This Breakpoint commentary is pretty much where I stand on the swine flu question, except I am more suspicious of the hype than Colson.
Life as a Disaster Movie
He says something that deserves lots of consideration: the spirit of fear permeates the atmosphere, and much of that is unwarranted.
Excerpt:
The reporting and the rhetoric is part of what British sociologist Frank Furedi calls the “dramatization of disease.” The media and public officials “sound as if they are rehearsing their roles for a disaster movie”—a movie through which we express “our anxieties about everyday life.”
LC
Total Pageviews
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
So Little Time ...
... So much to worry about.
I hereby commit to confining my worry to the 15th and 30th of each month.
LC
I hereby commit to confining my worry to the 15th and 30th of each month.
LC
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Aerial Acrobatics over Manhattan
Let’s accept Mr. Obama at his word and assume that he didn’t know anything about his airplane doing the equivalent of loop-de-loops over Manhattan. And let's put aside the stupidity of such a stunt. That has been amply discussed.
What I really want to know is how an administration that preaches that America should set the right example can waste fossil fuels like this? Was it really environmentally sound to send Air Force One sans the president from Washington to New York along with a fighter escort for a stupid photo op that could have happened just as easily with Photo Shop.
What kind of carbon footprint did that little jaunt cause? Why should the rest of us take this administration seriously when they do such things, all the while trying to tell me that changing light bulbs in my bathroom is going to save the planet. Why are you guys allowed to do whatever you want, yet you and your potty police regulate the rest of us into penury in the name of saving the earth?
Is it now okay to use the word hypocrite?
LC
What I really want to know is how an administration that preaches that America should set the right example can waste fossil fuels like this? Was it really environmentally sound to send Air Force One sans the president from Washington to New York along with a fighter escort for a stupid photo op that could have happened just as easily with Photo Shop.
What kind of carbon footprint did that little jaunt cause? Why should the rest of us take this administration seriously when they do such things, all the while trying to tell me that changing light bulbs in my bathroom is going to save the planet. Why are you guys allowed to do whatever you want, yet you and your potty police regulate the rest of us into penury in the name of saving the earth?
Is it now okay to use the word hypocrite?
LC
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Questions They Asked
If Jesus held a press conference, what question would you ask him? The disciples asked him lots of questions you and I might ask. When will be the time of your coming? Why do you speak in parables? Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
The Pharisees also took the opportunity to ask him questions, but the questions they asked tell us more about the Pharisees than Jesus. Here’s a curious question they asked in Matthew 19. Tell us, they asked. When is it permissible for us to divorce our wives? Moses commanded us to write a bill of divorce if our wives displease us. What do you say?
Considerable debate surrounded that question among the Pharisees. One school, the
The
It seems that neither school allowed a woman to divorce her husband if he committed similar transgressions, and that could be an interesting discussion in its own right.
So the first thing we learn about the Pharisees is their lack of regard for women in abusive or unfaithful relationships.
Here’s something else that we learn about them. The so-called religious leaders seemed to be more interested in finding legal justification for breaking up marriages than in trying to save marriages. The real question to ask Jesus, assuming they really wanted an answer, might have been, “Moses allowed for the writing of a certificate of divorce, but we’re wondering what we should do to save our marriages.” That’s the question I would have liked to see Jesus answer, but it never occurred to the Pharisees to ask it. They just wanted to know how far they could go without technically sinning.
Do we really need to know any more about these guys than this?
Jesus drilled them with the heart of the matter whether they wanted to hear it or not. "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives.” Hardness of hearts: Indeed that’s true. But remember, lest we become too harsh on the Pharisees, their question to Jesus is not a whole lot different than the questions some Christians ask today.
Lenny C.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
When Others Are Losing Their Heads
Timely advice, here, from a Biblical perspective.
Excerpt:
LC
Excerpt:
The imperative was singular: "Be worried—very worried." The doomsday chorus was almost enough to make me wonder if I should be paying better attention to those Cash4Gold.com commercials. But then I remembered that I don't have any gold objects at home. And I remembered what I'd read long before Wolf Blitzer started barking in my ear.Read the entire essay by clicking here.
LC
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Who Decides Your Rights?
My beliefs would have received no more welcome in the Massachusetts of 1640 than they do in the Massachusetts of today. The Puritans of 1640 were a moralistic crew who had little tolerance for dissent unless it was their brand of dissent.
[[For a discussion on the New Puritans, go to this link.]]
This hardy band was forced from England because of their dissenting ways, but once they established their own hegemony they forced all who would not conform to leave the colony. Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, the Seventh Day Baptists – all sought refuge in a small colony called Rhode Island in a quest for religious liberty.
