Sowell documents it.
Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Surrendering All
“Get me behind, Satan!,” Jesus said to Peter. “You are an offense to me, for you are not mindful of the things of God but the things of men.” (Matthew 16:23)
Imagine Jesus comparing you with Satan! Why would he say such a thing?
Matthew tells us that Jesus’ statement was in response to something Peter had said to him. Jesus had revealed he was to go to Jerusalem, suffer at the hands of the religious leaders, be killed, and later resurrected. “Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘Far be it from you, Lord; this shall not happen to you!”
In some ways it appears that Jesus overreacted. Peter on the one hand goes to his brother and friend with a concern, while Jesus on the other hand rebukes him for being honest with him. But a deeper reading of this passage and its context teaches a vital lesson. Jesus’ words that follow the rebuke of Peter: "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Jesus is trying to teach that we must be willing to give our all, that the cause for which he came is worth the sacrifice of everything. Throughout Jesus’ ministry he talked about counting the cost, the pearl of great price, putting one’s hand to the plow and not looking back, selling what one has and following him, and dozens of other such references. Jesus wants our all because he is Lord of all. We now work for a new boss whose demands are great, but at the same time light.
Along with that, Jesus makes the same commitment for himself that he demands of us. When he talked to his disciples about the things he would have to suffer, he was telling them that he was so committed to his cause that he himself would surrender all, leaving no breath and no drop of blood behind. So when Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him for saying such things, Jesus perceived it for exactly what it was: Satan’s lie that we really don’t need to give it all to God, that we can hold something back from him.
Jesus demands to be Lord of all because he doesn’t want to leave a foothold for the devil in our lives. That’s why Peter’s statement deserved that rebuke.
Imagine Jesus comparing you with Satan! Why would he say such a thing?
Matthew tells us that Jesus’ statement was in response to something Peter had said to him. Jesus had revealed he was to go to Jerusalem, suffer at the hands of the religious leaders, be killed, and later resurrected. “Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘Far be it from you, Lord; this shall not happen to you!”
In some ways it appears that Jesus overreacted. Peter on the one hand goes to his brother and friend with a concern, while Jesus on the other hand rebukes him for being honest with him. But a deeper reading of this passage and its context teaches a vital lesson. Jesus’ words that follow the rebuke of Peter: "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Jesus is trying to teach that we must be willing to give our all, that the cause for which he came is worth the sacrifice of everything. Throughout Jesus’ ministry he talked about counting the cost, the pearl of great price, putting one’s hand to the plow and not looking back, selling what one has and following him, and dozens of other such references. Jesus wants our all because he is Lord of all. We now work for a new boss whose demands are great, but at the same time light.
Along with that, Jesus makes the same commitment for himself that he demands of us. When he talked to his disciples about the things he would have to suffer, he was telling them that he was so committed to his cause that he himself would surrender all, leaving no breath and no drop of blood behind. So when Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him for saying such things, Jesus perceived it for exactly what it was: Satan’s lie that we really don’t need to give it all to God, that we can hold something back from him.
Jesus demands to be Lord of all because he doesn’t want to leave a foothold for the devil in our lives. That’s why Peter’s statement deserved that rebuke.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Legislating Morality
“I personally believe,” said the candidate, “that life begins at conception. But I do not believe that I should impose my beliefs on others.”
I sympathize with the gentleman, for I have had similar thoughts myself. I personally believe that slavery is an affront to the natural rights of man, but I would oppose any laws that would impose my views on others.
Let me assure you that I really don’t subscribe to that logic, but curiously enough, it is exactly the logic of Stephen Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln shredded this intellectual juggling by pointing out that “you say it [slavery] is wrong; but don’t you constantly … argue that this is not the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in the free states because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in the slave states because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics because it will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in the pulpit because it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it? There is no suitable place to oppose it.” (Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years, Carl Sandburg, p. 141)
The belief that one cannot legislate morality is a sad leap of bad logic and misquotation. Legislation is almost always enacted to promote somebody’s morality. The words ascribed to Martin Luther King, Jr. in reality were: “You cannot legislate men’s hearts”, and surely we can’t. But laws are passed all the time to take care of the poor, criminalize destructive behavior, protect the environment, and otherwise promote the general welfare. All of that is to legislate morality.
