycoddle 'em and provide them universal healthcare.

The trouble with Adam

Let's start with full disclosure.

I've never seen Adam Lambert perform (for that matter, I've never seen American Idol).  I've read much about him, about his extraordinary voice toward his androgynous dress toward his weather-vaned sexual appetites.  From what I have read in the past, I did not jaw-drop when I read what went down at the American Music Awards.

After Madonna and Brittany Spears mid-performance tonsilectomy illicited little more than a nation-wideee yawn, it became clear that someone had dismantled Pandora's box and burned it on the pire of responsibility and discretion.  Why should anyone be shocked (shocked!) when Mr. (and I use that term biologically) Lambert kisses a man amidst pelvic thrusts into the faces of female dancers during his performance at the aforementioned event?

"I admit I did get carried away, but I don't see anything wrong with it."  Ah, thanks "Mr." Lambert.  He further states his goal was to promote "expression and artistic freedom."  Isn't that just like an artist?  Sounds pretty planned from that statement, but then comes ""Adrenaline is a crazy, crazy, crazy feeling. Some of the things I love most about performing is when you're up there and all of the sudden you just have these feelings, this rush that comes over you."  So which is it?  Planned "art" or heat of the moment (apologies to Asia)?

He does bring up an interesting point.  In his interview on CBS' Early Show, he noted the double-standard in the media.  Janet Jackson does similar things at the same event and she gets no press.  I guess there were no wardrobe malfunctions that day.

Had "Mr." Lambert shut his cake-hole at that point, I would have sighed in disappointment and gone about my day, but he just kept talking.

"I'm not a babysitter.  I'm a performer."

He flipped my switch. 

Not a babysitter?!?  Let me translate.  "I can do what I please.  No one has a moral ground from which they can say what I have done is "wrong."  I have no responsibility for what I do.  The fact that I have decreed what I do 'art' trumps an indictment that my be cast against me.  If your kids saw my performance and you happen to find it troublesome, that's your problem.  I am an aritist."

What a load of farm fertilizer!  Utter autonomy.  Answerable to none.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is not America.  At least it's not the America envisioned at its inception.

Such fatuous statements as "Mr." Lambert's have littered the media with regularity in the past decade.  "I'm not a role model.  I'm an athlete."  Ah, got it.  "I am not a role model.  I'm a president.  I did not have sex with that woman in the Oval Office.  I--um--was briefing--er--um--debriefing..."

Here's the rub.  You are a role model.  You are an example to everyone you meet every day.  If God gives you the opportunity to have an extraordinary stage upon which to play, then your responsibility to your fellow man increases manifold.  You have responsibilities to your coworkers and your bosses.  You have responsibility to the staff that supports you.  If you are a celebrity (athletic, "arts," politics), you have a responsibility to those who appreciate your work.  And what about the responsibility to the God who created you?

When you have national (international?) viewership, adrenaline does not excuse eye-gouging, a double-bird flip-off, or behavior that flies in the face of the mores of the lion's share of the viewership.  Adam Lambert disavows his responsibility to anyone but the muse of Art. 

And that is the problem.
-------------------------------------

(image Copyright from Robert Sebree, Billboard Magazine)

Knowing the will of God

Who wouldn't want to know the will of God, assuming you believe in him (he believes in you)?  Sad to say, though, this lament is common among Christians.  It need not be so.

The Bible speaks at length about knowing with clarity the will of God (Romans 12:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 1 Peter 2:15, to name a few).  To know God and who he is through his biblical revelation and in the revelation of his Son, Jesus Christ, is to come to know the will of God.

As we go into this most splendid week, let me share the will of God for you at least this week:

In everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

1 Thessalonians 5:18

Everything. 

Now you know his will.  You really want to do it?  I hope so.

Happy Thanksgiving from me and mine to you and yours!

Ecocatastrophe: Resolution

I'd like to say it's comical, but it's not.  Since starting this series (here-1, here-2, and here-3) which looks at the environment from a biblical perspective, the news outlets have coughed up insanity after insanity about the imminent demise of our planet due to human interference or misuse. 

A few weeks ago, wantonly driving golf balls into Loch Ness signalled our doom (here).  Yesterday, the solution to the global warming "problem" came in the guise of a condom (here).  You can't make this stuff up.  Other scientists can't figure out why it's so cold this year; it's like global warming has taken a time out (here).