Not long ago I was engaged in an interesting discussion on the internet regarding the concept of the role of religion in American history. Was the United States ever really a Christian nation? It became apparent to me that the real concern among the secularists goes straight back to the experiment at Massachusetts Bay where an attempt to bring a theocracy to the American continent resulted in inflexible intolerance and loss of liberty. Whereas some of us may view the term “Christian Nation” as generic shorthand for a kind of syncretism of a civil and religious ethic of behavior and thought, many view it in terms of the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. Who can blame them?
In fact, I would not want to go back to a society of Blue Laws and other subtle forms of discrimination against my brand of religion, while at the same time I bemoan and mourn the loss of the basic moral ethic that has its roots in Judeo-Christian thought. But then again, my contact with the Evangelical Right does not inspire worries about their agenda, nor do I have a concern about a return to expulsions from the body politic.
I am concerned, however, about the new Puritans, the Puritans of the left. They seem to have an entirely different ethic and even religious fervor that has its own non-negotiable rules of morality. The debate is over, they tell us, on global warming, carbon (dioxide) emissions, same sex marriage, illegal immigration, free speech rights, and whatever else that is a part of the new orthodoxy. Dissent is good, they say, even patriotic as long as they are the dissenters, but now the questions have all been decided. They won the election! Game over!
In this we see a new intolerance born of the misunderstanding of the origins of our liberty. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” If one does not believe in universal, inalienable rights endowed by one’s Creator (for in the world of secularism, there is no Creator) then from where do your rights come?
My internet interlocutor offered the case that the people get to decide which rights we have. But if that’s the case, the people by a majority vote or a majority vote of their representatives can decide that no one has a right to be Jewish and can initiate an Inquisition. They can decide that homosexuals can be strung up and beaten with rubber hoses. They can legislate or even prohibit religious beliefs and enforce compliance. Why not? They won the election! Game over!
Inalienable rights endowed by a Creator is a more sure road to freedom. As for me, I prefer that worldview whether this is a Christian nation or not.
Lenny C.
[[For a discussion on the New Puritans, go to this link.]]
This hardy band was forced from England because of their dissenting ways, but once they established their own hegemony they forced all who would not conform to leave the colony. Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, the Seventh Day Baptists – all sought refuge in a small colony called Rhode Island in a quest for religious liberty.
Not long ago I was engaged in an interesting discussion on the internet regarding the concept of the role of religion in American history. Was the United States ever really a Christian nation? It became apparent to me that the real concern among the secularists goes straight back to the experiment at Massachusetts Bay where an attempt to bring a theocracy to the American continent resulted in inflexible intolerance and loss of liberty. Whereas some of us may view the term “Christian Nation” as generic shorthand for a kind of syncretism of a civil and religious ethic of behavior and thought, many view it in terms of the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. Who can blame them?
In fact, I would not want to go back to a society of Blue Laws and other subtle forms of discrimination against my brand of religion, while at the same time I bemoan and mourn the loss of the basic moral ethic that has its roots in Judeo-Christian thought. But then again, my contact with the Evangelical Right does not inspire worries about their agenda, nor do I have a concern about a return to expulsions from the body politic.
I am concerned, however, about the new Puritans, the Puritans of the left. They seem to have an entirely different ethic and even religious fervor that has its own non-negotiable rules of morality. The debate is over, they tell us, on global warming, carbon (dioxide) emissions, same sex marriage, illegal immigration, free speech rights, and whatever else that is a part of the new orthodoxy. Dissent is good, they say, even patriotic as long as they are the dissenters, but now the questions have all been decided. They won the election! Game over!
In this we see a new intolerance born of the misunderstanding of the origins of our liberty. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” If one does not believe in universal, inalienable rights endowed by one’s Creator (for in the world of secularism, there is no Creator) then from where do your rights come?
My internet interlocutor offered the case that the people get to decide which rights we have. But if that’s the case, the people by a majority vote or a majority vote of their representatives can decide that no one has a right to be Jewish and can initiate an Inquisition. They can decide that homosexuals can be strung up and beaten with rubber hoses. They can legislate or even prohibit religious beliefs and enforce compliance. Why not? They won the election! Game over!
Inalienable rights endowed by a Creator is a more sure road to freedom. As for me, I prefer that worldview whether this is a Christian nation or not.
Lenny C.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Meaning of Words
By Thomas Sowell, a credible economist and one of my favorite thinkers.
Excerpt:
'Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. "Rent control" laws do not control rent and "gun control" laws do not control guns.'
Read his article Magic Words in Politics.
Lenny C.
Excerpt:
'Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. "Rent control" laws do not control rent and "gun control" laws do not control guns.'
