Yes, Virginia

Dear Virginia,

Thank you for your letter. I understand why you are shocked and puzzled that the church where you attend has canceled services because Christmas Day falls on a Sunday this year. You are absolutely correct in saying Jesus should be the "reason for the season" above all. In fact, the word "Christmas" itself is a combination of two words, "Christ + Mass" which describes a worship service dedicated to the remembrance of the birth of Jesus. From looking at its origins, therefore, a Christmas without a worship service is not really Christmas at all.

For hundreds of years the majority of the world's Christian communions have found the time to hold worship services for Christ on His birthday, on whatever day of the week it happens to occur. After all, it is not OUR birthday, is it? Most of the churches that I know of who are canceling their services are the large, urban churches which we have come to know as "megachurches." These churches have become large by catering to the consumer mentality of our culture. Their decision is a reflection of this.

On the national news the other night I saw where Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago and a number of other well known huge churches, as well as Fellowship Bible Church in Little Rock, have canceled services for what used to be a high holy day, saying they wanted people to spend time with their families. But one employee from Willow Creek let slip the real reason for the cancellation: She said "it would not be an effective use of staff and resources." Since they anticipate low attendance, they feel it would not be worthwhile to pay the orchestra, sound and lighting crew, custodians, and other costs which add up to the cost of holding a worship service in a huge church. In other words, the decision was an economic and financial decision rather than a spiritual one.

I cannot tell you why these churches could not just be honest with us about why they are not holding services on Christmas Day. The last time I remember Christmas falling on a Sunday was 1994. As a pastor I privately wondered if very many people would come to church that day. To my delight and surprise, we had almost the level of attendance as usual, with a number of guests. Many of these guests were family members from out of town. Knowing this is a family time, they said what better thing to do with your family on Christmas than to worship the living Lord together, as a family? The one hour worship service did not seem to detract too much from the exchange of gifts, consumption of food, watching of television, or any other traditional experiences of family. If Christmas is more about family for some people than about Christ, they might view Christian worship as an intrusion on their family time. But there are some people who say "Let's keep Christ in Christmas," and really mean it.

They honor Jesus by keeping Him first in their families, and in turn they find that their families are blessed. They do not feel or act as though they are having to squeeze the baby Jesus into their busy Christmas schedule. Those who attended church on that Christmas Day in 1994 enjoyed a very simple, quiet, holy time with their Lord, a most meaningful time of worship and adoration. It was kind of like the Holy Birth itself: Nothing elaborate, just a time of intimacy with the God who so loved the world.

No, Virginia, I don't really think our commercial and consumer culture has completely taken over the minds and hearts of those who still cherish the holy days of the Church. For my part, I will be in church that day and I will be delighted to worship with whoever wants to come. I hope for everyone, whether they come or not, that the day will be most holy and blessed for them. Remember the Gospel. "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome the light." And it never will.

Yours in Christ,
Bro. Bill

NOTE: all due credit to the Rev. Bill Buchanan, pastor of Salem United Methodist Church, Conway AR

Patriotism: The New American Idol

Listening to talk radio recently, a caller responded to a question about what loyalty to country means and what constitutes “patriotism”. This particular caller was especially agitated at protesters who are voicing their concerns about the United States’ involvement and perceived lack of direction in Iraq. These protesters are demanding answers from President Bush, and the Congress is responding to these concerns with questions of their own.

The caller (please allow me to clean up the language) was especially perturbed that these protesters were giving aid and comfort to the enemy by questioning the US government and the president. He then went on to explain how these protesters ought to get down on their knees and thank “God Almighty” that they live in a country where they are free to say whatever they want. Once he finished his tirade, he ended his call by demanding that these dissenters, these “enemies of the state” who are “free to say whatever they want”, sit down and shut up.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary says that patriotism is “love of or devotion to country”. So how does this “love” of country manifest itself? What is the legitimate claim of the “patriot” who insists that country can never be wrong and must never be challenged? What is the legitimate claim of the “patriot” who insists that one’s own country must be questioned; that it is not only a right but a responsibility?

What is it that we hope to achieve by this new sense of patriotism? That we only want what is best for “God and country” is not an adequate answer especially for those who demand specific responses to specific concerns. I have been a supporter of President Bush throughout his tenure, but I have to say that some of his minions cause me concern when they insinuate that any who would dare to question the president must not be “patriotic Americans”.

Is it unpatriotic to question those whom we have essentially “hired” to do a job? We as employees must stand before our own superiors and explain our work and hear the critique that may be coming our way. The questions and challenges are necessary so that misunderstandings can be cleared up and progress made and measured. A silent boss is the worst kind of boss to have because we can never really be sure where we stand. The company also suffers because some element of failure can usually be attached to silence.

We need constructive criticism. We have to hear about our own progress through the eyes of another, especially from one to whom we are accountable. Why should the US government be any different? If we elect a congressman or senator to office and never write or call, do we have a right to be upset if they never seem to represent our points of view?

The president can be no different. Of course, this one is a little different in that he has no more elections to worry about except for maybe the midterm elections in which I suspect Republicans may not do so well.

Patriotism has to mean more than simply parroting a call to arms, regardless of what those arms involve, and seeking someone to “hate” or to “blame”. Defending our country must also mean more than simply wearing the uniform of a US service man or woman. Love of country means that we sometimes have to face an ugly truth: that we made mistakes and must work to correct the mistake.

This is NOT a call to withdraw from Iraq. We are there now and the only way to ensure that all these soldiers and Marines did not die in vain is truly to finish the job. The patriots on the “left” are simply demanding that the job be better defined. It will be ok with me if a timetable is rejected, but can they at least give us some idea of what “the end” might look like?

We must be careful that patriotism does not become such an idol that we worship it and pay homage to it and even pay tribute to it even if we cannot identify it.

Choosing our Battles

"The Lord said, 'Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men ...'" Isaiah 29:13

Jerry Falwell and groups across the nation, including right here in Arkansas, are getting their spiritual panties in a wad over the use of the term "holiday" instead of "Christmas", as in lighting the "holiday" tree at the state capital and store employees being "ordered" to offer customers a happy "holiday" instead of a merry "Christmas".

Do you not think that there is a profound difference between choosing one's battles and picking a fight? Would you not agree that some things are more important than others? How has it come to be that Christians would get bent out of shape when a tree would be referred to in its "holiday" season? Since when did a tree become symbolic of the birth of Messiah?

How many churches have invited "Santa Claus" to come visit their Christmas gatherings? In some circles, Santa gets more press time than Jesus; why don't we get sideways about this?

Let's face it. These are the holidays. It is Christmas only for Christians. If we are going to become indignant about anything, let us be upset that there are still children going to bed hungry through no fault of their own. If we are going to get upset, let us be upset that many will loose jobs through no fault of their own. This list of injustices could go on for days!

We will not win any significant victory by demanding that a tree be referred to as a "Christmas" tree. This statement says little, if anything, about Christ. We must also remember that the only thing significant about a "tree" as it relates to Jesus is in 1 Peter 2:24, "... who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the "tree" ..." NKJV

There is plenty to be upset and indignant about. A tree just does not happen to be one of them.

Would You Believe Your Own Eyes?

A very interesting question was posed by another blogger the other day asking whether Jesus would be a Republican or a Democrat. Eventually, one answer came to question whether Jesus would even be an American.

It made me think of a sermon I delivered recently in which I challenged my congregation to ask and answer for themselves whether they are certain that when Christ returns they will be able to recognize Him.

I get a sense from too many passages to list here that there will be no doubt even for the non-believers. I wonder how it could be, though, that with the prophecies about Messiah being as "clear" as Christians seem to think they are, how is it that the Jews did not recognize Him when He came? That He chose to share our humanity might be a good point of "deception" (I do realize that He was not trying to fool anyone!), but do we Christians not "see" how clear the prophecies were only with the benefit of our exceptional hindsight?

If Elijah had not been the faithful servant he was, would he have recognized the "still, small voice"?

I wonder. And I wonder if anyone else wonders.

The Point of No Return

At what point would the Church cease being the Church? This thought crossed my mind this week as the Catholic Church has made headlines again with its stand that homosexuals cannot serve as priests. Even when we are talking about the vow of celibacy that priests are required to take, one who is homosexual might pose a risk to the teachings of the Church from a perspective that is not in union with the Church.

I firmly agree with advocates who demand that reasonable persons acknowledge that being homosexual does not make one a child molester. Child molesters are a whole other matter, and sexual orientation has little, if anything, to do with such a depraved mind.

The Catholic Church has also been unapologetic in its teachings about abortion, divorce and remarriage, unity in the Church, unmarried MALE ONLY priests, and AIDS and the use of condoms. Under the leadership of John Paul II, the Church stood firm in the world and on tradition steeped in biblical authority. Regardless of what one thinks about the office of the pope and the traditions of that office, John Paul was a genuine man among men. An uncompromising leader with compassion and a backbone.