With the scientific community evenly divided on what's happening to the earth (might I suggest, nothing), I prefer an objective look.  Forgive the analogy, but we're like rats in a maze trying furiously to figure out the maze from a very limited perspective.  The Professor stands outside ready and willing to give an answer if only the rats would listen.  So I defer to the Professor.

The analogy falls far, far short because God is not a professor merely hovering over a maze and watching the rats bash their little coconuts into the wall.  God created man in his image and as such, man has inherent, God-given value and worth.  God loves mankind.  He cares deeply for eachone.  On top of that, God gave man a task; he told man to fill the earth, subdue the earth, and have dominion of the earth--all the while, the earth would remain God's possession for which he would retain ultimate authority and responsibility.

Where does that leave us?  A couple of final thoughts:

1. The world around us should knock our socks off! The creation bears God's fingerprints all over it.  Wherever we turn, we see the wonder and majesty of God's creative powers.  We see the beauty of design from the microcosm of the cell to the celestial dance of the planets and stars.
2. The world without and the life within should open our eyes to the brokenness of man and of our world.  Death, destruction, devastation, disaster.  Everytime it happens, whether it's a fanatical demon blowing away his friends and coworkers or whether it's an earthquake burying thousands and leaving tens of thousands without a home, we come face to face with the rebellion of mankind before a righteous God and the curse underwhich the creation groans until the day of Christ's restoration.
3. We do our job in loving obedience.  Fill the earth.  Subdue the earth.  Have dominion over the creation.  What a delight!  Work is not meant to be a curse; it is our God-given task.  Before the Fall of man, God put Adam into Eden's garden to tend it and care for it.  We don't abuse it without thought for God emphasizes that "a righteous man considers the life of his animal" (Proverbs 12:10).  That doesn't mean he worships it.  That doesn't even mean that he spares it.  He is to be steward over the animal as he is to be steward over the earth (sorry PETA).
4. As we labor, we do not worry.  A farmer cannot bring the rain nor can he bring about the growth of his crop.  He can only do what he can do; God has promised to take care of the rest.  So we trust our lives to the God who cares for us and who loves us, and we trust him to keep the earth running through the seasons until the day of his return (Genesis 8:22).

The news declares today that global warming has pushed poorer women into prostitution and life-threatening jobs (here).  At the same time, international leaders are pushing hard for the ratification of Kyoto II in Copenhagen next month (here) while Steven Groves is warning about what such a climate treaty will impose upon our nation (here).  What's a guy to do?

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.  In all your ways, acknowledge him and he will make straight your paths.

Proverbs 3:5-6

Ecocatastrophes, part 3

Al Gore does have quite the resume.  How many politicians can boast the vice-presidency, the Nobel prize, an Oscar, and a Grammy.  While I remember nothing remarkable about his terms as our nation's Number-Two (which isn't a bad thing), the three awards heaped upon him came as a result of "An Inconvenient Truth," a film that arguably has served as the big shove the Green Movement needed to get governments to start enacting what they deemed environmentally friendly policies (a humorous sidebar on Al Gore's science here...good thing he's not Sarah Palin!).

So here we sit at the sunset of the twenty-first century's first decade with reptiles still striking us without warning on blue-sky days in our own home towns, and the planet's leaders gather to figure out what they will do about an issue that a pretty big chunk of folks thinks has no basis in science.*  Yesterday, I jotted about how there's the pretty big God who made the whole thing (here), and it seems pretty illogical that he would let a bunch of miscreants run it into the ground.  The Bible seems to say that, too.

Still, there's a unique and God-created and God-ordained relationship between man and earth.

Man is God's Appointed Steward of the Earth

The first unique aspect of man's relationship to the earth is that God created man from the earth (Genesis 2:7).  It is not surprising then that man should get what he needs for his physical survival from the material.

Second, while man was created from the ground, he is utterly set apart from the earth and all other created things because only man was created in God's image (Genesis 1:26).  Because of what God declared as he made man, man has a positional authority over the created realm.  Likewise, it is no surprise that for spiritual sustenance, man must depend on the One who breathed into him the breath of life and not upon the material world.

Third, God gives man marching orders (Genesis 1:28).

God blessed them; and God said to them,

1. "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth..."

2. "...and subdue it..."

3. "...and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Here we see God giving man not only his innate positional authority but also a functional authority over the created realm.  God required three things of man none of which will make the environmentalist smile.