Read his article Magic Words in Politics.
Lenny C.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
TEA Parties: The Heart of the Matter
Do not be entangled again in a yoke of bondage. (Galatians 5:1b)
Those of us who support the grassroots efforts known as TEA Parties need to be careful not to allow those who disagree with us to redefine us. We are hearing now that assemblies are the tool of the Republican Party, right wing billionaires, Fox News, and single-issue fringe groups. The buzz today is to characterize these efforts as being all about taxes and hard-hearted greed of those who refuse to help those who are less fortunate. If we allow them to define us, we will lose.
We need to remember what the demonstrations are all about because in spite of the acronym (Taxed Enough Already), these efforts are about more than taxes. In fact I would argue that the tax concern would be no concern at if the root issues were solved.
We can talk in terms of unprecedented overreach on the part of government, of excessive regulation, of demonization of those of us who are more traditional in our approach to life, and of systematic dismantling of our culture and our heritage. All of these reflect the force behind the TEA Party mentality, and indeed they should.
But there is more, and it would serve us well to go back to the original Tea Party in Boston Harbor and the patriots behind it. The real motivation behind the Founders is for the most part ignored, which should be no surprise given the revisionism afflicting the teaching of history.
I have on my bookshelf an old book, published in 1911 that is a part of a series entitled Merrill’s English Texts. These were used to assist in teaching history in American high schools of the day. The volume in question contains Edmund Burke’s “Speech on Conciliation with America”. Burke was an English parliamentarian at the time of the Revolution who supported the Colonist’s cause. What is fascinating is the volume’s introduction.
The Colonists, it points out, initially had no intention of rebelling against the king. They were simply taking the position that they, as Englishmen and subjects of the king, had certain basic rights and that one of those rights is to establish their own parliaments and governing authorities while still remaining loyal to the king. As the text frames it:
“[T]he colonies held that the territory the Cabots discovered in America belonged to the king, rather than to the kingdom of England. Englishmen who came to this country to found colonies were entitled to all the privileges enjoyed by those who remained at home: such as trial by jury, habeas corpus, and exemption from taxes which their representatives had not voted. The British Empire was made up of a number of separate dominions, each of which was entitled to elect its own legislature which should enact laws for its local government.”
But Parliament saw things differently.
“[T]he British theory held that Englishmen must always remain Englishmen, even though they should emigrate to foreign lands, and that the power of Parliament, to which they were subject in the old home, followed them to the new one.”
Does this not get to the heart of the matter, that the Colonists were doing nothing more than demanding liberty to have a say in their own affairs, and that such say would reside in the political bodies that reflected themselves? While they were initially loyal to the king (just as we remain loyal to the Constitution), they were asking for no more than what they perceived as their rights as Englishmen.
Is it any wonder that the states demanded a Bill of Rights before ratifying the Constitution and that the 10th of those first amendments addressed this very topic?
Taxes are convenient whipping boy, but there is more at stake than a few extra dollars in people’s pockets, as important as property rights are. It is a matter of the right to self-determination. It is the right to make my own decisions without impinging the rights of others. When the nation of Israel demanded a king, they were warned that the king would do more than pile on burdensome taxes. He would conscript the young men into his service. He would confiscate land, he would take the best people and force them to work for him. God was not happy with their willingness to give up liberty. In short they would become where some want to take us today, which is a loss of liberty and a shift of autonomy to a central authority.
So, folks, don’t let the media redefine us, our motives, and our love for the liberty our forefathers intended us to have. The stakes are too high for that.
Lenny C.
Those of us who support the grassroots efforts known as TEA Parties need to be careful not to allow those who disagree with us to redefine us. We are hearing now that assemblies are the tool of the Republican Party, right wing billionaires, Fox News, and single-issue fringe groups. The buzz today is to characterize these efforts as being all about taxes and hard-hearted greed of those who refuse to help those who are less fortunate. If we allow them to define us, we will lose.
We need to remember what the demonstrations are all about because in spite of the acronym (Taxed Enough Already), these efforts are about more than taxes. In fact I would argue that the tax concern would be no concern at if the root issues were solved.
We can talk in terms of unprecedented overreach on the part of government, of excessive regulation, of demonization of those of us who are more traditional in our approach to life, and of systematic dismantling of our culture and our heritage. All of these reflect the force behind the TEA Party mentality, and indeed they should.
But there is more, and it would serve us well to go back to the original Tea Party in Boston Harbor and the patriots behind it. The real motivation behind the Founders is for the most part ignored, which should be no surprise given the revisionism afflicting the teaching of history.