A particular columnist with whom I sharply disagree over just about any topic you care to mention wrote a piece this week taking the Church to task over its refusal to allow homosexuals to enter into the priesthood, somehow reasoning that the Church must owe someone something due to its failures in the past to deal with the abuse scandals until forced to do so. For my way of thinking, one has nothing to do with the other.

Other advocacy groups working to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS proposed some time ago that John Paul II was responsible for the deaths of millions because he refused to compromise the Church's teachings about artificial birth control. That was a little over the top, but who can argue with someone who is passionate about their work? I will give this much to those who work tirelessly to combat the spread of this dastardly disease.

The Church has a much higher calling that demands a certain standard. That is to say, if we preach an eternal God, then an eternal standard must apply. "I am the Lord; I do not change." Malachi 3:6

With the exception of one or two denominations, the Church has remained steadfast in its teachings about homosexuality. What will it say to a secular society when the Church would compromise its teachings about moral issues and decide to go along with the majority? Would society breath a sigh of relief, or would they laugh at an entity that can so easily be manipulated and ultimately brought down? Does anyone honestly think that compromising a particular standard that our book of authority, the Bible, seems clear about will earn anyone's respect?

Please do not misunderstand my use of the issue of homosexuality. This is not the end-all, be-all mother of all sins that some would suggest. The very idea of sin itself is much bigger than one symptom of a great illness. But if the Church cannot be depended on to hold fast to a standard, regardless of what the world seems to demand, then where can hope fit in? And at what point would the Church cease to be the Church if she blends into society? Where will be her distinction?

Love? Christ commands His followers to "love one another as I have loved you". So what kind of love are we talking about when we demand that the very meaning of Christ-like love come more in line with what the world seems to want or thinks it needs? Even love for one another, whether homosexual or heterosexual, can come dangerously close to flirting with a very fine line. There is a jump-off point where we have to decide whether we love the world and all that it offers, or love the Lord and all that He offers. "Anyone who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." Matthew 10:37-39

So if the Lord says, "don't", and we do because we "love" someone, of course we can still say that God loves us because it is true! Again, there is that never-ending, eternal standard that will never change. However, that is the easy part. It is easy for God to love because that is what He is eternally. The real question, however, is not whether God loves us because this point is not in dispute. Rather, it is whether we love Him back. The answer is manifest in our actions and the choices we make.

The Church teaches this standard and maintains that a choice has to be made; compromise is not an option. We could say that a line has truly been drawn in the sand, and we must choose which side of the line we will stand on. The Catholic Church has defined that line and is refusing to cross it and, better yet, is demanding that genuine followers not cross it - insisting that Christ's own words are true eternally.

Folks may not like it, but they have to respect it. The Roman Church has declared war on evil in this world and is choosing to stand firm against the trappings and the temptations of this world. It is when the Church takes a "vote" and decides to back off from its centuries-old biblical beliefs that it loses its moral authority to teach. It is then when the Church has compromised its integrity. It is then when the Church ceases being the Church, Christ's Church.

Once More Amazed

My wife and I are blessed with three healthy children who have not caused us any real alarm. That they are healthy is an immeasurable blessing that I cannot begin to fathom. One way or the other, I am proud of my children.

This past week, though, something did happen that genuinely surprised me. My middle daughter has made no secret of her allegiance to Christ (she is a high school senior now). For this alone, I am grateful beyond words. I have to say, however, that she has never shown any real inclination toward the headier topics of the day until this week. She presented and defended a position against euthanasia. To be perfectly honest, I didn't even know that she knew what it meant!

I was surprised at the depth of her arguments and even more surprised when, upon reviewing her paper for her, she intended to use the Lord and His Word to defend her stance. And in public school, no less!

This evening, she told her mother and me that the presentation went very well and even though she was challenged by a couple of students (she says they were required to oppose the presenters), she stood firm in her position that the Lord alone is the Lord of life. It is His to give, and it is His to take. She made other, more "secular" arguments as well but in the end, she suggested that there had to be a point where human emotional frailty must be acknowledged when attempting to make life-or-death decisions. Wow!

Whoever says that this generation is hopelessly lost is not paying enough attention. I have nieces who have done missionary trips long before they graduated from high school, doing things I can hardly imagine doing as an adult! I see these young ladies and so many other young people who are working hard to find their way in the Lord's path and it is gratifying to know that there are some who refuse to embrace this world, choosing instead to offer an Alternative rather than a compromise.

Fables of Old

I just completed a class called "Principles of the Life of Christ". In this class we examined nothing but the Gospels to piece together a portrait of Jesus' life. Additionally, we also examined other sources that seek to dispel the legitimacy of the Bible in general and the Gospels in particular.

One particular entity is the so-called "Jesus Seminar". This group of scholars gathers twice a year to examine scripture and try to determine

• Whether Jesus actually said "it" (any particular passage)
• Whether Jesus likely said "it"
• No way Jesus said "it"

They then vote according to their own conclusions. I suppose then they expect the world to believe them because by a vote of the minds, they have concluded that Gabriel could not have visited Mary, the Virgin Birth was a myth, and that Jesus never changed water into wine. Exactly how they arrived at these conclusions - while still maintaining the divinity of Christ (I think) - is beyond me.

Nevertheless, I was searching through the Koran to find something for another paper and stumbled across this little tidbit: "When they come to argue with you, the unbelievers say: 'This is nothing but fables of the ancients.' They forbid it and distance themselves from it. They ruin none but themselves though they do not perceive it." 6:20

Of course the Bible is not silent about false teachers who seem determined to somehow undermine the saving grace of YHWH through Christ. What I do not understand is how such a denial can be made while still trying to maintain the integrity of the Scriptures as "inspired".

It seems to me that such outfits as the "Jesus Seminar" may come dangerously close to drawing in Christians with promises of attempts to "prove" the legitimacy of the Scripture while making quite rational arguments against blind faith.

Reading the Bible critically as in reading the words more carefully can go a long way toward dismissing stories from the past that grandma passed on. Reading the Bible critically as in attempting to find fault, however, does nothing good for those who continue to struggle in the faith. And that's precisely what it is: FAITH.

There is much that cannot be explained by man (Revelation leaps to mind!), but faith allows the Holy Spirit to speak to that void. This is a very important element that seems to be missing from these scholars' thoughts.

Promises, promises ...

It is reported in today's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that states and local governments have made promises they cannot keep. Considering the continuing debate in the US Congress about Social Security and Medicare and the deficit, one cannot help but wonder if this tangled web does not go even further.

Pork-barrel projects are a well-known part of doing business with politicians. We demand that our congressmen and senators "produce" and when they do not deliver, we want their livers on a stick. Yet when the pork is reported, we tend to gloss over those projects that were delivered to our home states and then cry and lament over the wasteful spending in other areas. It is easier to blame congressmen and senators from other states who have been demonized by the opposing political party and use them as the very evidence which proves that they need to go.

The truth is that our Congress is nothing more than a reflection of who we are and what we think we want. We demand the sun and the moon and the stars, and then we scream when the bill comes due. We blame Congress, and yet we have many members of both Houses who continue to be re-elected time after time. It is as if we awaken from a deep sleep only long enough to vote. Then we are only capable of making the selection that is most familiar to us. In many cases, it is the incumbent who naturally catches our eye.

If we have anyone to blame, it is only ourselves.

Promises were made years (seemingly centuries!) ago about how retirements and health care would be available to everyone; utopia was promised to us by those seeking political office, and we fell for it. Now it is time to pay the piper, and we are pretty sure "someone" is to blame; we're just not exactly sure who it is. It surely cannot be "me" - "I" only voted (that is, if "I" bothered to vote at all).

We have a deficit that seems almost surreal and a national debt that pushes a number most of us cannot begin to fathom. We are in the midst of a war fighting for our lives against an enemy that seeks every opportunity to kill and maim innocent children, and we think we are overburdened with taxes. We are facing in the very near future an uncertainty about Social Security that we refuse to talk about, and Medicare does not come close to providing for lower-income recipients who have been PROMISED that they would not want for decent and affordable medical care.

So who is responsible for fulfilling promises that should never have been made? The politicians promised us everything necessary to be elected into office, but we never bothered to ask where that money might come from. We heard only what we wanted to hear. We have been hedging a bet against a future that we secretly hoped might never come and yet somehow knew that there would be no way to avoid it.

As for me, I am looking at the man in the mirror. I am promising "him" that I will resolve to pay closer attention to what is said. I will not fall for promises that sound too good to be true. I will not believe that re-electing this person or that one will somehow solve all my problems.

I will remember that if there is anything wrong within my own world, I will have no one to blame but myself.

Genuine Moral Authority

Several weeks ago, much was said about Cindy Sheehan's "moral authority" to speak to the collective concerns Americans have about the war in Iraq. Recall that Mrs. Sheehan buried her son who was killed in action in Iraq. It was questionable then whether Mrs. Sheehan could or even should have taken it upon herself to speak for anyone other than herself.

