Sidesspot

STATICE

2006-08-24T20:41:00.000-07:00

I have no pretensions about my poetic skills. Nevertheless, I have been dabbling a bit lately, and thought I'd post one that at least I like:

STATICE

Arranging papery purple flowers in the vase,
The last dried remnant of a bouquet
presented to the young dancer at recital.
Her mother’s late night love labor
Will not be lost on the girl, nor on her God.

Iraqi Priest Kidnapped

2006-08-23T22:17:00.000-07:00

I must be obtuse these days (as compared to my mere ignorance before). I missed the mainstream press's coverage of the kidnapping of a Chaldean priest in Baghdad. Where have I been?

Announcing the new Stones Cry Out

2005-01-31T21:51:00.000-08:00

Those of you who follow this site, or Rick Brady's existing Stones Cry Out, know that there's been some subtle and not so subtle hints about changes afoot. I am now pleased to announce the new Stones Cry Out (note new url).

What I am more pleased to announce, though, is that starting today, I will be posting at the new Stones Cry Out. Stones Cry Out is a collaborative blog among five posters: Rick Brady, James Jewell of The Rooftop Blog, Matt of Matt Crash, Drew of Darn Floor, and me. I am joining Stones Cry Out for at least two reasons. First, to keep up a blog, it is a good idea to post daily, or more frequently. I just do not have the time to post daily. As I will be joining five other posters, there will almost always be fresh content at the site for readers. Second, there are now over 6 million blogs (most of which are no more than online diaries, but there are still a vast number providing social/political/religious commentary). That's too many for readers to follow. Joining these other four blogs will help cut down on the number of sites. It won't fix the problem, but it's a start.

The new Stones Cry Out site is live and Hugh Hewitt has already announced it. Here is the vision statement for the new site.

I have been very pleased with the success of Sidesspot and I thank each of my readers for your support. The daily traffic here has surpassed any expectations I may have had. Please check Stones Cry Out, I would very much appreciate any feedback you have. Your feedback is very important to me.

I will still post at Sidesspot, including content that won't be on Stones Cry Out. However, in the short term, particularly given my work schedule, most posting will be at Stones Cry Out.

Update 4/11/05: As you probably have noticed, I have not had any time to post here at Sidesspot for the last several months. Since I am stretched so thin, I don't anticipate posting here anymore. Again, I appreciate very much those of you who read Sidesspot. I believe that Stones Cry Out is going well and hope that you agree.

God Bless,
Mark

Digitus, Finger & Co.-CHRISTIAN CARNIVAL #54

2005-01-27T05:55:00.000-08:00

The 54th Christian Carnival is up at Digitus, Finger & Co. Lots of nice posts for your reading enjoyment.

Why We're Here

2005-01-26T23:07:00.000-08:00

This post is aimed at Christians. Non-believers may read it of course (that's big of me, I know), but you're not the target. If you'd prefer, go check out today's day by day.

Now, one thing that I think we Christians need to get straight: We were made by God to serve Him--to worship Him and love Him with all our hearts. To hear some Christians talk, I wonder if we're not clear on this. Some act as if God's there to serve us and make sure we're happy. Got a problem? Call big daddy and he'll get it squared away for you. Lonely, unhappy, insecure? God's here to make sure you feel okie-dokie. Now, don't get me wrong, God is a loving father, and does actually help us out in times of trouble. But, that's not His purpose.

I was driving by a local church tonight, which had this sign: "Troubled? Talk to God, he's up all night anyway." Now, I know that this was a well-intentioned sign and is really speaking to each person's need to have a relationship with God. But, it does have a bit of a "God's there to make me happy" flavor to it. Happiness, or more accurately joy, is our response to God--not the duty he owes us. We owe Him worship, love and fealty. God owes us nothing. He gives us lots, but he owes us nothing. He's the alpha and omega. We're the created things.

Thanks for letting me rant. Now back to the usual touchy feely kum ba yah drivel.

Update #1: Joe Missionary reminds us that Jesus isn't your boyfriend either:

My position is that romantic love toward any member of the Godhead is inappropriate. Perhaps the author of this song would say that s/he did not intend these words to imply romantic love towards God or Jesus, merely the depth of the personal relationship with him. However, "I've fallen deeply in love with You" means only one thing to me.

One would wish that Joe would not have to post on such a subject. Sadly, I have noticed this phenomenon myself and think Joe's right on the mark.

E Pluribus?

2005-01-25T20:24:00.000-08:00

With apologies to Joshua Claybourn at In the Agora, I'm going to engage in a bit of meta-blogging. As I think about the blog world, particularly the social/political commentary sphere in which this blog fits, I begin to wonder at the number of blogs that are out there. Technorati tells us that there are some 6.4 million blogs right now. The vast majority of those are personal blogs, almost online diaries. Still, the number of blogs aimed at others is staggering. The fact is, it's difficult for me to even keep up with the small number of blogs in my blogroll to the left and I am an avid consumer of information and commentary. I can't imagine it's much easier for those who are readers only and don't try to keep up their own blog. Having said that, there is a terrific amount of interesting information, both factual and commentary, out there. The reason that each blog is in my blogroll is that I have found something there that edified me and that I think could edify others. The blog world has been a terrific medium for civil discourse--a medium that is now irreplaceable, I think.

Still, the huge number, the unreadable number, of blogs remains. Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has been doing a bit of meta-blogging recently and is also wondering about responses to this issue, although from a slightly different take. One response is the Decablog that Adrian Warnock has organized. This is essentially an aggregator of 10 very high quality Evangelical blogs. It is a worthy, and timely, project. Another response is what the posters at In the Agora have done--throw in together. Given that aggregating all of the disparate sites would not fix what I see as the main problem--too many blogs--I think that option is really open to those blogs with the highest traffic and best existing brand name.

Combining sites, then, seems to be one good way to keep the quality content out there, but cut down a bit on the multiplicity of sites. It seems like a natural next step for the world of social/political commentary blogs.

So, where do we go from here?

Allthings2all: Not Many Noble

2005-01-25T20:12:00.000-08:00

Catez, from Allthings2all, has written a very nice post discussing CS Lewis' Narnia Chronicles. In the process, she ties in my friend's post from yesterday on wealth. Catez's post is not simply a regurgitation of thoughts from my friend's post and needs to be read in its own right.

After The March for Life: What To Do Next?

2005-01-25T04:59:00.000-08:00

Lisa Jones, in an article in Orthodoxy Today, writes on practical actions that we can take now that Sanctity of Human Life Week has ended. She begins the article with a history of the Orthodox Church's perspective on abortion, which can be pretty much read as a history of the Christian Church's position on abortion.

Among her suggestions:

Reach Out To Women In Crisis Pregnancies

Look in the phonebook at organizations listed under Alternatives to Abortion, call one of them and ask to visit. Ask the staff how you or others can help. Write a check or collect baby clothes and donate them to the center.

I have posted similar thoughts on this topic before. Regardless of our political perspective, or even if we are pro-life or pro-choice, we can do much to end abortion and minister to women, and children, today. If only we would take the time.

Going through the eye of the needle--Guest Post

2005-01-24T21:50:00.000-08:00

[The following was written by a friend in response to my exchanges with Ray from Sacking Rome. The author wishes to remain anonymous, which I support. You can take my word that he is what he says he is.]

Speaking from the standpoint of one who has wealth and did not earn it on my own, I must say that wealth has its advantages.

Working three summers at a Bible Camp for free. Donating money so campers could each have their own Bible to take home if they wished. Paying for my own degrees so someone more needful could have a scholarship, supporting missionaries at home and abroad.

Yes, with wealth and training in finance (or often common sense), one can take his talents and invest them, multiplying them for the Master. One can deploy capital for good or ill, and the more resources a Christian controls on behalf of his Lord, the more of the world's resources can be applied to the Lord's work.

And yes, I have primarily self funded a for-profit business with my inherited assets...and should it succeed, the co-founders wish to return to the Lord the first fruits of success. I believe that God wants us to be in all areas of life as we are an ambassador to this world. Sometimes, this places one in a position that will allow the accrual of capital.

Hypothetically: if our software should sell to someone in the drug trafficking trade, (say the software sold for $1000 with $840 profit), and 20% of the profit is returned to shareholders in a dividend of $168, of which the co-founders have a right to 60% ($100.80), and one of them donates 2% of their income each year to a Christian based drug rehab center ($1.008), then money was just taken from the enemy, and given to a place designed to counter the enemy.

If the wealthiest in the world were Christian, imagine what could be done. If my hypothetical moved 5 million units...that's over $5 million to combat drug use. Think of how much of the world's wealth could be taken from those trying to accomplish evil and then redistributed to those that are working on the front line for God if more corporations and leading income earners were committed to Christ! In macro economics, it is one huge flow of cash going on around the world, and the more Godly participants there are choosing to buy from socially responsible companies when possible, and donating their blessings to those that put it to the Lord's work. If more Christians take themselves out of that cycle of either spending that cash in direct ministry (a missionary) or creating wealth for themselves that can be given to that mission, then one can see how the church grows less wealthy and a mission can die. Wealth in the church (not the Roman inspired organized "church", but among the people of God) is not a bad thing.

I am convinced that God wants us to use wealth for His purpose, and that it is fully logical for Christians to have wealth, and know that they "possess" the wealth to do the Master's bidding. It is logical that the Master will give wealth to those who are able to bear the responsibility. To whom much is given, much is expected.

If God didn't want to use money, we would not be expected to tithe. He wants us to have money, and he wants us to grow money (parable of the talents) and he wants us to bless his Kingdom in the disposition of assets. After all, even $1000 in one's bank account at death is a $1000 more than one needed to live. Hopefully most of one's excess wealth was given to family members and charities that will see to it that your surplus in death can be used to advance the Kingdom of God. He who dies with the most toys still DIES! Understand that (coupled with the Life given through the Savior) and one can grow wealthy and do so with a clean heart. A sound moral compass, led by the Spirit, will guide purchasing decisions, investment decisions, gifting and estate planning decisions for the glory of God.

Money is a means to an end. Not a prize to acquire. You can't spend it in the life to come, and having money in your hands in death does not buy a seat any closer to God than an orphan that died in a sweat shop.

If you have the brains and heart to acquire and grow wealth, I challenge you to have the heart to dispose of it (in spending, giving, and in estate planning) in the same tenacious (and hopefully judicious) manner that was used to acquire it. Hopefully to help more orphans (following my analogy) to hear the Gospel and have a seat with God in His Kingdom. Forget position and rank.

Your rewards in heaven are promised...And that grace is sufficient. Your treasure in heaven is not based on how much you acquired or gave, or how close your tomb is to a Cathedral's altar; it is not based on the sacrifice or acquisition of wealth. It is based on whether you heard God's call, and served your fellow man in the manner in which you were called. Hearing that call and acknowledging the call in the face of opposition and adversity is what courage is all about. You could be called to give away all your wealth. You could be called to acquire wealth and then endow a charity like World Vision or the Salvation Army (brought to new life and a higher calling by the increase in value of McDonald's shares and the follow on donation of the founder's widow).

Whatever your call, make sure that you execute with all your heart. "Well done" is all the reward you should expect from your Master, and thankfulness for His mercy and eternal life is what you should give Him. Any more than that is the Blessing that flows from a good Father and King. Be thankful, and be gracious with what is given when it is not deserved.

I wanna be your hands

2005-01-24T04:09:00.000-08:00

Catez, who writes Allthings2all, and her friends show us what it means to preach the Gospel at all times--use words if necessary. There are people out there doing amazing things in this country in the name of Jesus. We need to pay more attention to these efforts and help these folks help others.

Update: Not that I'm American centric or anything, but Rick Brady of Stones Cry Out has informed me that Catez is from New Zealand. So, those last two sentences should be read as encompassing more than just the United States (and should have read that way to begin with). (Thanks Rick)

Pawlenty seeks funds to discourage abortions

2005-01-23T21:07:00.000-08:00

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has proposed that up to $5 million of Minnesota's upcoming two-year budget be used

to fund nonprofit organizations that counsel pregnant women on prenatal care, discourage abortion and encourage adoption for those uncertain about raising a child.

A truly just society respects life," the Republican governor told more than 2,000 people gathered outside the State Capitol on a blustery Saturday. "But life doesn't end when the baby leaves the womb.

The project was proposed by Minnesota Citizens Concerned For Life (MCCL). Interestingly, the project has not been criticized by Planned Parenthood:

Planned Parenthood and other organizations that contend that abortion is a personal matter between a woman, her doctor and family earlier acknowledged that the legislation is a softening of MCCL's previous approaches.

Abortion-rights groups have long maintained that opponents have focused only on stopping abortions and haven't worked hard enough to support low-income and other pregnant women and to prevent erosion of government programs that support health care, preschool education and other initiatives.

As a board member of a Minnesota crisis pregnancy center, I am cautiously optimistic about this proposal. Optimistic, because, as I have posted before, I believe that we can do much right now to curtail abortions by supporting crisis pregnancy centers and women in crisis pregnancies. Cautious, because I am leery of government funding. The power to fund is the power, potentially, to control. As I look at the State of California and the position it takes with respect to Catholic Charities, I worry that this will simply be a means by which Minnesota attempts to control crisis pregnancy centers--if not today, then perhaps when another state administration takes office. Taking the King's shilling can mean doing the King's bidding. Having said that, if done correctly, this proposal will be a step in the right direction for women in crisis pregnancies--and their babies.

Agent Provacateur

2005-01-23T19:28:00.000-08:00

I sometimes wonder whether Michael Newdow is really a double agent working for some evangelical organization. Newdow, you may recall, is the gentleman whose efforts to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of allegiance made it to the Supreme Court last year. The case was thrown out by the Court without a hearing on the merits due to a technicality. (The Court held that Newdow did not have standing to bring suit on behalf of his daughter because he is not the custodial parent. Newdow was victorious, however, in getting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to declare "under God" unconstitutional.) The ever-resourceful Newdow has managed to join a new suit with plaintiffs whose standing is not in question.

Not content to pester the good people of the State of California, Newdow recently brought suit to prevent prayers during President Bush's recent inauguration. Not surprisingly, no federal court, including the Supreme Court, felt inclined to take Newdow up on his invitation to embroil them in a fight with the other two branches. Indeed, there was no chance that the inauguration suit was going to succeed. Federal courts are acutely aware that they rely on moral persuasion and the cooperation of the other branches to enact their pronouncements. Picking a fight with the Executive Branch, which most likely would have spilled into the Legislative Branch, over inaugural prayer is not a hill that federal judges care to die for.

Thus far, Newdow is 0-2 in his efforts to remove religion from the public square. What if, instead, Newdow had succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to accept both his suits? What if the Supreme Court had struck down both "under God" and prayers during the inauguration within the space of six months? The result, I contend, would have been general outrage and then a groundswell of support for some type of constitutional amendment--an amendment at the very least to keep "under God" in the Pledge. In addition, striking down the inaugural prayer would certainly have galvanized Congress into some type of action. I suspect that even those who are not particularly fervent in their support of religious issues would have gotten behind such efforts from the sheer audacity of such actions. In addition, the subject of religion would have been on everybody's lips on an almost daily basis.

Is this what Newdow really wants? I doubt it. However, based on what I suspect would be the results if he got his way, I am almost tempted to wish the man luck.

Christian Carnival--It's Finally Up-- No Really!

2005-01-19T20:57:00.000-08:00

It is an honor to host this week's Christian Carnival. It is very, very late. To the submitters and readers, I offer my apologies. The flu struck me down this week and I am still recovering.

That out of the way, there are a wide variety of very interesting posts this week.

Sam at Uncle Sam's Cabin writes on The Book of Acts: Or how to start a riot in which she reflects on her study in progress on the book of Acts. [My most humble apologies to Sam for missing this post.]

As many of you know, Saturday marks the 22nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. The New Trommetter Times takes a look at More Pro-Abortion Lawsuits and decides that: It's great that we have a Pro-Life President who is willing to place limits on taxpayer-funding for abortions. But the pro-abortion side will always challenge any limits to a woman's so-called right to abortion. Nobody has a right to any government funded health care, much less abortions.

Adding more Notes in the Key of Life, Cindy tells us that, for her, January 22nd is particularly A Day to Mourn, as "the anniversary of Roe v. Wade happens to be the anniversary of the death of a baby niece."

A Penitent Blogger provides Encouragement from the letter to the Hebrews for those laboring on behalf of life and other causes in the name of Christ.

Exultate Justi, in Not only is the glass not half full..., provides us with a response to a piece on the Rocky Mountain Progressive Network's blog that turned into a more general discussion of abortion and adoption - from a strongly pro-life perspective.

In For in God's Image, Rebecca Writes provides a look at why human life has such significance to God, and what understanding that significance requires of us.

The Great Separation, in Arise Prophets of God, writes that despite the attack on the womb, "I am certain that there are people that God has and is raising up to proclaim His word to this world. I believe that we are beginning to see glimmers of God's plan in motion as a generation comes to adulthood in this electronic age of information's reign."

My Domestic Church, in Sister Consuelo-Tsunami- abortion and recovery, shares thoughts about different types of loss, grief and how we deal with them.

IntolerantElle pens a sobering post in Confessions of a Molech Priestess: Her response to an abortion doctor who believes she has "good reasons" to kill children. [Note: This post by Intolerantelle is not suitable for children and the links are not for the faint of heart.]

Tim at bLogicus, who worries whether a mere hour makes an entry late (please), shares his Perspectives on the Humanity of the Pre-Born: "According to the Bible, the pre-born's distinction from an adult is one of maturation, which is not a characteristic that adds value to the human kind. Therefore, those who are yet to be born are as valuable as those who are born and abortion or the destruction of an embryo is as much a crime as the murder of an adult."

blogma - dogma for the idle mind reminds us that abortion is traumatic for the survivor as well.

Dory of Wittenberg Gate is Remembering Tabitha Faith by sharing her thoughts while accompanying a friend as she chose a grave marker for a stillborn child.

Jim, who gives us a Nutt's view, sheds some light on submission in the light of Paul's discussion of that subject in Ephesians5:21-24.

King of Fools reflects on the tsunami from a Christian's perspective.

Leo of Notes provides some inspiring excerpts from the last chapter of Romano Guardini's "remarkable" book on The End of the Modern World.

Rick at Brutally Honest shares his thoughts on whether he's still an evangelical and provides his perspective on grace.

The task force for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Studies on Sexuality has produced its long-awaited report, which is almost as long as its name. At Weapons of Mass Distraction, Derek has reviewed the report and its recommendations, and determined that they boil down to this: "Do whatever you want."

Pastor Mark Daniels, of Better Living, who is a Lutheran pastor, shares his extended thoughts on the report, stating: "No one of us is sinless. But the Church should not be asked to change God's clear teachings in order to accommodate the preferences of anyone. I stew about what churches and pastors who, under the tacit approval of the task force's recommendations, defy the teachings of the Bible and the Church, and thereby possibly tar the good name and reputations of the rest of the ELCA."

Ales Rarus has his take on the report. He thinks that what we have is The Blind Leading the Blind: "The ELCA press release regarding homosexual behavior demonstrates that the Lutheran hierarchy cares more about group unity than orthodoxy. I've linked to a few reactions around the blogosphere and await comments from my readers."

Rodney from The Journey asks if we have turned Jesus into a champion of the moral cause rather than someone who wants to gently lift people out of their current situation and lead them onto something better?