First, God required man to fill the earth.  How many folks are on the earth?  6.6 billion.  What's that work out to?  You could fit everyone on the planet into the United States (3.5 million square miles) and give them a plot of land about the size of an average yard (150' x 150') and still have space left over.  Are there overcrowded areas of the earth?  Yep.  Is the earth filled?  Nope.  Is there plenty of water?  Yep.  Do we have the technology to make inhabitable those places that have previously been deemed uninhabitable?  Yep.

We think we know better than God.  "Well, it seems we'd better stop making babies because we might chew up all of our (fill in your favorite natural resource here)."  Fill the earth seems to be throwing down the procreative gauntlet.  We just don't trust him nor do we take him seriously.

Second, God requires that man subdue the earth.  Think taming a horse or a team of oxen.  You break its wild nature and bring it under your authority to get it to do your will.  Think plowed field.  Scattering corn in the middle of a glen with associated rocks and trees will produce a meager return.  Clear the trees, remove the rocks and plow the soil and the return will be much sweeter. 

Third, God requires man to have dominion over the earth.  Man is not to coexist within nature.  Man is not to defer to a creek full of salamanders when determining whether to erect an apartment building.  He is to rule over the creation for his good and for God's glory.

Man is God's appointed steward of the earth.  It would be foolhardy to level a forest and to not replant.  At the same time, can you imagine the eco-nonsense that would surface if Gutzon Borglum lived today and wanted to carve four presidents into the side of Mount Rushmore?  He'd never get it done.  Imagine the legal gymnastics required today if you wanted to turn a mountainside into a ski resort...even if you owned the whole thing!  It's nuts.

When man rejects the position God gave him and lowers himself to the level of the rest of the created order, he rebels against God's given directives, and he soils the image of God in which he was created.  It was that image within him that caused John Merrick to cry out, "I am not an animal!  I am a man!" (The Elephant Man, 1980...great movie, btw).  Man must minister within the created realm to the glory of God, to order and lead the created realm, and to thereby provide for his existence.

So let's stop acting like jackasses.

Tomorrow, we'll wrap this thing up.

Ecocatastrophes, part 2

Greenhouse emissions, formerly known as exhaust and before that as smoke, will rip a hole in the ozone layer and the earth will burn up.  Or freeze.  Or burn up and then freeze.  Don't you know that the cooler summer experienced across the northern hemisphere is a result of global warming?

You've got scientists on both sides of this issue as annoying as a James Carville-Ann Coulter debate.  For a little sobriety, I'd like to invite you to hear what the Bible says.  Accurate in its histories and archaeologies.  Spooky on-target with its fulfilled prophecies.  Might be worth a hearing.  Away we go.

The first big point is...

THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S

Let's pretend I owned a really nice car, say a vintage 1977 AMC Gremlin with Levi bucket seats.  Let's say that one of my sons just turned sixteen.  Am I going to just pitch him the keys?  Bah!  I'm going to make sure he's got driver's ed under his belt.  I'm going to tell him about the idiosyncrasies in the automatic transmission and the fact that a key's already been broken off in the groovy hatchback.  And I'm going to tell him where he can and cannot go and what he can and cannot do with it.  If my son ends up wrecking the car, its not his insurance that covers the car, it's mine.

In a similar vein, the Bible makes plain, "The earth is the Lord's and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein" (Psalm 24:1).  This is not an isolated idea within God's word to us.  God cites his ownership of the world in choosing Israel as a special nation to himself (Exodus 19:3-6).  As he encourages Israel to follow his commands, he cites the earth and its blessings are his to give (Deuteronomy 10:12-15).  In the Psalms, he emphasizes that all the beasts of the field are his so don't try to impress him through sacrifices (50:10).

So if the earth is God's and not just his possession but his creation, isn't he going to take care of it with a bit more fervency and ability than I would with my Gremlin?

Consider, it's his to do with as he pleases.  He destroyed the whole thing once before and made provision to get it started up again (Genesis 6-9).  He has said that he will destroy it all again (2 Peter 3:10-13) only to recreate it sparkling new once again.  He withholds the rain and he calms the storms.  And he suggests that there will come a day when the earth will suffer cataclysms that will make the disaster films of this decade seem like kiddie stories (Revelation 6 thru 16).