That aside, there is a discussion within the Bush Administration and the Congress about whether the United States should completely and unequivocally outlaw torture as a means of interrogation against enemy combatants. That there is even a discussion among civilized and, presumably, reasonable persons about the legitimacy of such actions boggles the mind.

Senator John McCain of Arizona has come out and called torture at the hands of the American people a disgrace. If we want to assign any "moral authority" to speak to a situation, it would go to one who endured such treatment. Senator McCain is a former POW in the Vietnam War. He was tortured by the hands of his captors so if anyone would know about the negative ramifications of such actions, it would be him.

One great concern that politicians have had over the years is the United States' willingness to sell its weapons to foreign nations. Time and again, it has been shown that more often than not, these very weapons have fallen into the wrong hands and have ultimately been used against us. Should the idea of using torture as a weapon not raise the same concerns?

Limited training I received during my time in the Marine Corps addressed the issue of torture and its consequences. The bottom line was that we were taught that should we be charged with custody of enemy combatants, we were then responsible for their safety and well-being. There were several reasons why mistreating a POW was a bad idea, not the least of which includes:

1. Giving a prisoner humane treatment diminished the chances that there would be problems while the POW was in US custody.
2. Word getting out about the humane treatment of prisoners might encourage others to throw down their arms (remember the en masse surrenders during the first Gulf War? The US had a favorable reputation then) since there was no fear of being mistreated.
3. Word getting out about the maltreatment of a POW would increase the risk that Americans in the hands of the enemy would suffer likewise.
4. We would soon digress to become the enemy we so despised.

Senator McCain has a unique perspective about the mistreatment of POW's, and we should pay attention to him. Our mission in Iraq is an admirable one; we are fighting an enemy that has no moral qualms whatsoever about murdering innocent men, women, and children. The evidence also clearly shows that they have no regard for even civilians who would be reduced to begging for their lives and still being painfully and maliciously decapitated while being filmed!

However, this admirable mission will be lost on those who are watching should we come to resemble our enemy. After this, there are no more "good guys".

Political Opportunism

"No, I didn't!"

"Yes, you did!"

"Well, maybe I did, but I didn't mean it at the time because now I know I was misled and lied to!"

"Show me the lies."

"Well, you know, all that stuff about WMD's in Iraq. If I had known then what I know now ..."

"What do you know now?"

"Well, you know, that we were lied to."

"Very well. Show me the lies."

"Well, everyone knows that President Bush lied to us about the intelligence and ..."

"Ok. I heard you the first time. Specifically what information do you have that proves that the Congress and the nation were lied to."

Columnist Gene Lyons insists that the Bush Administration is attempting to rewrite history about what was actually known about the WMD's and Saddam Hussein's intentions in the world. Now that the nation has grown weary of the negative headlines from the war in Iraq, political opportunists have also jumped on the bandwagon to demand an immediate withdrawal or at least periodic reports from the Bush Administration about the state of the war. It would seem that now the Congress intends to run the war from the House.

President Bush has insisted that the Congress was privvy to the same information since he chose to share it while seeking congressional support for military action. The Democrats chose to support the president at the time. Why? Because the nation was reeling from 9/11, and the time was ripe for hawkishness. It was politically popular to speak of kicking some tail.

Now the Democrats are using the president's low approval ratings to kick him around a little more. Wild accusations about "lies" are flying high and low. The problem, however, is that the evidence which might implicate President Bush seems somewhat light.

If anyone is rewriting history here, it is those who will kick a man while he's down.

To What Extent Guilty?

Robert Blake, the actor, was recently acquitted of murder, yet a civil court has ruled that he is liable for his wife's death to the tune of $30 million. In 1995 O.J. Simpson was also acquitted of murder in the death of his wife but shortly afterward, a civil court held him liable and ordered him to pay millions.

Say what you will about these criminal proceedings - and I'm no lawyer - but it seems to me that to be found liable by one court after having been found innocent by another smacks of double jeopardy. It is the same case with the same evidence, yet somehow a civil court can decide that a criminal court erred. After this has been done, they can then decide that a person's life has a finite value. I suppose they are able to get around the double-jeopardy thing by going to civil court as opposed to a prosecutor retrying the case and taking another stab at it. For some reason, however, the prosecution in both cases chose not to appeal the acquittals. Why is this since there was some evidence that convinced a civil jury that proper justice had not been served?

Without knowing much about the finer points of each case, it would seem that a civil trial is going to play more heavily toward emotion rather than fact. This is the very reason why so many defense attorneys have such a problem with "emotional impact" statements from families of the victims in criminal trials. True justice is not being served because it is not hard evidence that is convincing a jury; it is a sobbing daughter who has lost a mom or an emotional father who has lost a son.

I am not completely without compassion in these cases. If I were to have suffered such a loss, I could not say for absolute certainty that I would not respond according to my fouled up emotions maybe even outside the court room if given a chance. It must be noted, however, that this must be the very reason why the Lord set up such procedures for the Israelites. Safe havens for the accused in order to protect them from emotional family members who would seek vengeance against someone who just might be completely innocent if allowed the chance to prove it. It must surely be the very reason why at least two eyewitnesses must be present, according to Torah.

Our Constitution stipulates that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but the truth is that we would prefer to ignore that rubbish. We know a crime has been committed and we know that someone did it, and we want someone to pay. It really does not matter whether that person who has been arrested and photographed is actually innocent. The fact that enough evidence exists to bring charges against that person is good enough for most of us - ESPECIALLY if we are talking about child molestation cases!

I know that if I am ever accused of a crime, I want them to bring irrefutable evidence that connects me to the crime. I have to live in a society that presumes guilt and even if I am not a criminal (and have no plans to be!), it is a threat to my own well-being that a court can be manipulated minus any hard evidence that I am guilty simply because someone can cry on command.

This does not mean that Robert Blake and OJ Simpson finally got theirs. What it actually means that no one among us is safe even in a United States court of law.

Resting on our Laurels

Matthew 25:14-30

“An idle mind is the devil’s playground.”

We’ve all heard this quoted more than once especially as it pertains to our children and their education. We also know, or should know, that if we GROWN UPS do not keep our minds occupied, there is no telling what can come forth. And something has to come because humans are just not geared to “vegging out” though we do sometimes try, and our children sometimes seem to defy this rationale!

With this reasoning, we can then suppose that if we do not keep our minds filled with things of the Lord, our minds will wander in other directions very naturally because the world is filled with all kinds of sights and sounds and temptations that can move us in sometimes dangerous directions and, ultimately, bad decisions. It is that the loudest noise at any given moment will be what captures our attention.

According to what is written in Matthew 25:14-30, choosing to do “nothing” will get us in as much trouble with The Master as would DOING something wrong. “You WICKED and lazy servant …” For the servant who did NOTHING with what was entrusted to him, it is a very unhappy time. He is to be “cast … into the outer darkness” for being “unprofitable” to the Master.

In the parable itself, Jesus uses money as the object but cash is not exclusively what He is referring to. And isn’t it interesting that the word “talent” is translated as a measure of money because when we speak of our spiritual gifts, can we not consider these gifts “talents” that have been entrusted to us?

Our “talent” is our ability to do, to perform. Our “talent” is something we are very good at. A disciple is going to understand that even though we may be able to develop our talents over time, the foundation of that ability was given to us from Above. And knowing this, we should know then that this talent that has been entrusted to us is not something we can keep to ourselves. It was given for a reason, to serve a purpose much greater than for our own success.

Faith in the Lord God is not something that “just is”. Rather, to “love the Lord your God with …” everything we have and everything we are is not passive in any sense of the word nor is Jesus suggesting such. In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite.

My current class at school is “The Life of Christ”. In the class, we are putting together a picture of what Jesus’ life must have been like. In Matthew 16, Jesus moves up to Caesarea Philippi. Beginning in verse 13 is the story we are very familiar with; “Who do people say that I am?”

Well, Peter makes his confession of faith and Jesus celebrates Peter’s confession by pointing out that the Church is going to be built upon a “rock”.

What is most interesting about that “rock” is that our understanding of what that “rock” may be will depend on whether we are Catholic or Protestant. I have to admit to you that I am a Catholic sort of preaching as a Methodist, and I’m not sure which side I come down on.

But whether Jesus was talking about Peter himself or the faith that enabled Peter’s confession is beside the point that I would like to make now. At the place where Jesus was said to be standing was at one time a pagan place of worship. It is said that some very dark and sinister happenings occurred there to include child sacrifices as a means of worship. The place is said to have been at the very core of what “evil” really looks like.

This “rock” is at the entrance of a cave at this particular place and in some circles, it was said to be the very entrance to “Hades” itself. The "god" Pan was said to have entered into Hades through that very portal. So the Church that Jesus is intent upon founding and building upon this “Rock” is at the very core of what Christianity is all about.