At Viewpoint, Dick describes the quiet revolution that has been taking place in philosophy departments in universities across the country over the last quarter of a century. A large minority of philosophers today are Christian theists and some disciplines, such as the philosophy of religion, are almost exclusively staffed by Christian theists. One prominent atheist philosopher talks both about the situation and what, from his perspective, should be done.

Don at Back of the Envelope provides some guidance on Old Testament Law: the distinctions between the Moral, Civil, and Holiness Codes, and how you can tell the difference--and why the differences matter.

At Joe Missionary, Joe takes on the sensitive (especially to guys) topic of circumcision [collective male wince]. What is the biblical basis for it today...if there is one?

In the nicely titled Living Psalm 23, Julie, the Happy Catholic, provides her testimony of how God has changed her life.

With the perspective granted by his View from the Pew, Warren discusses two important issues -- the inaugural prayer (and our friend Mr. Newdow whose life goal is to prove Andy Warhol correct), and the alleged creationist stickers on textbooks in Atlanta.

As an aside, I suspect that Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell's inaugural benediction today will stir up a bit of a buzz in the next few days. Now that was a prayer. (And I can't seem to find it on the internet at the moment, although I've heard a number of audio clips on radio.)

The Bible Archive, writing about Persecution, Perserverence and Assurance, and asks: Why bother to be godly if, in the end, you'll be promised more persecution?

In Sanctification - The Mediated Life, Brad, of 21st Century Reformation continues his series on sanctification. Having described the life of prayer, Brad is now describing the experience of living in God's presence. Brad describes the path to the Morally Beautiful Life as living out of a conscious orientation of the heart toward Christ in the midst of our daily life. He calls this orientation, "The Mediated Life".

...in the outer... explores more than just interesting blog names by exploring Showing Mercy to the Poor: not just the materially poverty stricken, but those who are poor in other ways as well. The poor, according to my pastor, is someone who has no means to give back to you. I applied this definition to include more than those who are merely incapacitated by their lack of material resources to give back and asked what it means to be really free to give and not expect anything back.

At 3:17, in This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased, Mark explores why Jesus lived here for 33 years before going to the cross. And what does it mean practically for us?

Our always intrepid reporter Mark sends another one of his Notes From the Front Lines and says "I Think I'm Gonna Be Sick . . ." After that disclosure, he gives a hearty thumbs-down on some of the latest trends in Christian publishing/marketing, particularly a new Bible "dressed up" as one of those "women's magazines." (Having just survived the worst case of the flu that any human on earth has ever had to suffer, I can empathize, Mark.)

Pastors and Adult Sunday School leaders will want to pay close attention to Diane at Crossroads. She tells gives tips on how you can have The Exciting Adult Sunday School Class, noting that although the adult Sunday School class may be the most boring hour on Sunday mornings, it's actually possible to make it the most exciting hour by changing our approach.

Phil of Another Man's Meat has been dreaming again, noting somewhat syllogistically that Dreams Are For Dreamers in Phil's homage to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his dream.

In God and the Tsunami Redux Drew at Darn Floor responds to William Safire's column in the New York Times, taking a look at the Tsunami in light of the Old Testament book of Job. Drew also manages to prove that some Packers fans at least are capable of writing, which had been in question.

Bonnie of Off the top (who wins today's award for the best interchangeable url blog name) is a bit of a CS Lewis fan. In C. S. Lewis and "The Way": abandoning the concept of value she continues a review of The Abolition of Man, delving into Chapter 2, "The Way," in which Lewis explains the inescapability of the Tao.

In Allthings2all, Catez asks: Is Western Civilization Worth 2 Cents?. The post comments on recent discussion in the blogosphere and asks "Is Western civilization worth 2 cents?" The answer is simple and surprising.

Mark at Pseudo-Polymath Looking at the 1st Century as he begins blogging his way through N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God. (Note to Mark and Joe, this post constitutes 50+ visits as far as I'm concerned. I'm done until March.)

Our very own personal trainer discusses the blogging pastor and asks: Are churches going to require their pastors to blog? Some current blogging pastors think so. What are the real benefits and detriments of blogging for pastors? Here is a short summary. [If blogging pastors pass the hat online are they blegging or are they simply asking for a bloffering?]

We are given A Physicist's Perspective by David, who writes about some of the smaller issues, like Evolution and Scripture: Part I, A Summary of Some Biblical Teaching. David is launching a series dealing with the issue of origins: What does the Bible say about how we got here? How do we reconcile that with science and the theory of evolution? The post deals primarily with the fact that a particular form of theistic evolution is inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture. David notes that later posts will deal more with possible ways to understand Scripture and science at the same time (without rejecting either); links to the rest of the series are provided from this post.

Ralph the Sacred River is Translating Ebenezer and provides some random thoughts that begin with a hymn and end in ancient translations.

Marla, C.S. Lewis of the internet, Swoffer, of Proverbial Wife, offers the surprising subject of C.S. Lewis on the Emergent Church: "While reading his book on prayer, I discovered unexpected insights about churches past and future..."

Next we have an announcement of a new apologetics site, Weapons of Warfare and an
explanation of principles and the need for apologetics. Welcome!

What qualities do the Scriptures say we should look for in our leaders? Dory of Wittenberg Gate (which needs to win a site graphic award somewhere), shares her thoughts on the Biblical Qualifications for Leadership. (Dory is also kind to sick people who miss their posting deadline!)

[I recognize this is the second post from Wittenberg Gate. Dory is not pulling a fast one. Her second email clearly asked me to pull the above post in lieu of the abortion post. I neglected to do so. The mistake is mine, not Dory's. Since it's already published, I'm going to leave both.]

As we know, Jeremy of Parableman does not speak in parables. Justice Scalia is not known for his either. Writing on Scalia's Rhetorical Skill, Jeremy focuses in on an argument from Justice Scalia for a particular view on jurisprudence. Christian apologists would do well to learn the rhetorical move he makes. He speaks the language of those he's trying to convince by pointing out an example of something they wouldn't want to allow. His own examples would have been very different.

Coyote is Sounding the Trumpet and finds Traditional sexual attitudes scarce among campus
conservatives: "I explore why traditional sexual attitudes are so scarce among campus conservatives in general, giving examples from Cornell."

In his perch atop The Rooftop Blog, James Jewell posts on the Inauguration and the Nature of Man, discussing that "the inauguration is a very real function of transferring power and it is a symbol of two of the pillars of American stabilityrepresentative democracy and the rule of (constitutional) law. These pillars have remained because the founders and our ancestors understood the nature of man. They built into the Constitution protections against the inclination of human beings to grasp at power and to work for personal rather than common good."

Semicolon gives us a quick review of Seabiscuit by Laura Hillenbrand and a list of some of her other favorite nonfiction books.

At Randomness, Dawn Moon posts about faith and love,and other things she experienced on a recent trip.

TRUTH BE TOLD provides a little pop quiz and subsequent rant on the misguided attempts to thwart racial profiling based on misleading and obviously skewed research and emotional rhetoric. I touch on how racial profiling can assist with preventing terrorism in this city and country as well as in fighting crime. I also discuss the attitudes of most blacks regarding this subject.

Stacy at MediaSoul cries--Bloggers Needed!: "The purpose of this entry is to let everyone know that bloggers are being used now to promote movies online. The film industry is trying out bloggers because they don't want to be left behind. So this is an opportunity to get YOU involved in promoting the upcoming DVD film release of In the Face of Evil a film about President Reagan."

At Times Against Humanity, the question is asked Is the Curtain Closing on Roemer's Sideshow?: "Any widening of the Democrat Party's tent in terms of pro-life Democrats and their views is apt to be a carnival sideshow: big on promise and short on delivery. The candidacy of former Indiana Representative Tim Roemer for chairman of the Democratic National Committee is just another act."

Last here but first in our hearts: In Lost Sheep, our fearless leader Nick of Patriot Paradox, who is under the misimpression that sending me a post two days past deadline makes it late (you'll have to try harder than that Nick), posts some personal thoughts on his spiritual life of late, which has been a bit of a desert experience.

We all go through the desert Nick, even titans of the faith such as Mother Teresa. It's not always mountaintop but the desert makes you appreciate the mountaintop all the more.

That's it for this week. Next week's Carnival will be held at Digitus, Finger & Co.

Tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. by an Iranian Immigrant

2005-01-17T03:51:00.000-08:00

The Wall Street Journal online features a moving column (free registration required) by an Iranian Immigrant, who began to be reconciled with her new home through the words of Dr. King:

Today, in the distant corners where terror is raging, many teenagers hold views on America similar to those I once held. The enemy has an arsenal, but also a narrative. According to that narrative, the world's superpower represents only one race, and its history is a single tale of intolerance, arrogance, and domination. The war against this enemy is impossible to win without defeating that narrative. To tell American history in its entirety is to disprove the fabrications about who an American is. To tell the story of the Civil Rights Movement is to tell the story of how arrogance was made to give way to justice by none other than a man who advocated peace. Against the grim and infallible image that is painted of America, this will be a truer portrait: colorful and human.

We still have a long way to go in race relations in this country, and we should not minimize that. We should also not minimize, however, that we have come a long way from the dark days of slavery, Jim Crowe and segregation. To fail to recognize our progress would be to fail to recognize the sacrifices of those like Dr. King, who gave their all for the dream.

the evangelical outpost Blog Symposium--Winners

2005-01-17T03:05:00.000-08:00

The evangelical outpost has announced the winners of its first quarter blog symposium. There are many interesting essays writing from a variety of different perspectives. This has been an interesting experiment in how blogs can extend the discussion from print media--allowing print media and online media to work together.

I Have A Dream--Martin Luther King Jr. Day

2005-01-16T20:31:00.000-08:00

Words that are as stirring today as they were 42 years ago:

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

We will not be satisfied
until justice rolls down
like waters and righteousness
like a mighty stream!
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today! [Crowd roars.]

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers....I have a dream today! [crowd roars]

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together!

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day!

This will be the day...this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning. "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrims' pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring," and if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

[King continues above continuous and rising applause and cheers.] So let freedom ring! From the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire, let freedom ring. From the mighty mountains of New York, let freedom ring, from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California! But not only that.

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain in Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and mole hill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring, and when this happens...when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Contest and Guest Posting

2005-01-15T20:11:00.000-08:00

Rick of Stones Cry Out (which is a great name for a site) is contemplating a new design at his site. He has one posted but is open to other ideas. If you have any design skills or are just opinionated on matters of style, stop over and give Rick a hand.

Oh, and I will be guest posting at Stones Cry Out for the next few weeks as Rick will be tied up doing some other things. I will continue to post here as well, so keep checking. And don't forget that the next Christian Carnival will be held here this upcoming week.

Next Christian Carnival at Sidesspot

2005-01-14T04:30:00.000-08:00

The next Christian Carnival will be hosted here at Sidesspot, and submissions are now open.

First, your post should be of a Christian nature, but this does not exclude posts that are political (or otherwise) in nature from a Christian point of view. If you are looking for posting ideas, you might want to consider that the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision is January 22. Another topic might be to consider how Christians of different denominations can put into practice Christ's admonition that we love one another--what does this mean in real life, what impact could it have on nonbelievers if we did this? How Christians can help foster a sense of community in their neighborhoods is another topic.

Second, please send only one post dated since the last Christian Carnival. Then, email me at the following address (and please put 'Christian Carnival Entry' in your subject line):

sidesspot[at]comcast.net

Provide the following:

Title of your Blog
URL of your Blog
Title of your post
URL linking to that post
Description of the post

Deadline is 10 p.m. Central, Tuesday, January 18

Sacking Rome - My Response to Mark's Response

2005-01-12T22:16:00.000-08:00

The peripatetic Ray has already penned a nice response to my recent post in our debate. He makes some good points and sharpens some of my argument. Since we have essentially reached the point of agreement (and we really agreed from the start anyway), I think I'll bring it to a close on this end. Stay tuned, though, you never know what will crop up. Ray has an interesting post on work.

Responding to Ray--It's the Heart, not the Money

2005-01-12T20:29:00.000-08:00

I am very late in answering Ray's response to my post on the Church. We originally started this debate in the comments to my post on religious liberty. Ray argued that the focus of American Christians on their religious liberties tends to both annoy nonbelievers and take the focus off of engaging such nonbelievers in a Christian manner. Although I do not disagree with that position, I felt that Ray perhaps overstated his case and that sometimes it is acceptable to try to protect our religious liberties. Ray also stated, as a bit of an aside, that he feels that American Christians are too wealthy. I then pointed out that it is not money, but the love of money, that is the source of all kinds of evil. In response, Ray was disturbed by that fine distinction between wealth and the desire for wealth:

I think I gave myself a headache because I felt how easily we could turn a clear caution against greed into some legalistic structure, trying to define exactly where the possession of wealth leaves off and the lust for that wealth picks up. We have to deal with the principle, not rules or codes of behavior. I think that when we start drawing a line between having wealth and loving that wealth, we abandon the principle and make things complicated.

It's impossible to acquire wealth without desiring it, and without working really hard to get it. I don't know any people who became wealthy by not desiring to be wealthy. So I think that immediately demonstrates that those who possess great wealth have also desired to have it. Is this not the love of money? When I read Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, it seems to me that He is clearly contrasting reliance on God for everything that we need and the hoarding that we so easily take part in. I think that is the only distinction we can make.

Ray then points out that asceticism is not the answer, because, in that discipline, one merely substitutes a rules-based philosophy for the true principle. Ray also reminds us that there are some who are poor who are just as obsessed with money as those who are wealthy (in the process making my point that it's the love of money, not the money, that's the problem, but that's merely an aside).

Ray continues with some prescriptive advice:

Richard Foster, in his chapter on simplicity in the book Celebration of Discipline [that Amazon link is for you Ray], makes the point so well that we are to live by principle and not try to complicate it by rules or ascetics. For me, that headache is my own indication that I'm trying to complicate things. I respect Foster's chapter on simplicity so much because never once does he sell out. With apologies to Mark . . . , I think to say that it's the love of money, not money itself, sells out the principle of what Jesus said. They are intertwined because you don't get money without loving it.

So where do we land? We have to live, to support our families, and unfortunately America is an expensive place to live, requiring us to sacrifice large amounts of our precious time by working just to afford a house, car, etc. Furthermore, God does provide us blessings and we should not spurn them. This is a hard lesson to learn.

So, in essence, Ray's argument is that those who are wealthy got that way because they love wealth. Second, we should live by the principle laid down by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, which in America means living simply, supporting our families and not spurning blessings.

In essence, I agree with what Ray has argued. There are, however, some narrow points to be made, which I will make for the sake of clarity but not because I disagree with the essence of Ray's argument.

Ray takes issue with making the fine distinction between having money and loving money. He says that they really collapse into the same thing, because you cannot have money without wanting it.

As a minor aside, one issue I have is that Ray does not define "wealthy." This is problematic because I suspect that he and I would likely define it a bit differently on a relative scale. We would both define it differently than someone living in a hovel in the Sudan. This does not affect the essence of his argument, but it is something that needs to be defined.

As to the issue of fine distinctions, I agree with Ray in some sense that one can be too punctilious by half. Christianity is not about fine arguments and points and keeping codes, as Jesus reminds us in Matthew 23:23-25, and as Ray also reminds us. I, however, am not the one who originally made the distinction--St. Paul did in 1 Timothy 6:10 and again in Hebrews 13:5. Indeed, Jesus focused on fine distinctions as well, as his teaching about lustful thoughts being equal to adultery in Matthew 5:28 shows.

The reason to make the distinction is less to defend those who are wealthy than to ensure that we focus on the ultimate principle that both Paul, in the First Timothy and Hebrews passages, and Jesus, in Matthew 6:19-24, are trying to elucidate. That ultimate principle is not to avoid greed, which is a lesser principle. That principle is that we are to have no other god before God. Stated positively, we must love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind. Loving money is simply another form of idol worship. The idol itself is not bad, it is putting the idol before God that is bad. Equating money with evil in a sense misses the real object. The important object is not the inanimate object. The important object is the heart that lusts for the inanimate object and thereby misses the relationship with God.

It is critical for every human to understand this issue, because it is central to getting to the ultimate issue that every human must face--his or her relationship with the Creator. If we talk about inanimate objects instead of our hearts, we lose that central focus. In addition, I suspect that nonbelievers do make this distinction. If a nonbeliever hears a Christian diatribe against money itself, I suspect it will not resonate, and the nonbeliever may even wonder how someone could worry about an inanimate object. If a nonbeliever hears a Christian diatribe against lusting after objects, that may have a better chance of hitting the mark, as it is a concept that makes logical sense.

Finally, if we focus on the heart, rather than the money itself, we have a more effective argument to make vis-a-vis other Christians--pointing out that their heart may not be in the right place depending on how they spend their money (and earn it in some, perhaps many, cases). The fact is this: American Christians are the wealthiest group of Christians ever. That will not change soon. It will certainly not change if we lecture about how bad money is. However, if we lecture about the use money and the status of one's heart, then I think we are more likely to motivate Christians to use that money to good ends. Ray mentions that we ought not to squander God's blessings. I think we have a real opportunity to use God's blessing to American Christians to help others in this country and abroad--the way Jesus would want us to.

Buying a Ticket

2005-01-11T04:00:00.000-08:00

Joe at the evangelical outpost, has posted some thoughts on how evangelical bloggers can support one another and increase their sphere of influence. If you are an evangelical who has a blog, or if you are just interested in the subject, I encourage you to read Joe's post.

Which Mission? Americanism and American Christians

2005-01-10T20:36:00.000-08:00

"Not only do the Americans follow their religion from interest, but they often place in this world the interest that makes them follow it. In the Middle Ages the clergy spoke of nothing but a future state; they hardly cared to prove that a sincere Christian may be a happy man here below. But the American preachers are constantly referring to the earth, and it is only with great difficulty that they can divert their attention from it. To touch their congregations, they always show them how favorable religious opinions are to freedom and public tranquility; and it is often difficult to ascertain from their discourses whether the principal object of religion is to procure eternal felicity in the other world or prosperity in this."
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Chapter IX

"We're on a mission from God."
Dan Akroyd, as Jake Elwood, in The Blues Brothers (1980)

David Gelernter has written an article entitled "Americanism--and Its Enemies" in the January 2005 issue of Commentary magazine. Joe, who authors the evangelical outpost, has called for a blogger symposium (a blogosium?) on Gelernter's article. Herewith, my thoughts:

First, it must be understood that Gelernter's article is really sketching an overview of what must be a larger conversation. Spanning the history of America, from its early Puritan founding to the present, Gelernter attempts to show that the spiritual and social beliefs of the Puritans have been woven into the fabric of the religion of America--Americanism. Indeed, in Gelernter's eyes, Puritanism "transformed itself into Americanism." In the process, Gelernter ties Americanism to Biblical Israel, and suggests that America, as understood by many throughout America's history, is in some sense the successor to ancient Israel. Gelernter argues that Americanism has a divine mission. First, it was to populate the North American continent. However, in the early 20th Century that mission changed to a mission of "Americanism for the whole world." Gelernter argues that America has a mission "and is dead[ly] serious about it."

Gelernter suggests that if one fails to understand that Americanism is a religion, rooted as it is in Puritanism, then one will fail to understand Americanism and, perhaps as important today, anti-Americanism. Its power, the fervor of its adherents, and the fervor of its critics, can only be understood in the context of religious beliefs.