I have on my bookshelf an old book, published in 1911 that is a part of a series entitled Merrill’s English Texts. These were used to assist in teaching history in American high schools of the day. The volume in question contains Edmund Burke’s “Speech on Conciliation with America”. Burke was an English parliamentarian at the time of the Revolution who supported the Colonist’s cause. What is fascinating is the volume’s introduction.
The Colonists, it points out, initially had no intention of rebelling against the king. They were simply taking the position that they, as Englishmen and subjects of the king, had certain basic rights and that one of those rights is to establish their own parliaments and governing authorities while still remaining loyal to the king. As the text frames it:
“[T]he colonies held that the territory the Cabots discovered in America belonged to the king, rather than to the kingdom of England. Englishmen who came to this country to found colonies were entitled to all the privileges enjoyed by those who remained at home: such as trial by jury, habeas corpus, and exemption from taxes which their representatives had not voted. The British Empire was made up of a number of separate dominions, each of which was entitled to elect its own legislature which should enact laws for its local government.”
But Parliament saw things differently.
“[T]he British theory held that Englishmen must always remain Englishmen, even though they should emigrate to foreign lands, and that the power of Parliament, to which they were subject in the old home, followed them to the new one.”
Does this not get to the heart of the matter, that the Colonists were doing nothing more than demanding liberty to have a say in their own affairs, and that such say would reside in the political bodies that reflected themselves? While they were initially loyal to the king (just as we remain loyal to the Constitution), they were asking for no more than what they perceived as their rights as Englishmen.
Is it any wonder that the states demanded a Bill of Rights before ratifying the Constitution and that the 10th of those first amendments addressed this very topic?
Taxes are convenient whipping boy, but there is more at stake than a few extra dollars in people’s pockets, as important as property rights are. It is a matter of the right to self-determination. It is the right to make my own decisions without impinging the rights of others. When the nation of Israel demanded a king, they were warned that the king would do more than pile on burdensome taxes. He would conscript the young men into his service. He would confiscate land, he would take the best people and force them to work for him. God was not happy with their willingness to give up liberty. In short they would become where some want to take us today, which is a loss of liberty and a shift of autonomy to a central authority.
So, folks, don’t let the media redefine us, our motives, and our love for the liberty our forefathers intended us to have. The stakes are too high for that.
Lenny C.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Three Men, Three Paths
As I walked down the street of the neighborhood of my youth, I saw him sitting on the front porch doing nothing in particular. We used to call him "Mahondo", and it had been at least 25 years since I had seen him last. Back in those days the boys in the neighborhood put together a softball team and got in a city league. We were good! Our teammate Mahondo was an intimidating figure. If you can picture a bull in the ring, you'll have a general idea of Mahondo's build and demeanor.
"What have you been up to?" I asked him.
"Trying to avoid child support." One might say he was watching life pass by from his own front porch.
He invited me up for a beer and proceeded to share the gist of his past 25 years. He had spent some time in jail for smashing a bottle over someone's head in bar room brawl. His social life consisted of going down to the corner tavern for happy hour. He couldn't find a job because he didn't have the right connections, but he didn't want to go out of town in search of employment either. And naturally none of his problems were his fault.
Then there is the story of another fellow, a year older than I, who grew up directly across the street from me. One day I visited my grandmother in the nursing home, and who should I see but the guy from across the street. He doesn't work at the nursing home. He lives there. He can't talk, he can't walk, and he generally is unable to take care of himself. I could tell by the look in his eye that he recognized me. Here was someone whose mind was blown by drugs and other poisons, culminating in a series of strokes.
And then there was David. I saw him and the wife of his youth on their bicycles on their way home from his parents' house. He was a foreman at a local plant, and his daughters are grown and married. He is happily growing older with his high school sweetheart, who hasn't changed a bit in 30 years. And she still gazes at him with the same look she had when she married that young Marine those many decades ago.
One neighborhood, three men, three paths. None of this was luck. People don’tsucceed because they are "lucky" or because they "know somebody", or because of "politics". One neighborhood. Three men. Three paths. It was the paths they chose that led these men to their unique destinies.
Lenny C.
"What have you been up to?" I asked him.
"Trying to avoid child support." One might say he was watching life pass by from his own front porch.
He invited me up for a beer and proceeded to share the gist of his past 25 years. He had spent some time in jail for smashing a bottle over someone's head in bar room brawl. His social life consisted of going down to the corner tavern for happy hour. He couldn't find a job because he didn't have the right connections, but he didn't want to go out of town in search of employment either. And naturally none of his problems were his fault.