Consider, too, that God made a promised to his creation, a promise I mentioned in an earlier post.  That promise is that he would not destroy the earth again by flood, and that

"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease"  (Genesis 8:22)

He seems pretty clear that the seasons will continue.  It's not going to become like "The Day After Tomorrow" where the northern hemisphere becomes an enormous ice rink.

Consider, finally, that as he infused man's anatomy with a truly miraculous ability to heal itself, so he knit that characteristic into the fabric of the earth.  Consider the devastation of wild fires.  Permanent?  Not so much.  Think of the megatons of pollution belched into the atmosphere from a single volcanic eruption.  If the planet did not have the capability to scour its own skies, we would perennially look like Denver during one of its winter inversion days.  BLECCH!  Oil spills.  Damage?  Extreme.  Forever?  Certainly not.  It takes time, but the earth does tend to itself.

With that in mind and scouring the pages of the Bible, nowhere do we get any inkling that man will directly bring about the earth's demise.  It won't be hairspray.  It won't be two Suburbans in the driveway (I do have a motorcycle in the garage...do I get any green stamps?).  It won't be harvesting the rain forest.  No, man will not directly cause it, but he will indirectly bring about some amazing geological, astronomical, and meteorological events.  It will be his rebellion against God that brings that to pass and not his utilization of natural resources.

So if this is God's planet, what ought our response to that be?  Two come to mind

First, I don't have to worry.  Jesus Christ clarified that point in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:19-34).  If God takes care of the birds of the field, will he not take care of your needs, too?

Second, in not worrying, I trust God.  He is the provider.  Really, he should be man's focus anyway.  The creature should be seeking with the glee of a puppy what the Master would have me do. 

But did the Owner of this big, blue Gremlin give us any marching orders? That will take us to the third installment of Ecocatastrophes tomorrow.

Ecocatastrophes, part 1

Dmitri Medvedev stepped briefly out of Vlad Putin's shadow to make a statement about international environmental protocols that must be implemented or -- GASP! -- "this will have catastrophic consequences."  You couldn't even see his puppetmaster's strings as Medvedev did his eco-dance at the Asia Pacific summit in Singapore, but then we all know Vlad's not going to let his marionette stray far from script.

It's gotten so that you can set your watch by the surfacing of the weekly eco-catastrophe or gymnastics event needed to avert said catastrophe.  The fact that you have 19 nations gathered in one spot, this week has borne bushels lumpy fruit.  The Netherlands wants to impose a per-kilometer tax upon its people to limit driving thereby hoping to limit greenhouse emissions (here).  Great Britain is tinkering with a carbon allowance where if you consume too much carbon, you'll have to pay to get more carbon tokens put on your card (here).  And the biggest threat to the existence of life on our planet, at least in my mind, comes in the form of a dimpled, white orb.  Seems that golf balls, yes, golf balls will bring about man's demise (here).

So it's not terribly shocking to hear a world leader pontificate about how my errant drives could catapult us into oblivion.  "If we don't take joint action, the consequences for the planet may be very distressing to the point that the Arctic and Antarctic ice can melt and change ocean levels," said Dmitri (here).

It's not just Drudge, CNN, and Fox where we get persistently pummeled by this barrage.  Watch movie.  Last night, "The Day After Tomorrow" played for the 10 zillionth time.  Neat special effects.  Some cool storylines.  And enough hot air to resail the Hindenburg.  From kiddie movies (WALL*E...great movie) to not-so-kiddie movies (The Happening...bomb), we're confronted with "look what I did to me" (apologies to my friends whose skin crawls when they hear that phrase).  Even Star Trek IV tossed an enviro-harpoon when the fate of the world hung upon the fact that we'd killed off all the humpback whales.

While many voices toll the doom of our planet, many others chuckle at the antics of global-warming fanatics or they weep over how the prophets of doom and demise have been able to alter our way of living (here).  They can't both be right.  Either we total terra firma with Top Flite and Titleist, or things will go on like they always have (you think the 17th at TPC Sawgrass will fill up?  I'm sure there are pros that hope it will).

Might I suggest an alternative.  It's not really new.  It's been around since the printed word and even before that through the spoken word.  It comes from a voice as welcome in the public sphere as Sarah Palin would be as the keynote speaker for a NARAL convention.  God could turn the tide of an argument as early as the last century.  No, he wouldn't show up, but the testimony of the Bible, His testimony to His creation, would be cited for authority.  Knowing the history, I still don't know why we don't heed him anymore, other than we just don't want to hear what he has to say.