The loose interpretation of right and wrong and the evident uncertainty of one’s own moral positions is a dangerous mindset for one seeking political power. The temptation for such a one is to succumb to the expediency of the moment rather than to uphold standards. I am concerned about office seekers who use the faulty logic as expressed in the first paragraph, but the world has always had such. I am more concerned about voters who can’t see through such subterfuge, and even more concerned that the supposed watchdogs of the political scene (the press) and even the political opponents of such a candidate lack the moral fortitude themselves to point out the fallacy of such logic. Where is an Abraham Lincoln when you need him?
I sympathize with the gentleman, for I have had similar thoughts myself. I personally believe that slavery is an affront to the natural rights of man, but I would oppose any laws that would impose my views on others.
Let me assure you that I really don’t subscribe to that logic, but curiously enough, it is exactly the logic of Stephen Douglas in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Lincoln shredded this intellectual juggling by pointing out that “you say it [slavery] is wrong; but don’t you constantly … argue that this is not the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in the free states because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in the slave states because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics because it will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in the pulpit because it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it? There is no suitable place to oppose it.” (Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years, Carl Sandburg, p. 141)
The belief that one cannot legislate morality is a sad leap of bad logic and misquotation. Legislation is almost always enacted to promote somebody’s morality. The words ascribed to Martin Luther King, Jr. in reality were: “You cannot legislate men’s hearts”, and surely we can’t. But laws are passed all the time to take care of the poor, criminalize destructive behavior, protect the environment, and otherwise promote the general welfare. All of that is to legislate morality.
The loose interpretation of right and wrong and the evident uncertainty of one’s own moral positions is a dangerous mindset for one seeking political power. The temptation for such a one is to succumb to the expediency of the moment rather than to uphold standards. I am concerned about office seekers who use the faulty logic as expressed in the first paragraph, but the world has always had such. I am more concerned about voters who can’t see through such subterfuge, and even more concerned that the supposed watchdogs of the political scene (the press) and even the political opponents of such a candidate lack the moral fortitude themselves to point out the fallacy of such logic. Where is an Abraham Lincoln when you need him?
Cap and Trade for Babies?
To illustrate the absurdity of much of the global warming propaganda, I used to point out that I am a major emitter of carbon by simple virtue of breathing. It turns out this isn’t much of a joke anymore. It’s being taken very seriously in some quarters.
Read this article from the October 19 issue of Investors’ Business Daily.
Cap and Trade for Babies?
Read this article from the October 19 issue of Investors’ Business Daily.
Cap and Trade for Babies?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Update on Guy and Jennifer Swenson’s Common Ground Ministries and Camp Outreach
This past summer Guy and Jennifer Swenson's Camp Outreach sponsored program to rehab a house in an Indianapolis neighborhood. Growing from that project has come a Sabbath morning neighborhood program. Guy posted, without much background, this update on his Facebook page:
Intrigued by this, I sent Guy a message asking for more background details, and he replied with this:
You can access the pictures Guy mentions at this link: http://annashouse.shutterfly.com/specialevents/399?eid=112
Guy’s response has convinced me to read the book Natural Church Development, which he has been touting for many years. More importantly, rather than cursing the darkness, Guy and Jennifer are lighting a candle.
We had 39 kids at our Sabbath time with "the neighborhood" kids. Two hours of Bible stories, cool crafts and "Moonrock" snacks. Thanks to Beth from Anna's House for her help. Add another 9 parents and adults and we had a pretty good group! We had 26 kids last time. Since our last outreach, one little girl had moved from the neighborhood - and her mom made a special trip to bring her back. Can't wait 'til next time.