It is not enough that Christianity is merely an alternative to evil. It is not enough that Christianity creates sanctuaries from which people can find rest and respite from the world. Instead, it seems to be that Jesus is declaring WAR upon evil at that very site and at that very moment. “And the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

So to simply offer people a “choice” between good and evil is to do nothing more than to rest upon our laurels and say to people, “Here we are in case you need us.” If it is that Jesus is intending to build His Church at that spot, then it may very well be that Jesus is going to force a confrontation with evil and not simply abide by it and "be tolerant" of it. If evil wants to come out of that hole, it can go around a "passive" church. If a Church is alive with life, then evil must come through a church alive. "And the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

No, we do not have to peaceably “coexist” with evil nor can we. Evil may not be able to touch those of us who have declared our faith and allegiance to Christ, but there are plenty of other weaker targets out there who are vulnerable to the influences of evil.

We are not to simply offer a “choice”; we are to put evil in its place. However, we do have to realize that there are limits to what we can do. And we must always be mindful that we never “return evil for evil” regardless of our intent. But to simply stand idly by and hope others will see us, as the “wicked and lazy servant” learned, is just not good enough.

The "Master" has invested a great deal in our "talents", and He has every right to expect a solid return on that investment. One question remains: what is a fair rate of return on One's life?

'Tis The Season

Ho frikkin' ho. Today is November 12, and I am already sick of Christmas!

There was a time when Christmas could not get here quickly enough. The surprises that were under the tree were always more than generous and were almost always broken before noon! It was still great fun to be a kid. It was not until many years later when I finally figured out how deeply my parents always went into debt during that time just so we kids could have a "nice" Christmas.

We want this for our children now. More than anything, we want our kids to enjoy being children, having fun, exploring life, and learning something new with a sense of awe and wonder that too many adults no longer have. I guess it comes with getting older, but Christmas anymore has become one big pain in the rear bumper.

Why is this? Christmas is still Christmas, isn't it? We still celebrate the birth of the greatest Gift of all. We still celebrate that moment, that one incredible moment, when the Lord God humbled Himself to share in our humanity and show us the way Home.

And what have we done with it? We've turned it into a holiday whose success is measured by how much trash is left on the curb. We have turned it into one huge family conflict. We've turned it into a time of year when those with very little are made to feel even more inadequate as parents because they cannot shower their children with a lot of needless crap. We have turned it into the time of year when the suicide rate goes through the roof. A time that should be joyous above all else has become a time of profound despair for far too many. Is it because they have lost their focus? Or have we so-called "believers" lost our focus?

Some blame commercialism generally and Wal Mart specifically for the mess we've made out of Christmas. The reality is, however, that we have come to acquire a certain sense of entitlement so that rather than bless the Moment that so richly blessed us, we virtually curse the day and wish it would just pass quickly and quietly because there is no way we can give to ourselves or our children all that we believe we are owed.

Oddly, I've been on a tear about Christmas since I began preaching. I have my annual "Wal Mart Christmas" sermon that I dust off every year sometime right after Thanksgiving to remind my congregations of what Christmas is really supposed to mean, what it should really be for us and to us. For some reason, that sermon never seems to make a dent.

I am so deeply thankful that Messiah was delivered to us. So why is it that this holiday is one I have grown to utterly despise? Why can I not make peace with this time of year that my beloved wife and children love? My foul moods this time of year create more hurt feelings than anything else, and my heart shatters when I see what my anger and frustration can do. There is nothing that can make me melt like the contorted face of a child whose heart has been broken.

The season itself has lost its sense of wonderment, and the only mystery left to be associated with Christmas is how we are going to pay for all this crap we've bought! And truly, some of us will have better luck figuring out the miracle of the Immaculate Conception than we will figuring how to pay a $1000 Christmas bill with only $100.

Then of course there are those Christians who will be "offended" such as when Wal Mart and other businesses will begin officially disallowing their employees to say "Merry Christmas", insisting instead upon "Happy Holidays" so as not to offend anyone. Do we really think that Wal Mart has such influence that because they will not support "Merry Christmas" that suddenly Christ will not have been born?

We can do better and we must, but we must also pick our battles. It is not enough to get upset with secular business because Christmas is the time of year that they depend on, and Christians certainly do their part to make the season for retail a good one! Retail business is not the enemy; they sell what folks walk in and buy, but they don't kidnap shoppers.

It seems to me that the true enemy is within each of us and is struggling to be set free so that it can manifest itself in the commercial and secular thereby rendering Christmas to be nothing more than a secular holiday. Simply complaining about commercialism while standing in line to pay for our stuff is not good enough.

The Spirit of the holiday is alive and well. The only question that remains is whether this Spirit will choose to use us or loose us.

The Abundance of the Heart

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13:1

One of my favorite parts of any newspaper is the editorial/opinions section. I love to read other perspectives, and I love hearing especially from those whose opinions differ from my own. I already know what I think; now I want to hear something else. However, I freely admit that I have a tendency to become defensive when challenged, but over time words from reasonable persons can sink in. I may not change my mind, but I am satisfied that I have at least learned something that I may not have considered before.

Today was an exception, I must say. The "letters to the editor" as well as the contributing columnists were all so powerfully negative and essentially said nothing, at least nothing of any real substance. Regardless of who is writing the piece or what they may be writing about, the only thing that is apparent is that the person who wrote the piece was very angry when the piece was written. After today, I felt as though I had been beaten!

Regardless of political or even religious affiliation (and often it is difficult to tell them apart except that a topic may accidentally reveal itself!), words like "moron", "idiot", "evil", "stupid", "anti-American", or "ungodly" are peppered throughout the piece rendering the opinion void. Why? Because the only ones who could possibly appreciate what has been written are those who already share those hateful, negative feelings. Persons of reason will stop reading it.

Not long ago I got into a letter exchange through my local paper with a dear friend who is not a Bush supporter, to say the least. Worse than this, however, is that he is a Bush HATER! And even worse than this, the man is an ordained elder, a minister of the Gospel. Having been involved in more than one political or religious discussion with this man, I know that he has every intention of trying to influence other opinions. This is completely fair for this is why we discuss or debate anything; we want others to agree with us. We want others to see and appreciate our point of view. I believe this to be part of the reason why our republic works so well: Democrats and Republicans, liberal and conservative; all can be so infuriating. However, each one keeps the other in check. The differing opinions ultimately serve a useful purpose.

As Paul reminds the Corinthians, however, being hateful - regardless of intent - will produce no positive results. Even if we replace the word "love" with "respect" for our more secular friends, the admonishment still carries a lot of weight. It makes perfect sense.

My friend with whom I had gotten into this exchange with at least finally realized what I had been trying to point out to him. Bush haters already agreed with him, but moderates and most certainly Republicans and Bush supports were tuning him out because he was doing nothing more than making unintelligible noise. And we tune out unpleasant noise, don't we?

Why can we not all just play nice?

Impending Moment of Truth

The French Prime Minister is quoted in today's news as saying that France is facing a "moment of truth" in regards to the riots that have been going on for about two weeks now. The prime minister is quoted in an AP story: "The Republic is at a moment of truth. The effectiveness of our integration model is in question." He called the riots a "warning" and "an appeal" by disaffected youth of African and Arab descent who believe they have been made to feel as though they do not belong in France.

Law enforcement aside, what separates these youth from the "insurgents" in Iraq? Why is it that we are somehow expected to believe that these kids are under some sort of moral umbrella that gives them the right to destroy property that does not belong to them? And how can it be that when situations like this arise, those who would apologize for the disenfranchised might somehow try to make reasonable, law-abiding citizens to believe themselves to be the problem instead? As if to imply that they should feel guilty for having worked and earned and saved?

This is not to say that we who have much are not expected to give much, but our Lord does not try to beat it, burn it, or extort it from us by using fear and terror as a means to an end. And I do not pretend to understand what it is like to be a "minority" person; I am a white man. There is much I do not know and cannot comprehend. There is, however, something I do know: the model for changing an entire society was perfected and proved to be extremely effective by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr who acknowledged that he learned as much from Mahatma Ghandi and his model of peaceful protest. "Bless those who persecute you ..." and all that.

Apparently, however, bombing and pillaging works just as effectively and maybe even gets results quicker. After all, there was a span of nine years from the time when Rosa Parks made her stand to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The French riots have been going on for two weeks and the French government, or at least the prime minister, is prepared to apologize and make nice.

We faced the same apologists after Hurricane Katrina, and there are many who insist that the terrorists whom we continue to face must have some sort of justification for their "anxiety"; otherwise, they would be content to just be left alone to live their lives and bother no one.

This is not to say that there are not injustices; there most certainly are with some to spare. Do we really have to be hit over the head with a stick in order to see it and actually do something about it? Some seem to think so.

The Leadership Wisdom of Jesus

Worldly wisdom suggests that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of ancient documents written for an ancient people during an ancient time. This “wisdom” then suggests that the Bible, as it is written, cannot hold any genuine relevance for the world today because man has somehow evolved intellectually from the time in which these texts were written.