Summary of Gelernter's Argument

Gelernter defines Americanism as "the set of beliefs that are thought to constitute America's essence and to set it apart; the beliefs that make Americans positive that their nation is superior to all others--morally superior, closer to God." He states that Americanism "is in fact a Judeo-Christian religion; a millenarian religion; a biblical religion," as compared with a mere civic religion, and that Americanism "has been incorporated into all the Judeo-Christian religions in the nation."

Americanism has sacred texts, with the Declaration of Independence being "one of Americas' holiest writings." Gelernter states that, although the Declaration treats religion "in a cool, Enlightenment sort of way", the Declaration was an ex port facto justification of American beliefs that was addressed to educated (and generally overseas) elites. It was designed to win an argument, not capture the essence of Americanism. Rather, the "essence emerges in the less guarded pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and many other leading exponents and prophets of Americanism, from Winthrop and Bradford through John Adams and Jefferson through Lincoln and Wilson, Truman, Reagan."

Gelernter next compares America, its founding and motivating ideals, to ancient Israel, particularly highlighting the themes of "chosen people" and "chosen land." He cites a number of commenters, both American and European, over history to demonstrate that others have adopted this view.

Gelernter next describes how Puritanism provides the link between Christianity and Americanism. He points out that Puritanism was not a denomination unto itself, but was an approach to Protestantism that started in England. Like Americanism, Puritanism was a powerful force in its time that provided great motivation to its adherents and elicited bitter hatred from its rivals.

Gelernter argues that Puritanism has two components: A Calvinist belief in predestination and the political goal to reach back to the pure Christianity of the New Testament--and perhaps back to Ancient Israel, with the Puritans now being God's chosen people living in the promised land.

Gelernter then points out that Puritanism disappears in the early 1800s. Why did it disappear? Gelernter believes it did not disappear but "transformed itself into Americanism." He argues that Americanism "was the end-stage of Puritanism." Thus, Puritanism and Americanism are "two stages of a single phenomenon."

Gelernter admits that this is "an unprovable proposition", but it is instructive in trying to understand certain grand themes in American history. As an example, Gelernter points out that Puritanism cut across different Protestant denominations. Similarly, Americanism cuts across different Christian denominations--across every congregation that believes in the "Hebrew Bible".

What, then, is Americanism's creed? According to Gelernter, the creed is "a conceptual triangle in which one fundamental fact creates two premises that create three conclusions." The fundamental fact is that "the Bible is God's word." The two premises are that (i) each person has his or her own individual dignity inasmuch as he or she deals with God and (ii) "the community has a divine mission to all mankind." The three conclusions are that "[e]very human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy."

Gelernter then discusses how the creed's three conclusions are derived from the Bible. Freedom comes from the story of the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. Equality is taken from Genesis, in that every man was created in the God's image. Democracy (a bit of a reach) comes from Deuteronomy 1:13 "Take ye wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you." Gelernter, citing others, interprets the Deuteronomy passage as a statement that the people (at least the ancient Israelites) have a biblically mandated choice in who will rule them.

However, according to Gelernter, freedom, equality, and democracy is only half the case of the creed. The other half deals with the "promised land, a chosen people, and a universal, divinely ordained mission. This part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism." "The term 'American Zionism' similarly underlines the closeness between Americanism and the biblical idea of a divinely chosen people and promised land." Gelernter again cites a number of important figures from the early Puritan founders on to support this conclusion.

Gelernter is quick to point out that the early Puritan founders, the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, etc. were not "crypto-Jews." Rather, the point is that the Hebraic portions of the Bible were very influential in their thinking--giving them a sense of mission and a belief in the importance of good works. If this "Hebraic mortar" cannot be grasped, he argues, "we can never fully understand Americanism--or anti-Americanism."

Gelernter then points to four crucial points in which Americans spoke of the religious content and mission of Americanism: (i) The declaration of independence from England, (ii) the Civil War (pointing to Lincoln as Americanism's "greatest prophet"), (iii) World War I and Wilson's rhetoric (after which the mission transformed from being focused on the North American continent to becoming a world wide mission: "The world must be made safe for democracy"), and (iv) the Cold War's beginning (Truman) and ending (Reagan) (citing, among others, Reagan's phrase that America must remain a "shining city upon a hill", which phrase has a biblical basis).

He then, rather abruptly, states that those who hated Reagan hated America (or should that be Americanism?). This seems like an odd move, intended, I think more to defend Reagan than anything else, and it gets in the way of his conclusion. His real point is likely that attacks on America are often based on attacks on Americanism--America's religion. On this score, he quotes, among others, John Maynard Keynes and other Europeans who sneer at American religion:

That Americanism is the successor of Puritanism is crucial to anti-Americanism. In the 18th Century, anti-Americans were conservative, monarchist anti-Puritans. . . . In the 19th century, European elites became increasingly hostile to Christianity--which inevitably entailed hostility to America. In modern times, anti-Americanism is closely associated with anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism.

In the end, then, America has a potent religion, Americanism, that weaves its way through the individual Christian and Jewish denominations. Those who would seek to understand America need to understand how this religion provides Americans with a sense of mission. Those who would seek to understand anti-Americanism, particularly its more virulent strains, need to understand that anti-Americanism is a reaction against religion, not just a reaction against a mere secular society or ideal.

Reactions

My overall reaction is that Gelernter's article is like an appetizer: appealing but ultimately not enough. As a Christian and as someone who loves the United States, although acknowledging its problems, I would like to buy into Gelernter's arguments wholesale. Unfortunately, I cannot. This does not necessarily mean Gelernter is wrong, or that he has not done something useful. However, his sketch is just that, a sketch. The canvas awaits further brushstrokes.

First, as almost a side point, I find it interesting, and perhaps instructive, that Gelernter makes no mention of the Constitution. The omission seems odd. Should not America's fundamental document have captured the essence of Americanism? Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was not an argument but the constitutive document of the nation. If the Constitution does not capture the essence of Americanism, why not and what does this say about Gelernter's argument? Unlike many other early documents of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution makes no reference to either a personal God or even a "Creator". This would seem to be a troubling fact that Gelernter should have addressed. I would agree that there is a certain sense of "mission" within the Constitution--the establishment of a nation that secures liberties and is based on the rule of law, but it is certainly not an evangelical mission of the type that Gelernter describes. Israel had the Pentateuch, and Israel could not be understood outside of the context of those books. America has the Constitution, and cannot be understood outside of that document. This, perhaps, does not deny the essence of Gelernter's argument, but it certainly seems to be a troubling lacuna.

Another problem is with Gelernter's comparison of America and ancient Israel. The problem with the comparison that Gelernter fails to address is that ancient Israel was established by and was ordained by God. God also gave specific rules to Moses to transmit to the Israelites--rules for daily life as well as for public order. America was not so called, in the sense of God directing someone to establish the country. Now, Gelernter obviously is making an analogy, or at least I think he is. I do not think he is suggesting that America is actually the direct successor to ancient Israel. However, even if this is only an analogy, I think it is important to recognize the differences between Israel's official calling by God versus America's unofficial calling. Israel could claim the highest authority for its actions, particularly when those actions were directed by God. Thus, Israel's actions were good by definition--having the imprimatur of the only judge that ultimately counts. In Israel's case, fiat was an acceptable manner of governance, because of the person whose fiat it was.

America's actions are not God-ordained, at least least in any direct sense as Israel's were. Hence, America's actions are not good by definition, but must be proved good. America cannot be ruled internally by fiat and cannot justify its actions to the world at large merely by fiat. It takes the consent of the governed in this country, and the consent of the world at large in international affairs. Accordingly, America must continually ask itself whether it is right. One interesting example of this is found in capital punishment. Capital punishment was ordained by God for ancient Israel. Some Christians point to that fact as a justification for US capital punishment. However, the US legal system was not ordained by God nor is it based on God-given law, as was Israel's. Outside of that context, capital punishment must stand on its own morality or lack thereof. That narrow issue aside, the difference of calling between Israel and the United States is a crucial difference that Gelernter needs to address but does not.

Gelernter's failure to address the issue of calling somewhat calls into question the ultimate moral underpinning for Gelernter's Americanism. If Americanism is a national project--and it clearly is to Gelernter--then it needs to have a moral basis. Gelernter's basis, as described by his three conclusions of freedom, equality and democracy, seeks a biblical foundation. His foundation is some combination of the Hebraic calling and mission of ancient Israel, coupled with certain passages in the New Testament. Unfortunately, this is no foundation on which to build a system of governance, or on which to base a national mission. As discussed, ancient Israel had a unique and specific calling, and a unique and specific Caller, neither of which are mirrored in the creation of the United States. Accordingly, Israel's calling and mission, understood in their history and context, cannot provide moral justification for a society in the 21st Century. Anybody familiar with the New Testament, as I suspect Gelernter is, would have to also concede that it does not contain a blueprint for the organization of a nation state. Indeed, when the New Testament was created, the writers were being persecuted by states for the very ideals contained therein. The New Testament contains five themes: How a person can be saved from his or her sins and have a relationship with his or her creator; how a person can be a good Christian; the life and person of Jesus Christ; the lives and persons of the apostles and early saints; and a sketch of the ultimate end of history (however interpreted). Again, there is no model for a nation state. Accordingly, the question is what is the moral underpinning of Americanism? At least in Gelernter's article, there is no solid answer. Unfortunately, history is rife with examples of what happens when societies embark on great evangelical projects motivated by a philosophy that does not have a fundamentally sound, or cohesive, basis. Nazism and communism are but two recent examples.

Of course, this is not necessarily an indictment of Gelernter's main point. His main point is that to understand Americanism and anti-Americanism, one has to understand where it came from, how it grew and how those in positions of influence in America, such as the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, Wilson, Truman, Reagan, and ultimately the current President Bush, have understood it. He is sketching history. He clearly thinks Americanism, and its evangelical quest to convince the rest of the world to buy into the four conclusions, is a good thing. However, he is not necessarily responsible for its lack of moral cohesiveness.

However, those of us who are both Christians and Americans, particularly those of us who somewhat buy into the "goodness" of America, do need to continue to wrestle with these problems. American Christians must always be Christians first. We do not practice Americanism, we practice Christianity, which has a fairly known practice, within ranges of course, by this point in history. We must always be leery when the powers of this world cloak themselves with the imprimatur of God, whether they are Muslim, or other Americans, even other American Christians. This does not mean that we cannot participate in the project of Americanism. But, we must reflect on our participation and weigh it against Scripture and Christian history and tradition. We must necessarily reflect on Americanism as outsiders--pilgrims who are only passing through. We can pitch in, but we must maintain a critical distance by viewing all through the lens of the Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, let us embrace the ideals of Americanism, if not necessarily embracing Americanism itself. Let us understand at all times, though, to whom we owe ultimate allegiance.

CNN.com - CBS fires 4 over Bush-Guard story

2005-01-10T08:10:00.000-08:00

CBS has fired four people in connection with fake Bush-National Guard Memo story. Among those fired is Mary Mapes, the producer of the report, whose obsession with the story goes back to the 2000 election. The Thornburgh report apparently could not conclude that a political agenda drove the timing of the segment or its content. That, of course, is preposterous. There were any number of stories out there about John Kerry preceding the last election that had the same, if not more, factual basis as the Bush Guard Memo story. That CBS chose to run this one to ground shows exactly what the agenda was.

Dan Rather, apparently, gets to retire in March. That also is preposterous. This is akin to firing the first mate, navigator and director of a shipping line but not firing the captain after the ship sinks. CBS has two choices regarding this: either Rather is simply a talking head who only reads copy or he is a reporter who was intimately involved in the details of this story. Option one goes against what Rather and the network say about Rather's role and is belied by Rather's strident defense of the story at the time. If option two is correct, then there is absolutely no reason why four others have to lose their jobs but Rather gets to retire.

Wittenberg Gate: The Great Wittenberg Gate Debate!

2005-01-09T19:08:00.000-08:00

Dory, at The Wittenberg Gate, has unveiled "The Great Wittenberg Gate Debate":

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the gate at Wittenberg Church, he wasn't trying to start a Reformation; he was trying to start a debate. He was offering to argue any one of his theses with any debater who would accept his invitation. Nobody took him up on it, but we're hoping for better results here.

This is my invitation for you to nail your thesis to the gate. If you have a topic you would like to offer for debate, leave your thesis as a comment to this post. If any interested debater accepts your invitation in a following comment, I will moderate the debate.

This sounds like a great idea. If you are in the mood to have a civil debate, click on over. One debate topic has been posted, although it's clearly been targeted at Wink's posts on atonement at Parableman. However, if you want to start a debate, Dory has provided a good forum.

Sacking Rome: Shalom

2005-01-07T19:52:00.000-08:00

Ray of Sacking Rome has posted a long and thoughtful response to my response to him. I need to digest his post a bit before responding. I encourage you to go read it.

One quick quote:

I don’t know if I did a good job of answering Mark’s comments - I seem to keep
drawing this out into larger issues, but that’s only because I believe they are
all so tightly connected, both in reality and in the eyes of those who are
watching us.

Yes, you did a good job answering the comments. As to drawing it into larger issues, well, let's just say that we both believe people's lives are ultimately at stake--so perhaps it's ok to make sure all the bases are covered.

And, by all means, please use the comments at his site and below if you'd like to put in your 2 cents.

the evangelical outpost: Is Americanism the Successor of Puritanism?

2005-01-07T11:29:00.000-08:00

Joe Carter of the evangelical outpost is running what he hopes to be a quarterly event: a blog symposium. Joe is soliciting bloggers to write about an article in Commentary magazine that claims Americanism is the successor of Puritanism. (Joe also has a follow-up post.)

This sounds like a good opportunity for bloggers to get noticed and to demonstrate how new media can support old media by continuing the conversation.

I will post on the article over the weekend. (That Joe is offering prizes has almost nothing to do with this.)

By the way, if you are not reading the evangelical outpost regularly, you should be. Joe's posts are always insightful. In addition, part of the fun is reading the comments. Almost every post that Joe provides is followed up by a lively, sometimes sharp, debate in the comments. I'm not much into reductionist claims (i.e. "such and such is THE BEST example of X"), as little in life is actually so reducible. However, I will say this, the evangelical outpost is among the top five blogs that I read on a daily basis.

An In-House Debate

2005-01-06T23:03:00.000-08:00

In the comments to my previous post "The War on Christianity," Ray, who authors the site Sacking Rome, took exception to what he thought was my undue emphasis on defending the political rights of Christians. He posted a small paragraph at his site as well:

I’m engaged in a small conversation with Mark Sides about one of his posts, entitled "War on Christianity".
The only reason I draw attention to it is because during the election last year, and in the aftermath, I was reminded once again how far down the wrong path the Church in America has gone in trying to protect our “religious liberties” at the expense of forming real relationships with people.

[You should be able to read the rest of this post without reading all the comments. I do start the dialogue below, however, in mid debate. If you are interested, go back to the original post and read the first few comments from Ray.]

We continued the debate in the comments:

[Mark's response] In your second comment, you essentially make two points. First, the American Christian Church can be ugly to outsiders. Second, to the extent American Christians focus on their religious rights, they perpetuate ugly perception. First, I agree that Christians (let's not throw in the whole church) sometimes do not act in a manner that would be pleasing to Christ. The most recent post on this blog regarding some boneheaded Christians' thoughts on slavery will demonstrate that I try to challenge Christians whenever possible on these issues. Indeed, at times I may even be harder on Christians than I am on those who are not. Having said that, I'm not sure your second premise follows. If Christians arguing for their civil rights does somehow offend others, I'm not sure that's necessarily a reason to stop. Do we take this to its logical extreme--i.e. not utilize the rights we are offered by living in a democracy to preserve our rights to the extent we lose them? How, exactly, is that being a witness for Christ. More specifically, if the group mentioned in my post decides to fight the city and get that silly ordinance overturned, how has the cause of Christ been injured? If offending others is your standard, then there's a whole lot of things that Christ said that I assume you will also be uncomfortable with. Christ said some pretty offensive things. Do we excise that? Where, exactly, do we stop? "Gee, you seem to be offended that I might even suggest that your future is less than bright if you don't believe in Jesus. Ok, then I'll stop." Somehow, I don't think that would be a very effective witness.

Christians, in all of their activities, are supposed to be led by the Holy Spirit, and approach others with mercy, grace, charity and love. We must also constantly be mindful that every human we meet bears the imago Dei. That is the motivational perspective from which we must always work. However, that does not mean that we are not to challenge the existing order of things. Should we spend more time on our witness than on our civil rights? Of course. However, that doesn't mean that we can't advocate for ourselves at all. As to the culture war you say we are not to participate in, I respectfully disagree. We are engaged in a war--a war that has been raging since the Fall. We don't use the weapons of our enemy, we use love, faith, hope, mercy and charity. However, it is still a battle.

[Ray's Response]
First, I want to agree with your email that said we are both brothers in Christ first and that all of this comes second. That's a reminder that I can always use.

These may be two separate issues, but they are also related. When I refer to the church, I should clarify that I am actually referring to the somewhat nebulous "religious right". The church makes up a large part of this. The religious right (of which I would have considered myself a member of until a few years ago) makes a big deal about our religious freedoms. And I can't say that I disagree with you that they are important and worth defending - but only in the right way. My contention is that we have gone about it in the wrong way. Our defense of freedom has come at the expense of relationships with those who are not believers. And it's even fair to say our behavior leads to those attempts to destroy our freedoms. To put it plainly, when you piss somebody off, they usually aren't sympathetic to your rights, and may even be antagonistic.

Jesus did indeed say some offensive things but the people who were most offended were the Pharisees. We, in America, as Christians, have become the Pharisees. This is absolutely how we look to those outside the church in this country. So for us, at this point, to push for the defense of our rights is not going to win anybody over with our "weapons" of love, peace, joy, forgiveness, etc. I'm all about offending people if it's for the right reasons, and if it's something that needs to be done, but we should be offending the Pharisees, not offending those who are broken and hurting, even if they do seem arrogant and callous.

This is such a large topic, I'm struggling with the best place to begin. We are in a war - I agree. And we're probably arguing about semantics here, but in this case, semantics are important. It's not a culture war. It should not be a culture war. It's a spiritual war - fought against enemies that are not flesh and blood. We fight with prayer, humility, love, forgiveness. Every time I hear a Christian get up on their soapbox and preach about how the liberal media is destroying our values, how gay marriage is going to be the downfall of our country, we need to get prayer in school again, etc. etc. I cringe. All of these are externals, and frankly irrelevant tasks to the war we're fighting. But the church focuses sooo much on this stuff. If we could learn to be friends with those who are broken in the same way that we are, if we could learn to stop judging, to stop being so afraid of differences of opinion and scientific discovery, then I don't think we would have to be fighting these battles against those who want to take away our religious freedom. The church has hurt a lot of people. We need to be on our knees asking for forgiveness to God and to those we have hurt FIRST before we can expect any right to defend our freedoms. And we need to change. If we spent more time serving the poor, praying for the sick, befriending the lost and rejected then we would be persecuted - by the principalities of this world who don't want the church to act like the church.

I think one final note needs to be made about greed and power. The American church, IMO, is too wealthy and too powerful. As Christians we have serious problems with pride and with greed. The American dream has become knotted together with our ideals for what makes a good Christian. This is another, absolutely valid complaint that people make about the church, and I hear it all the time. In the eyes of those who are outside the church and even Christians in other countries (I've had a lot of conversations with Japanese Christians, for example), the American church is almost always linked in their minds to Wal-Mart style commercialism, fast food, big cars and house, war-mongering, and profiteering. It's just not acceptable. Thanks for taking the time to engage me here. I look forward to your thoughts and I appreciate your attitude in this discussion.
[end Ray's response and the comments to the previous post]

My further response:

First, let me also thank you for the thoughtful comment and the constructive tone. I think we can both agree that simple civil discourse between those with opposing viewpoints can go a long way toward improving how we Americans, including American Christians, speak to each other.