Then there is the story of another fellow, a year older than I, who grew up directly across the street from me. One day I visited my grandmother in the nursing home, and who should I see but the guy from across the street. He doesn't work at the nursing home. He lives there. He can't talk, he can't walk, and he generally is unable to take care of himself. I could tell by the look in his eye that he recognized me. Here was someone whose mind was blown by drugs and other poisons, culminating in a series of strokes.
And then there was David. I saw him and the wife of his youth on their bicycles on their way home from his parents' house. He was a foreman at a local plant, and his daughters are grown and married. He is happily growing older with his high school sweetheart, who hasn't changed a bit in 30 years. And she still gazes at him with the same look she had when she married that young Marine those many decades ago.
One neighborhood, three men, three paths. None of this was luck. People don’tsucceed because they are "lucky" or because they "know somebody", or because of "politics". One neighborhood. Three men. Three paths. It was the paths they chose that led these men to their unique destinies.
Lenny C.
Monday, April 13, 2009
"The World is Going Crazy" Department
Somali pirates are misunderstood ecologists. Or so claims Al-Jezeera. I absolutely have to laugh at this, but they are actually being taken seriously in some quarters.
Read more here: Pirates are really ecologists
The ransom demand is a means of "reacting to the toxic waste that has been continually dumped on the shores of our country for nearly 20 years", Januna Ali Jama, a spokesman for the pirates, based in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, said.
Read more here: Pirates are really ecologists
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Men Without Chests
"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings fruitful."
-- CS Lewis, from his book The Abolition of Man
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tar Heel Victory Underscores Inherent Unfairness in NCAA Basketball
The Tar Heels won the NCAA Men’s Basketball tournament, and I’m not happy about it. This makes the umpteenth time that they have come out on top, and it’s just not fair.
Michigan State has never won the tourney and neither has Mizzou. One would think that this inequality of outcomes would motivate a self-proclaimed fair minded university to step aside and give other schools a chance to enjoy the limelight. That’s the neighborly thing to do.
In fact, the entire tournament set-up is drenched in unfairness. The University of Missouri lost to U-Conn partly because U-Conn has taller people on their team. This is manifestly an unfair advantage, and the game could have easily been height-normed by lowering the basket at one end of the court or possibly prohibiting players over a certain height (perhaps defined as all players over 3 inches taller than the average of all players on all teams) from entering the key on the offensive side of court.
That might result in a few minor added investments that the NCAA would need to make for additional referees, but that can be financed through a special assessment on tickets prices, which would ensure that fans from both teams would pay their fair share without impacting any academic bottom lines. An alternative might be to apply for stimulus funds. This proposal, after all, would result in added jobs for unemployed referees.
Fundamentally, basketball in general and college basketball in particular are unfair sports. Fairness should inform us that a short, pudgy Italian guy like me is at a distinct disadvantage in the game of basketball through no fault of my own. I missed out on my chance for a basketball scholarship and maybe even an NBA career after high school, not because I didn’t work hard and play by the rules, but because my legs aren’t long enough. It was a dream denied me because the system has undue respect for those who by accident of birth have the genes to be taller, faster, and stronger than I even though I worked just as hard.
The lottery of life is not fair. This type of discrimination must stop!
Michigan State has never won the tourney and neither has Mizzou. One would think that this inequality of outcomes would motivate a self-proclaimed fair minded university to step aside and give other schools a chance to enjoy the limelight. That’s the neighborly thing to do.
In fact, the entire tournament set-up is drenched in unfairness. The University of Missouri lost to U-Conn partly because U-Conn has taller people on their team. This is manifestly an unfair advantage, and the game could have easily been height-normed by lowering the basket at one end of the court or possibly prohibiting players over a certain height (perhaps defined as all players over 3 inches taller than the average of all players on all teams) from entering the key on the offensive side of court.
That might result in a few minor added investments that the NCAA would need to make for additional referees, but that can be financed through a special assessment on tickets prices, which would ensure that fans from both teams would pay their fair share without impacting any academic bottom lines. An alternative might be to apply for stimulus funds. This proposal, after all, would result in added jobs for unemployed referees.
Fundamentally, basketball in general and college basketball in particular are unfair sports. Fairness should inform us that a short, pudgy Italian guy like me is at a distinct disadvantage in the game of basketball through no fault of my own. I missed out on my chance for a basketball scholarship and maybe even an NBA career after high school, not because I didn’t work hard and play by the rules, but because my legs aren’t long enough. It was a dream denied me because the system has undue respect for those who by accident of birth have the genes to be taller, faster, and stronger than I even though I worked just as hard.
The lottery of life is not fair. This type of discrimination must stop!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The New Bucket
My friend Chris DeWeese has some unique insights on the Christian Passover. Give his blog a look and comment.