Mr. Manz takes this wisdom that comes from the world, and turns it upside down. He systematically proves that the Bible, particularly the lessons taught to us by Jesus, has as much relevance for us today as it did then, perhaps even more so for the intellectual progressive but certainly no less so for all others willing to listen.

Lest we somehow attempt to pigeon-hole these lessons exclusively for business leadership application, it is important to realize that these principles as outlined by Mr. Manz are probably even more applicable to those who consider themselves disciples of Christ. Jesus is not speaking exclusively to business leaders or disciples; He is speaking to anyone who will listen.

According to The Leadership Wisdom of Jesus, it is not enough to simply know how to manage a business although there is certainly a place for such skills and knowledge. However, it is important to also understand that a business’s greatest resource is its people. The principles outlined by Mr. Manz give clear direction for not only empowering subordinates to be the best they can be, but they also ensure seamless transition during times of change.

The principle that spoke most clearly to me, and the one I have personally witnessed in more practical application situations, is the section entitled, “The Last shall be first”. The genuine leader is always going to be mindful of how his or her actions affect those whom he or she will lead. The genuine leader understands that the position of authority that has been entrusted to him or her has not been granted due to special favors owed or due. Rather, a true leader will understand that his or her responsibility will rest not only with a job well done but also on the ability to encourage and train his or her eventual replacement.

My own role as a manager and as a leader with my employer has as much to do with the day-to-day task as with those times when my absence is inevitable. It is a given that one day I will no longer be with my employer whether by death, retirement, or the pursuit of other opportunities with another employer. My task as a leader, then, requires that I give my employer my all which will include the time when I am no longer there. The only way to ensure this success is to ensure the success of my subordinates. My personal witness to this concept is that my subordinates already make me look good, probably more so than I deserve!

The concept is as simple as the leadership principles I witnessed during my time in the US Marine Corps. Seemingly simple acts such as ensuring that those of lesser rank eat first, especially in the field when the food is still hot, affirms for those who eat first of their inherent worth as individuals. The acts themselves need not be so profound that the implication is ultimately lost.

There can surely be no drawbacks or weaknesses of such a concept not only because the wisdom shared comes from the Divine Source of all wisdom but also because in practical application in my own life as well as in the professional life of great leaders such as Donald Peterson, former CEO at Ford Motors, there is proof beyond reproach that the concept has merit and value just as each unique individual created in a Divine Image has inherent merit and value.

Mr. Manz’ book challenges anyone who strives for success and, as stated earlier, cannot be restricted exclusively to the business world. For it is not that any should strive for rewards for oneself; instead, it is that the success of others is our ultimate success.

What is the Word?

The Ed Johnson decision was reported in the Arkansas United Methodist paper. The article did not claim a "quote", and I could not find the link for that particular article on line (just so the reader is aware, I do well just to turn my computer on!). The gist of the article did nothing more than to report the decision of the Judicial Council to affirm a pastor's authority to determine who is and who is not ready for membership vows in a local UM congregation. The word "authority", however, was not used. Instead, the article writer chose the word "power" in place of "authority" which struck me rather odd.

I am a part-time local pastor of a small, rural congregation, and it never occurred to me that I possess any sort of assigned "power". Limited authority, yes. But power? Perhaps with my words, but no more or less so than with words spoken by others.

It would make sense that a pastor is going to be sure that a potential new member understands what it means to be part of a church family with the duties and responsibilities as well as the joys and opportunities. Being an active member of a church is very serious business! A person needs to be aware that a church cannot function as its ideal unless everyone lives up to their God-given potential and spiritual gifts.

However, making a judgment as to whether this person or that person may or may not live up to the church's expectations can be treading into some dangerous territory and making some vague assumptions. The pastor should possess a certain level of spiritual authority. However, it must always be remembered that a pastor is still a fallible human person and is quite capable of making mistakes.

I suppose someone has to be in charge and I don't really question what happened in VA since I do not have details. It is downright scary, however, to notice how significantly one single, tiny word can change the context of an entire story. Or is it just me?

A House Divided Against Itself ...

Appelate Judge Samuel Alito, Jr has been nominated by President Bush to serve in outgoing Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the US Supreme Court. This is now old news. As time goes on and more effort is given to read into Judge Alito's past works, there will be more and more new stuff to read and more information with which to either support this man's nomination ... or attempt to destroy him and the President who appointed him.

In Planned Parenthood vs Casey at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito was the lone dissenter in refusing to recognize a wife's "right" to an abortion without notifying her husband. The PA spousal notification law was rendered void by the US Supreme Court.

This case is disturbing to me on so many levels that I cannot even think of where to begin. How could a reasoned judicial opinion possibly conclude that a husband has no right to know that such a thing is about to take place? Some would argue that abortion is still about a WOMAN'S right to lord over her own body while completely ignoring the pro-life stance that opposition to abortion is about a HUMAN right to life.

Even if we are arguing about "rights", and the mantra always seems to be "equal" rights, where does the father of the soon-to-be executed child have the opportunity to exercise his rights? What "rights" does a husband even have? What is equal about such an opinion that would encourage not only the destruction of an innocent life but would also remove the foundation that upholds a marriage? This decision made it clear that when we are talking about rights, there is nothing equal or equitable about it.

Some articles have suggested that a woman might "need" to have an abortion because the husband did not want children to begin with. This argument is weak at best. Has no one in this nation heard of birth control? Or SELF-control? It seems to me that the only thing that has been protected here is a wife's "right" to cheat and not have to contend with potential consequences. Is this not what abortion is all about anyway? The potential consequences of an unwanted child who might get in the way or diminish career growth or reveal one's sin?

However, the decision of the Supreme Court is final; wives can destroy their unborn children, and their husbands have absolutely no say. Even if the husband never finds out about a particular instance in which HIS CHILD has been destroyed, we can be sure of one thing: the division in that household has been set in stone and will never recover. That marriage is over.

This Just In ...

Beth Stroud, the former UM pastor whose credentials were pulled after she "came out" about her homosexuality, has had her appeal turned away. The UM Judicial Council has upheld the initial action that pulled her credentials. She can no longer serve as a UM pastor.

Does this action mean that her credentials as a Christian person have been pulled? Of course not. However, the action and subsequent reactions tells a story about a people who are not the least bit interested in "justice". And I am not speaking exclusively of United Methodists, conservative or otherwise.

President Bush has named a new nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. The gentleman happens to have a conservative background. Without even giving the man a chance to speak, NARAL and other pro-abortion organizations as well as senators and congressmen are already having screaming fits that this man will not be fair to their cause.

Whether conservative or liberal, we are not at all interested in justice. We want what we want, and we will use any means at our disposal to be sure we get it. If it means disparaging remarks directed at those with whom we disagree, then so be it.

Of course we pretend that we have a special place in our hearts for justice, and we claim to be a nation of justice. It just is, however, that justice must be according to what suits us or pleases us. The truth be damned.

Regardless of one's position on homosexuality within the Church, the decision denying Ms. Stroud her credentials was right, according to what is written as church law in the United Methodist Book of Discipline. The law is about as clear as the English language can allow.

Regardless of one's stand on abortion (which seems to be about the only issue facing the US Supreme Court, to hear NARAL tell it), there is no law written that justifies such an action. It is not written in the US Constitution, and the US Congress has not created a law to be signed by the President. In fact, there is no law that grants to any of us a right to destroy an innocent human being. And abortion, and a judge's refusal to abide by that ridiculous Roe v Wade decision, is an acknowledgement of the fact that among the rights of man is "life". A judge's refusal to rule otherwise, especially in abortion cases, is to rule in favor of those who cannot speak up for, nor protect, themselves - the unborn.

The rule of law is always in favor of what is right.

Politicos are not the only ones watching Blogs

Political commentator John Brummett has a problem though he would try to convince us, the innocent reader, that there is a danger lurking in the cyber shadows from which we all need to be protected by “real newsmen”. I am speaking, of course, of those dastardly, evil “blogs”.

To hear it told, “real newsmen” are the only ones qualified to render an opinion. Of course we are being told that only the most ignorant and wretched of the masses are running these “blogs”. We are told that “if you have a job and a life”, you are not aware of these “blogs”.

I have news for you, Mr. Brummett, and as a “real newsman” – which I am sure you consider yourself to be – you might appreciate this headline. You, sir, are a snob.

Sort of ironic, isn’t it, that you align yourself with those in politics whom you consider to be “progressive” (it used to be “liberal”), those who are out for the “little guy” and seeking to protect the “little guy” from himself, that you would come across as one who almost resents the fact that hundreds, indeed thousands, of regular, working-class “little guy” Americans have opinions of their own. It might also interest you to notice that there are many “bloggers” out there who have “real” jobs and write for free. One cannot help but wonder how much writing you would do if money were not involved.