As to your thoughts above, I must say that I pretty much agree with everything you are saying at a general level. Too many Christians give Christianity a black eye these days. People like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson do not seem to do much to advance the cause of Christ, nor His Church.

Having said that, I think some other points are in order. First, a very narrow point. You might recall the example that I provided in the previous post, in which a city was using its zoning code to prevent what was essentially a home group from meeting in a pastor's home. I really do not think that if the pastor were to challenge the city (which is his legal right, and which challenge he would likely win since the city's ordinance is facially a First Amendment violation), that this would cause non-Christians to shake their heads and further distance themselves from Christians. Again, though, your point was broader than that specific example.

I think you also conflate a few different issues in your comments. At first, your comments seem to suggest that Christians who are always pushing for their religious liberties, such as prayer in school, creches in public places, etc., are (i) not thereby advancing God's agenda but their own and (ii) doing a good job of annoying the non-believing public in the process. I think this tends to be an overall good point. I suspect there is a bit of a misplaced emphasis in the church. If Christians were to put as much energy into getting to know their neighbors as they do about complaining about the latest school prayer outrage, their might be more progress in both making more disciples and in advancing the cause of religious liberty. As I have stated, though, we are citizens and we do have certain guaranteed freedoms. While we should be civil about it, we should be allowed to defend them, but this should not even be our main point of emphasis in the culture.

However, at some point, you switch to a different set of issues--cultural moral issues, such as gay marriage. You argue that we have become the modern Pharisees. On another narrow point, I think you're painting with too broad a brush with your "we"; however, I leave that aside. This is a very difficult point. We are called to love our neighbors, and we do need to do it in a way that does not turn us into the equivalent of Pharisees. However, we are also called to proclaim the truth. This truth, which has set us free, can also set our neighbors free. We do not do our neighbors any favors by avoiding the truth because we are too afraid that we might offend them. Again, we must act with the grace, charity and mercy to which all Christians are called. In addition, as you so rightly point out, we must do it with the humility that says we are no better than any others. We did not save ourselves, Christ saved us. But for that, we would still be trapped in the bondage of sin. That humility--an outward reflection that we are not any better--would go a long way toward assuaging some of the problems that non-believers have with Christians. However, that should not dissuade us from speaking the truth. We just have to do so with love. It is true that Jesus was accepting in demeanor and tone, but He still proclaimed the truth. In addition, he did not leave people as he found them but changed them.

What I think is important, here, however, is that we can agree that American Christians could go a long way toward helping the cause of Christ, and our church, if we were to focus on others more than ourselves (and our rights), act with charity, grace and mercy, and, most importantly, act with the humility to which we are called.

(For thoughts on a related theme, see The Rooftop Blog's post referenced in the post immediately below this one. Pastor Mark Daniels has further thoughts on this theme as well.)

As to the wealth of American Christians being a problem--remember, it's not money that is the problem--it is the love of money that is the root of all kinds of evil. What Christians do with their money, not to mention their time or political power, shows what they are. Do they advance the Kingdom of Christ or the Kingdom of this World. Josh Claybourn posted on this recently. I had a post a while back that covered similar ground, with a follow-up here.

Ray, you're it.

(As an aside, Sacking Rome is a terrific site. If you go there, be sure to check out the pictures. Ray is a great photographer.)

Evangelicals and Political Seduction

2005-01-05T22:02:00.000-08:00

James Jewell of The Rooftop Blog has a very smart comment on James Dobson's recent threats to certain politicians. James writes:

The only people who should be unnerved by this are evangelical Christians, for the only likely damage that will be to the church and its voice in a pluralistic culture. While I have not seen the Focus on the Family appeal letter, if the New York Times story is somewhat accurate, there are several concerns.

When the church presents its concerns as a laundry list of demands, we become a special interest group, and our price has been set. We lose our moral authority. Pay our price and we will be yours. Chuck Colson warned his brethren in "an open letter to the Christian church" last month against listing demands of the president or other elected officials. “To think that way demeans the Christian movement," Colson wrote. "We are not anybody's special interest group."

James is concerned about Christians, particularly Evangelicals, overplaying their hand after the election and bringing disrepute on the Church. I think that his concern is well-placed.

This does not mean that I agree with you Ray. ;-)

The Gonzales Nomination

2005-01-05T21:32:00.000-08:00

My partner Jeff at Shermblog posts on his qualms about the Alberto Gonzales nomination for Attorney General. I have qualms as well. Everybody has baggage, but the torture memos are pretty heavy baggage.

First Christian Carnival of '05

2005-01-05T20:48:00.000-08:00

The first Christian Carnival of the year is up at Weapons of Mass Distraction. There is a raft of interesting offerings. Click over, start reading, then bookmark it (there's no way you can finish them all in one sitting).

So-Called Christian School Teaches That US Slavery was 'Benign'

2005-01-05T20:27:00.000-08:00

Pastor Mark Daniels takes the disturbing story of the North Carolina teachers who wrote a defense of slavery (see my post) and knocks it out of the park. He provides an extended discussion of the biblical problems with the position.

Darn Floor: "Darn darn floor"

2005-01-05T20:09:00.000-08:00

Drew at Darn Floor has been posting on the fictional creature that is the tsunami aid stinginess controversy. He has several interesting posts on the subject.

Why Darn Floor? I thought you'd never ask.

The Exit Polling Mystery

2005-01-05T19:46:00.000-08:00

There's a rather (hmm, exciting's not the word, interesting's not the word) statistically rich debate raging (can statistical debates rage?) in some corners of the blogosphere. Rick at Stones Cry Out is all over it: Here and here. I took an intermediate level statistics course in college and am still in therapy from the experience, so my opinion doesn't matter much on this subject. What I would like to have explained, however, is how anybody can have any real confidence in the exit polling process. As far as I can tell, there isn't much oversight and it's hard to control the sample, as well as the pollsters themselves. How can the results be considered valid to the extent that some actually think that they call into question the actual election results? I suspect this is really an attempt by some who are not happy with the results of the election to use bad statistical arguments to bring whatever discredit they can on the President. (Please note that any comments to this post that in any way mention medians, quartiles or standard deviations will be instantly deleted.)

"Everybody wants community, but nobody wants to be a leader of it."

2005-01-05T01:03:00.000-08:00

Christianity.com's lifetogethertoday page interviews Brett Eastman, Founder and CEO, Lifetogether, Inc. Brett ran the small group program at Saddleback Church in Orange County, California. As many of you know, Saddleback is the church of Pastor Rick Warren, the author of the best selling book The Purpose Driven Life.

Saddleback is a mega Church. One of the obvious challenges of a mega Church is connecting parishioners so that they feel like they are a part of a community and so that they can engage in meaningful Christian fellowship. (Of course, this is also a challenge and a necessity for small churches as well--it's just that the scale of the problem at a mega Church is so much bigger.) The interview discusses some of the techniques that Saddleback used to foster small group communities. One of the challenges that Saddleback had is that of resources. Although a very large church, it was not necessarily flush with cash or staff to take on the challenge. Thus, Mr. Eastman had to come up with creative ways to enlist leaders before he could even get the small groups going.

That brought him up against one of the biggest challenges that all church leaders face today--lack of volunteers to coordinate and lead programs. Most Christians I meet want to be a part of a vibrant Christian community within their churches. However, when the call goes out for help, most Christians are unwilling to participate. Well, it ain't going to happen if someone does not make it happen. If you perceive a need in your church for a program, a small group, whatever, the first thing that's going to make that program happen is you calling your senior pastor, identifying the perceived need, and then volunteering to help make it happen. You might be surprised at how quickly you are taken up on your offer.

This also brings up the second issue that Brett Eastman faced--the need for help from the senior pastor. Brett identifies the senior pastor's help for a small-group program as being the crucial component to making it a success. In Brett's case, Rick Warren pitched in and the program has had much success. In other cases I have seen in churches, good programs have died on the vine because senior leadership would not have much more than minimal involvement.

To build successful church community, then, requires at least two elements. First, the laity must be prepared to roll up their sleeves and do the hard, boring work that makes it happen--finding a space, finding childcare, putting up posters, bulletin announcements, etc. Second, senior church leadership must be willing to give those parishioners the one essential resource that will help ensure the success of the program--a bit of their time and heart. If you are a lay person reading this post and feel your church should be doing more to foster community, then I would encourage you to make sure you are doing more to make that happen. If you are a pastor, I would encourage you to make sure that you are giving your church leaders enough of your time to make them successful.

By the way, if you are involved in a small-group program, you should visit the lifetogethertoday website, as it has a number of resources on this topic.

Bleg For Pastors

2005-01-04T23:08:00.000-08:00

Pastor Mark Roberts is asking pastors who blog to go to his site and sign up for a list of blogging pastors that he wants to maintain on his site. If you are such a person, hop on over and sign up (after you read all on this site of course!).

Update: Here is the actual site for Blogging Pastors.

Classical "Christian" School Attempts To Provide A Biblical Justification For Southern Slavery

2005-01-03T23:34:00.000-08:00

Crosswalk is reporting that "A classical Christian school in North Carolina is being questioned over its use of a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for southern slavery. . . . In it, authors Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins argue slavery was not a systemic evil, but rather a benign institution."

The story also discusses at least one pastor's refutation of the book:

Idaho Presbyterian pastor Jack Davidson, who has written a critique of the booklet, says it purports to be a biblical and historical treatment of slavery, but falls well short of that. Wilson and Wilkins, according to Davidson, week to use anecdotal accounts of relationships between slaves and masters to discredit the traditional view of slavery in America. Davidson says the controversial material is a double indignity to black Americans. "What we're doing when we accept into our curriculum booklets like Wilson and Wilkins -- even though it sounds as if we're trying to speak in a conciliatory way -- is it basically robs the black American of his history. That's what it does," the pastor says. "It basically tells him and her there was really no problem; there was really no issue."

Faced with a story like this, one is strongly tempted to assume that everybody will see Wilson and Wilkins for the ignoramuses that they are. One is further tempted to just leave this alone, much the way one leaves alone people who believe that the earth is flat and that the space shots were made up. However, the reputation of Christ's Church is too precious to leave any question on this score, so I'll take up a few more words:

This isn't just nonsense, it's assininity carried to an extraordinarily high degree. Quite frankly, to the extent they offer any support for American Slavery, the authors are supporting, and advancing the cause of, evil. No, repeat, no Christian that I know or have ever known believes this. I have not read the booklet, but, to the extent that it's based in some way on some passage in Paul's and Peter's letters in the New Testament, it will represent an ahistorical and wrong-headed use of those passages. There is no Christian warrant for slavery. Period. Some of Paul's and Peter's passages give guidance to first century slaves and masters on how to treat one another, but those passages should be read as bound by those particular circumstances and, to repeat, those passages do not give any society warrant to capture and enslave God's children--they speak to individual behavior. See, e.g., Colossians 3:22, Colossians 4:1 and 1 Peter 2:18-25.

US slavery was not benign--it was horrific--watch the first part of Ken Burns' Civil War series if you have any misconceptions about this. Also, it WAS a systematic evil. It was a blight on this country and we are, sadly, still continuing to pay for its evil. Anybody who believes otherwise needs to (i) be removed from teaching anybody else anything and (ii) seriously re-examine their moral system.

An Interesting Experience

2005-01-03T21:29:00.000-08:00

Having read that Hugh Hewitt's new book, Blog, is not yet available at Amazon (although it may be available at bn.com), and being the impatient person that I am, I cast about for a means to obtain a copy of the book without having to wait for Amazon to get it. (To witness firsthand the pain that such a wait might cause, check this post by Rick Brady.)

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Hugh Hewitt recently wrote a book called Blog? Never heard of it. Are you sure?" Er, no, actually what you're thinking is, "Mark, where on earth do you think you're going to find a copy of the book if it's not at Amazon?" This was my challenge. However, I had heard of a certain place in Minneapolis from some of my older partners. They mentioned that it might have some books. Intrigued, I left my office and navigated my way through the skyway. Now, the first thing I have to point out was that this move brought me into contact almost immediately with other members of homo sapiens. Obviously, I try to avoid this as much as possible, but I was on a mission, so I endured. Having found the place mentioned, I noticed that the sign on the door looked suspiciously like the other logo at BN.com. I entered with some trepidation. Right away, I noticed two facts: First, there were actual, tangible books right there in front of me. Second, there were more homo sapiens, although it appeared that a goodly amount of them had not groomed recently, particularly the ones who were hovering near a sign that said "Women's Studies," whatever that is. In any event, after a brief period of disorientation, I navigated my way to the "Current Events" page, er, section and found the book. I proceeded to the cashier. He told me the price and I asked "how much is the shipping?" He looked at me quizzically (I suspect he hadn't seen a clean-shaven face in a while) and said "there's no shipping." I said, "what, is it over $25 or something? it says $19.99 on this sticker." He said, "umm, no, there's just no shipping." Suspicious, I gave him my Amex Blue Card and he put the book and receipt in a bag. "Where's the box?" I asked. "Box?" he said, "there's no box." "But don't I have to have this mass of cardboard and strange inflated plastic bladders to go with this?" I asked. "No, just the book, a bag and a receipt" he answered. He might have been getting defensive or something, because he was acting a bit strange. "Ok," I said, "when will I get it." "Is this a joke?" he said, "you take it with you." Well, I wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth. Besides, he was really acting odd at this point. I took the bag, he said something like "have a nice day" or "Happy New Year" or whatever, and I left. I went back to my office. Total elapsed time, 15 minutes. No shipping, no cardboard boxes, just a book.

I might try this again sometime.

By the way, I've only read the Introduction so far, so I will have to wait for a full post on the book. From the Introduction alone, however, I'm hooked. The thesis, as least as far as the Intro is concerned, is that corporations, churches, civic organizations, politicians, etc., need to understand the power of new media in general, particularly the internet, and the power of blogs in particular. They need to do this both (i) to learn how to utilize these new and powerful tools and (ii) to learn how to deal with them as a potential threat. Hugh likens many in the mainstream media to Pope Leo X when Luther was nailing his Theses to the church doorpost. In other words, they don't know the number of the bus that's about to hit them (or, in some cases, that has already hit them):

You have to be very dim indeed to be planning a career as a print journalist these days, or to be holding much stock in print-heavy companies such a the Tribune Company. Being CEO of Tribune Company is a lot like the job of being the most important bishop in Germany when Luther started hammering his theses to the Wittenberg cathedral's door.

Pretty heady stuff, that. Hugh may be overstating the case a bit. If the internet has demonstrated one thing, it is that name brand bricks and mortar companies that learn to use the internet smartly usually thrive. The powerhouses in the mainstream media, with their strong name brands and vestiges of public trust, are certainly positioned to profit from new media (in more ways than just in dollars). However, Hugh thinks (and I agree) that that is a very big "if". They appear, at the moment, to not get it. If they don't, they may run out of time, and the public may run out of patience and trust.

I am looking forward to finishing this quickly and posting more extended thoughts.

Additional Thoughts on the Tsunamis

2005-01-02T23:05:00.000-08:00

If, as we all should be, you are reflecting on the earthquake and the tsunamis, particularly on how they affect your thoughts about God and/or on how you should react, then I encourage you to read the posts by Pastor Mark Roberts, Pastor Mark Daniels, and Pastor Tod Bolsinger on the subject. Each covers a different aspect of how to grapple with the tragedy and each is well worth reading.

Key quotes:

"And I believe that is what we are to do: Add our light to the sum of light." (Bolsinger)

"But the point, after all, is that "mankind is our business." It is our business to care for those whose lives have been devastated by the recent tsunami, not to mention those whose lives were devastated by poverty and injustice before December 26th." (Roberts)

"When we allow ourselves to experience Jesus Christ, He will light our way through even the darkest of passages of life, enabling us to cope and inspiring us to love our neighbors--even those across the ocean--so that they too can be given light in their darkness and hope for their futures." (Daniels)

A few meager additional thoughts. If you have been moved by the tragedies and are contemplating the meaning of it all, you could do a lot worse than simply doing these two things:

Reflecting and praying humbly to God for direction in your life and direction in how you should respond.
Donating to one of the charities listed at the top of this blog.

Update #1: The UK Daily Telegraph has posted an article on Rowan Williams', the Archbishop of Canterbury, opinion piece (free registration may be required) regarding the tsunami disaster. To read the Telegraph's account, Williams has almost come to the brink of seriously questioning his own faith:

The Asian tsunami disaster should make all Christians question the existence of God, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, writes in The Telegraph today.
In a deeply personal and candid article, he says "it would be wrong" if faith were not "upset" by the catastrophe which has already claimed more than 150,000 lives.

However, in reading Williams' actual opinion piece, I think that he is making a much more subtle point than the Telegraph's summary indicates. What Williams is saying is that, when faced with suffering of such magnitude, it is natural for Christians and non-Christians alike to question faith. Williams does not, however, state that he is questioning his own faith. Rather, he makes a very moving and strong statement about people of faith in general:

The extraordinary fact is that belief has survived such tests again and again not because it comforts or explains but because believers cannot deny what has been shown or given to them. They have learned to see the world and life in the world as a freely given gift; they have learned to be open to a calling or invitation from outside their own resources, a calling to accept God's mercy for themselves and make it real for others; they have learned that there is some reality to which they can only relate in amazement and silence. These convictions are terribly assaulted by all those other facts of human experience that seem to point to a completely arbitrary world, but people still feel bound to them, not for comfort or ease, but because they have imposed themselves on the shape of a life and the habits of a heart.
Most importantly in this connection, religious people have learned to look at other human faces with something of the amazement and silence that God himself draws out of them. They see the immeasurable value, the preciousness, of each life. And here is one of the paradoxes. The very thing that lies closest to the heart of a religious way of life in the world, the passion about the value of each and every life, the passion that makes religious people so obstinate and inconvenient when society discusses abortion and euthanasia this is also just what makes human disaster so appalling, so much of a challenge to the feelings. Sometimes a secular moralist may say in contemporary debates: "Nature is wasteful of life; we can't hold to absolute views of the value of every human organism." That is not an option for the believer. That is why for the believer the uniqueness of every sufferer in a disaster such as the present one is so especially harrowing. There are no "spare" lives.
That is also why the reaction of faith is or should be always one of passionate engagement with the lives that are left, a response that asks not for understanding but for ways of changing the situation in whatever perhaps very small ways that are open to us. The odd thing is that those who are most deeply involved both as sufferers and as helpers are so often the ones who spend least energy in raging over the lack of explanation. They are likely to shrug off, awkwardly and not very articulately, the great philosophical or religious questions we might want to press. Somehow, they are most aware of two things: a kind of strength and vision just to go on; and a sense of the imperative for practical service and love. Somehow in all of this, God simply emerges for them as a faithful presence. Arguments "for and against" have to be put in the context of that awkward, stubborn persistence.

So, far from being Williams questioning the existence of God, as the Telegraph would have it, the Williams piece is a strong statement of faith. It is interesting to note, however, the Telegraph's lead paragraph in its story, which is the first paragraph quoted above. Notice that the part about Williams questioning the existence of God is not in quotes. That is because that particular phrase is not in the body of his piece. The title does state that, but it's unclear whether Williams wrote the title, as titles in newspapers are often written by somebody other than the author of the story. Interestingly, although it does quote one sentence from the Williams' paragraphs I quote above ("Dr Williams concludes that, faced with such a terrible challenge to their faith, Christians must focus on 'passionate engagement with the lives that are left'"), the Telegraph article does not otherwise make any mention of Williams' strong statements about faith.