Chris' Blog
Chris' Blog
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Gods of Egypt
“For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn of the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgement.” (Exodus 12:12)
Before Israel came out of Egypt, God brought a series of plagues upon the Egyptian people. Most scholars believe that the plagues were God’s systematic rebuttal of the gods of Egypt, for each plague showed their impotence and even destroyed the objects of worship.
The Nile, the giver of life to the nation, was the greatest of the gods, and it was the first to be cursed. Frogs were the symbol of fruitfulness of offspring, and God cursed the land by an overabundance of them.
The plague of flies was a repudiation of Beelzebub, the Lord of the Flies. Moses initiated the plague of boils by sprinkling ashes, which was a repudiation of the god Typhon, whom the Egyptians tried to appease by burnt human sacrifice. And the locusts revealed that the god Serapis was powerless to stop the infestation that he was responsible to prevent.
And when there as darkness of the land for three days, Ra was shown to be nothing when compared to the great Yahweh.
We have our own false gods today to whom we pay our homage. It has been said that in order to get the attention of an American, simply kick him in the pocketbook. We worship the goddess named Fortune because we hold wealth and possessions as a measure of success.
We worship the god named Status, for we crave position and the adulation of others.
We worship a goddess called Liberty (whom we should really call Libertine), and in the name of that god claim the right to do whatever we please with no regard for consequences.
We sacrifice babies on the altar of Erotica, claiming freedom of choice but only in matters from the waist down.
We bow at the altar of Narcissus, where self-made men worship their creator.
Your god is what you think about most of the time. Your god is the one you trust for deliverance, sustenance, and meaning in life. As we enter this Passover season, we should think long and hard about the gods we worship. The true God systematically removed the objects of Egyptian worship until all were forced to acknowledge the One who is supreme. Will God be forced to remove from us our false gods before we finally and completely turn to him?
Before Israel came out of Egypt, God brought a series of plagues upon the Egyptian people. Most scholars believe that the plagues were God’s systematic rebuttal of the gods of Egypt, for each plague showed their impotence and even destroyed the objects of worship.
The Nile, the giver of life to the nation, was the greatest of the gods, and it was the first to be cursed. Frogs were the symbol of fruitfulness of offspring, and God cursed the land by an overabundance of them.
The plague of flies was a repudiation of Beelzebub, the Lord of the Flies. Moses initiated the plague of boils by sprinkling ashes, which was a repudiation of the god Typhon, whom the Egyptians tried to appease by burnt human sacrifice. And the locusts revealed that the god Serapis was powerless to stop the infestation that he was responsible to prevent.
And when there as darkness of the land for three days, Ra was shown to be nothing when compared to the great Yahweh.
We have our own false gods today to whom we pay our homage. It has been said that in order to get the attention of an American, simply kick him in the pocketbook. We worship the goddess named Fortune because we hold wealth and possessions as a measure of success.
We worship the god named Status, for we crave position and the adulation of others.
We worship a goddess called Liberty (whom we should really call Libertine), and in the name of that god claim the right to do whatever we please with no regard for consequences.
We sacrifice babies on the altar of Erotica, claiming freedom of choice but only in matters from the waist down.
We bow at the altar of Narcissus, where self-made men worship their creator.
Your god is what you think about most of the time. Your god is the one you trust for deliverance, sustenance, and meaning in life. As we enter this Passover season, we should think long and hard about the gods we worship. The true God systematically removed the objects of Egyptian worship until all were forced to acknowledge the One who is supreme. Will God be forced to remove from us our false gods before we finally and completely turn to him?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
You Shall Never Wash My Feet!
Peter said to Him, "You shall never wash my feet!" (John 13:8 NKJ)
If any of the disciples could be considered self-sufficient, it would have been Simon Peter. Jesus once said of him, “When you were younger you girded yourself and walked where you wished.” It was not his way to let others do for him. He was man enough to take care of himself, and his pride would not allow otherwise.
It was Peter who wielded the sword in the garden in a misguided attempt to protect his Messiah.
It was Peter who had the audacity to walk on water.
Peter – the talented Peter – could do whatever he set his heart to do, and didn’t need anyone’s help.
Or so he thought.
So when Jesus knelt down to wash Peter’s feet, Peter acted like Peter. He was willing to help and serve others, but he could not bear the thought of others helping and serving him. “You shall never wash my feet.”
Personally, I don’t mind washing my brother’s feet. The hard part for me is to let others wash my feet. I can take care of myself, you know. You won’t catch me asking others for help. I pull my own weight. I pay my own bills. I fulfill my responsibilities. So don’t try to help me.