That said, I plan to take the next couple of posts to show a) why we don't need to fear Al Gore and Dmitri Medvedev and their Ouija boards of worldwide environmental disaster and b) why we ought not shrug our shoulders in complacency with regard to our place in this world.  I hope you'll hang with me.

Fourteen counts?

A day or so ago, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison asked that Major Malik Nadal Hasan, the Ft Hood assassin, be charged with fourteen counts of murder instead of thirteen.  Pvt Francheska Valez died during the maelstrom.  So did the child she was carrying en utero.  Senator Hutchison cites Lacy's Law and Conner's Law as well as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 to support her position.

Common sense would suggest she has a point.  Vengeance should ache to heap as much fury upon the head of Major Hasan as it could by adding any injury he did to anybody to the case against him.  I fear politics will ignore any indictment for the baby's death.  We'll see.

If the military does not execute this scum, it has no business keeping execution on its books as a possible consequence for crime.

I pledge allegiance

Much has been said, and we will say much more, about Major Malik Nadal Hasan's allegiance to Islam and how it conflicted with his allegiance to his uniform and to his nation (that's us).  It has opened a discussion that about which I have heard little.  What do we do when our relationship with God runs counter to what our government asks of us?

Houston, we have a problem.

More and more we find this clash amongst those who hold a strict Koranic view of Islam within non-Islamic societies.  Hence, Brits have kowtowed to Muslim immigrants and permitted Sharia within certain burroughs.  Hence, Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis needn't pick up passengers with seeing-eye dogs.  Hence, Muslim cashiers needn't check out patrons purchasing pork or Pabst Blue Ribbon.  Now we have soldiers who want to join the military but who want to take a sabbatical when they're fighting Muslims.

This God and country dilemma not only conflicts the hard-core Muslim, but it troubles (or should trouble) the Christian, too.

During the days of the Revolution, many Christian patriots loved England, but hated what the king was doing.  During the Civil War, many families were split north and south, with the north unable to abide slavery and the south unable to abide the erosion of state sovereignty.  During the World Wars, immigrants of most every Christian creed turned around to battle against their former homeland for the cause of freedom.

In the past, for those Christians who held to God as their highest allegiance, because of the Judeo-Christian bedrock upon which our nation was founded, they faced no conflict between God and country.  Serving one's country did not mean that one had to compromise in their service to God because the nation and its military stemmed from that firm foundation.  For those that examined the word of God, they did not find his principles nor his precepts violated as they took up arms against those America opposed even if they were Christians.  National conflict is a very different thing than personal conflict within the pages of the Bible.

But erosion has taken its toll.  Post-modern America has rejected its biblical underpinnings opting for a more secular function of government, culture, and international interactions.  As such, many Christians and many who serve in the military have begun to find themselves at odds with national policies.  Many find it repellent that we would allow our women to face the heat of combat.  Many grieve that the military is fast approaching the normalization of that which but a few decades ago was seen as deviance and contrary to good order and discipline.  Many wonder why we would kiss the ring of misogynist kings but would shun the only nation in the Middle East with a remotely free government.  Many cannot abide the legal killing of a child not yet born.

So like Major Hasan, many Christians find themselves at odds with God or country.

But there's a diametrical difference.  Christians do not turn their arms treacherously against their own.  They may have had to refuse their assigned duties.  They may have had to claim conscientious objector status.  Many face punitive action for not carrying out commands and orders, but to turn their weapons against their own is a repugnant and unbiblical idea.

As often as Islam is lauded as a religion of peace, there is much within a plain contextual reading of the Koran that would lead one not only to a position of conflict with one's nation but also to take up arms against that nation (slides 33, 34, 43, and 44 in Maj Hasan's PowerPoint presentation here exemplify this militant response).  You'll not find such militancy commanded of the Christian believer within a contextual reading of the Bible.

As our nation races faster and faster toward banishing any vestige of God from the public sector, the Christian will find himself more and more in conflict with the nation they have loved.  When those times come, the Christian would do well to follow the examples of Daniel's friends (Daniel 3, esp. vv. 16-18) and Peter and John (Acts 4:1-20, 5:29) by obeying God and submitting themselves to whatever consequence comes at the hand of the appointed governor (Romans 13:1-7). 

It has been in the persecution of the saints and the blood of the martyrs that the Church has flourished and God has been honored, not in the butchering of innocents or in the murder of comrades in arms.