This could lead one to question something: Did the authors of the Telegraph story actually read Williams' opinion piece? If so, was there a reason they left out discussion about the actual main point of the piece?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Update #2: Joe has posted a correction at Evangelical Outpost. In addition, he links to a press release by Williams at Thinking Anglicans that confirms my supposition about the Telegraph headline for the Williams piece. So, this turns out to be another case of how the media distorts a Christian story to its own ends. (Yawn.)

Update #3: Simon at Thinking Anglicans has posted an editorial by the UK Guardian in which the Guardian gently, but firmly, takes the Daily Telegraph to task for its sloppy headline. I would say that more than the headline was sloppy, but it's refreshing to see the mainstream media police its own.

(Thanks to Joe at Evangelical Outpost for the tip on the Williams piece and the correction mentioning this post. Thanks to Simon at Thinking Anglicans for the Williams press release and the Guardian editorial links.)

And a little child will lead them

2005-01-02T21:44:00.000-08:00

Setting: A family dinner table
Time of day: Dinner
The players: The Sides family children

2½ year old son (affecting his best St. Patrick):
"Tho you thee, God is wike a shamrock"

4 year old son, 6 year old daughter, and 6 year old daughter (simultaneously, affecting their best Irish peasant):
"Ohhh great Shamrock, your are powerful and mighty"

2½ year old son:
"No no no! Theesth isth thimply a methaphor"

Chorus:
"Ohh great metaphor, you are powerful and mighty"

2½ year old son:
"No no! God is WIKE a shamrock, because he is one God, thwee persons"

Chorus:
"Oh, alright then"

Repeat above one dozen times with increasing gales of laughter.

Brought to you with the help of Veggietales' Sumo of the Opera.

"Believe that God loves you as you cannot conceive"

2005-01-01T21:24:00.000-08:00

I am finally reading The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky (online versions here and here). It's starting out very well, which is not surprising since I've always been a fan of Russian realism. One passage has particularly moved me. It comes in the setting of a monastery. Zossima, an elder, or Spiritual Father (see here (scroll down), here and here regarding this concept), in the Russian Orthodox Church, has just heard a confession from a peasant woman. The reader does not know the substance of the confession, but it is assumed that she has confessed to the murder of her very abusive husband. She has confessed the sin (whatever it is) in regular confession several times, but is afraid to die because she believes herself to be unworthy of salvation, so she has come to see Zossima. In response, Zossima says this:

Fear nothing and never be afraid; and don't fret. If only your penitence fail not, God will forgive all. There is no sin, and there can be no sin on all the earth, which the Lord will not forgive to the truly repentant! Man cannot commit a sin so great as to exhaust the infinite love of God. Can there be a sin which could exceed the love of God? Think only of repentance, continual repentance, but dismiss fear altogether. Believe that God loves you as you cannot conceive; that He loves you with your sin, in your sin. It has been said of old that over one repentant sinner there is more joy in heaven than over ten righteous men. Go, and fear not. Be not bitter against men. Be not angry if you are wronged. Forgive the dead man in your heart what wrong he did you. Be reconciled with him in truth. If you are penitent, you love. And if you love you are of God. All things are atoned for, all things are saved by love. If I, a sinner, even as you are, am tender with you and have pity on you, how much more will God. Love is such a priceless treasure that you can redeem the whole world by it, and expiate not only your own sins but the sins of others. (Emphasis supplied.)

This is such a wonderful paragraph on God's love and mercy. I believe that it is impossible for man to conceive of something that is impossible for God to do. This is because our minds, being subservient to God's, are not even capable of conceiving something that is beyond Him. This paragraph restates that concept in terms of His ability to forgive sin.

God's message to us all (as understood by Zossima and Dostoevsky) is this: No matter what you have done, however shameful, if you honestly repent, humble yourself, and accept Jesus as savior, God can, and will, forgive you. Certainly that is true for me, who thinks that Paul called himself the worst of sinners only because he did not know me.

God's justice is inevitable, and to be feared. However, his mercy and love are infinite. We must continually remind ourselves of both facts. The former, to avoid pride and to not let down our guard; the latter so that we will "[f]ear nothing and never be afraid".

The War on Christianity

2005-01-01T13:27:00.000-08:00

Chuck Colson, in a recent Breakpoint commentary, points out further examples of the continuing war of Secular America on all things Christian.

One fun example:

McKinney, Texas, has no problem with people meeting in their homes for football watching parties, birthday parties, or even commercial gatherings to sell Tupperware. But when a few couples gathered in a pastor's home, they were told the City prohibits a church meeting in a home unless the home sits on at least two acres.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religious practice and freedom from the establishment of an official religion. I don't think it was meant to guarantee that religion is not practiced at all, which of course would have been anti-thetical to the Founders.

We must be continually on our guard to protect against the further erosion of religious liberty under the guise of secularism in this country.

Critics Bring Down 'Wait 'Til Marriage' Sex-Ed Program In NY

2005-01-01T13:15:00.000-08:00

In order to ensure that no progress is actually made in preventing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, not to mention making progress in raising overall moral values, a group of vocal critics in a New York school district have succeeded in getting the "I'm Worth Waiting For" abstinence program banned from a school in the Lansing Central School District because the program "was insensitive to people who don't want to get married or cannot get married legally."

In other words, the program might encourage children to think positively about heterosexual marriage and wait until they are married to have sex.

The director of the program, I think, had a more accurate assessment of what was behind the protest:

But the Center's executive director, Rhonda Mapes, says the program simply tells students there are consequences to sexual activity outside of marriage. Mapes claims "Christianphobia" prompted the district's decision to discard the program -- but she vows that critics' objections to the Center's Christian affiliation will not deter her from promoting abstinence in other schools.

Having had some experience with the "I'm Worth Waiting For" program, I must say that it has proved to be one effective tool in the continuing effort of reasonable parents to call their children to a higher standard of behavior than the old liberal standby of "everybody else is doing it!" and "you might as well give them condoms since they'll do it anyway."

Those who promote "I'm Worth Waiting For" actually believe that is it possible for parents and schools, working together, to get children to think past their immediate experiences and adopt, and follow, a moral worldview--you know, the worldview that most Westerners have adopted for the past 2000 years, before we all became so enlightened.

I wonder if the real trouble was that these "protesters" were worried that their children might actually learn some transcendent moral principles and begin questioning their parents' beliefs and actions.

Confessions of a GenXer

2004-12-31T20:36:00.000-08:00

Josh Claybourn, one of the authors of In the Agora, has a thoughtful and soul-searching post on being a GenXer Christian in the wealthiest nation the world has seen. In the light of the suffering in the Indian Ocean, his conscience has been pricked, as should ours be:

The tsunami victims are hard to ignore. Not only have they suffered an unexpected natural disaster of mind-blowing proportions, but even before it struck many of them lived a desolate life that was most often spent acquiring essentials like food, housing and clothing. They weren't completely hopeless, but there's no doubt that a day like mine would be as foreign to some natives as a Martian alien's would be to me. The point is, I knew of their desolation before the disaster, and now it's even more pronounced. This thought never left my mind, and yet I never altered my behavior either. I just thought about it...over and over, without necessarily changing or doing anything.

And so here I am, preparing to sleep in my queen size bed in my up-scale, downtown two bedroom apartment which I have all to myself, and I've still done virtually nothing. I've donated some money to the Red Cross, but it was chump change. It was as meaningful as my wasteful decision to drive a few blocks and park in a garage. This is my story, and I am not alone.

I have posted similar thoughts on this topic. American Christians need to continue to look for ways that we can aid those less fortunate in the world around us. It will help them, and, just as important, help us as well.

KTIS New Years Show

2004-12-31T20:12:00.000-08:00

If you're looking for something to do this evening, check out KTIS' New Years Eve show. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, you can tune in to 98.5 FM. If you're anywhere else, you can listen over the 'net (look for "Listen Online" and the headphones at the top right of the page). I've listened to the New Years Eve show for several years now and it's definitely worth it.

KTIS, and Chuck Knapp and Jon Engen in particular, has had a great impact on my Christian walk. First, the blend of great Christian music and good humor always brightens my day.

Second, and more important, God used KTIS to re-ignite my faith. When my wife and I returned to Minnesota in 1994, my Christian walk was flagging. Indeed, I did not have much of a walk. I still had faith, I just did not practice my faith. For a year or so, I would listen to a local rock 'n roll station's morning show on the drive to work. This particular show is the number 1 rated in the Twin Cities. It was (and is) a milder version of Howard Stern. After I had heard about the 100th flatulence joke one morning, I started scanning the dial. I came to rest on a great song that was clearly Christian and yet was also good music. It happened to be a Rich Mullins song. I had always thought of Christian music as boring, being pretty much synonymous with Sandy Patty, etc., so I was surprised to find a station that played very good, very Christian music.

As I continued to listen, God began working on my heart, both through the music and through Pastor Jon Engen's morning show (Chuck Knapp came later). Eventually, my wife and I decided that it was time to return to Church, as we had not been going for almost 5 years at that point. So, we went to a local Church and I began reading Scripture again. I also worked on other aspects of my life that were definitely falling short. I have been walking fully in faith ever since.

So, you can see why I have a special place in my heart for KTIS and for Rich Mullins (God rest his soul).

Thank you, KTIS.

Happy New Year

2004-12-31T19:04:00.000-08:00

To all the readers of Sidesspot. First, let me wish each of you a very Happy New Year. My prayer is that each of you have a peaceful, blessed and prosperous 2005. Second, I would like to thank each and every one of you who read this site (and keep coming back). My hope is that you have been informed, inspired and/or moved in some way.

God Bless you all.

Mark

The ACLU's Understanding

2004-12-30T05:49:00.000-08:00

Father Richard John Neuhaus, writing in his monthly "The Public Square" column in the January 2005 edition of First Things (most of which is not yet available online), notes the following tidbit:

If you don't like the Constitution, you can always rewrite it. Or resort to the creative use of ellipses. The American Civil Liberties Union has an impressive website on free speech. The opening paragraph introducing the website is this: "It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society."

Neuhaus continues:

The first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment is, of course, the free exercise of religion. It appears that among the liberties championed by the ACLU is that of taking liberties with the text of the Constitution.

You don't need to take Neuhaus's word for it. Here is the text at the ACLU site. Here is the text of the First Amendment.

Whatever the ACLU is doing, it's certainly not a typo--the ellipses proves that. For the life of me, I cannot imagine why the ACLU did this. Certainly the freedom of speech is important enough on its own that the ACLU did not need to resort to creative license to highlight it?

Could it be that the ACLU does not believe in the free exercise of religion?

CNN.com - Tsunami death toll tops 115,000

2004-12-30T04:41:00.000-08:00

CNN is reporting a UN statement that theTsunami death toll top is now over 115,000. This is almost incomprehensible. Sadly, I suspect the toll will rise beyond this as more areas that have been inaccessible are explored. One thing I do know, whether or not the US, and/or President Bush, has been slow to respond or not given enough, we all need to help--now. Above there is a link and a phone number for World Vision's relief efforts. Other sites are posting numbers for the Red Cross and other organizations. Please do what you can. This is one where we all need to help our brothers and sisters in need.

Last Christian Carnival of 2004

2004-12-29T04:29:00.000-08:00

MediaSoul is hosting the last Christian Carnival of 2004. The entries generally follow one of three themes. Start your New Year out right by clicking over and perusing the offerings.

Thoughts for the New Year

2004-12-27T20:47:00.000-08:00

Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Stacy at MediaSoul is hosting this week's Christian Carnival. Since it the the last of the year, she has challenged participants to write on one of three topics: A) Most wonderful gifts (in light of Christmas), B) From Passion to Action (for those of us who have to engage the culture for Christ), or C) Thoughts on the New Year or from this year.

Choosing item C, I move forward with much trepidation on thoughts for the New Year.

First, with one exception, noted below, I don't think there will be any dramatic, "we couldn't have seen that coming" events in 2005-- no September 11 type, history changed on this day moments. (Which is too bad for the citizens of Iran, North Korea and China, among others.) 2005 will be the year of incrementalism--incremental progress in Iraq, incremental progress in the War on the Terrorists, incremental economic expansion, incremental progress in discussing Social Security (but not progress in fixing it), etc. There will be glimmers of peace between the Palestinians and Israel, and those glimmers will be proved fools' gold by each side's policy of mutual perpetual destruction. The Iran revolution will still be a hope in progress.

One change that may have future implications, will at least begin during 2005. Conservative Christians will gradually lose their current position of influence within the Republican party. (James of the Rooftop Blog has made the same prediction.) It will be gradual at first, but apparent by the mid-term elections of 2006 and will be clear by the Presidential election of 2008. It will be brought about by a combination of two things: First, Conservative Christians will begin to feel betrayed by a perceived lack of action by Republicans, particularly Congressional Republicans, on several key issues--with abortion being the most notable issue.

Conservative Christians generally feel that their strong showing at the ballot box this past November put the President and Congressional Republicans over the top. They now have expectations. Those expectations will almost assuredly not be met in full. Among other things, Congressional Republicans, faced with the potential to actually effect changes in the legal right to abortion through Supreme Court appointments, will blink. Standing on the precipice of beginning to turn back Roe v. Wade, Republicans will get cold feet. They will not use their majority to confirm anti-Roe judges and, thus, Conservative Christians will feel betrayed. There will be other perceived betrayals, but this one will be felt the most and be most clearly seen.

For their part, Republicans who desire power above fulfilling religious convictions will begin to believe that they can either (i) count on the votes of Conservative Christians without giving said Conservative Christians any real gains or (ii) win without Conservative Christians. Option one is plausible, but I suspect not probable. However, Republicans can safely shift left on social issues and likely pick up votes--or at least they can probably be convinced to try it. So, option two may be possible. No matter what, they will believe that giving too much to Conservative Christians on their social agenda will lose too many other votes. And, Republicans will be unwilling to do that. As abortion will be the most prominent issue, they will comfort, and excuse, themselves by pointing to that issue, and the Conservative Christian stance on it, as justification for their inactions. They will want to be honored for nobly holding out against the Christian extremists.

Perhaps this won't occur fully in 2005, but it will begin in 2005.

For their part, Conservative Christians will need to do some serious soul searching soon. Will they support Republicans if they feel betrayed? I suspect, and hope, not. Perhaps they will vote Republican as the lesser of two evils. Perhaps they will return to their quasi-isolation that characterized Conservative Christian involvement before the 1980s.

Perhaps, however, Conservative Christians will instead look for political unity with other Christians--similar to the nascent attempts at unity occurring between Catholics, Evangelicals and the Orthodox. Each side, politically liberal Christians and politically conservative Christians, may need to get out of its comfort zone, but perhaps that will become possible through further dialogue. Perhaps, like denominations, it will become apparent to all of us that we Christians, conservative or liberal, Catholic, Evangelical, or Orthodox, really have a natural meeting place--at the foot of the Cross.

Follow Me

2004-12-27T20:17:00.000-08:00

Driving home today, I was listening to Luke, Chapter 5. I was struck by the calling of Levi:

After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him, and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

Imagine that. You are a fairly comfortable middle-class person. You're sitting in your office. In walks someone who you have never met before. He looks at you--actually you feel as though he looks through you. Your heart leaps. You know, somehow, that he's got the answers. He then tells you to drop everything and follow him.

Drop your well-paying job.
Drop your career.
Drop your dreams.
Drop your house.
Drop your car.
Drop your wide-screen TV with surround sound.
Drop everything you have ever known and worked for and follow him.

So, what do you do?

Funniest Book

2004-12-23T04:22:00.000-08:00

Shermblog and the Corner are posting on the funniest novels/books ever. As for funniest novel, I really don't read novels that are intended as humor. However, Vanity Fair by Thackeray has some very funny moments and incisive social commentary that is, oddly enough, relevant today.

As for funniest non-fiction book (and funniest book period) I have ever read, it's not even close--Give War a Chance, by P.J. O'Rourke. I first read it in law school, when my conservative friends and I used to read it aloud during lunch breaks. (Yes, we were geeks, but it was fin de siècle Washington, D.C., Clinton had just been elected, and we were stressed from studying, so cut us some slack). I don't believe I have ever laughed out loud as much. Although a compilation of his columns from other publications, the book is not bound by its publication time (early '90s)--it remains topical today. This is particularly true since almost one-half of it is dedicated to the Iraq War. The first installment of it, that is.

If you have never read O'Rourke, do yourself a favor and buy a copy.

Christian Carnival: Christmas Edition

2004-12-22T21:53:00.000-08:00

Patriot Paradox is hosting this week's Christian Carnival. The theme is, of course, Christmas. Nick has done a great job interspersing Peanuts and It's a Wonderful Life snippets between the post links. Stop by during the long weekend if you need a bit of inspiration.

ACLU Sues to Remove 'Primordial Soup' Displays

2004-12-22T05:20:00.000-08:00

Breaking news from Scrappleface:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) today filed a class-action suit on behalf of monotheists seeking the removal of wetlands from government-owned property because they visually portray the 'primordial soup' where some believe life began and from which humanity evolved.

If you do not get it, then you need to read "That Other Church" by David Klinghoffer in Christianity Today.

EPIC 2014

2004-12-21T21:28:00.000-08:00

This presentation is thought provoking and intentionally so. Anybody interested in the future of media and information, and their intersection at the internet, ought to view it. I don't agree with all of the implicit messages, but believe that the questions raised ought to be considered by us all.

(Thanks to Jonah Goldberg at the NRO Corner.)

"[I]t is urgent to rebuild full communion among Christians"

2004-12-21T20:56:00.000-08:00

Pope John Paul II, in a meeting with curial officials reported in Zenit, stressed the need for unity among all peoples, beginning with unity among Christians:

"Unity of the Church and unity of the human race! I read this aspiration to unity in the faces of pilgrims of all ages," the Pope said today when meeting with Curial officials in the traditional meeting to exchange Christmas greetings.

The Holy Father recalled that the Second Vatican Council constitution "Lumen Gentium" stated that the Church has the "mission to be a sign and instrument of profound union with God and of the unity of the whole human race."

He appealed to the cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and lay people present "to be ever more aware that communion with God and unity among all people, beginning with believers, is our priority commitment."

The Pope then highlighted examples from the recent past of actions by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox that tend to bring the Church closer together. He then ended with a message of hope that unity could be accomplished through Christ.

I have posted before on the urgent need for unity among Christians. (See here, here and here.) Indeed, I feel it is the second most important mission of the Church today (with promulgating the saving message of Christ being always first--and true Christian unity would aid this first mission dramatically).

During this Christmas season most especially, we Christians should focus on our unity in Christ, and that Christ called on us all to love one another (Jn. 13:34). Of course, we cannot rest simply at loving one another. We must love all of God's children through a thousand daily acts of kindness and love. We need to wish everybody a Merry Christmas every day of the week--not necessarily with words.

The Journey from Self

2004-12-21T04:00:00.000-08:00

who is there, when the self-spirit seems listless--dead?
when the well-furrowed soil of the mind yields no fruit?
who is there, when to simply be seems an act of will?
who is there, when the music in my soul will not play?

the anomie weighs me down
its presence is palable, and smothering
(yet I can't even summon the energy to throw it off)
accedia is too light and airy to describe this feeling
is this hell, this nothing sense of the soul?

who can save me from my own self?
i ponder this and draw nigh to the point of despair

Then the angels come (four in number) to work their magic.
Flitting in, they are boundless--swirling and giggling about me;
Eyes lighting the room--they abound in delight.
Sitting on my lap, I tousle the curl. I kiss the cheek.
They draw me from myself.