Intrigued by this, I sent Guy a message asking for more background details, and he replied with this:
Hi Lenny,
I don't know what to say - it is becoming a community effort. The food pantry (The Lord's Pantry at Anna's House) and families in the community have adopted us as much as we have adopted them. Beth Balazs volunteers at the Lord's Pantry and saw on Facebook that the flu had depeleted our resources, so she came and brought her daughter. 8th graders from St. Jude's parish (Catholic) volunteered at the pantry and created three big signs in English and Spanish that advertised our kid's camp and posted them at the pantry. (You can see pics of them taken by Beth on my Facebook.)
How cool is it that what we are doing is being promoted by other denominations?
Four things that seem to be bearing fruit:
1. We started by looking for existing ministries that we could help and earned a reputation for serving with them before we proposed anything ourselves. Showing honor and respect for what others are doing was a good place for us to begin.
2. We are working in an area where we have identified real needs and taking concrete steps to meet those needs. Doing a Camp Outreach in the community really established a lot of credibility.
3. Focusing on meeting legitimate needs vs starting by preaching doctrinal distinctives is building community support. People know that we keep the Sabbath and that we went to the Feast. They also have a favorable impression of them because of the ministries we do in their community.
4. We're trying to follow the leading of God's Spirit. Following through and completing one project is opening up an opportunity to do another.
It has taken time for us to rethink what our priorities are as a congregation and learn how to really connect with a community that has needs that we can meet. We've focused on ministries that fit the gifts of people in our congregation. It is exciting to see how the community is responding to our ministries. We've chosen to leave behind the "us vs them" mentality and find ways to show honor and respect to people of different denominations. We're focusing on the common ground we share.
We're also following the Natural Church Development outline for healthy congregations. It is helping us discover different ways of relating to the community and each other that work better than what I was taught.
It feels like we are really at just the beginning. I don't know if this helps you, but we're having fun and learning a lot every time we minister with our friends in the neighborhood.
Guy
You can access the pictures Guy mentions at this link: http://annashouse.shutterfly.com/specialevents/399?eid=112
Guy’s response has convinced me to read the book Natural Church Development, which he has been touting for many years. More importantly, rather than cursing the darkness, Guy and Jennifer are lighting a candle.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Congressman Cleaver's Town Hall Meeting
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri’s 5th Congressional District announced a town hall meeting right smack in the middle of Lee’s Summit, which happens to be the very neighborhood where I often take my Sabbath morning walk and right there at my favorite local coffee shop.
So I went in. The Congressman (i.e., you the taxpayer) was buying, so why not?
The Congressman was there with his coffee talking to constituents one at a time. If you wanted to talk to the Congressman, they asked you to fill out a short form with your name and address and in general terms what you wanted to talk to him about. One of his aides would take the form, at which time you would wait your turn.
When I got there, an older gentleman with “Fair Tax” buttons on his cap (whom I had seen at least twice before at such events) was speaking with passion to the Congressman who listened quietly, nodding, making a comment every now and then. I was there about 30 minutes, and saw a total of 3 constituents get their time with the Congressman. From bits and pieces, I would say that at least 2 out of the 3 were giving him an earful.
A little quick math and discussion with others who were waiting showed me I wasn’t going to get any time with the Congressman unless I had about 3 hours to kill – and I did not. But I do have some impressions.
1. Cleaver meets with his constituents in their own neighborhoods and takes time to listen to them, even in parts of his district that are as conservative as they come. I disagree with him on almost every fundamental point of political philosophy, but at least give him that.
2. He likely won’t have the type of public forum that became the media sensation of the summer. A shame. That would be fun.
3. The place had its share of political professionals handing out flyers for their pet causes. There was the Fair Tax guy and another fellow there from the Constitution Party, both of whom were campaigning. Nobody tried to stop them. Agree or disagree with them, this does represent American politics at its best – free exchange of ideas in a public setting with respectful discussion and disagreement.