To be fair, I have come across some “blogs” whose authors seem to have come from somewhere other than planet Earth. I have also encountered other “blogs” whose writers treat the English language as a toilet stool. There are also at least as many “bloggers” who read only headlines and then discern for themselves what the headline must have meant without actually having read the story. I must say that I have also read some political commentary from “real” writers who surely did the very same thing.

How different is this from “real newsmen” who will hear, word for word, a politician’s speech and come away with an opinion that comes nowhere near what the speaker had actually said? How many “real newsmen” read between the lines and come away with such ridiculous statements as, “This is what he said. However….”

Like you, I must admit my own disdain for those who refuse to sign a name. Those who hide behind “anonymous” are those who might actually have something to say but are probably genuinely afraid to be called on what they say. So they hide.

I also have a certain level of disdain for “real newsmen” whose biting sarcasm is dripping with disdain for those whose opinions differ from their own. The truth is, political commentators such as yourself take the “real” news and then expound on that news by interjecting your own opinions as to what was said, what was not said but should have been, and how wrong they were.

The truth is, the only difference between writing such as yours and a “bloggers” writing is a paycheck. We are not paid to publish our stuff nor do we expect to be paid. Consider this. You are likely educated with a degree in journalism or English. What other credentials do you hold that make you especially qualified to speak to a political situation beyond the fact that you pay attention and, lacking a “real” job, have time to do nothing more than read and write?

The politicos had better be paying attention to the “blogs” for these are the thoughts of working-class, voting citizens. We have something to say, and we’ll not wait around for a paycheck to say it.

Respectfully,

Michael P. Daniel
10 Pin Oak Dr
Conway AR 72034
501-513-9394
mpdaniel@conwaycorp.net
mpdaniel.blogspot.com

Here We Go AGAIN!

The debate about homosexuality is heating up yet again with the appeal of UM pastor (once removed) Beth Stroud that will soon take place. Ms. Stroud had her credentials yanked for admitting to being involved in a "committed" relationship with her female partner. Now the case will be reviewed once again. **Sigh**

So what? What are we talking about here? Civil rights? Constitutional rights? Pastoral rights? Human rights? Women's rights? Gay rights? What?

A retired clergy related a story to me once about a dear friend of his who was homosexual. What kept this man out of trouble, however, was that he was not a "practicing" homosexual; he was celibate. And the reason, as it was told to me, had nothing to do with the UM Book of Discipline; it had more to do with how spiritually conflicted this man felt about his orientation.

So my question is this: what is the difference between a homosexual and a "practicing" homosexual? Could it be the same as the difference between a sinner and a "practicing" sinner? To be perfectly honest, I am extremely weary of the whole debate. If they want to have homosexual "civil" marriages, I am opposed but not nearly as concerned as I am that we continue to have this discussion/dialogue/debate within the realm of the Church.

The world will do what it will do, and the world will continue to reject the Gospel of the Lord. The world will continue to offer the instant gratification that it offers as a means to lure the innocent and the weary away from the Gospel.

The Church, however, cannot fall into this trap. The Church must necessarily stand as a sanctuary against these types of conflicts. This continuing conflict is the world battling against itself because the Church has a written Word, a LIVING WORD, that settled this conflict long ago.

So let's call it what it is. Ms. Stroud wants the rewards that this world has to offer. Let her have it. Pray for her. Mention her by name in your prayers. However, please do not pretend that this type of relationship is acceptable according to what essentially is the only Holy Scripture we have.

Rosa Parks

For those who are not familiar with her, Mrs. Rosa Parks passed away this past Monday at the ripe age of 92. Beyond her own family, this passing may not have meant much to many. She was simply an old woman who lived a long life and reached the end of her journey much like the rest of us, the Lord God willing.

Mrs. Parks, however, cannot be said to be just any old woman who finally reached the end. This woman, with no plan whatsoever, started a movement in 1955 that culminated in the long-overdue Civil Rights Act of 1964. And to hear her tell it, all she wanted to do was to ride the bus in Montgomery AL home with just a little peace and a little dignity.

I do not curse my skin color; I am caucasion. Think of it, though. The times that this incredible woman - and so many others like her - faced with courage and conviction, knowing full well that something was just not right. And as I reflect on those times, it suddenly occurs to me that they were not only fighting for - not equal rights, as Malcolm X was fond of saying - HUMAN rights; they were leading the way in a movement whose impact is so profound that I am not even sure we can appreciate it today ... at least not fully. And while there were certainly sympathetic whites during those days, there is no possible way we can understand the fear that far too many felt just in lying down in their own beds at the end of a long, hard day. No way.

So much that we take for granted in this life can never fully help us to appreciate what the Civil Rights movement meant then, or now. We have what we have and we expect it to always be there. We will not be able to fully measure its true value unless we no longer have it.

Christians can only hope to have the kind of impact for the Kingdom of Heaven that Mrs. Parks had for human dignity.

And to think ... all she wanted to do was sit down. And she did. And the world has not been the same since.

Another Military Investigation

There is yet another investigation going on with regard to our military's treatment of prisoners. This time it is not about how we are treating the live prisoners; the investigation is centered around a report about burning the bodies of deceased Taliban fighters.

There are several things wrong in the reporting, not the least of which is that the incident's reporter, Australian photojournalist Stephen Dupont, is now claiming that the incident was done not to taunt the Taliban but, rather, for reasons of hygiene.

In the United States, cremation is just another method of burial. In many other cultures, burning the bodies of the dead is part of a regular, religious practice. Why is the Muslim community going to be "horrified" when they find out about this?

In a brief search, I have found something of an answer as to why Islam prohibits cremation. As a Christian, all I can say is, "whudda thunk it?"

Winning the hearts and minds of civilians, especially within a culture that is foreign to the rank-and-file American, is of the utmost importance. This is why the US military is very intentional about teaching soldiers how to respect the culture in which they may find themselves. Fighting a war on the ground is hard enough; they don't also need to be fighting a war of words and principles.

Military commanders are coming out breathing fire (no pun intended) and promising to go after those who are guilty of this "crime". However, considering that knowledge of Islam has been our greatest challenge since 9/11/01, why is it that Islamic chaplains in the US military have not been more aggressive about being sure that American soldiers are well-informed about that which requires all the sensitivity we can muster?

While reasonable persons would never condone abuse of a prisoner under any circumstances, I think rather than demand a soldier's head on a platter, we may need to plead ignorance in this case and move on. We can only apologize so many times.

The (continuing) War on Poverty

David Boaz, executive VP of Cato Institute, wrote a provocative piece exploring the war on poverty and our tendencies to repeat past failures in our continuing efforts to "make poverty history". It is definitely a libertarian perspective and, admittedly, a must-read for everyone.

Mr. Boaz uses figures to show us the trends that have not worked in the past, efforts that we continually insist must be done on a much grander scale to get more done and reach more people. In a nutshell, Mr. Boaz uses these figures to prove that our approach to poverty has not worked in the past and has no hope of working in the future. It is time for new solutions.

The Short-Sighted Synod

The Synod of [Roman Catholic] Bishops has been convened recently to re-examine the Church's doctrine regarding the Holy Eucharist and addressed also, among other things, the acute shortage of priests in the Church. In the end, the 250 bishops from around the world gathered at Vatican City to affirm the status quo.

I grew up Catholic and were it not for my poor attitude early on, I would still be a Catholic. It has been difficult to attend Mass, however, while priests have announced that the church I happen to be visiting at the time had been assessed "x" number of dollars as their portion to pay toward the abuse scandal settlements. I have been grieved in watching my beloved Church suffer so at the hands of a select few who have done more damage than can possibly be fully measured. Now it seems that the bishops are not so serious about addressing something that is relatively recent as a tradition and having no apparent foundation in Scripture: the celibacy of the priest.

Far be it from me to attack the Church; I am in no position to do so. It must be noted, however, that this shortage of priests will not take care of itself. For those of you who might be tempted to suggest that married priests will do away with the scandal thing, I ask that you not go there without data to support that very dubious claim. One need only look at the news to see that perversion is not an exclusively Catholic tradition though it is, indeed, universal.

Peace.

The Lineage of the Covenant

Matthew 22:34-46

How can it be that Jesus is the “Son of David” and “Son of God” and “Son of Man” and “Joseph’s boy” all at the same time? It must be remembered that the neighbors knew Jesus as Joseph’s son. We, however, do know that Joseph is not His father even as Joseph was Mary’s husband. The lineage of King David is through Joseph, so how can it be that Jesus is the “Son of David” if there is no direct link?

Jesus is posing this very question in the text of Matthew 22:45, “If David thus calls [the Son of David] Lord, how can He be his son?”

Jesus is not refuting anything, but He is also not answering His own question. It seems the reader is expected to answer this difficult question alone.

Obviously the question is not so easily answered, but what sort of challenge is Jesus posing to the Pharisees? They have been hitting Jesus with questions in attempts to trip Him up and challenge His authority and His teachings. Now the tables are turned, and the Pharisees do not know how to answer Jesus’ question. To be fair to the Pharisees, do we know how to answer this question?