Yet, even as they re-kindle the spark, I wonder--
Do they look to me to provide that which I cannot?
To be a substitute (and a poor one) is my lot.
Yet, to throw off the weight of the crushing realization that I would fail them,
I remember this--I only have to point them to their real Father.
The one who can save them from themselves is the one who does the same for me.

The one who came in poverty to save us all, on that first Christmas Day.

God Bless and Protect Our Troops

2004-12-13T23:13:00.000-08:00

This tribute has been around for a while, but it's worth remembering this time of year.

God bless and protect our troops and bring this conflict to a speedy end.

Godspeed, good men and women.

God bless those who wait at home as well. May all of your Christmas wishes be fulfilled.

More on "Here I stand"

2004-12-13T20:29:00.000-08:00

In a previous post, I expressed surprise that Martin Luther did not say "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise" during his famous defense at the Diet of Worms.

Pastor Mark Daniels suggests that Luther may very well have said those words:

As I understand it, whether Luther in fact made the "Here I stand..." statement
or not, is unknown. While the words are not in the early reports of the
confrontation at Wurms, many eyewitnesses (or earwitnesses, as the case may be)
claimed that he said these words almost imperceptibly after his ringing refusal
to recant. In this sense then, the words would seem less like ones of defiance
than what, if they were spoken, they probably were: The words of a Christian
telling God, "Thy will be done."

Far be it from me to dispute Luther with a Lutheran pastor. Does anybody else have any light to shed on this?

Thanks for the comment, Pastor Daniels.

"Where God wills, the order of nature is overturned"

2004-12-13T20:19:00.000-08:00

An inspiring excerpt from St. John Chrysostom's Nativity Sermon (the whole sermon is worth reading):

And that I may embrace them all together, all sinners have come, that they may look upon the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world! Since, therefore, all rejoice, I too desire to rejoice! I too wish to share the choral dance, to celebrate the festival! But I take my part, not plucking the harp nor with the music of the pipes nor holding a torch, but holding in my arms the cradle of Christ!

(Thanks to Orthodoxy Today)

Our Duty

2004-12-09T23:01:00.000-08:00

Here are a few quotes that are somewhat related and are inspiring (at least to me):

Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Ephesians 6:13)
[M]y conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen (Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms)
I do not intend to be "upbeat," but the game ain't over until it's over. Like Paul at Athens, we do preach the unknown God, and do so in the hope that many would worship Him if they knew His name. For this society, Christians seek to provide direction, or at least influence. Worse come to worst, we can ony bear bold witness, perhaps costly witness. It is the cost of discipleship. It is not a matter of calculating the odds. It is a matter of simple duty. (Father Richard John Neuhaus (scroll to the end of the symposium) in First Things)

Words to remember. As a Christian, I tend to be subject to cynicism and defeatism when I reflect our culture and its trajectory. However, we are not required to win the culture war, we just need to report for duty. God takes care of the rest.

(Incidentally, I did not know until tonight that Luther did not actually say "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise" in the statement above, although those words are often added to the quote.)

Christian Carnival XLVII--A Big One

2004-12-09T21:13:00.000-08:00

Christian Carnival XLVII is up at TheGodBlog. There are a very large number of entries on a very wide variety of topics. Well worth a bit o' time.

The Promise of America

2004-12-09T20:46:00.000-08:00

Pastor Mark Daniels posts on the connections between Samuel Betances, George Washington, Martin Luther King, and the Promise of America. Read the post to see how he connects the dots.

Here are a few of the insights:

[A]mong some political elites in America today, there is a condemnation of America, a loathing of America, that dismisses the entire American experiment as failed and flawed, as worthless and insusceptible to reform.

Samuel Betances doesn't agree with this view. He points out that when Martin Luther King, Jr. made his I Have a Dream speech, he didn't dismiss the promise of America, embodied in the Declaration, the Constitution as originally crafted, or the Bill of Rights. He appealed to those documents as guarantors of the birthright of every American to have equal access to opportunities in our country.

Those wealthy, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant founders who didn't live up to their own ideals established the framework that made it possible for King to press his case for equality for all. So before we dismiss America and its promises, Betances suggests, we should remember that the very fact that we have those legal promises came from these flawed white men who didn't fully understand the implications of their own philosophy and cause.

The Reason for the Season (or, It's About Jesus, Stupid)

2004-12-07T20:38:00.000-08:00

Politickal Animal offers this insightful comment about my post on Advent:

Thanks for this offering on Advent. In my Presbyterian tradition, we can go pretty high church during Advent. My current church is more what I lovingly call a "high baptist" congregation, in which the meaning of Advent is something of mystery, as in "What is it?" Thus I view Advent as a teaching opportunity every year. Advent, people, is about far more than just lighting the candles in the wreath. It's about more than how many shopping days are left until Christmas. And it's not always about singing Christmas carols every week, then throwing out the tree, the candles, and all references to Christmas on Dec. 26th. I like to tie Advent into what I call the Advent/Christmas/Epiphany cycle. I try real hard to get it across that Advent is a time for getting ready; Christmas is a time for celebration, the whole 12 days after, up to Epiphany. I believe what you decry as the Evangelical church's fear of creeping Catholicism is not the real issue on most American congregations. The real culprit, I believe, is rampant commercialism and secularization. Advent gets in the way of all those great pre-Christmas sales.

Spot on, Politickal Animal.

His comment reminds me of the story of the story on the Denver "Parade of Lights," Denver's annual holiday parade (yes I know it's an old story at this point, but it still retains its annoying value):

And now a church group who wants to march in the Parade of Lights and sing Christmas carols will not be allowed to participate in the parade. Organizers say the parade is about the holidays, not Christmas, but leaders of the Faith Bible Chapel say that's ridiculous.

So, to understand, what the parade organizers are saying is that the Christmas season is not about Christmas? Since when was this season about anything other than Christmas?

Here's the rationale from one of the high-minded nincompoops who organize the parade:

We try to be sensitive to the fact that we are a very diverse community and a very diverse world," said Rogers. She said this is a holiday parade, not specifically a Christmas parade, and it's occurring during a season when many other cultures are celebrating other holidays as well.

Ah, just so. Not to be too insensitive, but the reason that there is a holiday season to be celebrated is because of Christmas. Although I think that Chanukah is a wonderful event to celebrate, it is actually a minor Jewish holiday. This is not to say that its importance is to be minimized, but it is not what drives the holiday season. Similarly, Kwanzaa, although culturally important to African-Americans, is not the reason for the season. No gifts, no Santa, no mistletoe--we still have a holiday season, are not the reason. No Jesus, no holiday season. Pretty simple really, but apparently a bit too hard for some to grasp.

(PS: I'm not quite sure why Politickal Animal spells "Politickal" that way. At first I suspected it to be a hybrid between "political" and "jackal" but now I suspect that's the type of spelling to be expected from an LSU football fan.)

A Little High Church Never Hurt Anything

2004-12-05T20:19:00.000-08:00

Chris Armstrong has written an article, Advent--Close encounters of a Liturgical Kind, in Christian History & Biography. The article discusses his journey from thinking that the ceremony surrounding the Advent season was, at best, boring, to discovering how celebrating Advent has enriched his Christian walk: "These days, on the other side of an evangelical conversion and nearly a decade of graduate study in church history, I've begun to see what excited my parents about Advent. I'm even entertaining the possibility that my own young family might benefit from an informed observance of Advent."

He goes on to state that:

So as Advent's four bright Sundays offer us ways to meditate on Christ's coming, let's explore the sustaining power of liturgical observance. In the words of John Bookser Feister, editor of AmericanCatholic.com, churchly seasons like Advent "tie our lives to Christians throughout history." In a time of year filled with indulgence, the observance of centuries-old Christian practices can feed us in a deeper and better way.

And he closes with these thoughts:

And in the protected, quiet times of meditation, I can respond as I imagine believers have done on every Advent since the tradition began:

I can bow my head and prepare my heart to receive the One who is always present, but who seems distant in the busyness of the season.

I can mourn for my hardness of heart.

I can hope in his grace.

And I can rejoice that in answer to the cry, "O come, O come, Emmanuel," he came.

Would I really be able to do this in the midst of December's commercial rush of lights, decorations, present-buying, and piped-in carols without a gently insistent, weekly liturgical pattern?

Maybe.

But I'm not rolling my eyes any more.

For my own part, as I discover, as an adult, the richness of Christian history, tradition, ceremony and mystery, I have become increasingly saddened by the complete lack of emphasis on these items in the American Evangelical church. Walk into any non-denominational Evangelical church these days (and even a fair number of denominational churches), and you'll be hard-pressed to find ceremony of any kind--certainly no mystery. Indeed, you'd even be hard pressed, oftentimes, to find Communion. Also, I have rarely heard mention of the Church Fathers, even Augustine, in Evangelical churches. I sometimes hear a bit from Luther or Calvin, but even that is a rarity. It's as if Evangelicals are so afraid of becoming Catholics that they don't want to have even a whiff of ceremony, lest they start down the road to Rome (as if that's such a bad thing in any event).

I have news for my fellow Evangelicals, we didn't just spring to life, wholly formed, out of the ground. We stand on the shoulders of giants--Augustine, Aquinas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, just to name a few. We have a long, deep, rich, and, yes, varied history. There's 2000 years of Christian church history and tradition to be learned from and to be explored. It's time for Evangelicals to re-discover our roots.

A good place to start would be Pastor Mark Roberts' series on Advent. There's also a link above to American Catholic.org. I promise you won't be forced to do the Rosary if you click it.

ScrappleFace: Dutch Expand List of 'Mercy Killing' Candidates

2004-12-03T05:12:00.000-08:00

At the heart of every good satire lies a kernal of truth, or, perhaps in this case, a whole cornfield of truth. Too bad it's not just a joke.

The Groningen Protocol-Update

2004-12-01T20:09:00.000-08:00

Brain Shavings has an excellent extended post on the Groningen Protocol story--complete with Venn Diagrams. He gives an example of a baby daughter who is born with disabilities, and ends the example with this thought:

Now imagine that the decision whether or not to kill your daughter will be made by strangers. These government sanctioned strangers are bureaucrats, and no matter how high-minded their intentions may be in the beginning, we all know what eventually happens to bureaucracies. Bureaucrats strive to protect and expand their turf and their influence. They reduce everything to cold calculations about supplies and budgets and expenses. The interests of the people they're supposedly serving disappear in the haze, and the high-ranking bureaucrats make sweeping policy decisions that they never have to implement themselves. Eventually, they see themselves as entitled to the power they wield, and woe to the lowly citizen who disagrees.

He also has an updated set of links to other sites that are following this disturbing development.

Update: A lively debate is raging in the comments to Joe's excellent post on the Groningen Protocol story at Evangelical Outpost. Provocative points are being made on both sides.

Update Deux: Pastor Mark Roberts has a turned his thoughts on this issue into a series. The posts include an extended discussion tying in Herod's slaughter of the innocents and a post linking to several resources on the subject.

Christian Carnival XLVI

2004-12-01T19:19:00.000-08:00

Christian Carnival XLVI is up at A Physicist's Perspective. There is a fine assortment of posts designed to inform, inspire and amuse. Click on over and sample the offerings.

The Creeping Evil of Good Intentions

2004-11-30T19:08:00.000-08:00

Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty.
Simone Weil

I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern. C. S. Lewis

Hugh Hewitt links to an AP story about the Groningen Academic Hospital, a hospital in the Netherlands, which has admitted that it has been euthanizing babies for some time:

A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives - a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

Now, we should not shrink from understanding the cases involved here. This is not a concentration camp in which otherwise healthy children are being put to death. These babies have serious, heart-breaking conditions and are suffering greatly:

Examples include extremely premature births, where children suffer brain damage from bleeding and convulsions; and diseases where a child could only survive on life support for the rest of its life, such as severe cases of spina bifida and epidermosis bullosa, a rare blistering illness.

In addition, the hospital estimates that the medical protocol being written by the hospital for euthanizing babies: "would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country of 16 million people." So, we are not talking about large numbers of babies. (Pardon me, "cases." Let's not humanize them.)

What we are talking about, though, is the next step after consensual, doctor-assisted suicide. Namely, the non-consensual termination of life. More bluntly, they are killing these babies. They are killing babies for noble (in their minds) reasons, but they are killing babies nonetheless.

Whenever Christians point to an act with horror and alarm, the secular thought leaders always seem to (i) scoff at the lack of sophistication of people of faith and (ii) speak soothingly of their humane intentions, that the latest act is really no big deal, and certainly is NOT comparable to what occurred in Nazi Germany. Yet the slide towards that very moral state occurs decade by decade. It is creeping in like the fog, and is imperceptibly, but most definitely, beginning to envelop us. First abortion, then do not resuscitate, then withhold food and water, then consensual doctor-assisted suicide, then selective reduction, then designer babies (the Ubermensch is coming!), now non-consensual killing of babies.

Don't worry. The slide will go no further than this.

Update: Hugh Hewitt has linked to some other site posts on this story, reproduced here for convenience:

Dr. John Mark Reynolds
Pastor Mark D. Roberts
Captain's Quarters
Froggy Ruminations
Bogus Gold

Hugh finishes with a bit of frustration:

This news from Holland is deeply horrifying, and the blogosphere is generally silent, which means, what, indifferent? Or embarrassed? Some of my favorite bloggers have said nothing. Nothing? Perhaps they are unaware of the story. But for all the reasons that Drs. David Allen White and Mark D. Roberts detailed today, indifference or indecision is not really an option. The advocacy of the establishment of committees charged with dealing out death --and the admission that such decisions have already been taken in the West-- is not an event about which one can really be neutral.

Yes, this is one to get upset about, go off the deep end, push the panic button, whatever you'd like to call it. Can we draw the line here, finally?

Update 2: Pastor Mark Daniels also weighs in.

Modern Novels I have Re-Read

2004-11-29T23:00:00.000-08:00

Hugh Hewitt asks bloggers to list modern novels that we have read more than once. I take modern novel to mean anything written after 1900. My first take is that not a lot good has been written after 1900. I've read many novels written before 1900 twice, or more, particularly those of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen. That, however, is not the assignment. Accordingly, here are those written after 1900 that I have read more than once:

The Lord of the Rings (make that more than twice) (top five)
The Aubrey-Maturin Series by Patrick O'Brien, 20 novels, starting with Master and Commander and ending with Blue at the Mizzen (do not let the lousy movie fool you; the books are nothing like the movie, they are thrilling and engrossing)
Red Storm Rising, by Tom Clancy (I'm a sucker for Clancy novels)

Non-modern novels read more than once:

Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen (more than twice) (top five)
Bleak House, by Charles Dickens (top five)
Les Miserables, by Victor Hugo (top five)

Novels I expect to re-read:

Moby Dick (top five)
You Can't Go Home Again, by Thomas Wolfe (that's Thomas, not Tom)
Martin Chuzzlewit, by Charles Dickens

Novels I haven't read, I'm not sure why I haven't, but intend to do so:

The Brothers Karamazov, by Dostoevsky (I even own it)
Crime and Punishment, by Dostoevsky

The stranded on the island with only one novel, which one would you want novel?: Les Miserables

Cities for Life--NO to the Death penalty

2004-11-29T20:48:00.000-08:00

The Community of Sant'Egidio, a Catholic lay organization, has organized Tuesday, November 30 as the day on which 300 cities around the world will say no to the death penalty.

We all stand guilty before God. (Romans 3:23) We all deserve death. (Romans 2) Even our righteous acts, standing alone, are unclean in God's sight. (See Isaiah 64:6)

We are unlovely.

Fortunately, Jesus loved the unlovely, and, through Him, we unlovely ones are saved.

Certainly, there are many who deserve the death penalty for their actions. They, too, are unlovely. The Community of Sant'Egidio reminds us, however, that the culture of life, which was birthed in a small town in Palestine 2000 years ago, extends to all.

Even to the unlovely.

Happy Birthday C.S. Lewis

2004-11-29T04:43:00.000-08:00

Today is the anniversary of C.S. Lewis' birth. Chuck Colson suggests that Lewis' perspective as a Christian writing from within the academy gave Lewis unique, and prophetic, insights into important cultural issues that are still with us today. Colson also suggests that Lewis' deep knowledge of historical Christian thought gave Lewis a backdrop against which to measure cultural thought trends. Colson's point is that modern Christians, particularly evangelicals, must inform ourselves of both historical Christian thought and the cultural issues of the day if we are to impact the culture:

Lewis once wrote than any new book “has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages.” Because he himself was steeped in that “great body of Christian thought,” he quickly discerned trends that ran counter to it.
But how many of us are familiar with that same panorama of Christian ideas “down the ages”? How many of us know the work of more than a few contemporary writers? How, then, can we stand against the destructive intellectual trends multiplying in our own day?

Orthodox Patriarch Hopeful as Relics Are Handed Over

2004-11-28T21:20:00.000-08:00

Zenit reports on the recent return of two relics to the Orthodox Church by the Catholic Church. In this day when religious divisions are sometimes as bitter as political divisions, it is nice to see such gestures.

Christians of all stripes can hope that the words of Patriarch Bartholomew I during the ceremony ring true for the Church as a whole:

This fraternal gesture of the Church of ancient Rome confirms that insurmountable problems do not exist in the Church of Christ, when love, justice and peace meet in the sacred 'diaconia' of reconciliation and unity," the Orthodox leader said.

Christian Carnival XLV at CowPi

2004-11-25T19:34:00.000-08:00

Christian Carnival XLV is up at CowPi Journal. Mark has organized the entries into three categories:

Vertical — the connection between you and God
Horizontal/Outward — the connection between you and other people
Inward — the connection with yourself

Wander over and take a look at the 37 interesting entries.

Pacers-Pistons fight expands growing divide between players, fans

2004-11-23T20:52:00.000-08:00

I am delighted to have you play football. I believe in rough, manly sports. But I do not believe in them if they degenerate into the sole end of any one's existence. I don't want you to sacrifice standing well in your studies to any over-athleticism; and I need not tell you that character counts for a great deal more than either intellect or body in winning success in life. Athletic proficiency is a mighty good servant, and like so many other good servants, a mighty bad master. . . I am glad you should play football; I am glad that you should box; I am glad that you should ride and shoot and walk and row as well as you do. I should be very sorry if you did not do these things. But don't ever get into the frame of mind which regards these things as constituting the end to which all your energies must be devoted, or even the major portion of your energies
Teddy Roosevelt

Sport in the sense of a mass-spectacle, with death to add to the underlying excitement, comes into existence when a population has been drilled and regimented and depressed to such an extent that it needs at least a vicarious participation in difficult feats of strength or skill or heroism in order to sustain its waning life-sense.
Lewis Mumford

Sports Illustrated columnist Phil Taylor provides some very insightful commentary on the recent fight at the Pacers-Pistons game. The article explores Mr. Taylor's belief that tensions between fans and pro athletes has been growing. Mr. Taylor believes that the latest incident simply follows from those growing tensions--and is likely to not be the last such incident.