4. Likely someone talked with the Congressman about the same things I would have said. Sadly, it won’t change his vote. Still, I would like to talk to him some day eyeball to eyeball and see how he justifies bankrupting the country, killing babies, and calling Castro a great man. Arguing respectfully, of course. Maybe I’ll show up an hour early next time and hope my chances improve.
So I went in. The Congressman (i.e., you the taxpayer) was buying, so why not?
The Congressman was there with his coffee talking to constituents one at a time. If you wanted to talk to the Congressman, they asked you to fill out a short form with your name and address and in general terms what you wanted to talk to him about. One of his aides would take the form, at which time you would wait your turn.
When I got there, an older gentleman with “Fair Tax” buttons on his cap (whom I had seen at least twice before at such events) was speaking with passion to the Congressman who listened quietly, nodding, making a comment every now and then. I was there about 30 minutes, and saw a total of 3 constituents get their time with the Congressman. From bits and pieces, I would say that at least 2 out of the 3 were giving him an earful.
A little quick math and discussion with others who were waiting showed me I wasn’t going to get any time with the Congressman unless I had about 3 hours to kill – and I did not. But I do have some impressions.
1. Cleaver meets with his constituents in their own neighborhoods and takes time to listen to them, even in parts of his district that are as conservative as they come. I disagree with him on almost every fundamental point of political philosophy, but at least give him that.
2. He likely won’t have the type of public forum that became the media sensation of the summer. A shame. That would be fun.
3. The place had its share of political professionals handing out flyers for their pet causes. There was the Fair Tax guy and another fellow there from the Constitution Party, both of whom were campaigning. Nobody tried to stop them. Agree or disagree with them, this does represent American politics at its best – free exchange of ideas in a public setting with respectful discussion and disagreement.
4. Likely someone talked with the Congressman about the same things I would have said. Sadly, it won’t change his vote. Still, I would like to talk to him some day eyeball to eyeball and see how he justifies bankrupting the country, killing babies, and calling Castro a great man. Arguing respectfully, of course. Maybe I’ll show up an hour early next time and hope my chances improve.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Drill by Sarah Palin on National Review Online
I am one who was dubious about Sarah Palin as a viable presidential candidate (still am, as far as that goes), but even I have to admit that her commentaries have more sense to them than about anything I hear coming out of the official Washington class.
I cannot figure out why China and Cuba can drill in the Gulf off our shores, but American oil companies cannot. I cannot figure out why every nation that discovers reserves of crude under their soil can't wait to develop them -- except for my own country.
Unless, of course, my own coutrymen have a desire to drag the United States down. That's the only unifying theory I can think of that matches all their actions.
The Constitution has a name for this. You can look it up.
Drill by Sarah Palin on National Review Online
Shared via AddThis
I cannot figure out why China and Cuba can drill in the Gulf off our shores, but American oil companies cannot. I cannot figure out why every nation that discovers reserves of crude under their soil can't wait to develop them -- except for my own country.
Unless, of course, my own coutrymen have a desire to drag the United States down. That's the only unifying theory I can think of that matches all their actions.
The Constitution has a name for this. You can look it up.
Drill by Sarah Palin on National Review Online
Shared via AddThis
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sparrows Do Fall From Heaven
“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.” (Matt 10:28-31 NIV)
Comforting words, those. If God is aware of sparrows falling from the sky, how much more does he know of our travails! Yet missed in this talk of God’s omniscience is a startling fact: sparrows do fall from heaven, and God does nothing to stop it. Many sparrows have fallen in his sight, and not just sparrows. People fall too. Does it grieve a loving God’s heart to have seen the sufferings of the ages? Pestilence and storms. Warfare and tyranny. The suffering of martyrs. Earthquakes and terror. It has all been in God’s plain view, and even as Jesus wept over Jerusalem, one must wonder if the Father’s heart is also grieved over the helpless falling of many sparrows.