I have to admit that the answer is not so clear to me, and I have to wonder if we who cannot answer this question have found ourselves in the difficult position that the Pharisees have also found themselves in, a position in opposition with Jesus. What does it mean if we cannot confidently answer this question? What would it mean if Jesus were not the “Son of David”?

I have always taken it for granted that we know Jesus is not literally the son of David because David was several generations before Jesus. And in fulfilling the promise of “the branch of David”, our faith has enabled us to embrace this lineage from King David to the King of Kings because of a Promise; a Promise in earthly terms that we can understand. Yet those who would challenge Jesus at every turn have been asked a question that even Jesus’ own disciples probably could not answer then …. or now.

This seems unfair because we have been the faithful ones, or at least we have tried to be! We are followers of Jesus; we are His disciples. So why can’t this question be readily answered? If a believer struggles with this question, does this mean that the believer is really a Pharisee in the heart? Does this mean that the faith we’ve carried for so long is not really faith at all but is, instead, an indoctrination that has been ingrained in us since childhood in which we are “taught” what we ought to believe rather than how we ought to think for ourselves?
Many would suggest that it may not be for us to know, or that it is not important to know. The fundamentalist would reason that there are some mysteries where man is simply not allowed and that faith will carry the day. After all, if one is “saved”, what else is there to know? Is it not enough to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God? Is it not enough to believe that He was crucified for our sake and was buried, only to rise again on the third day to fulfill Scripture? In the end, what else do we really need to know?

Sometimes it does seem that theologians and the Church have made the study of Christianity so complicated, especially in demanding advanced degrees so that our clergy are learned men and women of letters, that many tend to move aside and ultimately give up. Would this reasoning account for at least some of the dramatic decline in church attendance in the US? Has it really reached a point where we have created a sort of scholastic “discipline” so much so that living by faith is no longer good enough and that expectations and standards are so high as to be perceived as unachievable?

The Pharisees were faithful men, true to their calling. They were pious men of religion. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures that they were presumably familiar with were turned against them and caught them in their own trap. So if they did not comprehend what Jesus was saying about the Messiah or even why it might be important to know, especially when quoting from their own text, what does it say about Christians when we don’t understand what He is saying?

I know there are many who have already come to certain conclusions about this passage based in no small measure on a lot of thought, prayer, class discussion, and past sermons. For many, however, simply saying that Jesus is staking His claim as the Messiah will go no further with a non-believer than it did with the Pharisees.

What if Jesus had simply walked away after the scribes and the Pharisees finished with their questions? What if He had never mentioned such a thing? Could the confrontation have been cut short? Would anything have been accomplished then?

There is still a covenant at work here. As it has been said so many times before, there is far more to Jesus’ life than just His death. If this atonement were the sole reason for His existence, there would not be nearly as much to write about.

Israel is under occupation by Rome; their enemies hold them hostage. They are not the free people created by the Lord God to proclaim His name to the nations. And while it can easily be said that the arrival of Messiah had long been prophesied, much like the Second Coming there could be no real way of knowing exactly when He would come.

What is certain, however, is that we get pretty anxious when we pray. We need to know that our prayers are heard. We need to know that help is on the way. Even if the answer to our prayer is going to be “no”, we still need an acknowledgment.

Is this not the existence of Messiah in a nutshell? The Lord makes covenants with His people throughout history, promising them that He will always be present and that He will always protect them. Now Israel is facing another enemy. Is the Lord not simply making Himself known so that others may know that their prayers have been answered and that they have not been forgotten after all?

Our Lord has fulfilled another Promise and is trying to make Himself known to His own people and yet, they do not recognize Him! This is not what they wanted to see, and they did not want to hear such drivel as “Pray for your enemies”. Why, King David would never have dreamed such a thing!

The difficulty in appreciating what Jesus is saying is dependent entirely upon one’s perception of danger. We can see with our own eyes the dangers that this world imposes on us. We can see the threats that come to us from this world. Like Israel, however, we cannot see the real danger that is lurking in the shadows. The danger is not an occupying army or a repressive regime. The real threat to the well-being of Israel – and to us – is evil. And we need help.

Help has arrived. Why can we not see it?

Public Education

Arkansas has had continuing problems with public schools and adequate funding for years. Governors and the legislature have tried various approaches to public education funding that have, according to the Arkansas Supreme Court, come up woefully short of constitutional mandates.

For the sake of simplicity, the Lake View ruling declared that public education in Arkansas is not fair or equal or equitable. If I understand it correctly, the Court ruled that the STATE - not the city - is responsible, according to the Arkansas Constitution, for educating children. And the state is responsible for funding that education.

What it seems to boil down to is that some districts that enjoy a broader tax base can afford better buildings, better equipment, and better teacher pay than others. Rural areas removed from these metropolitan areas do not share in the wealth and cannot offer the children what these larger districts can. The Court has declared that these rural children are entitled to the same educational opportunities, and the state has failed its constitutional mandate to provide it.

Most municipalities like the idea of "local control". They have their school boards and PTA's that provide input as to how the money that is available must be spent. They also (WRONGLY) believe that the revenue that is collected in that county or city is theirs to keep.

It seems to me that if the Constitution reads as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, the state is responsible for disbursement of the monies. This means that if district A can spend $3,000.00 per student and district B can only spend $2,000.00 per student, the state has failed to adequately oversee state public education. If I understand the ruling and the state's response, the state Board of Education should have taken control and divvied up the money so that each district could equally spend $2.500.00 per student.

Is this fair? A city with a large industrial base would say no because the tax revenue that is derived from local business and property taxes is "theirs" since it is within their district. However, what makes it "theirs" beyond the fact that the business chose to locate there? What gives that municipality the "right" to claim that revenue?

A rural district that has no opportunity for this kind of revenue and is far enough removed to make busing to the larger district unreasonable might suggest that this is the only way it can possibly be fair. It is not reasonable, especially with fuel prices as they currently are, to expect parents to drive further or for cash-strapped schools to move more buses farther to get kids to the "good" schools. And the state, according to the Court, cannot neglect the children from these rural areas.

So let it be written; so let it be done. And get the lawyers out of it before we all go broke!!

Take Your (cigarette) Butt Outside

With the exception of some bars I used to frequent when I was a drinker, I have not smoked a cigarette indoors since 1992. My wife has never smoked and, thank goodness, none of my children smoke. It soon came to be that my wife used my own words against me to put me outside where my smoke and I belonged.

At my work place where smoking was still allowed, there were many non-smokers. They had become accustomed to cigarette smoke in the work place and simply learned to live with it. More and more information, however, made it clear that second-hand smoke is essentially non-filtered smoke and is dangerous. Whether is it more dangerous that smoking first hand is irrelevant. Non-smokers have more of a right to breathe clean air than we smokers have a right to foul it up. It is more reasonable that a cigarette smoker step outside for ten minutes to smoke than it is to expect a non-smoker to step outside for ten minutes of fresh air.

I bring this up because more cities are lining up to declare all public places to be smoke-free, including private establishments such as restaurants and bars. Smokers are up in arms over the whole deal and trying to convince anyone who will listen that their "rights" are being violated. Even business owners are upset because they are being told by the government what they can and cannot do and allow in their "private" establishments.

Should the government be involved at all? Does the city, county, or state have any business telling a restaurant that smoking must not be allowed? In a word, yes.

The government is already involved with the various Health departments that come and inspect facilities, food, preparation areas, and sanitation facilities. There are rules by which a business must abide if it expects to stay in business. The law is absolute: if you endanger the well-being of the consuming public, you will be shut down until corrections are made.

I had an unfortunate bout with samonella not long ago. Once I had tests done at a local hospital (doctors were not sure what was wrong), the hospital notified the state Health department as required by law. The Health department then contacted me to determine whether I worked in food service or child care. Had I been engaged in either of these businesses, I would have been forced to quit until the Health department gave me the ok to return to work. Why? Because I was sick, and it was a risk to public health.

So why is cigarette smoking any different? Science tells us that the smoke is dangerous, so why do smokers believe that they have "rights" to include usurping another's rights? Because cigarettes are legal. And tobacco is subsidized by the US government. And believe me, the non-smoking sections in restaurants do not work. My wife can become deathly ill while smelling or breathing cigarette smoke while she is trying to eat. Being in a separate room does not remove the cigarette smoke from the building.

Restaurant owners are also in a tear about the potential loss of business. Do they really believe that smokers will stop eating out if they cannot have a cigarette with their meal? It is highly unlikely. I would venture to guess that it is more likely that non-smokers who stopped eating out will return. And if the city makes the regulation across the board with no exemptions, one restaurant cannot enjoy an advantage over the other.

The fact is we smokers have every right to smoke if we so choose, and we can smoke to our heart's content (and detriment, you know!). With rights, however, come enormous responsibilities to one another. We lose our rights when our rights begin to trample on the rights of others. I do have a right to smoke, but I do not have a right to force another to breathe it.