But once a year a brother kneels before me and washes my feet. And every year I become embarrassed. Like Peter I say, “You? Washing my feet?” And every year we read the scriptures together, and Jesus tells me, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.”
This ordinance of humility, to help your brother as a lowly servant. But sometimes it takes more humility to let others help you.
Lenny C.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
When Government Fears the People
"When Government fears the people, there is liberty. When people fear the Government, there is tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
While I appreciate Jefferson's sentiment, I'm not sure if it is entirely correct. You'll have liberty when the government fears the people if and only if the government believes in the sovereignty of the people -- that the government works for the people and not the people for the government. Otherwise, fear will motivate them to bring on more oppression. Our Founders knew this and gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They were very wise people.
While I appreciate Jefferson's sentiment, I'm not sure if it is entirely correct. You'll have liberty when the government fears the people if and only if the government believes in the sovereignty of the people -- that the government works for the people and not the people for the government. Otherwise, fear will motivate them to bring on more oppression. Our Founders knew this and gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They were very wise people.
Friends Beyond Facebook
http://www.greateryes.blogspot.com/
My friend Dan Erickson has an interesting take about Facebook. Refer to his March 26 blog at the provided link. He's right, of course.
What do you think?
Lenny C
My friend Dan Erickson has an interesting take about Facebook. Refer to his March 26 blog at the provided link. He's right, of course.
What do you think?
Lenny C
Thursday, April 2, 2009
A Little Leaven
------------------
Note: This time of year holds special meaning as we approach the Festivals of Freedom that are outlined in the Scriptures. During the next few weeks I'll be addressing some of the themes of these great Biblical Holy Days and their meaning for us today.
-------------------
Along the New York State shores of Lake Erie are some of the finest winemaking facilities in the world. To my personal taste neither California nor France can hold a glass against the quality that comes from the vineyards of New York.
I had the fortunate experience of spending my first two years of college in the middle of that winemaking area and came to know the local beverages well. I even tried my hand at making my own. On the excuse that making wine is a wonderful way to get extra credit, I obtained some simple equipment from the chemistry lab. I then concocted a mixture of ingredients that included the perfect proportion of grape juice and sugar water.
Winemaking requires a chemical reaction that changes sugar into alcohol. In the natural world, yeast spores gather on the grapeskins, and when the grapes are crushed, the spores mingle with the juice and a natural fermentation begins. That’s just the nature of things; yeast spores permeate our environment and they infect everything from wine to sour dough to allergic reactions.
In my little chemistry experiment (for extra credit, of course), my bottle of pasteurized grape juice was devoid of natural yeast spores, so I added a bit of baker’s yeast to my concoction and assembled my apparatus. In a month or so I had two very palatable bottles of red wine.
My Funk and Wagnalls describes fermentation as “chemical changes in organic substances produced by the action of enzymes”, and I am able to vouch that my wine was chemically different from the grape juice I started with, and it was all started with just a few grams of yeast. To mix metaphors with James, “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” Or, mixing metaphors with Paul, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,” or in my case, two fifths.
When Paul mentioned the leaven issue to the Corinthians, he was using leaven as a metaphor for a certain egregious sin that had infected their church. Their failure to deal with the couple involved was infecting their entire church, just as leavening grows and spreads and chemically changes whatever it infects.
Paul chose an appropriate illustration in using the example of yeast to describe how sin operates. Just as yeast changes the nature of what it touches, so does sin change what it touches. Unless the people purged themselves of sin, they would become something other than what they were. In the case of Corinth, their church had already changed drastically, and not for the better. (I Corinthians 5)
And just as yeast spores are everywhere, so are the seeds of sin.
At the end of the fermentation process, the juice develops a high enough alcohol content that it kills the yeast spores and the fermentation stops. Death is a part of the process, and the yeast spores bring it upon themselves. That’s the same way sin works. “Each is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and is enticed. Then when desire is conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown brings forth death.” (James 1:14-15 NKJV)
As it turned out, I got no credit in chemistry class for my little experiment, but the project had a reward of its own. The wine itself was gladly consumed, but that wasn’t the real reward. I believe the world around us speaks of the truth of God. In observing how yeast works, I had a better understanding of how sin works, and I determined not to let the process of corruption change me, and instead to purge out the leaven in my life. Sadly, I’m still purging, but happily, the blood of the Lamb, the wine that is wine indeed, purges the unwanted yeast from our lives and sets us on a course anew.
Note: This time of year holds special meaning as we approach the Festivals of Freedom that are outlined in the Scriptures. During the next few weeks I'll be addressing some of the themes of these great Biblical Holy Days and their meaning for us today.