I believe he does grieve, and I believe he can and does weep. “Why will you die, O house of Israel?” God asks more than once. (Ezekiel 18:31, 33:11 NIV) And yet the sparrows continue to fall. The “why” might be an important question, but it is not the most important. So often God’s purposes are beyond our poor power to understand, and asking why becomes an exercise in frustration.
Perhaps the better question when sparrows fall is not why, but what. What am I going to do about it? If a sparrow falls from the sky, what am I to do? Do I help the sparrow and nurse it back to health, or do I resign myself to the inevitable evils of the world?
When the storms of the world strike our brothers, do we curse God? Do we languish in the misery of others? Or do we rush to their aid and help carry them? Paul calls us ambassadors for Christ (II Corinthians 5:20), and as such we need to be in the business of reconciliation. The “what” is to be a tool in God’s hands to offer the comfort, the support, the cold cup of water, the shelter over one’s head, or a hot meal to the fallen.
In such times, the fallen sparrows need Christ, and they will either see a reflection of Christ in us or they might not see Christ at all. As his ambassadors we represent the God of the universe, and it is through us that God lights the world and reveals his love. If we want to see God’s hand, perhaps it is at the end of our own arms.
Lenny C.
Comforting words, those. If God is aware of sparrows falling from the sky, how much more does he know of our travails! Yet missed in this talk of God’s omniscience is a startling fact: sparrows do fall from heaven, and God does nothing to stop it. Many sparrows have fallen in his sight, and not just sparrows. People fall too. Does it grieve a loving God’s heart to have seen the sufferings of the ages? Pestilence and storms. Warfare and tyranny. The suffering of martyrs. Earthquakes and terror. It has all been in God’s plain view, and even as Jesus wept over Jerusalem, one must wonder if the Father’s heart is also grieved over the helpless falling of many sparrows.
I believe he does grieve, and I believe he can and does weep. “Why will you die, O house of Israel?” God asks more than once. (Ezekiel 18:31, 33:11 NIV) And yet the sparrows continue to fall. The “why” might be an important question, but it is not the most important. So often God’s purposes are beyond our poor power to understand, and asking why becomes an exercise in frustration.
Perhaps the better question when sparrows fall is not why, but what. What am I going to do about it? If a sparrow falls from the sky, what am I to do? Do I help the sparrow and nurse it back to health, or do I resign myself to the inevitable evils of the world?
When the storms of the world strike our brothers, do we curse God? Do we languish in the misery of others? Or do we rush to their aid and help carry them? Paul calls us ambassadors for Christ (II Corinthians 5:20), and as such we need to be in the business of reconciliation. The “what” is to be a tool in God’s hands to offer the comfort, the support, the cold cup of water, the shelter over one’s head, or a hot meal to the fallen.
In such times, the fallen sparrows need Christ, and they will either see a reflection of Christ in us or they might not see Christ at all. As his ambassadors we represent the God of the universe, and it is through us that God lights the world and reveals his love. If we want to see God’s hand, perhaps it is at the end of our own arms.
Lenny C.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Rules for Males
I saw this in an Amana crafts store somewhere along I-80 in Iowa. They sound about right to me.
1. The Female always makes The Rules.
2. The Rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification.
3. No Male can possibly know all The Rules.
4. If the Female suspects the Male knows all The Rules, she must immediately change some or all of The Rules.
5. The Female is never wrong.
6. If the FEMALE is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding which was a direct result of something the MALE did or said wrong.
7. (If Rule 6 applies, the Male must apologize immediately for causing the misunderstanding.)