I Pledge Allegiance to ...

In the syndicated cartoon Zack Hill, the young boy Zach chose to take a stand regarding the recitation of the Pledge in his class room. A classmate, Winona, had taken exception to the phrase, "Under God", and decided to take her own stand. In the end, the teacher decided that a debate might be in order as a good learning point about how to settle such differences in a civilized manner.

There was a slight problem in the "rules", however. The teacher pointed out to Zack that "the school prohibits the use of the word 'God' during the debate." Even Winona's eyes are shown bulging at that bit of news.

I could not help but wonder: would it even be possible to have such a debate if the use of certain words were to be prohibited, especially a particular word around which the entire debate is centered? Of course the cartoon may very well have been doing nothing more than making light of a situation that has gotten completely out of hand. As a child growing up, it never occurred to me that saying a prayer before class and reciting the Pledge could possibly be offensive to some, and I do still question whether anyone is genuinely "offended". I do remember one kid who was always excused during Easter and Christmas parties (but not before he got his "stuff"!!) and was sent home. We all thought he was Jewish even though we didn't really know what Judaism meant. It turned out, however, that the boy was a Jehovah's Witness. Such celebrations are prohibited in the practice of their faith, as I understand, including even birthdays. Bummer.

I remember reading once where Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota, being quoted as saying that people who practice religion are generally weak and in need of a crutch. Then it occurred to me that if we are talking about "rights" in this nation, why can I not have my crutch and be left alone? Why must I be labeled or categorized as "weak", "insensitive", or "narrow-minded" just because my "crutch" is my Lord?

What Mr. Ventura and so many others like him fail to understand or appreciate is that our religious faith is precisely a crutch; the faithful should make no pretense about this. Without a little help, most of us would go over the edge. Mr. Ventura was a Navy SEAL. Tough guy and elite among the elite, but I guarantee he operated within a "team" environment. In military situations, it is absolutely essential to have faith in one's team members. A whole platoon of "crutches", if you will.

It crosses my mind, however, the irony of the Pledge itself. "One nation under God, indivisible ..." is an oxymoronic statement alone. Those of us who would prefer to sleep at night knowing that the US is under the watchful eye of the Lord are immediately divided from those who are "offended" by such statements.

Maybe it is time to retire the Pledge. While we're at it, let's take the flags down as well because there is no way I will pledge my allegiance to any piece of cloth. "I pledge allegiance TO THE FLAG ... AND to the republic for which it stands ..."

Does it not seem that a decision right then and there has become necessary? Are we loyal to a flag OR to the republic? Does it really matter?

Justice at the Hands of Politics

Let me say, first, that I am a Republican (for lack of a better word). I am also a supporter of President Bush. What I am NOT is in favor of this "political" appointment that the President is suggesting for the US Supreme Court.

Ms. Miers may very well be an excellent lawyer. She may very well be a conservative, evangelical Christian. What she is NOT is a person with any judicial experience.

I am not an attorney, but I suspect that being a judge is quite different and perhaps requires different skill sets from a defense attorney or a prosecutor. A judge cannot be predisposed in one direction or another and Ms. Miers, as an attorney, has been an advocate for one "side" or another her entire career.

If ever there was a political appointment, this has to be among the top few. Ms. Miers is simply not qualified for the position. With her experience - and yes, it is LIMITED relative experience - she may be better suited for the attorney general's position. Regardless of her qualifications as an attorney, being a judge on any level certainly has a different list of demands. She may be the best lawyer in the world, but this alone still does not qualify her for the Supreme Court.

This type of appointment comes dangerously close to suggesting that the President is making a definitive move to "stack" the Court. Does he owe this person something? He certainly owes the country something, and this ain't it. This has the face of "cronyism" all about it, and it sets a dangerous precedent. A member of the Cabinet must be willing to "follow the leader" and be everything that president would expect him or her to be. A judicial appointment, on the other hand, means that the appointee must serve ..... the law. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. The unbiased, passion-free, prejudiced-free law.

The US Supreme Court does not speak for the president, it does not speak for the Congress, and it does not even speak for the people. The US Supreme Court speaks for, and gives voice to, the law. This requirement demands a person who has a proven track record of such advocacy.

Considering my ramblings, however, I must say this. The President does have the constitutional authority to appoint whomever he may choose. The Senate also has its own constitutional duties in considering this appointment. Now that the President has made this appointment, his dutiful and lawful nomination is still entitled to an "up" or "down" vote. With the "advise and consent" of the Senate means that the entire body must consider her nomination and then do with it what it will.

This is what the law demands, and the law must settle for nothing less.

In The Absence of Desire

At my secular work place, a revelation involving one of my subordinates came to light that has left my soul gasping for air. The details are not important. What is important, however, is that my boss had mentioned that this person needs our prayers.

While I agree that we all stand in need of prayer, this revelation indicated that this person was about to get everything coming to him that he deserved, including prison time. Considering the nature of his offense, his prison time is going to be very dangerous for him personally. And the truth is, I don't think he is going to be tough enough to withstand it.

Those who mention that this man needs our prayers know exactly what this man did. In fact, he turned himself in and, at last word, was working out a plea with prosecutors. Now I have heard folks who endured lengthy death watches and finally just reached a prayer "saturation" point when they finally were just prayed out because "nothing was there anymore", according to a parishioner.

So when we consider such heinous crimes as this and it is such a crime that finding compassion in one's heart when reading of such things involving strangers in the paper is very hard - if not impossible - to come by, how does one pray? For what does one pray?

Do we pray that the perpetrater finds Christ somehow in all this? Of course. Do we pray that the punishment truly fit the crime? Probably. Do we pray that somehow out of the rubble of this despair that lives will somehow be restored, especially for the victim? Absolutely.

The prayers must come because, while few of us can claim to be guilty of this person's particular crime, even fewer of us can claim complete and total innocence. And in spite of this truth, there is a greater Truth Who came to claim us for Himself. The penalty that we deserve (not past tense) has been paid.

How can we NOT pray mercy for this person and others like him?

Where is the End?

The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments about Oregon's assisted-suicide law for the second time, and I have to admit that the notion of doctors using their training, education, and skills to end life rather than preserve it is completely foreign.

I distinctly recall a sermon years ago by a priest who warned in 1973 after Roe v Wade that sometime in the not-to-distant future, we will be having conversations about issues we never would have considered in polite company.

Since that time we have "protected" that despicable act of partial-birth abortion, and now we are arguing about whether states have a duty to protect one's will to die.

What is life if not hope? And what is hope without life? Where do we think we are going?

Equal but Opposite

"For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction." Sir Isaac Newton

"See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil." Moses

"He who is not with Me is against Me ..." Jesus of Nazareth

In exploring Matthew 21:33-46, the parable of the vinedressers, the above-mentioned passages and Newton's theory crossed my mind as well as the saying, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

While the Bible lesson itself is a good representation of what Jesus was facing during His own time, some passages are not so easily applicable to our time. It then occurred to me that this particular passage is completely relevant to our time and probably more specifically to me.

Even though we do not actively seek to kill anyone, we probably do our greatest harm when we simply fail to do any kind of "good". The harm we ultimately do in the absence of "good" may be greater and more profound than if we had actually ended a life.

Dr. Lynn Scoresby, in his book Bringing Up Moral Children In An Immoral World, reminds us that moral behavior is not simply the absence of immoral behavior. In other words, it is not enough to refrain from bad behavior; one must be actively involved in "good". I suppose this is why I don't get too upset with court rulings pertaining to the Ten Commandments; these "ten" emphasize "thou shalt not ..." One has to continue to read in order to learn that these Ten Commandments are not the entire law; there is so much more to what the Lord expects of us than to simply "don't".

While the chief priests and the elders certainly considered themselves authorities, teachers, and keepers of the Law, they failed to recognize themselves in Jesus' story. Is it any wonder, then, that they did not recognize the Son of the Most High if they could not recognize themselves?

Jesus never contradicted the Law by which these teachers lived, and yet they could never discern for themselves exactly what the Law is all about. Even when Jesus tried to explain it to them, they only got angry especially when they were bested.

Were these men actual and knowing "agents" for the evil one, or were they just blinded and absent any good? Did they actually plan evil, or was good simply absent from their thoughts? Even though these men were not directly responsible for the "servants" in the story who were killed by the vinedressers, I think Jesus was reminding them of the harm that is done in the absence of a fuller understanding of the Word.

What is most unsettling about this epiphany is that I have a difficult time distancing myself from the role of the "vinedresser" in Jesus' story. No, I am not responsible for anyone's death. There have been times, however, when I have refused to be responsible for anyone's life, either. There have been more times when I refused to listen to others who tried to bring me a good word because their word conflicted with what I already made up my mind about.

There is either good or there is evil; there is no middle ground that is offered by Newton, Moses, or Jesus. What is equal in one way is equal in another.