-------------------
Along the New York State shores of Lake Erie are some of the finest winemaking facilities in the world. To my personal taste neither California nor France can hold a glass against the quality that comes from the vineyards of New York.
I had the fortunate experience of spending my first two years of college in the middle of that winemaking area and came to know the local beverages well. I even tried my hand at making my own. On the excuse that making wine is a wonderful way to get extra credit, I obtained some simple equipment from the chemistry lab. I then concocted a mixture of ingredients that included the perfect proportion of grape juice and sugar water.
Winemaking requires a chemical reaction that changes sugar into alcohol. In the natural world, yeast spores gather on the grapeskins, and when the grapes are crushed, the spores mingle with the juice and a natural fermentation begins. That’s just the nature of things; yeast spores permeate our environment and they infect everything from wine to sour dough to allergic reactions.
In my little chemistry experiment (for extra credit, of course), my bottle of pasteurized grape juice was devoid of natural yeast spores, so I added a bit of baker’s yeast to my concoction and assembled my apparatus. In a month or so I had two very palatable bottles of red wine.
My Funk and Wagnalls describes fermentation as “chemical changes in organic substances produced by the action of enzymes”, and I am able to vouch that my wine was chemically different from the grape juice I started with, and it was all started with just a few grams of yeast. To mix metaphors with James, “Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” Or, mixing metaphors with Paul, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,” or in my case, two fifths.
When Paul mentioned the leaven issue to the Corinthians, he was using leaven as a metaphor for a certain egregious sin that had infected their church. Their failure to deal with the couple involved was infecting their entire church, just as leavening grows and spreads and chemically changes whatever it infects.
Paul chose an appropriate illustration in using the example of yeast to describe how sin operates. Just as yeast changes the nature of what it touches, so does sin change what it touches. Unless the people purged themselves of sin, they would become something other than what they were. In the case of Corinth, their church had already changed drastically, and not for the better. (I Corinthians 5)
And just as yeast spores are everywhere, so are the seeds of sin.
At the end of the fermentation process, the juice develops a high enough alcohol content that it kills the yeast spores and the fermentation stops. Death is a part of the process, and the yeast spores bring it upon themselves. That’s the same way sin works. “Each is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and is enticed. Then when desire is conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown brings forth death.” (James 1:14-15 NKJV)
As it turned out, I got no credit in chemistry class for my little experiment, but the project had a reward of its own. The wine itself was gladly consumed, but that wasn’t the real reward. I believe the world around us speaks of the truth of God. In observing how yeast works, I had a better understanding of how sin works, and I determined not to let the process of corruption change me, and instead to purge out the leaven in my life. Sadly, I’m still purging, but happily, the blood of the Lamb, the wine that is wine indeed, purges the unwanted yeast from our lives and sets us on a course anew.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Appeasement Redux
On a tour of the internet a while back I was aghast at the revisionist view of the blundering exploits of a certain Neville Chamberlain of
Some well-meaning people even today believe that Chamberlain’s policy failed not because it was based on a flawed theory, but because the evil Winston Churchill sabotaged it. Supposedly, if Chamberlain’s view had prevailed, World War II would have been prevented, millions of lives would have been saved, and I suppose der Fuehrer would have been given the accolades he so richly deserved.
Einstein reputedly said that “only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” Whether Einstein made that clever comment is a question of debate, but history does bear out the sympathies expressed. Perhaps the real reason for such revisions of history is an attempt to deprecate the war on terror by establishing the legitimacy of the doctrine of appeasement that proponents of current policy cite to justify their position.
The doctrine of appeasement has a history of failure that long precedes World War II. Pilate attempted to use it and discovered that it only served to tease the appetite for more blood. Apparently Pilate could not understand why the corrupt religious leadership of the day hated Jesus with such extreme virulence. Even though, after questioning Jesus and admitting to finding no fault in him, he expended energy trying to pass the judgment to someone else (like Herod), and when that failed he tried other means to wiggle out of rendering a decision. One of those means was a pitiful and dishonorable attempt at appeasement, and like Britain and France taking out a piece of Czechoslovakia’s hide in an attempt to save their own, he learned to his disgust that tearing the skin of an innocent man cannot mitigate a mind filled with bloodlust.
Imagine this scene. A judge admits to the prosecutor and the accusers – and everyone else within earshot -- that there is no evidence of guilt. “I have found no fault in this man,” he said. And then, “I will therefore chastise him.” (Luke 23:14, 16) This he did in hopes of satisfying an insatiable hatred. It did not work. It never does. Chamberlain proved it. Pilate proved it. I pray God our generation doesn’t have to prove it again.
Tell me what you think.
Lenny C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)