8. The Female can change her mind at any given point in time.
9. The Male must never change his mind without express written consent from the Female.
10. The Female has every right to be angry or upset at any time.
11. The Male must remain calm at all times, unless the Female Wants him to be angry or upset.
12. The Female must under no circumstances let the Male know whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset.
13. The Male is expected to mind read at all times.
14. The Male who doesn't abide by The Rules, can't take the heat, lacks a backbone, and is a wimp.
15. Any attempt to document The Rules could result in bodily harm.
16. At no time can the Male make such comments as "Insignificant" and Is that all?" when the Female is complaining.
17. If the Female has PMS, all The Rules are null and void!
1. The Female always makes The Rules.
2. The Rules are subject to change at any time without prior notification.
3. No Male can possibly know all The Rules.
4. If the Female suspects the Male knows all The Rules, she must immediately change some or all of The Rules.
5. The Female is never wrong.
6. If the FEMALE is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding which was a direct result of something the MALE did or said wrong.
7. (If Rule 6 applies, the Male must apologize immediately for causing the misunderstanding.)
8. The Female can change her mind at any given point in time.
9. The Male must never change his mind without express written consent from the Female.
10. The Female has every right to be angry or upset at any time.
11. The Male must remain calm at all times, unless the Female Wants him to be angry or upset.
12. The Female must under no circumstances let the Male know whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset.
13. The Male is expected to mind read at all times.
14. The Male who doesn't abide by The Rules, can't take the heat, lacks a backbone, and is a wimp.
15. Any attempt to document The Rules could result in bodily harm.
16. At no time can the Male make such comments as "Insignificant" and Is that all?" when the Female is complaining.
17. If the Female has PMS, all The Rules are null and void!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Things Were Better in Harry's Day
Of the many blessings of living in Jackson County, Missouri is the nearby presence of the Harry S Truman Presidential Library in Independence. I have lived in this county for over 30 years, many of which were within walking distance of this national treasure. I used that well-worn trail many times
On one trip, a certain exhibit that might have been just a curiosity struck me as a significant commentary on the path this nation has taken in its journey with the community of man.
It was an exhibit that reflected some of the popular American culture of the late 1940s and early 1950s, and what caught my eye were clips from the early days of television. Americans viewed themselves in a positive, inspiring way in the post-war years, and the nation manifested itself to the rest of the world in that way through its popular culture. Images of Bing Crosby crooning, of Fred Astaire dancing, of Louis Armstrong singing and trumpeting all projected an image of good will and joyful musing to the world. Young families with happy, respectful kids might have been silly sitcoms, and though they might have been an unrealistic representation of what really happened in American families, they did model an ideal to strive for, a reaffirmation of high standards and values. At least it was possible in those to credibly affirm that sometimes Father really did know best.
The image the nation had of itself and broadcast abroad was of confidence, kindness, joy, and energy, all values that any culture anywhere could celebrate. And the world respected the United States of America.
Some time in the intervening years – some time in the 1960s – American self-image began to morph into an America that doubted its values and its heritage. The popular culture began to develop a crass and coarse tinge to the point where today someone in a foreign land viewing our popular culture would conclude that we are over-sexed, over-fed, and utterly self-absorbed, that we are a people who celebrate violence and self-gratification to the exclusion of any higher calling.
Muslim nations can point to our Christian heritage on the one hand and our exportation of our pornographic obsessions on the other and proclaim to the world that Christianity leads to prostitution of one’s daughters, citing the names of Paris Hilton, Brittney Spears, and Madonna as object lessons of the vacuity of western culture.
What an affront we give to the name of Christ!
Within a generation a happy, gregarious, confident culture that captured the imagination of the world became a byword for a self-indulged, grasping, narcissistic people who are more interested in the “I” than the “Thou”.
Several months ago an old World War II veteran with whom I had become acquainted died after a long illness. After he as a teenager enlisted in the military he wrote this poem to explain why he was volunteering to make the sacrifice that he was.
We have lost what we had to become what we are because we no longer believe in things greater than ourselves.