As insightful as Mr. Taylor's observations are regarding the fan-player relationship, his extended thoughts on the ultimate cause are even more insightful:

There was a time when even that pent-up resentment wouldn't have caused the kind of ugliness we saw Friday at the Palace of Auburn Hills, when it wouldn't have occurred to fans to attack players, and players wouldn't have dreamed of charging into the stands. That was before the standards for acceptable behavior changed, before we started serenading opposing players with obscene taunts, before we began chanting "Bull----!" when a referee makes a call we don't like.

It was also before everyone got so angry, and we're not talking about sports. We flip each other off in the car more, and fire off angry e-mails, and it's no surprise that when some of us go to a game, we're not just looking for entertainment, we're looking to let off steam. We want to see Ray Lewis pulverize a ball carrier and dance in celebration. We can't wait to see Shaquille O'Neal flatten Kobe Bryant the first time he comes through the lane. Is it any wonder that some of us want to do more than just watch the mayhem, that we want to be part of it?

* * * *

But the Pistons-Pacers fight wasn't just the result of a few fans having about a dozen too many, and it wasn't just about Artest looking for trouble and finding it again. The brawl came about because of far deeper, more complicated problems that can't be completely remedied with more security or more sobriety. The tensions that led to the melee won't go away overnight.

(Compare the similar thoughts in this Winnipeg Sun story.)

Mr. Taylor is saying that the ways in which we interact in sports--as fans, as participants, and as parents of little leaguers--is a mirror to how we interact in our society at large. Sports, then, is a microcosm of our society. A canary in the mine perhaps.

Thus, at a minimum, we need to make sports fun again and we need to keep it in perspective. But we need to look deeper too.

Christmas Gift Idea

2004-11-23T20:34:00.000-08:00

Looking for a golf club for that special golfer on your list? I highly recommend Titleist (scroll down to item number 3.)

I exist for the praise of God's glory

2004-11-21T21:56:00.000-08:00

Pastor Mark Roberts' sermon posted on his site cuts through some of the existential angst that many Christians, including me, face in our daily lives: In all that you do, do it for the glory of God. Seems simple, but we often make it hard. If you think about it, though, getting into the mindset recommended by Pastor Roberts can actually be quite freeing--you don't have to worry about the results, just the labor.

When Tragedy Hits the Innocent

2004-11-18T23:41:00.000-08:00

Pastor Mark Daniels, who authors Better Living, has posted a series on dealing with tragedy. In post number four, he gives a bit of a summation that is spot on:

Knowing that you are forever in the hands of Jesus gives a person a courage and a tenacity for living they wouldn't otherwise have. It doesn't make suffering easier. But it does help the follower of Christ to know...

they don't suffer alone

they have life beyond the suffering

they, like their Savior, can suffer with others

they have the family of the Church to uphold, encourage, and share hope with them

they know that God will never walk away!

Here are posts one, two and three.

Pastor Daniels handles this subject with great maturity. Although he offers comfort and reassurance to those who are suffering (or who are aiding the suffering), he does not attempt to sugarcoat tragedy, nor does he ask us to pretend it doesn't hurt. He reminds us that it is acceptable to be disturbed when bad things happen and that it is somewhat odd to not react in that way. This is a healthy approach that many Christians would do well to consider.
Another interesting thought from post one:

In fact, it strikes me that many of those who resist faith in God are by and large, more compassionately attuned to the agonies endured by most of the human race over the course of most of human history than are many people of faith. I have greater respect for the honest resister of faith who resists because he or she cares about people than I do for the pew-sitter who mindlessly embraces church membership because their parents were church members. Whether it's a simple case of the zeal of a convert or not, I've also found that most former atheists or agnostics make more passionate, compassionate Christians than church members who receive their "faith" by osmosis or family habit.

The whole series is well worth reading carefully.

Bisy Backson Disease

2004-11-18T21:10:00.000-08:00

Tod Bolsinger of It Takes A Church is writing a series on the importance of "hanging out." His latest installment discusses busyness and its effects on our lives:

Because in our heart of hearts we believe that a full calendar is a full life.

Friends, this is the lie of our age and it is eroding our souls. So many of the friends that I hang out with have "Bisy Backson" disease. (Oh heck, I have it too.) Our busyness and how it makes us feel important is keeping us from what really is important. (Like time to pray, to develop friendships where we can talk about our souls, time to serve others and time grow in faith by eating pie.)

John Ortberg has written about asking a wise man the question, "What must I do to remain spiritually healthy?" The man answered, "Ruthlessly eliminate hurry from your lives."

I agree completely. We hurry to our deaths in our culture and don't even realize it. Or, we realize it but we feel powerless to do anything about it. We need to learn how to take control over our schedules again. We need to re-commit to our spouse, children, relatives, friends, neighbors, and co-workers to spend real time with them and to thwart the busyness lifestyle that stultifies our relationships.

I've Always Been Partial to Former College Football Coaches

2004-11-18T05:18:00.001-08:00

If President Bush can pull this off, it would be a real coup:

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska has been approached about becoming
agriculture secretary in the Bush administration, according to two sources.

The potential blocking power of Senators Specter, Snowe, Chaffee, McCain and Collins (not to mention the other Nebraska Senator) would be so greatly reduced.

Senator Osborne anybody?

On Second Thought, We Might Need that Draft After All . . .

2004-11-18T05:12:00.001-08:00

From CNN:

The United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles
to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says. Powell
partially confirmed claims by an Iranian opposition group that Tehran is
deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue
activities meant to give it atomic weapons by next year.

At least now there are reliable bases close by.

Challenges I Face in My Walk

2004-11-17T22:20:00.000-08:00

The Crosswalk Religion Today news site reports on a study by Ellison Research of the biggest threats that Protestant pastors believe face the family today. Ellison reports that "Protestant clergy named divorce, negative influences from the media, and materialism as the three greatest threats to families in their communities." Two of these three have been cited by this blog as negative influences, and I agree that divorce is also a threat; so, I'm in agreement.

The report contains a number of other interesting items, including detail on how clergy from different regions listed different threats.

The report caused me to consider what threats challenge me and, perhaps, Christians similarly situated. In other words, what challenges does a middle class, well-educated, safe (relatively) Christian living in the United States face in his or her Christian walk? Here are some questions and issues that have me worried:

I recognize that not every Christian can be a pastor or a full-time evangelist like Billy Graham. My job, however, is thoroughly secular. I don't work for a Christian ministry. How can I fulfill the Great Commission in such an environment? Sure, I can live a good life that (I hope) acts as a witness and I can always be ready to give an answer for the hope that I have. The fact is, though, that I really don't have much overt witnessing opportunity. Like most people in most jobs, the majority of my working day is taken up with, work. Secular work. I discuss this with my friends, middle class professionals who are Christians, and we are able to form a complete circle of rationalizations to keep us going. Still I wonder, am I rationalizing or am I making a difference even though I don't necessarily feel like I am?
In a similar vein, I have a good income and my family lives well. I tithe and give a bit more. We do not live ostentatiously. Indeed, we live fairly parsimoniously compared to others in our culture. Nevertheless, we do live well, particularly when compared with people in other countries, particularly people south of the equator. So, what claim does Jesus' statement to the rich young man have on my life?: "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Surely, this was only a trope of Jesus intended to focus us on what is important, namely Him? Surely He did not mean this literally? What if He did?
Paul says that we "see through a glass, darkly." Paul wrote in a much simpler time, comparatively speaking. For Paul and the early Christians, the struggle of being Christians brought an amazing focus and discipline to their daily lives. Now, don't get me wrong, I do not envy them their suffering. However, I think it is honest to admit that they probably had a great deal of focus on Christ and His will in their daily lives, given the daily price they had to pay to be Christians in the first century Roman Empire. Yet, even at that time and with that focus, Paul writes that they saw darkly. With materialism, mass media, information overload, more than full-time jobs, and the one-thousand other demands of our daily lives hitting us, just how much darker is our mirror? With the multiple ways that modern society affects our perception, how closely can we really perceive Jesus?
In a modern American suburb, how do we love our neighbors as we love ourselves if we don't know who are neighbors are? If we know our neighbors, how do we love them when we don't have much time to even talk to them?
Given all of the above, and given all of the compromises that I have made in my walk, I wonder, will I hear "Well done, good and faithful servant" or will I hear "I never knew you"?

Perhaps the simplest question of all is this: Can a modern, middle-class American Christian who works in a basically secular job get into the Kingdom of God? Or, is the process that one takes to become a modern, middle-class American Christian who works in a basically secular job such that it is almost impossible? From an existential perspective, can we pull this off?

I'm open to comments on this.

God Bless,
Mark

Christian Carnival XLIV : The Big One

2004-11-17T21:05:00.000-08:00

The latest Christian Carnival, Christian Carnival XLIV: The Big One, is up at ChristWeb. Hop on over and read through the posts.

Unbelievable

2004-11-17T11:54:00.000-08:00

Unbelievable. That's all I can say about this cartoon by Pat Oliphant.

I don't think I'll hold my breath for anybody from the NAACP or PUSH to come to Ms. Rice's defense either. Race only matters to them if the person comes with the right set of political opinions. Ms. Rice could be strung up by the KKK and you won't see Jackson, et. al even hiccup about it.

Disgusting.

(Thanks to the NRO Corner for the referral to the cartoon.)

Tumor growing in Democratic Party

2004-11-14T21:53:00.000-08:00

Francis X. Maier, the chancellor of the Archdiocese of Denver, writes on why his wife, a Democrat and a faithful Catholic, has been voting Republican for the past 25 years. Although Catholics are attracted to the Democratic party because of that party's tradition of helping the impoverished and the downtrodden, that party's views on abortion are pushing faithful Catholics (and others) away:

For my wife and her family, being a Catholic meant being a Democrat, and being a Democrat meant fighting for the little guy - literally. That included the poor, the homeless, racial and ethnic minorities, and the unemployed. It also meant defending the unborn child.

For my wife, arguing whether an unborn child was a "full human person" or a "developing human being" was irrelevant - or worse, a kind of lying. The dignity of the unborn life involved was exactly the same, whatever one called it.

Republicans who are Christians should not, however, read this opinion piece without dealing with the following thought:

Our youngest son has Down syndrome, and Democratic policies often benefit the disabled in ways Republican policies don't.

As I have argued elsewhere, Christians who are politically conservative need to articulate their solutions for the poor, the disabled and the downtrodden: private charity and neighbors helping neighbors. We are often painted by our enemies as uncaring; that, so long as we put a stop to abortions and homosexuals, we are happy. That is a caricature and is untrue. However, we are not doing enough to articulate that, while we don't want the government to step in and solve every problem, we do think that poverty, hunger, the challenges of the disabled, the struggles of unwed mothers, to name a few, do need to be addressed and do concern our hearts.

But, more than simply articulating how we want to address those challenges, we need to actually address them. If we really want to transform society, we need to love our society and demonstrate that love through action.

We need to be the hands and feet of Jesus.

Death sentences at 30-year low

2004-11-14T21:19:00.000-08:00

[D]o not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

CNN reportsthat the number of death sentences handed out last year were at a 30-year low. The article quotes one opponent and one proponent of the death penalty:

"What we're seeing is hesitation on the death penalty, skepticism, reluctance," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. "I do think there is some concern about the death penalty and it's reflected in death sentences from juries."
"I don't think the numbers mean a lot quite frankly," said Dianne Clements, president of the victims advocacy group Justice For All. "I don't think it means a change in death penalty attitudes. I think it means the numbers change."

Well, call me an optimist, but I hope it means that juries are becoming more reticent to impose the death penalty. They ought to be. I think that the death penalty is a punishment that ought to be beyond man to impose. A culture of life ought to mean life for all. Should murders, rapists and other violent criminals be locked up for the rest of their lives without parole? Certainly. However, as I read and reflect upon Scripture, I can only come to the conclusion that faithfulness to God ought to cause Christians to reject the death penalty. We have enough death as it is. We don't need to create more of it.

Specter, Abortion and Where We Go From Here

2004-11-10T23:20:00.000-08:00

We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end...We shall never surrender
Winston Churchill

And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.
Galatians 6:9 (NKJV)

As many of you know, there is a bit of a kerfluffle within conservative circles. One group, led by, among others, Kathryn Lopez at National Review, perhaps with the tacit support of some conservatives in the Senate and House, are campaigning to deny Senator Arlen Specter the Chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They argue that Specter cannot be trusted to support getting the Administration's judicial appointments (and attorney general appointments) out of the Committee and into the full Senate. Never a darling with conservatives to begin with, Specter's comments following the election did not help. Another group, led by, among others, Hugh Hewitt, have questioned the wisdom of the campaign and argue, in essence, that Senate seniority rules ought to be followed. Furthermore, they argue, even if Specter were not Chairman, Republicans don't have enough votes in the Senate to invoke cloture in the event of a filibuster; so, why eat our own when the ultimate fight is not winnable. For a listing of the articles and blog posts on this issue, visit Stones Cry Out.

I have argued, in comments to a Stones Cry Out post, that the Hewitt group probably has the better argument. To succeed, the anti-Specter group must not only knock Specter off as Chairman, but also knock him off the Committee entirely. In addition, to defeat a filibuster on nominees, the Republicans would need to invoke the so-called "nuclear option" (see here also) by which they would force Senate Rule changes on the Democrats. Although Republicans may have the absolute power to effect these changes (assuming six Republican Senators do not dissent from the party line, which is not a safe assumption in the cases of Specter, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Hagel and McCain), to do so would poison the atmosphere of the Senate for years to come, and potentially cause a public outcry. Better to act smart, preserve Republican votes in the Senate, make what changes can be made, and try to pick up five more seats in 2006, which is not unlikely. In addition, there may come a time when Republicans are no longer in the majority, and there would be payback. And that payback would not be pretty.

The Specter squabble aside, it appears possible (not, I think, probable) that a majority of Justices could be appointed to the Supreme Court during the next four years who might be inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade. There are a lot of ifs in that, but it could happen. Christians, who have really been at the forefront of trying to overturn Roe, need to be prepared for a number of challenges if this were to occur.

Political Issues to be Addressed

First, if Roe is overturned, then the issue of abortion goes back to the states. Accordingly, Christians need to be prepared to move quickly to have pro-life legislators introduce legislation to outlaw abortion. This will be a 50-state fight. Much of the political organization and infrastructure already exists among pro-life groups to wage this fight. However, it remains to be seen if these groups are organized enough to go from challenger to proponent status and carry the battle in 50 states. Pro-choice groups, of course, have the same organization and infrastructure.

In considering the legislation to be offered, Christians need to think through a few issues. First, if abortion is outlawed, what penalties are appropriate to enforce the law? Few Americans will be amenable to penalizing the woman involved and I'm not in favor of that either. I suspect sanctions against the doctors involved is more palatable, although I don't think there would be much appetite for draconian penalties against doctors either. Perhaps a sliding scale of fines, with the first fine being loss of any monies made on the procedure plus some penalty,would be appropriate. In addition, provisions for denying clinics and hospitals that perform abortions any state aid would be reasonable. Perhaps these penalties are not stiff enough for some. However, I worry that if the laws seem too punitive, they may not achieve popular support, and may not be passed.

Christians also need to consider if they are willing to compromise on whether early, first trimester abortions would be allowed. Most of us in the pro-life movement, do not believe that they should. We will have to weigh purity on this matter, however, against whether we will be successful with an early term ban versus second and third trimester bans that may enjoy more popular support. A related issue will be defining what exceptions there will be for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Subtle issues are involved here. On the one hand, such exceptions can be written to essentially swallow the entire prohibition on abortion. On the other hand, it will not be politically palatable to many Americans if such exceptions are not included. Because this issue is so subtle, Christians need to be ready to offer clear, tight exceptions, and then defend their views in a manner that is easily understood.

One other political issue for Christians to address is whether certain state supreme courts might be tempted to read into their state constitutions a right to obtain abortions. If that is a possibility (and it often is), then amendments to the state constitution must be passed to block this possibility. This will often require a supermajority vote in a state. That may not prove to be one of the lighter matters.

Finally, on the political front, pro-life forces need to be prepared to argue their case before the American people. A majority of Americans still believe that abortion should be legal in certain cases: early in the pregnancy and in cases of health of the mother, rape and incest. People are more open to limitations later in the pregnancy. Accordingly, we need to develop a strategy to win the hearts and minds of the American people. This strategy needs to be subtle, but direct, and it needs to be easily stated. Also, we must approach this task with the humility that comes from knowing that the burden is on us to prove our case. This PR campaign is essential and must be handled with care.

Societal Issues to be Addressed

Christians also need to consider, and provide solutions for, the societal issues that will arise if abortion is curtailed. First among these is setting up a network of support services to aid women, and their children, whose are in a crisis pregnancy (and who might otherwise be tempted to go to a state in which abortion is legal). We need to provide emotional support, pregnancy tests, pre-natal health care, and material support after delivery. We cannot allow ourselves to be perceived as saying to these women: "You're pregnant, you must have your baby, have a nice life." Unless we develop the support services that these women and children will need (which includes working with legislators to come up with a better system for adoption), then we will not win a majority of Americans to our side and we will likely not get the legislative victories we desire. Simply put, we will be perceived as creating a problem for which we provide no solution. To support these women and children is also a moral requirement of Christians. We cannot let them go unaided.

In addition, we need to encourage, and support, those Christians who take in women in crisis pregnancies. We can't all offer our homes to these women, but through our churches and communities, we can provide support to those who do.

Christians also need to continue to work on providing the message of abstinence to young people. Although many believe that abstinence programs are not effective for prevention of pregnancies, the abstinence message certainly is one that ought to be transmitted more broadly within society. Just because some don't buy into abstinence programs does not mean that we should shrink from doing what we can to advocate this important message.

What we Can Do Now

For the moment, of course, abortion remains a right. A lot of hard work remains before Roe is overturned and states outlaw abortions. In the interim, there is much that Christians can do. First, Christians can, and should, support crisis pregnancy centers in their communities and other organizations, such as CareNet, that are today serving women who might otherwise consider abortion. We can also support abstinence programs in our communities through churches and schools. We do not need to wait for Roe to be overturned to work on the tasks identified under "Societal Issues to be Addressed" above. Indeed, if we really want to prevent abortions, we should focus on these tasks right now. Obviously, we need to continue to work through the political process to defeat Roe and make abortion illegal. However, every woman who today goes to a crisis pregnancy center instead of a Planned Parenthood clinic gives Christians an opportunity to save two lives.

We should make the most of our opportunities, societal and political, right now. Don't wait for Roe to be overturned. Start today. Love a mother in a crisis pregnancy and her baby.

God Bless,
Mark

CHRISTIAN CARNIVAL XLIII--In Our Prime

2004-11-10T21:55:00.000-08:00

Christian Carnival XLIII--In Our Prime is up at Digitus, Finger & Co.There are a large number of great posts on various Christian topics, including one you have hopefully already read.

Wander over and peruse the offerings. Neil also offers up insightful commentary on the posts.

Comment from Bizkitz

2004-11-09T20:23:00.000-08:00

Graham Brown of Bizkitz provides some thoughtful commentary on his site in response to my post Confessing Christ in a World of Violence. Although I don't necessarily agree with all he says, it is thoughtful and advances the dialogue. Also, he served in Iraq in the British Army, so his thoughts should not be taken lightly.

Thank you Mr. Brown for your service. I appreciate it. It sounds as if you, like many in the UK, are conflicted about the Iraq war. Regardless, you served your country, and the Iraqi citizens. Again, thanks.

(Can we at least agree about the French?)

A Christian Nation?