On one trip, a certain exhibit that might have been just a curiosity struck me as a significant commentary on the path this nation has taken in its journey with the community of man.
It was an exhibit that reflected some of the popular American culture of the late 1940s and early 1950s, and what caught my eye were clips from the early days of television. Americans viewed themselves in a positive, inspiring way in the post-war years, and the nation manifested itself to the rest of the world in that way through its popular culture. Images of Bing Crosby crooning, of Fred Astaire dancing, of Louis Armstrong singing and trumpeting all projected an image of good will and joyful musing to the world. Young families with happy, respectful kids might have been silly sitcoms, and though they might have been an unrealistic representation of what really happened in American families, they did model an ideal to strive for, a reaffirmation of high standards and values. At least it was possible in those to credibly affirm that sometimes Father really did know best.
The image the nation had of itself and broadcast abroad was of confidence, kindness, joy, and energy, all values that any culture anywhere could celebrate. And the world respected the United States of America.
Some time in the intervening years – some time in the 1960s – American self-image began to morph into an America that doubted its values and its heritage. The popular culture began to develop a crass and coarse tinge to the point where today someone in a foreign land viewing our popular culture would conclude that we are over-sexed, over-fed, and utterly self-absorbed, that we are a people who celebrate violence and self-gratification to the exclusion of any higher calling.
Muslim nations can point to our Christian heritage on the one hand and our exportation of our pornographic obsessions on the other and proclaim to the world that Christianity leads to prostitution of one’s daughters, citing the names of Paris Hilton, Brittney Spears, and Madonna as object lessons of the vacuity of western culture.
What an affront we give to the name of Christ!
Within a generation a happy, gregarious, confident culture that captured the imagination of the world became a byword for a self-indulged, grasping, narcissistic people who are more interested in the “I” than the “Thou”.
Several months ago an old World War II veteran with whom I had become acquainted died after a long illness. After he as a teenager enlisted in the military he wrote this poem to explain why he was volunteering to make the sacrifice that he was.
What Price Liberty
A bursting bomb, a whistling shell
Suffering the pangs of a warring hell
To think of home on a hospital bed
Receive word that your son is dead
What price liberty?
A piercing scream, unknown dead
Are you sorry for the things you have said?
Fighting amid friends and foe,
In a land of sunshine, or icy snow
What price liberty?
Love of country, freedom of speech
A land with equality for each
Threatened by a treacherous foe
Who wants to rule and cause us woe
What price liberty?
To lose an arm, a leg, or an eye
To be blown to bits from the sky
A struggle to victory, or the end
To receive injuries that’ll never mend
What price liberty?
The urge to kill, the will to die,
To keep “Old Glory” waving on high
The torn bodies and lives of countless men,
In a world of bitter hatred and sin
What price liberty?
Is it the price of billions, the cost of war?
Or is it the millions of lives or more?
Is it any price so that right will win
A freedom for all? If not this…….then……
What price liberty?
Billy C. Warfel 1943
We have lost what we had to become what we are because we no longer believe in things greater than ourselves.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Save Your Own Skin Religion
Early in the 20th century a gentlemen who was worried about the state of things decided to study the geography of the world, find the safest place, and move there. In the end he discovered a south sea island and took residence at a little place called Guadalcanal.
I know of Christians today who, worried about the end times, have packed their belongings and are holed up somewhere out West. Others have attempted to leave the country. Many others, depending on their theological bent, eagerly await a Place of Safety or a rapture to save themselves from the wrath of the last days.
But the Bible I read tells me that God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind (II Timothy 1:7), and any way you cut it, the obsession with escape is a spirit of fear.
In fact, Jesus expects us to be engaged with the world around us. "I pray not that you should take them out of the world," he prayed, "but that you should keep them from the evil one" (John 17:15). Even though we are not of the world, we are still in it, and we are in the world for a reason. "You are the light of the world, a city that is set on the hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candlestick, and it gives light unto all that are in the house" (Matt. 5:15).