2004-11-08T21:07:00.000-08:00

I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
(Matthew 10:16)

I posted previously on the statement, Confessing Christ in a World of Violence, posted on the Sojourners website. The Sojo statement was authored and signed by a number of Christian leaders who wanted to offer their perspective on the Christian response to violence and to the War on Terror. My previous post is critical of the Sojo statement for several reasons, the primary of which is that those who penned the Sojo statement have not offered up a realistic alternative to war when it comes to (i) protecting those who are violently oppressed or (ii) stopping global terrorism. However, there are a number of points on which I agree with the Sojo statement and I would like to share those.

First, the authors "reject the false teaching that America is a 'Christian nation.'" Sadly, this is true. Although Christians make up the largest religious group in the United States, we are not a Christian nation. Unlike ancient Israel, we have not been explicitly called by God as an instrument of His will. Although God has no doubt used the United States to further His purposes, He has not explicitly revealed that his imprimatur is on the actions of this country. In addition, although there are numerous examples of the Judeo-Christian underpinnings for our laws, and although a large number of our founders were Christians, our laws and our legal system are secular in nature. As a country, as a whole, we do not explicitly seek the counsel of the Bible nor the counsel of prayer when enacting legislation or otherwise carrying out the functions of government. True, many leaders and groups of leaders do look to Scripture and prayer for guidance, but this is done on an individual or group level, and is not done as a required prior step to official governmental action. Finally, we do not always evidence the fruit of being a Christian nation. Yes, we have received many blessings in this country and have blessed other countries; however, rampant pornography, the horror of abortion, drug usage, violence, intractable poverty and other moral failings are common feature of the landscape. That is not the fruit of a Christian nation.

(I also question the efforts by some to deem the United States a Christian nation. I am not sure this is wise. I am not sure that God has called us to this. I think it is acceptable to call on the citizens of this country to act in accordance with Judeo-Christian values and to call us as a people to repentance but, unless another Moses comes to call us, I do not think we should lightly try to label the United States as a Christian nation.)

Second, we are not in Iraq or Afghanistan to conquer under the banner of Jesus. Individual Christians, and groups of Christians, are right to examine the Scripture and examine their consciences to determine whether they can or should support the war. However, that is not the same as saying that we are conducting the war in the name of Christ, or that Christ calls us to conduct the war. We should avoid any Constantinian suggestion and we should examine our statements and thoughts to ensure that we do not imply that we are conquering under Christ's banner. It is enough that, based on Scripture and conscience, we believe we are doing right. We do not have to give any suggestion that we are attempting a modern crusade.

Third, the Sojo statement reminds us that we should avoid, and even speak out against, attempts to dehumanize our enemies:

Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.

We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.

Instead, as Christ directed, we should pray for our enemies. This does not mean, of course, that we should not act to stop those who would do harm to us or to others--indeed that is the goal of the war. However, we need not engage in rhetoric that demonizes those humans whom we are fighting against. As the Sojo statement makes clear: They too were created in God's image. Demonization can easily lead to racism against whole groups of people. It can also lead to deplorable abuses, such as happened at the Abu Ghraib prison. Whenever we feel like making broad-based, dehumanizing statements about our enemies, we should stop and instead pray for them. Again, we should not shrink from pointing out that what they do is wrong and we should not shrink from stopping them from perpetrating evil. But we Christians can do so while being careful with our language and our thoughts--all the while keeping our eyes fixed on our true calling--proclaiming the truth of Christ.

I also tend to agree with the general thought in the Sojo statement that the burden is on Christians who advocate violence against violence to justify their beliefs. As indicated in my previous post, I believe such action can be, and in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq is, justified by reference to Scripture and prayer. However, because the burden is against violence, we must tread cautiously and ensure that we do not drag Christ's name through the mud in advocating force.

Please continue to pray for our servicemen and women in Iraq, particularly those in Falluja. In addition, pray for our enemies. They need it. Desperately.

God Bless,
Mark

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

2004-11-07T20:56:00.000-08:00

Its glory is all moonshine; even success most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

War is hell.

General William Tecumseh Sherman

There are some very harsh, very ugly realities in the world. It is trite to repeat General Sherman's phrase "War is hell." Yet, it is true. Mangled bodies of soldiers. Innocent children killed. Families whose fathers will never come home. Death. Pestilence. Those are the fruits of war. We should not knowingly shrink from understanding the ugly reality of war. I hate war and everything about it. I do not glamorize it. I do not wish it. I do not want it. I would prefer that my sons and daughters not be soldiers some day.

In Church today I sat fifteen feet from a woman whose husband is a Marine serving in Iraq. He serves in Falluja, where Coalition forces began an offensive today. I heard this woman pray with a strong, steady voice for the safety of her husband and others who serve with him. God keep him. I do not want her to be a widow nor her children to lose their father.

Yet, there are other ugly realities of life. Rape used as a tool of political oppression by a despot. Children imprisoned or killed with their mothers. Women herded into soccer stadiums and executed. Planes crash into buildings creating an inferno.

A group of Christian pastors, educators and leaders have penned a statement calling on Christians worldwide to "a new confession of Christ."

Much of what these Christian leaders say is thoughtful and every Christian who believes that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were right should read the statement, study Scripture and pray continually for Christ's guidance on these issues.

Having said that, I think the statement is simpleminded. First, in several places, the authors emphasize international cooperation. Here, again, the religious left has revealed itself as simply a parrot for the political left. (I suppose that would be acceptable, if only they weren't busy criticizing religious conservatives for an unholy alliance with conservative politicians.) In any event, the statement glosses over the inconvenient facts of the UN oil for food scandal. Worried that France, Germany and Russia's discomfort with the Iraq invasion was influenced by those countries' under-the-table dealings with the Hussein regime? Apparently, the authors of the statement are not. They prefer "the wisdom of international consultation," whatever moral relevance that has given the conflicts of interest of the UN, France, Germany and Russia. They also rail against "unilateral policies." Silly me, I thought there was a whole coalition that was in favor of the Iraq invasion. No doubt the authors of the statement are more concerned with the feelings of a few countries--the really important countries--the countries whose leaders practice the kind of politics with which they agree.

Second, neither this statement, nor the criticisms of either the political or religious left in general, offers up any actual solutions for the intractable human rights problems that were prevalent in Afghanistan and Iraq. For that matter, they offer up not one damn thing for those who are currently suffering in Darfur or any other region in the world where people are being systematically murdered by despots. But hey, why worry about actually preventing harm when you can complain about what others are doing?

Here's an open question to the authors of the statement: Please offer up a realistic, workable alternative to solve these problems. Please don't just point to the UN. It does not work. It has not worked. It is morally bankrupt and useless. I want to avoid war as much as you do, believe me. I have children too. I remain very conflicted by the use of weapons to solve problems. I am exceedingly disturbed that I have become an apologist for the use of force.

But the alternatives aren't exactly apparent.

She's waiting for your answer.

(Please pray for our soldiers in Iraq, particularly those in Falluja. Also, pray for all of the Iraqis, including the insurgents. Pray that peace comes over that land and that the insurgents lay down their arms. I pray that the peace of God would come over Iraq and that not one more bullet need be fired.)

Former President Clinton Speaking Sense

2004-11-06T21:55:00.000-08:00

I'm not a fan of former President Clinton. However, I think the Democratic party needs to listen to him. He was making a lot of sense in this speech reported in the New York Post.

The two quibbles I might have are that (i) Republicans didn't exactly have a lock on painting "the other guy as evil" in the election and (ii) so long as foreign oil is cheaper than domestic oil, let's buy it. Keep the domestic for the time when foreign oil gets too expensive. What I think we really need to do, and I doubt the former President would disagree with this, is reasonably reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in general.

The Beginning of the End of Television

2004-11-06T20:29:00.000-08:00

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss

The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again

There were many indicators of the revolution that is the Internet during the election. The largest in terms of overall cultural implications is, of course, the exposure of many outlets in the mainstream media as not worthy of the public's trust. The CBS memo story and the shoddy reporting by the New York Times on the missing explosives story, not to mention the desire by CBS to position the explosives story as a last-minute November surprise, revealed to a broad audience that which many of us already knew: The mainstream media has been captured by a liberal political element that is more concerned with protecting, and extending if possible, political liberalism than it is interested in "getting the facts." Rather than reporting the story, the media became the story. One shudders to think about what would have been the result had the blogosphere not been present to expose the CBS memo fraud and to take the New York Times to task.

(By the way, liberals love to trot out 1984 whenever they come across some conservative statement that they don't like; however, it's been a long time since I have seen such a prime example of doublespeak as Dan Rather's statement about the Memo story being true even if the evidence were false. One hopes that juries don't soon take up that logic process.)

Personally, another hallmark, related to the above, was discovering that television has become unnecessary in following an election. I watch little, to no, television on a regular basis. The last time I can recall watching television for more than 10 minutes was to watch the various events that took place during Ronald Reagan's mourning period and funeral. Because of this, I was spared the political ads this season. I did not see one political ad this entire election season, except for a few of President Bush's ads on the Bush website. Also, I didn't watch the sound bites on the evening news and I didn't watch the two-person press conferences that our debates have become (I did read the transcripts). Rather, I read about the candidates, their positions, and what they were saying on the Internet, and in newspapers to a lesser degree. Because of this, I feel like I was more informed about the issues and positions in this election than in any in which I have voted in the past. This was refreshing.

Indeed, television was not relevant even on election night. I watched no television on election night, other than to watch the John Edwards statement. Instead, I kept hitting the refresh button in the NRO Corner, streamed Hugh Hewitt's broadcast, and kept open the C-Span results map and the Minnesota Secretary of State results site. My information was up to the minute and it was entertaining.

In short, television has become completely irrelevant to my life. Now, prior to this election, I didn't watch much television to begin with. I haven't watched a show regularly for years. However, television was necessary to keep up with past elections, particularly on election night. That has now all changed. Goodbye for good to television.

No doubt I am an early adopter in the sense that I obtain my information from the Internet. However, I've never been considered a cutting edge person. I'm pretty conservative and was about the last person I know to own a DVD player, as an example. Indeed, I'm actually ambivalent about technology and am fascinated by those who cut back on living with technology. An article on one such family that escaped the bonds of the technology trap can be found in this Godspy article.

But the Internet has opened new information vistas for me and has freed me from the tripe offered by the evening news. (Of course, there have always been National Review and other conservative publications. However, those are generally not news sources.) I suspect that others will gradually make this shift as well.

This, I think, is a good thing. The Internet, of course, can be as bad as television in terms of content. In addition, it's no better as a substitute for direct human interaction than television. However, the Internet requires at least a bit more interaction than television. Television is completely passive. Once you are on the channel, you can idle your brain and just absorb. The Internet, on the other hand, requires a bit more of us--even those who might not want to be active participants. It calls us to interact and get involved. In addition, the Internet opens up new lines and forms of communications with others. It also takes the power of providing news and shaping our culture out of the hands of the few, the mainstream media, and putting it into the hands of the many.

It's also exciting. The Internet, the shape it takes, and how it will evolve, is one of the few frontiers left on earth. It changes daily. Who knows what it will look like in 5 years? We are all of us exploring and creating this new form.

I do not suggest that the Internet is in any way a substitute for direct human engagement. It is one of the failures of modern American life (made worse I think by television) that we have so little vital communal interaction. We're too busy to get to know our neighbors, our fellow churchgoers, our families. The Internet does not solve this at all. In fact it can exacerbate this to the extent people substitute all of their television time for being online. However, the Internet can serve as one means by which people can know and communicate with others. It also serves as a forum by which people can share their common dreams and swap information about community. But it cannot substitute for community.

I look forward to the journey and my very small part in it.

God Bless,
Mark

It's Over

2004-11-03T21:07:00.000-08:00

Thank God, it's over.

Congratulations to President Bush and his team for a job well done.

Congratulations to Senator Kerry for running an excellent race. He showed his true love for his country by conceding, when he could have extended it for at least another two weeks. Good on him.

The interesting questions now: Given the results, what does the next four years bring domestically and what is America's role in the world? Obviously, many in the world are not too happy with the way the Administration has been conducting foreign policy. Will there be changes going forward? Should there be? One question to ask is whether we need to change or whether "they" (whoever "they" are) need to change a bit. I'm not sure of the answer. Everybody likes to have consensus, it's a natural desire. However, sometimes you have to do what is right, regardless of consensus. Of course, consensus may help to limn what is right. Sometimes, however, leadership is needed to move to what is right. Certainly that was true with William Wilberforce and others who took on, and overcame, slavery.

In any event, we live in an interesting time. When we look back four years from now, I am certain that we will wonder how we got there. I feel that way looking back at 2000.

God Bless,
Mark

Election Reporting--Minnesota

2004-11-02T18:55:00.000-08:00

With about 5.26% of precincts reporting in Minnesota (about 1/3 of which are Hennepin, Ramsey and Anoka, which all tend Democrat (there are Republican enclaves in Anoka) Kerry leads Bush 53-45%. Hennepin and Ramsey are not all in, neither is St. Louis County. These are the big Democratic strongholds. Given where the votes are coming from, however, there is still room for optimism in Minnesota.

Justice Stevens Gets it Right

2004-11-02T15:22:00.000-08:00

Supreme Court Justice Stevens has issued a chambers opinion on the appeal by Democrats in Ohio of their loss at the Sixth Circuit. The Democrats want to block Republican poll watchers. Two Ohio federal district court judges agreed and issued an injunction. The Sixth Circuit reversed early this morning. The Democrats appealed to the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens denied the appeal in his ruling on prudential grounds declaring that it was impossible on the record before him to determine the validity of the plaintiffs' claims and stating:

"I have faith that the elected officials and numerous election volunteers on the ground will carry out their responsibilities in a way that will enable qualified voters to cast their ballots."

Prudential grounds means, essentially, that Justice Stevens understands that it is not the role of the US Supreme Court to be the forum for overturning elections results that people don't like. I hope other courts throughout the country take the hint during the next few days.

(Special thanks to my colleague Aaron Van Oort for notice of the case and the analysis.)

Sidesspot Answers Your Questions

2004-11-02T06:22:00.000-08:00

While we are waiting for the election results, I thought I'd dig into my backlog of questions from readers:

Question: Your blog, and the blogs in your blogroll, tend to be mouthpieces for the Republican party and conservative politics. Can you refer me to comparable websites that act as mouthpieces for the Democratic party and liberals?

Answer: Glad to do it. You might want to start with some of the bigger sites, namely CBSNews.com, NYTimes.com, APNews, and ABCNews.com. If those don't satisfy you, then check out the Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo.

Question: How do I join the vast right wing conspiracy?

Answer: That's a good question and there's been a bit of confusion over this. Some have thought that Paul Begala and Sidney Blumenthal have been the sleeper agents that have also been in charge of recruitment. That is not true, they actually believe what they write. Remember, the key is to look for the "liberal" pundit whose arguments are so silly as to render them nonsense--that's the sleeper agent who is in charge of recruitment. Knowing that, you can easily determine that the current agent is Paul Krugman of the New York Times, whose email address can be found here.

Question: Where can I find John Kerry's plan?

Answer: That has been one of the most closely guarded secrets of the election. However, Sidesspot, using its vast resources and contacts, has been able to determine that it is located here.

Question: What did the President mean by repeating the phrase "It's hard, it's hard" during the debates.

Answer: This has puzzled many. Some have speculated that this was all the President could muster in response to John Kerry's insinuation that, essentially, he would waive a magic want and make everything better. However, those in the know have heard that it was actually in response to Karl Rove's repeated question: "Can you hear me now, Mr. President? Can you hear me now Mr. President".

Question: Was John Kerry honorably discharged from the Navy?

Answer: Sidesspot has checked with a reliable source who has had access to the details of the story. That source has confirmed the following:

John Kerry was discharged honorably by the US Navy.
John Kerry was discharged happily by the US Navy.

Question: Did President Bush serve with honor in the Texas Air National Guard?

Answer: This really comes down to those missing months when the President was in Alabama. Sidesspot is now able to confirm that young George W. Bush was actually on a covert operation during those months in Alabama. Although not widely known in the service, Mr. Bush was part of a military program designed to help elect House Members and Senators friendly to the military in order to protect the military budget. Although the person to whom Mr. Bush was assigned did not win, his secret, secret file indicates that he served with distinction. When asked recently if he could describe the secret services he rendered, the President replied that "It's hard."

Question: Who will win the election?

Answer: The American People.

A Vigorous Democracy

2004-11-02T06:19:00.000-08:00

I got in line to vote at 6:35 a.m. this morning. Polls in Minnesota open at 7:00 a.m. I was about number 50 in line. When I left, the line to vote in the very large church was out the door (in the cold drizzle, poor folks). Driving by another polling site, another large church with a large parking lot, I saw that voters were having to park in the street leading to the church. Traffic reports on the radio during my drive to the train reported that traffic is very light in Minneapolis-St. Paul this morning. My commute bears that out as I look at the usually busy road by which the train to Minneapolis passes. It looks like the Friday before a three-day weekend in the Summer. People are voting in droves.

Whoever wins today, one thing is certain, the American people will all win as we continue this 200+ year experiment in self-governance.

Congratulations to us all.

Daschle v. Thune--The court case appears to be over

2004-11-02T04:04:00.000-08:00

The federal judge, a Daschle "nominee" by the way, has ruled in the Daschle v. Thune court case. The voters will rule later today. This is being spun as a Daschle victory because the judge has prohibited the Republican poll watchers from writing down license plates of people who have voted. The relief Daschle requested was that Republican poll watchers be excluded from Native American polling locations--so you can be the judge of who "won".

(Daschle v. Thune was all over this all night long.)

Separation of Church from State

2004-11-01T21:04:00.000-08:00

A very strong article from Catholic Exchange on abortion, the election, and the moral duty of the Church to guide its members, which transcends both.

In the time of Abraham Lincoln, slavery was the most important human-rights issue, whether it was the law of the land or not. In retrospect, no one today could rationally accuse a person of that time whose overriding concern was slavery of being a "one-issue" person.

This year, another 1.5 million babies will be slaughtered. Modern science proves those babies will feel pain as they die. The essential moral struggle of the past 30 years has not been about political parties. It has not been about candidates. It has been about an issue, the issue.

That last sentence might be a bit too far, terrorism and the defeat of Communism have been extremely critical moral issues as well. However, the shame of abortion is one that we must address as a country. And soon.

(Thanks to Matt Thompson.)

Update: Dr. John Mark Reynolds (scroll down to October 29) has similar thoughts in connection with the recent editorial in Christianity Today in which the magazine takes the position that Christians should not necessarily allow the issue of abortion to be the sole determinant of their vote:

Christianity Today continues its slide into being "yesterdays" evangelical source for information. Dominated by Wheaton-think*, CT has lately been more worried about being taken seriously by the mainstream media than in defending the faith once delivered to the apostles.

I have subscribed to CT for years. I have noticed the same gradual lean as Dr. Reynolds. I'm not so reflexively knee-jerked that I'm going to yank my subscription (among other things, it is required reading for anybody who wants to run a Christian blog). However, I think this is a troubling trend by the magazine that was founded by Billy Graham.

Christians can, and should, have real differences on a wide variety of political issues with moral implications. I personally am glad for pacifist Christians who keep honest those of us who are more inclined to the just war theory. However, abortion is one issue that stands above others. Is it in the Apostle's Creed? Of course not. However, if you take seriously the message of Scripture, then you should, in my opinion, be compelled to understand that the importance of life is a first-order moral issue for Christians. It's a fair way above taxes, the environment and other similar issues.

(Thanks to Evangelical Outpost for the Reynolds post.)