The world would indeed be a dark place without us. If we all disappeared into a cave with a 3-1/2 year supply of freeze-dried food, our lights would not be shining to fill the whole room, and the world would lack the seasoning of our salt. A "save your own skin" religion deprives the world of the salt and light that we are commanded to be. Such theology is neurotic for it appeals to our worst fears rather than our fondest hopes.
Once an optimist and a pessimist sat down over a cup of coffee. The optimist pointed out that 95% of the things we worry about never happen, to which the pessimist replied, "I know. See how well it works?" Far better for us is the knowledge that fear won't add an inch to our stature.
Lenny C.
I know of Christians today who, worried about the end times, have packed their belongings and are holed up somewhere out West. Others have attempted to leave the country. Many others, depending on their theological bent, eagerly await a Place of Safety or a rapture to save themselves from the wrath of the last days.
But the Bible I read tells me that God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind (II Timothy 1:7), and any way you cut it, the obsession with escape is a spirit of fear.
In fact, Jesus expects us to be engaged with the world around us. "I pray not that you should take them out of the world," he prayed, "but that you should keep them from the evil one" (John 17:15). Even though we are not of the world, we are still in it, and we are in the world for a reason. "You are the light of the world, a city that is set on the hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candlestick, and it gives light unto all that are in the house" (Matt. 5:15).
The world would indeed be a dark place without us. If we all disappeared into a cave with a 3-1/2 year supply of freeze-dried food, our lights would not be shining to fill the whole room, and the world would lack the seasoning of our salt. A "save your own skin" religion deprives the world of the salt and light that we are commanded to be. Such theology is neurotic for it appeals to our worst fears rather than our fondest hopes.
Once an optimist and a pessimist sat down over a cup of coffee. The optimist pointed out that 95% of the things we worry about never happen, to which the pessimist replied, "I know. See how well it works?" Far better for us is the knowledge that fear won't add an inch to our stature.
Lenny C.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
A Few Things They Don’t Tell You About Healthcare
They tell you that having healthcare is a human right, but they don’t tell you that under their plans the government gets to decide which treatments you have a right to.
They tell you that abortion is a right under the Constitution, and yet they say that their healthcare plan won’t allow for funding of this "right".
They tell you that the Hyde Amendment will not allow for funding of abortion through the healthcare plan, but they refuse to incorporate the language of the Hyde Amendment into the plan.
They tell you that providing universal healthcare is the Christian thing to do, but they don’t tell you they are great proponents of the separation of church and state.
They tell you that it’s your Christian duty, but they don’t tell you that their plans amount to the destruction of the network of religiously-based healthcare institutions because (see Freedom of Choice Act) will force such hospitals to provide government-mandated services, even if such services are morally unacceptable.
They tell you that there is no sense in either you or them reading the final bill because we wouldn’t understand it anyway. To which I say, “If you can’t understand it, then maybe you should rewrite it.”
Bottom line: Never believe a politician who says, “Trust me.”
They tell you that abortion is a right under the Constitution, and yet they say that their healthcare plan won’t allow for funding of this "right".
They tell you that the Hyde Amendment will not allow for funding of abortion through the healthcare plan, but they refuse to incorporate the language of the Hyde Amendment into the plan.
They tell you that providing universal healthcare is the Christian thing to do, but they don’t tell you they are great proponents of the separation of church and state.
They tell you that it’s your Christian duty, but they don’t tell you that their plans amount to the destruction of the network of religiously-based healthcare institutions because (see Freedom of Choice Act) will force such hospitals to provide government-mandated services, even if such services are morally unacceptable.
They tell you that there is no sense in either you or them reading the final bill because we wouldn’t understand it anyway. To which I say, “If you can’t understand it, then maybe you should rewrite it.”
Bottom line: Never believe a politician who says, “Trust me.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)